Miroslav Antić


Archive for mart 2017


leave a comment »



11000 Beograd, Zmaj Jovina 15

Phone. 063 / 495-051, vladarsk

Br. 3 6/1 7 – 14th III – 7525 (201 7)


Avenija 19a, Vladimira Popovića 4 0 / V

Novi Beograd: Tel: +381.11.3083200
Fax: +381.11.3083201
E-mail: delegation-serbia


Dear representatives of the European Union in Serbia, please, on behalf of the 800,000 exiled Serbs from the Republic of Serbian Krajina and the Croatian – from 1990 to 1995 and for the truth about the Croatian crimes of genocide in World War II, when the Croatian army killed more than a million Serbs and tens of thousands of Jews and Roma to take into account that this is the truth of both Croatian genocide, as presented to a group of Serbian prosecutors from the Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatian, a lawsuit out of court in Chicago has handed the US Ambassador to Zagreb – Croatian presidents, Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. So, the judicial prosecution of Chicago, in the United Državamaje filed a request that the Republic of Croatia reparations payment, Serbs, Roma and Jews as war crimes under international law, no statute of limitations.

What is important in this court procedure is the reaction of the present Croatian officials, who said that the Republic of Croatia is not the successor of the fascist Independent State of Croatian and Croatia is still applied uniforms, ranks and His anti sayings Croatian fascist armies in World War II. To avoid this truth, today Croatian statesmen declared that the Republic of Croatia is not the successor of the fascist Croatian, but to be the successor to the anti-fascist movement during World War II, established by the Communists and the decisions of Parliament and the Government of Yugoslavia in 1945.

Please that the institutions of the European Union to take into account this statement by Croatian officials, as is true only to that decision in 1945 of Yugoslavia, Croatia declared a federal unit, in which two equal Croats and Serbs. In such a state, equal rights had Croats and Serbs – the national state and its ethnic and historical territories.

Thus Croatia was a multinational, not only the state of the Croatian people. It was like Switzerland and Belgium. Since in Belgium could one nation (Walloons) to seize statehood status to another nation (Flemish), as the European Union has allowed that the statehood status Croats seize the Serbs? This is Croatia did in 1990, when the Serbs declared nedržavotvornim people and legitimize the Serbs only national minority in Croatia. Thereafter, they were expelled from the Serbian ethnic and cal the country in 1995.

It is obvious that Croatia since 1990, the program returned the fascist Independent State of Croatian – Hitler’s faithful allies from 1941 to 1945, as the expulsion of 800,000 Serbs from 1990 to 1995, the Croats conducted serious crime of genocide against the Serbs, how to i did in world war II.

In addition to these irrefutable facts and in the spirit of the content of the complaint against the Croatian in the United States, we are confident that you will ask its members Hrvats to facilitate the return of displaced Serbs in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, with the return of their fixed assets and all human rights, as well as the Serbian law on its own statehood, what have i Flemings and Walloons in Belgium.

I offer you one crucial fact – the Serbs had a statehood with the Constitution and in Austria from 1630 to 1861, but at that time the Croats had their own state institutions.

With respect,

Milorad Buha, Prime Minister Landscapes


Written by Mika

14. marta 2017. at 10:09

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Bungled Intervention In Kosovo Risks Unraveling: A New Deal Needed For Peace

leave a comment »


Bungled Intervention In Kosovo Risks Unraveling: A New Deal Needed For Peace

Doug Bandow

Washington’s policy in the Balkans never made much sense. The U.S. wanted to keep some nations together and dismantle others. American officials deplored ethnic cleansing in some cases and ignored other instances.

The only principle which explained Washington’s actions was that the Serbs always lose. With Kosovo and Serbia now shouting threats of war, it’s time for the U.S. and Europe to take a more even-handed approach.

A train from Russia, decorated with the Serbian flag and artwork featuring Serbian churches, monasteries and medieval towns, plans to begin trips traveling from Belgrade to Kosovska Mitrovica. (OLIVER BUNIC/AFP/Getty Images)

Yugoslavia was an artificial creation of the Versailles Treaty. It survived after World War II due to the repression of Communist dictator Josef Broz Tito and fear of invasion by the Soviet Union. But Tito died in 1980 and the Soviet Union collapsed a decade later, eroding the cement which held together the ethnic and religious polyglot nation.

In the ensuing political vacuum Slobodan Milosevic won power by playing the Serbian nationalist card. Other ethnic groups responded by establishing their own nations. The Balkans erupted.

