Vladislav B . Sotirović

Book Из јужнословенске догађајнице. Збирка одабраних чланака, Виљнус: Штампарија литванског едуколошког универзитета „Едукологија“, 2014, printed book ISBN 978-609-408-524-6, electronic book ISBN 978-609-408-525-3 [From the South Slavic History: Collection of Selected Articles]

Book: Кривотворине о Јосипу Брозу Титу, Брозовим партизанима и Равногорском покрету, 1941. г.−1945. г., Виљнус: Штампарија Литванског едуколошког универзитета, 2014, printed book ISBN 978-609-408-557-4, electronic book ISBN 978-609-408-556-7, UDK 94 (497.1) “1941/1945” So-121 [Forgeries about Josip Broz Tito, Broz’s Partisans and the Ravna Gora Movement, 1941−1945]

EMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
The Death of Yugoslavia, 1991−1999

Publisher & editor
The „CRUCIFIED KOSOVO“
Independent Research Centre for Advanced Balkan Studies
http://www.crucified-kosovo.eu

Cover & design
Vladislav B. Sotirović
http://www.sotirovic.blog.com

© 2013 by Vladislav B. Sotirović & The “CRUCIFIED KOSOVO” – Independent Research Centre for Advanced Balkan Studies
All rights reserved

50 exemplars

Second edition

Printed by Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences Press
“Edukologija”
T. Ševčenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lithuania
Vilnius, 2013

Paper book ISBN 978-609-408-433-1
Electronic book ISBN 978-609-408-434-8
UDK 325.2 (497.1) So-121

Book web presentation
http://balcanica.webs.com
http://www.jugoslavologija.eu

Contact
vladislav-b-sotirovic@crucified-kosovo.eu
sotirovic@jugoslavologija.eu

Front cover page photo
Destroyed Serbian 14th century church in Kosovo by Albanians in 2004
Back cover page photo
Serbian refugges from Croatia in August 1999

"This book is a product of eighteen years of research and writings on the issue of the Balkan and especially the Yugoslav national identities, nationalism, state formation process, inter-ethnic and inter-confessional clashes, atrocities, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide committed in this part of Europe and above all on the territory of the ex-Yugoslavia(s) in historical perspective. The reaseach on the topic was begun in 1995 at the Central European University, Budapest Colleage in Budapest, Hungary when I was M.A. student. From that time up today the reaseach was done in several countries where I was using the libraries and archives. As a product of this extensive research several articles was written and published in scientific journals together with a dozen of columnist articles published in several juournals and many internet pages.

The final text of the book, that is already presented at several scientific conferences, is a product of my five years of research participation at the COST Action IS0803: “Remaking Eastern Borders in Europe: A Network Exploring Social, Moral and Material Relocations of Europe’s Eastern Peripheries”. The final stage of research on the topic of the book and the writing of  the text of it is financed by the COST Action.

I hope and believe that the research results presented in this book are going to be of certain value for the sake of better undertanding of the process of the bloody destruction of the ex-Yugoslavia in the years of 1991−1999 in order to prevent the next wars and atrocities between and among the Yugoslavs. The ultimate task of this research and the book is to constructively contribute in the efforts by „international community“ to justifiably solve the „Yugoslav Question“ in the recent future.
"

"Поштовани читаоци, прелистивачи, непријатељи и пријатељи као и сви они који су игром случаја залутали између корица ове књиге или је пак са намером да је до краја прочитају отворили,
Пред Вама се налази збирка од двадесет и седам огледа из области повести, антропологије, етнологије и пре свега политике југословенских народа и народности, а који су написани у последње четири године и објављивани на неколико интернет страница информативних служби/сервиса српске и србијанске опозиционе (антивладине) провенијенције са којих су преузимани од стране других организација и удружења који су их објављивали на својим порталима и форумима у изворном облику. За ову збирку аутор је сваки чланак ажурирао са најновијим подацима, а датум коначне верзије сваког текста се налази на његовом крају заједно са местом у коме је оглед угледао своју финалну форму за штампање у овој књизи у форми збирке.
Збирка носи наслов Огледи из Југославологије, тј. из опште научне дисциплине која се бави „југословенским“ тематикама и областима истраживања. Пред Вама се налази књига за коју је аутор убеђен да неће имати никаквог практичног утицаја на дневнополитичка догађања у региону, а поготово у Републици Остатака (Остатака) Србије и нарочито међ Србима, тј. да ће се и након читања ове књиге разбијање и даље уситњавање Српства и Србије од стране владајућих титоистичких структура и даље наставити  под патронатом западних србомрзитеља, истих оних који су аустроугарског каплара и довели на власт у Београду октобра 1944. г., а чији је крајњи циљ да се границе државе Србије као западне марионетске колоније сведу у оквире које је прописао Ото фон Бизмарк на Берлинском конгресу 1878. г. уз стварање Велике Хрватске и Велике Шипније око „Бизмарк-Брозове“ Србије, што није и разлог да књига небуде написана, отштампана и прочитана.


