[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] A [/yt_dropcap] strange phenomenon is observable lately among experts on Russia-US relations. There is a trend to explain the various thorny intricacies of such a relationship merely via economic strategies and formulas.
The narrative usually begins with the end of World War II when the World Bank (otherwise known as the Marshall Plan) was set up to help in the reconstruction of Europe, something whose success is usually praised by the experts. The main genial idea was that of giving rather than lending money to the tune of 13 billion dollars, in order to restore the economy of 17 EU countries (in today’s currency value it would be the equivalent of 120 billion dollars) as long as those countries agreed to use the money to buy goods from the US.
Then the narrative seems to jump some 40 years or so to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the setting up of the Western economically prosperous camp under NATO’s and the EU’s influence, and the Eastern camp under the influence of Russia. So, having eliminated ideological beliefs and strife (i.e., Communism vs. Capitalism) the split is now a mere spheres of influence opposition. This, so the argument goes, could have been easily eliminated if Russia had been economically been integrated into the G7 and brought up to speed, but alas it did not happen and that explains the present geo-political turmoil; in other words if another Marshall Plan had been devised benefitting the whole Eastern region.
At first blush it seems to make sense, but it’s a bit too facile and naïve. There are truths here, but there are also half-truths and false assumptions. It assumes that indeed ideology and political principles have simply disappeared in the world; that a sort of “end of history” has occurred. The fact is that they have not, and that is discernible not by what there is but what is missing, namely Democracy, what was also missing during the Soviet era. Let’s dig a bit deeper into this analysis.
Indeed it is true that the Marshall Plan, within the World Bank, was set up specifically to help a devastated Western Europe and foment its economic development. In effect the Marshall Plan replaced the World Bank. It was decided that the reconstruction of Europe would be more efficient and cost-effective than mere loans. But the ultimate goal of this economic program was to buttress the capitalistic Western democratic block against the undemocratic Easter bloc sponsored by the USSR. This has to be kept firmly in mind when suggesting that a second Marshall plan should have been created after the fall of the Berlin wall or one risks comparing orange and apples.
It needs to be mentioned also that the US government has learned from the mistakes made in the 1920s and 1930s. At the end of the first World War, the Treaty of Versailles, imposed on Germany the payment of huge compensations for war debt and reparation. Germany soon found it difficult to pay and this led to social discontent. The Wall Street crash that occurred in 1929 brought on a global economic crisis. The US drastically reduced capital outflow. Germany stopped paying its debt to France, Belgium and Britain, and these countries in turn stopped paying their debts to the United States. The more industrialized world sank into recession and massive unemployment, and international trade plummeted. To prepare for a different outcome after WWII, Washington decided on policies that would be completely different from those implemented after WWI and until the early 1930s. It set up the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations. This was the international institutions approach.
The US government’s major concern at the end of the Second World War was to maintain the full employment that it had achieved thanks to the tremendous war effort. It also wanted to guarantee that there would be a trade surplus in relations between the US and the rest of the world. |2| But the major industrialized countries that could import US commodities were literally penniless. For European countries to be able to buy US goods they had to be provided with lots of dollars. But how? Through grants or through loans? To put it simply, the US reasoned as follows: if we lend to our European allies the money they need to rebuild their economy, how are they going to pay us back? They will no longer have the dollars we lent them since they used them to buy from us. In all, there were three possibilities: first possibility, Europe pays back in kind. If this happens European goods will compete with ours on our home market, full employment will be jeopardized and profits will fall. This is not a good solution.
Second possibility, Europe pays back with dollars. They cannot use the dollars they received on loan to pay us back since they have used them to buy our goods. Consequently, if they are to pay us back, we have to lend them the same amount again, plus interest . The risk of being caught in an infernal cycle of indebtedness (which puts a stop to or slows down the smooth running of business) is added to the risk attached to the first possibility. To reduce their debts towards us the Europeans they will try to sell their goods on our home market. They will thus get some of the dollars they need to pay us back, but this will not be enough to rid them of their debts and it will endanger employment in the US.
