LOCAL PRESS
President dismisses “Cyprus model” for Kosovo (B92)
Aleksandar Vucic says the “the Cyprus model” cannot be used to find a solution for Kosovo, “because it means a frozen conflict for the next 100 or 200 years.”
“Our people like to hear it, ‘give us the Cypriot, the Israeli-Jordanian, the St. Peter model’. Never mind models…’two Germanys’, ‘Cyprus’… and then we would have this state of affairs for another 200 years. Super. Then tell the people that we will have fewer highways,” said Vucic.
The President, who spoke while visiting the town of Vladicin Han, went on to say that the Cypriot “model” (problem) “will not be solved in the next 100 years because it is a struggle for territory.”
“It’s a frozen conflict, and when something is frozen it can also be unfrozen,” Vucic said.
The president’s comments came after Oliver Ivanovic, a Serb politician from northern Kosovo, in recent days spoke in favor of using “the Cypriot model” for the province.
Brnabic: It is important that internal dialogue on Kosovo has been started (Beta)
Ana Brnabic said that it was important that a debate and internal dialogue regarding Kosovo had started and that this was a brave and responsible move by Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic.
“I think that the dialogue has started. Even people who say “we do not want to take part in such dialogue” have the view that means a dialogue. I do not think that it is very responsible, but it is a view”, Brnabic said to the reporters in Belgrade. She added that this was brave and responsible decision by Serbian President to start internal debate too about such important issue.
“I believe that it is good that the debate has started. As Serbia and all of its citizens, we should know our national goals” Brnabic emphasized.
Ljajic: We should ask for EU’s concessions to stop blocking Kosovo (Blic)
Rasim Ljajic believes that a frozen conflict related to the Kosovo issue does not suit Serbia, and proposes “normalization without recognition” as a solution.
The minister of trade, telecommunications, and tourism, who also serves as a deputy PM and is the leader of the SDPS party, is the latest Serbian official to write an op-ed on this topic for a Belgrade newspaper, since President Aleksandar Vucic launched his “internal dialogue on Kosovo.”
In his article published in the daily Blic, Ljajic proposes resolving the issue in three phases – with Serbia asking the EU to make “concrete concessions” in exchange for Belgrade “agreeing to Kosovo’s admission to international organizations.” According to him, hardly anywhere do historical and ethnic principles “clash so directly and intensely” as in Kosovo.
“The Albanians always knew what they wanted in Kosovo, the Serbs mostly knew what they did not want,” wrote Ljajic, adding that the Albanians “always sought strong international support, especially from the EU and the US, while the Serbs defied both, and very often made to their own detriment.” He also thinks that “a return to the old is unrealistic”.
“Neither the Albanians want it, nor does Serbia need a dysfunctional state with two million people who hate that state. On the other hand, without an agreement with Serbia and the consent of Russia and China, Kosovo can hardly remain a state with full international subjectivity,” Ljajic stated. As he emphasized, “regardless of the diametrically different starting positions regarding the final status of Kosovo, one thing is certain – the state of frozen conflict does not suit either, that is, it puts brakes on economic development, European integration and modernization.”
This, however, “does not mean that an alternative to the frozen conflict is to resolve the final status of Kosovo ‘here and now’,” said Ljajic, who believes that “society both in Serbia and Kosovo is not ready for a comprehensive solution.”
“That’s why we propose an intermediate solution, ‘ normalization without recognition’, which would open the issue of Kosovo immediately and solve it in three phases,” he said.
The first phase would involve the removal of all barriers to full economic and trade cooperation between Serbia and Kosovo, as well as free movement, without existing administrative restrictions on people, goods and capital. “To that end, we propose that a free economic zone be established in the north of Kosovo, which would be open to investment from both central Serbia and Kosovo,” Ljajic said.
The second phase would, he continued, include the opening of negotiations on the property of Serbia in Kosovo, the cultural heritage and the establishment of the Community of Serb Municipalities.
“The third phase would open negotiations on Kosovo’s membership in all international organizations except the UN. For each consent of Serbia for Kosovo’s accession to a single organization, we would ask for concrete concessions from the EU in terms of implementing large infrastructure projects, but also concessions that imply a faster path to the EU,” he said.
