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

Is Europe ready for military confrontation with Russia over Kosovo?

by Upstate NY Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 07:28:40 PM EST

Here's a scary article from Stratfor, a rather respected American Think Tank/Research Institute.

news.google.com

NOTE: scroll down to access this article on Stratfor. Can only be accessed from Google.

The key passage:

If the United States and some European powers can create an independent Kosovo without regard to Russian wishes, Putin's prestige in Russia and the psychological foundations of his grand strategy will suffer a huge blow. If Kosovo is granted independence outside the context of the United Nations, where Russia has veto power, he will be facing the same crisis Yeltsin did. If he repeats Yeltsin's capitulation, he will face substantial consequences. Putin and the Russians repeatedly have warned that they wouldn't accept independence for Kosovo, and that such an act would lead to an uncontrollable crisis. Thus far, the Western powers involved appear to have dismissed this. In our view, they shouldn't. It is not so much what Putin wants as the consequences for Putin if he does not act. He cannot afford to acquiesce. He will create a crisis.

The basic idea here is that the whole world is expecting the Russians to abandon the Serbs instantly, but no one is asking the question, what if they don't?


And more:

Putin has two levers. One is economic. The natural gas flowing to Europe, particularly to Germany, is critical for the Europeans. Putin has a large war chest saved from high energy prices. He can live without exports longer than the Germans can live without imports. It is assumed that he wouldn't carry out this cutoff. This assumption does not take into account how important the Kosovo issue is to the Russians.

The second option is what we might call the "light military" option. Assume that Putin would send a battalion or two of troops by air to Belgrade, load them onto trucks and send them toward Pristina, claiming this as Russia's right under agreements made in 1999. Assume a squadron of Russian aircraft would be sent to Belgrade as well. A Russian naval squadron, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, already is headed to the Mediterranean. Obviously, this is not a force that could impose anything on NATO. But would the Germans, for example, be prepared to open fire on these troops?

If that happened, there are other areas of interest to Russia and the West where Russia could exert decisive military power, such as the Baltic states. If Russian troops were to enter the Baltics, would NATO rush reinforcements there to fight them? The Russian light military threat in Kosovo is that any action there could lead to a Russian reaction elsewhere.

All of these so-called "levers" seem pretty far-fetched to me. I have trouble seeing Russia confront the EU and US in such a manner.

But what if I'm wrong?

Suddenly the idea that Russia may scare a few people at the UN comes into play. Then what? Allow the Albanians to dangle? It would be much easier to imagine the EU and US allowing the Albanians to dangle until they take the bait than to risk such a huge confrontation.

Or, someone might actually give in eventually and cut a deal. A real deal.

Display:
I know the Russians and Serbs are close, but does Kosovo really mean that much to Putin?  Sure he can do real short term damage to the EU, but does he really want a new cold war?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 08:28:38 PM EST
High stakes game of chicken.

The question is easily reversible.

by Upstate NY on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but the West now seems more than ever unable to look at things from the other side's persepctive.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:11:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A new cold war would suit all sorts of people wonderfully: falling back to something they understand would be a relief.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 02:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The world has moved on.

And Putin ain't that dumb....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You think a cold war wouldn't suit Putin politically at home, so long as it didn't interfere with business?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
so long as it didn't interfere with business?

..quite a caveat, wouldn't you say?

How could it not interfere with business?

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:50:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Russia sells energy, metals and weapons. I see no downside for them from more tension: the immediate cosnequences would be higher energy prices and more demand for weapons...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:11:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But no one wants to miscalculate. That would not be good for business, and may be dangerous to our health!

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:22:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Plus, a real cold war would bankrupt the US.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:44:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They're doing a great job of bankrupting themselves.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And why are the Kosovo Albanians so important to the Americans? or the Germans? Are they willing to risk a new cold war for Kosovo?
by vladimir on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 09:51:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, this [pdf] seems to have something to do with it.

By the early 1930s and until 2000, mineral deposits in the region were well-defined. Commercial resources of major base metals included those of aluminum, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and zinc. Such precious metals as gold, silver, palladium, and platinum were found mainly in association with such base metals as copper, lead, and zinc. Industrial minerals were represented by a broad range of carbonate and silicate rocks, gravels, and sands as well as by clays and volcanic materials. Mineral fuels comprised coal (lignite), natural gas, and petroleum.

Until the early 1990s, the mining, processing, and downstream exploitation of base metals established the region as a major European source of copper, lead, and zinc and a major world producer of chromite. The transition of the region from central economic planning to market economy systems between 1991 and 2001 also began a swift deconstruction of existing political and social structures. The ensuing political, social, and ethnic tensions and conflict destroyed or degraded much of the region's mineral industries and industrial infrastructure. In 2001, social and political tensions in the region centered in the Province of Kosovo in Serbia and Montenegro and in Macedonia.

