POLITIKA: Myth of the Alliance

An interesting article by Stephen E. Meyer called "Myth of the Alliance"
Click here for original article from "Politka."

Even if membership in NATO would bring savings, whether it would be worth the membership, a great debate sparked in Serbia in relation to NATO membership is healthy and constructive. Unfortunately, many arguments for and against membership, left out the most important point. This is especially true for supporters of membership in NATO. Those who favor membership claim that Serbia will be part of a vast collective security system, and a membership within a great democratic community. Proponents also argue that, as a member of NATO, Serbia has undertaken a special responsibility and that it would be less expensive than maintaining the military capacity to the fullest extent. Those who argue against membership, claim it would legitimize the bombing of Serbia in 1999. In addition they argue, NATO membership for Serbia would damage relations with Russia, and anyway, Serbia would receive the same benefits through membership in the European Union. Of course, there are elements of truth in both positions, but whether these arguments apply is the most important question. To determine whether Serbia should become a member of NATO, the Serbs should consider four basic issues.

Firstly, what is the purpose of being part of the collective security system? Who is the enemy of this system of collective security from which Serbia would be defended? Who exactly is the enemy? It is difficult to identify the enemy in the Balkans or in the vicinity, which is in a position to threaten or would Serbia have interest in it. Moreover, even if there are such enemies, whether NATO really committed to the defense of Serbia? Article 5 of the Agreement on NATO says that an attack on one member is an attack on all NATO members. But there is nothing in the 5th Article which requires a member to come to the aid of another. For example, suppose that Georgia was a member of NATO in the summer of 2008.  Does anyone really believe that U.S. and NATO would  have gone to war with Russia over Georgia? It is incredible!

Secondly, the Serbs must understand that NATO membership really means that Serbia will be expected to conform their security needs of the most powerful members, especially that of the United States. This means that as a member of NATO, Serbia will be under pressure to join the U.S. in military adventures that have little to do with the interests and its own security. Of course, Belgrade would not be obliged to comply, but pressure would be greater and more frequent when she becomes a member of the alliance.

Thirdly, NATO as a force is in the decline. It was built to meet specific threats between 1949 and 1989. When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the need for NATO has declined rapidly. Western military alliance was a real instrument to confront the Soviet threat, but the threat is no longer, and the architect of NATO has not been able to reconstruct the alliance as a viable instrument in the modern world. In fact, the existence of NATO is not much more than the extension of the Cold War division of Europe into the 21st century. Russia is out of this and will never be brought in, the "club." Also, there is almost no value outside the country.  In Iraq, the alliance the was not useful, and in Afghanistan is of very little combat use. NATO was good for 1960, but not 2010!

Fourth, Serbia would not save money by serving special role or as special forces in NATO. Depending on which side would be selected for the role of Serbia, the price could be even higher than maintenance for a robust military capability. Even if membership in NATO would bring savings, would it be worth the membership if the Serbian position would not serve the security interests of Serbia?  Serbian security interests lie primarily in the south, not to be a servant of the U.S. as an assistant in a place like Afghanistan. In addition, as a member of NATO, Serbia would be under pressure to buy equipment from NATO partners, regardless of whether it is needed.

At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Serbia must put forth three questions:

First, what is the nature of the new security landscape?

Second, what are the interests of Serbia in this new environment?

Third, what policies and instruments are required for Serbia to protect and promote her interests?

Frankly considering these issues, the Serbs should face the fact that their interests do not lie only in the West, but are now in Russia, China, Iran, Brazil and many other places. In the modern world security can no longer be defined solely in terms of military interest, but it should be understood in terms of energy, food, environmental and human security.  But doesn't this reality require more than membership in NATO? Of course, Serbia should seek EU membership, but not at the expense of relations in many other directions.

University Professor, Washington

Ukraine and the Serbian Connection

(Click map to enlarge)

Most historians believe that the Serbs and other southern Slavs migrated to the Balkan peninsula from an area roughly where modern Ukraine is located today.  What many people do not realize, is that a migration of Serbs and other Balkan peoples contributed to the events that led to the emergence of this "krajina" or frontier on the south flank of the Russian Empire.

Besides the Serbian expats that can be found hanging out at a few Serbian restaurants in Kiev and Kharkov, one of the few remaining signs of once Serbian settlements in Ukraine is the village of "Slovianoserbsk" (Ukrainian: Слов'яносербськ/Russian: Славяносербск) located in the Lugansk Oblast in eastern Ukraine.  From 1753 to 1764, it was the capital of Slavo-Serbia, one of the Serbian military colonies on the Russian Empire's frontier.  

Another famous colony was located in the modern province of Kirovograd called "Nova Serbiya" or New Serbia (Ukrainian: Нова Сербія, Serbian: Нова Србија, Russian: Новая Сербия).  Today there still stands a museum with the gravestone and epitaph for Peter Tekeli (Russian: Петр Авраамович Текели, Serbian: Петар Поповић Текелија) a Russian General of Serb origins.

I'm Seeing Blue in Ukraine

Well I have to admit, the Ukrainian presidential elections once again held me in suspense as Viktor Yanukovych secures a victory over his Orange rival Yulia Tymoshenko. For the most part, the run-off election went off without much fan-fare and the Western countries who supported the Orange democracy, quickly conceded that this time Yanukovych won fairly.