The first Bush administration originally supported Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity, but Germany recognized Slovenia’s secession, spurring Yugoslavia’s serial break-up. The U.S. and Europeans supported creation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (divided among Muslims, ethnic Serbs, and ethnic Croats) and Croatia (with a large ethnic Serb population in the Krajina region). However, after encouraging the break-up of Yugoslavia, the allies suddenly opposed secession of ethnic Croats and Serbs from Bosnia and ethnic Serbs from Croatia.

While Serb atrocities were common and noteworthy, Muslims and Croats were not innocents. Nevertheless, Washington and Brussels expected ethnic Serb minorities to politely suffer under other ethnic majorities, even when faced with ethnic cleansing. For instance, Croatia, buttressed by U.S. aid, launched a large-scale military offensive against the Krajina Serbs, causing hundreds of thousands to flee. Years later I visited the region: the rural landscape was dotted with abandoned farms and ruined Orthodox churches, while the façades of urban buildings were pockmarked with bullet holes. However, Washington refused to acknowledge, let alone criticize, this episode of ruthless ethnic cleansing.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (C) smiles as she walks out of a store named in her honor, which is located next to an unseen statue of her husband, former US president Bill Clinton, on a stop driving from the airport to Pristina. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

The bias persists today. Last week Washington sanctioned Milorad Dodik, President of Republika Srpska, the ethnic Serb section of tripartite Bosnia, for “obstructing” the U.S.-backed Dayton Accords, which forced ethnic Serbs to remain in Muslim-dominated Bosnia. Dodik responded by calling the U.S. ambassador to Bosnia “a proven enemy.” Certainly Washington rates that title from ethnic Serbs everywhere.

Kosovo became the next Balkan crisis. Intimately tied to Serbian history and culture, the region’s population shifted over the years with an influx of ethnic Albanians, creating a large majority. An insurgency arose in response to Belgrade’s repressive rule. However, U.S. officials originally denounced the guerrillas as "terrorists." But ethnic Albanians were media savvy. In the summer of 1998 I met with a top aide to local opposition leader Ibrahim Rugova, who later became Kosovo’s first president. The former told me that ethnic Albanians needed Western military intervention, and that required getting the conflict onto CNN. Hence the sometimes dubious atrocity claims amid a brutal counter-insurgency campaign that killed civilians as well as combatants.

So the U.S. and NATO entered the war, despite the absence of any security threat to America or Europe. The Milosevic government responded by expelling thousands of ethnic Albanians. After the victorious allies ousted Serb security forces, the triumphant ethnic Albanian Kosovars launched their own campaign of ethnic cleansing, kicking out around a quarter of a million Serbs, Roma, and others. The U.S. and Europeans, though occupying the territory, did little. A few years later another round of ethnic Albanian violence drove many of the remaining ethnic Serbs into camps or to Kosovo’s north, in which a majority of residents were ethnic Serbs. Pristina acquired a dubious reputation, essentially a gangster statelet ruled by war criminals. It was a black hole for organized crime, where Saudi Arabia, in particular, underwrote efforts to radicalize heretofore moderate and secular Muslims.

There are worse places to live and Serbia has its own problems, but Kosovo has not earned the right to hold ethnic Serbs in political bondage. For instance, Freedom House’s 2016 “Freedom in the World” report rated Kosovo as only “partly free,” with middling scores for both political rights and civil liberties. Among other problems, “journalists report frequent harassment and intimidation, and occasional physical attacks.” Crimes against non-ethnic Albanians are rarely prosecuted. The courts suffer from political interference and bribery. Corruption facilitates human trafficking and more.

Human Rights Watch said “human rights protections progressed slowly” last year, with “serious abuses” remaining. For instance, there were “threats and attacks against journalists.” The U.S. State Department put together a 36-page human rights report. Among the problems: “Reported police mistreatment of detainees; substandard physical conditions in prisons; drug abuse, corruption, and favoritism in prisons; lengthy pretrial detention and judicial inefficiency resulting in mistrials.” There also were restrictions on religious liberty, intimidation of the media, and attacks on displaced people returning to their homes. A European Commission report last year found many of the same problems: “slow and inefficient” courts, “insufficient accountability of judicial officials,” and extensive corruption.

