NationStates

Novus America wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Tends to happen when you bomb somebody's country: they don't like you.

Doesn't change the fact there was an actual attempt by Serbian authorities to wage genocidal ethnic cleansing in the region though.

Well true, and regardless it is still understandable why many dislike NATO, especially as most get a very one sided view of the war.

The Yugoslav Wars in general were a chaotic mess.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Well true, and regardless it is still understandable why many dislike NATO, especially as most get a very one sided view of the war.

The Yugoslav Wars in general were a chaotic mess.

An understatement. Definitely a rather messy, ugly and complex situation.
But of course the average person tends not to understand that, and in the standard Serb retelling it is Good Serbia v. Evil NATO. Obviously the reality much more complicated but the average person probably does not see the full picture.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Serbia is not really likely any time soon. Much of Serbian society is very much anti NATO.

Tends to happen when you bomb somebody's country: they don't like you.

Doesn't change the fact there was an actual attempt by Serbian authorities to wage genocidal ethnic cleansing in the region though.

Serbia actually claimed to have shot down a B-2 in 1999 as well, with an SA-3 no less. But there are numerous problems with that claim. First is the total lack of material evidence. The only evidence is anecdotal, from Serbian sources it should be pointed out. Their claims about shooting down an F-117 and an F-16 has been verified by copious material evidence as well as an admission of the losses by NATO. To date no material evidence of a B-2 shootdown has been presented, and nor has there been an admission by NATO of a loss, which is given further credibility because of the fact that all B-2 aircraft ever manufactured are accounted for, including those lost due to accidents.

Since the claim was made, it has also become known that it would have been almost impossible for the SA-3 to shoot down the B-2 because the SA-3's Low Blow engagement radar wouldn't have been able to detect it. It is also questionable whether even its search and acquisition radar, a VHF-band P-18, would have been able to detect it. It could detect the F-117, but the different size of the B-2 relative to the wavelength of the P-18 means that it would have been much harder to detect the B-2.

I'd put odds on the Serbian claim regarding the B-2 being genuine at least a thousand to one.

The New California Republic wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Tends to happen when you bomb somebody's country: they don't like you.

Doesn't change the fact there was an actual attempt by Serbian authorities to wage genocidal ethnic cleansing in the region though.

Serbia actually claimed to have shot down a B-2 in 1999 as well, with an SA-3 no less. But there are numerous problems with that claim. First is the total lack of material evidence. The only evidence is anecdotal, from Serbian sources it should be pointed out. Their claims about shooting down an F-117 and an F-16 has been verified by copious material evidence as well as an admission of the losses by NATO. To date no material evidence of a B-2 shootdown has been presented, and nor has there been an admission by NATO of a loss, which is given further credibility because of the fact that all B-2 aircraft ever manufactured are accounted for, including those lost due to accidents.

Since the claim was made, it has also become known that it would have been almost impossible for the SA-3 to shoot down the B-2 because the SA-3's Low Blow engagement radar wouldn't have been able to detect it. It is also questionable whether even its search and acquisition radar, a VHF-band P-18, would have been able to detect it. It could detect the F-117, but the different size of the B-2 relative to the wavelength of the P-18 means that it would have been much harder to detect the B-2.

I'd put odds on the Serbian claim regarding the B-2 being genuine at least a thousand to one.

Really, shooting down a $100 million stealth bomber is impressive enough.

Agarntrop wrote:

Sao Nova Europa wrote:As a Greek I cannot say I am excited about that but, nevertheless, welcome to the club FYROM!

Hopefully we can have closer ties and improve our relations.

Nice to see some Greeks can see past a rather stupid petty jingoistic naming dispute.

that was so ridiculous. Two Alexander the great airports and all.

Greed and Death wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:Nice to see some Greeks can see past a rather stupid petty jingoistic naming dispute.

that was so ridiculous. Two Alexander the great airports and all.

Hey, you gotta copy the actual Alexander somehow. Why not stick his name on everything?

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Serbia is not really likely any time soon. Much of Serbian society is very much anti NATO.

Tends to happen when you bomb somebody's country: they don't like you.

Doesn't change the fact there was an actual attempt by Serbian authorities to wage genocidal ethnic cleansing in the region though.

You don't have to bomb civilian infrastructure (Hospitals, schools, shops, other small businesses, etc) and kill hundreds to thousands of noncombatant civilians in the process to stop a genocide though.

The wreckage of the F-117 is at display in Belgrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

*yawn*

Considering the sclerotic state of NATO, I'm not surprised.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:North Macedonia literally practices historical revisionism by stealing Greek culture and claiming it as their own. According to them, Ancient Macedon was a Slavic Kingdom and the Macedonian Slavs are directly descended from Alexander the Great despite the fact that literally nobody knew what the fuck a Slav was back then because they didn't even properly exist.

