Ukraine’s new NATO ambassador: my goal is to make NATO look forward to our request

Ukraine's Ambassador to NATO Vadym Prystaiko. Photo: ukrinform

Ukraine's Ambassador to NATO Vadym Prystaiko. Photo: ukrinform 

Analysis & Opinion, Featured

Article by: Serhii Sydorenko

On July 10, NATO participated in one of the most significant events of past decade to take place in Ukraine: the full complement of the North Atlantic Council (ambassadors of all the countries and the secretary general), as well as a number of top leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance, arrived in Kyiv to hold the meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Commission. (The North Atlantic Council is the principal political decision-making body within NATO — Ed.).

And three days earlier President Poroshenko finally did what he has been promising the Alliance for more than two years — he appointed the head of the NATO mission, that is Ukraine’s ambassador to this organization.

Yevropeiska (European) Pravda is publishing the first interview with Ambassador Vadym Prystaiko since his appointment. Naturally, we began the interview with questions regarding the misunderstanding between Kyiv and Brussels. As has been reported, Poroshenko announced that Ukraine and NATO are beginning discussions on the Membership Action Plan (MAP), but then a NATO representative stated that this agreement has not been confirmed.

The MAP does not guarantee NATO membership

What exactly happened on Monday? Did we agree to begin a dialogue with NATO on MAP?

We proposed that the Alliance consider the possibility of starting a political dialogue that should result in Ukraine’s invitation to the MAP. A dialogue is needed to agree on how this should be done, so that the Alliance does not reject us.

Who is supposed to formally initiate the granting of the MAP — Ukraine or the Alliance?

At one time the invitation was initiated by NATO. Back in 2006 we were informed that Ukraine, in its development and interaction with the Alliance, had reached a level that would allow it to move to the next level, the Membership Action Plan.

I remember this very well since it happened in Canada, where I was the ambassador. The then NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was visiting Canada, where he organized an official dinner. All the allies were invited, as well as the representatives of the two countries outside the Alliance — Ukraine and Georgia. There the secretary general announced that at the 2006 summit Ukraine and Georgia would receive an official invitation to join the MAP.

But after that Prime Minister Yanukovych came to one of the meetings of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and instead of expressing thanks for this proposal he practically rejected it. Then he said that Ukraine wanted to interact only on practical matters, such as joint training, and he refused political integration

How does the accession procedure take place?

It’s a long process. First NATO Announces an open door policy, then the country expresses its interest in integration, and then it receives an invitation to the MAP and begins to implement this plan.

For almost 20 years the MAP phase has been obligatory. But it must be understood that the MAP does not guarantee membership. And what happened today? The president proposed that we discuss how to proceed. We want to hear — and perhaps the Alliance will tell us — that the MAP is not appropriate at this time but that another format is needed. Or perhaps, on the contrary, they will say: Ukraine has matured and we are inviting you to the MAP. But let’s discuss it!

NATO has already issued an official statement that there is no agreement on this issue.

At the meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Commission on Monday the president said clearly and unequivocally: we are proposing that you consider the possibility of starting a dialogue on Ukraine’s accession to the Membership Action Plan. I agree with you that the allies did not respond “Yes, we agree, let’s begin.”

But NATO  heard the proposal and took it for consideration.

Did the NATO Representatives react to this proposal during the meeting?

No, this question was not discussed.

The dialogue with NATO should begin soon

I have already heard the indignation of European politicians and experts because the Verkhovna Rada has approved Ukraine’s goal to join NATO. Have you heard that?

Yes, I have heard it more than once and I can guess which pro-Ukrainian expert you’re talking about. I was somewhat surprised by his position.

I understand that the political and military situation has changed and that the allies are becoming more cautious. It is a shame that at the time we had the opportunity we did not take advantage of the chance to join the MAP.

Of course, there are countries in NATO that understand the significance of the Alliance and those that can see how much we have done already to contain Russian aggression against Europe and also those that believe that Ukraine will become a burden for NATO. There is no consensus on this at present.

Under these conditions, can we be sure that Ukraine is really initiating the process for joining the MAP?

Do not doubt it, we definitely will do it.

I won’t promise that this will happen in a week or a month because right now there is no agreement among the allies.

We did not want to ask for something that the allies cannot offer. But I, as the ambassador, have received the assignment: we need to begin the dialogue, calmly and diplomatically, on how Ukraine will be granted the invitation to join the MAP. I am convinced it will begin very soon.

In the NATO declarations there is a list of countries that are seeking membership, the so-called aspirant countries — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Georgia. Why isn’t Ukraine on that list. We, too, are aspiring to membership!

Ukraine is definitely no less an “aspirant member” than Georgia. We also have better opportunities and our need for NATO is greater. But the shadow of the Russian Federation is hovering over the recognition of this fact, which is creating a “mental block” for that kind of recognition by the Alliance. I am sure that as soon as we remove this mental block, we will become not only an aspirant but also a participant in all the necessary formats.

Can we expect that our aspirations will be acknowledged soon, let’s say in the fall, after vacations?

We must aim for that. But I’ll admit right away that I realize that this will not be easy to do.

But what is the problem? This does not mean attaching Kyiv to a certain format. The fact that we are seeking membership is our decision, not NATO’s, and to recognize that fact is simply to recognize reality.

I totally agree. This is not a new format and no dialogue is needed here. Ukraine has decided that it wants to become a member of one of the security alliances, and we have the complete right to do so.

I want to draw attention to the fact that the secretary general, in his speech to Parliament and during other meetings, has stated that this decision is the inalienable right of Ukraine.

VAdym Prystaiko (right) and NATO Representative in Ukraine Oleksander Vinnikov. Photo: Crimean News

VAdym Prystaiko (right) and NATO Representative in Ukraine Oleksander Vinnikov. Photo: Crimean News

What are the arguments against Ukraine’s request for the MAP?

The only argument is reluctance to make a request before NATO is ready to satisfy it.

My goal is to reach the moment when the Alliance itself looks forward to our request and, as soon as it comes, solemnly grants Ukraine the MAP at the next available meeting.

 How do we initiate the process? Do we send a request from the leadership of Ukraine?

That option is possible and, if you remember, it had already taken place when we signed the so-called “Letter of Three” ( official letter-application for the MAP, signed in 2008 by then President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk — Ed.).

Romania’s example is interesting. At one time they prepared an open memorandum about their intention to join NATO, which all the political forces signed, even the church, which in Romania is Orthodox and local.

Perhaps some political force initiates such a process in order to demonstrate the unity of the political field, why not?

Another option is a written appeal by the head of state. It can be backed by the signatures of the heads of the other branches of government, but it does not have to be. Or the third option — to simply conduct a dialogue and when consensus is reached, to proclaim our desire at the next summit and then immediately to receive an answer on the Alliance’s support. All three options are acceptable.

Maybe it makes sense to make the request now to confirm our interest, but to point out that the Alliance can reach a decision later when we are ready — perhaps after 2020?

As a negotiator, I would not want to have that uncertainty because it will be similar to the decision of the Bucharest Summit, which proclaimed that “Ukraine will someday become a member of NATO.” But it is unknown when.

This is why I am for a completely clear statement without any “buts” And it should be done when the time is right.

Required changes in the army

What does Ukraine need to change for integration with NATO?

I want to point out that Ukraine has been working on annual programs for 10 years already and lately their content has been moving closer and closer to the MAP requirements.

These programs that we had until last year are difficult to compare with the MAP.

Everything is not perfect, but they contained 5 sections that are important for the MAP: military-defense, security, legal, political, and resources. There are people responsible for their execution, therefore they simply must be executed.

I can’t say that everything is perfect; there are problems. For example, on the one hand, we need consulting help, but on the other hand, there is our traditional inability to listen to advice.

Are you referring to the military sphere?

For the most part to the military sphere because NATO is a military-political organization after all.

We are constantly criticized for not reforming the military departments. Then when will the reform of the Department of Defense take place and the armed forces be transferred to the “J-code” organizational structure?

I would like to point out that at one time, during a different political situation, we had almost completed the transfer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the J-code structure (organizational structure designed to ensure mutual compatibility and streamlined workflows between the levels of command – Ed). But then Yanukovych came, a Russian citizen became the minister of defense, and the army went back to the Soviet structure. But there are people in the army who remember and understand what must be done.

Regarding time frames, our documents outline an ambitious — even very ambitious — goal to complete this process by 2020, and, as an ambassador to NATO, I plan to help our armies to implement it.

… it is ambitious, but is it real?

I’m not a military person, but in my opinion it is very ambitious.

What are the other priorities for reforming to meet NATO requirements?

This is not directly related to NATO, but note that in every speech by the secretary general there was the word “corruption.” Even when he spoke with the parliamentarians on Monday, he constantly returned to this question. Unfortunately, the perception of Ukraine as a state ruled by corruption has reached the Alliance.

It is a challenge that we can address constantly and finally solve.

As for the military portion, the reforms that we have already discussed are important, as well as the introduction of civilian control over the Ministry of Defense. This does not mean that we just label the defense minister a civilian and that the problem disappears. A deep reform is needed.

There is also another focus of attention — the inclusion of women in solving political and military issues. Their role in society. These are all important things where changes are needed, but it’s difficult to implement them.

Translated by: Anna Mostovych
Source: European Pravda

Tags: ,

  • zorbatheturk

    NATO membership is mandatory for all countries near RuSSia.

    • Turtler

      It’s not mandatory… after all NATO isn’t an evil empire like the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact.

      It’s just PRETTY DAMN ADVISABLE, like having insurance while living next to a psychopathic pyromaniac.

      • veth

        NATO MEMBERSHIP OF UKRAINE IS THE LAST NAIL IN THE RUSSIAN COFFIN!

        • Turtler

          Don’t be so sure, I wish I could be so optimistic.