We are left with the third possibility: we give Europe the money with which to recover. Rather than lend to Europeans (through the World Bank or otherwise) it seems appropriate to give them the dollars they need to build up their economy within a fairly short time. Europeans will use these dollars to buy goods and services from the US. This will guarantee an outlet for US exports which will help to maintain full employment. Once economic reconstruction is achieved Europeans will not be riddled with debts and will be able to pay for what they buy from the US. The US authorities thus concluded that it would be better to proceed by grants, and therefore launched the Marshall Plan.
To those grants in the framework of the Marshall Plan we must add the partial cancellation of France’s debt to the US in 1946 (2 bn USD were written off). Similarly Belgium benefited from a reduction of its debt to the US as compensation for the uranium provided to make the first two atomic bombs which were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki causing the first nuclear holocaust. The uranium had been extracted from the mine of Shinkolobwé (near Likasi, then Jadotville) located in the province of Katanga in the Belgian Congo. In the first instance: Belgium was granted debt cancellation thanks to the natural resources from its colony, which it lavishly exploited. Then: some fifteen years later, Belgium transferred, to the newly independent Congo, the debts it had incurred in order to exploit those natural resources as well as its population.
From the end of the second World War until today major powers have refused to implement a Marshall plan for developing countries (with two exceptions, South Korea and Taiwan). Loans with interest have been the main instrument used to allegedly finance the Third World’s development. Such refusal shows that creditors do not really want these countries to develop and be rid of their debts. Creditors consider that it is in their better interest to maintain developing countries in a permanent state of indebtedness so as to draw maximum revenues in the form of debt reimbursement, but also to enforce policies that serve their interests and to make sure that they remain loyal partners within the international institutions.
What the United States had done through the Marshall Plan for industrialized countries that had been ravaged by war they exceptionally repeated towards South Korea and Taiwan, two allied developing countries at strategic locations on the outskirts of the Soviet Union and China. As from the 1950s these two countries received significant aid, that largely contributed to their economic success.
Economists and geo-political area experts are now asking the crucial question: why was not a new Marshall Plan devised for the impoverished Eastern countries (former satellites of the Soviet Empire) after the fall of the Berlin Wall? It would have indeed made eminent sense if we stay with economic considerations. But there is another important consideration and it is the consideration of Democracy and a new ideology called Eurasianism to which we turn next.
What is Eurasianism? It is a kind of prophetic vision envisioning Russia’s destiny as that of leading all Slavic and Turkic people in a grand empire to resist corrupt Western values. Its main proponent is Alexander Dugin. His philosophy glorifies the Russian Empire—while on the Western side of the equation Bannon and the conservative website that he founded, Breitbart News, has revived the slogan of “America first.”
What Bannon and Dugin have in common is the idea that global elites have conspired against ordinary people—and the old order must be overthrown. In the West this is called populism. As Dugin declared to Newsweek: “We have arrived at a moment where the world is discovering a new model of ideologies. The election of Trump shows that clearly.”
Eurasianism seems like a mutual admiration society: Bannon admires Dugin for placing traditional values at the heart of the nationalistic revival and he has said as much at a Vatican Conference he attended in 2014. Dugin admires Bannon for rejecting Western liberalism.
One may ask: which are their common enemies? They are secularism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism and what both Dugin and Bannon dub the “globalized and internationalist capitalist liberal elite.” Which is to say the global ideological struggles will be reduced to an ultimate struggle between culturally homogenous—mostly white-homogenous groups founded on Judeo-Christian values and practicing a humane sort of capitalism, and the international crony-capitalist network of bankers and businessmen.
Both Bannon and Dugin wish to revive the nation-state. Hence their support for anti-European Union candidates from England and France to Hungary and Greece. They both are firmly against pan-European Union. In the US they have invented the Deep State or what they see an over-centralized government but paradoxically they’d rather have a strong state with an authoritarian personality on top, one that in effect ignores the freedoms as set-up by the founding fathers to be controlled at the local level.
In order to appear democratic and not ethnic chauvinists both Dugin and Bannon have declared that they believe in multi-civilizations which have their own identity and destiny and follow their own course. They have both described themselves as revolutionaries; Bannon has described himself as a Leninist who wants to destroy the State (i.e., the Deep State), while Dugin is the founder of the National Bolshevik Party which has been fomenting armed uprising among Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. In any case, those states are always white, non Asian which of course is redolent of the theory of the “super-race” of Hitler and Mussolini.
