Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

EU close to full unity on Kosovo: REUTERS

by vladimir Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 07:36:41 AM EST

REUTERS

This is a perfect example of our free, democratic and unbiased media in the "West".

Not even unity... they're talking about FULL UNITY - when the following countries are opposed to a UDI : Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia.

It gets better, read this:

Leaders of the 27-nation bloc are expected to declare at a summit on Friday that negotiations have been exhausted and that the future of both Serbia and Kosovo lies in the European Union, diplomats said."

Now, how would the French feel if US Congress declared that "negotiations have been exhausted and the future of France is within the United States".

Or, how would the EU react if Russia proclaimed "negotiations have been exhausted and the future of Georgia and Abkhazia is within the Russian Federation."

And it continues:

Western diplomats say Russia has to recognize it is virtually isolated. "The question for the Russians is have they changed their position? They've had the further negotiating effort they wanted and there was no agreement," one senior Western envoy said.

Of course there was no agreement. Camp Bond Steel (aka Kosovo) never wanted an agreement.

If there is no Russian change, then the idea is to change the status of Kosovo on the basis of existing (Security Council) resolutions," the envoy said. That would effectively take the issue away from the United Nations.

The conclusion is the best. It says: if the law doesn't allow it, then we'll do it anyway and say it's within the law. Let's shut the League of Nations and prepare for chaos.

Now who could possibly profit from chaos in Europe? In the world?


What baffles me and disappoints me is that our continental EU politicians just can't seem to wrench themselves from Washington's and London's destabilizing policies. From missile defense to Kosovo, the Anglo-objective is to drive a wedge between Russia and continental EU... A number of reasons are behind this: ensuring that NATO continues to have a purpose and stays in Europe, keeping an energy rich and geographically imposing Russia at bay, and I would even add - contributing to instability in Europe itself, given that the real danger is in a rock solid EURO which is becoming the world's reserve currency of choice - to the detriment of the USD. So, what I would expect from out dear leaders in Paris, Berlin and Brussels is to (in this order):

1. Stick to international law and the UNSC

2. Get an independent foreign policy which is in the interest of Continental Europe

3. Build constructive relations with Russia

Display:
It's called Real politique.  Of the countries you mention (Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia) really only Spain has any real clout and relations between the EU and Russia are deteriorating fast.  The shutters are coming down.  The main players in the EU are effectively saying to Russia that Kosova is within our strategic sphere of influence and we'll sort this out our way.  The rest of you can bugger off.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 07:51:04 AM EST
is not really what's at stake here. The core point is whether a country can be partitioned with UNSC approval - and Russia is fighting the side of the UNSC.

We're creating all sorts of precedents in international law here if we push ahead. The demonization of Russia is hiding that right now, but we'll see if this lasts.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 07:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you mean with or without approval?

The EU appears ready to sacrifice relations with Russia for the goal of Kosovo independence. It makes no sense that breaking up Yugoslavia should be that high of a priority for the EU.

See also European Tribune - Montenegro independence by DoDo on May 22nd, 2006.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 07:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank, your "realpolitik" approach with a 10 ton bulldozer is a recipe for... war. You may think it's a game, but if you follow Russian politics and media, they're itching for a fight, and I can understand them. It's this imperial logic of "your back yard and our back yard" as you point out, that sets nations on collision courses and creates the basis for violent conflicts.
The Serbs got along with the Albanians in Kosovo for hundreds of years - there were ups and downs, sure, but in general, the two populations managed to find common ground. As they did with the Bosnian Muslims and the Croats - in general. What's been happening in the Balkans over the past 20 years is largely the result of foreign imperial efforts to extend one's back yard at the expense of the other's.
You point to a real problem when you say: "the only nations that have clout in the EU are..." which is precisely the reason why Serbia's politicians aren't interested in joining the EU; they don't want to be just another banana republic in Germany's sphere of influence.
The second major problem, as Jérôme correctly points out, is making decisions impacting international law outside the UNSC.
What baffles me and disappoints me is that our continental EU politicians just can't seem to wrench themselves from Washington's and London's destabilizing policies. From missile defense to Kosovo, the Anglo-objective is to drive a wedge between Russia and continental EU... A number of reasons are behind this: ensuring that NATO continues to have a purpose and stays in Europe, keeping an energy rich and geographically imposing Russia at bay, and I would even add - contributing to instability in Europe itself, given that the real danger is in a rock solid EURO which is becoming the world's reserve currency of choice.
So, what I would expect from out dear leaders in Paris, Berlin and Brussels is to (in this order):
  1. Stick to international law and the UNSC
  2. Get an independent foreign policy which is in the interest of Continental europe
  3. Build constructive relations with Russia
by vladimir on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 09:14:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Serbia's politicians aren't interested in joining the EU; they don't want to be just another banana republic in Germany's sphere of influence.