          But the truth is, Russia has survived with even less territory and resources. Muscovy in the 15th century didn’t control Ukraine, didn’t control the Baltics, didn’t even control Siberia or solidly control Novgorod. But then Ivan IV came in and expanded its’ power.

          But I agree that a Ukraine in NATO *WILL* be a powerful lock on the Kremlin’s might, and might even be something like what the fortifications at Messene were to Sparta. A tide break that they could not survive without breaking and breaking quickly.

          http://www.historynet.com/sparta-the-fall-of-the-empire.htm

      • Rafael Hernandez

        Yeah, tell that to Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria

        • Turtler

          “Yeah, tell that to Serbia, ”

          Actually, Serbia and the Greater Yugoslavia are great examples of why it is useful to get away from abusive relations. The fact is, the Yugoslav Wars began to unwind when Tito died and a struggle for power, autonomy, and jurisdiction began among his minions. Specifically, it began after former Serbian communists turned Serbian Ultranationalists seized power in the Yugoslav (and Serb) capital of Belgrade and sought to centralise power throughout the Federation under them. This included revoking the autonomy of Kosovo altogether and seeking to weaken the autonomy of every other “constituent republic from Bosnia to Macedonia.

          This did not go well. So when the Slovenes decided to declare independence, they got INVADED b the full strength of the Yugoslav army in the first full scale conflict the Balkans had seen for nearly half a century, in a way that presaged exactly how Milosevic etc. al. would respond to Croat, Bosniak, and Kosovar moves later.

          THAT is how the Yugoslav Wars began. Because the Serbian Communist leadership decided to act like the abusive, controlling boyfriend that Putin has to Ukraine.

          “Afghanistan, Libya and Syria”

          Oh please.

          Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria are the results of very simple things.

          Do Not Harbor Islamist Terrorists.

          Do Not Finance Islamist Terrorists.

          Do Not Give Them Shelter After They Attack Other Nations.

          Do Not break Peace Terms (in the case of Saddam’s Iraq) that are far more generous than you had any right to get.

          And finally, do not Massacre your own people in a way the world has to acknowledge, ESPECIALLY if you use WMD (like the Baathists did at Khan Shaykhun).

          It is literally quite that simple.

          And since at least HALF of these grievances were the ones used by Russia to justify the reinvasion of Chechnya in light of a Jihadist paramilitary invasion of Dagestan by goons based in Chechnya, PUTIN’S APOLOGISTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS TO COMPLAIN about-at MINIMUM- Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

          • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof Styx

            How is your current financial situation ?

          • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof Styx
          • Turtler

            And why would that be of any interest to me, given your proven shoddy track record on historical research?

          • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof Styx

            Your proven historical record of cleaning toilets with your face on Disqus is of no interest to me, sorry.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f4138ed5d9bac3cfc447a41c1f6aedff390457f3fc34e46fe40d69375586e05.jpg

            https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/sep/25/ghosts-of-afghanistan-jonathan-steele

            Sir Rodric Braithwaite is the author of Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan, 1979-89.

          • Turtler

            “Your proven historical record of cleaning toilets with your face on Disqus is of no interest to me, sorry.”

            Then where is the proof of it, chowderhead?

            Especially since you seem to be he one more familiar with that method of cleaning; I just use a brush on the toilet and then deposit it back in its’ stand.

            “Sir Rodric Braithwaite is the author of Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan, 1979-89.”

            And that is of interest why?

          • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof Styx

            enjoy being absolutely good for nothing.

            Blocked.

          • Turtler

            “enjoy being absolutely good for nothing.”

            I wish I could, but alas I know too much history and logic. So I will be tormented by what good I can do.

            “Blocked.”

            Chalk up a win for Turtler! Styx surrenders.

          • Turtler

            Great Necro, chowderhead.

            “except u know nothing of history..lol”

            I know the Nazi battleship Schleswig-Holstein bombarded Polish positions at Westerplatte on September 1st, 1939.

            Therefore your claim is provably false.

          • Turtler

            “hahaha even your insults are retarded,”

            Not compared to your own. Which don’t even have the benefit of analysis to give them punch.

            “and what has that ship bombing anything got to do with anything???”

            Firstly: it wasn’t a “Ship bombing.” It was a Ship shelling a target with artillery. Bombs are different than shells.

            And secondly: since you apparently can’t understand the connection, let me lay it out for you.

            You claimed in your previous comment that “U know nothing of history.”

            My demonstration that I do in fact know about the Schleswig-Holstein and what it did on September 1st, 1939, is proof that destroys that claim. Because that is Something of history.

            “every child learns that at school…”

            Nope. Never learned it at the schools I went to. And frankly I doubt you did either.

            “but everything you wrote about ex-yu was bullshit..”

            So including the fact that Franjo Tudjman- far from being a “Nazi Collaborator”- was in fact a member of Tito’s Partisans?

            Including the fact that a map in 1911 showed a separate Croatia as a subunit of the Habsburg Empire?

            False.

          • Turtler

            “dude, I know what I wrote retard.

            u don’t have to parrot shit back to me.lol”

            I know I don’t.

            But I choose to, because I like replying in detail to the points of those I talk to. And in debates it helps serve as protection agaisnt accusations that I am twisting someone’s words or lying about what they said.

            “what? never learned about ww1 or 2? ”

            I obviously did, since I talked about how the latter started.

            “yeah I expected that.”

            Then your expectations are truly shoddy.

            “why did they arrest Nedic? probably cause they arrested everyone.”

            While I am far from a defender of Tito except with measured-to-faint praise, he clearly didn’t have his men arrest himself. He also didn’t have Tudjman (the man who you claimed was a declared Ustasha) arrested. Ironically he was ARRESTED by the Ustasha while serving with the Partisans in Croatia and had to escape from certain death.

            The JANL were not particularly merciful victors, and there are a patchwork of mass graves on the Dalmatian Coast and the Slovene-Austrian border that demonstrate that. But they clearly didn’t arrest or kill “everybody.”

            And Nedic’s collboration with the Axis was well documented. Including by himself.

            ” ps. tito was croatianlol”

            Half-Slovene, Half-Croatian specifically.

            “Oh my god you actually think wikiing something makes u knowledgeable about history? ”

            Actually, no I don’t chowderhead.

            In fact I view Wikipedia VERY poorly, and was in fact banned from it for doing things like pointing out that the article they had on the Sino-French War was deluged by Chinese nationalist trolls claiming that a war the Qing entered to preserve their Southeast Asian tributaries and *ended* with their defeat was somehow a “victory” because France didn’t take even more land that it was never really interested in taking. I frankly view it as the lowest comon denominator of research and rarely use it.

            That doesn’t change the fact that even a broken clock can be right once a day. And at least Wiki- schiteshow thati tt is- USUALLY presents its’ sources and quotes.

            You haven’t.

            That makes the cesspit of research on the internet more reliable than you. What do you have to say about that?

            “who is the man that established the first quasi operational police force in England?”

            Define “police force.”

            Because the answer Wikipedia most likely provides is “Bob Peel”, hence the term “Bobbies.” But that’s dubious at best.

            In particular because centuries before the first modern police force is usually dated in England, the country had an array of military police and local law authorities, the latter of which usually having jurisdiction over a Shire and the title of “Reeve” (Hence how “Shire Reeve” became “Sherriff”). You might have vaguely come across the legends of Robin Hood and the Sherriff of Nottingham. That came from the conduct of the law enforcement under King John. This system was codified and really implemented universally by King Alfred the Great of Wessex, so I’ give it to him.

            And even before THAT- before the land was probably “England” since the Anglos and Saxons hadn’t come- the region was a Roman colony and as a former Roman re-enactor I know it had the closest forms of function to the Vigiles, who were basically “Armed Firemen cum night watchmen.” Unfortunately, if we know the person who introduced them to Britannia, I do not know about it.

            So the long and short of it is that there was a long history of either operational police forces ,or Operational Quasi-olice forces in the territories we would call England, evne before Robert Peel’s reforms. That’s the kind of information you don’t get from Wikipedia, but then I don’t rely on it.

            So that is why I go back to asking: How do you define “Operational Police Force”?

          • Turtler

            “Robert Peel???
            ha, that’s what you managed to wiki in this short time? ”

            Nope.

            I recalled it from memory.

            it’s easy to do when you remember the colloquial British term for “Metropolitan Police”, and the phrase “Bob’s your Uncle.”

            “I don’t know, it means what it means, except you can’t dig this up quickly on the net.”

            Indeed.

            “And no, your little citation of wiki means nothing cause it’s none of them.”

            Then prove it, stupid,.

            Who is it?

            And before you do, DEFINE “Operational Police Force.”

            Because otherwise, your claims are meaningless.

          • Turtler

            “Define operational police force???lol”

            Laughing it off isn’t a substitute for actually answering a relevant question.

            If you watered down the terms enough you could define the Bow Street Officers as the first “operational police force.” The problem is there were always less than a dozen of them, and they were not an independent Force, instead acting mostly as the Internal Affairs division of the existing Night Watch in the City of London.

            So I’ll ask again Chowderhead: Define Operational Police Force, or I will force a definition On you.

            Last change.

            “oh, and “Metropolitan Police” is hardly a “colloquial English term. look up the word mate.”

            Correct, Stupid.

            However, “BOBBY” and “BOBBIES” are.

            Try googling “British Bobbies.”

            Actually, I’ll do it for you.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=British+bobbies&num=100&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgufvJvIDWAhVh6IMKHRysCd8Q_AUICigB&biw=1024&bih=444

            You want to know why they have that Nickname? IE colloquial English term applied to them?

            Because of their FOUNDER, Robert Peel. Because “Bob” is a nickname for someone named “Robert.”

            “yeah mate, you pulled Robert Peel out your ass. hahaha”

            Then by definition what I pull out of my ass is better than what spits out of your brain; didn’t think about that before making that claim now did you?