Written by Mika

6. marta 2017. at 10:23

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Mattis NATO ultimatum stutters European collective defence moods

leave a comment »

Home » Air, Land and Sea Defence Services » Articles

Mattis NATO ultimatum stutters European collective defence moods

Contributor: Pola Zafra-Davis

Posted: 02/22/2017

Comments on the US’s conditional commitment to NATO by Def. Secretary General Jim Mattis, in spite of later reassurances from himself and VP Mike Pence, have been met with strong reaction by European leaders.

Responses so far have ranged from agreement and support from the UK’s Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon, to the steadfast resolve of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel in stating that Germany does not plan to accelerate the 2% spending goal sooner than the 2024 deadline agreed upon during the 2016 NATO summit in Wales.

Reaffirmations of US support in NATO soon followed. But despite Mattis, Tillerson and Pence’s attempts to dampen anxiety, the renewed comments on burden-sharing signals uncertainty for European leaders on how much they can depend on the alliance and the Trump administration. The American January and February statements to the press in Brussels and in Munich come at a time when Europe’s defence and security is being stretched to new extremes between refugee migration in the South and a resurgent Russia in the East.

Timeline of Events

Last Wednesday, General Mattis rattled Europe by issuing what appeared to be an ultimatum for the NATO 2% GDP benchmark of defence spending. The statement “No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values…Americans cannot care more for your children’s future security than you do” was made during a meeting with NATO defence ministers in Brussels. Mattis also gave a strict deadline that the spending has to reach 2% by the end of the year or the US would ‘moderate’ its support in NATO operations.

The pressure towards an increase in NATO contributions came a month after President Trump’s described NATO as obsolete during an interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper and the Times of London.

"Number one, it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago," he said. "Number two, the countries weren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying".

Allegations by the US on European under-spending on defence came after NATO President Jens Stoltenberg’s encouraging words at a pre-ministerial press conference. He claimed that, overall, NATO members have increased their defence spending by 3.8% from last year an increase of approximately $10bn. But presently, only four European NATO members have met the 2% guideline: Estonia, the UK, Greece and Poland.

In a global context, relative to other global powers, Europe’s defence budget has been in steady decline since 2005. From 2005 to 2015, overall defence spending in the EU 27 dropped 11% and landed at it lowest levels of GDP contribution at an average of 1.4%. This amounts to decreases of 2bn euro per year over the past 10 years. This sits is in stark contrast to the US contribution, which has invested twice as much in defence spending, contributing 4.5% of its GDP.

US attempts to reassure European Allies at the Munich Security Conference

After the NATO Brussels meeting, the Munich Security Conference (17-19 February) saw Mattis take a less severe tone. Mattis addressed the audience of military leaders and lawmakers on Friday, saying “The reality is that American security is permanently tied to the security of Europe”

He added that “it is a fair demand that all who benefit from the best alliance in the world carry their proportionate share of the necessary costs to defend our freedoms."

At the same conference, Pence reassured European Allies on Saturday:

"Today, on behalf of President Trump, I bring you this assurance. The United States of America strongly supports NATO and will be unwavering in our commitment to our transatlantic alliance."

Participants have noted that despite the calming tones, the high-level US delegation made no mention of Russia, Iran, Syria, or China. This has supported some commentators’ previous views that the Alliance has lost its shared values, a sense of purpose or common vision. Instead, more cynical voices view NATO as being used on a transactional basis between the US and European countries with Europe ‘buying’ the US’s commitment through defence spending.

On Saturday 18 Feburary, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault lamented in a tweet that Michael Pence spoke of unity at the Munich Conference but made no mention of the European Union. The omission of Europe’s supranational political and economic bloc from the dialogue indicates a division in transatlantic attitude.

Europe…poised to stand on its own?

Image courtesy of the European Defence Agency

Juncker followed Mattis’s statements with a call to “bundle their (Europeans’) defence spending better and spend the money more efficiently,” while also denouncing the ultimatum by remarking, “I am very much against letting ourselves be pushed into this."

Even prior to Trump’s electoral victory last November, European NATO members already started developing action plans for greater defence cooperation amongst themselves. European leaders have touted Europe-wide initiatives since summer 2016 and the September Bratislava Summit. These initiatives included plans to create an EU defence planning headquarters, an increase in R&D cooperation in defence technologies, and the creation of a European defence fund.

On November 2016, the EU Commission unveiled the European Defence Action Plan (EDAP), a three-pillared plan to a) launch a European Defence Fund, b) foster investments in defence supply chains and c) reinforcing a Single Market for Defence.

The key difference between the US’s strongly worded suggestions and Europe’s planning was that the message of last years’ European talks, proposals and declarations were based on increasing the efficiency rather than the overall amount of national defence spending.