So they'd rather be a banana republic in Russia's sphere?  Doesn't that statement contradict the point you were trying to make (about independence from "backyard policy")? Seriously, what IS the third option?

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 12:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are correct to point out that there seems to be a contradiction.
However, you need to bear in mind that the Russians didn't drop 10 tons of depleted uranium on Serbia, nor did they destroy all 3 bridges in Novi Sad (of absolutely NO military significance), nor did they grind to rubble the petrochemical complex in Panchevo, causing an unprecedented rise in cancer rates... Let me say it again: The Eur 50 Billion of damage was not inflicted on Serbia by the Russians. The Russians are NOT trying to rip 20% of Serbia's land mass off the map and give it to a KLA drug dealing gang in return for the largest military base in Europe.
So really, if you were Serb, whom would you turn to? Depleted Uranium or Uncle Putin ?
by vladimir on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 01:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Besides, the Russian economy is booming (thanks to Putin) having gone from 200 BE/yr when he rook over to 1 200 BE/yr today. Russians are stuffed with cash, they're drenched in hydro-carbons and they have some fantastic military gadgets to offer. And... they're Orthodox, which makes them cool to Serbs.
What's wrong with a Serbia-Russia union? Anyone who thinks that Slavs should "naturally" turn to the EU has been reading too much of the IHT (or Le Monde for that matter - c'est encore pire).
by vladimir on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 02:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fair enough. So there is no "third way" and Uncle Putin is the preferred option.

I doubt that a union with Russia will work very well in the long term, but it's certainly up to the Serbs to decide in which direction they want to go. The Kosovo might be the price to pay, then.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 02:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why Hast Thou Doubt ? Really.
by vladimir on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 03:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I can't think of an example where a small country surrounded by an alliance of states had a working union with a far bigger (geographically separated) country except for colonial relations. Even if you can think of one, it just doesn't seem wise to be (more or less) isolated from one's neighbors and I don't think Russia holds more of a promise for Serbia than the EU politically, economically or regarding rebuilding and long- term peace. I don't say it couldn't work, but I doubt it would be the better choice.

On the other hand, I can understand why Serbs don't trust the EU anymore. The Kosovo war was fought mostly to redefine NATO as an offensive alliance IMHO, and it's sad that people still suffer from that shortsighted action.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 08:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless you're suggesting that being surrounded by the EU would be tantamount to a hostile siege, I don't see why geographic distance should rule out politico-economic alliances. Examples of successful alliances between distant states are numerous: South Korea-US, Hong-Kong-UK, Cuba-USSR (although that one fizzled under an American siege)... which brings us back to the question of whether the EU would effectively organise a siege? And your remark about peace isn't encouraging.

Turambar 08:25: I don't think Russia holds more of a promise for Serbia than the EU politically, economically or regarding rebuilding and long- term peace.

by vladimir on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 02:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not about hostility. My remark about peace was meant to highlight an important advantage of EU membership: by participating in a permanent organizational framework, countries in the EU are able to settle differences and conflicts of interest diplomatically before they can lead to a crisis. Therefore, it's almost unthinkable that two EU member states could go to war with each other even under very difficult circumstances that might arise sometime in the future. It's all about building trust, furthering (and building) common interests.

However, EU member states are not allowed to participate in any free trade- or open border- agreements with countries that are not part of the EU, EFTA, CEFTA, oversea territories or candidate countries on their own, so that's what I meant by isolation (CEFTA will end when all other states in the region join the EU). In this age, it hurts small states economically not to be part of a trade bloc. That's why they're everywhere. World map of blocs

Considering the examples you cited, Hong Kong- UK was essentially a colonial relationship. As for South Korea and Cuba, I don't think their special relationships worked out well for these countries in the long term except for providing military security in the Cold War era. But it is over, isn't it?

