A Bunch Of Ukrainians With Guns Is The Last Thing NATO Wants
spea...@netcom.ca
>
> The last thing that Rubin/Clinton(spit) want is Americans with guns, too.
>
> http://www.thepost.kiev.ua/
>
> Whether Ukrainian peacekeepers will have any role in
> Ukraine remains an open question. While as recently as two
> months ago Ukraine was actively seeking to help out in the
> efforts to resolve the Kosovo conflict, its role vis-a-vis
> NATO has diminished significantly since then.
>
> U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin, in a
> much-publicized guffaw, said on May 2 that the last thing
> that would help NATO peacekeeping is a "a bunch of
> Ukrainians running around with guns ..." Rubin later
> apologized for the remark. But with the war now over and
> with no Ukrainian peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, it looks
> more and more like Rubin's remark did in fact reflect the
> true position of NATO on the issue.
Well, now they have a bunch of Russians running around with
guns, holding up the airstrip and begging for water, etc...
Perhaps, it is better that Ukrainians save their energies and
troops and, now that the Serbs have almost withdrawn from
Kosovo and the genocide has almost stopped, permit those who
are already on location to sort the mess out.
GHC
kirill
While the KLA carries out a new genocide, safe under NATO protection.
You live in a world of black and white.
Maris Ozols
>
>While the KLA carries out a new genocide, safe under NATO protection.
>You live in a world of black and white.
>
Just as the Soviets did when they took revenge against the Germans
civilians at the end of the war. I presume you would condemn that too.
Maris
Stephen Payer
Igor wrote:
>
> The last thing that Rubin/Clinton(spit) want is Americans with guns, too.
Now, now .... just a few REGISTERED ones for each and every soul ...
I beg your pardon !! ??
Hail Caesar (President Bill Clinton)! This latest activity of his will be enough, all by itself, to
cause the untimely death by apoplexy of a number of our (USA) right-wing fascists.
>
> http://www.thepost.kiev.ua/
> U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin, in a
> much-publicized guffaw, said on May 2 that the last thing
> that would help NATO peacekeeping is a "a bunch of
> Ukrainians running around with guns ..."
LOL! Total agreement on that one, guns or no guns. Just so they keep their pants on ...
Igor Sagdeev
Maris Ozols wrote in message <376973a3...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
I think he would. At least I do. In Kosovo, however, another analogy comes
to mind (since
KLA never defeated the Serbs themselves): Prague '45. The freshly liberated
(by others) Czechs
then went into an orgy or murdering anybody who was or seemed German,
killing, according
to some accounts, about 30 thousand people.
One of their pastimes was cutting a woman's Achilles tendons and making fun
as she'd try
to walk (being forced to do it). Another was to throw babies out of
third-floor windows. Yet another,
to tie a few people up and together with barbed wire and throw them into a
river.
Small may be beautiful (at least Juris Z presents it very convincingly), but
not always good and
righteous. Sometimes, behind the "big uncle's" back a gnome may have a
taller guy at his mercy -
(or no mercy) and then we can see that the human nature is the same, no
matter what ethnicity.
Yours,
Igor
Igor Sagdeev
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de wrote in message
<37698...@news.uni-ulm.de>...
> Maris, let me tell you following. Stalin tried to stop expulsion of
>Gernmans from Sudets and Prussia by the end of the war, it were not
>sanctioned by USSR, it was completely local invention and USSR felt
>strongly uneasy about that because Stalin considered the creation of
>communistic Eastern Germany way more important than nationalistic
>ambitions of Poles and Chez. But, he simply could do _nothing_ according
>to his own agenda
Hey, Andrey,
I can well imagine that Stalin could do nothing with such a corageous and
resolute
nation as the Chez (Czechs). But, pray, tell us what Poles have you
discovered in
the 1945 Koenigsberg?
Igor
Amazons
"It's the Russians, Stupid"
A Stratfor commentary
0500 GMT, 990614
President Bill Clinton had a sign taped to his desk at the beginning of
his first term in office that read, "It's the Economy, Stupid." He
should have taped one on his desk at the beginning of the Kosovo affair
that said, "It's the Russians, Stupid." From the beginning to the end of
this crisis, it has been the Russians, not the Serbs, who were the real
issue facing NATO.
The Kosovo crisis began in December 1998 in Iraq. When the United States
decided to bomb Iraq for four days in December, in spite of Russian
opposition and without consulting them, the Russians became furious. In
their view, the United States completely ignored them and had now
reduced them to a third-world power - discounting completely Russia's
ability to respond. The senior military was particularly disgruntled. It
was this Russian mood, carefully read by Slobodan Milosevic, which led
him to conclude that it was the appropriate time to challenge the West
in Kosovo. It was clear to Milosevic that the Russians would not permit
themselves to be humiliated a second time. He was right. When the war
broke out, the Russians were not only furious again, but provided open
political support to Serbia.
There was, in late April and early May, an urgent feeling inside of NATO
that some sort of compromise was needed. The feeling was an outgrowth of
the fact that the air war alone would not achieve the desired political
goals, and that a ground war was not an option. At about the same time,
it became clear that only the Russians had enough influence in Belgrade
to bring them to a satisfactory compromise. The Russians, however, were
extremely reluctant to begin mediation. The Russians made it clear that
they would only engage in a mediation effort if there were a prior
negotiation between NATO and Russia in which the basic outlines of a
settlement were established. The resulting agreement was the G-8
accords.
The two most important elements of the G-8 agreement were unwritten, but
they were at the heart of the agreement. The first was that Russia was
to be treated as a great power by NATO, and not as its messenger boy.
The second was that any settlement that was reached had to be viewed as
a compromise and not as a NATO victory. This was not only for
Milosevic's sake, but it was also for Yeltsin's. Following his
humiliation in Iraq, Yeltsin could not afford to be seen as simply
giving in to NATO. If that were to happen, powerful anti-Western,
anti-reform and anti-Yeltsin forces would be triggered. Yeltsin tried
very hard to convey to NATO that far more than Kosovo was at stake. NATO
didn't seem to listen.
