PDA

View Full Version : Balkans - General discussion


spyretto
19-01-2005, 17:27
This thread was split from another thread because it went off topic. Here you can discuss about the Balkans, its people, their culture, mentality, the way they dress, etc.


:gigi: I thought so ... cause Im assuming Greece isnt thaaaaaaaaaaat much different....:coctail:

Well, I'm afraid it IS different. Greece is more like Western Europe, and girls don't want to be labelled as "sluts" no matter what. But I really haven't been around Eastern Europe to know how it is there. So you were right :D

coolasfcuk
19-01-2005, 17:51
Well, I'm afraid it IS different. Greece is more like Western Europe, and girls don't want to be labelled as "sluts" no matter what. But I really haven't been around Eastern Europe to know how it is there. So you were right
hmmm... well, I havent personally been there... but Ive heard stories from bulgarians visiting greece .... and the Balkan subjects are Balkan subjects no matter what. ... although you are escaping to the south a bit. But they said (the bulgarians) that greeks HATE bulgarians and act very 'snobby' around us lol .. all of my friends had bad greek experiences.

bulgarian girls dont want to be labeled 'sluts' either .... its just the general understanding of 'sexy' is different ... what is 'slutty' standard to one, is 'sexy; standard' to others.

noki_the_cat
19-01-2005, 17:57
But I really haven't been around Eastern Europe to know how it is there. :D

I noticed the girls, young :lady: ladies and women in east Europe try their best to be as beautiful, elegant, :nail: classy, attractive, :rev: tasteful, pretty, fashionable :girl: and appropriate. Very impressive compared to north American and the no cares grunge :gigi: look.

spyretto
19-01-2005, 18:16
hmmm... well, I havent personally been there... but Ive heard stories from bulgarians visiting greece .... and the Balkan subjects are Balkan subjects no matter what. ... although you are escaping to the south a bit. But they said (the bulgarians) that greeks HATE bulgarians and act very 'snobby' around us lol .. all of my friends had bad greek experiences.

bulgarian girls dont want to be labeled 'sluts' either .... its just the general understanding of 'sexy' is different ... what is 'slutty' standard to one, is 'sexy; standard' to others.

I never understood what the problem is with Bulgarian people. I can understand it with the Turks and the Albanians, but not with the Bulgarians. There must be something but I don't know what it is. The Bulgarians sided with the Nazi in WWII, right? That might have something to do with that.
Yeah I'm afraid the Southerns ( those people in Athens mostly, who are cocooned around their own little existence ) use the word "Bulgarians" as an insult for the Northerners. It's going on for a while and has become commonplace on sports grounds. It has generated attention recently and it's going to become an issue that comes to the Greek House of Parliament. The antipathy may have something to do with that.
So to be called a "Bulgarian" is synonymous to a big insult. :rolleyes: I don't understand it and I don't think it's fair either but it's only me.

I noticed the girls and young ladies in east Europe try their best to be as beautiful, elegant, classy, attractive, tasteful, pretty, fashionable and appropriate. Very impressive compared to north American and the no cares grunge look.

That is true for the Greek girls as well.

coolasfcuk
19-01-2005, 18:18
I noticed the girls and young :lady: ladies in east Europe try their best to be as beautiful, elegant, :nail: classy, attractive, :rev: tasteful, pretty, fashionable :girl: and appropriate. Very impressive compared to north American and the no cares grunge :gigi: look.
You forgot to say 'women' as well.... i dont think its only the young that wanna be fashionable. Though i have to admit, i think a middle ground is the best - USA (esp mid west) is a bit tooooooooooooooo careless - you could see people going to school lin their pajama bottom shorts, nasty old t-shirt and flip-flops and it just gets tiring to watch NASTYly dressed--tasteless people. In East Europe on the other hand things are waaaaaaaaaaay to dressy. One feels like they have to put make up on and get dressed up to simply go throw away the trash in fear of being noticed looking too grungy :gigi:

I never understood what the problem is with Bulgarian people. I can understand it with the Turks and the Albanians, but not with the Bulgarians. There must be something but I don't know what it is. The Bulgarians sided with the Nazi in WWII, right? That might have something to do with that.
Yeah I'm afraid the Southerns ( those people in Athens mostly, who are cocooned around their own little existence ) use the word "Bulgarians" as an insult for the Northerners. It's going on for a while and has become commonplace on sports grounds. It has generated attention recently and it's going to become an issue that comes to the Greek House of Parliament. The antipathy may have something to do with that.
So to be called a "Bulgarian" is synonymous to a big insult. I don't understand it and I don't think it's fair either but it's only me
:eek: so yeah, all my friends werent exaggerating then! Yes, for a while we were on 'the wrong site' during the wars :hmmm: but I dont see the Greeks saying: "Oh, look at that asshole, he is such a German!" Thanks for clarifying that though... there goes my enjoyment of possible Greek vacation!

p.s. I have nothing against Greeks either, 2 of my grandparents were practically born in Greece, although they are 100% bulgarian ... until at age 10 they were KICKED out due to border changes ... maybe that's the problem - all those Balkanadian countries just have too intertwined history ... and the Balkanadians have way too much pride.. OPPA (Watching the Big FAt Greek WEdding though, it applies to BG just as good haha)

spyretto
19-01-2005, 18:22
You forgot to say 'women' as well.... i dont think its only the young that wanna be fashionable. Though i have to admit, i think a middle ground is the best - USA (esp mid west) is a bit tooooooooooooooo careless - you could see people going to school lin their pajama bottom shorts, nasty old t-shirt and flip-flops and it just gets tiring to watch NASTYly dressed--tasteless people. In East Europe on the other hand things are waaaaaaaaaaay to dressy. One feels like they have to put make up on and get dressed up to simply go throw away the trash in fear of being noticed looking too grungy :gigi:

Well, in the UK they do dress in a more careless and tasteless fashion compared to Greek girls but they haven't gone that way yet. So you only occasionally see something that would make you go "huh" :spy: You see a lot of girls in tracksuits, something that you don't see in Greece often. But many older women's dress sense is crap.

I think we had this conversation before, didn't we? :spy:

nath
19-01-2005, 18:33
p.s. I have nothing against Greeks either, 2 of my grandparents were practically porn in Greece, although they are 100% bulgarian ...
Oh! really my Cool:eek:...;) ...so I understand why you're so Hot sometimes in your posts...:p

coolasfcuk
19-01-2005, 18:35
Oh! really my Cool:eek:...;) ...so I understand why you're so Hot sometimes in your posts...
:lol: thanks nath, yes, I am porn-stars child! :girl:

ill fix this!

noki_the_cat
19-01-2005, 18:40
One feels like they have to put make up on and get dressed up to simply go throw away the trash in fear of being noticed looking too grungy :gigi:

Yes this is very true in Mocva and Bashkir.
A lady around 50 was mentioning it is like, "lady’s feel they must dress up to go for bread!"

Speaking of Greece, Halliburton’s construction of the new highway and tunnel system in Greece is sure impressive.
Reducing grades from 12% to 7%, increasing lanes and preserving historical sites too.
I’m looking forward to driving the full length instead of partial sections.

spyretto
19-01-2005, 18:52
:eek: so yeah, all my friends werent exaggerating then! Yes, for a while we were on 'the wrong site' during the wars :hmmm: but I dont see the Greeks saying: "Oh, look at that asshole, he is such a German!" Thanks for clarifying that though... there goes my enjoyment of possible Greek vacation!

Well, they do say it about anybody really, and they'd definitely say it for a German...although we're not a particularly racist country, otherwise we wouldn't have "embraced" the Albanians despite all the problems they're causing. I think poor Bulgarians are at the wrong side of the fence, I mean if you were consistently called a "Greek" as an insult, how would you feel when you met a real Greek? It's funny because we share the same religion but the Serbians, for example, would be seen in a much more favourable light than the Bulgarians would be. Maybe there is an explanation somewhere but I don't know Bulgarian people well to be able to form a hypothesis. Can you?


p.s. I have nothing against Greeks either, 2 of my grandparents were practically porn in Greece, although they are 100% bulgarian ... until at age 10 they were KICKED out due to border changes ... maybe that's the problem - all those Balkanadian countries just have too intertwined history ... and the Balkanadians have way too much pride.. OPPA (Watching the Big FAt Greek WEdding though, it applies to BG just as good haha)

That Greek family in MBFGW was sooo exaggerated. Those are the Greeks of the diaspora :D
It has to do with what you say as well. The Greeks see possible theats everywhere, that they'd try to claim parts of their territory eventually...Turkey with Cyprus and the sea territory...Albania with South Epirus...the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for claiming the name and the history. So they refer to the threat of the idea of the "Big Bulgaria", probably including those territories before the border changes took place as well.