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 07:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for your diary. I've updated it to put quoted text in blockquotes for convenience of reading.

This is a timely diary, I expect we're goign to hear a lot about Kosovo in the coming days and weeks as the West seems willing to go towards a frontal clash with Russia on this.

It's nice and convenient that Russia has been demonised as an evil, evil dictatorship in the past 2 years...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 07:52:41 AM EST
I'm not up to date with the developments in the Western Balkans. What is the alternative to (postponed) independence? What will happen to the Serbian minority in case of independence (have there been any agreements)?

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 08:49:30 AM EST
There's been a lot of back-and-forth about varying levels of autonomy in lieu of independence, but of course they've led nowhere. Yet. One can hope negotiators will reach some sort of compromise before anything goes to hell.

I've heard (once) there's the risk that the small Serbian-dominated area in the north might secede and join Serbia should Kosovo go independent. Multiple stories I've seen talk about Serbs planning to just up and leave.

The International Herald Tribune has had quite a few human interest stories on Kosovo, B92 out of Belgrade naturally has a lot of information, and Balkan Investigative Reporting Network is an excellent source of news as well.

by lychee on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 01:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There really is no alternative to Kosovo independence. Russia realizes this. Serbia does too. Any play from here on in is for, perhaps, other border moves in the region. Bosnia, Vojvodina, Sandjak, North Mitrovica, Macedonia.

I should say the EU should be more concerned about the genie being let out of the bottle than anything Russia will do. The Serbs are a problem only inasmuch as the close quarters between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo may lead to a flare-up of violence, as they did in 2004. In that case, you may very well see Serbia intervene only along the northern border.

I have very little faith that UNMIK or NATO or the EU battlegroups can effectively quell any violent outbreak. That has NEVER been their manner of operating in the past, and in fact, most often, international forces barrack and stay out of the fighting.

The whole Balkan scene from 1991 until today is a premium example of horrendously conducted diplomacy, and each time someone thinks they have the answer, yet another flare-up begins. EU diplomacy is all about sticking your finger in the dike.

Look at what recognition without regard for ethnic autonomy has yielded.

by Upstate NY on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 03:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Certainly, NATO never did anything to protect the Serb minority against Albanian mobs. See for yourself how the NATO "peace force"... effectively enforces the peace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pg-bYIqgaE
NATO won't do anything to antagonize the Albanians - who surround Bondsteel, a camp with infrastructure built to last 100 years (this is no boy scout presence - it's there to stay for the long term).
I disagree with Upstate NY's suggestion that the EU is the main culprit behind the chaos in the Balkans.
An example of cynical US "peacebuilding" involvement: remember February 23 1992, in Lisbon, when Izetbegovic signed, along with Croat and Serb leaders, a European-brokered agreement creating a confederal structure for the three Bosnian ethnic groups. A few days later, influenced by an encouraging conversation with Warren Zimmermann, the United States ambassador, he changed his mind, leaving the possibilities of Lisbon accord a matter of speculation forever after. This laid the foundation for the war.
The same American manipulation is at work in Kosovo; Bush W guaranteed independence to the Albanians in Kosovo years ago. Why on earth would the Albanians negotiate anything less. Why would they negotiate at all?
Come to think of ot, interesting how there's a US military presence in every drug hub on earth - from Columbia to Panama to Kosovo to Afghanistan... Could that be a coincidence?
by vladimir on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 03:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I never stated that the EU was mostly to blame. I said that their diplomacy was horrendous. If you ask me, the EU and the US share equal responsibility. Indeed, I have stated many times here that the initial agreements were scuttled by the likes of James Baker and the Clinton team. However, James Baker was also the last of the Western transatlantic foreign ministers to counsel recognition of the former Yugoslav Republics in the first place. At the very least, he had more foresight than Germany which jumped with both feet into recognition mode.

Americans are opportunists. Once all hell broke loose, they inserted themselves into the fracas. But the initial dunderheaded moves were at least partially the responsibility of the EU.  You can't pretend this was an American plan circa 1990.

by Upstate NY on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 03:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly, it has been pointed out reoeatedly here that the first big blunder took ace when France and Germany rushed to recognise their WWI allies (Serbia and Croatia respectively).