As Ljajic pointed out, “this does not mean that we are looking for a privileged status in the accession process without meeting the basic criteria and standards, but only that there are no ‘unforeseen’ obstacles on the road to the EU.” This phase, he added, includes a donor conference to provide funding for various economic projects that would be proposed. After reaching agreement has been reached on these three issues, “a normalization agreement would be signed, kick starting the so-called transition period, which would last five years, during which the realization of the reached agreements would be monitored.”
“At the end of this period, we propose holding an international conference on Kosovo with the participation of the EU, the United States and Russia, with the aim of reaching a final solution to the status of Kosovo,” Ljajic said.
“We do not think this is the best solution, because it does not exist. “e do not expect this to be the most just solution, because that too is an illusion. We are looking for a solution that is the least unfair,” he said.
Employees of the Serbian embassy in Skopje withdrawn (RTS)
The RTS confirmed that all employees of the Serbian Embassy in Skopje were withdrawn for urgent consultations in Belgrade. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia received a note.
Macedonian media report that the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it had received a note from the Embassy of Serbia in Skopje, by which it was informed that Embassy staff was urgently called home for consultations in Belgrade.
Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs received a note yesterday.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not familiar with the reasons for this decision and therefore has establishes communication with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the institutions of the Republic of Macedonia take measures to protect the security and integrity of the Embassy of Serbia in Skopje,” the statement said.
News on the withdrawal of the Serbian diplomats last night was announced by Macedonian Television Telma. According to Telma TV, the Serbian Embassy, referring to the Geneva Convention, asked the Macedonian authorities to strengthen the security of the Embassy of Serbia in Skopje.
Ambassador Dusanka Divjak-Tomic told the Beta news agency she cannot comment on the situation and that the press should wait for the statement which will be issued by the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Vucic: We have evidence of very offensive action against Serbia (B92, Tanjug, RTS)
The staff of the embassy in Skopje has been withdrawn after evidence was received of “very offensive activities against Serbian authorities and institutions.”
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said this on Monday, a day after it emerged that the entire staff had been withdrawn to Belgrade.
“It’s up to us that our people are prepared and ready. There will be some changes in our staff (…) and to protect our friendship with the Macedonians, and also how to behave in the new environment. There is a lot of speculation and I think that in the next ten days everything will be much clearer,” said Vucic, and added:
“We will build good relations with Skopje, but relations will have to be based on mutual respect. We will see whether the Albanians will go forth with including Kosovo in UNESCO, then we will wait for what Skopje and Podgorica will say. It up to us to prepare ourselves and to be able to respond.”
Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said today that employees of the Serbian Embassy in Macedonia have been withdrawn because there was evidence of “offensive actions against Serbia, with the presence of the foreign factor.” Dacic said in a statement to Tanjug that the state of Serbia will take measures to protect its interests in Macedonia, and at the same time “reexamine our capacity to carry out work under current conditions in that country.”
“Next week, after meetings that we will have here – and we will have a meeting with President of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic – some of our staff will be returned to Skopje, and the ambassador will be returned later, when we finish all the consultations we intend to implement here in Belgrade,” Dacic told the agency.
He explained that employees of the Serbian embassy in Macedonia have been withdrawn “because it has been determined unambiguously, with clear evidence, that there has been an increased offensive activity against the Republic of Serbia, where the foreign factor is also certainly present.”
“We will take measures to prepare for work in such an environment,” the minister said, but also stressed that Serbia “wants good relations with Macedonia.”
Earlier in the day, Sputnik reported that “one of the reasons” for the withdrawal of the embassy’s staff was Skopje’s preparation to vote in favor of Pristina’s possible renewed bid to join UNESCO – which Belgrade is strongly opposed to, arguing that Serbia’s cultural and religious heritage in the province would be further endangered in this way.
In 2015, Skopje voted in favor of admitting Pristina – something that has since been mentioned disapprovingly on several occasions by Serbian officials, Dacic in particular.
Earlier this year, Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev told Vucic that Skopje would be “neutral” in case of Pristina’s renewed UNESCO bid.