            Still haven’t seen you come up with the “actual” founder of England’s first “operational police force.”

            “nah I don’t have to prove anything, why answer.”

            Because it would Prove your point. It would embarass me, and reassert your claims.

            Much like I did by Googling “British Bobbies.”

            Don’t make a claim unless you’re willing to follow through. Because up to this point you have named no better alternative to Robert Peel- the man who literally gave his name to the British Police- or Alfred the Great. And unless you do, those two will Stand.

            Put your money where your mouth is for a change.

            “you’re just gonna say you knew it all along.”

            No, I’m actually not. I’m going to stick with those two (Because they Are right).

            But what it would demonstrate is that you were apparently Right, that I don’t know English law enforcement’s history as well as I claim, and so on.

            “besides it’s easy, he’s very well known.”

            If it were so easy, you’d have listed him by now.

            You haven’t.

            So either he isn’t that easy, or you’re so incompetent you can’t handle the easiest of challenges.

          • Turtler

            “well done you’ve proven yourself right. ”

            It’s not that hard.

            “But no it’s not the wiki answer dude. ”

            It often isn’t.

            Which is why I don’t rely on the wiki answer, “Dude.”

            “define it whichever way it means.”

            Alright.

            “Operational Police Force” is three words. So I’ll break it down.

            By “Operational”, it means “Active, functioning, and in the field.” Therefore, it can’t be some paper institution that never existed in reality.

            By “Police”, it means an organization for keeping domestic law and order by walking the streets and using measured force on the public. This is why a bunch of knights standing with their shields in the streets- like during the Peasants’ Revolt- do not count.

            And by “”Force”< I take it to mean an independent organization, institutionally independent and not part of a larger service. In this sense, the Army would be an independent service of the military, but not the Artillery inside it and still less the Military Police, even though they sometimes are.

            Cram it all together, and you get "Functioning, field ready civil order independent organization." Now, feel free to take issue with any part of the definitions if you feel I've done wrong.

            Which on ENGLISH soil pretty much zeroes it in to Bobby Peel's police as the earliest example on English soil.

            "nah, those two can stand, I don't care."

            I've noticed.

            Well, if you don't care about your claims why should anybody else?

            "but it is easy, your just not very well read on the subject,"

            Better read than you are, chowderhead.

            "skimming through does that, easy to miss lol"

            Says the moron who blasely asserts I know nothing about history, but can't take countearguments worth a damn.

          • Turtler

            “where does the “independent come from? lol”

            Funny, you’ve never clarified that.

            While I have. In which I explained my definition for Independent and why. And hence why the Metropolitan Police Department established by Peel was the first.

            “i’m just reading your bs, cause I only skimmed over it before.”

            So you’re admitting you had no way of proving it was BS because you didn’t even look.

            Waste of space.

          • Turtler

            “a metropolitan police is not independent….hahahah”

            A: Funny you decided to define that NOW, given how I prodded you for hours to actually define your terms but You Never Did, even in the face of an explicit warning that if you didn’t, you would forsake any ability to define it.

            So you don’t get to define “independent force” anymore, chowder head. I do.

            and

            B: Most people would disagree. Especially since unlike the previous organization like Alfred’s Shire Reeves- who were never a united organization- or the Bow Street Runners- who used modernIsh methods but were a subservient organization- the Metropolitan Police Force area united and independent force in their own right, not subservient to any similar organization directly over them.

            That doesn’t mean they can do whatever the heck they want, they still have bosses after all. The difference is, their bosses are nothing less than a Ministry.

          • Turtler

            “googling hahaha”

            Are you laughing because you’re capable of laughing at yourself, or are you laughing because you’ve got no better moves to make?

            The fact is, everyday slang preserved the name of the man who founded the first operational, modern Police Force in England.

            You apparently don’t want to admit that, but you also don’t have a good explanation for how Peel wasn’t the real founder, your mysterious somebody was.

          • Turtler

            “I’m laughing because you can’t answer the one question I put to you, that you won’t find in Wikipedia.”

            Probably false.

            I DID answer it, stupid.

            The entire justification for your condescension and contempt here is that you claim I answered WRONGLY.

            Problem is, in spite of making that claim you have provided exactly zero evidence to back it up, and when challenged have not reigned to reveal it.

            I have, and my argument is based on facts up to and including how British cops are still nicknamed “Bobbies.”

            So if you don’t provide your answer, Mine stands.

            “I’m laughing at myself for having this retarded conversation with a retard.”

            I’m supposedly the retard…. yet I’m the one who knew Tudjman was not an Ustasha, among others.

            So, how does it feel to be dumber than a retard?

          • Turtler

            “No you didn’t answer it correctly. ”

            Let’s pretend anybody has reason to believe that is so.

            O. It’s STILL more than what you’ve done, because you haven’t answered at all.

            So, if Robert Peel isn’t the answer, what is?

            “I don’t care about ze “bobbies”-‘

            That would be relevant if reality was determined by what you cared about.

            But it isn’t.
            “Different time mate. ”

            Then what time is it?

            ” I tested a hypothesis of mine, which was….that if it wasn’t easily

            accessible on the gogle or wika, but still fairly common knowledge in
            English history( of which u are an expertlol), you wouldn’t know this
            simple answer.”

            And yet you don’t follow through with the basic issue of proving a hypothesis; namely stating your conclusions and evidence. Remember the scientific method, chowderhead?

            And the fact of the matter is, if we’re talking about modern policing as an independent force, the history starts with Sir Robert Peel. But don’t ask me, ask the farqing LAPD or Scotland Yard sometime.

            The LAPD and the British Police Force are much better equipped to determine their own farqing historical lineage and what constitutes an independent, modern police force than you are.

            http://www.oldpolicecellsmuseum.org.uk/page_id__435.aspx

            (And note chowderhead, that neitehr the Bow Street Runners or the Marine Police count, because the latter was a subservient part of the Navy while the former was the Internal Affairs of the night watch).

            “”And guess what, you didn’t”

            Which only puts you as the equal of me, since you’ve never bothered to provide the “correct” answer, or given any kind of explanation for why.

            “I’m just curious as to your purpose here being on nearly all day everyday? ”

            You flatter yourself.

            I’m not here nearly all day everyday. I have a life.

            But on occasion I like taking some entertainment by beating up on the bigoted, clueless, and stupid.

            “But I agree with my friend, this is practice and tryouts for the big propaganda gig. ”

            Hardly. Not interesed in a “Big propaganda gig.

            “Like the faux journous on this racist site.”

            Says the person who peddled utterly racist tripe by trying to villify literally everybody else in the Balkans but Serbia.

            “Except you’re not nearly as good at forming and articulating an argument as
            you would like to think.”

            That I can believe, actually! I try and have some grasp on my limitations.

            The problem is, the same can be said of you.

            It’s just that the gap between how good I think I am at those skills and my actual skill level is Much, MUCH smaller than the gap you yourself display.

            Because apparently you think you know the history of the English Police better than the UK Metro PD. Truly staggering hubris.

            “And your writing is boring.”

            So is yours, it’s just that mine doesn ot commit the same sin of being racist or wrong.

          • Turtler

            “keep making roundabout excuses for fascist”

            i didn’t make excuses for Fascists. You did, including Nedic himself.

            There’s a difference between explaining why the Croatian ethnic cleansing after Storm was much bloodier than previous attempts (and that traces back to the victory the Croats won militarily erasing what possible defenders there were for the civilian population), and condoning it. In the same way explaining why Genghis Khan’s tactics were so effective is different from condoning him.

            The irony is, I probably have a better idea of why your grandfather was Murdered than you do.

            Oh, and while we’re on the subject of tyrannical scumbags doing ethnic cleansing, I wonder, do you have the same outrage over the ethnic cleansing that happened at the start of this war, such as the Ygoslav Army’s attacks of Dubrovnik and Vukovar?

            Where the Serbian ultranationalists had the dubious distinction of ethnically cleansing BOTH Croats and Serbs because they were loyal to the new republic in Zagreb?

          • Turtler

            “you don’t have an original thought, ”

            Funny, my RP friends would beg to differ.

            “if I wanted to read wiki, I would”

            That’s good, because I don’t operate off of Wiki.

            You on the other hand, don’t seem to operate off of anything but stupid, racist biases and a heaping dose of historical illiteracy.

          • Turtler

            “You talk such rubbish.”

            Then prove it, chowderhead.

            “Of course Serbia had a claim just like everyone else, due to I’ts sizeable populations in nearly all neighbouring countries.”

            Funny. That wasnt the basis Milosevic used when talking about who deserved to own Kosovo, or biracial regions that supported governments Other than His (like the city of Vukovar, about half Croat, ahlf Serb, and overwhelmingly supportive of the Croatian Republic).

            So, what gives?

            “”greater Serbia” is just a thing made up in western media, ”

            Provably false.

            Or am I supposed to believe that the Serbian government in 1919 was part of the “Western Media” when it subjugated its’ wartime ally Montenegro?

            ” I’ve never heard it before.”

            This does not surprise me whatsoever, given you probably haven’t even studied Balkan history.

            “In Yugoslavia everyone,except a few radicals lived ok.”

            Perhaps *by the standards of Eastern Bloc Communist dictatorships.*and the rest of the so called “Nonalligned Movement.”

            But even then that is not too pleasant.

            “But money and fascist can do wonders.”

            Which Fascists, chowderhead? Fascists were incredibly thin on the ground at the start of the conflict.

            The leadership of ALL the competing sides- Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks, Albanians- were drawn primarily from the upper echelons of the Communist party that had come of age under Tito. Many- including Tudjman, the guy who often gets labeled as a “Fascist” by Serbian ultranationalist morons- actually FOUGHT real Fasists during WWII under Tito.