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 03:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wrong. Serbia was never recognized by France... it remained "rump Yugoslavia" with Montenegro. Slovenia, Croatia and then Bosnia were recognized - all at the behest of Germany partnering with the US.
by vladimir on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 04:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I beg to differ: indeed US policy was coordinated with Germany's on this one since the 80's.
The US quest for global hegemony has persisted for over a century. Only the methods evolve. Rear Admiral A. Mahan, a prominent late XIX-century US geostrategist, emphasized the importance of the sea power, military activity, and the strategy of strangling Eurasian continental powers in the «anaconda coils». US President W. Wilson espoused the idea of a «peaceful» partition of rival countries and their subsequent occupation. US President W. Taft suggested using the US dollar as the instrument of subduing other nations. The common elements of those strategies were both the idea of the US global dominance and the notion that Russia had to be chosen as the prime target of such efforts. Kosovo is no stranger to this game. Sorry.
by vladimir on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 04:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, in the late 1990's I heard vague accusations from Serb colleagues that the Balkan wars were encouraged by the US (ostensibly to weaken the non-aligned movement) and dismissed them as conspiracy theories. Now I'm not so sure.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 04:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no doubt about this. I also know that the IMF was involved in causing chaos in Yugo in the 1980s. But that's a long way from purposely triggering calamity in 1990-1991. They could have easily peeled off the republics in other manners.

You'll have to tell me why the Americans dithered, what they could have hoped to gain by dithering. In fact, many point to the Reagan-Neo/Con connections to Yugo defense structures as a reason why the US actually favored the Serbs in the 1980s.

Here, read the NY Times on the US's positioning:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D8153DF93BA35757C0A964958260&sec=&spon= &pagewanted=all

by Upstate NY on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 05:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that the Rambouillet agreement you're ralking about?

On a previous occasion UpstateNY has given an account of American diplomatic actions in the Balkans, notably by James Rubin but also by others, so I am surprised that he would blame the EU. However the EU's lack of foreign policy and diplomatic coordination among member states made matters worse, especially in the early days of the war.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 03:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This quote of mine ("The whole Balkan scene from 1991 until today is a premium example of horrendously conducted diplomacy, and each time someone thinks they have the answer, yet another flare-up begins. EU diplomacy is all about sticking your finger in the dike.") doesn't mean the US wasn't just as much to blame.

I was only pointing out that EU diplomacy in the region always seems hasty, ill-considered, tendentious, and even arrogant.

The US was totally wrong on Kosovo. They were also bad on Bosnia but only from midway through to the end. Europe stumbled from 1990-1991 until the end of Bosnia.

by Upstate NY on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 05:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think he's referring to the Vance-Owen plan and the few that came after it.
by Upstate NY on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 05:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Am I right in believing that the Sbreneca massacre was the defining moment in the whole conflict?  I recall a lot of neo-con scoffing that the EU could ever get its act together on anything and that it had even allowed a massacre to happen on its own doorstep.  

After that the EU determined to have a more pro-active and cohesive foreign policy (however misguided) and this is reflected in the proposed high Commissioner for external affairs post in the proposed new constitution.

EU policy has also been anti-serbian since that date - a policy which was easy enough to implement whilst Russia was weak.  There is no obvious self-interested reason why the EU should favour a small, Islamic, ethnic Albanian entity over a mid sized state with a strong European history and identity.

It is just possible that the EU thinks it is acting idealistically in this case.  Whether it is acting wisely is another matter.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 10th, 2007 at 07:03:08 PM EST
And why has EU policy not become anti American after the Faluja massacres? An entire city of 350 000 people was ground to rubble : 60% of the buildings were damaged, 20% completely destroyed.

Between 700 000 and 1 million Iraqi dead caused by the US led invasion. But who wants to talk about Fallujah? Rupert Murdoch? European Parliament? RELEX?

Yet Srebrenica gets the lime light in our "free Western" media. I'm a BBC regular, and I find the number of articles on Srebrenica revealing of British foreign policy in the Balkans. Every year, the chorus starts in June, reaching a pitch in July - the anniversary of the Srebrenica massacres. And every year, 14 years after the event, Bosnian Muslims are reburying and reburying and reburying their dead. Of course, any opportunity to demonize the Serbs is good.