So it comes as no great surprise that Trump’s election was greeted with enthusiasm in Russia. Trump would give Russia the respect it has so far been denied. St. Petersburg Cossacks have given Trump the honorary title of “captain” in case he decides with Bannon, to “make Russia great again.”
But this love-fest has been rather short-lived. Bannon has not advised to lift sanctions on Russia (imposed after Crimea’s annexation in 2014), nor to lift a travel ban on Dugin (imposed when he acclaimed Putin for taking over Crimea and invading the Ukraine) as he had previously hinted at. After all there are allegations making the round of contacts between Trump advisers in the White House and Russian spies. Suddenly Trump has became “tough on Russia” as I have endeavored to explain in my daily column “The Caligula Presidency.” At this point the appearance of collusion needs to be avoided at any cost, not to encourage the FBI to dig deeper.
Lastly let’s see what the reaction to these economic explanation has been among the nations of the EU. What is missing in those expert analysis: the very concept of Democracy. Let’s begin with England that has already divorced the EU. Theresa May is treating Britain to a surprise election in June. Even politicians have been blind-sided.
Were one to ask “what do so many disparate nations of the EU have in common?” one could find plenty of cultural common strains, but in purely political terms, perhaps the most apt answer may be “democracy.” That is the concept that seems obvious but one hardly ever hears in the debates and discussions about the possible dissolution of the EU, even when referenda and elections are taking place.
There is much bickering over fish, farms, cheese, sausages, pork pies, but little is mentioned on what unites and what divides so 27 disparate countries that consider themselves a super-nation. One hears about differences over currency, the return of sovereign rights control of one’s borders.
But one hears little about Free Speech or the ability to argue every detail of an issue without fear of arrest or worse. Democracy in fact remains the only indispensable pre-requisite needed to join the EU but nobody seems to notice it.
What one hears is advocacy for exit from the EU. One such example is already in place. The election of April 23 may determine if France and others will follow. Authoritarianism is on the rise and the putrid smell of dictatorship is in the air, Recep Tayyip Erdogan took control of his country out of the hands of the people, in effect turning his back on the model of democracy enjoyed in Europe, meanwhile he continues arguing for access to the EU and its single market. That’s now unlikely to happen.
What’s happening in the Ukraine is just as bad. There Russian President Vladimir Putin takes Ukraine’s desire to tip toward democracy as an insult. He is quite good in his rhetoric describing an overreaching NATO encroaching on regions of historic Russian interest, but what the experts out to defend him forget is that the vast majority of Ukrainians despise his manipulations of the media and the economy.
Meanwhile at the EU’s borders the anti-democratic forces are converging. They smell blood in the water. Erdogan for one, not unlike Donald Trump, treats every EU negotiation as business deal of sorts. Take the refugee deal: it started off as 3 billion euros in aid which quickly became 6 billion euros.
Then there is Putin whose strategy seems to be divide and conquer: not so much by brute military or economic force where he knows he will be beaten, but by breaking up the EU’s unity and resolve to punish his land grabs and flagrant violations of international law. Neither men give a damn fro North Atlantic values, never mind that of democracy itself. Their appetite for power creates a powerful contrast with what the EU has in common: Democracy and the democratic process which allows the likes of Theresa May to hold snap elections and be assured that the outcome will be free and fair. The same cannot be said for Russia or Turkey.
On Sunday the 23rd nobody will be voting to end democracy, which in fact is not on the ballot, but that may not be sufficient to stop democracy from being placed on the backburner while good old xenophobic nationalism gets moved to the front. That, I dare say, is the challenge that the Russia experts have to deal with yet.
Strong support of president Putin to Serbia
Serbia was visited on June 3 by the first man of Russian Duma and one of the closest associates of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The arrival of Vyacheslav Volodin in Belgrade just a few days after the brutal intrusion of Albanian special forces in the north of Kosovo and amid strong pressure on Serbia ahead of the announced meetings in Paris in early July, sends a clear message. That message could be heard at a special session of the Serbian National Assembly:
“Brotherly Serbian people, as always, can count on Russia’s help!”
