Kosovo.

[Finnegan]

It doesn't look all too healthy, really. The Russian link just being sensationalized to sell tabloids, or a serious new friction in relations with the States and ourselves? The Serbs likely to make military response? It doesn't look like they'll get too much support from the major powers (Russia asside) in their quest to dub a new Kosovan state 'illegal.'

[Flynny]

There was a really good bit of vague sensationalist opinion in the Times a week or two ago about how the cold war looks set to crank up all over again.

The most concerning thing is the oil and gas. They've got a hold over Europe, to an extent, and its not healthy.

[DanTheFoxBhoy]

Don't really know much about Kosovo TBH. But is it true that it is Serbian land, and an influx of Albanians has led to this problem? In that case it should remain Serb land. Serbs could start a war over it, that's one way they could keep it.

[shen]

Don't really know much about Kosovo TBH. But is it true that it is Serbian land, and an influx of Albanians has led to this problem? In that case it should remain Serb land. Serbs could start a war over it, that's one way they could keep it.

If it were up to Serbians they would lay claim to the whole of ex-Yugoslavia as "theirs"! But the whole thing is much more complex than it looks at the surface, with several hundreds of years of history between these Balkan nations, and borders as fuzzy as you'll find them in Europe. So no, it's not exactly true that it's Serbian land that had an influx of Albanians. There has always been a great Albanian minority in Kosovo, and since around the middle ages it was the major nation in Kosovo.

[Finnegan]

Don't really know much about Kosovo TBH. But is it true that it is Serbian land, and an influx of Albanians has led to this problem? In that case it should remain Serb land. Serbs could start a war over it, that's one way they could keep it.

You can't really put it like that, to be honest. You can't really, like, put it into terms of modern immigration it isn't that simple. It's not like, say, a couple of million Germans moving into Paris tomorow and then next year going "We're the majority, we want to be a free state." You're talking about a process that's been ticking for hundreds of years following the breakdown of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I mean you're talking about Czechoslovakia, the Ukraine, parts of Italy, the Balkans, Poland, a massive, massive chunk of central and Eastern Europe breaking up over the course of centuries.

And you can say "if it's Serbian land, they should keep it" - but why? Something like 90 odd percent of Kosovo's population is ethnic Albanian. I suppose I can understand why a government would want to hold onto it's land and populace but I don't quite understand the tens of thousands of Serbian students and civilians protesting in Belgrade and wherever else. I imagine they want to look after the interests of the Serbian Kosovars left there but the whole thing sort of smacks of senseless national pride. If Scotland were to declare it's independence tomorrow, would 10'000 English students go and protest in London because they'd lost part of their 'great nation'?

[MPH]

You can't really put it like that, to be honest. You can't really, like, put it into terms of modern immigration it isn't that simple. It's not like, say, a couple of million Germans moving into Paris tomorow and then next year going "We're the majority, we want to be a free state." You're talking about a process that's been ticking for hundreds of years following the breakdown of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I mean you're talking about Czechoslovakia, the Ukraine, parts of Italy, the Balkans, Poland, a massive, massive chunk of central and Eastern Europe breaking up over the course of centuries.

And you can say "if it's Serbian land, they should keep it" - but why? Something like 90 odd percent of Kosovo's population is ethnic Albanian. I suppose I can understand why a government would want to hold onto it's land and populace but I don't quite understand the tens of thousands of Serbian students and civilians protesting in Belgrade and wherever else. I imagine they want to look after the interests of the Serbian Kosovars left there but the whole thing sort of smacks of senseless national pride. If Scotland were to declare it's independence tomorrow, would 10'000 English students go and protest in London because they'd lost part of their 'great nation'?

Im unsure just how serverly serbia actually want to keep hold of Kosovo...

They have recalled their diplomats from all states that have recognised Kosovo as an independent Nation yet i cant help but think that if they were really that narked about it they would of taken some sort of military action.. maybe not ground troops but even somthing like bombing the Kosovo Parliament building.. Not saying they should, of course..

Just suprised they havnt done more than just (politically speaking) stamping their foot on the ground...

I think there might be more happening and im still unsure what it is Russia object to about Kosovo being a sovreign state..

[Finnegan]

Think about it seriously though. NATO as pretty much an entirety has turned around and said "yup, ok, Kosovo is a nation." They wheel in there and start blowing up buildings and there will be a war. This is a time of serious political juggling. I don't think you should underestimate how passionately the Serbians seem to want to hold onto Kosovo.