EP Rapporteur meets opposition representatives on Thursday in Belgrade, no Jankovic and Jeremic (Vecernje Novosti)
The leader of Movement of Free Citizens (PSG) Sasa Jankovic and a candidate for President at the last Presidential elections Vuk Jeremic would not go to the meeting between opposition leaders and European Parliament Rapporteur David McAllister on Thursday in Belgrade, news agencies reported. McAllister would meet on Thursday with the opposition representatives as a part of official visit to Serbia, a source close to McAllister’s office said for Tanjug news agency. The meeting would be held at the EU Delegation in Belgrade headquarters and the goal would be “general exchange of opinions”.
The source said that McAllister was strongly supporting the dialogue with the opposition and that he met with the opposition politicians during his visits organized by Konrad Adenauer Foundation or EU Delegation.
Jankovic confirmed over the weekend that he would not come to the meeting, and previously said for Vecernje Novosti daily on Saturday that he would not be at the meeting “out of objective reasons”. Unofficially, the media reported that Jankovic would not meet McAllister because of his good relations with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic.
Jeremic would also miss the meeting and his team said that he was “out of the country”.
The leaders of Democratic Party (DS) Dragan Sutanovac, It is Enough Movement (DJB) Sasa Radulovic, Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Cedomir Jovanovic and Social Democratic Party (SDS) Boris Tadic were also invited for a joint meeting with McAllister.
Vecernje Novosti daily reported that the meeting with McAllister was an opportunity to “ease the tensions” between Sutanovac and Jankovic after PSG’s decision to cancel plans on election cooperation with DS. Sutanovac and Jovanovic confirmed that they would come for the meeting.
Jovanovic said on Saturday that he would surely go to the meeting with McAllister and that “puberty whims” of Jankovic were not interesting him. He added that internal relations for him were not the topic of conversations with any foreigner, including McAllister, “because nobody ever did anything with whining”.
BNV Marks 100 Years of Declaration of Secession of Sandzak from Serbia (Beta)
Bosniak National Council (BNV), led by Sulejman Ugljanin, marked on Saturday in Novi Pazar 100 years of the “Sjenica Declaration” that was seeking secession of Sandzak from Serbia.
Ugljanin requested assistance of the international community in resolving the “permanent status of Sandzak and the status of Bosniaks in Sandzak”.
Sandzak is a geographical region where Bosniaks make up the majority population. Two thirds of the Sandzak territory belongs to Serbia, and one third to Montenegro.
The “Sjenica Declaration” emerged in 1917 during the occupation of Serbia, when the mayors and presidents of 12 Sandzak municipalities adopted the document seeking from Austria-Hungary to secede Sandzak from Serbia and Montenegro and annex it to Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).
“I call on EU, UN, OSCE to find a way and enable the Bosniak people, who are the autochthonous people in Sandzak, who have all the attributes of a nation, culture, language, religion and who make the single national body with Bosniaks in B&H, to be a “pointer at the scales” in this peaceful settlement of the Yugoslav crisis and Serbia’s European road”, Ugljanin said.
The international community is expected to help in “permanent resolving of the status of Sandzak and the status of Bosniaks in Sandzak who are autochthonous in Sandzak, but make at the moment a numerical minority in Serbia and in Montenegro”.
Ugljanin was a minister without portfolio in Serbian two governments, but at the time he did not pointed to political problems of Bosniaks in Sandzak, only economic. His political opponents in Sandzak, primarily Rasim Ljajic, accuse him of disliking Serbia only if he does not have a state office.
REGIONAL PRESS
Bosnia and Herzegovina
RS President Dodik: People in B&H should decide if B&H will join NATO (RTRS)
After the Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) Constitutional Court’s decision about registering military property in Han Pijesak municipality onto the state of B&H, many have welcomed this decision including SDA and SDS party. On the other hand, Republika Srpska (RS) President Milorad Dodik is against this decision and he stated that the only way to resolve this matter is to allow the people in B&H, in both its entities, to decide whether B&H should join NATO. Dodik added that he will accept any decision made by the people, even if they say ‘Yes’ to joining NATO. Dodik said that it is difficult to comment on the views of SDS leader Vukota Govedarica about the referendum on B&H membership in NATO, as he only repeats the views of SDA on this point. Govedarica said on Saturday that SDS does not support the initiative of Dodik, which proposes a referendum on membership in NATO. “Govedarica has obviously waited for SDA to give its opinion publicly, so he could align to that. It is sad that those who have a wish to lead the people have such groundless reflections about political matters. This is a question of property that they try to take away, the question is about the judicial system that is illegal and does not make decisions” said Dodik.