Just a few years ago these same Western democracies were cheer leading the various "color" revolutions sweeping across the Post-Soviet space. After realizing the severe consequences these newly installed regimes would have on Russia's periphery, the Kremlin began to take action to turn the tables around culminating in the defeat of the Pentagon's Georgia project in the Caucuses, the a Blue Wave is sweeping across Eurasia.

Not so fast! - say some western observers. The same analysts that miss-calculated the rolling back of US/NATO influence in places like Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, are now predicting that this is a temporary set-back. One argument I heard recently was that the problem with Russia is, they don't have much to offer in the long run in terms of economic, political, and social security, thus the pendulum will swing back the other way.

During the 1990's this was certainly true. As the Russian economy collapsed, the Euro-Atlantic powers swooped in to fill the vacuum. Economically and geopolitically, the US remained the single largest super power on the globe. As the Newly Independent States and other countries lost their socialists subsidies from Mother Russia, their expectations for what they will get from the West was high. All they had to do was pretend they are democrats and soon they would get an invitation to the all exclusive NATO club. For them, money in the U.S. grows on trees, and since paper really does come from trees, thus, the US printed allot of it!

How can the U.S. regain a foothold in Russia's back yard without economic clout? Russia's long term economic outlook is looking good if you see the recent financial reports coming from Fitch Ratings, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Here is why:

Russia is starting a second wave of privatization with an aim to ensure Russia is a huge benefactor of capital from the world's financial markets. This injection of cash is expected to cause the Russian economy to pass France and Germany in the next decade from industries outside the commodities. By 2030 Russia's economy is expected to surpass the EU. (It could pass by the EU sooner depending on how optimistic the EU's economy will grow. As this trend happens, you will see even countries like Poland move closer) these reports are very credible in the financial world.

What about the culture of democracy and freedom? On the cultural side, the government of Ukraine tried to discourage a visit last July by the new Russian Patriarch. The pro-Western government would not even guarantee his safety in the predominately Catholic western region. The Governor of the Rovno region declared "not over my dead body will the Patriarch come here." The Patriarch ignored the warning and ironically the Governor was struck by lightning and killed just before the visit! This is a true story. The Patriarch then visited Rovno and rest of Ukraine and was received by thousands, even during his visit to the western regions.

Former Ukrainian president Yushchenko who appointed the now dead governor and the Orange Revolution never achieved anything with substance in Ukraine. I am not sure if that is a pendulum or was just a temporary blip on the radar screen of recent history. As for Eastern and Central Europe, once they see the cracks in the EU's credibility, they will leave the EU faster than they arrived.

Demographically Russia has to turn itself around. However, this is a problem even worse in Ukraine and rest of Europe for that matter. Eurasia will rise pass the Euro-Atlantic powers by sheer economy of scale. Whether the Russians or somebody else is controlling Eurasia remains to be seen, but Eurasia will be the center of things for the next millennia.

If a Blue Wave can take root, there may still be hope for the survival of Christian Civilization.

Serbian Patriarch Irinej

Recent articles from Serbia are suggesting that the election of the new Patriarch will be a moderate even though there are still "radicals" in the Church hierarchy. This has also caused at least a few Serbs to suggest that the new Patriarch is "soft" by proposing dialogue with the Vatican.  I heard another suggest that the Pope is setting a trap for the new Serbian Patriarch.  From what I have read thus far it seems that some know nothing atheist spin doctors in Serbia are trying to discredit the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Patriarch Irinej is proposing a meeting of Christian leaders in the year 2013 to mark the 1700 years since the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great signed the Edict of Milan to end persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. What is the significance of this and why would he do such a thing you might ask?

- The proposed meeting will be in Nis, Serbia, the birthplace of Constantine.

- The Pope along with other Christian leaders attending will have to participate on Serbian Orthodox terms.

- It provides the opportunity to show the entire world the contributions of Serbia and the Orthodox Church is to civilization. Although this is supposed to mark the day Christianity was no longer persecuted, it will also be a dark irony that Christianity is once again being persecuted. First it was the Serbs and Russians, and next will be the western Christians, ie the Catholics and Protestants as European civilization loses to mass immigration from the Islamic world.

We don't know if the Pope or other western religious leaders will even attend, but if they do, it acknowledges the significance of Constantine who over saw the first Church Councils, the Nicene Creed, and establishment of "Orthodoxy", from the Greek words: orthos ("right") + doxa ("opinion" or "praise") that only exists today in the form of the Orthodox Church.

If they don't attend, it shows the whole world what their true intentions are. The more you think about this, the more you will realize that this Patriarch is wise. It seems this time the trap is set for the Pope, not the other way around.

Similar arguments were made describing Patriarch Kirill as too "soft" when he was enthroned to the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate. Kirill made a historic visit to Ukraine last year and offered to reach out to the predominately Catholic western areas. A former governor from this region warned Kirill, "...this visit will be over my dead body." Kirill did not listen, and just before the Patriarch arrived, lightning struck this politician dead! Kirill was received by tens of thousands in the western part of Ukraine demonstrating the unity of the Orthodox Church. The pro-Western politician is no longer around to persecute any more Orthodox.

If any Serbs think this is a bad approach, then I urge them to start reading the "Prologue from Ohrid - Lives of the Saints" by St. Nikolaj Velimirovic and see how our Orthodox Saints dealt with these issues for the last two thousand years.