Thus, the entire point of the G-8 agreements was that there would be a
compromise in which NATO achieved what it wanted while Yugoslavia
retained what it wanted. A foreign presence would enter Kosovo,
including NATO troops. Russian troops would also be present. These
Russian troops would be used to guarantee the behavior of NATO troops in
relation to Serbs, in regard to disarming the KLA, and in guaranteeing
Serbia's long-term rights in Kosovo. The presence of Russian troops in
Kosovo either under a joint UN command or as an independent force was
the essential element of the G-8. Many long hours were spent in Bonn and
elsewhere negotiating this agreement.
Over the course of a month, the Russians pressured Milosevic to accept
these agreements. Finally, in a meeting attended by the EU's Martti
Ahtisaari and Moscow's Viktor Chernomyrdin, Milosevic accepted the
compromise. Milosevic did not accept the agreements because of the
bombing campaign. It hurt, but never crippled him. Milosevic accepted
the agreements because the Russians wanted them and because they
guaranteed that they would be present as independent observers to make
certain that NATO did not overstep its bounds. This is the key: it was
the Russians, not the bombing campaign that delivered the Serbs.
NATO violated that understanding from the instant the announcement came
from Belgrade. NATO deliberately and very publicly attacked the
foundations of the accords by trumpeting them as a unilateral victory
for NATO's air campaign and the de-facto surrender of Serbia. Serbia,
which had thought it had agreed to a compromise under Russian
guarantees, found that NATO and the Western media were treating this
announcement as a surrender. Serb generals were absolutely shocked when,
in meeting with their NATO counterparts, they were given non-negotiable
demands by NATO. They not only refused to sign, but they apparently
contacted their Russian military counterparts directly, reporting NATO's
position. A Russian general arrived at the negotiations and apparently
presided over their collapse.
Throughout last week, NATO was in the bizarre position of claiming
victory over the Serbs while trying to convince them to let NATO move
into Kosovo. The irony of the situation of course escaped NATO. Serbia
had agreed to the G-8 agreements and it was sticking by them. NATO's
demand that Serbia accept non-negotiable terms was simply rejected,
precisely because Serbia had not been defeated. The key issue was the
Russian role. Everything else was trivial. Serbia had been promised an
independent Russian presence. The G-8 agreements had said that any
unified command would be answerable to the Security Council. That wasn't
happening. The Serbs weren't signing. NATO's attempt to dictate terms
by right of victory fell flat on its face. For a week, NATO troops
milled around, waiting for Serb permission to move in.
The Russians proposed a second compromise. If everyone would not be
under UN command, they would accept responsibility for their own zone.
NATO rejected this stating Russia could come into Kosovo under NATO
command or not at all. This not only violated the principles that had
governed the G-8 negotiations, by removing the protection of Serb
interests against NATO, but it also put the Russians into an impossible
position in Belgrade and in Moscow. The negotiators appeared to be
either fools or dupes of the West. Chernomyrdin and Ivanov worked hard
to save the agreements, and perhaps even their own careers. NATO, for
reasons that escape us, gave no ground. They hung the negotiators out to
dry by giving them no room for maneuver. Under NATO terms, Kosovo would
become exactly what Serbia had rejected at Rambouillet: a NATO
protectorate. And now it was Russia, Serbia's ally, that delivered them
to NATO.
By the end of the week, something snapped in Moscow. It is not clear
whether it was Yeltsin who himself ordered that Russian troops move into
Pristina or whether the Russian General Staff itself gave the order.
What is clear is that Yeltsin promoted the Russian general who, along
with his troops, rolled into Pristina. It is also clear that although
Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov had claimed that the whole affair was an
accident and promised that the troops would be withdrawn immediately, no
troops have been removed. Talbott then flew back to Moscow. Clinton got
to speak with Yeltsin after a 24-hour delay, but the conversation went
nowhere. Meanwhile, Albright is declaring that the Russians must come
under NATO command and that's final.
The situation has become more complex. NATO has prevailed on Hungary and
Ukraine to forbid Russian aircraft from crossing their airspace with
troops bound for Kosovo. Now Hungary is part of NATO. Ukraine is not.
NATO is now driving home the fact that Russia is surrounded, isolated
and helpless. It is also putting Ukraine into the position of directly
thwarting fundamental Russian strategic needs. Since NATO is in no
position to defend Ukraine and since there is substantial, if not
overwhelming, pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine, NATO is driving an
important point home to the Russians: the current geopolitical reality
is unacceptable from the Russian point of view. By Sunday, Russian
pressure had caused Ukraine to change its policy. But the lesson was not
lost on Russia's military.
Here is the problem as Stratfor sees it. NATO and the United States have
been dealing with men like Viktor Chernomyrdin. These men have had their
primary focus, for the past decade, on trying to create a capitalist
Russia. They have not only failed, but their failure is now manifest
throughout Russia. Their credibility there is nil. In negotiating with
the West, they operate from two imperatives. First, they are seeking
whatever economic concessions they can secure in the hope of sparking an
economic miracle. Second, like Gorbachev before them, they have more
credibility with the people with whom they are negotiating than the
people they are negotiating for. That tends to make them malleable.
NATO has been confusing the malleability of a declining cadre of Russian
leaders with the genuine condition inside of Russia. Clearly, Albright,
Berger, Talbott, and Clinton decided that they could roll Ivanov and
Chernomyrdrin into whatever agreement they wanted. In that they were
right. Where they were terribly wrong was about the men they were not
negotiating with, but whose power and credibility was growing daily.
These faceless hard-liners in the military finally snapped at the
humiliation NATO inflicted on their public leaders. Yeltsin, ever
shrewd, ever a survivor, tacked with the wind.
Russia, for the first time since the Cold War, has accepted a low-level
military confrontation with NATO. NATO's attempts to minimize it
notwithstanding, this is a defining moment in post-Cold War history.