Cvijanovic: NATO’s behavior represents attack on RS (RTRS)
Republika Srpska (RS) Prime Minister (PM) Zeljka Cvijanovic said that behavior of NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) represents obvious attack on the RS. Cvijanovic noted that recent developments related to prospective military property represent illegal attempt to deprive the RS of what belongs to it. She reminded that the B&H Law on Defense stipulates agreement between state and entities regarding the issue of property. She added that although abovementioned sides failed to reach an agreement regarding military property, the Constitutional Court of B&H did not have right to make final decision in this case.
SDS will not support referendum on membership in NATO (Nezavisne Novine)
SDS leader Vukota Govedarica asked to comment on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) decision to reject Republika Srpska (RS) appeal related to registration of military property in Han Pijesak as the property of B&H said: “I have to say that the Court of B&H looks more and more like former High Representative Paddy Ashdown from some earlier times”. He added, however, that the Court of B&H is not the only one to blame – because the RS Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs has actually launched to procedure which had eventually allowed the Ministry of Defense of B&H to file request for registration of property in Han Pijesak as the property of B&H.
Govedarica added that regardless of what SNSD might be saying right now, “their officials used to the ones to direct B&H towards NATO”. SDS leader noted that SNSD leader Milorad Dodik has obviously changed his policy somewhere along the way, and now he claims to be ready even to organize referendum on country’s membership in NATO. “We will not support referendum on membership in NATO because we consider it to be a typical Dodik’s manipulation”, Govedarica said, adding that Dodik is needlessly dragging the RS into the conflict and that he does not believe Dodik will organize referendum on membership in NATO after all. Commenting on membership in NATO, Govedarica said that Serbia’s stance should be of crucial importance for the RS, and “for as long as Serbia maintains the position of military neutrality when it comes to Euro-Atlantic integration, that should be our position as well”. “If Dodik is ready to go on with this initiative, he should schedule a special session of the RS National Assembly, which would pass the final decision”, Govedarica said. He reminded that the RSNA passed decision on referendum on the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office of B&H back in July 2015, but it has never been implemented. “Someone very irresponsible in institutions of RS has hidden this decision in drawers”, Govedarica concluded.
SDA: B&H will become NATO member state regardless of what Dodik thinks about it (TV1)
The statement of Republika Srpska (RS) President and SNSD leader Milorad Dodik, according to which he rejects the policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) path towards NATO and announces a referendum in the RS on this issue, sparks reactions. SDA said in its statement that B&H will become the NATO member state regardless of what Dodik thinks about it. SDA reminded that all levels of authorities in B&H, including the RS, have the obligation to work on meeting the conditions for B&H’s membership in NATO. “B&H’s membership in NATO does not depend on Milorad Dodik. As for the referendum on the NATO membership, B&H does not need that since the country’s membership in NATO guarantees safety for everyone in B&H and the region”, SDA’s statement reads. Representatives of the international community in B&H also commented on Dodik’s rhetoric.
Dodik says Croatia has right to construct Peljesac bridge (EuroBlic)
Republika Srpska (RS) President Milorad Dodik stated that, as far as the RS is concerned, there are no problems related to the construction of Peljesac bridge and added that Croatia can construct whatever it wants in its territory. “Croatia has the right to construct the bridge. What hurts us in relations with Croatia is the bridge over Sava river because Croatia has been stalling this matter for years, which is neither fair nor correct”, Dodik said. The daily reminded that Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) Presidency member Bakir Izetbegovic said that Croatia must not construct Peljesac bridge before the maritime border between B&H and Croatia is defined.
fYROM
There is still no official information from Belgrade why Serbian Embassy staff was withdrawn (MIA)
Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs still has no information from Belgrade why diplomats and staff have been withdrawn from the Embassy of Serbia to Skopje. Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs told MIA that is establishing communication with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia.
Serbian Ambassador Dusanka Divjak-Tomic in the statement for Serbian media confirmed that entire personnel of the Embassy have been withdrawn however she could not make any comment.
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the institutions of the Republic of Macedonia are taking measures to protect the security and integrity of the Embassy of Serbia in Skopje, Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs.