But We're geting so offtop now! Haku will be understandbly so pissed off :gigi:

haku
19-01-2005, 19:17
But We're geting so offtop now! Haku will be understandbly so pissed offHave fun. :D

freddie
19-01-2005, 21:35
OK, what are we talking about here? People of the Balkans? Who is, who isn't? Who dresses better? Well for one thing, I can safely say that from what I saw Slovene people dress WAY better then Americans do. At least according to my tastes. Americans are too fond of baggy clothes. I like to see some curves. :p

And I still say the best dressed girls I ever saw were the ones in Belgrade. Those girls really know what to wear to look sexy. I could easily objectively say they are the best looking as well, although I must say I'm more fond of American girls in that regards (but that's just me - I LOVE cultural diversity).

As for the question what nations are still considered to be balkan... that's easy. All that live on the Balkan peninsula. The real question is which of those nations have the balkan MENTALITY though. IMO I'd say those are all the slavic balkan nations, plus Albania and Romania. Greeks are a bit more... mediteranian (don't take this literaly though).

coolasfcuk
19-01-2005, 22:03
Yeah, well me and spy were [off] again (surprise, surprise) and so this thread emerged :D
OK, what are we talking about here? People of the Balkans? Who is, who isn't? Who dresses better? Well for one thing, I can safely say that from what I saw Slovene people dress WAY better then Americans do. At least according to my tastes. Americans are too fond of baggy clothes. I like to see some curves.
Well, I havent been to Slovenia yet, but I can believe ya, as i can say Bulgarians dress better than Americans as well :gigi: even though majority of them are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay poorer. Its just the mentality, might be your last/only 50 bucks, but it better be spent on fashionable brand piece of clothing... even if that means not being able to pay your heating bill!

And I still say the best dressed girls I ever saw were the ones in Belgrade. Those girls really know what to wear to look sexy. I could easily objectively say they are the best looking as well, although I must say I'm more fond of American girls in that regards (but that's just me - I LOVE cultural diversity).
Well, I personally havent been in Belgrade yet, but my cousin has .... and I've seen more than enough Serbs at the Bulgarian Black Sea, and I have to say .... I agree. And my cousin (who is super str8) aknoledges the fact that Serbian girlies are one of the most beautiful women on earth :D In general i think on the Balkans, women are waaaaaaaaaaay more beautiful than men in that region (please, dont take this offensivly). Rarely would I say a BG boy is HOT! (they usually look Scandinavian then :gigi: )
Also agree that Americans are very beautiful, for the same fact - the diversity of all kinds of cultures/races mixing together!

As for the question what nations are still considered to be balkan... that's easy. All that live on the Balkan peninsula. The real question is which of those nations have the balkan MENTALITY though. IMO I'd say those are all the slavic balkan nations, plus Albania and Romania. Greeks are a bit more... mediteranian (don't take this literaly though).
haha, I agree, to some extent, but wouldnt you say Greeks have a bit of the Balkan MENTALITY as well?
Then again, is Slovenia considered part of the peninsula? Cause you guys are a bit too far up and away..... and with more West influence than, lets say... the TRUE Balkanians like Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romiania! :laugh:

spy, I would think more why it might be that Greeks hate us so much, but I think we've already suggested some of the most obvious reasons....

spyretto
19-01-2005, 22:18
Athens is like a different country compared to the rest of Greece. If you go to the north, there's a lot more of that Balkan mentality. It's because the country is very diverse in terms of the landscape, so you tend to see a lot of different lifestyles as well. So the people of Athens have a different mentality to the people of the other cities. The islanders have different mentality to the village folks and the Cretes have a different mentality to all the rest of them. It's difficult to explain though.

"The true Balkans is Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania?" Is it because they're similar slavic cultures? I can't say I understand what you mean exactly.

mentality not "metality". I'm still struck to the metal and salad. ;)

freddie
19-01-2005, 22:22
agree. And my cousin (who is super str8) aknoledges the fact that Serbian girlies are one of the most beautiful women on earth :D In general i think on the Balkans, women are waaaaaaaaaaay more beautiful than men in that region (please, dont take this offensivly). Rarely would I say a BG boy is HOT! (they usually look Scandinavian then :gigi: )

No offence. I quite agree. The cuteness of the Balkan peninsula lies in the XX chromosome. :p

Also agree that Americans are very beautiful, for the same fact - the diversity of all kinds of cultures/races mixing together!

Exactly. You get fed up with seeing nothing but slavics every day of your lives. I was in 7th heaven walking through Boston's China Town. Not to mention how at awe I was of the black people. The probably thought I was a racist or something, from staring at them so fondly. :D

haha, I agree, to some extent, but wouldnt you say Greeks have a bit of the Balkan MENTALITY as well?

Well... up to an extent maybe. They're easy-going, careless about certain things... but all these things corelate to the mediteranian cultures as well. Dunno. They definitely have some balkan feel in them, but it's clear they're culturaly a lot different then for instance Bulgarians or Serbs.

Then again, is Slovenia considered part of the peninsula? Cause you guys are a bit too far up and away..... and with more West influence than, lets say... the TRUE Balkanians like Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romiania! :laugh:

Well... it's disputable. Everyone in Slovenia wants to desperately deny any kind of conection to the balkan heritage, while we lived as a part of Yugoslavia for 50 years. It left a mark definitely. And there's still a huge Yugo-nostalgia here. 60% of slovene popular music comes from south of the border. It also shows in cuisine, love of football etc... But for sure - our mentality is a tad different from an average Balkan folk. Infact when I was in Serbia, the Serbs said that Austrians and Germans are out "rođaki"... which would mean "family". Which is quite peculiar, since we're much more related to Serbs ethnicaly when we are to Austains or Germans. But it does show you something about our mentality.

spy, I would think more why it might be that Greeks hate us so much, but I think we've already suggested some of the most obvious reasons....

Well I think it's mostly down to the fact that your "cousins" Macedonians "stole" a very important historical name of a nation from them. The only "Macedonians" for them are the descendans of Alexander the great. Hellenes. And not some slavic tribe. I think that's what's bothering them.

EDIT:

"The true Balkans is Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania?" Is it because they're similar slavic cultures? I can't say I understand what you mean exactly. off]

Romanians are NOT Slavic, you infidel! :p

spyretto
19-01-2005, 22:29
Romanians are NOT Slavic, you infidel! :p

oh yeah Romanians are descendants of the Romans or something? I apologise. And I didn't equate them with the Serbs and the Bulgarians myself. But my ignorant comment was just as ignorant as your comment about Macedonia. What else was Macedonia dude? The parts that are now F.Y.R.O.M. were a district of the Macedonian empire under Philip I,II and Alexander The Great. There was no other Macedonia. I'll pretend I didn't read that. :bebebe:

In the same fashion, Corfou should call themselves London cause they once used to be part of the British empire? :spy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia

Just to get your facts right. I've no objection in calling themselves Macedonians but they should use another word to pronounce their genuine background, eg. Macedonian Slavs or something. They want to call themselves Macedonia, period. They even use the Pella star as their symbol.

freddie
19-01-2005, 22:41
oh yeah Romanians are descandants of the Romans or something? I apologise. And I didn't equate them with the Serbs and the Bulgarians myself. But my ignorant comment was just as ignorant about your comment about Macedonia. What else was Macedonia dude? The parts that are now F.Y.R.O.M. were a district of the Macedonian empire under Philip I,II and Alexander The Great. There was no other Macedonia. I'll pretend I didn't read that. :bebebe:

The "Macedonian" sentiment is not even genuine. It was cultivated by Tito in order to give them some sense of national identity.

I didn't offer any opinion of my own on this subject. I know what "Macedonia" stands for. Now and in history. I just said what the Greeks MIGHT resent Bulgars for. Now.