NATO attempted to dictate terms to Russia and Russia made a military
response. NATO then used its diplomatic leverage to isolate Kosovo from
follow-on forces. It has forced Russia to face the fact that in the
event of a crisis, Ukraine will be neither neutral nor pro-Russian. It
will be pro-NATO. That means that, paperwork aside, NATO has already
expanded into Ukraine. To the Russians who triggered this crisis in
Pristina, that is an unacceptable circumstance. They will take steps to
rectify that problem. NATO does not have the military or diplomatic
ability to protect Ukraine. Russia, however, has an interest in what
happens within what is clearly its sphere of influence. We do not know
what is happening politically in Moscow, but the straws in the wind
point to a much more assertive Russian foreign policy.
There is an interesting fantasy current in the West, which is that
Russia's economic problems prevent military actions. That is as silly an
observation as believing that the U.S. will beat Vietnam because it is
richer, or that Athenians will beat the poorer Spartans. Wealth does not
directly correlate with military power, particularly when dealing with
Russia, as both Napoleon and Hitler discovered. Moreover, all economic
figures on Russia are meaningless. So much of the Russian economy is
"off the books" that no one knows how it is doing. The trick is to get
the informal economy back on the books. That, we should all remember, is
something that the Russians are masters at. It should also be remembered
that the fact that Russia's military is in a state of disrepair simply
means that there is repair work to be done. Not only is that true, but
the process of repairing the Russian military is itself an economic
tonic, solving short and long term problems. Military adventures are a
psychological, economic and political boon for ailing economies.
Machiavelli teaches the importance of never wounding your adversaries.
It is much better to kill them. Wounding them and then ridiculing and
tormenting them is the worst possible strategy. Russia is certainly
wounded. It is far from dead. NATO's strategy in Kosovo has been to goad
a wounded bear. That is not smart unless you are preparing to slay him.
Since no one in NATO wants to go bear hunting, treating Russia with the
breathtaking contempt that NATO has shown it in the past few weeks is
not wise. It seems to us that Clinton and Blair are so intent on the
very minor matter of Kosovo that they have actually been oblivious to
the effect their behavior is having in Moscow.
They just can't get it into their heads that it's not about Kosovo. It
is not about humanitarianism or making ourselves the kind of people we
want to be. It's about the Russians, stupid! And about China and about
the global balance of power.
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:02:05 GMT, kirill <kir...@university.ca> wrote:
>>
>>While the KLA carries out a new genocide, safe under NATO protection.
>>You live in a world of black and white.
>>
> Just as the Soviets did when they took revenge against the Germans
> civilians at the end of the war. I presume you would condemn that too.
> Maris
Oakish Maris. :)
Maris, let me tell you following. Stalin tried to stop expulsion of
Gernmans from Sudets and Prussia by the end of the war, it were not
sanctioned by USSR, it was completely local invention and USSR felt
strongly uneasy about that because Stalin considered the creation of
communistic Eastern Germany way more important than nationalistic
ambitions of Poles and Chez. But, he simply could do _nothing_ according
to his own agenda. Neither Allies could do something in similar situations
too which were smaller in scale though.
Yep, we condemn that cleanising, you are right. And now actually I think
we have to publish all documents we have about it, it could greatly help
us :) though could complicate some relations in EU :) .
--
Andrey Nikolaev Ulm university,
Department of Biophysics. Germany.
Email: Andrey.Nikolaev@!get-lost-spammer!.uni-ulm.de
Substitute physik instead of !*! .
Roedy Green
NATO has so far disarmed 100 KLA. This is not exactly what I would
called aiding and abetting genocide. How many serbs have been killed
since the occupation? Is it more or less than before the war? If it
is less, then NATO is doing a better job than the Serb army at
curtailing the KLA.
Stop the Makah Whale Sacrifice <http://mindprod.com/whale.html>
--
Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
-30-
vla...@my-deja.com
spea...@netcom.ca wrote:
> Igor wrote:
> >
> > The last thing that Rubin/Clinton(spit) want is Americans with guns,
too.
> >
> >
> > Whether Ukrainian peacekeepers will have any role in
> > Ukraine remains an open question. While as recently as two
> > months ago Ukraine was actively seeking to help out in the
> > efforts to resolve the Kosovo conflict, its role vis-a-vis
> > NATO has diminished significantly since then.
> >
> > much-publicized guffaw, said on May 2 that the last thing
> > that would help NATO peacekeeping is a "a bunch of
> > apologized for the remark. But with the war now over and
> > with no Ukrainian peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, it looks
> > more and more like Rubin's remark did in fact reflect the
> > true position of NATO on the issue.
Of course it did. The whole US military policy is based on the sense of
American superiority over the "aboriginees" like Russians, Ukrainians,
Greeks, etc.
> Well, now they have a bunch of Russians running around with
> guns, holding up the airstrip and begging for water, etc...
No, the Russians are not running around. They took off under the nose of
NATO "supermen" in Bosnia, drove openly to Kosovo and then quetly
occupied the Pristina airport, while NATO superman generals were getting
their Top Secret updates from CNN International. Now these 200 Russians
are simply staying at the airport while the NATO morons are running
around with guns telling everybody there is no problem.
> Perhaps, it is better that Ukrainians save their energies and
> troops and, now that the Serbs have almost withdrawn from
> Kosovo and the genocide has almost stopped, permit those who
> are already on location to sort the mess out.
First of all, you idiot, Ukrainians and Russians are two different
countries. Second, the Ukrainian culture is by far superior to the
gun-toting school-shooting video-game-playing American culture that
produces the most incompetent diplomats who have to resort to violence
whenever they have to negotiate a deal. Had it been to neutral countries
like Ukraine and Sweden, maybe there would have been no mass murders on
the part of Milosevic-the-butcher nor Clinton-the-bomber-of-children.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
vla...@my-deja.com
maris...@pobox.com (Maris Ozols) wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:02:05 GMT, kirill <kir...@university.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> Just as the Soviets did when they took revenge against the Germans
> civilians at the end of the war. I presume you would condemn that too.
You know, I have vehemently opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO.
But when I saw the footage of the Serbian torture center in Pristina,
shown BTW on the Russian news las night, I almost puked.
Yes, I stilll believe that the Serbs would not have commited these
atrocities had NATO not started bombing them. But no matter how wronged,
the Serbs had absolutely no excuse to commit the atrocities (if these
turn out to be authentic).
