The savior no one is talking about

[Liberator of Makedonija]

A smart Macedonia should balance the influence of both the west and the east where practical and beneficial.

Didn't Socialist Yugoslavia maintain that sort of third-position under Tito?

[vicsinad]

Their military presence in the early 90's had more to do with containing Serbia than saving Macedonia.

And Russia would have stood by and done nothing -- or probably even encouraged and defended -- as Serbia stampeded into Macedonia. Intentions aside, US and Macedonia's interests aligned.

Less than a decade later they supported their new proxies in the region against the Macedonians.

A strong case can be made that they also reined in their proxies from creating further havoc in Macedonia. As far as Germany's role, that's a different matter.

And let's not even delve into the earlier disaster that befell our people after WWII due to U.S. support for Greek fascists.

True. That was a proxy war against Russia. They weren't supporting Greek fascists because of some desire to attack Macedonians. Intentions aside, US and Macedonia's interests did not align then.

Neither the U.S. nor Russia has had our best interests at heart, but right now, our national objectives align more (or at least conflict less) with Russia's political positions regarding the Balkans rather than those of the U.S., or the EU for that matter.

What are Russia's political positions? They haven't been specifically clear other than to oppose essentially everything the US/West is doing in nearly every Balkan country.

A smart Macedonia should balance the influence of both the west and the east where practical and beneficial.

Absolutely true. We don't have many politicians who understand that or come out and say that.

[Risto the Great]

Why would Russia prefer to support Albanians over Macedonians?

Geography. More land mass and more Albanians involved in other countries. It is the same reason USA favours Albanians over Macedonians.

Ask an average Russian where their written language comes from. I have. Macedonia means nothing to them (unless they feel like being nice to you).

[Carlin]

What are Russia's political positions? They haven't been specifically clear other than to oppose essentially everything the US/West is doing in nearly every Balkan country.

Before you read on, let me just preface what I am going to say and share that I come from a completely 'agnostic' or 'neutral' viewpoint on this issue in terms of arguing for Russia vs U.S. -- I'm neither pro-Russian or pro-American. We all know the foreign policies of both superpowers and what they have done throughout their history. I'm not going to pretend that a twerp like me can even offer some solutions or suggest what Macedonia should do in this challenging matter -- this is simply to offer an insight into Russia's political and geostrategic positions.

To understand Russia's (geopolitical) positions better and why they oppose everything the US/West does I attach the links below. Long story short (and whether we agree with it or not), Russian leaders see NATO expansion as a real, ongoing threat, and military encirclement (this includes the Balkans area).

The article below was written by an American, Stephen Cohen, who is a respected American scholar. The video below is also Stephen Cohen talking about NATO expansion.

Link to article:

https://www.thenation.com/article/have-20-years-of-nato-expansion-made-anyone-safer/

Link to video (it's only 4 min long) - NATO expansion and Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mciLyG9iexE

So, knowing all this - the Macedonian political leadership (since the independence of Macedonia*) has calculated and decided that Macedonia joining NATO (and EU) is the best geostrategic option now, and going forward. I hope they are right.

PS:

* - As far as I know Macedonia joining NATO has been the stated goal of every ruling party since Macedonia's independence, more or less - both DPMNE and SDSM.

[Soldier of Macedon]

And Russia would have stood by and done nothing -- or probably even encouraged and defended -- as Serbia stampeded into Macedonia.

Speculative. The USSR had fallen apart and Russia was in no position to make any such moves at that particular time, even if it were inclined to do so. Are you aware of any statements made by Gorbachev, Yeltsin or other top Russian officials from the early 90's that would even remotely support your assertion?

A strong case can be made that they also reined in their proxies from creating further havoc in Macedonia.

They facilitated the evacuation of the terrorists right when the Macedonian army was on the verge of victory. They coerced the terrorists to give up the unrealistic aspiration for a breakaway state but compensated them with an "agreement" which gave them unprecedented privileges that have since degraded the country's sovereignty. Left to their own devices, the terrorists would've been crushed. Who got reined in?

True. That was a proxy war against Russia. They weren't supporting Greek fascists because of some desire to attack Macedonians. Intentions aside, US and Macedonia's interests did not align then.

