Mentality Should not Supplant Policy!

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.