SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Kosovo
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Patrick E.McDaniel who wrote ()3/26/1999 9:36:00 AM
From: Stormweaver  Read Replies (1) of 17770
 
Some interesting commentary from U.S. Russian Ambassador, former U.S. NSA on Charlie Rose last night. Key points I pulled from those conversations:

In my opinion item 1. is pure speculation. I personally think NATO has created greater unrest by doing what they have done. Point 2. I completely agree with all points:

p.s. I was impressed with the bipartisan nature of the Charlie Rose and would recommend all to tune in; I think it's PBS about 11:30pm.

1. Brezinski (Former U.S. National Security Advisor)
Key "real" reasons that U.S. is attacking:
a. humanitarian ; fear of a holocaust situation developing.
b. destabilization of eastern Europe
In this Brezinski cited that unrest could spread to Macedonia (17% Albania), Bulgaria (who despised Macedonia), Greece (who despise the Bulgarians) and Turkey (who despise Greece). Macedonia unrest would be a trigger to igniting wars between the above which would trigger other unrest.
c. Item b. is a potential Europe wide destabilization which obviously has serious economic impacts on the U.S.
D. The most important one: SINCE THE U.S. THREATENED TO BOMB LAST OCTOBER THEY HAD TO STRIKE TO SAVE FACE ... yes the NSA advisor mentioned that this was a huge factor in the strike. Therefore the real mistake was the U.S. threatening force in October.

2. Russian Ambassador to U.S.:
a. An agreement signed with the threat of force is NULL & VOID (U.N. Doctrine)
- hence even if the Serbs signed it would be able to retract it
- in plain terms it's like someone making you sign a contract with a gun to your head; "sign it or die".
b. NATO's attack breaks a U.N. Doctrine item and they are clearly the "Agressors" attacking a sovereign nation without approval.
c. The Kosovo agreement had two parts (one added only a few days before the signing): PART A was for autonomy of Kosovo people and the Russians approved that one. PART B (56 pages) was added to the agreement in the last few days by NATO and stipulates that 30000 NATO ground troops to occupy Kosovo.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News