Balkans - General discussion

[spyretto]

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

Originally Posted by freddie

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

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?

[coolasfcuk]

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

Originally Posted by freddie

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 excuse my dumb question)

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

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]

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by spyretto

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]

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.

Originally Posted by freddie

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.

are you kidding? we are all coming from ASIA! go explain that!

[haku]

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

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]

Thanks haku.
I spent few mins looking up things....

Originally Posted by haku

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

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]

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

where did you get it from, because look at this ...

Haha, well, i typed that part from MEMORY of my ancient history classes.

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

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.

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

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]

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."

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."

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

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]

Originally Posted by haku

Haha, well, i typed that part from MEMORY of my ancient history classes.

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]

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.


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

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

[coolasfcuk]

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

[freddie]

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

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

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

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by freddie

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

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

[haku]

Here's an article about how some south Slavic people may actually be of Iranian origin:

Common Origin of Croats, Serbs and Jats

Interesting, i had actually never heard about that.

[zebu]

Originally Posted by haku

Here's an article about how some south Slavic people may actually be of Iranian origin:

Common Origin of Croats, Serbs and Jats

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]

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

[haku]

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. "[But] 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.

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