I am sure it was nothing personal against our people, but interests aside, their intention was to kill those people on the ground, many of whom were Macedonians. I can't think of any examples of Russian activity in Macedonia that is comparable.

What are Russia's political positions? They haven't been specifically clear other than to oppose essentially everything the US/West is doing in nearly every Balkan country.

To halt NATO expansion primarily. Perhaps to also decrease the influence of the EU in some respects. Not sure of the alternatives they're offering, but right now, they support Macedonia's sovereignty and are against the name negotiations. The West, which condescendingly refers to the Balkans as its 'backyard', also has a habit of opposing almost everything that Russia tries to do in the region. The South Stream pipeline is one of the more prominent examples.

Ask an average Russian where their written language comes from. I have. Macedonia means nothing to them (unless they feel like being nice to you).

With so much going on at the moment, we should be more concerned about harnessing Russia's political support rather than the knowledge of the average Russian regarding Macedonian history.

[Risto the Great]

With so much going on at the moment, we should be more concerned about harnessing Russia's political support rather than the knowledge of the average Russian regarding Macedonian history.

I can't see how or why we should try to get that support. Macedonia arguably had USA support about its identity not so long ago. It didn't help. Macedonians want NATO and EU membership. Just like they wanted FYROM before and want North Macedonia now. Because of the carrots being dangled in front of them.

Macedonia is too far down the rabbit hole now to consider Russian help. If it fails the referendum, it might be useful to look at that powerplay again.

What amuses me is how Russia is being blamed for getting Trump into power. Meanwhile, they have shown all their cards about what they prefer Macedonia to do and I suspect it will amount for naught influence.

[Risto the Great]

Being betrayed and deliberately sent into an ambush is one thing ... being cowardly is a whole nother thing.
If this was a private chat i would have sent you links of the burned faces of our tortured soldiers.. you deserve to be haunted by them for the rest of your life you ungrateful worm.

That would have triggered a military coup in any real nation. Thailand is still under military control for far less of a reason.

On the other hand, Macedonia (after 2001) welcomed one of its top enemy terrorists as its leader of defence. Still nothing.

[vicsinad]

Speculative. The USSR had fallen apart and Russia was in no position to make any such moves at that particular time, even if it were inclined to do so. Are you aware of any statements made by Gorbachev, Yeltsin or other top Russian officials from the early 90's that would even remotely support your assertion?

It is speculative. What's not speculative, however, is that in 1999 Russia sent in its army into Kosovo as a symbolic gesture to come to the aid of Serbia, almost igniting a huge war; while in 2001, Russia did not send its troops into Macedonia, symbolically or otherwise.

They facilitated the evacuation of the terrorists right when the Macedonian army was on the verge of victory. They coerced the terrorists to give up the unrealistic aspiration for a breakaway state but compensated them with an "agreement" which gave them unprecedented privileges that have since degraded the country's sovereignty. Left to their own devices, the terrorists would've been crushed. Who got reined in?

The US troops facilitated the evacuation after Boris Trajkovski met with Javier Solana and they came to agreement. Trajkovski ordered the end on the assault on Aracinovo, not the US. US troops were used likely because they were best capable of dealing with the logistics.

I don't believe, however, that Albanians would have been crushed without a major civil war breaking out. In Aracinovo -- yes, that battle would've been won. But it wasn't until an agreement was in the works that Macedonian troops finally made it into Vratnica after it was signed. The villages were guarded by kids as young as 12 years old after over a month of being under siege by the Albanians. If the terrorists were left to their own devices, it's likely the war would have been much more bloody; and while a Macedonian victory would have been very likely in the end, "crushed" is a stretch. Macedonian soldiers were brave; but the army was ill-equipped and Macedonian military strategy was disjointed, from what I've read.

I am sure it was nothing personal against our people, but interests aside, their intention was to kill those people on the ground, many of whom were Macedonians. I can't think of any examples of Russian activity in Macedonia that is comparable.

That's fair. However, we can't ignore Russia's late 19th and early 20th century support for Greater Bulgaria, at the cost of Macedonian unity and autonomy.