Not all oppressed peoples have this kind of leverage.

by Loefing on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The volumes are insignificant.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I hope you're right.
by Loefing on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Russia doesn't want a New Cold War.  I suspect they also don't want to be told every single time they assert themselves and act in their own interests that they are starting a New Cold War.  

If Putin is the man of the year, and desevedly so, then "New Cold War" is the "most overused phrase of the year."  Sigh...

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 10:53:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The answer is no.. but I get your point...

I do not think people will go very far wit that.. there is no oil..

.oh we all as always me the leftists talking about the same stuff.. oil here, oil there, oil everywhere.. sigh...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:29:09 AM EST
I find it once again amazing to see how the American hawks, entirely supported by America's so called "progressive" currents, manage to systematically paint an image of the Russians stirring up tensions. From the cost of gas sold to Ukraine to Georgia to Moldova... it's always the Russian's fault. Here again, these same hawks are pointing to Russia as the paragon of tension, whereas the tension isn't coming from Russia. It's coming from Washington (again). In the case of Kosovo, Russia is in favor of respecting international law. Washington is in favor of might making right (chaos). Russia wants a diplomatic solution. Washington wants a military solution (war).

The hypothesis that Russia would benefit from tensions with Western Europe because it would be able to sell more weapons seems far fetched. Sell more weapons to whom? The Serbs? Oh sure, the Serbs are so loaded with cash to invest in missiles that that their buying more weapons could easily make up for lost energy & metal revenues. The Russian military could buy more weapons, yes, but that's diverting state funds from investments in the economy, the infrastructure, etc. to the military - and it's already the case - without tensions (war) in Europe.

Now how would Washington benefit from chaos?

by vladimir on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 08:59:24 AM EST
Time magazine declares Putin "Person of the Year"
U.S. magazine Time has declared Russian President Vladimir Putin "Person of the Year" for bringing stability to his country and raising Russia's role on the global stage. Time called Putin a "steely and determined man" who has "emerged as a critical linchpin of the 21st century." The magazine said Putin's last year in office has been his most successful. "At home, he secured his political future. Abroad, he expanded his outsize - if not always benign - influence on global affairs."
by vladimir on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 09:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While I agree that in the examples you cite Russia is not the one stirring up trouble I'm not sure where you are going from there. So Putin was named "Person of the Year". So were Hitler and Stalin. I mean Time named "You" "Person of the Year".

Of course Russia has nothing to gain from tensions with western Europe. But there are certain elements of the ruling elite that would undoubtedly prosper in the case of a new cold war. The rulers of the US invented both the  "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" for that purpose.

by generic on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 09:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
RIA

Moldova's breakaway republic of Transdnestr will seek independence from Moldova, if the Kosovo issue is resolved in favor of Albanian separatists, the Transdnestr parliament speaker said on Wednesday.

Transdnestr, a separatist republic with a large ethnic Russian population, proclaimed its independence from Moldova after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

"We see that a decision is being made under the UN aegis to transform Kosovo from a country with an indefinite status to a country governed by international law. We would like our Transdnestrian state to be recognized as well, if such a decision is made," Yevgeny Shevchuk said.

by vladimir on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 10:13:00 AM EST
And if you need to insert quotes, just follow the instructions here

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 12:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - New User Guide

How do I insert a quote box?

Type the following lines above and below what you want to put in the box:

<div class="blockquote">
(your content here)
</div>

or, alternatively, the more traditional:

<blockquote>
(your content here)
</blockquote>

European Tribune - New User Guide

How do I embed a link?

Type the following text all on one line:

<a href="http://www.eurotrib.com" > The European Tribune</a>

These neat links with quoteboxes was made using the very handy Firefox extension TribExt, which makes it just as easy as ordinary copying and pasting. If you use it, you do not need to learn any html.

European Tribune - Of version numbering and convergence

So, are you running Firefox? (If not, you really should get it here) If so, would you consider downloading and installing the new version of TribExt?


Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 01:34:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have downloaded Tribext - I think.  How do I know it has installed successfully?  What functionality does it give me, and how do I access it?  I have manually used blockquotes and embedded links by copying the code from the new user guide - a slightly ponderous process.  Be nice if you could just copy & paste formatted and embedded text from MS Word

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The main function - that is the function I use the most - is if you mark a set of text in Firefox and rightclick you get the option "Copy HTML, URL, Title". If you do, when you paste you get this look:

Frank Schnittger:


"We reported back to hearts what we had seen, and told our footsteps all about where we had been."

In MS Word you can (I think, been ages since I used it) save documents as html. If you then open it in a raw text-editor like notepad you get to the html-code which you should (if all the html used is supported here) be able to paste in a comment window and get it more or less as it looked in Word. If I remember correctly Word had a tendency to add lots of unnecessary code, so not the ideal way by far. A graphic html-editor like Dreamweaver is better.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I remember correctly Word had a tendency to add lots of unnecessary code, so not the ideal way by far. A graphic html-editor like Dreamweaver is better.

And it's not UNICODE-compliant, which creates all kinds of funny issues for users that don't use Internet Exploder.

