By Natalia KONDRATIUK
NATALIA KONDRATIUK
In ancient times the nobility, tired of watching tragedies with make-believe
deaths, contrived a new entertainment. A criminal sentenced to death would
be invited to die "beautifully," playing a death-role in a play (e.g.,
Icarus falling from the top of a big mountain, etc.) to the ecstatic shrieks
of the audience. Different plays were staged, but in every case the blood
and death were real. Every such performance attracted eager crowds.
There is the Kosovo tragedy being played out, with only three personae,
and we are the eagerly watching crowd. The play stars Kosovo as the doomed
hero, co-starring US and Russia. In fact, this Balkan war started with
Washington and Moscow trying to figure out who was boss in Europe. The
Muslims joined in the fray; they would never miss an opportunity like this
to set up their own "permanent mission" in the heart of Europe. And the
whole thing was called an ethnic conflict, with conflict killing the ethnic
parties while the principal characters suffered neither morally nor materially.
On the contrary, the military-industrial complex had a field day and the
vacated niches in world tourism and light industry were quickly filled
by rival entities. Before the war the Adriatic coast brought some $6 billion
in tourist revenues per season. Yugoslav footwear and textiles were known
for their quality the world over. There are ruins in place of the factories
that were bombed and blown to smithereens at the very onset of hostilities.
Until two years ago the Adriatic coast hosted only NATO and UN officers
renewing their energy in the struggle for peace in the Balkans.
After NATO air raids on Gorazde in 1995 (sanctioned by the UN Security
Council) the peacemaking process gained momentum, ending in elections with
Kosovo saddened by the turnout. At this time, however, the US bombed Iraq
at its own discretion, forcing Saddam Hussein to back off. One gets the
impression that Washington had become convinced that bombing was the best
argument in persuading the conflicting parties to come to terms. This gives
some grounds for misgivings. It is as though the United States is the only
omnipotent head of the international community, meting out death penalties
(as in Iraq and Kosovo) or pardoning some of those on death row (e.g.,
other hotbeds that have not been bombed as yet), giving NATO orders, and
showing the UN its place.
Russia is the only other member of this community trying to dampen US
ardor. At the outset of the Kosovo conflict Moscow took a thoroughly imperial
stand, referring to "Serbian Slavic brothers," trying to capitalize on
the concept of Slavic mutual assistance, acting on the principle "Hey,
they are beating our boys! Let's go help them!" Had Russia not done everything
in such haste it could well have received support from France, Great Britain,
or other major European powers, in which case a war of ambitions would
have been replaced by a confrontation between the progressive part of mankind
and an alliance of aggressors. Moscow, however, decided to keep the peacemaker's
laurels. In the end its attempt to respond to a threat with a threat (e.g.,
sending weapons to Milosevic's army and deploying nuclear weapon systems
in Belarus) did not work. Russia is not the USSR and Belarus is not Cuba.
Things that scared the world stiff back in the 1960s are now regarded as
just so much hot air.
Laos, Vietnam, Korea... Where and whenever an armed conflict started
Washington and Moscow would immediately materialize behind the warring
parties. Sooner or later, after bloodshed and suffering, every such confrontation
would come to an end. Kosovo is different. NATO is still playing an all-or-nothing
game, insisting on its blueprint for settling the conflict. Moscow is using
diplomatic means to change the situation, sending a Black Sea Navy warship
to the Adriatic coast. But nerves are strained and should Russia go along
with its threat and modernize the Yugoslav army, the center of Europe would
host a compact modern military formation trained in real warfare, not war
games. We know from Suvorov that wars are won not by numerical superiority
but by military skill. The Serbs have enough combat spirit and to spare;
they are defending their land, whereas NATO forces would have to play the
role of the invader.
As a result, every country of the world will have to take sides, something
one would rather not think about. One of the warring parties must back
off to avert catastrophe.
As the NATO bombardment started the media assumed an ideological function.
CNN et al. condemn the Serbs and praise NATO. Russian television and radio
channels, along with newspapers, do precisely the opposite. Strangely,
the Ukrainian media seem to be taking the NATO side, although no one prevents
them from giving unbiased coverage of the conflict. The most rational approach
would seem to reflect several views and take one's time arriving at conclusions.
The Ukrainian media's stand makes one wonder about that of Ukraine. Whose
side is Ukraine on in the Kosovo conflict? About this later. Much as this
author hates all manifestations of genocide, she just cannot understand
how genocide can be destroyed by destroying civilian inhabitants. Albanians
are the principal victims of the conflict: NATO "protection" forced them
to leave Kosovo, first because they did not want to get killed by NATO
bombs and missiles; second, because NATO raids triggered off yet another
genocidal onslaught. Further bombardment is not likely to make the situation
any better. The Serbs will always remember who was to blame for their having
to sit out air raids in bomb shelters and then rebuild war-devastated cities.
It will be difficult to explain to them that our Lord taught us to love
our neighbors (even if Albanian) and forgive them their trespasses.
In fact, Ukraine's position under the circumstances looks quite amusing.
President Kuchma, after declaring that NATO should become a stabilizing
force in Europe (when visiting Slovenia), flew to Moscow to discuss with
Boris Yeltsin Ukrainian-Russian concerted action to resolve the Kosovo
problem by way of negotiations. A gesture perfectly in keeping with the
Ukrainian political mentality, but politics should not be supplanted by
mentality. Ukraine's "multivector" aspirations - i.e., trying to be on
both sides of the fence - with regard to Kosovo will not work. And why
jump the gun in the first place? No one is pressuring Kyiv to take sides
here and now. Ukraine could well stand aside as too much is at stake in
this battle of giants. However, official Kyiv could benefit strategically
by attracting international attention getting involved in solving this
problem of planet-wide significance. Yet ambition tends to eclipse pragmatism,
and the Ukrainian foreign and defense ministers flew to Belgrade the way
an A student is eager to take credit ahead of schedule. They did not even
get air corridor clearance, yet reached Milosevic (remarkably, the Russian
Premier had no problem getting this clearance) and eagerly presented him
with the Ukrainian peace initiatives (no one knows what they are all about;
the documents are jealously kept away from public view). Slobodan Milosevic,
gratified, remains silent, and the Ukrainian diplomats, looking mysterious,
discuss something with their foreign colleagues and then describe the meetings
as having passed in an atmosphere of understanding. Questions: How come
Mr. Primakov's peace initiative were instantly made public knowledge the
world over? Maybe the Russian diplomats do not know that such documents
should be stamped "Top Secret" and locked away? Or maybe we have again
reinvented the wheel but keep silent waiting for the invention to be patented?
Ukraine announced its neutrality, so this is precisely the standpoint from
which it should regard the Kosovo war. What about Croatia? Being next door
to the hostilities, it manages not to touch NATO and Russia's sore spots
(and Ukraine supported Croatia in the Balkan conflict).
Statistics show that over a very brief historical period 400 armed conflicts
have been registered in Europe. National self-consciousness forms quicker
than notions of stability, territorial integrity, and sovereignty. This
is true of the Basques, Kurds, Irish, and many others. Practically in every
case the hostile parties would come to terms, but without any outside interference.
But once the world's greatest powers start flexing their muscles over small
countries, their people turn into parties to ethnic conflicts, in which
case the only alternative they have is playing out that death-hero role
with cheering crowds looking on.
The only role where blood, tears, suffering, and death are real.