This statement of Vyacheslav Volodin is extremely important because this was a message of Vladimir Putin to the Serbian people. As Vyacheslav Volodin pointed out, Vladimir Putin knew that he would speak in the Serbian parliament, so he personally sent greetings and words of support to Serbian people.
During the visit to Serbia, the Russian official praised Serbia`s economic improvement, adding that success is even greater since it has been achieved in dificult geopolitical circumstances. Vyacheslav Volodin, stated in Belgrade that the “intrusion“ of Kosovo`s special forces into the north of Kosovo was aimed at frightening the Serbs, establishing control there by force, adding that the Serbs could count on Russian help in future.
Also Volodin said that the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 should be respected. He stressed that Russia will not support the moves of the EU and the United States, that would lead to tensions.
“We believe that all parties must respect Resolution 1244, and those who do not, must be responsible. The interests of sovereign Serbia must be respected in accordance with international law,” Volodin said.
„The UN should express its stand. Its authority and also peace in the Balkans depend on its determination and concrete moves,“ Volodin also stated in Serbia`s Parliament. He criticised the European Union and US behaviour and added that „the absence of clear EU reaction to Pristina`s provocations raises doubt the bloc is capable to mediate in the Belgrade – Pristina dialogue on normalisation of relations. Volodin said that some states adopted a practise of double standards and openly interfere with the internal issues of other states.
“ We think that is unacceptable. It is necessary to confront that if we want to preserve our nation, country, its sovereignty and independence,“ Volodin said, mentioning Libya and Iraq as examples.
Speaking about the relation between the two nations, he said that the Russians, always felt they were obliged to help and protect the Serbs. Later, Volodin had a meeting with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and invited him to address Duma, next time when he visit Moscow.
Vucic accepted, saying it would be a great honor for him to talk about the relations between Serbia and Russia in front of Duma members.
Volodin also announced that Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and Serbia can be signed by the end of the year. Currently, more than 800 companies with Russian capital operate in the territory of Serbia.
The message of Vyacheslav Volodin about Kosovo is in line with the message that President Vladimir Putin has been repeating for years. The views of the President of Russia on the issue of Kosovo are not changing since the beginning of the crisis:
– February 2008 – The case of Kosovo is a terrible precedent that essentially breaks out the entire system of international relations, which was created not for decades, but for centuries.
– May 2018. – Vucic asked Putin to help Serbia in the UN and other international organizations, on what was answered that Moscow will actively monitor the talks between Belgrade and Pristina and the influence of various parameters on that issue.
– January 2019 – Moscow is in favor of a mutually acceptable solution of Belgrade and Pristina, but based on UN Resolution 1244.
– January 2019 – Resolution 1244 does not allow the existence of any armed formations in Kosovo other than the United Nations contingent.
However, despite the clear position of Russia on Kosovo, Serbian President takes a different policy. The goal of Aleksandar Vucic is the “demarcation” between Serbs and Albanians. And for a long time he has been secretly negotiating with the President of the self-proclaimed Kosovo Hashim Thaci. And, so far Vucic’s policy towards Kosovo has been catastrophic and has caused great damage to Serbian national interests.
By signing Brussels agreements, Vucic destroyed the defense of northern Kosovo, giving police and civil protection to Pristina. This denied the right of Serbs to self-defense, and he himself is not able to protect them. Recent events in the north of Kosovo, especially in Zubin Potok, are the direct result of the capitulation of the national and state policy of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic towards Kosovo. Vucic aim is to force the Serbian people to accept an independent Kosovo. After recognition of Kosovo, Serbia would accelerate its full membership in NATO. Already today some associates of Aleksandar Vucic say that Serbia is surrounded by NATO, and that Serbia must adjust its policy according to the situation. If that were to happen it would be another geopolitical blow to Russia, which would be completely cut off from the Baltic to the Adriatic and the Black Sea. Therefore, NATO could further increase pressure on Russia.