... and Romanians.. who really knows where they come from. They're a kind of a mystery in Europe. They speak a langauge that is a descendant of vulgar latin which SHOULD make them romans descendants, but some theories are finding some genotype similarities with Albanians... dunno... it's all to complicated for me. I gave up in trying to figure those guys out. :p

spyretto
19-01-2005, 22:49
I didn't offer any opinion of my own on this subject. I know what "Macedonia" stands for. Now and in history. I just said what the Greeks MIGHT resent Bulgars for. Now.

... and Romanians.. who really knows where they come from. They're a kind of a mystery in Europe. They speak a langauge that is a descendant of vulgar latin which SHOULD make them romans descendants, but some theories are finding some genotype similarities with Albanians... dunno... it's all to complicated for me. I gave up in trying to figure those guys out. :p

I don't think they resent Bulgarians for that though - if they do...that goes a long way.

Well, ok. I did some editing on my post above to reflect my real view on the subject. You did offer yours in a way. But I really think the Macedonian Republic should call themselves Slavic Macedonia or something. And they don't want to ( why? :bum: )
About the Romanians, well you're right. Their language is great, they speak a real romanised language but if they're so mixed up, I could argue they also have some Slavic blood as well.
Maybe someone who does Balkan Studies can shed more light on the subject.

Strangely enough this issue never came up when I was living with my Romanian ex-housemate...though we did talk about the language. I remember he was very vehement about Slavs though, calling them all sorts of names :eek: ( after watching Mihajlovic do his thing playing with Lazio, ie spitting at Beckham or something? :D )

coolasfcuk
19-01-2005, 23:06
But my ignorant comment was just as ignorant as your comment about Macedonia. What else was Macedonia dude? The parts that are now F.Y.R.O.M. were a district of the Macedonian empire under Philip I,II and Alexander The Great. There was no other Macedonia. I'll pretend I didn't read that.
:gigi: this is what its all boiling down to .... the complicated Balkan history and everybody's enourmous PRIDE! ha ha... I bet you lots of money the history lessons i recieved in my Bulgarian schools were a bit different than the history lessons you got in Greece spy :gigi: we should compare!
I believe in the Bulgarians .. the Balkaniada comes not just from the Slavs, but from the proto Bulgarians! (if not more) of course, the local tribe - the Thracians were also pretty BARBERIC :girl: .. so if you ask me, in the case of Bulgaria, the Slavs were actually the 'best' (or the least barberic) tribe of the 3 that made up Bulgaria in 681, even though they were the most in numbers.
I will think more on how to describe/define Balkan Mentality as well...

and spy, dont worry, I completely understand what you are saying, because same applys for Bulgaria as well. Sofia is Sofia, and everything outside of it .... is something else - different culture and mentality. :D Up by the Denube and Romania we have the people we call 'Vlasi' who are Romanian related, in the South West region we have the 'Macedonian' region, where people basically speak a totally different dialect (Macedonian), by the Turkish border we have 'Pomaci' who are not even Christian, but Muslim, by the Black Sea totally different region and so on ... but isnt it like that in most parts of the world, not just on the Ballkans?

Ah, the Romanians .... i think we need a Romanian to come shed some Romanian light on the issue! Killa? :gigi:

edit: Strangely enough this issue never came up when I was living with my Romanian ex-housemate...though we did talk about the language. I remember he was very vehement about Slavs though, calling them all sorts of names :eek: ( after watching Mihajlovic do his thing playing with Lazio, ie spitting at Beckham or something? )
:eek: you see, the damn PRIDE .... everybody thinks they are better than everybody else around them ... Romanians hate Slavics and think they are horrible, well, Bulgarians (and Im assumin Serbs as well) think Romania is worse and Gypsy land (no offence, I am just telling general views here) ... its like the joke we have about the 'scrawny guy' laughing at the 'guy without teeth' :laugh: (hope you get the idea)

freddie
19-01-2005, 23:22
I don't think they resent Bulgarians for that though - if they do...that goes a long way.

Well, ok. I did some editing on my post above to reflect my real view on the subject. You did offer yours in a way. But I really think the Macedonian Republic should call themselves Slavic Macedonia or something. And they don't want to ( why? :bum: )

I think they don't change it cause they plainly got used to it. They lived as the socialistic federal nation of Macedonia, part of former Yugoslavia for 50 years, whole generations grew up with knowing only that name (stolen or not) and at this point they are an internationaly recognized nation, also a part of the UN. So as far as law is concerned the name belongs to them now. As far as historical implcations go... well, that's a tough one of course. It's a very delicate subject. I think it was indeed originaly a Greek name, but special circumstances led to things like they are now. I don't think "Slavic Macedonia" would be a way to go either. They have a huge Albanian ethnicity in the country and they would surely protest at the country being called "Slavic".

About the Romanians, well you're right. Their language is great, they speak a real romanised language but if they're so mixed up, I could argue they also have some Slavic blood as well.
Maybe someone who does Balkan Studies can shed more light on the subject.

Oh, for sure. Most people in the region have SOME slavic blood. It's just not predominant and their culture is generaly not slavic. But even the langauge itself shows a lot of slavic influence, from centuries of being surrounded by them as well as the Soviet Union era, when most people probably at least understood Russian.
IMO they're a left over of an ancient tribes (of which only Romanians and Albanians are left) that lived in the region before the slavics came and who were later romanized.

About Romanians hating slavics... I heard they hate Hungarians even that much more.

spyretto
19-01-2005, 23:35
The "Pomaci" are of Albanian decent I think? Some used to live in some parts of Greece and there was an issue of them asking compensation? what about the gypsies? Balkans is a hot-pot ready to explode, or what?
I'm confused, there's a Greek rock singer who has a song about the Balkan people. Will find the lyrics and translate them to see in case they give a new insight to my ignorance :D


I think they don't change it cause they plainly got used to it. They lived as the socialistic federal nation of Macedonia, part of former Yugoslavia for 50 years, whole generations grew up with knowing only that name (stolen or not) and at this point they are an internationaly recognized nation, also a part of the UN. So as far as law is concerned the name belongs to them now. As far as historical implcations go... well, that's a tough one of course. It's a very delicate subject. I think it was indeed originaly a Greek name, but special circumstances led to things like they are now. I don't think "Slavic Macedonia" would be a way to go either. They have a huge Albanian ethnicity in the country and they would surely protest at the country being called "Slavic".

They are only recognised as "Republic of Macedonia" by a few countires - like Australia and Turkey(?) Their official name is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Mecedonia" as that is how the EU recognise them. Interestingly, George Bush recognised them as "Republic of Macedonia" just a couple of months ago - to help development in the region" as he put it. The real reason was that he wanted to give support to a pro- American party there to gain power.
I think that eventually - and as long as Greece don't give up on the fight - they will have to backdown themselves - cause their economic development depends a lot on their good relations with Greece...will see how this develops.

The Greeks are now on a favourable position even as far Turkey is concerned cause they will have to -eventually- recognise a unified Cyprus. And all that cause politicians were quick to get us in the EU :D


Oh, for sure. Most people in the region have SOME slavic blood. It's just not predominant and their culture is generaly not slavic. But even the langauge itself shows a lot of slavic influence, from centuries of being surrounded by them as well as the Soviet Union era, when most people probably at least understood Russian.
IMO they're a left over of an ancient tribes (of which only Romanians and Albanians are left) that lived in the region before the slavics came and who were later romanized.

About Romanians hating slavics... I heard they hate Hungarians even that much more.