To halt NATO expansion primarily. Perhaps to also decrease the influence of the EU in some respects. Not sure of the alternatives they're offering, but right now, they support Macedonia's sovereignty and are against the name negotiations. The West, which condescendingly refers to the Balkans as its 'backyard', also has a habit of opposing almost everything that Russia tries to do in the region. The South Stream pipeline is one of the more prominent examples.

Perhaps. But I think Russia feels that, since the second half of the 19th century, the Balkans has been, and should be, its sphere of influence and no one else's. So, as far as who's being condescending, I think that goes to both the US and Russia.

As far as interference in sovereignty, I think Russia hasn't been successful as the US, but that interference is there. See this section in the below article.

The document says: “By using the assets and methods of so-called soft power, as part of the strategy of the Russian Federation in the Balkans, the goal is to isolate the country [Macedonia] from the influence of the west.”

It says Russia’s foreign policy in the region is “in tight correlation” with its energy strategy. The Kremlin’s aim is to control “strategic energy resources through partnership with the Balkan countries” and to make Macedonia “exclusively dependent”.

The leaked files also shed light on how the Kremlin conducts espionage.

It says three agents from Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence service are based in Skopje, and overseen by the SVR’s sister station in the Serbian capital, Belgrade. The Russian embassy in Macedonia is also home to four spies from Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, with their activities coordinated from the GRU’s base in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Journalists for Russia’s state news agency TASS and representatives of Rossotrudnichestvo, a state cultural body, worked with Russian intelligence. The FBI has investigated Rossotrudnichestvo on suspicion of trying to recruit Americans as “intelligence assets”.

The documents say Russian diplomats are “extremely cautious” when meeting contacts; frequently “change locations at the last minute”; do not use mobile phones; and employ passwords and legends (fake cover stories which mask real identity or purpose). Russian agents have offered cash to Macedonian media to spread “information and disinformation”, the files allege.

Russia has also drastically stepped up its cultural outreach in Macedonia, pushing an idea of “pan-Slavic” identity and shared Orthodox Christian faith.

Its embassy has overseen the creation of roughly 30 Macedonia-Russian “friendship associations”. It has opened a Russian cultural centre in Skopje and sponsored the construction of Orthodox crosses and Russian-style churches across the country, the documents say. It adds that Russian consulates in the towns of Bitola and Ohrid function as “intelligence bases”.

A separate leaked document details a meeting in April between the Russian ambassador to Macedonia, Oleg Shcherbak, and the country’s top foreign ministry official, Nenad Kolev. Shcherbak reportedly said Moscow’s goal was to “create a strip of militarily neutral countries” in the Balkans that comprised Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia.

The ambassador described the EU and Nato as “jackals” and said Russia was now “leading global politics”. He reportedly warned that Macedonia needed to support Kremlin policies publicly or possibly face economic and diplomatic consequences.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/04/russia-actively-stoking-discord-in-macedonia-since-2008-intel-files-say-leak-kremlin-balkan-nato-west-influence

[Karposh]

Both you and and Stefan have a point Risto. It wasn't “cowardice” that forced Macedonians' hand to sign the humiliating “agreement” that is holding Macedonia hostage today and, as SoM mentioned, degraded what's left of the country's sovereignty. Once again, I agree with SoM here, the US facilitated the evacuation of the terrorists right when the Macedonian army was on the verge of victory. They coerced the terrorists to give up the unrealistic aspiration for a breakaway state but compensated them with an "agreement". Never has a truer word been spoken. It would have been a terrible blow for the strategists in the US and Europe if they allowed the Macedonian army to obliterate the terrorists in the decisive Aracinovo battle. What the US stooge and national traitor, Nikola Dimitrov said back then, makes perfect sense now. He had to convince the rest of the nation that the agreement was inevitable and that thanks to the US, EU and NATO, Macedonia was spared a protracted civil war because, as Dimitrov claimed, "the Macedonian army had no stomach for taking heavy casualties in close quarters, house-to-house fighting". The coward tag has since stuck, mainly among ex-pat Macedonians living in the comforts of what the west has provided for them, which, to be honest, speaks more of the people using this tag, than any perceived truth behind it. Although I have been guilty of slagging off my own people here and there at times out of frustration, I'd like to think I have more faith in them than merely sticking a collective “nation of cowards” tag on them. Quite frankly, the whole idea is wearing thin.

