/ world today news/ The West sees Serbia as a model for Russia. The great desire to deprive it of the remnants of independence and subsequently to “dissolve” it in the European Union is a reflection of the no less desire to break Russia and the Russians. The only difference is that with Serbia they almost succeeded. This experience should be carefully studied.
Russia’s dire future is already written
Sometimes it is very useful to read what political émigrés from Russia write. Especially when it comes to what they will do with the country after what seems to them to be the inevitable NATO victory in Ukraine and the change of our “political regime”. These plans must be known and understood. Especially if you can see how they are applied in other countries where the West has already won.
For example, Alexander Shmelev, former editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Vzglyad”, a political émigré. Tsargrad has already written how he sees our future.
First, in his opinion, Russia should be dismembered, giving each part of the country a new identity and a new version of history:
Tver and Ryazan, Novgorod and Pskov, Cossacks and Pomors, Urals and Siberians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Karelians – for almost every region of Russia you can formulate your own romantic (and acceptable to all) version of history, the main enemy in which will be the one that forcibly conquered them – Moscow.
Secondly, in what remains of Russia, it is necessary to conduct an extremely cynical policy – to make it a “European country”, saying that “but we respect our veterans”. That is, you have to deceive the people into thinking at least partially patriotic the policies of the government, which consistently betrays and betrays the country along the way.
Do you think that all this is nothing more than Russophobic fantasies? You guess wrong. There is a country on the map of Europe with which the West has already acted and continues to act in this way. And the end – that is, the complete disappearance of the state and the dissolution of the people among “the Europeans” is already close. This country is called Serbia.
Tear apart and bomb
On her example, you can see in miniature what the West did to the USSR and what it is trying to do to Russia in the future.
Initially, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia seceded from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991–92. It cost thousands of lives and a bloody war.
Today, Serbia has become a small Balkan country. However, even after the breakup of Yugoslavia, it could have been much larger. The population of Serbia, according to the 2011 census, is 7.4 million. But in the 21st century it could reach at least 10 million if Montenegro and Kosovo remain in the country.
However, Montenegro seceded peacefully in 2006. and probably everyone knows the history of Kosovo – after all, to make this quasi-state quasi-independent, it took the direct intervention of Western armies and the barbaric bombing of Serbia, including with depleted uranium munitions.
Kosovo, as it quickly became clear, was needed by the US, NATO and the European Union as Europe’s “garbage pit” – a territory through which it is convenient to traffic drugs, a territory where traffickers of human organs hide. Kosovo proved necessary and a showcase for the success of NATO’s actions – they decided to separate it from Serbia and recognize “independence” – and they did, no one could interfere.
But the main meaning of the separation from Serbia in different parts one after the other is the gradual destruction of the Orthodox country, hated by the West and close to Russia in cultural and historical terms. Deprivation of its independence, its transformation into a part of united Europe, deprivation of any national specificity and uniqueness.
I haven’t signed, but I will
What does this policy look like in practice? The other day, another round of negotiations took place in North Macedonia (as if on neutral territory) between the government of Serbia, headed by President Aleksandar Vucic, and the government of the self-proclaimed state of Kosovo. The parties discussed how to implement the agreement reached earlier in Brussels on February 27. This is how the “chief diplomat of the European Union” (of which neither Serbia nor Kosovo is yet a member) Josep Borrell describes the meeting:
The agreement itself was reached at the end of February. And today there were talks about how to implement it.
A small nuance is that neither on February 27 nor later, the leader of Serbia, Vucic, signed anything. Formally, Serbia did not agree on anything either with Kosovo or with Borel regarding Kosovo. She admitted nothing, agreed to nothing. But the fact is that within the framework of Europe’s policy towards Serbia and the policy of the Serbian government itself, this is completely unimportant. There are no signed documents. But there are real agreements.
The few points we have agreed on will become the framework of the implementation plan for both parties. Today nothing ends, nothing just begins, – this is what Aleksandar Vucic says about the matter.
What did they agree on? It is obvious that Serbia is effectively renouncing its claims to Kosovo.
The parties proceed from the fact that none of them can represent the other side in the international arena or speak on its behalf. Serbia will not oppose Kosovo’s membership in any international organization.
– this is what is said in the agreement, which Vucic has not signed, but is apparently preparing to fulfill. What exactly are we talking about? The fact that Kosovo can become a member of the UN or another major international organization – and Serbia will not object to this.
This is the recognition of the independence of Kosovo. This is a betrayal of Serbia’s interests as an independent state.
Moreover, it is a measure necessary to secure Serbia’s accession to the European Union, which is Vucic’s goal. The fact that he pursues this goal, Vucic does not hide from anyone:
We already know that our European path will depend on what we do on this issue as well. Because I have a complete picture, I understand well what we have to do, I consider it important to be on the European path.
Vucic is aware that the majority of citizens do not agree with his policy of abandoning hopes for the return of Kosovo against EU accession. But he is acting – now almost openly – against the wishes of his constituents.