What about Hungarians then? :p

coolasfcuk
19-01-2005, 23:46
I will ignore the Macedonia discussion for now, no time, but yes, its such a delicate subject ... and of course today's Macedonia and ... Alexander's 'Macedonia' are not the same thing, but it is not as simple as black and white either ... anyways
IMO they're a left over of an ancient tribes (of which only Romanians and Albanians are left) that lived in the region before the slavics came and who were later romanized..
hmmm, but freds, how would this work ... in the 400-500 AC there were ancient tribes that lived in the region which is now bulgaria ... around the danube and the Balkan mountains ... the Thracians (Spartacus being part of that tribe). Romania isnt that far off, so say there was another tribe in the region of today's romania ... how come the Slavs, who came in enourmous numbers, took over the wholeeeeeeeeee region from Russia down to south bulgaria, to Serbia, and all the way to where you are, but miss Romania? Because, the Slavs that mixed with the Thracians, and the proto Bulgarians (who also came from the East) and made up bulgaria... overpowered culturally, because there were so many of them. And if this tribe that was living in Romania's lands at the time, were so strong and powerful, why werent they opposing the Greeks to create their own country? like did the protoBulgarians/Thracians/BG Slavs in 681, before anybody else in the region?
baaaaaaaah, I now desparately need to refresh my history knowledge on THAT part of the balkans .... unless a romanian shows up faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast and speak! hihi

What about Hungarians then
umm, put those with the Finns and call them Mongolian! lol ... well, really, language speaking, those are on their own ... and maybe Estonian with them as well(Im not sure why i remember reading something about that, but i might be wrong)?
oh btw, this reminds me, there is something Mongolian in the Bulgarians as well! I think it comes with the protoBulgarians - they were powerful worriors on horses, rather than the calmer and 'ground working' Slavs (english ? : what do you call a person that works with land? draws stuff and so on :gigi: excuse my dumb question)

spyretto
20-01-2005, 00:09
I will ignore the Macedonia discussion for now, no time, but yes, its such a delicate subject ... and of course today's Macedonia and ... Alexander's 'Macedonia' are not the same thing, but it is not as simple as black and white either ... anyways

hmmm, but freds, how would this work ... in the 400-500 AC there were ancient tribes that lived in the region which is now bulgaria ... around the danube and the Balkan mountains ... the Thracians (Spartacus being part of that tribe). Romania isnt that far off, so say there was another tribe in the region of today's romania ... how come the Slavs, who came in enourmous numbers, took over the wholeeeeeeeeee region from Russia down to south bulgaria, to Serbia, and all the way to where you are, but miss Romania? Because, the Slavs that mixed with the Thracians, and the proto Bulgarians (who also came from the East) and made up bulgaria... overpowered culturally, because there were so many of them. And if this tribe that was living in Romania's lands at the time, were so strong and powerful, why werent they opposing the Greeks to create their own country? like did the protoBulgarians/Thracians/BG Slavs in 681, before anybody else in the region?
baaaaaaaah, I now desparately need to refresh my history knowledge on THAT part of the balkans .... unless a romanian shows up faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast and speak! hihi


You mean oppose the Romans to create their own country, not the Greeks. The Greeks did not play any part in the region. Was Romania part of the Byzantine empire or did they exist independently? According to wikipedia, there were different tribes and eventually 3 different territories, some under the Roman empire and some under Bulgarian influence as well. I wonder if those were connected in any way.

The tribal confederation of the Getae were encountered by Darius in his campaign in the Balkans in 531 BC. The Dacians were defeated by the Roman Empire under Emperor Trajan in two campaigns stretching from 101 to 107, and the core of their kingdom became the Roman province Dacia. The Gothic and Carpic campaigns in the Balkans during 231 - 275 forced the Roman Empire to reorganise a new roman province of Dacia south of Danube, the ancient Dacia becoming the kingdom of the Goths until the end of the fourth century when it was included in the Hunnic Empire. The Gepids and the Avars ruled Transylvania until eighth century, thence the Bulgars included Romania in their Empire until 1000. The Pechenegs, the Cumans and Uzes were also mentioned by historic chronicles on the teritory of Romania until the founding of the valachian principalities of Wallachia by Basarab, and Moldavia by Dragos during the 14th century.

In the Middle Ages, Romanians lived in three distinct principalities: Wallachia, Moldavia (also Moldova) and Transylvania.

Wallachia and Moldavia came under the suzeranity of the Ottoman Empire in 15th and 16th century respectively, with internal autonomy, and brief periods of independence, Moldova losing its eastern side Bessarabia to the Russian Empire in 1812, its northern part Bukovina to the Austrian Empire in 1775 and its south-eastern part Bugeac to the Ottoman Empire

Transylvania came under Hungary's control by 12th century (since 1300 Hungary and Transylvania became possesions of House of Anjou, of Habsburg, and of Holy Roman Empire), becoming a Principality under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire in 1526, following the Battle of Mohacs. At the end of the 18th century, Austrian Empire (since 1867 Austria-Hungary) included Transylvania inside its borders.

The modern Romania was born when the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia merged in 1859, and independence was ratified by the Great Powers in 1877. Following the WW I and the disintegration of the Russian Empire and Austro-Hungary, and the rise of Bolshevism in Hungary and Russia, Transylvania and Bessarabia opted for a Union with the Romanian Kingdom in 1918.

spyretto
20-01-2005, 00:51
By the way, looking at the info under "Bulgaria", I noticed that Bulgaria was always in the way of Greece and vice versa and they always have been adversaries.
Basil the II of the Byzantine was nicknamed "Bulgar-Killer" and he's is a huge hero of the clashes between the Bulgars and the Byzantine Greeks.
Later Bulgaria and Greece fought in the Balkan Wars. Finally in both WWI and WWII, Bulgaria sided with the Germans. So that's where some of the hostility is generated from. We have never been in good terms. :D

There's the general idea that the Bulgars were barbaric hordes and extremely vicious, even worse than the Ottomans were - at least the Greeks coexisted with the Turks for some 400 years. That is my guess, I never paid attention at school.

freddie
20-01-2005, 01:10
I think the point with Romanians (or the tribes from which they descended from), was that they were in the region LONG before anyone else, even Slavs. Probably in the days when Illires lived there. So they probably had alligances with all the surrounding ethnicities and probably support from the Roman empire at one point. I mean, where else would the latin-based language come from. Of course those are only speculations. No one knows anything definite when it comes to Romanian origin.

And the Hungarians. Their language is Ugro-Fininsh, but their genes are a mix of austrain/germanic and balkan/slavic. So god knows where they came from as well.

noki_the_cat
20-01-2005, 09:19
Balkans is a hot-pot ready to explode, or what?

Well as an example you can look at Tetovo Macedonia.
The NLA (National Liberation Army) known as
UCK(M) Macedonian wing of the Kosovo Liberation Army
has turned the Balkans into a civil war.
The para-military policemen known as Tigri or Tigers are of the Special Forces.
They held ground as they seek cover from incoming mortar and small arms fire from the hillside over looking the community.
Heavy machine-gunners answer the threat returning fire to the hillside covered by armored personal carriers.
Artillery fire commences on the last known position of the insurgence.
Helicopters strafe the houses on the perimeter with auto-rotary fire.
The hillside is battle-scared as the poor citizens hope for peace, living in fear and traumatized from the relentless senseless quarrels that plague the area.
Deep into the community you will find in the street damage marks from the incoming mortars that damage the road.
The spots are the size of hubcaps for the small 60mm. Chinese mortars.
Many are not so lucky; 81mm incoming mortars hissing through the air send shivers into the victims, as they freeze from the terror shocking through their nerves.
You hear the hiss of incoming mortars run, dive for cover now!
Through the walls shrapnel and coble stones fly, tearing through victims.
A hellhole filled with the poor innocent that desperately need calm and peace to return to their traumatized lives. :(

coolasfcuk
20-01-2005, 15:39
Thanks spy for the info :)
Well, I never paid too much attention at school, only after graduation i became more interested in the subject - funny ah.
I think the point with Romanians (or the tribes from which they descended from), was that they were in the region LONG before anyone else, even Slavs.
But of course, I understand that. WHO is 'anyone else' though? Im not sure if I made it clear, but in Bulgaria's case there was a trible living in 'our' region looooooooooooooong before the Slavs came - the Thracians, who were not part of the Byzantine empire. My point was... if there was the Thracians in Bulgarian region way before the Slavs came ... and who existed next to the Byzantines, why didnt the Slavs settle in the Romanian land just like they did in the Bulgarian and Serbian and so on .... because sooooooooooo many Slavs migrated from the east, they way outnumbered the local tribes (as i said in the Bulgarian example - persentage wise something like 70% Slavs, 10-15%Thracians, 10-15% protoBulgarians - the last tribe to migrate into the region from Asia). I guess there was some Slav influence on the Romanian region, but why NOT in such numbers as the rest of the region??? what stopped the Slavs from setteleing in those lands? because it is clearly NOT simply the fact that there was a tribe living there already, because as said above, there was a tribe living in the Bulgarian region as well ... how about the other regions?
I dont remember how it went with the Roman Empire influence in the region - will look into that, but it is obvious there is something 'fishy' going on with that isolated 'Roman' island in the middle of all the rest of us...