And please, for the love of Chthulu, do not migrate entirely to a WYSIWYG interface. Typing the code is so much faster than point-and-click.

Oh, and you don't need to access the new user guide: All the permitted html tags and their syntax are available for ease of copying just below the main text window when you edit your comment.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 12:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A swedish kind of death:
The main function - that is the function I use the most - is if you mark a set of text in Firefox and rightclick you get the option "Copy HTML, URL, Title". If you do, when you paste you get this look:

Thanks guys - that function works really well.  Is there much more undocumented functionality out there?  We perhaps need to augment the new users guidelines.

I noticed a "who's online" tick box in the interface settings but can't find anywhere than shows me who is currently online.  Is that a feature reserved for frontpagers?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 08:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hardlt think Russia will make much trouble over Kosovo.

Especially not by using gas as a political tool. IIRC Russia and before that the Soviet Union has never ever broken a gas export contract with the West. I hardly see that happening now. If it did happen the French, Germans etc would freak out and go hard down the nuclear/coal route. No one would ever trust the Russians as reliable suppliers again. And while Stratfor might be right in that Germany need Russian gas more than Russia need German euros this winter, in the longer term the opposite is true. Russia is far more reliant on Europe as a market than Europe needs Russia as a supplier.

Indeed, if the EU could ever get its act together we would here see the real energy weapon: us threatening the Russians with lowering our consumption if they make trouble over eg. Kosovo.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 12:42:51 PM EST
Stratfor made it clear that they think the resources "lever" is not one the Russians would use.

Stratfor thinks it's likelier that Russia will deploy military units along the Kosovo border.

Russia, in a weaker state in 1999, rushed an entire battalion into Pristina to claim the Pristina airport in 1999, and they caught NATO with their pants down. This was the infamous incident in which British General Jackson told American General Clark, "I am not willing to start World War 3 for you."

by Upstate NY on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 02:52:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...after American General Wesley Clark (Democrat!) ordered British General Michael Jackson to FIRE on the Russians. Now THAT would have been a Thriller.
by vladimir on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clark never did that.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So where does that story come from?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clark ordered a British/French paramilitary force to be deployed to the airport, in order to get there before the Russians. The British refused, with General Jackson stating to Clark that he did not want to start WW3.

Just a friendly dash to the airport gets some Brit thinking he's about to start WW3. Anyway, the situation was eventually resolved, mostly in favour of NATO.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He served in the NATO chain of command as a deputy to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley Clark. In this capacity, he is best known for refusing, in June 1999, to block the runways of the Russian-occupied Pristina Airport, to isolate the Russian troops there.[1] Had he complied with General Clark's order, there was a chance the British troops under his command could have come into armed conflict with the Russians; doing this without prior orders from Britain would have led to his dismissal for gross insubordination. On the other hand, defying Clark would have meant disobeying a direct order from a superior NATO officer (Clark was a four-star general; Jackson only a three-star). Jackson ultimately chose the latter course of action, reputedly saying "I won't start World War III for you",[1] though the point became irrelevant when the American government prevailed upon the Hungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians to prevent the Russians from using their airspace to fly reinforcements in.
Wikipedia's source is the BBC: Confrontation over Pristina airport
Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:43:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the timeline in the BBC report has Jackson making his statement with regard to the dash Clark ordered, not the blocking of runways. Just a note.

But to recap, there never was an order to open fire. That's four or five steps down some hypothetical scenario.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 04:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clark did order a British/French force to be deployed to the airport. The British didn't refuse, they just got to the airport after the Russians.

You don't start WW3 by seeking diplomatic solutions. You start it by firing on the enemy.

by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 03:33:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, Jackson refused the deployment. Read the BBC report.

The occupation of the airport was an aggressive move by Russia after they felt they had been double-crossed in the negotiations. Clark wanted to prevent it. The WW3 part is a personal estimation of Jackson that the situation would get out of hand. Clark and Solana had a different view. But the troops in the area were mainly British.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 04:12:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"deploy" is a rather vague term - especially in military jargon. The allies planned to "deploy" their troops in Normandy in 1944.

The Russian move was aggressive? Interesting you don't qualify NATO's moves as being aggressive. The Russians, who were instrumental in negotiating a deal between NATO and Milosevic, had an agreement with NATO that they would "deploy" their forces in the North of Kosovo. To thank the Russians for their mediation, NATO later reneged on this agreement (surprising of such a worthy organization).

by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 04:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
The Russian move was aggressive? Interesting you don't qualify NATO's moves as being aggressive.
Isn't that implied in what nanne said?
The occupation of the airport was an aggressive move by Russia after they felt they had been double-crossed in the negotiations.
(My emphasis)

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:01:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know. Maybe nanne can clarify?
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
NATO's moves in Kosovo were clearly aggressive (dropping bombs and all). I don't know enough about the negotiations to tell whether the Russian sentiment of being double-crossed is justified.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:50:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know how you can "oust" a battalion of 200 men without threatening to fire on them.