Like I say though, considering they've had very minimal influence on the state since '99 it does just baffle me a little bit how passionate they still truly are about it.

[shen]

Think about it seriously though. NATO as pretty much an entirety has turned around and said "yup, ok, Kosovo is a nation." They wheel in there and start blowing up buildings and there will be a war. This is a time of serious political juggling. I don't think you should underestimate how passionately the Serbians seem to want to hold onto Kosovo.

Like I say though, considering they've had very minimal influence on the state since '99 it does just baffle me a little bit how passionate they still truly are about it.

Serbia probably feels that NATO is acting like a big bully. That wouldn't necessarily be an incorrect assessment. Since the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Serbia has pretty much seen it's territory shrink drastically in a short space of time. Not knowing what has gone on in Serbia since 99, I'd guess that their government has tried to rally it's people under the banner of nationalism to stand up against further loss of territory...

[Finnegan]

NATO? Bullies? Whatever could you mean?

[Webbo]

You can't really put it like that, to be honest. You can't really, like, put it into terms of modern immigration it isn't that simple. It's not like, say, a couple of million Germans moving into Paris tomorow and then next year going "We're the majority, we want to be a free state." You're talking about a process that's been ticking for hundreds of years following the breakdown of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I mean you're talking about Czechoslovakia, the Ukraine, parts of Italy, the Balkans, Poland, a massive, massive chunk of central and Eastern Europe breaking up over the course of centuries.

And you can say "if it's Serbian land, they should keep it" - but why? Something like 90 odd percent of Kosovo's population is ethnic Albanian. I suppose I can understand why a government would want to hold onto it's land and populace but I don't quite understand the tens of thousands of Serbian students and civilians protesting in Belgrade and wherever else. I imagine they want to look after the interests of the Serbian Kosovars left there but the whole thing sort of smacks of senseless national pride. If Scotland were to declare it's independence tomorrow, would 10'000 English students go and protest in London because they'd lost part of their 'great nation'?

From what I understand Kosova is to the Serbs like Jerusalem is to the Israelis, that's why they're so desperate to hang on to it and so disgusted by outside interference. It would be 1 thing for Scotland to declare independence, another if they were being encouraged by America or France for example.

As for war with Russia I think that's unlikely. I was reading the other week that their army is poorly equipped and demoralised. Far more likely, and just as frightening for Europe is if the Russians turn off the gas.

[breadandcheese]

And you can say "if it's Serbian land, they should keep it" - but why? Something like 90 odd percent of Kosovo's population is ethnic Albanian. I suppose I can understand why a government would want to hold onto it's land and populace but I don't quite understand the tens of thousands of Serbian students and civilians protesting in Belgrade and wherever else. I imagine they want to look after the interests of the Serbian Kosovars left there but the whole thing sort of smacks of senseless national pride. If Scotland were to declare it's independence tomorrow, would 10'000 English students go and protest in London because they'd lost part of their 'great nation'?

You've tackled a pretty major question there as to what makes up a state and a nationality. Is it ethnicity? Ethnic Albanians should have their own state because they are of different ethnicity?

If so, what about in other areas for example ethnic Serbs dominated areas in Bosnia? Should they have a state?

The Balkans is a major fault line of conflict in Europe. They haven't found a solution for that region in history. If one thing is guranteed, in 100 years, this will be a footnote of Balkan history in the same way Yugoslavia used to exist before 1992.

[MPH]

From what I understand Kosova is to the Serbs like Jerusalem is to the Israelis, that's why they're so desperate to hang on to it and so disgusted by outside interference. It would be 1 thing for Scotland to declare independence, another if they were being encouraged by America or France for example.

As for war with Russia I think that's unlikely. I was reading the other week that their army is poorly equipped and demoralised. Far more likely, and just as frightening for Europe is if the Russians turn off the gas.

I think alot of Russia's income comes from things like its gas exports. Can it afford to do that? It all depends what it values mostly, i guess...