            “Serbia took the others under it’s wing when it didn’t have too.”

            Correction: it s’ government FORCED “the others” under “its’ wing” whether they wanted to or not. Even if that involved betraying long term allies like the Montinegrin government in exile.

            It had as much love for the people to have the ability to say “no” as the Soviets did.

            “Serbia had a kingdom,”

            True.

            “Croatia and Slovenia didn’t even exist.”

            FALSE.

            In the case of Slovenia, that is so.

            Problem is, Croatia did exist.

            It was a constituent part of the Kingdom of Hungary and had been for nearly a thousand years, with its’ own idigenous local government and nobility (albeit ones ground under by Hungarian and Habsburg Austrian politics).

            “Go check any map from 1909.”

            GLAD YOU ASKED, STUPID.

            Because while I could not quickly find a map from 1909 EXACTLY, I could find one from 1911. Which is “Close Enough>’

            http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/austria_hungary_1911.jpg

            You see the little part of the brown segment at the bottom that says “Croatia-Slavonia?”

            “Twice Croatia ran back to Serbia, twice.”

            Which ones, chowderhead?

            “Why did they run back after joining Hitler?”

            One might as well ask “why did Serbia run back after joining Hitler?” I realize this usually goes over what passes for the head of Serb ultranationalist morons, but Hitler propped up ethnic Serbian puppets as well. While in Croatia there was Ante Pavelic’s Ustasha government, in Serbia there was Milan Nedic’s “Government of National Salvation.”

            The truth is quite freaking simple. WWII in Yugoslavia was a savage civil war, full stop. Communist partisans fought pro-Fascist nationalists and anti-Fascist nationalists while also contending with the Axis powers proper.

            And yet you chowderheads only highlight CROATIAN collaboration and SERBIAN resistance without talking about SERBIAN COllaboration and resistance by the others. Why so?

            “That’s who nato supports….Nazi collaborators.”

            Get a life, stupid. Most Nazi collaborators have been dead for ages. Especially after Tito’s government got through with them. So please, point to the number of Nazi collaborators NATO supported!

            Franjo Tudjman is many, many, Many things. Most of them bad. But he cannot be called a Nazi collaborator honestly. In fact, he could claim to be MUCH LESS of A Nazi Collaborator than most of humanity, including you and I, and even my WWII Grandfather.

            He actually shouldered a rifle and FOUGHT the Nazis. The actual, original, card carrying agents of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

            And yet somehow he gets transformed- through the magic of ultranationalist, Communist apologist, Milosevic apologist claptrap- into a “Nazi apologist.” Because apparently guilt for collaboration in a bloody civil war gets applied racially, but only on the standards You Claim. And in a way that means actual collaboration or resistance is utterly irrelevant.

            “But you cant speak out against the US empire, they pay you.”

            BWAHAHAH. I wish.But no. The only compensation I get for writing this is seeing you squirm.

          • Turtler

            “I just like you ranting you spastic.”

            The correct spelling would be *your ranting you spastic.” Learn it.

            “No Croatia had no country, check the maps.”

            I did.

            I even provided one from within two years of the period you cited. It clearly shows “Croatia-Slavonia.” Are you denying that that map was made?

            “These countries seceded and expected half of the population in Bosnia’s case to accept it.”

            You mean much like Milosevic expected to tear off half the territory of the former Yugoslav republics and expected the rest to accept it? Even in cases like Vukovar where there was unamity that it would not happen?

            “Eh dude, mujahedin were brought to my village, what are you on about?”

            What I’m “on about” is that people- including in the Serbian leadership- were talking about a Greater Serbia for over a hundred years prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia. And while many of them had no political influence, some of them did.

            And that influence showed in part through things like the suppression of Montenegrin sovereignty after WWI.

            “You know exactly nothing, you retarded troll.”

            > Accuses other people of being a retarded troll.

            > Acts like a retarded troll without actually demonstrating any evidence, and making a number of claims that are PROVABLY FALSE.

            Fact is, I know the map I showed in my previous comment shows “Croatia-Slavonia.” I know it says it was made in 1911. What do you know?

            “All you have is ‘evil figureheads”, because that shit works on you.”

            Riiiight. Keep ranting to yourself that somehow, the Irish government is more evil than Milosevic.

            “oh nah,
            Franjo was just an Ustasa, declared, so much u know…lol”

            Ok than.

            POINT TO WHERE HE DECLARED HIMSELF AS SUCH, CHOWDERHEAD.

            Should be simple, right?

          • Turtler

            “learn what?
            English? hahaha”

            No, proper English grammar.

            “is that how you trolls measure the size of your dicks??lol”

            Nope.

            The size of my member has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can’t debate worth dirt.

            You claimed Tudjman was a declared Ustasha. Yet why aren’t you pointing to the declaration?

            “”the irish government” hahaha”

            Laughing without explanation- or worse, no reason- is not the greatest sign of mental health.

            “greater Serbia is a austrio-hungarian concept,”

            Except I did.

            And that is flatly BULLOCKS.

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41119069_Ilija_Garasanin_Nacertanije_and_Nationalism

            Unless you’d like to claim that Garasanin was Austro-Hungarian (in spite of Austria-Hungary NOT EVEN BEING FORMED AT THE TIME, since before 1867 it was just the unitary Austrian Empir).

            Is it true that the Habsburgs played up Greater Serbian ideals for propaganda and to try and get support from the Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, etc? Yes. Is it true they used it as a tool for demonization? Yes. Is it true they feared it and sought to destroy Serbia as a result? Yes.

            In fact, in WWI they did their damnedest to do so. The Central Powers oversaw the death of more Serbs per capita than Poles who died in WWII. NO SMALL FEAT and not the kind of thing that happens accidentally.

            But the Austro-Hungarians didn’t create the concept.

            ” go look it up retard.”

            Unfortunately for you, I did. And I even linked to one of the results.

            I keep meeting your challenges, you keep fialing to meet mine.

            “yeah little Serbia was so scary to these huge empires.”

            Indeed, it was. For reasons that were both sounder than they seemed (in particular the well developed intelligence work- and to some degree terrorist networks- generated by Dragutin Dimitrijevic in particular), and Serbia’s ability to find support both nearby in Greece and Roania and further in Romania. After all, in the early 19th century it had fought the Ottoman Empire to obtain autonomy, before even the Greeks with the support of the major powers in the Congress of Europe did.

            In the 1870’s played a supporting role in Russia’s defeat of Turkey in the conflicts of 1876-1878.

            In 1912 it joined a Balkan League to defeat the Turks yet again. And then when Bulgaria broke away it played a leading role in defeating what was regarded as the “Prussia of the Balkans” in alliance with the rest of the League in spite of the Bulgarians being supported by the Habsburgs and Germans.

            And that’s before getting into the rabid, genocidal hysteria Budapest, Vienna, and Constantinople all displayed over it. By 1914 if not far earlier, it had become clear that Serbia was a gowing, defiantly independent power that would not be brought to heel. and presented a threat to the empires the Habsburgs, Osmanli, Bulgarian Tsars, etc. so wished to maintain. That’s why Conrad von Hoetzendorf sought to destroy it for years before the murders in Sarajevo and lobbied hard for that.

            “only difference is Serbia stood up to them while Croats and others sold out, everytime..lol”

            You might want to study “Ban Josip Jelasic”, chowderhead. He certainly did not “Sell out”, given how he weighed the options and waged war on the Hungarian government in 1848 and 1849 to get his point across.

            And I could go on.

          • Turtler

            “is it bullshit that greater Serbia is Austro Hungarian propaganda? Really?”

            That’s not what you claimed before.

            You were stupid enough to claim that it was CREATED first by “Western” media and then by the Austro-Hungarians. That it was an Austro-Hungarian concept. Which is utter codswallop since the idea of uniting the Serbs under the banner of the Kingdom was being discussed in the 1840’s.

            I even discussed that in my previous point. That the Austro-Hungarians WEAPONIZED it for propaganda, but they did not INVENT it. Which is what you claimed.

            If you can’t even keep your own damn claims straight, why should anybody else respect them?

            “and so on and so forth……yeah Serbia was soooo,sooooo big and a huge threat.lol”

            Then name a single part of my synopsis of Serbia’s 19th and early 20th- ie pre WWI- history that was wrong.

            Am I supposed to believe that Serbia did NOT in fact play a role in winning the First and Second Balkan Wars, first defeating the Ottomans and then Bulgaria?

            “as for the few Croatians that did fight fascism and the Ottomans before
            that, kudos.”

            “Few.”

            Mate, the Habsburg designation for the territories of the Kingdom of Croatia prior to 1800 was called “THE MILITARY FRONTIER” for a reason. It was probably the single most fought over piece of real estate between the various anti-Ottoman alliances and the Ottos in the Balkans.

            Don’t get me wrong, that isn’t because the Romanian Principalities, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, or Hungary didn’t get bled out and suffer a lot during the Turkish Wars. They did. But in terms of sheer density of warfare in the Renaissance, even they paled in comparison.

            “but too few too even mention credibly.”

            How many do you deem needed to “mention credibly”?

            “And i’m Croatian.”

            You’re also stupid and bigoted.

            And stupidity and bigotry know no nationality or race.

            “God, the Nazis thought the Ustase were too radical.”

            Indeed, they did.

            They were spectacularly enthusiastic for implementing the “Final Solution” on their own terms. They had enthusiastic hunter-killer terms that exterminated “Undesirables” like the Jews and Romani, often to the point of fumbling anti-Partisan operations. They were just about the only Axis ally to run their own death camp tied into the Nazi system, Jasenovic.

            They planned to kill a third of the Serbs under their control. And the “only” reason it was “only” a third was because they planned to forcibly indoctrinate another third to become Croats, and to violently expel the rest.