This as a collection of twenty-seven essays from the field of anthropology, ethnology, and above all the politics of the Yugoslav peoples and nationalities, which were written in the last four years and published on several Serb opposition (anti-government) web information services. They have been later  re-published by other organizations and associations on their web sites and forums. For this collection, the author updated each article with the latest data. The date of the final version of each text is at its end along with the place where the essays saw their final form for printing in this book.
The collection is titled “Essays from Yugoslavology”, ie. from the general scientific discipline which deals with the “Yugoslav” themes and research areas. This is the book that the author is convinced that it will have no practical impact on the daily political events in the region, especially in the Republic of the Rest (of the Rest) of Serbia and especially among the Serbs, ie. that after reading this book the further fragmentation of the Serbian nation and Serbia by the governing structure of Serbia composed by the Titoist Communist commarades under the auspices of the Western Serbophobes – the same ones who Austro-Hungarian corporal Joseph Broz Tito (1892−1980) from Croatia brought to the power in Belgrade in October 1944 is going to continue. Their ultimate political goals are to reduce the territory of Serbia, as a Western puppet colony, to the borders prescribed by Otto von Bismarck at the Berlin Congress in 1878 and to create a Greater Croatia, Greater Albania and enlarged Hungary around “Bismarck-Broz’s” remains of Serbia.
This is a book about a long process of destruction of Serbian nation and Serbia by her Balkan and West Euro-American enemies in the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century with historical background of Serbian relations with the most important neighbours. The western destruction of Serbdom in the Balkans is only a part of the preparations of the West for the last crucide against Russia – the Third and the Last World War during which Europe as a continent will definitelly disapear like Atlantida. The Balkan Serbs and Serbia are the first collateral victims in this struggle.
"

""Основна жеља ми је била при писању ове монографије да допринесем осветљавању још једног (социолингвистичког) угла посматрања на разлоге који су довели до распада бивше Југославије.

Са методолошке тачке гледишта, проблем избора узорка, тј. проблем његове репрезентативности, у циљу добијања поузданије основе уопштавања, је решен тако што су одабрани репрезентативни узорци социолингвистичког аспекта распада СФР Југославије у датом периоду који покрива тематику истраживања (1967. г.–1995. г.) заједно са његовом историјском позадином. Ови узорци, који воде порекло од стране различитих југословенских националности, али се углавном базирају на српско-хрватско-муслиманским примерима, су затим упоређивани међусобно у намери да се дође до нуклеуса општеприхваћених гледишта као и до лепезе различитих приступа и схватања решавања истих филолошко-лингвистичких проблема у оквиру званичног српскохрватског (хрватскосрпског) језика. У мојој анализи социолингвистичког аспекта распада бивше Југославије, поред упоредне методе је коришћена и метода анализе текста као вид социолингвистичког проницања у улогу и функцију језика у стварању националног идентитета и национално-државних граница у случају распада заједничке државе. Коначно, примењен је и методолошки принцип комплементарности у смислу међусобног допуњавања података преузетих у различитим архивалијама, осталим историјским изворима и литератури као и ради провере истинитости и веродостојности њихових материјалних података.

Значај истраживања и практична примена резултата се може сагледати у следећим цртама. У глобалном контексту развоја савремене теоретске мисли о узроцима међународних сукоба након завршетка Хладног рата 1989. г., југословенски конфликт се може посматрати (заједно са Првим заливским ратом) као израз сукоба цивилизација у смислу теорије Семјуела П. Хантингтона која се базира на ставу да цивилизацију одређује конфесионална припадност, и сходно томе да се цивилизацијска припадност одређује религијском припадношћу. Моја монографија доводи у питање споменуту Хантингтонову хипотезу, и фактички већ признату теорију, као једини, па чак у многим случајевима и неприкосновени, теоријски оквир истраживања постхладноратовских сукоба у свету јер овај рад указује да је поред вероисповести и језик један од најбитнијих фактора националне идентификације као и да је лингвистичка припадност један од руководећих принципа за успостављање национално уједињених државних творевина као гаранта за међународну стабилност у свету након пропасти идеолошко-блоковске међународне поделе човечанства.""