Here is an excellent example of the anti-Serb spin in Western media:
The Sunday Times, Nov. 3, 1996, Jon Swain
In several months of digging at mass graves in the macabre hinterland around Srebrenica, the investigators recovered far fewer bodies than they had expected. Of the thousands of men and boys from the UN safe area who were executed by Bosnian Serbs in July 1995, only a few hundred - less than 10% of the 7,000 Muslims missing - have been dug up.
The empty graves speak volumes about the conspiracy by Bosnian Serbs to cover up the massacre at Srebrenica... The more plausible theory is that bodies have been made to "disappear". As long as a year ago, American spy satellites first revealed evidence of tampering at several grave sites which, when later exhumed, yielded fewer corpses than expected.

Fantastic really. We went from 14 000 dead in Srebrenica at the height of the war, to 8 000 dead, to 7 000 dead to 1 500 bodies - mostly of adult males - were they fighters? Western media knows that most were underage women, dressed up to look like men before being raped then massacred and then « made to disappear ».

Through 1992 and 1993, Srebrenica was a safe haven for Bosnian Muslim and their Arab Mujahideen allies. Serbs in surrounding villages were constant targets of attacks coming from Srebrenica. Then came the offensive in July. There's no war without blood.

My point is this: Srebrenica wasn't the defining moment in EU politics. Srebrenica was seized by the Anglo (and German in this case) business elites as an event to (over)publicize Serb "brutality" and sell a war to pacifist European populations that would otherwise have not supported one - as was Racak in Kosovo.

by vladimir on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 04:08:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The short answer to your questions, VDR, is power.  The US has it, the Serbs, particularly with a much weakened Russia, don't.  Therefore, the US can get away with a lot the Serbs never could.

There was and is massive European opposition to the Iraq war.  Those few leaders who supported it - Berlusconi, Aznar, Blair have all gone, virtually hounded out of office.  But the Iraq war is America's war. Srebrenica happened on our doorstep.

European leaders, with far more European support, felt that they were responsible for doing something about it.  The fact that they didn't was an affront to the EU pretensions to be a world power governed by more civilised values than you know who...

I don't doubt the anti-Serbian bias in much of the media coverage.  Serbia exposed the EU for the toothless tiger that it is.  But it still doesn't make sense for the EU to favour a relatively very small ethnic Albanian and Islamic population over a significant European state like Serbia unless there are other issues at play.

Yes, massacres like that at Srebrenica happen in war, but they haven't happened in Europe since the Second World War.  The EU's founding ideology is based on a determination not to let that happen again.

Srebrenica therefore challenged the whole raison d'etre of what the EU is about.  If the EU cannot stop a relatively minor regional war on its doorstep, then what use is the EU as guarantor that war will never again be permitted in Europe?

The EU had to deal with Serbia or be laughed into irrelevancy.  Serbia was a threat to the legitimacy and survival of the European Ideal and the elite who's fortunes are tied to it.

You can massacre millions in Rwanda or Kampuchea and nothing is done about it because major elites are not threatened by it.  Massacre a few thousand in the U.S. or Europe and you will bear the full force of Superpower retaliation.


Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 05:28:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your analysis is spot on Frank.
by vladimir on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I posted a complete reply on a new thread:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/12/11/6497/2037
by vladimir on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:50:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Have you read the diary I put up a few weeks ago specifically to stimulate this kind of debate on this?

From my impressions calling Srebrenica only a "safe haven" after 1993 is the understatement of the year. It was a geographical cul-de-sac where people's survival was dependent on food droppings, the coinage used was cigarettes and with Serbian forces at the doorstep preventing any migration away from the enclave.

Can you also provide some evidence that, in 2007, 11 years later after your quoted newspaper clip, that body count is still stuck at 1500 bodies?

I agree with you that the Srebrenica massacre was too late a rallying point for the west against Balkan brutalities.

by Nomad on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 07:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apologies Nomad - I am only a member here for a couple of weeks

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 07:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was not my intent to make people feel guilty of neglecting diaries in the maelstrom that is ET; I'm sorry if I did! I just wanted to have a pointer to it. Upstate NY above is, I think, quoting from his valuable responses to that diary. Link here.
by Nomad on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 07:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]