            The NSDAP viewed them as a PR problem and utterly bloodthirsty, but at the same time saw them as one of the few reliable anti-Communist and anti-Partisan proxies they could use in Yugoslavia since the Chetniks had their own agenda, and more “Apolitical”/ “Professional” forces like the Croatian Home Guard were deemed to be too ineffective.

            Trust me, I know *something* of the Ustasha and their cruelty, and I will never deny that.

            But they were just one side of the internal civil war that tore at Yugoslavia. And if they were more numerous and bloodthirsty than other collaborators like Nedic’s government troops in Serbia and the Slovenian Home Guard while anti-Axis forces were rarer, that doesn’t change the fact that they were there.

            “And anyway what’s the definition of Greater Serbia? ”

            Answer: Good Question. Ask any given specific promulgator of the idea about it.

            But like most historical terms, it’s changed over time. In the same way that the US’s “Manifest Destiny” at one point argued for the conquest of all of North America, to all of the Americas South of Canada, to now.

            Garasanin basically defined the term much like “Greater Yugoslavianism” would be; a federation of all the South Slavs- including Bulgarians- in a fraternal bond by language and ethnicity. Only in this case under the banner of a unitary Serbian kingdom rather than a Yugoslav Federation.

            Milosevic defined it more or less as the core of Serbia proper, plus Kosovo, and the majority Serb parts of the YRs of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzogovinia. Though he and Tudjman briefly considered doing the Molotov-Ribbentrop twostep and splitting Bosnia and Herz right down the middle.

            And then of course, there is the map that the SRS likes waving around, even though it is Vastly further than even most Serbian ultranationalists were willing to go for 500 years and which is basically something Sesejli pulled out of his rear end.

            So the concept was fluid. But for the sake of ease, I’ll define Greater Serbia as “an expansionist idea in which Serbia would expand well beyond its’ traditional Ottoman era, or modern borders to incorporate peoples viewed as Serbs that are outside said borders.

            The exact extent of said definition, how it would happen, and how peacefully it would go are another question.”

            “A unified country where the majority of the populace is Serbian?”

            Eh, no, that would be a definition of “Serbia” in general.

            “Bosnia can’t secede unilaterally without the consent of half the population.”

            Indeed, but that didn’t stop Milosevic from trying to quash Slovenian secession in spite of that being more than reached.

            “That’s why RS will split from Bosnia, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

            Certainly, and I’ll never argue that Bosnian Serbs did not have legitimate gripes with Sarajevo. The issue is that Milosevic and his allies were not basing their policy- including propping up the SR_ on the basic of principled adherence to former Yugoslav law or self determination. Even in marginal cases like Slovenia they only relented in the face of staggering embarrassment on the global stage, a half baked threat to Austria, tactical defeats by the Slovenes, and the threat of Croatia’s independence unfreezing and cutting their supply lines off.

            If what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, why was Milosevic so insistent that some geese were better than the gander?

            “what do you mean proper English grammar?lol why?”

            Nitpicking. If you’re going to wax poetic about how I rant, rave, or am stupid, at least you can do it in a less stupid way.

            “I’m not here to help your English along, ”

            Good, because you wouldn’t.

            “and i’m commenting on some random site. Not writing a
            thesis dude.”

            As am I.

            “As for challenges met, I haven’t seen how you did.”

            Mostly because you haven’t Looked.

            “You just mention stuff out of context enrirely, like some warship, or Irish
            people, or whatever.”

            Context is King, mate.

            You claimed that I didn’t know “anything” about history.

            Anything means Anything Means Anything, chowderhead.

            The fact that I knew about the bombardment of Westerplatte showed your claim was wrong.

            Likewise your claim that the US props up “evil” regimes can handily be countermanded by pointing to Ireland.

            “I ask you one standard history question you can’t look up in Wikipedia, and you don’t answer it.”

            I did.

            The problem is, you CLAIM I answered it wrong.

            But you don’t actually provide the answer to show it. While apparently insisting that the “Bobby” who gave the British police their nickname “Bobbies” is not the right answer.

            I say you’re bluffing and blowing wind.

          • Turtler

            “yeah I claimed that the west made it up just like austrio-hungary made it up. ”

            So you claimed Wrong.

            “don’t put words in my mouth with silly semantics dude. ”

            Point to a single damn time I’ve put words in your mouth.

            Remember how you said you knew what you said, so I didn’t need to quote you? This is the reason why. So that i can use YOUR WORDS.

            “they used it both because it was politically a very useful tool.”

            And plenty of Serbian leaders and thinkers pushed it because in addition to being even more politically useful for them IF it could be realised, they had the natural bonds of affinity for their country and people.
            ” like they are doing now with Russia and China, ”

            Mate, you ever actually BEEN to Russia or China? I have.

            If you want to see Xenophobia, try reading Chinese newspapers on the South China Sea or Russian news about Siberia.

            “like they did with the hundreds of Iraqi baby incubators, ”

            Citation needed.

            “which by the way no hospital possesses.”

            No, but Saddam did find the time to “possess” thousands of tons of poison gas he shouldn’t have had.

            “10 at best. but idiots buy that crap from the various empires, ”

            Like you buy it from the Kremlin.

            The difference is, crap can be bought from almost any source, not just Empires.

            “just like today’s.ask who about it?”

            I have.

            ” you? u seem to be the expert.”

            Thanks.

            “Serbia and the US and you see similarities? you really are retarded.”

            Not as much as you, Mr. Capitalization Ace.

            “Serbian’s ”

            that should be Serbians Apostraphe.

            “lived on those land for centuries,”

            Yeah, and I never denied it. But in the case of Slovenia, so have Slovenes (or Proto Slovenes), Bosniaks, Albanians, and Croats.

            Go back far enough and you can find medieval coats of arms for it.

            “they never conquered anything.”

            Oh boy….

            “Never” is a long time.

            1. …This. Just This. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/maps/Balkans1362.Serbia.jpg

            2. Upper Macedonia, 1912-1913.

            3. Montenegro, 1919

            4. And I could go on. You really want to try and play history ju jitsu? Because you’re not equipped for it..

            “the US on the other hand…well u know.”

            Every nation has a past.

            “you actually talk about some defeats, which ones? ”

            Russo-Turkish War, 1878.

            First Balkan War.

            Second Balkan War.

            NOT THAT HARD to tell.

            “when they were conned into re- gifting previously conquered lands for lies. ”

            Consistency is not your strong suit.

            In just the previous couple sentences you asserted Serbs never conquered anybody. Now you talk about them being conned into “regifting previously conquered lands for lies.”

            Apparently it never occurred to you that it is kind of HARD to gift previously conquered lands if you HAVEN’t PREVIOUSLY CONQUERED THEM.

            “and how were they supposed to win, Serbia was militarily much, much stronger. ”

            Uh no.

            Take a freaking map of “Ottoman Empire” in 1910, and Serbia in the same period. That should give you some idea about how Serbia was not much, much stronger militarily. Which was a reason why it fought the Turks as part of a LEAGUE of countries in the Balkan Wars, and was tne underdog when it didn’t.

            Even in the case of Bulgaria, it was by far the strongest single nation in the Balkans behind the Ottos, and it dealt the Serbs a few initial defeats in 1913 when the Bulgarian Tsar launched a sneak attack.

            “Only illegal bombing campaigns caused actual damage.”

            Translation: you haven’t even farqing studied Operation Storm.

            And apparently haven’t recognized that Serbia having a history that goes back centuries also includes having a history of Military Conflict.

            “which somehow was not needed in Rwanda at the time, wonder why?”

            Primarily?

            Stupidity, exaggerated fear after Milosevic made threats to Austria, and inability for the UN to get its’ head out of its’ rear in Rwanda to do something in time.

            “hey dude you keep mentioning Milosevic, in some megalomaniacal way, just like the lying media did.”

            And you keep Avoiding mentioning him and peddling his lies in a megalomaniacal way.

            “except he was both a highly educated lawyer and banker and lectured in ivy league colleges in the US.”

            I know.

            And?

            You want to talk about Fascists, guess what? So were the people who drafted the Nurnburg Laws. So was Roberto Farinacci. So was Carl Schmitt.

            Given your own anti-Western bias, I’m sure you can understand how being well educated in the West does not magically make you incapable of evil.

            And in fact, Mark Atilla Hoare- a man who is much smarter and more due than either of us- had this argument of yours preempted.

            http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/hoare.htm

            “of course you buy this Hollywood crap, ”

            Mate, it’s ironic you claim that, given how Hollywood turned out nonsense like Stop/Loss and In the Valley of Wolves.

            “but most westerners do not anymore. ”

            Citation needed.

            “too many bullshit lies already told.”

            You can’t even detect bullshit lies well.

            “wax poetic”, “manifest destiny”, “promulgator”……you sound like a
            spastic,”

            You sound like a stereotypical tough guy trying to thumb his nose at argumentation.

            “but I know you’re learning your trade…..very colloquial of
            you..lol”

            Logic. YOu’re not doing it.

            “i’m not gonna waste my time with proper grammar with you here, really?”

            You’re already wasting your time replying to me without having a semblance of the preparation you need to debate and win. So why not?

            “but thanks for regurgitating both my stuff and what you pick up from US movies…”

            I rarely watch movies, including US movies, stupid.

            But way to miss the point.

            “manifest destiny…..lol are you a third grader?”

            I’m flattered you think an American third grader could make a nuanced point like I did, about how concepts changed.

            “and no, I’ve looked you just pull up the same tired bullshit the state
            department did. ”

            And you pull the same tired bullshit you get from the same sewer Russia Today and others pump out.

            “you speak of these people like you were there and not regurgitating Wikipedia.”

            Well, I wasn’t there, but I also am not regurgitating Wikipedia/

            “anyways keep up the English work..lol”

            Thanks, I intend to.

            Shame you won’t. You need it more than I do.”