From our partner International Affairs
Candidates for European Commission President: Who is who
The race for President of the European Commission has got under way. According to the rules which are questioned by many in the European Union but have so far enjoyed majority support in the European Parliament, the new head of the “executive branch” of the European Union will be elected from among the “top candidates” (Spitzenkandidat) – those nominated by European parties which have factions in the European Parliament. A candidate will finally become President of the European Commission after he receives support from EU leaders in the European Council (the Council is currently headed by former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, known for his paranoic attitude towards Russia) – this procedure should be over in June. A formal approval by the European Parliament should come next.
So who has the biggest chances and what are the political platforms of potential winners?
Judging by arithmetics, the leader of the European People’s Party (former Democratic Christians) faction in the European Parliament, Manfred Weber, is in the lead. His faction remains the largest, albeit smaller in number than before, in Parliament – 180 members. A Bavarian, Weber is 46 years old, and is considered to have been promoted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He seems to be at odds with his patroness Merkel, who supports the Nord Stream – 2 project. Last year he spoke out strongly against this project, which envisages the transportation of Russian gas to Western Europe across the bottom of the Baltic Sea: “I am against this project. It does not meet the interests of the European Union,” – he said on April 23, 2018, in an interview with the Polska Times newspaper which was quickly picked up by news agencies.
However, analysts do not rule out a certain discrepancy of conduct on the part of Merkel, who continue to support Weber’s candidacy even after the above statement. Apparently, Merkel has no intention of becoming the one responsible for “burying” the Nord Stream, which is so profitable for the German business. However, if this project is ruined by the head of the European Commission nominated by her, she will be able to get out of it safe. She would explain such a result by a “clash of opinions that is natural for democracy”. Nord Stream-2 is the only project which the United States doesn’t approve but which Merkel supports in words. (Normally, in matters of principle, Angela Merkel does not tolerate any differences of opinion within the ruling team in the Federal Republic of Germany.)
However, as remarked by the EU Observer website, close to the Brussels-based globalist elite, Merkel may refuse to back Weber at the last moment – two Germans will not be allowed to occupy the two key positions in the EU – head of the European Commission and chairman of the European Central Bank. Moreover, Merkel wants to put Jens Weidman, the current head of the Central Bank of Germany, in charge of the European Central Bank.
The second most likely candidate is Margrethe Vestager of the Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) party. The party’s faction, which has 109 members after the elections, is the third most powerful and is known for its anti-Russian position. The leader of the ALDE faction, Belgian Guy Verhofstadt, who is officially the main “spin doctor” of Mrs. Vestager, made a statement unacceptable from the diplomatic point of view on the global Internet resource Project Syndicate before the recent elections to the European Parliament. He accused his colleagues in the European Parliament – representatives of a number of sovereign European countries (Italy, Great Britain, Hungary) – of being the “fifth column” of Russia in the EU. He said: “Just like the illiberalism of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the partnership between the European right and Vladimir Putin has been going on for too long.”
Vestager is the European Commissioner for Competition, who has been dubbed “Tax Lady” by President Trump, for her relentless pursuit of alleged monopolies in Europe. Simultaneously, Vestager calls for the extension of sanctions against Russia and for measures against Russian “energy monopolies” in Europe (what is implied by these words is easy to guess – the long demonized by European mass media Gazprom). For these views, Mrs. Vestager is openly admired by the British magazine The Economist, which came out on May 28, 2019 with the headline: “The Iron Lady of Politics from Denmark should lead the European Commission.”
Nevertheless, even Mrs. Vestager’s admirers admit in this issue of the magazine, as well as in other European media that she is unpopular in her home country, in Denmark. At home, Vestager’s candidacy for the highest post in the European Commission was publicly supported only by the leader of a “related” party – the head of the Danish Liberals Lars Lokke Rasmussen. Even Liberals and Social Democrats acknowledge that the EU was unable to protect Denmark from illegal migration, so since 2016, Copenhagen has maintained “temporary” control on the border with countries of the Schengen zone. Naturally, a lady representing the “ineffective” EU is unlikely to be loved at home.
Nevertheless, the structure of the current European Union does not require politicians to be popular at home in order to get a high-powered and financially attractive job in the European Commission. What presents interest in this regard is the opinion of Marlene Vind, a professor at the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen: “The head of the European Council, Donald Tusk, just recently pointed out the need for gender balance in the EU, and this is a strong support for Vestager,” – Wind says. “Besides, you can be 100% sure that not a single Danish prime minister will say no if EU leaders offer a Danish woman such an important position in the EU.”