[Finnegan]

A basic fact of life, and something Mr. W. Bush could really do with understanding before he runs off into every other state in the world enforcing his capitalist 'democracy', is that different systems of rule work and are appreciated by different people. You have to ask yourselves, do the current government serve the best interests of the demographic it rules? If the majority of the Kosovar people (and that being the ethnic Albanians) see themselves as sufficiently different from the rest of Serbia, so much so that the Serbian government doesn't best serve their needs, then you can understand their want to be an independent nation.

A certain degree of nationalism comes into this, doesn't it? But ultimately it's the same as, say, Ireland in the early 1900s. Granted there's far more racial and turbulent context in the Balkans, but the Irish wished to govern themselves and so do the Kosovars - and that's the fundamental issue there. It's not about wanting and deserving your own state because you're "ethnically" different. You could debate the immensely subtle ethnic differences between "Spanish" and "Basque", "Scottish/Welsh" and "British" 'til the cows come home - what drives separatists on is rarely REALLY race alone, but a common belief that they are 'different' from the people that rule them in culture, desire, wants and needs.

[breadandcheese]

A basic fact of life, and something Mr. W. Bush could really do with understanding before he runs off into every other state in the world enforcing his capitalist 'democracy', is that different systems of rule work and are appreciated by different people. You have to ask yourselves, do the current government serve the best interests of the demographic it rules? If the majority of the Kosovar people (and that being the ethnic Albanians) see themselves as sufficiently different from the rest of Serbia, so much so that the Serbian government doesn't best serve their needs, then you can understand their want to be an independent nation.

A certain degree of nationalism comes into this, doesn't it? But ultimately it's the same as, say, Ireland in the early 1900s. Granted there's far more racial and turbulent context in the Balkans, but the Irish wished to govern themselves and so do the Kosovars - and that's the fundamental issue there. It's not about wanting and deserving your own state because you're "ethnically" different. You could debate the immensely subtle ethnic differences between "Spanish" and "Basque", "Scottish/Welsh" and "British" 'til the cows come home - what drives separatists on is rarely REALLY race alone, but a common belief that they are 'different' from the people that rule them in culture, desire, wants and needs.

But then the follow-up question is how do you measure the "differences"? If I understand the distinction you made above, at what point does a group wanting a state and those wanting to govern themselves become separated, such that a new state becomes an answer? How do you determine difference? Based on your definition above, it seems that the only determinant of difference can only ever be in the eye of the beholder, so any group or peoples who feel different can define themselves as a nation of people.

I have no answers, only questions, but it seems impossible to put a doctrine in place that distinguishes the determination of a mix of people into an independent state.

[Finnegan]

But that's the thing isn't it, there AREN'T set answers. There isn't a simple right and wrong. If it was as simple as the Kosovars sticking their hands up and saying "alright, we've voted, we're free" then there wouldn't be territorial wars at all, would there?

You can't even say "well most of the world agrees", because you have to question what political agendas these nations have for supporting or otherwise. Spain, for example, won't show it's support whether it wants to or not - because it puts on a huge green light for the Basque and Catalan nationalists. The United Kingdom is obviously hugely confident in the ludicrous minority of Welsh and Scottish separatists - but you have to imagine that Northern Ireland's then-and-now instability likely played a part in our reasons for non-acceptance of Kosovar independence last time and our happyness to do so this time round.

Slovakia, Cyprus, Moldova and Romania have their own reserves for the same reasons, but ethically would they agree in principal if not for their own disputes?

Welsh nationalism (I can hear the groans from here, sorry, it's what I know!) kicked off in the 60s and 70s because of the Tryweryn reservoir incident. Despite all but one Welsh member of parliament voting against the flooding of Capel Celyn for Liverpudlian water supplies, the action went ahead and a community was lost. It was that sort of spark that lead a swelling number of people to believe that the British government didn't understand the needs and wants of the "Welsh people" and that made them different. Ultimately, despite nationalist glorification and sensationalism they were still an apparent minority but it's an example of what I mean. I don't know Kosovar politics well enough to give a more suitable example but it's no secret that Kosovo's a poor area and I imagine a large number of the Albanian speaking populace feel they aren't represented by their Serbian leaders.

[Nath]

I don't understand none of this.

Maybe it is for the best?

If you don't understand none of this, you understand all of it.

[Daggers]

This thread is crying out for the rantings of Lemon Harpic.

[Finnegan]

This thread is crying out for the rantings of Lemon Harpic.

He and Chandler are circling.