          • Turtler

            “you’re a waste of time”

            And yet you continue to waste it.

            “comparing medieval circumstances with today-”

            False. I was not Comparing it to anything, because it was irrelevant.

            I was merely using it to refute a point your previous claim.

            You stated Serbia/Serbs “never conquered anything.”

            I didn’t NEED to claim the map was comparable to anything today in order to prove the clai mthat Serbs never conquered anything was wrong. Merely demonstrating that they had is enough, because NEVER means NEVER.

            Oh, also: You should have figured out that this was not true because *no Slavic speaking culture was native to the Balkans* in Antiquity. Serbia- like Croats, Bosniaks, and so forth- was the product of a major Slavic migration into what was then a Greco-Illyrian region of the Roman Empire. Which they conquered from both the imperials and other interlopers like the Goths and intermarried.

            Which is still Conquering Something. Hideously wrong or evil? No. But still enough to debunk your claims.

            “as for “having studied operation storm(or ethnic cleansing)”

            As even a moron such as yourself should know, Croat troops had been guilty of ethnic cleansing for years before. That wasn’t what made Storm decisive.

            What made Storm decisive- unlike shindigs like the tit for tat barbarism with the Bosniaks or the self defeating cruelty in the Medak Pocket- was that it overran and destroyed entire RSK formations, especially in the South and parts of the Central Front. It broke the Serb Krajinian Army in battle.

            It was on top of this victory that the Croats added the bloody seal of ethnic cleansing, depopulating previously Serbian areas.

            “nah, I just lost my grandad, murdered at 78 years old by brave men”

            Well, I salute him.

            I can only imagine how he would feel to see the stupidity of his progeny, but even that would be preferable to what happened.

            “fuck of you turd”

            NO U.

          • Turtler

            “not wasting more of my time with retarded racist turds making excuses for fascists.”

            If that were the case, you’d have to drop the majority of your reading list. Your rhetoric has been right out of Serbian Neo-Fascist claptrap, given how you tried to claim only Serbs oppsoed Fascists while ignoring Nedic’s dictatorship, and claimed that Serbs never conquered anybody in spite of basic history saying otherwise.

            Also, there ‘s a difference between EXPLAINING something and making EXCUSES for it. You couldn’t see Storm past the Ethnic Cleansing without bothering to note that without the military victory the Croats won over the Krajinian troops, the local Serbs wouldn’t have been exposed to their murders, rampages, and deportations.

            if you can’t understand evil, you can’t fight it.

          • Turtler

            “Liar.”

            If you’re going to make the acusations, at least do it right.

            And frankly, it’s ironic given how a hypothetical “Mr. Wikipedia” would still be better informed than you

          • Turtler

            “stupid and bigoted? really?”

            Ya Really.

            The fact that you insisted Serbs never conquered anyone in spite of Serbian history books saying otherwise underlines that.

            (And no, I don’t have them myself. But I do have Serbian friends who do).

            “that sounds like a compliment from you cellar dwellers”

            So you also don’t know what a compliment or insult sounds like. Greaaaat.

          • Turtler

            “hey dude that map is a representation of races in the empire, not state lines.”

            Correct.

            HOWEVER, IF YOU WOULD FARQING USE YOUR EYES, you would Notice that it DOES in fact incorporate “state lines”, or rather lines between the administrative subdivisions of the Habsburg Empire.

            One of those is “Croatia-Slavonia.”

            So, are you so farqing blind you can’t see the lines?

            “so no Croatian country there? Right?”

            Wrong, as mentioned above.

            If I have to crop and blow up the segment of the picture to show the words “CROATIA-SLAVONIA” on the map, I will.

          • Turtler

            “It’s not a country you fool, at best it’s a province without any say in it’s governance.”

            *Sigh.* Looks like somebody doesn’t know how the heck feudalism worked….

            And for the record: Yes, Croatia was both a country (specifically, the word you used originally in regards to Serbia was “Kingdom”) at this point, AND a province. Albeit one that did have SOME say in its’ governance. Not much, but definitely not “any.

            To make a formidably long story short for the historically challenged: Croatia was already a Kingdom when King Coloman of Hungary invaded and defeated its’ native dynasty, being crowned King of Croatia as well as King of Hungary. Two crowns on one head, two kingdoms with one ruler, and two nations’ aristocracies beneath him. with the Croatian title being treated as subservient to the Hungarian one.

            Then the native Hungarian dynasty got wiped out at Mohacs and the crown of Hungary fell to the Habsburgs of Austria. So three crowns, one head. That- more or less- is where the situation stood in 1911, when that map was made. Albeit with Hungarians clawing more autonomy back.

            The map represents administrative districts, and during this time what was called the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia had a mostly autonomous local government, and was mostly self-governing domestically.

            https://books.google.com/books?id=cG570mijBF4C&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=Croatian+autonomy+habsburgs&source=bl&ots=Vrc_2xYAgu&sig=cbFrn0ZpV6-naeVAPpVCSRMGn8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYnL_4-oDWAhXG1IMKHQKoB2UQ6AEIUDAH#v=onepage&q=Croatian%20autonomy%20habsburgs&f=false

            Now does that make it a truly independent kingdom like Serbia was at this time? No. But it was a separate kingdom and a well defined one. And it already had a vocal political elite who went into forming Yugoslavia.

            “show me a map of the time that says country of Croatia”

            Good luck finding many maps that label nations or constituent parts “Country of England”, “Country of Yugoslavia”, “Country of Serbia”, or what have you.

            “recognised by anyone? anyone? ”

            There’s a difference between being RECOGNIZED, and being recognized as INDEPENDENT. The latter was obviously not going to happen for the simple reason that Croatia was NOT independent, in the same way Serbia was not in the Yugoslav periods.

            But it was recognized as a polity within said empires. Particularly by the other parts of it that had to detail it.

            Already linked you to one such relevant treaty.

            “please find one.”

            Found two at the link.

            Empire of Austria.

            Kingdom of Hungary.

            Not surprising, given they had been dealing with it administratively for centuries.

          • Turtler

            “you can’t subjugate the same people, ”

            You’d be surprised.

            “have you been to Montenegro?”

            Yes, I have chowderhead.

            “the only reason that clan boss dictator djukanovic didn’t hold a referendum-”

            didn’t hold a referendum at Which Point?

            Because he did play a leading one in a couple.

            “is because of the siptari and because he would be indicted on criminal
            charges immediately.”

            We could have only hoped.

            “it’s a small place, you can’t hide criminal clan
            activity.”

            Unfortunately, that has not proven true. Take a look at Kalingrad or Albanian politics lately?

            “And if he were to go against the 4th reich,”

            No such entity, chowderhead.

            “he’d have the Macedonian scenario.”

            Which might have proven quite

            “More Montenegrins live in Serbia than in Montenegro itself.”

            Indeed.

            “Serbia NEVER joined hitler.”

            How do we define “Serbia”, chowderhead?

            Because apparently, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia’s Serbian Royal Family- including Regent-Prince Paul- signing THE DOMINANT MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT FOR THE AXIS- the Triparte Pact- doesn’t count.

            And neither does a Quisling dictatorship under General Nedic governing Serbia under an explicitly Serbian identity.

            Now it’s true that both were fantastically unpopular, with the former agreemeent leading to an anti-Hitler coup that removed the government from power, while the latter was just a sad sack.

            you don’t get to smear every other nationality wor ethnic group in the Balkans with the brush of “Fascist” or “nazi Collaborator” while asserting the benevolence of the Yugoslav government and its’ Serbian Royal Family, and then IGNORE cases of collaboration with the Reich by ethnic Serbs. Including (briefly) the Royal Government.

            Now if you’d like to argue that those collaborators were unpopular and opposed by a clearcut majority of most Serbs, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.

            THE PROBLEM is that in those cases, you’d also have to address how that was the same case for Slovenes (who suffered their own Holocaust at the hands of Mussolini), and Albanians.

            “We lost a hundred lives everytime a single Gman
            died, official policy.”

            Not everytime, though that was not for lack of trying by the Reich.

            But in practice, Partisan (and to a lesser degree Chetnik) resistance and some cases where it wasn’t plausible to carry outretaliation killing made the ratio slip.

            But it is still quite the point. But what you conveniently ignore is that similar retaliation killings were instituted in Bosnia, Slovenia, and later Croatia. And while many of those were targetted against ethnic Serbs in the area, the majority were NOT.

            Just take a look at Foibe.

            “Just like Jasenovac. ”

            No, Jasenovac was a murder center. One dedicated to taking in as many “undesireable” Serbs/Jews/Dissidents as possible and murering them in an industrial death slide. The retaliatory killings you correctly mention were responses. the Nazis murdered whoever was around in revenge.

            Difference.

            “Thanks for the historical revisionism, ”

            If what I’m writing counts as historical revisionism to you, you must be badly in need for it.

            “but it’s bullshit.”

            No, it’s not.

            And the fact that you

            “Occupied is the word you are looking
            for,”

            Sure, but by that measure, you’d have to apply it to -at MINIMUM- Slovenia and Bosnia as well.

            “with one of the highest mortality rates in ww2. ”

            But still lower than Bosnia. Huh, why do you mention that?

            “Somehow that didn’t apply to HDZ. Wonder why?”

            Actually if you take the NDZ as a whole, the murder rate is higher. Primarily because of Ustasha and other Axis atrocities against resident Serbs AND other undesireables, such as retaliation for Bosniak and Croatian Partisans.

            “Oh and Franjo is dead, just like alija and Slobodan, how convenient.”

            Very convenient. Now they can all have a get together in Hell, where they belong.

            “Are you saying Nazi logos on international football pitches and Thompson are not neo-nazis?”

            Often times? Yes.

            I’ve actually had to face off with real Neo-nazis, and frankly most of the people who label themselves it have no freaking idea what the ideology is like. Still probably means they are racist scumbags or even genocide fanboys, but their Neo-Nazi credentials are dubious.