Honestly, I can understand being upset about a neighboring nation claiming your ancestral legacy as their own and claiming you're the one who stole it instead.

It's somewhat more complicated than that.

I've recently had to peer review a couple of papers on the archaeology underlying the dispute, on the basis of my own publications on the archaeology of nationalism and national identity.

There are several competing versions of the ancient and medieval history of the territory currently encompassed by modern North Macedonia. For much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the dominant narratives were whether northern Macedonia was full of Bulgarians speaking a slightly declasse peasant version of Bulgarian or slightly misguided Serbs who had to be brought back to Belgrade's welcoming bosom (the rest of Macedonia was contested with the Greeks, who ultimately came to control the bulk of ancient Macedonia, but we'll focus solely on modern North Macedonia here). Indeed, the primary reason for the outbreak of the Second Balkan War in 1913, almost immediately after the First Balkan War of 1912-1913, was Bulgarian dissatisfaction with its share of Macedonia, and a specific feeling that Serbia had broken a secret agreement over the division of territory in what we now call North Macedonia.

It was only with the rise of Tito's government that the idea that there was a separate Macedonian national identity went mainstream, in part to weaken the Serbian component of Yugoslavia, in part to dampen Bulgarian irredentism, and in part in line with the common 20th-century communist government practice of reifying previously abstract ethno-linguistic concepts into the basis of hypothetically autonomous sub-national 'republics'.

When Yugoslavia broke up, the combination of historical Serbian and Bulgarian claims on North Macedonia, combined with the existence of a significant Albanian minority in the new republic, led to previously fringe concepts on the origins of Macedonia and Macedonians as a separate national group going mainstream.

The dominant strand in Macedonian 'antiquisation' isn't that Ancient Macedonia was a Slavic kingdom; there's no serious dispute that the Slavs didn't arrive in the Balkans until the 6th century AD. Rather it rests on two twin pillars:

A) that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks but rather a distinct ethnicity (here Demosthones's claim that Macedonians were barbarians tends to get quoted a lot), albeit one that most would concede gradually adopted aspects of Hellenistic civilisation.

B) that the Slav migrations in the early medieval period didn't replace the existing Macedonian population, but rather led to a process of acculturation whereby the ordinary Macedonians came to adopt the language of the interlopers, but nonetheless retained their identity as descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

By themselves, neither of these positions is individually outrageous or wholly outside the realm of mainstream academic debate. There is scope for discussing both of these points.

However, when combined and taken to their illogical extremes, they're taken as 'proof' that the modern North Macedonians are the only true heirs to ancient Macedon (the Greeks in this hypothesis are the true interlopers), and therefore have the sole right to use the heritage and symbols of ancient Macedon.

That's far, far more problematic - not least because the modern concept of a Macedonian national identity is so recent - and the basis of justifiable Greek concerns about what Macedonian nationalist 'antiquisation' means for Greek Macedonia. Not that the Greeks were entirely innocent here themselves, but it's fair to note that until very recently - when common sense seems to have finally prevailed on both sides - successive governments in post-independence Skopje would often embrace positions on history, heritage and the use of national symbols that were not unjustifiably considered more than a little provocative down in Athens.

Nakena wrote:The wreckage of the F-117 is at display in Belgrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

Yes that's the material evidence I was referring to.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:Nice to see some Greeks can see past a rather stupid petty jingoistic naming dispute.

North Macedonia literally practices historical revisionism by stealing Greek culture and claiming it as their own. According to them, Ancient Macedon was a Slavic Kingdom and the Macedonian Slavs are directly descended from Alexander the Great despite the fact that literally nobody knew what the fuck a Slav was back then because they didn't even properly exist.

Honestly, I can understand being upset about a neighboring nation claiming your ancestral legacy as their own and claiming you're the one who stole it instead.

This. I agree 100%. This is the reason that most Greeks have a problem with FYROM.

Personally I was against both the Prespes Agreement and them joining NATO, but since it has been agreed and nothing can change now (international treaties cannot be torn apart whenever we like), I just wish for the best and hope that our relations will improve. I believe it will be beneficial for both countries.

San Lumen wrote:Fantastic. Another ally against Russia. It is on my list of places to visit one day.

It’s probably gonna replace Italy who’s most likely going into Russia’s sphere. Thanks EU, really fucked that one

Sao Nova Europa wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

North Macedonia literally practices historical revisionism by stealing Greek culture and claiming it as their own. According to them, Ancient Macedon was a Slavic Kingdom and the Macedonian Slavs are directly descended from Alexander the Great despite the fact that literally nobody knew what the fuck a Slav was back then because they didn't even properly exist.