There's a reason why many Macedonians, including many on this forum, are cynical of the west and their power plays with the little nations of the world. Macedonia has been the latest victim of these power plays. So, the next time Gocka or Vic ask, why don't you live in Russia or Macedonia if the west is so bad, they should keep the 2001 US/European treachery in mind. Calling something out for what it is does not automatically make you anti-western but pragmatic with regards to world politics which are at play and are, more often than not, out of our control.

However, and this is where I agree with Risto, why the hell would Macedonia allow former terrorist leaders into prominent governmental positions? That would indeed have triggered a military coup in any other nation. I don't think it's cowardice but apathy that is at play here. That is, the idea that, although it's a bad look, others in position of power know better than me attitudes. I'll even admit that this could even be a throwback to old times when you didn't question the government no matter how wrong something seemed but just went along with it. This aspect of Macedonian society needs to change. The sooner the better.

[Gocka]

I wish there was a version of talking slow in written form.

No one said that our soldiers were cowards, I said our people are cowards. Macedonian leadership had no intention of risking a full on assault because they knew their military was ill equipped, ill trained, and tactically disadvantage. All the terrorist strongholds were high up, embedded in civilian areas, with easy retreat to wooded mountains, essentially the perfect cover. They could have kept up a guerrilla offensive for months, maybe even more under those circumstances. Macedonian leaders knew there would be heavy causalities if they ordered an offensive. Macedonia did not and does not have the technology or artillery to fight that kind of battle. They either would have had to level the villages from a far, which would have meant 1000's of civilian deaths. Or gone in with a ground assault while being assaulted from a superior position. They would have lost many men by the time they reached the terrorists, and then they would just retreat into the hills and if need be into Kosovo.

The people were cowards, because they didn't demand that the government end the conflict the way it should have been ended, instead they capitulated to a thousand or so goat herders and gave them seats in parliament.

If the Macedonian people demanded it, the government could have used their time wisely, gotten foreign assistance in terms of weaponry and technology (Russia was willing), and made sure that the terrorists got what was coming to them.

Macedonia capitulated all on its own, and the west was their to clean up them mess afterwards.

First of all, Macedonia should never have put itself in that position to begin with. How much territory do we have to defend. At that time surely there would have been warnings about a spillover from Kosovo. They only had to defend a tiny portion of our external border and none of that would have ever happened.

Our inept leaders allowed the conflict to happen and left Macedonia ill prepared to deal with it, and our cowardly populace sat back and watched as a bunch of goat herders turned terrorists, turned into statesmen.

I was young but I remember being in Ohrid during the fighting, and it was as if nothing was happening. Cafes were full, no one gave a shit, "its just politics" was the common theme.

And yes I know of and have seen the documentaries and gruesome photos of our soldiers. Again, totally irrelevant. Nothing I said was even remotely about them.

You can pump your chest all you want. We are cowards and it seems nothing is going to change that.

Our newest iteration of patriotism is Bojkatiram. A movement intent on changing Macedonia by being stubborn, sitting home, and doing nothing. Yes you heard me right, they are literally playing a child's game of "I'm pretending none of this is happening, it will go away if I do this long enough"

If you take your head out of your Macedonian ass, you will realize our ideas may not be so different apart from a few sticking points about our independence. So get off my jock.

Your American bias goes so far as to underestimate the bravery of our soldiers in 2001.

You don't know anything about the conflict. You can't even name 5 battles. The heroism shown by our soldiers in some of the battles is praise worthy. I could open a new thread only on that subject alone.
Being betrayed and deliberately sent into an ambush is one thing ... being cowardly is a whole nother thing.
If this was a private chat i would have sent you links of the burned faces of our tortured soldiers.. you deserve to be haunted by them for the rest of your life you ungrateful worm.

[Gocka]

I can see where you are going with that. It may be true but only by technicality if you ask me. I'm a purist when it comes to these kind of matters. When someone says Pro Russian, to me it sounds like they want Russia to succeed. I don't give a damn if Russia collapses tomorrow. So I can't say I'm pro Russian. Now if we are talking in the context of Russia having something of value to offer Macedonia, then I could be pro "that" what ever that might be. But I could never say just flatly I'm Pro Russian, Pro anything frankly, other than Macedonian.