So, I have to agree with you: the Serb army seem to have commited the
same atrocities that Nazi Germany and Croatia in WWII. As such, I would
love to see Milosevic and his top 1000 generals slowly tortured to
death.
However, I sure hope that NATO protects innocent Serb civilians the way
Allies protected innocent Germans. Of course, the guilty ones should be
dealt with accordingly...
vla...@my-deja.com
"Igor Sagdeev" <sag...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de wrote in message
> <37698...@news.uni-ulm.de>...
>
> >Gernmans from Sudets and Prussia by the end of the war, it were not
> >sanctioned by USSR, it was completely local invention and USSR felt
> >strongly uneasy about that because Stalin considered the creation of
> >communistic Eastern Germany way more important than nationalistic
> >ambitions of Poles and Chez. But, he simply could do _nothing_
according
>
> Hey, Andrey,
>
> I can well imagine that Stalin could do nothing with such a corageous
and
> resolute
> nation as the Chez (Czechs). But, pray, tell us what Poles have you
> discovered in
> the 1945 Koenigsberg?
>
I second that.
As far as Stalin goes, I suppose he didn't particularly want to see
German civilians killed but he surely didn't lose his precious sleep
when he found out about it. And of course who could forget Katyn.
spea...@netcom.ca
>
> In article <376957...@netcom.ca>,
> spea...@netcom.ca wrote:
> > Igor wrote:
> > >
> > > The last thing that Rubin/Clinton(spit) want is Americans with guns,
> too.
> > >
> > > http://www.thepost.kiev.ua/
> > >
> > > Whether Ukrainian peacekeepers will have any role in
> > > Ukraine remains an open question. While as recently as two
> > > months ago Ukraine was actively seeking to help out in the
> > > efforts to resolve the Kosovo conflict, its role vis-a-vis
> > > NATO has diminished significantly since then.
> > >
> > > U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin, in a
> > > much-publicized guffaw, said on May 2 that the last thing
> > > that would help NATO peacekeeping is a "a bunch of
> > > Ukrainians running around with guns ..." Rubin later
> > > apologized for the remark. But with the war now over and
> > > with no Ukrainian peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, it looks
> > > more and more like Rubin's remark did in fact reflect the
> > > true position of NATO on the issue.
>
> Of course it did. The whole US military policy is based on the sense of
> American superiority over the "aboriginees" like Russians, Ukrainians,
> Greeks, etc.
An truly asinine interpretation, bereft of insight.
Whereas, the technological advantage clearly rests with the
Americans, it is only an attribute of their intelligent approach
to war and not the reason for it.
Perhaps you have confounded the "US military policy" with those
that have/had been traditionally practiced by the Russians, Nazi
Germany, Japanese and of course the Serbs. Such usually involve
the wholesale slaughter and "ethnic cleansing" of the enemy.
No smart ordnance or attention to the articles of the Geneva
Convention here...
>
> > Well, now they have a bunch of Russians running around with
> > guns, holding up the airstrip and begging for water, etc...
>
> No, the Russians are not running around. They took off under the nose of
> NATO "supermen" in Bosnia, drove openly to Kosovo and then quetly
> occupied the Pristina airport, while NATO superman generals were getting
> their Top Secret updates from CNN International. Now these 200 Russians
> are simply staying at the airport while the NATO morons are running
> around with guns telling everybody there is no problem.
An acceptable argument, considering that they are surrounded...
And yet, they are running around in a circle about the perimeter
of their compound, hoping that "NATO morons" will be kind enough
to permit a supply convoy to get through with food and water, not
to speak of gasoline and ammunition, or to allow a plane to
land...
A more crude, but perhaps accurate expression would be to liken
their action to that of a stranger who after defecating on a
door-
mat knocks on the door to ask for toilet paper...
Militarily, they are "the fools who rushed in" and, as far as any
peacekeeping in the center of Europe is concerned, they are not
an asset but a liability. But then, historically, have the
Russians
ever been really interested in peace...?
In this respect, they have a lot in common with Milosevic.
>
> > Perhaps, it is better that Ukrainians save their energies and
> > troops and, now that the Serbs have almost withdrawn from
> > Kosovo and the genocide has almost stopped, permit those who
> > are already on location to sort the mess out.
>
> First of all, you idiot, Ukrainians and Russians are two different
> countries. Second, the Ukrainian culture is by far superior to the
> gun-toting school-shooting video-game-playing American culture that
> produces the most incompetent diplomats who have to resort to violence
> whenever they have to negotiate a deal. Had it been to neutral countries
> like Ukraine and Sweden, maybe there would have been no mass murders on
> the part of Milosevic-the-butcher nor Clinton-the-bomber-of-children.
And you, half-brain, are talking nonsense, again.
Ukrainians and Russians are not "countries' but "peoples"...
Besides, what I have already forgotten about the Ukrainian
culture
probably amounts to more than what you will ever know about it,
or are even capable of comprehending.
And yet, I will admit, based on your last sentence, that there
may be some hope for you yet...
NATO elected not to pursue the Ukrainian initiative, in favour
of the Russian card. That was a mistake because Ukraine would
now play more fairly and be more neutral, which would be more
conducive to a prompt and effective stabilization of the crisis
in Kosovo.
GHC
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de
> Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de wrote in message
> <37698...@news.uni-ulm.de>...
>> Maris, let me tell you following. Stalin tried to stop expulsion of
>>Gernmans from Sudets and Prussia by the end of the war, it were not
>>sanctioned by USSR, it was completely local invention and USSR felt
>>strongly uneasy about that because Stalin considered the creation of
>>communistic Eastern Germany way more important than nationalistic
>>ambitions of Poles and Chez. But, he simply could do _nothing_ according
>>to his own agenda
> Hey, Andrey,
> I can well imagine that Stalin could do nothing with such a corageous and
> resolute
> nation as the Chez (Czechs). But, pray, tell us what Poles have you
> discovered in
> the 1945 Koenigsberg?
> Igor
Koenigsberg is slightly less than entire Eastern Prussia, you may happen
to know that. If not, take a map say from 1890 and look there.
Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad was military base and thus militaries came and
proposed expulsion. As for completely civil areas as Sudets and rest of
nothern Poland Stalin asked MID somehow to check possibilities to suppress
it though without direct order from him. He got answer that it is widely
supported by population movement and only direct order from Moscow could
stop it. Nothing else. Clearly Stalin didn't have guts to do it as he
was professional "majority member". Thus he simply swallowed it. AFAIK in
Zhukov's memuars there are some references on these events.
kirill
>
> In article <376973a3...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> maris...@pobox.com (Maris Ozols) wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:02:05 GMT, kirill <kir...@university.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >While the KLA carries out a new genocide, safe under NATO protection.
> > >You live in a world of black and white.
> > >
> > Just as the Soviets did when they took revenge against the Germans
> > civilians at the end of the war. I presume you would condemn that too.
>
> You know, I have vehemently opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO.
> But when I saw the footage of the Serbian torture center in Pristina,
> shown BTW on the Russian news las night, I almost puked.
Did it ever cross your mind that if Serb forces were covering up
evidence elsewhere (as reported by western media, video showing
burning piles of documents) that they would clean out this
torture chamber too? Come on, those absurd implements with
cyrillic letters on them. The fraud makes me puke.
>
> Yes, I stilll believe that the Serbs would not have commited these
> atrocities had NATO not started bombing them. But no matter how wronged,
> the Serbs had absolutely no excuse to commit the atrocities (if these
> turn out to be authentic).
>
> So, I have to agree with you: the Serb army seem to have commited the
> same atrocities that Nazi Germany and Croatia in WWII. As such, I would
> love to see Milosevic and his top 1000 generals slowly tortured to
> death.
These allegations come from the same mass media and NATO officials
that make no reference to KLA dead when talking about graves in
Kosovo. By this one deliberate omission they taint the rest
of what they claim.
> However, I sure hope that NATO protects innocent Serb civilians the way
> Allies protected innocent Germans. Of course, the guilty ones should be
> dealt with accordingly...
firewell
independent of Yugoslavia, so what they need is to get rid of the damn
Serbs who had the nerve to stick around in Kosovo. AFAIK, they are
successfully accomplishing this by threats and intimidation (so far).
More violence is yet to come (like the attack on the Serb monastery).
By the most conservative estimates, the number of KLA fighers is
20,000. Disarming 100 of them accomplishes absolutely nothing.
In article <37719db1....@news.bctel.ca>,
ro...@mindprod.com wrote:
> >>>While the KLA carries out a new genocide, safe under NATO
protection.
>
> NATO has so far disarmed 100 KLA. This is not exactly what I would
> called aiding and abetting genocide. How many serbs have been killed
> since the occupation? Is it more or less than before the war? If it
> is less, then NATO is doing a better job than the Serb army at
> curtailing the KLA.
>
> Stop the Makah Whale Sacrifice <http://mindprod.com/whale.html>
> --
> Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
> -30-
>
firewell
spea...@netcom.ca wrote:
> vla...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <376957...@netcom.ca>,
> > spea...@netcom.ca wrote:
> > > Igor wrote:
> > Of course it did. The whole US military policy is based on the sense
of
> > American superiority over the "aboriginees" like Russians,
Ukrainians,
> > Greeks, etc.
>
> An truly asinine interpretation, bereft of insight.
>
> Whereas, the technological advantage clearly rests with the
> Americans, it is only an attribute of their intelligent
approach
> to war and not the reason for it.
>
> Perhaps you have confounded the "US military policy" with those
> that have/had been traditionally practiced by the Russians,
Nazi
> Germany, Japanese and of course the Serbs. Such usually involve
> the wholesale slaughter and "ethnic cleansing" of the enemy.
> No smart ordnance or attention to the articles of the Geneva
> Convention here...
If you tried actually studying military history, instead watching the
History Channel kind of garbage, you'd know that for the countries you
mentioned slaughter is not a "traditional practice" but is caused by
military necessity. For countries like the US, who can bringing
overwhelming strength at the moment of their choosing, no such necessity
ever existed. Nevertheless, the US also has it's share of atrocities --
Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. The conquest of Philipines during
the Spanish war also comes to mind. The Americans obviously have a
military superiority complex, which comes from being victorious
practically all the time.
As if "peacekeeping" has ever been the purpose of the war... Before
Russians came into Pristina they had nothing. Now, no matter how it
turns out, their political position in Kosovo will be better than
before. As to defecating -- why not, they whole house was covered with
NATO shit before them...
Roedy Green
>
>Did it ever cross your mind that if Serb forces were covering up
>evidence elsewhere (as reported by western media, video showing
>burning piles of documents) that they would clean out this
>torture chamber too? Come on, those absurd implements with
>cyrillic letters on them. The fraud makes me puke.
So the sum total of your argument that the evidence is fraudulent is
that the Serb butchers would have been more careful to cover up???
That WOULD be an interesting argument in ordinary jurisprudence.
M'lord, this marijuana found in my client's car was clearly planted.
My client is a clever criminal and never would have been so careless
as to hide it so ineffectively.
Roedy Green
<yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>There is a number of court proceedings around the US right now related to
>torture by police. In some of the instances, the victims have become
>handicapped. (I am not saying it justifies torture, I am saying that
>Americans have no rights to moralize people for committing crimes under the
>threat of foreign occupation.)
1. There is a process for legal redress in the USA. Is there any
chance in Yugoslavian law?
2. What percentage of American citizens claim to have been tortured or
to have witness torture by police? (I separate torture from
brutality.) What proportion in Kosovo?
We are talking about the same problem, but on totally different scale.
The problem in Kosovo is that the torture was state-sanctioned.
Roedy Green
<yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>The problem with NATO's accusations is that so many of them have been
>shown wrong, that I find it difficult to believe NATO anymore
Please enumerate. Nobody has shown me one yet other than some initial
story that was refined or corrected within a few days.
I forgive that. In the Columbine shooting initially the story was
there were three gunmen. It was corrected within a few days to two. I
don't think there was any malice intended. Similarly, I would expect
some errors from NATO, especially when you consider the number of
people involved.