Foreign Affairs - Compromised Command

In the immediate aftermath of the war, Clark responded to the Russians' seizure of the Pristina airfield by seeking to oust them. After his subordinate on the ground, British General Michael Jackson, told him, "I'm not starting World War III for you," London ordered Jackson not to comply with Clark's order to block the airfield's runways. The British action averted any potential crisis, something about which Clark was apparently not concerned. His attitude toward containing the Russian role was consistent with the general confidence about NATO's hegemony in Europe and America's hegemony in NATO that was implicit in the whole enterprise.

But even though Clark's prose reveals a sharp sensibility about most things, he has a tin ear for Russian interests. He reports how Russian General Viktor Barynkin told him during the Dayton negotiations, "We know what you Americans are up to. ... You are coming into Bosnia because it's in our part of Europe and you want to be there. And you say you will be gone in a year, but you won't be; you will stay." Clark reflected that the Russians "saw the peace plan in Cold War terms ... to establish spheres of influence," as if the Russians were hidebound reactionaries. Yet nothing that has happened in the six years since proves Barynkin wrong. What are the Balkans now if not an expanded sphere of influence for NATO -- one nudging Russia's front door?

The New Yorker's / Slate

Being "sure" of oneself is not quite the same as a compulsive snap judger who does things by whim, as when he threatened to open fire on Russian positions during one close call in the NATO campaign over Kosovo. Fred Kaplan

by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 03:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The second quote is by some wingnut commenter on Slate who later goes on to cite frontpagemag, not by Fred Kaplan.

On the first, I'll note that there were two events: an order by Clark to occupy the airport in advance of the Russians, and a later order by Clark to block the runways with tanks. Both were refused by Jackson. Russian air lifts were eventually held back by the US convincing the surrounding states to close their airspace. It's unclear to me where exactly the 'World War 3' quote comes in as the BBC gives a different picture.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 04:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clarke first ordered troops to race to get to the airport first - that would have shut the russians out.

Then Clarke ordered troops to block the runways to prevent landings - now since presumably the 200 Russian troop had taken the airport with the intention to use it, you couldn't block the runways without opposition from the Russian troops already there.

Then Clarke managed to close the airspace of neighbouring countries.

As for vladimir's

I don't know how you can "oust" a battalion of 200 men without threatening to fire on them.
you can lay siege to the airport and wait for the battallion to run out of supplies.

Now, this is all very strange considering that NATO and Russia were supposed to be on the same side here.
BBC News | EUROPE | Confrontation over Pristina airport

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 04:54:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To avoid getting bogged down in technicalities, the big picture is that the US wanted to provoke armed conflict with the Russians in Europe.
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:05:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know about that, but it certainly sounds like Clarke thought nothing of getting NATO troop into an aggressive standoff with Russian troops. He probably expected the Russians to back off but it was the Europeans under his command that had no stomach for that kind of thing.

As has been pointed out around here, the Russian perception of relationships with The West™ changed dramatically after the Kosovo campaign. During the 1990's they seem to actually have believed the US and its allies were genuinely interested in partnership. In addition, Bush started off being very friendly to Putin but after a couple of years Putin realised Bush wasn't to be trusted.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:37:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe you are right, although I'm very sceptical of systematically pointing to individual "blunders" (Zimmerman, Christopher for Bosnia, Albright for Kosovo, Clark for the Airport incident, Ambassador Glaspie for in Iraq-Kuwait, etc.) instead of calling a dog a dog.
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:48:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In addition, Bush started off being very friendly to Putin but after a couple of years Putin realised Bush wasn't to be trusted.

yup, it's hard when you're looking into someone's soul to stop them looking right back at yours...

 putin has been restrained in his responses considering how bushco's behaviour has been one long windup.

he's right not to take bush at face value, apart from being much smarter, he is better placed to take advantage of current and coming events than bush, who has already won his place in notoriety as the most recalcitrant ignoramus ever to steal a country's vote.

...and then reduce everything he touches to gold, for his friends...

....to dust for everyone else

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the US wanted to do that, you'd think they'd have sent some of their own ground forces into Kosovo, so that they'd be sure Clark's orders would be followed. They didn't because of domestic issues, problems with Congress turf battles and personal conflicts in the Pentagon and the Clinton administration.

Reality is just never that simple.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:05:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you suggesting that the US military is run by a group of gung-ho generals over whom there is little or no civilian governance?
by vladimir on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 02:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
us threatening the Russians with lowering our consumption if they make trouble over eg. Kosovo.
What have you been smoking mate?
by vladimir on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Our "energy weapon" against Russia is quite potent, if only we thought about it.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The figures just don't make the test Jerome. We will need every JULE of energy we can get our hands on in 2020, come from gas, oil, solar or other... and it's ALL gonna be more than welcome.