. So god knows where they came from as well.
:gigi: are you kidding? we are all coming from ASIA! :coctail: go explain that!

haku
20-01-2005, 17:03
we are all coming from ASIA!
Exactly, all those peoples you are talking about are all ultimately related anyway, they are all Indo-European peoples (except Hungarians of course), they are all descendants of the original proto-Indo-European people who lived around the Caspian Sea 10 thousand years ago.

Before the Indo-Europeans settled in Europe, Europe was populated by the so-called Megalithic peoples (the ones who have left all those stone monuments in western Europe), those peoples also created the civilizations of Mycenae and Crete in proto-Greece. The Megalithic peoples have been totally annihilated by Indo-Europeans when they settled in Europe.

Now Romanians.

Romanians are descendants of Dacians. Dacians were among the first wave of Indo-Europeans who settled in Europe, they arrived there maybe around 2000 BC along with Celtics, Italics, and Greeks. Each of those Indo-European families settled in various regions of Europe, Dacians settled in the Danube region, near the black sea, north of the Greeks.

Of course, as we all know, Celtics, Dacians, and Greeks were all later conquered by the Italics who founded the Roman Empire.

The Romanian teritory was inhabited in ancient times by the Dacians, who spoke an indo-european language, the Dacian language about which there is very little knowledge, but some linguists think that it was fairly close to Latin.

After the Roman conquest, Dacia was transformed in a Roman province and the popular ("vulgar") Latin was used for administration and commerce.

Later, when a new wave of Indo-Europeans brought the Germanics and the Slavics, Dacians managed to not be conquered and to keep vulgar Latin as their language.

coolasfcuk
20-01-2005, 17:55
Thanks haku.
I spent few mins looking up things....
Romanians are descendants of Dacians. Dacians were among the first wave of Indo-Europeans who settled in Europe, they arrived there maybe around 2000 BC along with Celtics, Italics, and Greeks. Each of those Indo-European families settled in various regions of Europe, Dacians settled in the Danube region, near the black sea, north of the Greeks.
and FUNNY you say this... where did you get it from, because look at this ...

"Tracians were a conglomerate of numerous tribes. The formation of the Thracian tribal community appreciably antecedes the emergence of the other Indo-European communities - the Roman, the Celtic, the German, the Slavic and the Scandinavian. The ancestors of the Thracians had lived on the Balkan Peninsula as far back as the new Stone Age. Experts use the term 'Proto-Thracians' to describe the inhabitants of an extensive area in South-Eastern Europe during the third and second millennium B.C. The name 'Thracians' first appeared at the end of the second millennium B.C. (according to Homer). 'From that time on this term gradually became the common ethnonym for the inhabitants of the area between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea, the Black Sea and the valleys of the Morava and Vardar rivers' (Acad. V. Georgiev, Prof. A. Foll and Prof. G.I. Georgiev). The people in question spoke related or similar dialects of a common language. During the twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C. the Thracians settled not only on the peninsular mainland and the Mediterranean islands, but also moved south-eastwards into Asia Minor."

Full article could be found here: http://www.eunet.bg/books/history/index.html ... as well as articles on Slavs, protoBulgarians, Bulgarian Kingdom, Bulgaria under Ottoman rulling and so on ... pretty much as I remember history being thought to a Bulgarian kid in school :D

So really, it is Thraco-Dacians we are talking about ... (http://greek-gods.tripod.com/Thracians.htm )which seems to be the tribes (one?) that were living in today's Bulgaria and Romania ..... so I am still interested to know why the Slavs merged with the ones that were in Bulgaria, but not really with the ones that were in Romania ....

haku
20-01-2005, 18:21
where did you get it from, because look at this ...Haha, well, i typed that part from MEMORY of my ancient history classes. :gigi:

So really, it is Thraco-Dacians we are talking about ...Yeah, as far as i know, Dacians and Thracians are basically the same people, there even was a third group related to them called the Phrygians who lived in Anatolia but this group became totally extinct.

so I am still interested to know why the Slavs merged with the ones that were in Bulgaria, but not really with the ones that were in Romania ....Well, maybe we should apply reverse reasoning here. In Antiquity, Romania and Bulgaria were the same "country", when the Slavic tribes invaded this area, the part where Slavs were the majority became known as "Bulgaria" (from the leading tribe) and the part where Slavs were a minority and the original inhabitants (the Dacians) still in power became know as "Romania" precisely because people there kept living according to the "Roman" way.

As for why Dacians were able to maintain their power in that part, it's probably because they had enough military power to push back the Slavs, military power that they had probably inherited from remnants of the Roman Empire.

coolasfcuk
20-01-2005, 18:23
excuse my double post, but I am not adding:

"These relations to a large extent determined the political situation in the Balkans. What we have in mind here are not the relations between two Balkan nations. Byzantium was an agglomeration of various ethnic communities - within her borders lived various Hellenized peoples, apart from the Greeks. In the multi-national empire, which stretched across three continents - Europe, Asia and Africa, the dominant language was Greek, which in the seventh century was made the official state and religious language. In this sense we can only conditionally differentiate between the Greek and Byzantine identity. The Greeks themselves, the Thracians, and the other Balkan peoples, were conquered by Rome. The Greeks called themselves Hellenes, and their country Hellas. The Romans were the first to call them Greeks - after the Grecoes, a small tribe in Epirus who were the most familiar to the Romans. This name was later adopted by the Slavs.
The relations between Bulgaria and Byzantium from the foundation of the Bulgarian state in 681 to the end of the fourteenth century when Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans, had two major features. The Bulgarian rulers, on the one hand, aspired to conquer Constantinople and inherit the empire. On the other hand, the Byzantines regarded the Bulgarian state as temporarily holding imperial territory and tried by various means - wars, political dealing and manoeuvering, religion and culture, to subjugate it. Byzantium eventually succeeded in conquering the Bulgarian state and kept it for more tFian a century and a half - from 1018 to 1187. For this reason the history of Mediaeval Bulgaria is divided into three periods: the First Bulgarian Kingdom, Byzantine domination and the Second Bulgarian Kingdom."

:gigi: yeah, we always loved eachother spy

"Despite repeated demonstrations of her military might in the wars against Byzantium, Bulgaria suffered defeat with fatal consequences at a time when it had reached the peak of its territorial expansion and political power. Researchers point out many reasons for this, one of which was the conquering strategy itself of the Bulgarian rulers: they tried to conquer Constantinople by land only. This is characteristic both of Khan Kroum (803-814) and Tsar Simeon (b.864; 893-927). Simeon was the first to title himself 'Tsar of all Bulgarians and Byzantines'. The Bulgarian royal title 'Tsar' derived from the Gothic 'kaisar', which, having passed through the Latin 'Caesar', had been transcribed into tsar in accordance with the specifics of the Bulgarian speech. This title makes no secret of the desires of the Bulgarian rulers to occupy the throne of the Eastern half of the former Roman empire."

:rolleyes: and people in the west think 'Tsar' is a Russian thing .... as well as they think WE speak/use language derived from Russian :rolleyes: .. here shows MY Balkan PRIDE! ... and at the same time ... we, the barberian bulgars ..... complte and TRUE Balkaniers ha ha :rolleyes:

On the Christianity and Slavic Language:

"Bulgarian-Byzantine relations also had a number of objective consequences, as a result of which the Bulgarian people became an alloy which weathered all vicissitudes of history. Of tremendous importance was the adoption of Christianity in 865. An oecumenical council in the second Bulgarian capital of Preslav voted in 893 to introduce a script, valid both for state and church, based on the spoken vernacular of the majority of the country's population - the language of the Bulgarian Slavs. Both acts were the doing of Prince Boris (852-889; d. in 907). At great expense of effort and bloodshed, not even sparing the first-born son, Prince Boris overcame the internal rejection of contemporary Bulgarian society and imposed Christianity as the official state religion. The adoption of Christianity was above all an important political act, aimed at bringing Bulgaria up to the level of the advanced states of the time. Having joined Bulgaria to the Eastern Orthodox Church, Prince Boris made the next decisive move. With his support and aid, after 886 religious activities began to be carried out in the Slavonic language, using the script and the works of the Slav apostles Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. The mission of the two brothers as official emissaries of Byzantium to Great Moravia encountered hardships and ordeals to eventually mature into a great cause which radically affected the better part of the Slavs. Persecuted and tortured by the German clergy, the disciples of Cyril and Methodius were heartily welcomed in Bulgaria, which thus became the cradle of the Slav alphabet and culture. The daring rejection of the trilingual dogma (according to which Christianity could only be preached in Latin, Greek and Hebrew) quickly found practical application. Ten years after the cause of Cyril and Methodius became Bulgarian state policy, Greek was banished from the religious service. Even in the remotest settlements, the western areas included, where Kliment of Ohrid, the disciple and associate of Cyril and Methodius, worked (840-916), the service was read in Slav-Bulgarian, or as it has been named for the sake of accuracy - in Old Bulgarian.