[QUOTE=Soldier of Macedon;175863]There's a difference. A Macedonian being pro-Russian doesn't necessarily mean being anti-Macedonian, whereas a Macedonian being pro-Bulgarian or pro-Greek is by definition anti-Macedonian.

A stretch I think. If its between secular and 10's of thousands of murdered people, then I think it's not that complicated.

We have to be careful, because a lot of the pro Assad reasoning is merely Russian propaganda. I don't think we should draw moral equivlency between someone like Assad, and frankly most other leader/conflicts around the world.

Why would you want to give such an animal a pass? The brutality of Assad and his family goes far beyond the most recent proxy war, over the decades how many deaths is his family responsibly for?

Mind you I am just as outraged when the USA turns a blind eye to regimes such as Assad's. The only reason anyone wants to give Assad any wiggle room is because they want to see Russia win one of these proxy wars, at the expense of the USA, but I for one can't let that type of thinking distract me from the reality that is Assad and other people like him around the world.

The current government is far from perfect but at least it is secular and comparatively more inclusive of the various ethnic and religious groups in Syria. The so-called 'rebel' alternative is problematic for an array of reasons. Neither may be a particularly attractive choice for the people but it is all they have at this time. As for Russia, of course it has its own interests in Syria but at least it is there at the request of the government. The U.S. intruded into a sovereign state, made catastrophic alliances and pushed a collective agenda in unison with certain regional actors which only made the situation worse. If the U.S. didn't become involved in the way it did, the conflict would already be over.

hahaha не дај господ со оние да си имаш работа.

If you think Albanians are bad, you wouldn't imagine a bunch of rednecks. Every god damn one of them owns a personal arsenal and a bunker. They would have taken over the country in 2001 for sure.

They should probably stay in Alabama

I don't think they have a say in the matter honestly. It was Macedonian propaganda that Macedonia was forced into the agreement by the west(USA), I don't believe that to be the case at all.

Every idiotic agreement Macedonia has signed and is soon to sign, has never been forced on us. It was always our brilliant politicians and even more brilliant populace that willing pulled their pants down and bent over.

In 2001 Macedonia chose to not fight back, therefore giving the Albanians a bargaining chip. Macedonia had to give them something in exchange for their surrender. We put ourselves in that position. If we gave them nothing, then they would have been happy to resume the war, Macedonia had no intention of going that route, so what does that leave them with?

I had family in the army, most of the army was on base, they were not preparing for or planning for any offensive. There was only two options, fight, or give them what they want because they were willing to fight.

How is that the fault of the USA or anyone else but us?

Do you think the U.S. would ever allow a reversal of the OFA?

The answer there is easy. Because Albanians are more useful. They are more willing to fight plain and simple. Russia always assume the role of agitator, because they don't have the means to be more than that. You can't agitate with people like Macedonians, because we are useless, we sit home and boycott as our country is being stolen from underneath us. If I wanted to make trouble, I would pick the Albanians hands down.

Why would Russia prefer to support Albanians over Macedonians?

The west constantly takes advantage of the stupidity and instability of others. Russia on the other hand is more prone to causing the instability. That is why you don't invite either of them into your home. The problem is that most people from the Balkans and Eastern Europe are servile and weak. They have an inferiority complex that makes them prone to this kind of manipulation.

How many Balkan politicians openly and pathetically pander/beg for the help and recognition of either Russia or the West? We always look at it from he context of, the big bad great powers barge into everyone's affairs. I look at it form the point of view that all these places are run and populated by weak and insecure people who aren't capable of running their own countries and protecting their own interests. 9 out of 10 times, the door is deliberately opened for either Russian or American meddling. Someone on the ground asks for it. The great powers being the opportunists that they are, will happily oblige if there is something to be gained.

That is why conspiracy theories infuriate me. They are merely the excuses of weak minded people as to why they either failed or didn't try. The common thread of every conspiracy is that one side never had a change, that it was always futile.