On the other hand, Serbia has posted some lulu lies -- like the huge
numbers of NATO aircraft downed, mysteriously without any fragments,
or the motive for refugees leaving Kosovo, that they were fleeing NATO
bombs which they all denied.
Mihajlo L.
written on those bats didn't make any sense.
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:14:38 GMT, kirill <kir...@university.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >Did it ever cross your mind that if Serb forces were covering up
> >evidence elsewhere (as reported by western media, video showing
> >burning piles of documents) that they would clean out this
> >torture chamber too? Come on, those absurd implements with
> >cyrillic letters on them. The fraud makes me puke.
>
> So the sum total of your argument that the evidence is fraudulent is
> that the Serb butchers would have been more careful to cover up???
>
> That WOULD be an interesting argument in ordinary jurisprudence.
>
> M'lord, this marijuana found in my client's car was clearly planted.
> My client is a clever criminal and never would have been so careless
> as to hide it so ineffectively.
>
Roedy Green
>BTW, Kirill, anyone else who can read Cyrillic. If you noticed, what was
>written on those bats didn't make any sense.
Did you see the bat allegedly enscribed with "mouth shutter" in Serb?
You expected Shakespear from torturers?
Roedy Green
>>written on those bats didn't make any sense.
By that do you mean there were just random letters [like initials] or
strings of incoherent words like an Internet rant?
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj
Ok. The Russians troops are in Kosovo.
So what is the best way they can be used?
My opinion is that there are two tasks for which they
are especially suited.
1) Since the Russians are respected and trusted by the
Serbs, they should be employed in disarming of the Serb
irregulars and police forces. They should also be given
the active policing duties. The other troops could then be
employed in support functions of repatriating the refugees
and repairing the infrastructure which NATO destroyed by
their bombing.
2) The Russians should be put in charge of clearing the
minefields planted by the Serbs. I think they are the best
people for this task because I believe that the mines used
by the Serbs are most probably of Soviet/Russian design and
maybe even manufacture, So the Russians are likely to be
the most familiar with these mines.
--Rostyk
Eugene Holman
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj <urj...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
Yes! This would be an easy way for Russia to show that it can play a
central role as part of the solution rather than as part of the problem.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
dol...@golden.net
HAD
Anything for a free ride
dol...@golden.net wrote in message ...
>I makes sense so I doubt if NATO will go for it.
>
>
flight of the phoenix
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok. The Russians troops are in Kosovo.
> > So what is the best way they can be used?
> >
> > My opinion is that there are two tasks for which they
> > are especially suited.
> > 1) Since the Russians are respected and trusted by the
> > Serbs, they should be employed in disarming of the Serb
> > irregulars and police forces.
>
> nothing to disarm the KLA?? Rostyk, you are genius.
YOU'VE ALSO NOTICED THAT ONE, HAVEN'T YOU? :)
HE'S A LYING FUCK AS WELL...
ASK HIM ABOUT HOW HE "CLEVERLY" WAS SAYING THAT I WAS ANOTHER
ENTITY AT THE TIME HE WAS POSTINNG HIS *LYING* SHIT.
HE KNOWS...
YO ROSTYK YOU STUPID "HUJ", YOU REMEMBER THAT?
OR DID YOU "FORGET" AGAIN? AROUND THE TIME YOU WERE
CHASING THAT *UN-DOUCHED* UKRAINIAN "PIZDA", "OLGA/OLHA"
ON INTERENET, RIGHT? :)
WANT HER ADDRESS AND NUMBER?
IGOR CHUDOV DIDN'T. CHICKEN SHIT "MOSKAL"!!!
(THINK HE GOT SCARED ABOUT HAVING TO HOSE IT OUT FIRST
AND USE A BOX OF BAKING SODA FOR THE ACIDS IN IT.
WHEREAS YOU HAVE NO SUCH FEARS, NOW DO YOU ROSTYK?)
>
> Today on CNN, NATO searching an apartment of a Serb, no guns found. Next
> picture, KLA marching on the streets of Pristina, their flag high in the
> sky.
>
> They should also be given
> > the active policing duties.
>
> Nato has created the mess in Kosovo and the Russians now should risk their
> lifes to police it. Another great idea.
WELL... JUDGING HOW IT WAS PLANNED AND DONE...
AND CONSIDERING HOW MUCH MARKET VALUE THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
HAS HISTORICALLY PLACED ON RUSSIAN LIVES..
THEY VERY STUPIDLY CHARGED IN, DIDN'T THEY? :)
MOST IMPRESSIVE HOW THEY WENT ABOUT IT.
WHY IS IT RUSSIANS HAVE NEVER LEARNED THE WORD "LOGISTICS"?
THEY GOT THERE.
HURRAH!!!!
THEN..... "hmm... what about food and water, now?
ammunition might come in handy too.."
>
> The other troops could then be
> > employed in support functions of repatriating the refugees
> > and repairing the infrastructure which NATO destroyed by
> > their bombing.
> > 2) The Russians should be put in charge of clearing the
> > minefields planted by the Serbs. I think they are the best
> > people for this task because I believe that the mines used
> > by the Serbs are most probably of Soviet/Russian design and
> > maybe even manufacture, So the Russians are likely to be
> > the most familiar with these mines.
>
> Why don't you do this job?
BECAUSE ROSTYK'S ASS IS IN NORTH CAROLINA,
THE WAY YOUR "SRAKA'S" IS IN IOWA. THAT'S WHY.
> Why should Russian soldiers risk their lifes?
SEE ABOVE ABOUT "MARKET VALUE".
RUSSIAN LIVES ARE *CHEAP*!!!
NEVER WORTH MUCH...
YOU WANT TO RISK HUMAN LIFE INSTEAD?!
HAVE YOU NO ETHICS?
> They didn't bomb Kosovo, they didn't instigate the hatred between Serbs
> and Albanians in Kosovo. And finally, they did not arm and train KLA that
> now threatens to kill them.
SO WHY'D THEY RUN IN SO FAST?
AND SO ILL PREPARED AS WELL...
THEY STUPID OR SOMETHING?