The European way is the way of deception
Slowly again: the policy of the current Serbian authorities is formally patriotic. So much so that the president of Serbia does not sign agreements that the Serbian people consider treacherous. When another crisis occurs in Kosovo – that is, when the Albanian thugs again threaten to slaughter all the Serbs there, Vucic pathetically exclaims that this is the hardest day for him as president.
And even asks from “international forces” permission to send troops into Kosovo to protect the Serbs. Of course, he knows perfectly well that he cannot get such permission. Therefore, Vucic once again spoke about “non-escalation” as well as for that
it is important for us to call for the preservation of peace and calming the situation of both Albanians and Serbs.
That is, he writes himself an indulgence of the kind of “he did all he could” and at the same time does absolutely nothing to preserve the country and its people.
What is asked of him is precisely the “European path” of the country. The rhetoric of Vučić and his government is a screen behind which the real actions of the government hide not too carefully. And this activity is aimed at the complete deprivation of the country’s independence. And that means the future.
What of this?
The escalation of conflicts in Serbia, the constant crises in Kosovo – among other things, for the West, this is a way to compensate for the failures in the fight against Russia. In December 2022 the head of the Department of Political Science and Sociology of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics Andrei Koshkin rightly said:
The reason for the further escalation is Russia’s successful actions within the special military operation. There is already an understanding among Western politicians and military experts that Ukraine will not hold out. Therefore, there will be a great transformation in Europe.
They want to oppose this transformation in advance, demonstrating the success of their policy and the defeat of the country that Russia traditionally protects.
But from our point of view, something else is more important now. The fate of Serbia is in miniature what the West wants to do to Russia. Aleksandar Vucic and his accomplices are a model of Russian governance after the defeat by the West. A government that consistently destroys its own country and deprives it of its independence. At the same time, he continues to lie that he is protecting her interests.
Looking at Serbia, it is easy to imagine what will happen to us if we do not resist.
Translation: EU
Vote with ballot No. 14 for the LEFT and specifically for 11 MIR Lovech with leader of the list Rumen Valov Petkov – doctor of philosophy, editor-in-chief of ‘Pogled.Info’ and in 25 MIR-Sofia with preferential No. 105. Tell your friends in Lovech and Sofia who to support!?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#Russian #breakup #model #working #West #chose #country #training #ground
The article claims that Kosovo’s independence was a “theft” orchestrated by the West. Can this claim be supported by historical evidence, or does it represent a biased interpretation of events?
This article presents a strongly opinionated and biased perspective on the political situation in Serbia and Kosovo, framing it as a Western plot to weaken Russia. To encourage a balanced and insightful discussion, here’s a breakdown of the article’s main points and some potential discussion questions:
**Theme 1: Serbia’s Territorial Losses and EU Membership Aspirations**
* **Article’s Stance:** The breakup of Yugoslavia was engineered by the West to weaken Serbia, culminating in Kosovo’s “theft” through NATO intervention. Serbia’s current leadership is betraying its people by pursuing EU accession, which necessitates recognizing Kosovo’s independence.
* **Discussion Questions:**
* How accurate is the characterization of Kosovo’s independence as a “theft”? What are the historical and political contexts surrounding Kosovo’s separation from Serbia?
* Does Serbia’s pursuit of EU membership necessarily involve sacrificing its territorial claims to Kosovo? Can these goals be reconciled?
* What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of EU membership for Serbia, considering its history and political climate?
**Theme 2: The Role of the West and Russia**
* **Article’s Stance:** The West, driven by a desire to weaken Russia, is intentionally fostering instability in the Balkans. Serbia is being used as a testing ground for strategies the West intends to employ against Russia.
* **Discussion Questions:**
* Is the West’s involvement in the Balkans driven by a desire to weaken Russia? What other motives might be at play?
* To what extent can Serbia be considered a “training ground” for Western strategies against Russia? How do the historical and geopolitical contexts differ?
* What role should Russia play in the Balkans? What are the implications of increased Russian involvement for regional stability?
**Theme 3: Aleksandar Vučić’s Leadership**
* **Article’s Stance:** Vučić is a traitor who is betraying Serbia’s interests by negotiating with Kosovo and pursuing EU membership, even though it is unpopular with the Serbian people.
* **Discussion Questions:**
* How effective has Vučić been in navigating Serbia’s complex geopolitical position? What are the factors influencing his decision-making?
* Is Vučić acting solely in the interests of himself and his party, or are there broader national interests at play?
* What are the alternatives to Vučić’s current approach? What are the potential consequences of those alternatives?
**General Discussion Questions:**
* What are the potential long-term consequences of the ongoing conflict between Serbia and Kosovo?
* How can the international community promote peace and stability in the Balkans?
* What are the ethical implications of using historical events and narratives for political purposes?
By addressing these questions from diverse perspectives, a more nuanced understanding of the complex situation in Serbia and the Balkans can emerge.