The cries for burden-sharing have existed in NATO memory since the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1992, when the (now-defunct) Western European Union lacked the material capacity to resolve the crisis. The memory of the US intervention in the Kosovo crisis, NATO’s Operation Allied Force in 1999, and the ISAF NATO mission in Afghanistan, further drove home the imbalance of military capabilities. Europe is comparatively lacking in strategic transport, command and control, ISR and ground support.

France and Germany are now collaborating on a joint-fleet of C-I30Js

Perhaps as a compound reaction to Trump’s radical executive orders towards migration, remarks on NATO obsolescence and his renewed line on NATO defence spending; France and Germany have made clear their cooperative acts. The two countries formally announced at the NATO summit, the creation of a joint-fleet of Lockheed Martin C-130J transport planes to later join a Dutch-led fleet of Airbus A330 tanker planes. Belgium and Norway are also being courted to join the group. German Defence Minister, Ursula von der Leyon had hoped to unveil the plan to Gen. Mattis as evidence of Europe’s commitment to NATO. This comes alongside other projects with Norway, Romania and the Czech Republic.

Threats to lessen the US’s role in NATO places the pre-existing Berlin-Plus Agreements in peril. These 2002 agreements allowed European members of NATO, access to NATO (importantly, the US’s) platforms and weapons to perform European missions where NATO chooses not to intervene. Since 2002, Berlin Plus has been used twice — Once in Operation Concordia in the Former Yugoslav Republic in Macedonia, and a second time in EUFOR Althea in Bosnia & Herzegovina.

While it is one thing to say that the US will not get involved in missions within Europe’s geographic interests, it is another to potentially deny access to the US’s arsenal as part of the Alliance-commitment. Despite increasing speeches on autonomy and self-sufficiency, current plans for European-specific defence were shared with the public as a basis to ultimately complement and strengthen overall NATO capabilities.

The startlingly stringent tone of the Trump administration is in contrast to the EU-NATO joint declaration signed in Warsaw in July 2016, many months before Trump took office. The declaration was signed by the President of the European Commission, President of the European Council and the NATO secretary general, and for European leaders, symbolises support in the implementation of the EDAP and the Implementation Plan of the EU Global Strategy in the area of Defence and Security.

The Tug-of-War between Humanitarian missions and Hard Defence on the Continent

Calls by the US for European states to increase defence spending come at odds with most European NATO members that have politically and financially invested in a uniquely European project. The urgency of a defence increase highlights the tension that European countries experience between funnelling money into the ‘Liberal’ soft power emphasis of the EU a.k.a. ‘Civilian Power Europe’ or focussing on building their traditional hard power.

The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, made a point in the divergent security goals of Europe vs non-European NATO members. After Mattis’s quotes on the need for European members to increase their spending, Juncker stated to the media, “If you look at what Europe is doing in defence, plus development aid, plus humanitarian aid, the comparison with the United States looks rather different. Modern politics cannot just be about raising defence spending.”

Development Aid reports from the OECD appear to confirm this claim. While the US is at the top of the list for the overall amount of money spent, the Top 10 list for ‘donor amount relative to GDP’ is headed by European countries such as Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and againthe UK. The EU’s own aid budget is taken from a pooling of member state resources in the EU budget via a combination of VAT, import tax duties and national contributions of about 0.7% of GNI. In 2016, the EU aid budget rose 16% with the humanitarian aid budget rising to 1.1B EUR, along with an additional 200M EUR being set aside in 2017 for ‘exceptional’ circumstances.

The heightened alternative security spending of European NATO members comes at a time of migratory crisis following the turmoil in Syria, Libya and other areas of MENA. The EU had already pledged 3B EUR to Turkey for helping to stem the tide of refugees, and an 1.8B EUR emergency trust fund to Africa, in addition to the EU’s pre-existing humanitarian aid budget. While by no means a permanent measure, the sudden spiked increase of humanitarian, development and migration-related spending since 2015 brings to light the multi-faceted nature of contemporary European defence and security.

As such, the vague threat of a US pull-out from the North Atlantic Alliance brings an immediacy to defence spending in the already competing demands of Europe’s national budgets.


Thank you, for your interest in, Mattis NATO ultimatum stutters European collective defence moods.

Pola Zafra-Davis

Contributor: Pola Zafra-Davis


Written by Mika

4. marta 2017. at 10:04

Objavljeno u Uncategorized