TELL ME! AMERICA AND NATO WANTS TO KNOW!
PHOENIX
>
> > --Rostyk
> >
> >
> >
beercat
Dima Klenchin wrote:
> In article <37828e56....@news.bctel.ca>, ro...@mindprod.com wrote:
> :On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:14:04 -0500, "Y. Perhunkova"
> :<yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> :
> :>The problem with NATO's accusations is that so many of them have been
> :>shown wrong, that I find it difficult to believe NATO anymore
> :
> :Please enumerate. Nobody has shown me one yet other than some initial
> :story that was refined or corrected within a few days.
>
> "500,000 albanian men of military age are missing and feared to be dead" -
> the stuff was making headlines for several days in all major media.
> Needless to say, it is absurd. Of course, as crude as it is, the
> propaganda always left an excuse: "feared" does not mean "are",
> "maybe promptly included in other places, the wording is always such
> that no retraction is ever necessary, etc, etc.
>
> A lie, however, remains a lie, particularly when it's pragmatic side is
> so obvious.
>
> - Dima
>
How about the sneaky way they dropped the original estimate of Albanians
killed. Remember when the newspapers were full of the 200,000 number. Now
they claim NATO has increased the estimate to 10,000. These guys are really
a joke, yet NATO supporters apparently will swallow anything NATO ejaculates.
Eugene Holman
"Y. Perhunkova" <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> So the Russians should be used to disarm the Serbs while the KFOR does
> nothing to disarm the KLA?? Rostyk, you are genius.
The Russians helped negotiate the settlement and they have *insisted* in
being involved in the peace-keeping operation.
>
> Nato has created the mess in Kosovo and the Russians now should risk their
> lifes to police it. Another great idea.
Offcial Russia, specifically president Boris Yeltsin, Balkan envoy Viktor
Chernomyrdin, and defense minister Sergei Ivanonov, disagrees with you
strongly.
>
> Why don't you do this job? Why should Russian soldiers risk their lifes?
> They didn't bomb Kosovo, they didn't instigate the hatred between Serbs
> and Albanians in Kosovo. And finally, they did not arm and train KLA that
> now threatens to kill them.
>
Russia wants desperately to be taken seriously as at least a major regional
power. That also means taking initiative, demonstrating leadership, and
otherwise being a responsible member of the international community. So far
they have demonstrated that they are up to the task, even if they have
shown some awkward behavior.
Reasons of sentiment and traditionally close linguistic and cultural ties
between Russia and Serbia also justify Russia's involvement in Kosovo. It's
not as simple matter of the Albainians being the 'good guys' and the Serbs
the 'bad guys'. Russia is being expected to be as objective as possible,
but also to be the main advocate of the legitimate interests of the Serbian
population in Kosovo.
This is the new Russia's debut on the international scene. I certainly wish
it success.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Y. Perhunkova wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
>>
>> Ok. The Russians troops are in Kosovo.
>> So what is the best way they can be used?
>>
>> My opinion is that there are two tasks for which they
>> are especially suited.
>> 1) Since the Russians are respected and trusted by the
>> Serbs, they should be employed in disarming of the Serb
>> irregulars and police forces.
>
> So the Russians should be used to disarm the Serbs while the KFOR
> does nothing to disarm the KLA?? Rostyk, you are genius.
>
> Today on CNN, NATO searching an apartment of a Serb, no guns found.
> Next picture, KLA marching on the streets of Pristina, their flag
> high in the sky.
Ok. The Russian troops are in Kosovo, and I am trying to suggest
how they can and should make themselves most useful.
>> They should also be given the active policing duties.
>
> Nato has created the mess in Kosovo and the Russians now should risk their
> lifes to police it. Another great idea.
Turning the active policing duties over to the Russians will certainly
ensure that the KLA is also disarmed :) and pacified.
I admit that there is a slight danger that both sides would not
be treated equally by the Russians, and some oversight might be
necessary.
>> The other troops could then be employed in support functions
>> of repatriating the refugees and repairing the infrastructure
>> which NATO destroyed by their bombing.
>> 2) The Russians should be put in charge of clearing the
>> minefields planted by the Serbs. I think they are the best
>> people for this task because I believe that the mines used
>> by the Serbs are most probably of Soviet/Russian design and
>> maybe even manufacture, So the Russians are likely to be
>> the most familiar with these mines.
>
> Why don't you do this job?
Tsk. tsk Yelena.
> Why should Russian soldiers risk their lifes?
Because they, at Yeltzins orders, have been sent to join the NATO
peacekeeping forces. They are soldiers. Soldiers are sent by their
rulers in harms way.
Why otherwise are they there?
> They didn't bomb Kosovo, they didn't instigate the hatred between Serbs
> and Albanians in Kosovo. And finally, they did not arm and train KLA that
> now threatens to kill them.
Again, Why are they there, if not to help with the pacification of
Kosovo?
(As to your assertion that the Russians didn't instigate the hatred
between the Serbs and Albanians. Well they supported Slobodan's
visions of a greater Serbia --> Serbian steps wrt. Kosovo autonomy
in 1989 --> Kosovar protests --> Serbian repressions ...
The Russian services knew what they were doing and did so quite
aware of the consequences and intentioanlly.
It's similar to Russian behaviour with Saddam in Iraq)
I wrote trying to make practical positive suggestions.
You, in your reply, did not provide any alternatives.
I invite you to provide your explanation of why Yeltzin sent
these Russian boys into Kosovo, and to suggest what you think
is a positive role for them to play in this mission.
> > --Rostyk
> >
P.s. I have yet to see any postings from you on the subject
of the fresh mass graves etc. that are now, reportedly , being
discovered in Kosovo
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, flight of the phoenix wrote:
> "Y. Perhunkova" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:
> >
>>> .....................
> >
> > So the Russians should be used to disarm the Serbs while the KFOR does
> > nothing to disarm the KLA?? Rostyk, you are genius.
>
> YOU'VE ALSO NOTICED THAT ONE, HAVEN'T YOU? :)
>
> HE'S A LYING FUCK AS WELL...