[DanTheFoxBhoy]

You can't really put it like that, to be honest. You can't really, like, put it into terms of modern immigration it isn't that simple. It's not like, say, a couple of million Germans moving into Paris tomorow and then next year going "We're the majority, we want to be a free state." You're talking about a process that's been ticking for hundreds of years following the breakdown of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I mean you're talking about Czechoslovakia, the Ukraine, parts of Italy, the Balkans, Poland, a massive, massive chunk of central and Eastern Europe breaking up over the course of centuries.

And you can say "if it's Serbian land, they should keep it" - but why? Something like 90 odd percent of Kosovo's population is ethnic Albanian. I suppose I can understand why a government would want to hold onto it's land and populace but I don't quite understand the tens of thousands of Serbian students and civilians protesting in Belgrade and wherever else. I imagine they want to look after the interests of the Serbian Kosovars left there but the whole thing sort of smacks of senseless national pride. If Scotland were to declare it's independence tomorrow, would 10'000 English students go and protest in London because they'd lost part of their 'great nation'?

BNP types and jack waving eejits probably would.

It's a given that there has always been some "Albanian" presence in Kosovo, it's just a question again of how far you wanna go back. Albanians are descendents of Illyrians who were there, at least in minority, before the Serbs ever were. But some say that modern day Albanians came in with the Turks after the Serbs had already set up shop there and made it their nation.

There will be trouble if Kosovo seeks a union with Albania.

[Finnegan]

Part of the declaration states that Kosovo is forbidden from merging with another nation. Basically it either has it's sovereignty or it stays Serbia.

[DanTheFoxBhoy]

Part of the declaration states that Kosovo is forbidden from merging with another nation. Basically it either has it's sovereignty or it stays Serbia.

Well you would hope that's how it plays out, cos "Greater Albania" will start another shitfight there.

[Finnegan]

There aren't too many nations that will actually mobilize over this, in my opinion. I'd be hugely surprised to see Serbian or Albanian armies actually roll in there. It's militias, paramilitaries that are likely to act if anything. Whether or not they privately get the backing of their governments is another matter, but too much political juggling is involved in this.

Serbia would have to be IMMENSELY confident in Russia's dominance behind them to take military action in Kosovo. And Russia aren't that confident in Russia.

[breadandcheese]

There aren't too many nations that will actually mobilize over this, in my opinion. I'd be hugely surprised to see Serbian or Albanian armies actually roll in there. It's militias, paramilitaries that are likely to act if anything. Whether or not they privately get the backing of their governments is another matter, but too much political juggling is involved in this.

Serbia would have to be IMMENSELY confident in Russia's dominance behind them to take military action in Kosovo. And Russia aren't that confident in Russia.

No, but there is the possibility of little paramilitary/terrorist groups springing up with any possible reprisals this may bring for local populations in the Balkans region.

I read your answer earlier regarding Welsh nationalism, but I still fail to understand the divide that makes people a nation or a group of people. You define difference as where a party feels that it's interests are not understood by a ruling government and that they have an organised nationalist campaign. I don't think this definition constitutes enough of a difference to create a state and certainly still does not answer the measurement problem, whereby there is a set point at which it can be determined when a nationalist movement deserves to become a state.

[Finnegan]

Isn't that what underlies most revolutions and break aways like this? It's not simply in the case of becoming a state, it's in the case of changing a state. Look at the French Civil War or even OUR Civil War? Bringing about a change in system, because the ruling elite weren't considered to represent the needs and wants of their populace.

Was the American War of Independence any different?

I don't understand what you believe IS a good reason for becoming a new state.

[breadandcheese]

Isn't that what underlies most revolutions and break aways like this? It's not simply in the case of becoming a state, it's in the case of changing a state. Look at the French Civil War or even OUR Civil War? Bringing about a change in system, because the ruling elite weren't considered to represent the needs and wants of their populace.

Was the American War of Independence any different?

I don't understand what you believe IS a good reason for becoming a new state.

My question centres not on when it's a good reason to become a state, but how you measure the reason?

Why not a separate state for the Basque region? Why not an independent Cornish nation? Why not independence for Northern Cyprus? Should there be an independent Kurdistand? What sets these independence disputes apart from Kosovo?

That is my question, at what point does a nationalist cause become legitimate that it should have a separate state. I don't think you've given an answer that significantly differentiates the differing causes such that you can put a yardstick in place.