By arguing that the EU has bargaining power against Russia in the energy sphere requires that two conditions are met:

1. that the Russians can't sell their energy elsewhere - which is false because they're busy building pipelines going East to Asian markets;

2. that the EU can actually do without Russian energy supplies - which by my books isn't reality. Maybe you can contribute some data to the discussion? Cheers.

by vladimir on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 03:27:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. Russia CANNOT sell its energy elsewhere. There is no infrastructure to do so. And there won't be for a long while. And the oil or gas that might go to China would never go to Europe anyway.

  2. Europe could do without Russian energy supplies if it had an energy policy other than "give me all your gas quick and cheap". We might stop building gas-fired plants, we might start focusing on energy savings, etc... Obviously, we don't do it, but we could.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thinking about #2, it would be a source of concern for Gazprom if the EU decided to stop building gas-fired power plants. Do you think if Gazprom buys utilities in the EU it will make it harder for the EU to regulate gas-fired power plants away?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No. If the political will is there, I think it'll actually make it easier: Just fire up a really nasty carbon tax. After all, it'll only be the Russians' pocketbooks that are hit...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 12:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see some rather obvious advantages to reducing our energy dependence... (and no, I didn't mean giving Jérôme more work by buying more wind turbines -that would indeed be a drawback, since he couldn't post much then).

Of course, that may just the environmentalist in me. But also, if Europe were to become a world specialist in all things energy  consumption reducing, could it fail to be repaid tenfold when all countries will start to be desperate for energy savings?

Of course, it would require policy choices of a rather different nature from what we have seen of late. Surely the fact that Schröder had a nice rich seat waiting for him at Gazprom is no sign that all was being done to relieve Europe of the dependency...

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:04:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
if Europe were to become a world specialist in all things energy consumption reducing, could it fail to be repaid tenfold when all countries will start to be desperate for energy savings?

now that's an interesting idea for would-be entrepreneurs around here :)

by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We don't need natural gas. Gas is a choice. There is nothing gas is used for where there isn't a competitive substitute.

Just look at Sweden. We use practically no gas (except a single gas-fired CHP which might just as well use wood), and things are nice here anyway.

If Europe wanted, gas imports from Russia could be eliminated in 10 years. But it's pretty hard to see what use that would be, except as a way of weakening Russia. And I don't think that's in anyones interest, at least if things don't become a lot worse.

Remember that the gas relation worked very well even during times of much greater tension, like in the 80's when Andropov et al in their utter senility where huddling under their tables, awaiting a NATO nuclear first strike!

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 05:29:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
perhaps not directly, however what about fertilizers which are -as far as I know- largely manufactured using Natural gas ?

Le caoutchouc serait un matériau très précieux, n'était son élasticité qui le rend impropre à tant d'usages.- A.Allais
by armadillos (armadillo2024 (at) free (dotto) fr) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 12:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope. The only things needed are air, water and energy. It's beautiful.

The Norwegians began making fertilizer from hydroelectricity 100 years ago.

At the turn of this century Professor Kristian Birkeland[1] of the University of Kristiania (soon to be renamed Oslo) was experimenting with a device called the Terella. This was a laboratory model of the earth, complete with magnetic field, placed in an evacuated vessel into which ions could be injected at high voltage. By observing the discharge glow, Birkeland was able to understand the three-dimensional structure of the Aurora Borealis. However, the equipment was expensive and money, then as now, was hard to come by. Kelvin suggested to Birkeland that research into armaments might prove lucrative and allow him to continue with the Terella. This was not the first time this idea had occurred to a physicist, Birkeland with his expertise in electromagnetism, set about producing an elektriske kanon, a rail-gun.

On Feb. 6th, 1902 Birkeland's kanon short-circuited and exploded during a test, but the disappointment he felt was muted by the observation of a disc-shaped arc, spread by the magnetic field, and the smell of nitrogen oxides. The reason this was intriguing was that the world was then gripped by a fear greater even than that of the looming conflict in Central Europe - that of world famine. Chilean nitrate deposits, on which the world depended as a fertilizer, were on the brink of running out, and chemists were scurrying to find an economical way of fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Clearly the acrid brown stench of nitrogen oxides was the smell of nitrogen being fixed, as it was a short hop skip and a jump to nitric acid and any nitrate you please.

Birkeland was not the first to fix nitrogen by electric arc - Crookes in Manchester already had a pilot plant producing calcium nitrate by this means - but the disc-shaped arc promised a high yield[2]. However, a week after the explosion he met a man who was already working on the means which would make economical production possible. That man was Sam Eyde, a civil engineer who was fascinated by the enormous potential of Norway's mountains and rainfall for the production of hydro-electricity. After that things moved with breath-taking speed. A week after meeting, Eyde and Birkeland submitted a patent for artificial fertilizer. They obtained money from the Swedish financiers, the Wallenbergs, and a mere three years later a hydroelectric plant had been built out of the wilderness at Notodden and a Birkeland-Eyde arc furnace was producing the first Norgesalpeter - Norwegian Saltpeter, i.e. calcium nitrate.