The Old Bulgarian literary language helped the independent development of the Bulgarians. This took place at a time when the greater part of Mediaeval Europe had no national literary languages and made use of Latin and Greek. The Bulgarian script spread on the basis of a rich folklore heritage."

coolasfcuk
20-01-2005, 18:39
Haha, well, i typed that part from MEMORY of my ancient history classes.
:done:
your memory is better than mine! :)

Well, maybe we should apply reverse reasoning here. In Antiquity, Romania and Bulgaria were the same "country", when the Slavic tribes invaded this area, the part where Slavs were the majority became known as "Bulgaria" (from the leading tribe) and the part where Slavs were a minority and the original inhabitants (the Dacians) still in power became know as "Romania" precisely because people there kept living according to the "Roman" way.
sounds good .. that's sounds similar to what i was thinking, that I have no problem with...exept, WHY did majority of Slavs settle in what is Bulgaria, and almost none in what is Romania? ... continued discussion of this later....

As for why Dacians were able to maintain their power in that part, it's probably because they had enough military power to push back the Slavs, military power that they had probably inherited from remnants of the Roman Empire.
now this is the more intriguing part .... so first of all, when the Slavs were setteling, were they really pushed and resisted by the Dracians? but the Tracians welcomed them? or were the Dracians way better worriors than the Thracians are defended themselves better? that's what i was trying to say, im sorry i am not very clear .... maybe there are knowledge of this... but its just interesting, why not THAT many Slavs in the Dracian region as everywhere else, all over the Balkans ... logically thinking, one would say the Dracians were just MEAN, ha ha, and didnt allow the Slavs to come close, or their lands SUCKED and the Slavs didnt want to settle there .... because i cant 100% accept the reasoning that Dracians were THAT much better worriors than everybody else not to mentinon Slavs were NOT worrior tribe at all, so I cant see why wont ANYONE be able to push them back .... unless I guess they were (and they were) HUGE in numbers]... as it took the protoBulgarians and their good worrior qualities to really fight back the Byzantians and establish a recognizable state in 680s


(what year did Romania become Romania btw? Pretty recently no? )

spyretto
20-01-2005, 19:53
Well, as far as Greece is concerned - and from what I remember they taught us at school - the Myceneans were not Thracians . The Thracians were an Indo-European tribe who occupied the region of Thrace - this region today is divided between Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey.
There was another tribe, called the Achaeans who are taken to be the original inhabitants of the region. that's what they taught us at school but that's not necessarily 100% true. However:

The Homeric Achaeans would have been a part of the Mycenaean civilization that dominated Greece from ca. 1600 BC, with a history as a tribe that may have gone back to the prehistoric Hellenic immigration in the late 3rd millennium BC.

So the Mycenean Civilization of Crete is taken to be Achaean settlers.
There is speculation that the Trojans could be ancient Achaeans as well.

Then around the 1c BC, another tribe came from the north, the Dorians, who invaded Greece and defeated the Achaeans. So the modern Greeks may be descentants of that tribe. It could all be BS as well because there was a long "dark" period after the Dorians emerged, that lasted for several centuries and until 800 BC. where there emerged the golden age of Ancient Greece; but there's hardly any evidence of that "dark" period, so it's like a big break there. The Achaeans may have revolted against them, cause then the Spartans are supposed to be Dorian descentants - but not the rest. :confused:


The Slavs came later, so I don't suppose the Dorians were Slavs :eek:

The Tracians and the Thracians? jee I'll have to go back and read all that...but you're talking about the 11-12 century AD ( not 1-2 c BC ) There's a bit of a difference there. The Slavs are supposed to have emerged around 4-5 c AD
jee, I'm confused. That "source" sounds really dodgy, what kind of English is that? My source was wikipedia - as usual :D

coolasfcuk
02-02-2005, 20:12
So, I came here to add this thought....

some scholars believe that Romania is the place where the Roman Empire sent their criminals ... kinda like a 'prison' for the 'barbarians' .... sounds convincing enough to me :gigi:

freddie
03-02-2005, 01:29
So, I came here to add this thought....

some scholars believe that Romania is the place where the Roman Empire sent their criminals ... kinda like a 'prison' for the 'barbarians' .... sounds convincing enough to me :gigi:

LOL... Interesting theory. You better hope KillaQueen doesn't read this forum anymore, though. :p

spyretto
03-02-2005, 01:57
LOL... Interesting theory. You better hope KillaQueen doesn't read this forum anymore, though. :p

Not to put oil in the fire but Romanians do have a certain reputation :D

haku
15-11-2006, 14:44
Here's an article about how some south Slavic people may actually be of Iranian origin:

Common Origin of Croats, Serbs and Jats (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php)

Interesting, i had actually never heard about that.

zebu
15-11-2006, 15:04
Here's an article about how some south Slavic people may actually be of Iranian origin:

Common Origin of Croats, Serbs and Jats (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php)

Interesting, i had actually never heard about that.

yeah we learned bout that theory in school, harahvati and some other signs found there that have similar name to ours and some old scripts of constantine porphyrogenet. actually we learned 4 theories about our origin, this one, obious slavic, some myth and the last i cant remember. but this iranian theory is the strongest beside the slavic one.

origin was never too much explored here before, cos we were all "brothers and sisters", but since 90's many scientists study that area.

haku
26-03-2007, 16:23
UN plans for Kosovo independence

The United Nations envoy for Kosovo says independence is the "only viable option" for the territory, in a report to the Security Council.

The envoy, Finnish diplomat Martti Ahtisaari, says Kosovo should have internationally-supervised independence for an initial period.

Serbia has rejected a previous outline of the proposals, which have been broadly accepted by Kosovo Albanians.

Russia - a traditional ally of Serbia - is threatening to veto the plan.

Kosovo has been administered by the UN since 1999, when Nato air strikes ended a Serbian offensive against the ethnic Albanian majority. But the territory remains legally part of Serbia.

A final round of talks between top Serbian and ethnic Albanian leaders on the future of Kosovo ended without agreement.

Once Mr Ahtisaari has presented his final plan to the Security Council, it will then be up to the UN's highest body to decide whether to approve or reject his proposals.

"Independence is the only viable option for a politically stable and economically viable Kosovo," Mr Ahtisaari said in the report.

"I propose the exercise of Kosovo's independence... be supervised and supported for an initial period by international civilian and military presences."

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6496417.stm)

haku
26-03-2007, 17:42
US and EU back Kosovo independence by May

The US and EU have backed a UN plan for "supervised independence" in Kosovo despite Russian and Serb opposition, with US diplomat Nicholas Burns in Brussels calling for a new UN security council resolution 30 to 60 days from Monday (26 March).

"The US fully supports the proposals put forward by Martti Ahtisaari," the US' number three man on foreign affairs told experts at a seminar by think-tank CEPS in the EU capital, a few hours before UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari submitted his Kosovo blueprint to UN chief Ban Ki Moon in New York.

"It's time to bring a century of peace to the Balkans, to see Kosovo independent and to see a democratic and strong Serbia," the American said, with UK foreign secretary Margaret Beckett adding shortly afterward from London she "welcomes UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari's final settlement proposals."

The Ahtisaari plan envisages giving Pristina its own army, flag and constitution and the possibility of applying to join international institutions like the UN and EU, but with thousands of NATO and EU troops keeping the peace and an EU envoy that can veto some Kosovo government decisions.

"Independence is the only viable option for a politically stable and economically viable Kosovo," Mr Ahtisaari's final recommendation stated, Reuters reports, in a bold, new tone after months of negotiations in Vienna, Belgrade and Pristina that avoided using the painful word "independence."