> ASK HIM ABOUT HOW HE "CLEVERLY" WAS SAYING THAT I WAS ANOTHER
> ENTITY AT THE TIME HE WAS POSTINNG HIS *LYING* SHIT.
>
> HE KNOWS...
>
> YO ROSTYK YOU STUPID "HUJ", YOU REMEMBER THAT?
> OR DID YOU "FORGET" AGAIN? AROUND THE TIME YOU WERE
> CHASING THAT *UN-DOUCHED* UKRAINIAN "PIZDA", "OLGA/OLHA"
> ON INTERENET, RIGHT? :)
>
> WANT HER ADDRESS AND NUMBER?
> IGOR CHUDOV DIDN'T. CHICKEN SHIT "MOSKAL"!!!
>
> (THINK HE GOT SCARED ABOUT HAVING TO HOSE IT OUT FIRST
> AND USE A BOX OF BAKING SODA FOR THE ACIDS IN IT.
> WHEREAS YOU HAVE NO SUCH FEARS, NOW DO YOU ROSTYK?)
>
My dear (Alex Thurston?) writing as PHOENIX.
I am sorry to see that your condition is deteriorating again Alex.
The cycles of your malady seem to be speeding up.
I know that you claim multiple personalities. But why then don't you
drop this one.
The rest of your posting is crude; but passable, if only you
hadn't insisted on using all Caps.
Wishing you a speedy recovery
--Rostyk
vla...@my-deja.com
"Mihajlo L." <mih...@beer.com> wrote:
> BTW, Kirill, anyone else who can read Cyrillic. If you noticed, what
was
> written on those bats didn't make any sense.
This is getting interesting. Can you give us examples of what was
written on them and where your information comes from?
If this is a British fabrication, I will lose my last hope for humanity.
vla...@my-deja.com
ro...@mindprod.com wrote:
> >>BTW, Kirill, anyone else who can read Cyrillic. If you noticed, what
was
> >>written on those bats didn't make any sense.
>
> strings of incoherent words like an Internet rant?
Or some random cyrillic letters than an Englishman would enscribe to
forge what he thinks would serve as "evidence" that it was done by
Serbs?
vla...@my-deja.com
> > > > U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin, in a
> > > > much-publicized guffaw, said on May 2 that the last thing
> > > > that would help NATO peacekeeping is a "a bunch of
> > > > Ukrainians running around with guns ..." Rubin later
> > > > apologized for the remark. But with the war now over and
> > > > with no Ukrainian peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, it looks
> > > > more and more like Rubin's remark did in fact reflect the
> > > > true position of NATO on the issue.
> >
> > Of course it did. The whole US military policy is based on the sense
of
> > American superiority over the "aboriginees" like Russians,
Ukrainians,
> > Greeks, etc.
>
> An truly asinine interpretation, bereft of insight.
What language is this in?
> Whereas, the technological advantage clearly rests with the
> Americans, it is only an attribute of their intelligent
approach
> to war and not the reason for it.
Ahh? How does that relate to the fact that all immigrants to America are
painfully aware of: Americans' sense of their cultural superiority over
the rest of the world?
> Perhaps you have confounded the "US military policy" with those
> that have/had been traditionally practiced by the Russians,
> Nazi
> Germany, Japanese
I wouldn't know. Germans are not Russian allies but America's allies.
Russia defeated Nazi Germany.
> Such usually involve
> the wholesale slaughter and "ethnic cleansing" of the enemy.
Which acts are you referring to? The most bartbaric act of nuking
millions of innocent people just because they were racially inferior
"Japs"? The internment of Japanese Americans in camps?
The extermination of Native Americans?
The fact that while the rest of the World was enjoying civilization, a
certain racist country had millions of slaves based exclusively on the
color of their skin?
Or Leutenant Kelly's extermination of Vietnamese villages?
> > > Well, now they have a bunch of Russians running around with
> > > guns, holding up the airstrip and begging for water, etc...
> >
> > No, the Russians are not running around. They took off under the
nose of
> > NATO "supermen" in Bosnia, drove openly to Kosovo and then quetly
> > occupied the Pristina airport, while NATO superman generals were
getting
> > their Top Secret updates from CNN International. Now these 200
Russians
> > are simply staying at the airport while the NATO morons are running
> > around with guns telling everybody there is no problem.
>
> An acceptable argument, considering that they are surrounded...
>
> And yet, they are running around in a circle about the
perimeter
> of their compound,
No. They were standing in the center of the circle, while the NATO
idiots were running around the perimeter. You should have gone to Europe
to learn so basic geometry...
> hoping that "NATO morons" will be kind enough
> to permit a supply convoy to get through with food and water,
not
> to speak of gasoline and ammunition, or to allow a plane to
> land...
NO. Actually, it was NATO morons who could not land any planes. Russia
was going to land some 5 thousand paratroopers and all the supplies
that they needed. However, Yugoslavia and Russia do not border each
other, and thus Russian planes would have to fly over another country.
Unlike USA, Russia respects other countries' air space and asked
Bulgaria for a corridor bu twas denied. If USA were in Russia's place,
it would have bombed Sophia (actually, it bombed Sophia just a month ago
or so anyway), but Russia respected international law.
But then again, I don't expect you barbarians to understand. Your notion
of "diplomacy" is to bomb the other side and to hope that Russian
diplomats will bail you out with a peace deal.
> Besides, what I have already forgotten about the Ukrainian
> culture
> probably amounts to more than what you will ever know about it,
> or are even capable of comprehending.
Are you a CIA spy with a severe case of "starcheskiy marazm"?
> And yet, I will admit, based on your last sentence, that there
> may be some hope for you yet...
>
> NATO elected not to pursue the Ukrainian initiative, in favour
> of the Russian card. That was a mistake because Ukraine would
> now play more fairly and be more neutral, which would be more
> conducive to a prompt and effective stabilization of the crisis
> in Kosovo.
Or, as the Ukrainian President Kuchma put it on the recent PBS
interview, "Ukraine would be interested in joining NATO. However, at
present I believe that the peace-keeping troops in Kosovo should exclude
NATO forces because of their reputation and their recent actions, you
know..."