            “Croatia as a state did not exist, ”

            Define “State”, chowderhead.

            “no map showing international state boundaries exists”

            No, the map clearly does show INTERNATIONAL boundaries, that is, boundaries between Nation States dominated by a particular ethnic group.

            The issue is that these international lines were within the same Multinational Empire, the Habsburgs. That doesn’t mean the nations in question didn’t exist, it just means they were not independent. If you have trouble grasping that difference, try comparing to how the Axis chopped up Greece without being able to destroy the Greek People or their nation underneath.

            ” You purposely chose one showing demographics.”

            Because it happened to show the boundaries between the various peoples in the Habsburg yoke.

            “It wasn’t a civil war it was occupation.”

            It was both. MOSTLY an occupation, but also a Civil war.

            There’s a reason why more Yugoslav nationals died fighting for the Axis than Germans did in Yugoslavia. And before you mention, the Ustasha were only the largest and most bloodthirsty collaborationist force (and were riddled with spies and turncoats, as their compalints about Partisan infiltration of the Croatian Home Guard shows).

            “The Ustasa fought with the Nazis-”

            True, but so did

            A: The Serbian Volunteer Corps

            B: The Slovene Home Guard.

            C: The Serbian Black Chetniks under Kosta Pecnac (whose guilt was underlined by Mihailovic himself).

            And I could go on.

            “and the Chetniks fought against them,”

            Not during Operation Roesselsprung they didn’t.

            The fact is, Mihailovic was reckless enough to state that his main enemies were the Partisans, with even the Ustasha being secondary and the actual Axis dead last. Which is why during the last two years of the war the Chetniks often fought alongside the Germans.

            Can I understand why? Yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that it happened, and you’re trying to whitewash away any and all collaboration with the Axis by ethnic Serbs.

            “the leader even got ordained by the allies.”


            Indeed, and for good reason. In fact, the Western Allies would have preferred to support the Chetniks over the Partisans, in no small part because they were closer to the pro-Allied government that threw Paul out, and because they were twitchy about Communists.

            The fact that Winston Churchill- the man who tried to destroy the Bolsheviks in 1917- eventually believed it wasn’t enough says something.

            “So what if the communist took over later.”

            So it means that it didn’t happen peacefully, and wasn’t maintained peacefully.

            “Civil war, yeah right. ”

            You seriously havne’t studied the Partisan-Chetnk conflicts, have you?

            I’d expect so.

            “Your argument is that when Germany occupied country after
            country in Europe, the Balkans had a civil war.”

            That’s actually closer to the truth than your strawman attempt has any right to be.

            But my argument ACTUALLY is

            “Germany occupied country after country in Europe, and then demanded support from others using those conquests.

            The Yugoslav Regency under Prince Paul ultimately caved under the pressure following the Hitler-Stalin pact and Western defeats in 1940, signing the Triparte Pact and becoming a subsidiary member of the Axis.

            he generally anti-German and anti-Fascist Yugoslav military and public- particularly the Serb dominated air force and army- overthrow Prince Paul in apeaceful and popular revolution two days later, declare the young King to be of age, and rescind the Pact.

            Hitler gets angry, demands Yugoslavia be destroyed, and then Invades Yugoslavia with his allies.

            The Axis rapidly overrun the country, and then start splitting it up into annexed territories and pro-Fascist puppet states of various ethnicities. Mostly with their own racist agendas.

            Soon, multiple anti-Axis resistance forces emerge with their own agendas and start fighting the Axis, their local Quislings, and ultimately each other.”

            Hence, MOSTLY an invasion and Occupation, but also a Civil War.

            ” Your lies are running rings around you. ‘

            Just because something I write runs rings around your reading comprehension doesn’t mean it’s a lie.

            “Ukraine is in a civil war. ”

            Indeed.

            But mostly a Russian backed invasion with some local proxies.

            “I don’t care about your grandfather, my ancestors weren’t.”

            Weren’t what?

            “No guilt is only applied nationally because that’s how politics works dumbo. ”

            In that case, why tfarq was Pierre Laval- a Frenchman- executed while Konrad Adenaur- a German- was rewarded following WWII?

            Germany lost the war, France won!

            “What where half the Nazi collaborators in Croatia chinese? ”

            No, they were probably Croatian, with smaller segments of Bosniaks.

            But I can probably say the same about nazi collaborators in Nedic’s Serbia.

            Collaborators and resistors branched the ethnic divide. The fact that there were more Croat collaborators- which I have NEVER DENIEd- than there were Slovenes or Serbs doesn’t change that fact.

            “As for Balkan or most history in General I know it ”

            I don’t believe you for a second.

            Especially since you get many facts objectively, wrong.

            “and go by scholarly material, not the pseudo sources popping up in the
            last twenty years. ”

            Scholarly material like WHAT , stupid?

            The same schoalrly material that led you to insist that Serbs never conquered anybody?

            “You’re even trying to convince me that Serbia had a bigger propaganda machine than the US”

            Point and quote where I said that.

            Period.

            I dare you.

            “Yet it’s not Serbia at war every year,”

            Except if you bother to look at the timeline of the Yugoslav Wars, Serbia- or rather the totalitarian rump state of Yugoslavia centered on Belgrade- WAS at war for essentially every year, even when the US was at peace and not involved in combat or peacekeeping ops.

            For instance: 1994.

            “. No one in the west even believes that amanpour etc bs. anymore.”

            A lot of Euromaidan Press commentors are both fro mthe West and believe “that Bs”

            So your claim is false.

            “That’s why they don’t care about Ukraine, Russia and North Korea.”

            Well, some of us do.

            ‘The 4th reich is paying you it seems,”

            hah. Hah. Hah

            I wish my family DID get paid, even if it was from your magical “4th Reich”. But alas, we don’t. Right now we have literlaly no cinome stream and are workign to get another one. Frankly I shouldn’t be replying to you when I could be job hunting again.

            But you said you don’t give a damn about my grandfather? well I do, along with the friends I had who fought to free the Iraqis and the Ukrainians and Georgians that have died at the hands of Putin’s thugs.

            So I do this for them.

            “but neglected their own people the last few decades.”

            Harly.

            “So many lies told about that war in the west-”

            I can believe that.

            But why are you peddling more of them?

            “that I was shocked as a kid, i’m ashamed to admit i’d given them credibility.”

            And maybe in a few years you’ll mature enough to be ashamed you gavethe lies you’re peddling now credibility.

            “Greater Serbia was made up when the huge Austrians went against it,”

            That can’t be true, because in order for the “huge Austrians” to have “went against it”, the “it” must have already existed. So stop contradicting yourself.

            And secondly, “Greater Serbia’ first started to get talked about in the 1830’s, when Serbia was something of an Austrian ally, before the break.

            “it was made up when Hitler did the same,”

            Uh, firstly, if “Greater Serbia was made up when the “Huge Austrians” supposedly went against something that nobody had thought of but themselves, Hitler wouldn’t have had to make it up a second time.

            Logical consistency is Not Your Strong Suit.

            And secondly, if it was made up when Hitler did the same, why did King ALexander shut down and persecute Serbian Ultrantionalists like he did the Ustashe and others?

            He was kinda a little bit DEAD by the time Hitler invaded.

            “and sadly Nato used the same tactics. ”

            Yeah, right.

            NATO.

            That’s why NATO forced Milosevic and his cohort to declare that Croatia could only become independent if it left behind a vast amount of its’ territory that was deemed to be ethnic Serbian, regardless of the actual number of Serbs OR whether said ethnic Serbs wanted to go (as in Vukovar, where they didn’t).

            If only Milosevic and his crew had you as a defense attourney, you would’ve been a rock. New defenseL “NATO MADE ME DO IT!”

            “This is in part responsible for shaming the Anzac history-”

            How hasve the ANZAC history been shamed?

            Where did this accusation come from, chowderhead?

            “and responsible for the recent lack of respect, along with Iraq, etc.”

            The recent lack of respect is because a bunch of scumbags decided to play apologist for a tyrannical, terrorist supporting, Fascist cosplayer like saddam and assorted Jihadist terrorists, mindlessly aping accusatiosn of “Bush Lied People died” and that there were no WMD, eve WHEN they have been found for years.

            People will be stupid.

            “They even had to bomb innocent journalists because they didn’t trust the “truth” to come out? ”

            And when did this happen, pray tell?

            “come on laughable.”

            Not as laughable as the idea that Tudjman, Izetbegovic, and the Slovene separatists needed NATO to drum up images of a Greater Serbia when Milosevic was literally demanding such.

            “Oh and YOU are PAID by the US government, or on their behalf.”

            I wish.

            But you know what? at this stage I’m glad you are peddling it.

            Because it allows me a moment of escapism to imagine a world where the US government actually DID pay me for this, and it means I’ve argued my case forcibly enough that you assume I’d have to do it for profit.

            Which means I must be doing something right.

            “And the only thing i’m squirming at, after reading your nonsense (like the map).”Is you.

            Objection Stupid:

            The Maps weren’t mine.

            I only linked them.

            So I cannot claim a single bit of credit, and thus cannot say they are truly “My Crap.”

            “Have you read it? You should re-read your shite.”

            Already have.

            “An expert on Logic”

            Never claimed I was.

            I am just an expert in SOME aspects of history.

            “, English history, Balkan History, Manifold destiny, WW1 and WW2 ”

            More or less.

            “and you even got kicked of Wikipedia, because you were too
            smart for them regarding some dynasty or the other.”

            No, it had nothing to do with some dynasty.

            It had to do with Chinese ultranationalist trolls claiming China won the Sino-French war when the mere existence of French Indochina proves otherwise.

            If you can’t even get your accusations against me right, why should anybody trust you?