Their military presence in the early 90's had more to do with containing Serbia than saving Macedonia. Less than a decade later they supported their new proxies in the region against the Macedonians. And let's not even delve into the earlier disaster that befell our people after WWII due to U.S. support for Greek fascists. Neither the U.S. nor Russia has had our best interests at heart, but right now, our national objectives align more (or at least conflict less) with Russia's political positions regarding the Balkans rather than those of the U.S., or the EU for that matter. A smart Macedonia should balance the influence of both the west and the east where practical and beneficial.

[Karposh]

The word conspiracy itself has very sinister connotations attached to it. And rightly so. It means something that is done in secret - usually a plan of some sort to do something that is unlawful or harmful.

When the battle of Aracinovo was prematurely ended, Macedonians everywhere cried fowl and smelt a rat. This had to be the work of the Americans or NATO since they were clearly assisting the terrorists. “Shameful propaganda!” is how NATO chiefs described such accusations. "The Albanians did everything themselves and did not receive help from anyone, least of all us", they said. So, the word conspiracy applies in this instance as the other side at the time (NATO & America) denied all involvement.

Where it fails to be classed as a conspiracy and begins to enters the realms of reality is when the other side openly and blatantly honours and parades the actors of the 2001 US duplicity in Macedonia as national heroes. It is no longer a conspiracy when we have direct involvement of an american politician from the democratic party, Glenn Nye, who effectively put a halt on the advancing Macedonian army when he organized the evacuation of 26 US military contractors from Arachinovo in 2001 which ended that battle and subsequently gave us the OFA. Glenn Nye has recently received the State Department's Superior Hionor Award for his actions in 2001 when he helped save the Americans that were training the terrorists how to kill Macedonian soldiers more effectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Nye

[Pelagonija]

The media keeps on harping on about Asaad being a dictator.. he well may be inhumane old school but is he any worse than the house of Saud? a country with some of the worse human rights record on the planet? Just this week Saudi planes bombed a school bus killing 55 kids. I’ve seen a 6 yo Yemeni girl with partial grey hair on a doco on sbs. They’ve been bombing Hospitals, weddings and laying siege warfare for a few years now, this all with US backing.

Narrative, if we are not going to give Assaad a free ride then why give the house of Saud a free ride? it’s that simple really. Any other variables should be discarded as it doesn’t hold water and is based on severe bias, misinformation or downright lies.

Someone also referred to the crimes of the USSR, me personally I hated communism and still do, Stalin killed millions of innocent people and was true evil. Having said this I can relate to modern Russia under Putin. And I know in theory it would be great to side with Russia and give the finger to the USA and EU/NATO. But we all know the USA would destroy us in one day with their proxies.. just look what they are doing to Erdogans Turkey..

I really don’t want to offend anyone or argue with anyone on this topic..!but as a Macedonian and living in Australia, I just don’t understand how anyone can support or even begin to consider America to be moral.

On a side note, does anyone remember when the US recognised our constitutional name one day before the territorial division to falsely give Struga and Kicevo Albanian mayors? That’s how farked up they are.. that’s how they work and now 14 years later they installed Zaeban..

[Phoenix]

...Once again, I agree with SoM here, the US facilitated the evacuation of the terrorists right when the Macedonian army was on the verge of victory. They coerced the terrorists to give up the unrealistic aspiration for a breakaway state but compensated them with an "agreement". Never has a truer word been spoken. It would have been a terrible blow for the strategists in the US and Europe if they allowed the Macedonian army to obliterate the terrorists in the decisive Aracinovo battle. What the US stooge and national traitor, Nikola Dimitrov said back then, makes perfect sense now. He had to convince the rest of the nation that the agreement was inevitable and that thanks to the US, EU and NATO, Macedonia was spared a protracted civil war because, as Dimitrov claimed, "the Macedonian army had no stomach for taking heavy casualties in close quarters, house-to-house fighting"...