The third likely candidate with strong chances for success is Dutch Social Democrat, France Timmermans. A representative of the Labor Party of the Netherlands,former foreign minister of the Netherlands, and at present the first vice-president of the European Commission, he is known for his initiatives on sanctions against the Polish “retrogrades” from the “Law and Justice” Party. Timmermans can count on the support of 146 MPs from the Socialists and Democrats. In the early 1990s, he worked at the Dutch Embassy in Moscow, disseminating the “light of democracy” in Russia. Afterward he represented the Netherlands during an inquiry into the crash of the MH-17 aircraft over the Donetsk region in 2014.
From a foreign policy point of view, Timmermans represents the most exotic ideological trend in the European Union – he is dreading an “union of Putin and Trump,” which, along with the “rise of nationalist forces in Europe,” could destroy the EU.
In February 2017, already holding the post of European Commissioner Timmermans declared: “We are witnessing a hybrid war, we see it in Ukraine. Will the Baltic countries be next? We bear witness to the return of the threat of a nuclear war. …. And just imagine the Cuban missile crisis played out on Twitter between Presidents Trump and Putin,” – Timmermans said, addressing the Future Force conference. It is unlikely that anyone could have imagined it, but we could attribute it to the speaker’s wild fantasy.
The reverse of Timmermans’paranoic attitude towards Russia is the praise of the European Union, which he glorifies as a kind of unique “ecosystem” of the most civilized and peaceful nations of the planet. Probably, Mr. Timmermans forgot the “civilized” destruction of Yugoslavia by the “peaceful nations” of Europe.
This blend of “green” demagogy and the new “democratic” racism of the forces that won in the last Euro elections (they say Western Europeans are above other nations thanks to “exclusively” European democratic institutions) is an ideology that is totally hostile to Russia.
The other candidates – Frenchman Michel Barnier, Czech Jan Zahradil and “green” German Ska Keller – have few chances due to lack of strong factions in the European Parliament.
As it happens, in its relations with the EU Russia should not expect Brussels to change its position in the near future. But, as they say, eternity in politics does not last long.
From our partner International Affairs
Tensions in Kosovo: Russia closely monitors the situation
Police of self proclaimed state of Kosovo launched raids in the early hours of Tuesday morning in the Serbs-majority north of Kosovo, sparking an angry reaction from Serbs.
More than twenty people have been arrested so far. Among those arrested is the chief of police of the village of Zubin Potok. A Kosovo police officer was wounded by a gunshot during the operation, but is not in danger of losing life. Two other officers were also injured, according to doctors in North Mitrovica.
Kosovo Police said that in Zubin Potok(north Kosovo), barricades were set up and tyres set on fire to deter police officers. Kosovo police also stated that the operation was launched to detain suspects who have allegedly been participating in or organizing criminal groups and have been involved in the smuggling of goods, misuse of official positions, bribery and trading in contraband. According to information the operation has nothing to do with the murder of Enver Zymberi, a policeman who was killed in the north of Kosovo eight years ago, nor with the investigation into the death of Kosovo Serb politician Oliver Ivanovic, who was murdered in 2018.
The head of the Serbian government’s office for Kosovo, Marko Djuric, said on Tuesday morning that the goal was to cause fear and panic.
“This morning, around 6am, special units of the ROSU (Regional Operational Support Unit) stormed in from three directions into the north of Kosovo, into the territory of all four (Serb majority) municipalities, with the aim of intimidating and provoking panic”, Djuric told Tanjug agency. He said that “separatists from Pristina have reached for more terrifying methods to scare Serbs” and want to “create an impossible climate for Serbs in Kosovo”. Meanwhile, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and the Interior Ministry ordered the Serbian Army to be put on full combat readiness, Tanjug reported. Tanjug also reported that Vucic launched “intensive diplomatic activities” over the raids.
“The president asked Western political authorities to control Pristina and let them know Serbia will not allow ethnic cleansing”, Tanjug said.
A Russian diplomat was also arrested. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia has stated that is unacceptable to arrest a Russia citizen in Kosovo, asking the UN mission in Kosovo for comprehensive information on his arrest and his release.