In the same year as the first Norgesalpeter was produced, Fritz Haber discovered a much better way of producing nitrates via ammonia made by what is now known as the Haber process. Indeed, the Norwegians soon abandoned the arc furnaces and adopted Haber's idea. However, Birkeland's discovery had started something irreversible: the large scale development of hydro-electric power in Norway by the company he and Eyde had started: Norsk Hydro.



Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 07:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
er... from the citation you used they say they finally embrassed the Haber process  which as far as I know use Natural gas...

Le caoutchouc serait un matériau très précieux, n'était son élasticité qui le rend impropre à tant d'usages.- A.Allais
by armadillos (armadillo2024 (at) free (dotto) fr) on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 05:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The one thing that even the alarmists are discounting is the reaction of Kosovo Serbs. For my amateur reading of the situation, that's my only concern. I don't think Serbia proper is going to do anything. But if the Serbs in Kosovo revolt (I'm not even talking about arms) it could be enough to send the Albanians over the bridge.

And somehow I can't see the peacekeepers keeping the peace. If that happens, you can bet that paramilitaries will trickle over the border while the new Albanian militias enter into the fray as well.

17,000 troops in a boundary encircling 2 million people?

Reminder: the Serbs are in enclaves, they are not huddling behind a border. 17,000 troops could keep a region safe, but we're talking about pockets of Serbs all over Kosovo.

by Upstate NY on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 at 07:01:35 PM EST
Military confrontation is of course not possible over Kosovo, it's just hot steam. Europeans and Americans repeatedly threaten  recognise Kosovo independence unilaterally thinking - we are international community, the international law is in our hands.
Russia is determined to block it in principle as this would give to the West dangerous precedent, too much leverage over the international law.

The compromise seems unlikely too, so what is left? It depend on the choice of the West - if Western countries will proceed with recognition without Serbia's consent I think Russia after some time will unilaterally recognise some de-facto independent states which she will consider worthwile (of course Georgian regions will be the first) and will invite third world countries to do the same.

As the West has more friends in the world, Kosovo will gain recognition easier than Georgian breakaway provinces but with hurdles - remember Taiwan had occupied China's seat in UN several decades before Kissinger's ping pong diplomacy. The same will be fate of Kosovo - long long waiting before formal recognition in UN.

What about Georgian republics? They will be in position of Turkish part of Cyprus or somewhat better as Russia wields veto-power in SC. About recognition of these countries by third world countries - I don't know, Hugo Chavez (and other anti-Western leaders) or former Soviet republics which are very close to Russia may well be the first to follow Russian recognition. Iran's reaction may be interesting as well.

I see only one possibility of indirect military confrontation between Russia and the West - Russia's recognition may provoke Georgian leaders to launch fresh offensive against breakaway regions. There may be piquant situation if Georgia is admitted into NATO before this happens. Direct Russian-Georgian war is hardly possible but Russia already did a lot to arm and train secessionists to defend themselves.

by FarEasterner on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:21:21 AM EST
The Serb reaction to u unilateral declaration of independence by its KLA government in Pristina will probably be twofold:
  1. Recognize the region North of the Ibar river as remaining within Serbia.
  2. Recognizing Republika Srpska as fully independent from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Russian role in this will be to
  1. Militarily support the Serbs, notably by supplying a couple of battalions of Igla SAMs and ground troops.
  2. Recognize: Transdnestr, South Ossetia, Abkhazia in the short term.
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know much about Serb reaction but suspect they will at least wait and try to persuade Russia to recognise Serbs enclaves in Balkans first as such move by Serbia alone will close the door of EU.

Russia also will take her time to evaluate pros and contras of any shift in policy and will test possible reactions of her recognition from friendly countries inside CIS and in the third world.

by FarEasterner on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe the Autonomous Republic of Crimea will also declare independence from Ukraine? Now wouldn't that be interesting?
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FarEasterner:
The compromise seems unlikely too, so what is left? It depend on the choice of the West - if Western countries will proceed with recognition without Serbia's consent I think Russia after some time will unilaterally recognise some de-facto independent states which she will consider worthwile (of course Georgian regions will be the first) and will invite third world countries to do the same.
There have already been some noises about Transdnistria.

By the way, these consideration may answer the question of why the US was reluctant to recognize the breakaway Yugoslav republics in 1991 or thereabouts: at that time it was an unquestionable tenet of international relations that you just didn't recognize border changes occurring by force. This taboo originated, I believe, around WWII and is teetering on the brink of irrelevance at the moment.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 04:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

17 December 2007

The situation in Kosovo settlement has reached the critical line.

The authorities in Kosovo unambiguously speak of an intention to unilaterally declare their independence in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1244. Instead of putting an end to the provocative statements we are becoming witnesses of connivance by a group of countries at this illegal move which may lead to serious adverse consequences for regional and international stability. In substantiation of that position they forlornly suggest that the province's independence is inevitable, supposedly having been brought about by all events of the previous period.