The American apologists on this forum seem to have a selective memory of the true role of the US in 2001.
The role of the 'dogs for hire' company, the shameless, despicable and duplicitous MPRI is rarely, if ever, raised.
Here is compelling evidence of why the Americans can't be trusted...MPRI was contracted by the Macedonian Government and Defence Ministry to provide strategic 'advice' during the conflict, only for MPRI to make themselves available to the shiptari for similar services...
(MPRI played a massive role in Croatia and other former yugoslavia conflicts, as well as in every corner of the globe where US influence was required)

The terrorist stronghold of Aracinovo was evacuated to conceal MPRI/US/NATO involvement in the conflict...and while we're at it, it was the USA that initiated the arms embargo on Macedonia that restricted weaponry coming from the Ukraine to aid Macedonian security forces...and we won't even get into the threats from the (US sponsored) IMF to cut off funding.

The other interesting fact is in regards to national disgrace Dimitrov when he questions the stomach for Macedonian forces to fight house-to-house...that's the greatest crock of shit since his current expression of lunacy that says Macedonians haven't got a future without changing their identity.

Even before the ink had dried on the 2001 'agreement', the US military was identifying their own shortcomings in house-to-house, urban and asymmetrical warfare, remember this was still before the real slog in Iraq had even begun (and the huge losses of US and coalition personnel). The US was already eyeing both Macedonian and (more so) Serbian special forces tactics and experience in the new battle space of urban warfare...this was the start of trying to fast track Macedonia into NATO. (this was reported by the Jane's Information Group in an edition sometime shortly after the 2001 conflict)

The US envisaged a niche special forces role for Macedonia within the NATO structure, based on their experiences in the same house-to-house fighting ability that the gutless cunt Dimitrov was denying earlier.

[vicsinad]

So, the next time Gocka or Vic ask, why don't you live in Russia or Macedonia if the west is so bad, they should keep the 2001 US/European treachery in mind.

First, to also comment on Gocka's earlier point about what was going on in the minds of Macedonians in non-affected areas during the 2001 conflict, I went to two US protests in 2001, in front of a CNN building and the White House, and over 80% of the people in attendance were Tetovchani. It seemed as if the rest of Macedonians in the US were like, "well, it's not affecting our villages, so no real need for me to do anything." Only when the gruesome act happened to the Bitolchani did the Bitolchani here get riled up. All this talk about keeping "US/European treachery in mind" reminds me of all the posthumous patriotic Macedonian and anti-American talk by other Macedonians in the US several years after the conflict ended. Perhaps you in Australia had about 4,000-5,000 people protest in Sydney, but there was nowhere near the massive mobilization of Macedonians in the general Diaspora as we seen on other issues. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I don't even recall there being a protest in Toronto.

Second, you're giving the US too much credit. They would've never bused out those terrorists had Trajkovski never ordered a halt in military operations. And the fact that people can't seem to differentiate the US/EU/NATO or get much more specific and instead use those blanket categories to accuse America of being responsible for what was going on, shows they still don't know many details of what transpired. Yes, US soldiers facilitated the busing out of Albanian terrorists only after Trajkovski and Solana of the EU met and came to an agreement. So? Trajkovski gave the go-ahead. Then US troops came from Kosovo and bused the terrorists out. The US did exactly what the Macedonian government asked for because the top EU brass was applying pressure on Macedonians and Albanians to prevent more violence. I'm not saying I agree that that was the best move on Macedonia's part, but it was Macedonia's call, and they called it that way. Even then PM Ljubcho Georgievski, who said that the West was "blackmailing" Macedonians to come to the agreement, acknowledged that NATO never threatened to use military force against the Macedonians.

Further, the US was not interested in a war in Macedonia. They could not justify it. What happened, essentially, was that they promised Albanians help in Kosovo because they had a legitimate cover story for intervention: a decade of media portrayal, whether exaggerated or not, of Serbian ethnic cleansing, genocide and war mongering in the Balkans. It was an easy sell. They could not sell that in Macedonia's case. However, Ahmeti and others from Macedonia, who were critically involved in the KLA's formation and operations, were itching to ride the "success" of Kosovo and extend the operations to their "homeland" of northwest Macedonia. The US couldn't forcefully oppose the Albanians, however, because it was not even two years after their whole story of how Albanians were these poor victims. The US was walking a tricky line by trying to support everybody and nobody at the same time.