Speaking to press the same day, EU top diplomat Javier Solana still remained shy of the term, opting to use the phrase "the work of president Ahtisaari" instead while expressing his support for the ex-Finnish president's ideas.

In terms of a timetable for the solution, the US' Mr Burns said "we're not going to rush to a security council resolution" mentioning "late April or early May" and "30 to 60 days" down the line as targets to get all five veto-holding powers in the UN - the US, UK, France, Russia and China - on board.

The biggest EU foreign policy players back the US line, but some EU states such as Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus sympathise with Belgrade. Serbia has denounced the Ahtisaari plan and Russia has threatened to veto anything unacceptable to its historic ally. China has been silent so far.

Mr Burns' statement kicks off a heavy week of Kosovo diplomacy, with the US talking to NATO states in Brussels on Kosovo for the next two days, Mr Ahtisaari briefing EU ambassadors on Tuesday and EU foreign ministers devoting a Friday meeting to the topic.

Almost exactly 8 years ago on 24 March 1999 NATO began a bombing campaign in Kosovo designed to halt what Mr Burns called Serbian "ethnic cleansing" against the ethnic Albanians who form 93 percent of the population. The Serb province has been under UN rule ever since.

Kosovo is US and EU's top priority
The US diplomat said the task of EU and US foreign policy today is to "produce peace and stability in the world" adding "our first priority is to be successful in the Balkans, to complete the revolution that has taken place there since the 1990s."

In terms of handling Serb objections to the move, Mr Burns said he planned to call moderate Serb president Boris Tadic this week to explain "we are a friend to Serbia" and guarantee US protection for ethnic Serb enclaves and holy sites in the region.

The EU approach is similar, with Brussels offering to unfreeze Belgrade's EU accession talks despite lack of full cooperation with the UN on war crimes fugitives and with the new EU envoy in Kosovo to focus on keeping ethnic Serbs safe.

The US and EU are also reading from the same page on how to handle Russia, praising Moscow for its help on international problems like Iran and North Korea but scotching Russian talk of Kosovo independence as a precedent for rebels in Georgia or Moldova.

"Our second task [in terms of EU-US foreign policy priorities] is to have good relations with Russia," Mr Burns said. " we certainly would not support any other trade, or precedent that would link Kosovo to other problems in Europe."

The American went a bit further than most European diplomats might dare, saying those countries who "made the biggest sacrifice" in terms of Kosovo military intervention and post-conflict aid - NATO and EU states - should take the lead in the region.

[B]Iraq legacy dogs US
In an aside on recent Russian complaints the US has a "unipolar" world view, Mr Burns said assertively "My country finds itself the most powerful country economically and militarily...we have a lot of power, but we want to use that power for good, peacefully."

It was left to CEPS expert and ex-EU ambassador to Russia, Michael Emerson, to remind Mr Burns that when Bush junior became US president in 2002, he said "the US doesn't need allies" before wading into Iraq.

The Iraq adventure - which has seen over 600,000 civilians killed since 2003 - caused a serious rift between the US and France and Germany, with many ordinary left-leaning Europeans suddenly seeing the US with new, post-Cold War eyes as an oil-hungry imperialist not a force for good.

"Many senior analysts say the [US] language may change a bit, but the fundamentals remain obstinately constant," Mr Emerson suggested.

"I think there's a bipartisan consensus in my country - and I'm a career diplomat not a Republican or a Democrat - there's a consensus that America cannot live in the world alone," Mr Burns replied. "There's a great distance between those statements and the reality today."

EU Observer (http://euobserver.com/9/23779)

crazy malchik
26-03-2007, 18:01
We are not going to give Kosovo. Nyp. Nah. Nyet. :p

haku
27-03-2007, 03:53
We are not going to give Kosovo.I don't think there's anything Serbia can do about it.

Not that i support further balkanization of former Yugoslavia, all that cutting in always smaller pieces is getting ridiculous, even for the Balkans. In 10 years from now, all those small pieces of former Yugoslavia will be EU states, with free movements of people, goods, capital, etc, with no borders and a single currency eventually, making the whole dissolution of Yugoslavia rather pointless (and tragic considering how many people died in that senseless war).

And there's indeed something unsettling about Albanian claims, there is already an Albanian country, so it's not like they absolutely need a homeland. I could understand if Kosovo was detached from Serbia and merged with Albania, many border regions have been transferred like that from one European country to another in the course of history, but why create Albania 2 right next to Albania 1?

crazy malchik
27-03-2007, 12:53
They were talking about splitting it, I don't know is it a good idea, but it's better than independent Kosovo.
Errrm, Kosovo is such an important peace of Serbia, half of our culture is there, it's the cradle of Serbia.
I don't really know where you life, haku (and I know that you're mainly hetero :p LOL) but I think it wouldn't be easy for you to "cut" your country.
And it's not even because of living better, or any other reason. We all know Albanians want big Albania (Kosovo, part of Macedonia & Montenegro), and they won't stop til they get those parts. It all started with Kosovo. In 5 years, it'll be Macedonia, and Kosovo will be part of Albania, I know.

freddie
27-03-2007, 17:49
I don't think Yugoslavia split was exactly pointless. There are absolutely huge nationalistic tendecies behind every nation that formed the artificial unity. It's not about borders really. It's about a sense people get that they're living in their own country and that has nothing to do with EU opening up it's borders to all it's current and future members. I'm sure today in Schengen times Austria and Germany wouldn't be all that fond of being merged into one de iure state, eventhough it wouldn't really make all that much difference in practical terms.

As far as Kosovo goes... very difficult situation. It's a matter of ethnic majority and what THEY want for themselves. Like it or not, though - Albanians ARE an ethnic majority. And it's not like Kosovo's been a part of Serbia since the prehistroric ages. They've conquered it and it had a vague international status ever since. I don't think Kosovar Albanians want AlbaniaII either. I think they want Kosovo. A soverign intependent country, with no special ties to any of it's neigbours. Saying they want a big Albania is like renaming the Wallonic Part of Belgium to Eastern France and Quebec to Western France.

haku
28-03-2007, 01:26
I don't really know where you life … but I think it wouldn't be easy for you to "cut" your country.I live in Normandy, France.

And well, historically you could say that my country was cut in half, France is the Western half of the Frankish Realm (http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/Frankish_Kingdom_Charlemagne.gif). France (Western Francia) and Germany (Eastern Francia) have a historical claim on each other as they are both direct descendants of the Frankish Empire.
After the death of Emperor Louis I (son of Charlemagne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne) and last common Frankish monarch), Western Francia and Eastern Francia have repeatedly tried to recreate a unified Frankish Empire, leading to many French-German conflicts.
Fortunately, after 1200 years of bickering, we've moved on and are now trying to do the same thing peacefully within the EU.

Regardless, i am still the product of a rather large unitary state, which was originally made up of rather different provinces, so it's not always easy for me to understand why it has never been possible for South Slavic people to unite into a unitary state, because in the end, i don't think that there are more differences between the various South Slavic countries than between the various provinces that united to make up France, Italy, or Germany.
I could say the same thing about Scandinavian people that didn't unite even though they are definitely less different than the people who made up France for example.

Anyway, my advice to Serbia would be to let it go and move on within the EU, Greater-This or Greater-That are things of the past, the only greatness will come from a United Europe that can hold its place in the world as one of the superpowers.

haku
28-03-2007, 04:08
Serbia and Russia react differently to Kosovo independence plan

Serbia has firmly rejected an EU and US-backed UN plan to give "supervised independence" to Kosovo in late May, with the Serb prime minister calling for a "historic" Russian veto. But Russia appears to be mellowing its previously tough stance on accepting an imposed solution on the UN-run Serb province.

"Today Serbia once again declares that Kosovo-Metohija will never be independent, and that Serbia rejects in advance any attempt at seizing Kosovo-Metohija as an act of legal aggression," the country's acting prime minister Vojislav Kostunica told state media on Tuesday (27 March), shortly after the EU, US and the other 25 NATO states backed UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari's independence blueprint.

"We are convinced that Mr Ahtisaari's proposal will not be upheld by the [UN] security council and that will open the doors to a new process of negotiations with a new mediator," the Serb politician added. He called on Russia to use its veto at UN security council level to stymie the process in a move that would have "the deepest sense of historical importance for Serbia and the Serbian nation."