This evolving situation is a direct consequence of the serious distortions in Kosovo settlement, to which the Russian side has invariably drawn the partners' attention. The key objectives of achieving high politico-democratic standards of life in the province, proclaimed by the international community and flowing from UNSCR 1244, were replaced with a policy of accelerated sovereignization of Kosovo. The non-Albanian population, primarily the Serbs, still have not got minimum guarantees of security and the ensuring of their rights, and the problem of refugees' return to Kosovo is in no way being tackled. The declared slogan of building a multiethnic society actually turns into its opposite.

By encouraging the separatist aspirations of Pristina, the US and some EU nations openly ignore the useful ideas and suggestions resulting from the talks held between the sides under the aegis of the mediation troika. The fact that in the 120 days of dialogue a final compromise has eluded the parties is being used for absurd claims that the negotiation potential is exhausted. What will happen in the world if the same yardstick is applied to other conflicts?

The reality, however, is that the parties were successfully drawn into a close direct dialogue, the most substantive since 1999. Belgrade and Pristina embarked on overcoming their alienation, and the talks themselves became a serious factor working for stability in the region. The results would have been more impressive if destructive signals had not been continuously sent from certain capitals that they support the idea of Kosovo independence. The launched process, in our firm conviction, offers a chance of eventually arriving at a solution. But one gets the impression that this is why somebody would like to wreck the dialogue as soon as possible in order to fulfill their promises to the Kosovo separatists.

The situation is fraught with a downward slide to an uncontrolled crisis unless settlement stays on an international legal course. Instead of this we see a feverish search for pseudo-legal arguments as a smokescreen for unilateral actions in Kosovo affairs. Now there are attempts to completely distort UNSCR 1244, from which our partners have got used to singling out only the obligations of Belgrade, but not of Pristina. They claim that it does not close the way for Kosovo independence and allows for changing international presences bypassing the UNSC and without the consent of the sides. Such tightrope walking and such unilateral interpretation of SC resolutions undermine the authority of the decisions of the Security Council in crisis settlement.

Behind-the-scenes maneuvering is going on around the United Nations leadership, whom they want, in breach of their prerogatives, to induce towards legitimizing future illegal moves. We are convinced that no one will succumb to blackmail. The authority of the UN is at stake. Kosovo settlement cannot occur outside the Security Council, the UN's main body responsible for international peace and security.

Equally worrying are the Kosovo Force plans for repressive measures in the province against those who will not want to put up with Kosovo independence. Instead of restraining the separatists, KFOR is getting ready to suppress their opponents. This is a direct violation of its mandate, ruling out actions in favor of one side; it is a path leading to a direct confrontation of the force with the province's non-Albanian population.

We call on the UNSC permanent members, the Contact Group partners and the EU countries to once again consider all the consequences of a unilateral sovereignization of Kosovo, retain the settlement process in an international legal field and refrain from hasty decisions fraught with a destructive precedent for the entire system of international relations.

We stand for the continuation of dialogue between the sides and are open for discussion of its format and modalities. In the interest of stimulating the negotiation process, as in the resolution of other crisis situations, we suggest developing a roadmap in whose framework the well-substantiated interests of the sides and the priorities of leading international factors of Kosovo settlement could be taken into account and the landmarks outlined for movement by the sides towards agreement, including on lines of their Euro-integration perspective.

The Kosovo settlement Rubicon should be passed without tragic upheavals. Responsibility for this lies on all of us.


by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 04:08:11 AM EST
Is this a paper or internet source? Do you have a link?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:52:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You could also find it at the official Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site.
by Sargon on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 07:15:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This may sound very naive, but what about a deal where everyone recognises Kosovo in return for both Serbia and Kosovo being admitted to the EU at the same time and under the same conditions.  Thus a new boarder is created and made less important at one and the same time.  An EU high Commission would be created to safeguard minorities on either side of the boarder and ensure all administrative bodies act in a non-discriminatory way.  Over time, we might get back to a situation similar to Tito's Yugoslavia, where there were regional tensions, but not much by way of bloodshed, and the region was able to function reasonably successfully.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:50:44 AM EST
Frank Schnittger:
This may sound very naive, but what about a deal where everyone recognises Kosovo in return for both Serbia and Kosovo being admitted to the EU at the same time and under the same conditions.
I refer you to the case of Cyprus.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Northern Cyprus was not admitted to the EU, and may yet become a stumbling block for Turkey's entry

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 06:59:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually...

All of Cyprus is now in the EU de iure as Northern Cyprus is not recognised internationally. De facto, the Cypriot government does not have control of the Northern territory. There wre several proposed treaties to solve this problem. The plan was that both sides would approve the plan, Cyprus would be reunified and then Cyprus would join the EU.

As it happened, the North approved the latest plan, the South didn't, and still the EU went ahead with accession and now it cannot use accesion as a carrot to solve the Cyprus problem.