And this was essentially why we protested in the US, at least some of us. We weren't targeting the US government and media for masterminding and facilitating this whole plot, because we believed US interests and involvement in Macedonia was different than in Kosovo (despite insistence by the Serbian-American community to blend the two together). We were targeting them for a) the media's portrayal of the conflict (Albanian freedom fighters or rebels against Slav forces) and b) lackadaisical US support in Macedonia's defense against internal and external terrorists.

Moreover, why would the US have supported the Albanian insurgency only half-ass? If there was this overall support for the Albanians, it was poorly planned, coordinated and executed on the US part. If the US really wanted some gains through supporting the Albanians in Macedonia, then they would have gone all out in their support for them. Perhaps it was associated with the shift in power in US from Clinton to Bush, or perhaps it was because they realized that Macedonia (in much of its official government policy) had been already pro-US and pro-NATO; but the US was not, at that time, trying to undermine Macedonia's sovereignty.

Here's the conclusion of an article from 2001 that supports the theory that NATO has been out to destroy Macedonia since the beginning. This was the kind of nonsensical claims and theories being pushed by people who are just naturally anti-West, and many Macedonians just fell into supporting these ridiculous claims because a grand plan to destroy Macedonia makes more sense to them than simplistic opportunism. (Note that the author is a Russian-Canadian who is known for pushing conspiracy theories and who many Macedonians believe(d) to be credible on all fronts when it comes to the situation in Macedonia).

America's "mediator" James Pardew has been given the mandate to replicate the Bosnia-Kosovo pattern. In this regard, Washington's military-intelligence ploy is to fracture Macedonian territory, foster internal social divisions and fuel ethnic strife. The design is to destroy all social and political ties between Albanians and Macedonians, who have coexisted for more than a half a century within a multiethnic society. These socio-ethnic divisions are deliberately created so as to curb all forms of social resistance. More importantly, they want to prevent the development of a broader "common front" against the enemy.

The US sponsored terrorist assaults as well as the bogus "peace plan" are intent upon eventually splitting up the country and transforming Macedonia into a NATO protectorate. Operation "Essential Harvest" to be led by British parachutists would constitute a first step towards a military occupation of Macedonian territory. NATO forces are not only protecting the rebels in the territories under their control, MPRI advisers on contract to the Pentagon are assisting in the implementation of "ethnic cleansing" in these territories. In the latter, Macedonian State institutions are no longer functioning.

In other words, the territories under KLA-NLA control – which border Kosovo – are de facto under the jurisdiction of NATO. Moreover, there are indications that the KLA – with NATO support – may attempt to trigger a unilateral secession of Kosovo from Yugoslavia. This would not only heighten the political crisis in Belgrade, it would also raise the issue of the political status of the territories occupied by the KLA-NLA from which the Macedonian population has been expulsed (much in the same way as the Serbs were expulsed from Kosovo). In this design, NATO's intent is clear, it consists in fracturing and destroying Macedonia as a country.

Regarding the first paragraph: bunch of crock. The Macedonians and Albanians in the Tetovo region always had an uneasy existence. The Albanians were provoking Macedonians for over two decades, and the Macedonians viewed the Albanians as scum. Had there been outright war? No. Were the hostilities in Macedonia America's creation/intention? No. But the US does hold some responsibility for the fallout from their support for KLA in Kosovo.

Regarding the second paragraph: the claim was that Macedonia was to be occupied and split by NATO and the evil Americans directly as a result of Operation Essential Harvest. Well, that did not happen, clearly. Yet, I remember clearly that this was the exact type of talk going around in 2001: that the Americans wanted to do to us what they did to the Serbs.

Regarding the third paragraph: the US has been trying to destroy Macedonia as a country and it's taken 17 years thus far? Wow, NATO/US must really suck at their job. Germany/Austria instigated the dissolution of Yugoslavia and it only took a few years, while America, the most powerful country, is only now finalizing its plan for destroying Macedonia through the Prespa Agreement, Friendship Treaty and Tirana Platform?

There are many unproven claims in this article (like the "17" US instructors advising Albanian terrorists who came out on the buses). Read with caution/scrutiny. I just post this as an example of some of the unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims thrown out in 2001 that still persist. I don't believe the US acted correctly in Macedonia, but the Macedonian government and people are essentially responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.

https://www.antiwar.com/rep/chuss6.html#ref