Entire staff of the Serbian Embassy in Skopje has been withdrawn for urgent consultations in Belgrade. Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced it had received a note from the Embassy of Serbia in Skopje, informing them that the embassy staff had been asked to travel to Belgrade for consultations.
Macedonian Interior Ministry after receiving the information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Serbian Embassy withdrew for consultations in Belgrade, measures were taken to increase the security of their facilities, upon embassy’s request.
Gov’t: Macedonia promoting friendly relations with all its neighbors (MIA)
The Republic of Macedonia is promoting friendly relations with all neighboring countries. When two of our neighbors are faced with outstanding sensitive issues, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia has been always following the interests of the state, based on the principles of good-neighborliness and advancement of regional cooperation, neutrality and non-interference in inter-state disputes, the Government says in a statement issued after Serbia’s move withdrawing the staff of its embassy in Skopje.
“As regards its vote over Kosovo’s UNDESCO membership, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia will take into consideration the positions of the majority of EU member states,” the press statement says.
INTERNATIONAL PRESS
Stop Poking the Russian Bear (National Interest)
Western intrusion into traditional Russian spheres of influence, areas under the sway of Moscow for three centuries or more, represents a highly provocative and destabilizing policy.
War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually it must protect its interests through military action. Indeed, Russia already has resorted to military action: in Georgia in 2008, after that Russian neighbor initiated a war with Moscow designed to severely curtail Russia’s influence in its own neighborhood, and in eastern Ukraine, after the West encouraged and fostered a 2014 revolution that upended an elected Ukrainian leader whose foreign and economic policies tilted toward Russia.
And consider Russia’s territorial fate since the West’s Cold War victory over Soviet Bolshevism. Before that momentous development, which was entirely necessary and laudable, the Soviet Union had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad. Now that fabled Russian city, renamed St. Petersburg once again after the obliteration of the ideological menace of Soviet communism, resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces. Moscow was protected behind 1,200 miles of controlled territory during the Cold War; now that distance is two hundred miles.
This represents a monumental shift in Russia’s geopolitical situation, and much of it was, and remains, a cause of celebration. The Soviet yoke over the peoples of Eastern Europe had to be removed, and the West’s long Cold War struggle, particularly the early initiatives under Harry Truman and the final push under Ronald Reagan, represents a heroic tale of calibrated resistance and tireless resolve.
But Western intrusion into traditional Russian spheres of influence, areas under the sway of Moscow for three centuries or more, represents a highly provocative and destabilizing policy. Ukraine was one such Russian sphere of influence. Georgia was another. So was Belarus. So was Serbia. All have been subject to Western designs to one degree or another, including serious U.S. initiatives to dismember Serbia and get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
Further, the West has offered no expressions indicating what might be the limitations of its encirclement plans. Prominent Americans talk freely of “regime change” in the country, and the U.S. government has sponsored NGO activities designed to foment antigovernment activities there of the kind that stirred a pro-Russian leader of Ukraine—the corrupt but duly elected Viktor Yanukovych—to flee his own country upon threat of death. America’s promiscuous post–Cold War activities in support of regime change—in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen—lend weight to suspicions that it harbors similar views toward Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Indeed, the demonization of Putin by America’s intelligentsia has been nearly unprecedented in peacetime. Hillary Clinton invokes Hitler as a comparative figure and, while others have stopped short of that kind of rhetorical excess, the attitude remains the same. He is evil and presides over a menacing, conquest-hungry nation; he and his country must be stopped, curtailed, declawed. There is no recognition in any of this that Russians may view themselves, with at least some validity, as a beleaguered nation vis-à-vis America and its allies.
Donald Trump was elected in part to change all that. As the University of Southern California’s Robert David English notes in his excellent recent Foreign Affairs essay, Trump repeatedly asserted in his first press conference that it would be “positive,” “good,” or “great” if “we could get along with Russia.” Unlike most of the country’s elites, he vowed to seek Moscow’s cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the two countries’ sour relations and acknowledged “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.”
This suggested a dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations—an end to the encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine.
This budding initiative now lies in tiny shards upon the floor of global politics. We don’t yet know, and perhaps never will, the full story of what happened with regard to Russia’s effort to tilt America’s 2016 presidential election. And we can’t yet form a full picture of the actions undertaken on the part of the Trump team or the president himself to collude with official Russia in U.S. internal politics. It might be very serious; it might not.