So you should be very careful about using joint EU accession as a tool to resolve the Kosovo situation.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 07:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely - the EU went ahead when only one party was on board and that destroyed the prospects for agreement.  That was a big mistake.  My point about Kosovo/Serbia was precisely that it would have to be a joint/simultaneous/mutually agreed accession

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 07:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In addition, the Serbs in Northern Kosovo and in Republika Srpska should be given the same right to self determination and be allowed to integrate with Belgrade instead of with Pristina and Sarajevo respectively.

If the EU were to offer that, I think most Serbs would agree that some justice would begin to make its way to the Balkans creating the conditions for a win-win deal.

But I doubt the US would endorse that kind of a deal.

by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 07:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is this taboo that borders are untouchable. Like I said before, the last time that happened in Europe was WWII. It gives people the creeps to think about it.

At worst, a division of a state into its constituent provinces is allowed, but moving those borders is considered taboo.

For instance, the peaceful partition of Czechoslovakia. In the case of Yugoslavia, the borders of the constituent republics were preserved - which explains why displacing the Serbs around Vokovar was preferred to trading that territory for some other one, and why all efforts have been made to preserve the integrity of Bosnia even if within it both people and territory have been traded. It has been suggested that the area around Mitrovica be given to Serbia if Kosovo becomes independent. That would require moving borders, so it can't be done. Never mind that apparently Tito already moved that border in the opposite direction decades ago. Now, if a state decides to change its internal borders, that's okay. But if we're going to split up a state it must be along the existing internal borders.

It doesn't make a lot of sense. IMHO you could organize a referendum with a combination of land and population transfers based on the result. Something similar was done in Schleswig over 100 years ago, but not before two wars between Germany and Denmark.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 07:34:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are plenty more examples in the breakup of the Soviet Union. Most of the Republics never had an independent existance prior to the breakup and the borders were drawn either by the Czarist administration or by the Soviets (e.g., Stalin redrew the borders of Ukraine at one point). So, when the USSR breaks up the internal borders are preserved and you get Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azaerbaijan, Transdnistria seceding from Moldova, the Crimea question between Russia and Ukraine, Abkhazia and Ossetia (North and South) between Georgia and Russia, Chechnya...

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 07:46:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here are the administrative borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina which clearly indicate the different privinces which I presume are still in place today. If not, there are two Republics, each with its own constitution, government and budget in Bosnia Herzegovina today, which is more in terms of statehood than what Kosovo has.

And here are the administrative borders of Kosovo which can likewise be used to delineate who gets what.

So I don't quite follow your point. If the Albanians can have the right to secede from Belgrade using internal Serb administrative borders as the yardstick to define their territory, why can't the Serbs also decide with whom they want to live and use those same administrative borders to define their territory?

Philosophical argumentation about what "gives people the creeps" will not lead to a peace agreement but to war - or at best, to severe tensions that will be a headache to Europe for many decades to come. It's time for realpolitik and some bold moves.

by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
So I don't quite follow your point. If the Albanians can have the right to secede from Belgrade using internal Serb administrative borders as the yardstick to define their territory, why can't the Serbs also decide with whom they want to live and use those same administrative borders to define their territory?

Of course that's what everyone has in mind. First Kosovo secedes, then we get separatist activity and possibly violence in the Serb.majority areas until they secede. But also note that people don't like the idea of Kosovo joining Albania into one "Greater Albania" so presumably they woulnd't like the region around Mitrovica joining Serbia.

Look, like I said, it makes not sense, and like I also said this taboo about redrawing borders is not a philosophical point and is causing more headaches than if people just sat down and redrew the damn borders with the agreement of the populations involved.

In my opinion you could have a referendum at the level of municipalities where each municipality chooses which side they want to be on, with some territorial transfers to ensure continuity of both territories and population exchanges. This was done in Schleswig as I mentioned, but the last time that border was touched was at the end of WWI.

As for population transfers, even when done by mutual agreement and presumably peacefully, the example of India and Pakistan shows that one would have to expect violence
Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border. Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000.[5]
This is out of under 15 million people, half moving in each direction in a total population of several hundred million.

But, seriously, at this point I think a bold solution like the Partition of India or the final settlement of the Schleswig question would have to be considered.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Great, now that we have agreement on the principles I'll take the message to Kostunica, Frank can take it to Solana, FarEasterner can take it to Putin, Upstate NY can go see W, and we can sign an agreement this evening.

Err, who's gonna talk to Agim Ceku??

by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know who: Upstate NY ! :)
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:31:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We have at least 4 albanian ETers, and two of them have posted at one point or another. Upstate NY doesn't need to do two jobs. ;-)

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 08:46:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
on second thoughts, if we really want a European solution, best to leave the Americans out of the negotiations.
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 11:01:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Had a chat with Solano.  He wants the Irish to ratify the Reform Treaty first so he can get a bigger job and expense account.

PS I'm too busy campaigning for an independent republic of Wicklow so we can stop all those Dubliners stealing our water, despoiling our countryside, and ravishing our maidens.  UP WOLF - WicklOw Liberation Front.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 09:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]


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

Top Diaries