            “And many, many other examples of trying to talk up your smarts to a complete stranger.”

            I’m less focused on talking up my smarts than I am about pointing out the facts. Everything else falls into place.

            The irony is, you’re the one who has been obsessing about talking DOWN everyone else’s smarts and talking up your own….without actually providing proof for your claims.

            “Dude that’s sad and pathetic and it rings like bs.”

            Not as much as your conduct.

            “I wouldn’t even care if you got paid millions or thought you were on the propaganda frontline for a valid and noble cause.”

            Of course you dwouldn’t.

            But considering you don’t care about making sure your claims are truthful, why would I expect you to care about it?

            “What you actually do is sad and abhorrent.”

            Not comapred to what you do, racist peddler.

            “Couldn’t answer one simple question,”

            Again, you get this wrong.

            I DID answer the “one simple question.”

            Your entire claim is that I answered it WRONGLY.

            But you have never provided a whit of proof or evidence as to why.

            Which means you’re probably lying.

            “couldn’t provide a valid map ”

            According to who? You, stupid?

            You don’t define what is a valid map or not.

            “and if somebody had time they would eat through most of your drivel quick,
            quick, hoookay.”

            Not “hoookay.”

            You say if somebody had the time they’d eat through most of my drivel quick?

            Well, wyou clearly have the time to reply, chowderhead!

            Why don’t YOU do it?

            “And it’s good to see you steered clear of the US, ”

            obviously not.

            I live here.

            “except to dishonestly tarnish Serbia with evil US crimes and worse, ”

            I did not tarnish anyone dishonestly.

            if you can’t admit that some among the Serbs were evil, then you are simply a racist.

            “and already proven beyond a doubt .”

            So much beyond a doubt you can’t actually muster any evidence.

            “Yeah those two nations are really alike.
            hahahaha”

            More than you care to admit.

            “That is the only thing you can touch on when it comes to your dole handout.”

            Being on the dole would actually be a step up financially, even if it would be a staggering step down responsibility.

            “Only the safe topics……and that’s a big if.”

            Mofo, you haven’t rea the rest of my comment history.

            “sad thing about you quasi, or even pseudo intellectuals is…..You are just educated enough to be a danger to society. ”

            Stop talking into a mirror.

            “next thing you will tell me you solved the Riemann hypothesis.lol”

            Nope.

            I can’t even imagine an alternate universe oversion of myself solving that.

            “You speak of the Poincare conjecture, ”

            No I haven’t.

            Poincare is ultimately math, and I suck at math.

            “but only regurgitate what better men than you have conceived. ”

            Actually, to al arge degree I will admit that. That is what history involves, looking through what people have done or siad.

            The difference between the two of us is, you regurgitate what worse men than even you have concieved. Which is why you can’t even debate medieval Balkan history honestly.

            “And only to make yourself look cleverer? ”

            Not like you have tried.

            “Couldn’t you find a better reason?”

            I already have.

            I will not allow those who fought for freedom, democracy, and self determination to be SLANDERED by a racist, totalitarian apologist like yourself.

            Lord knows I’m certainly not doing it for the money.

            “You are a Faux intellectual -”

            Not like you.

            “and at best in your lifetime you’ll come up with some catchphrase like “whataboutism”. lol”

            Perhaps. *We Will See.*

            But if nothing else changes, that will STILL be much better than what you can manage.

            “How do we know you’re not part of a renewal of the CIA’s discovered op indoctrinating intellectuals in the 70’s and 80’s?”

            If you can’t even know what a historically accurate map looks like, you can’t.

            “For all you know you could be part of an organised fifth column?”

            See above.

            “Don’t feel bad,”

            I know.

            “most Serbians didn’t know when they had gangsters arrest
            Milosevic and hand him over to the Hague.”

            In which case, it would be fitting, because it would be gangsters arresting another gangster and mass murderer fo for his crimes.

            Karma’s a biotch.
            “And not for the bombing campaign, but the capitulation after 80

            days. ”

            That and the murder of opposing politicans.

            “The Serbian people wanted US troops on ground, but they couldn’t
            stand the losses. ”

            Who couldn’t?

            Because the few times NATO and UN troops appeared on the ground, they hadnily won the battles they fought.

            Just ask the Croats how the Medak Pocket went.

            Hey man, Iraq was calculated as safer. ”

            And calculations suck.

            “Of schools and hospitals bombed or shelled, who cares.”

            The people who live there.

            But it’s funny you don’t give a damn about-say- Aoalition attempts to build new ones in Iraq or elsewhere. Or when the “Good guys” shelled some in places like Sarajevo.

            “It’s like saying your mum doesn’t have a cock inside her 15 hours of the day,

            but a cock like replica dildo, whatever.

            Mate, have you seen my mother? NO, NO YOU HAVE NOT.

            Frankly, people would more likely clutch their little johnsons and run away screaming in the other direction at the concept.

            “English is my third language,”

            You should’ve studied logic instead.

            “I grew up speaking it and went to school in an
            English country. ”

            Indeed. And yet apparently it hasn’t made you any better at using the sources.

            “There is nothing you can teach me on that or any of the
            others,”

            Obviously that is not true, since you suck at capitalization.

            “but unlike you I don’t have to practice, because I don’t do
            propaganda”

            If you believe that, it is the stupidest thing you have said.

            “As for the Hague, funded by vested interests”

            Western, Russian, African, Asian…. it’s funded by the UN ,mind.

            “. Do you think a western politician will find his way there? ”

            Eventually, probably.

            “Maybe Blair?”

            Don’t see it unless the ICC becomes a kangaroo court.

            “Oh that’s right in English law there’s no such thing as a war of aggression. How convenient next to you I actually look like the intellectual, that’s bad dud”e.”

            Apparently, you were too busy in a delusional masturbation about how good you look to notice the little, itsy bitsy fact that English Law is based on precedent, and the conduct of an aggressive war entered English Law BY WAY OF THE NURNBURG TRIBUNAL.

            So you not only don’t know English Common Law, or International law, you’re stupid enough to congratulate yourself on false grounds.

            Geereeaat job.

            “Look, it’s been fun, I chatted to you out of what is soon to be professional
            curiosity, ”

            Professioanl curiosity, huh?

            I pity the person who manages your profession.

            “I wanted to know your belief system. ”

            And you have failed.

            Unsurprisingly.

            “But from what I have read you hardly have one. ”

            Which just indicates that your analytical skills such.

            “Except I guess for Arrogance, Nepotism,
            Deception, Narcissism and not Greed,”

            I’ll give you arrogance and narcissism.

            What you missed was believe in Christ the Savior, supprot for freedom, democratic republicanism, and self determination, empathy for one’s fellow man, and the willignness to lay my affairs on the line doing charity.

            The issue i you have all he flaws you mentioned, along with a heaping dose of racism, complete lack of self awareness, and infantile argumenting.

            ” but a will do whatever it takes to
            survive mentality”

            We will see.

            “. I hardly think they actually pay you that well.”

            Closest thing you’ve come to being right about my “pay.”

            “Really retard don’t bother replying. It’s a waste of your time.”

            Sorry moral imbecile.

            Too late for that.

            Besides, I intend to show this sorry conversation to a certain Serbian friend of mine……

  • Ihor Dawydiak

    There are several key issues that need to be resolved before Ukraine can be seriously considered as a full member of NATO and this is not limited to corruption, military/political structures and public opinion. What is of much greater and immediate concern to the NATO Alliance include matters such as Russia’s war with Ukraine in Eastern Donbas, its military occupation in Eastern Donbas and Crimea, its continuing attempts to try and destabilize Ukraine and NATO’s future relations with Russia should Ukraine become part of the Western military alliance. As for their part, Putin’s hyenas have hedged their strategy on trying to keep NATO off balance and out of Ukraine by continuing with their dirty wars, constant saber rattling on various fronts and even the veiled threat of a nuclear holocaust. As such, all that remains to be determined is the difference between actual realities and Russia’s tendencies to bluff. That too can be determined as Russia surely continues its slide into bankruptcy.

  • Screwdriver

    Ukrainian senator Vadim Rabinovich about Nato and Ukraine:

    • veth

      Ukraine will be NATO-member, Russia lost Ukraine for ever.

      • Screwdriver

        NATO already said NO, you can relax

        • veth

          Negotiations have started.

          • Screwdriver

            NATO “requires candidates to have stable democratic systems, pursue the peaceful settlement of territorial and ethnic disputes, have good relations with their neighbors, show commitment to the rule of law and human rights, establish democratic and civilian control of their armed forces, and have a market economy” https://www.rferl.org/a/1099020.html
            So yes, you can relax….

          • veth

            Ukraine is an democracy, not an Hitler nazzi-state like Russia. Russian Army is occupying Donbass and CRIMEA, BUT BOTH AREAS ARE LEGALLY UKRAINE. Now disputes here, just invasion by fascist Russia. There is civilian control on the Armed Forces, not like in nazzi-Russia. And a market economy, except in occupied Donbass and CRIMEA where is no economy.

  • Dirk Smith
  • Микола Данчук

    If Ukraine is serious about NATO, then it needs to get serious about shutting the boarder with Russia. New laws ( mostly enforcement ) need to become a priority. A strong identification/verification process needs to be established with strict penalties for those that circumvent.

    An issue which baffled me has been – why is Ukraine paying pensions to people who have never worked or lived in Ukraine until they became eligible for retirement?
    Too many old agreements are putting Ukraine at a disadvantage!

    • veth

      New pension reform will deal with it, RADA ready to support it.

  • Scradje

    A minor country like Montenegro joins, but not Ukraine. Nato accepts countries not menaced by pootlerstan, but the ones facing an existential threat from the kremlin murder gang have to wait and wait. Shameful.

  • PorkyPie

    GREAT NEWS !

    GLORY HOLE TO UKRAINE !!