“The arrest was carried out regardless of the fact that Russian citizen has diplomatic immunity of UN staff. We consider this to be an unacceptable act as another manifestation of the provocation of the Kosovo-Albanian authorities, stated Maria Zakharova, the official spokesman of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.The Russian diplomat was released after the protest of Russian Government. However, according to unconfirmed information, he was beaten by the Kosovo Police.
The Russian State Duma instructed its Committee on International Affairs to closely monitor the situation in Serbia because of the intensification of the situation in Kosovo . On the occasion of the incidents in Kosovo, the Russian ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin spoke.
“We strongly condemn the incursion of Kosovo Special Forces in Kosovo-Serb-populated areas. This is extremely dangerous and it’s not in line with all existing agreements, “said Chepurin on Twitter.
The Serbian Armed Forces are in fully combat readiness, and according to the information, its movement under full military equipment was also observed. Serbian combat jet Mig 29 flies over an administrative line with Kosovo.
“If there is any threat to order and the life of people in northern Kosovo, our army will protect our people,” stated Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic.
Russia is monitoring the situation in Kosovo and is ready to provide support to Serbia. The arrest and beating of Russian citizen Mikhail Krasnoshchekov, which is a member of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, is actually a message to Russia by the West. As stated by the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, the incursion of special forces is another provocation and the establishment of control over the region by force:
” It is clear that such defiant behavior of Kosovars is a direct consequence of many years indulging from EU and the Uited States”,- stated Maria Zakharova.
However, an important role also has Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. At yesterday’s session in the Serbian Parliament, the President of Serbia, as the basic message to the Serbian people, said that Serbia should accept independent Kosovo. In other words, Vucic is still fighting for demarcation, after which a small part of Kosovo would be left to Serbia. Otherwise, in his opinion, the Albanians will attack the Serbs in Kosovo. The defeatist attitude of the President of Serbia practically encouraged the Albanian separatists to take such a move which we can see today. It is precisely on the issue of Alexander Vucic’s policy towards Kosovo that Russia should take a stronger position. The Russian Foreign Ministry regularly repeats that for Russia the solution of the Kosovo problem is UN Resolution 1244. And this is the correct policy, which is in line with the Russian and Serbian national interests. However, Aleksandar Vucic, contrary to the will of the citizens of Serbia is pursuing his policy towards Kosovo.
First published in our partner International Affairs
The Potential of Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Stabilizing Afghanistan
Afghanistan today remains afflicted with instability and looming threat of terrorism. Kidnapping, killings, bomb blasts and other such notorious activities...
Hampton by Hilton Opens Its Doors in Utrecht
Hampton by Hilton Utrecht Central Station opens its doors to guests. The hotel is the latest addition to the growing...
UNIDO advocates for sustainable energy at EUSEW
For the second consecutive year, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) took an active part in the European Union’s...
Defence: Is the EU creating a European army?
While there is no EU army and defence remains exclusively a matter for member states, the EU has recently taken...
EU mobilises over €18 million for the Central African Republic in 2019
As many people continue to suffer in the Central African Republic (CAR), the European Union continues to stand in solidarity...
International Labour Conference ends with adoption of key Convention and Declaration
The Centenary Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) ended on Friday with the adoption of an unprecedented Convention and...
Public decency law puts Saudi reforms in perspective
A newly adopted Saudi law on public decency helps define Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s vague notion of ‘moderate Islam.’...
Reports1 day ago
$4.2 Trillion Can Be Saved by Investing in More Resilient Infrastructure
Hotels & Resorts3 days ago
Hyatt and BTG Homeinns Unveil New Hospitality Brand Under Joint Venture
Intelligence3 days ago
Operation Car Wash blueprint spreading to Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia
Style3 days ago
Breitling Launches Wheels and Waves Limited Edition in Biarritz
Travel & Leisure3 days ago
5 reasons a river cruise is the ideal way to see Europe
Diplomacy3 days ago
A Few Words in Defence of Francis Fukuyama
Intelligence2 days ago
The Bahrain Summit: A Cyber Rescue for Gaza?
Newsdesk2 days ago
International conference on industrial parks in Peru