But it almost doesn’t matter. Trump’s Russia initiative appears dead. The anti-Russian elites have won the day, whatever the merits of the case or wherever the facts now lead. The president looks hapless on the issue. New sanctions are coming, whether he wants them or not. NATO expansion and the West’s Ukraine meddling will continue. Encirclement is firmly in place.
It’s difficult to envision where this could lead, short of actual hostilities. Russia’s fundamental national interests, the ones Trump was prepared to accept, will almost certainly render such hostilities inevitable.
The heavy bag for the European Union: Turkey (hurriyetdailynews.com)
In recent times, Turkey seems to have become the centerpiece of attention for the members of the European Union (EU). Furthermore, Turkey seems to have collected upon itself the attention of the various domestic actors within the EU. The attention that Turkey seems to be generating is a negative one. There are a number of reasons for this negative attention. One of these reasons seems to be that the attacks do not cost anything to the actors. In fact, the attackers seem to be benefiting from these politically-motivated attacks against Turkey.
These attacks are mainly focused on two issues. The first issue is regarding the Balkans. Many actors in the EU argue that Turkey and Russia are meddling in the so–called “Western Balkans” regions, a sub-division of the Balkans invented by EU member countries to marginalize Turkey from the rest of the Balkans and thus Europe. This “invention” creates a convenient excuse not to accept Turkey’s EU bid. According to this logic, Turkey and Russia are using their proxies, Albania and Serbia, to redraw the boundaries in the Balkans.
In their sense, Russia allegedly encourages Serbia for the annexation of territory from Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).
The argument further elaborates that Turkey supports Albania so that it annexes Kosovo and territory from Macedonia to create a “Greater Albania.”
Certain analysts in prestigious newspapers have argued that the Balkan leaders have shown to the EU that if the EU is not willing to speed the accession process, they are willing to look to the east. More specifically, these Balkan countries are apparently willing to contribute to Russia’s and Turkey’s nationalistic agendas.
There are two important points that such articles omit. The first point they omit is the evidence supporting Turkey’s role in creating a crisis in the Balkans region. None of the articles that put forth Turkey’s role in the Balkans as a crisis instigator provide any evidence to back up their claims regarding Turkey.
Interestingly, they do put forth evidence for Russia, but not for Turkey.
Secondly, how can Turkey and Russia work at the same time to instigate a crisis in the Balkans which involves elements that inherently and historically are opposed to each other? For them, Russia is trying to create a larger Serbia while Turkey seems to be trying to create a larger Albania. None of the articles provide any explanation as to how these mutually exclusive goals exist at the same time.
The second issue the EU actors seem to be attempting is to describe Turkey as a “NATO in Name Only” (NINO) country. The usage of this concept has begun to slowly but steadily put into circulation against Turkey. One must ask what proof there is in the usage of the term NINO against Turkey. Turkey is one of the few members who almost meet NATO’s 2 percent defense spending criteria. EU members such as Germany, the biggest economy of the EU and one of biggest in the world, trail noticeably behind Turkey. If Germany is not being referred to as NINO, at a juncture where it defies sanctions against Russia, as well as voicing opposition to United States designs, then why is Turkey being referred to as such? Furthermore, the Turkish armed forces have significantly more real-world combat experience than the German. So, again, why is Turkey being branded as NINO? We could multiply such examples for Germany or other NATO members.
Apparently, one of the reasons why Turkey seems to be accused as NINO is because the Anadolu News Agency had disclosed some information about the whereabouts of the allied soldiers in the Middle East. Yet, nobody seems to be concerned as to the lack of support for Turkey in the Middle East from its NATO allies. This inaction interestingly does not turn them into NINO. Once again why?
In the last months, especially the last six months, Turkey seems to have become a heavy bag for many EU actors. The act of defaming Turkey is easy because these actors, whether political or non-political, seem to pay a small price for attacking Turkey. In fact, they seem to be gaining political dividends particularly from the far right and racist extremists. Yet, none of these actors, the elite, and the opinion makers of their societies are thinking ahead. What will happen when the upping elections are over? What will happen when the politicians who occupy the seats today are gone? The words uttered, the seeds that have been sown will still grow.