Honestly, I can understand being upset about a neighboring nation claiming your ancestral legacy as their own and claiming you're the one who stole it instead.

This. I agree 100%. This is the reason that most Greeks have a problem with FYROM.

Personally I was against both the Prespes Agreement and them joining NATO, but since it has been agreed and nothing can change now (international treaties cannot be torn apart whenever we like), I just wish for the best and hope that our relations will improve. I believe it will be beneficial for both countries.

It’s not FYROM any more. It’s officially North Macedonia

I (and most Greeks for that matter) still call them FYROM or Skopje. What's the problem?

It is ironic. Haste is made to admit nations like North Macedonia, but great hesitation & prolonged deliberation is had when considering nations like Azerbaijan & Georgia. Both are equally positioned at crucial geo-political crossroads directly at Russia's southern underbelly. Nonetheless, it is equally important to acknowledge the peculiarities in nations like Georgia. In the latter, the breakaway republics of Abkhazia & South Ossetia attribute a precarious element of sensitivity to a broader balance with Moscow. In reality, both republics are merely geo-political beachheads for Moscow which ultimately prevent any long term prospect of NATO membership from flowering in the first place. From a situational standpoint, this is comparable to NATO positioning military bases in a breakaway region of Belarus surrounded by pro-Russian powers & interests. The post-Cold War spectrum consistently proves fascinating to say the least…

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Fantastic. Another ally against Russia. It is on my list of places to visit one day.

It’s probably gonna replace Italy who’s most likely going into Russia’s sphere. Thanks EU, really fucked that one

That’s more likely what’s happening with Turkey.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Tends to happen when you bomb somebody's country: they don't like you.

Doesn't change the fact there was an actual attempt by Serbian authorities to wage genocidal ethnic cleansing in the region though.

You don't have to bomb civilian infrastructure (Hospitals, schools, shops, other small businesses, etc) and kill hundreds to thousands of noncombatant civilians in the process to stop a genocide though.

Many Serbs would be next Gavrilo Princip instead to join terrorist organization who supported terrorist (KLA) for an excuse of stopping genocide and ethnical cleansing but at the end they did it by themselves. There is no Justice in the world it's all an teatre show and us mere mortals are forced to be its pions

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Fantastic. Another ally against Russia. It is on my list of places to visit one day.

It’s probably gonna replace Italy who’s most likely going into Russia’s sphere. Thanks EU, really fucked that one

Ooh dear. What happened to push Italy to such a... drastic choice of overlord?

Albrenia wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:It’s probably gonna replace Italy who’s most likely going into Russia’s sphere. Thanks EU, really fucked that one

Ooh dear. What happened to push Italy to such a... drastic choice of overlord?

Unlikely, but the EU has been severely weakened already.

Albrenia wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:It’s probably gonna replace Italy who’s most likely going into Russia’s sphere. Thanks EU, really fucked that one

Ooh dear. What happened to push Italy to such a... drastic choice of overlord?

COVID-19

The EU bungled the response and russia is currently the major support for Italy right now

I am not in favour of NATO, in fact I want to see it being dissolved. European countries should join PESCO instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent ... ooperation

Thermodolia wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Ooh dear. What happened to push Italy to such a... drastic choice of overlord?

COVID-19

The EU bungled the response and russia is currently the major support for Italy right now

Ah, I see.

I'd consider aligning with them to be a rather dangerous move, but I couldn't blame them for gratitude to those who helped out in times of need.

Reborn Ottoman Sultan wrote:It is ironic. Haste is made to admit nations like North Macedonia, but great hesitation & prolonged deliberation is had when considering nations like Azerbaijan & Georgia. Both are equally positioned at crucial geo-political crossroads directly at Russia's southern underbelly. Nonetheless, it is equally important to acknowledge the peculiarities in nations like Georgia. In the latter, the breakaway republics of Abkhazia & South Ossetia attribute a precarious element of sensitivity to a broader balance with Moscow. In reality, both republics are merely geo-political beachheads for Moscow which ultimately prevent any long term prospect of NATO membership from flowering in the first place. From a situational standpoint, this is comparable to NATO positioning military bases in a breakaway region of Belarus surrounded by pro-Russian powers & interests. The post-Cold War spectrum consistently proves fascinating to say the least…

Azerbaijan is an oligarchic dictatorship which regularly engages in human rights abuses, and is also buddy buddy with Putin in addition to mooching money from a gullible West. This alone blocks them from entering NATO.

Liburia wrote:I am not in favour of NATO, in fact I want to see it being dissolved. European countries should join PESCO instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent ... ooperation

Yeah thats literally nothing.