Mr Kostunica's administration minister, Zoran Loncar, was even more hostile, saying the Ahtisaari plan "meets the interests of separatists which are to let the ethnic Albanian minority create another Albanian state on Serbia's territory," Balkans agency DTT-NET.COM reports.

The more moderate Serb president Boris Tadic told US diplomat Nicholas Burns by phone on Monday that "any form of independence for Kosovo-Metohija is unacceptable for Serbia, and we will strive to express the need to reach a compromise solution through continued negotiations in our contacts with the UN security council member states."

He added that there is "room for further dialogue" and that "peace and stability in Kosovo" is his main concern, however.

The Russian reaction to Monday's developments has also been largely negative. An official statement on the Russian foreign ministry website said "The establishment of an independent state in Kosovo is fraught with serious complications for stability in Europe."

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov added that if the UN imposes a solution on Kosovo that is unacceptable to Belgrade, he would launch a probe into whether the existing UN resolution 1244 guaranteeing Serbian territorial integrity and allowing the deployment of some 1,000 Serb soldiers in Kosovo has been properly implemented or not.

"We will be checking how existing UN Security Council resolutions on Kosovo, particularly resolution 1244, are being implemented," he said, Russian state news agency Ria Novosti reports.

Is Russia mellowing?
But the Russian reaction - which appears to entertain the possibility of an imposed solution - is less harsh than might be expected given Moscow's previous statements on the issue and does not pick up on Mr Kostunica's fiery rhetoric.

In February, Russian EU ambassador Vladimir Chizhov explicitly told EUobserver: "If it is a negotiated solution, Russia will not oppose it. But if it is an imposed solution, Russia will oppose it."

Mr Chizhov opted not to take the floor during a seminar in Brussels on Monday, when the US' Mr Burns gave his strongly-worded support of the Ahtisaari plan as the way to bring a "century of stability" to the Balkans, with some western analysts now speculating that Russia may abstain from the UN vote rather than use its veto.

"Up till now they have been holding out hoping for some kind of advantage from a blocking position. What kind of advantage is hard to understand - the general idea is that to be indispensable and as difficult as possible is a tactical advantage in international negotiations," CEPS expert and former EU ambassador to Moscow, Michael Emerson, said. "They understand the Serb position is untenable, and therefore they will have to find a way of accepting the inevitable."

Moscow has also started changing its message on the implications of an imposed Kosovo solution for rebel entities in Moldova and Georgia in recent weeks, with foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on 21 March telling the Russian parliament that Kosovo would form a de facto precedent for separatists, but that Russia rejects the validity of such a comparison.

"We admit that any decision made about Kosovo's status will set a precedent," he said. "But projection of this situation in respect to Abkhazia, South Ossetia [in Georgia] and Transdnistria [in Moldova] would not be a correct step. I repeat there is no connection," he added, in contrast to several statements made by Russian president Vladimir Putin over the past year.

"We need universal principles to find a fair solution to these problems," Mr Putin said for the first time on state TV on 24 February 2006. "If people believe that Kosovo can be granted full independence, why then should we deny it to Abkhazia and South Ossetia?" he asked, with his diplomats also needling EU states Spain and Cyprus by reminding them they have separatists of their own in recent months.

The US' Mr Burns as well as the EU's envoy to South Caucasus Peter Semneby have ruled out any kind of "trade off" between the pro-Russia rebel entities and the Kosovo veto, while analysts have in the past pointed out that Russia has plenty of separatist problems of its own in the North Caucasus, to mention Chechnya alone.

Self-fulfilling prophecy
But Europe's breakaway movements have been listening to Moscow on the Kosovo precedent and may try to take advantage of the situation despite Russia's recent flip-flopping. Spain and Cyprus - both facing separatist problems of their own - are among the least keen EU states to give Pristina what it wants.

In the Balkans, the Serb enclave in Bosnia - Republika Srpska - has made noises about independence in recent months. This week, the Muslim or "Bosniak" town of Srebrenica - located inside Republika Srpska - said it should get a "special" legal status after the war crimes court in The Hague blamed Serbia for an infamous 1995 massacre.

In the South Caucasus, Mr Semneby says that Kosovo regularly comes up in his conversations with the de facto leaders. In Trasndniestria, the Tiraspol Times on Tuesday ran a story quoting self-imposed ruler Igor Smirnov as saying "Pridnestrovie [Transdniestria] has a much stronger legal and historical basis for recognized sovereignty than Kosovo."

EU Observer (http://euobserver.com/9/23791)


This article points out how balkanization is indeed a neverending process once it's started, there's always a smaller territory that wants to break away from a larger one… Bosnia broke away from Yugoslavia, but now the Bosnian Serbs want to break away from Bosnia, but then the Muslim Bosnians want to break away from the Bosnian Serbs…
Aaaaaaaaah, where does it end?

freddie
30-03-2007, 09:06
Regardless, i am still the product of a rather large unitary state, which was originally made up of rather different provinces, so it's not always easy for me to understand why it has never been possible for South Slavic people to unite into a unitary state, because in the end, i don't think that there are more differences between the various South Slavic countries than between the various provinces that united to make up France, Italy, or Germany.

Probably becuase those provinces never developed a sense of national belonging or more likely - weren't even familiar with the concept of national states, while most national countries in the balkans even enjoyed brief moments of independence in the past. Sure it all started out as one proto south-slavic tribal community, but that was more than a thousand years ago. Yugoslavia (and the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before it) was an atempt of patching those ancient ties back together, but at that point we were too estranged to coexist together. It's just as artificial as the Soviet Union and we all know how that ended. In the same way I doubt Sweden, Norway & Denmark would be too keen on dropping their nationalistic tendencies and join forces into a Nordic megastate just because of their common history and similar languages...

crazy malchik
30-03-2007, 11:51
haku, so you weren't alive when your country was splitting... You don't know how does it feel.

haku
10-04-2007, 17:31
For the first time, Serbia's war crimes court condemns Serbs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6540645.stm) involved in the Srebrenica genocide.

Sentences are relatively light though compared to the seriousness of the crimes.

crazy malchik
10-04-2007, 18:21
I'm so sick of fucking wars and things... I am 13, I was born in 1993, the Serbo-Croatish war was ended, or I think so. I think in 1993 was the war in Bosnia... Gosh, I am only 13 and I survived almost 3 wars... One in first half of 1990's, the second in 1999, and this with Kosovo and Albania is going to cause... maybe not war, but something big.
I don't say it wasn't Serbia's fault. It was. And I hate because so many people hate us. There are so many people who are good and kind, and really don't deserve to be hated.

I know it's hard to forget the pain, or to forget people you loved, but while we remember the wars, killing and stuff, we will always hate each other.

freddie
10-04-2007, 23:37
These were one of a few senseless slaughters which were actually caught on tape. My mind boggles at the thought of all other crimes that WEREN'T recorded for history to see and abhor. Of course crimes like that were done by Croatians as well, while Bosnians always seemed to be on the recieving end.

It's funny though Serbs I've met were all great and decent people. Very relaxed, very generous and joyful. It's hard to believe something so horrid can stem from an otherwise healthy national psyche. And all it takes is a pinch of nationalism mixed with some good old fashioned Balkan arrogance. Then on the other hand - it doesn't take much to turn a man into an animal. Just look at the (today ultra liberal) Germans. It's hard to grasp such tame and disciplined people were capable of producing idealism of pure evil only 60 years ago.

Argos
11-04-2007, 18:08
Then on the other hand - it doesn't take much to turn a man into an animal. Just look at the (today ultra liberal) Germans. It's hard to grasp such tame and disciplined people were capable of producing idealism of pure evil only 60 years ago.
Well, it was the 'virtues', nothing else, that caused such cruelties - obedience and loyalty. We call it "vorauseilender Gehorsam" (anticipating obedience) and "Nibelungen - Treue" (Nibelung - fidelity). Nazis were perfect in rememorizing the old saga - virtues. Together with the teutonic thoroughness we got such consequences. The deal was: We give you prosperity and glory, you give us your "old germanic virtues".

So, if you want to see it a bit from the wicked side: the best advice is: Fuck the virtues! Live the life as you want and let others do the same!