Summary



Vladislav B. Sotirović


SERBIAN COMMONWEALTH

THE LINGUISTIC MODEL OF THE DEFINITION OF THE SERBIAN NATION BY VUK STEFANOVIĆ KARADŽIĆ
AND
THE PROJECT OF THE CREATION OF A LINGUISTICALLY-DETERMINED SERBIAN NATIONAL STATE BY ILIJA GARAŠANIN


The present work investigates the linguistic model of national identification of the South Slavs designed by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić in 1836 and the programme for the restructuring of the political map of the Balkan Peninsula drafted by Ilija Garašanin in 1844. This work is an attempt to reconstruct the understanding of Karadžić and Garašanin of those components of group consciousness which could affect the sense of belonging to the same community (“togetherness”). Relevant to the problem of identity are explicit or implicit frames of reference by which members of one (the “inner”) group might be distinguished from the other (the “outer”) groups. Special attention is given to the different traditions and beliefs, particularly those trying to explain the origin of a group, common symbols and above all common group characteristics which create a distinct identity.
V. S. Karadžić developed his theoretical linguistic model of national determination of the South Slavs in 1836 in the article “Srbi svi i svuda” [Serbs All and Everywhere], Ковчежић за историју, језик и обичаје Срба сва три закона, I, Beč [Vienna], 1849, 1–27. I. Garašanin laid down political-programmatic foundations for the resolvement of the Balkan Question in 1844 in his secret manuscript Načertanije [Draft], Beograd [Belgrade].
There exist, however, radically different opinions about these works and heated debates have been taking place in the Yugoslav historiography concerning these works. This is caused primarily by the influence of politics of a certain period on the researchers and their writings. The 19th c. South Slavic and Balkan history cannot be understood properly without and objective and politically unbiased analysis and interpretation of the works by V. S. Karadžić and I. Garašanin. The 19th c. Balkan Question is one of the most important research topics in the Balkan historiography (especially from the ideological-programmatic point of view) as all the modern (20th c. and 21st c.) Balkan states were/are (re)established on the ideological-programmatic foundations created in the 19th c. The works “Srbi svi i svuda” and Načertanije are part of these foundations and because of their significant influence on the Serbian and Yugoslav ideology, politics and the development of nationalism, they have to be investigated thoroughly.
Both works belong primarily to the history of South Slavic nationalism, which unfortunately has not been given satisfactory attention by Yugoslav historiographers in the last century, mainly because the topic of South Slavic nationalism has been considered as ideologically “destructive” (as nationalism = separatism) for Yugoslavia’s multiethnic union. Therefore, the studies of nationalism, especially the issues of the historical development of national ideologies, national determination and creation of national states, were either partially neglected or given subjective interpretations influenced by the prevailing political views. However, the 19th-21st c. historical development of the South Slavs cannot be properly reconstructed without attempts to investigate objectively the development of the South Slavic nationalism, especially Serbian and Croatian. This work is a contribution to these attempts.
Both Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787–1864), the leading 19th c. Serbian philologist author of grammar and dictionary, collector of folk songs and poems, most influential figure in the development of literary Serbian, and Ilija Garašanin (1812–1874), the leading 19th c. Serbian politician, Minister of the Interior and Minister of the Exterior, belonged to the group of European romanticist thinkers and nationalists who accepted the idea that a language determins an ethnicity and that a national united state should embrace all the members of such a linguistic group.
Karadžić chose Štokavian, the Serbian dialect today, closely related to one of the three Croat dialects of today, as the basis of his standardization of Serbian. Štokavian dialect was also accepted and used for writing in 1836 by Ljudevit Gaj (1809–1872), leader of Croatian national revival movement (1835–1850) who promoted the idea of cultural unity of South Slavs and who originally spoke and wrote in Kajkavian. As a result, Serbian and Croatian developed as one literary language in the second half of the 19th c., although it was written in Latin characters by all Roman Catholics and in Cyrillic characters by the Orthodox believers.
Serbian as well as Croatian linguistic nationalism in the 19th c. was based on the assumption that Serbian and Croatian national cultures are spread on the lands where Serbian and Croatian languages were spoken and written by the local populations, regardless of their religious determination or the state borders (between the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire). Within this approach, Dubrovnik written culture (which was one of the most valuable examples of the Slavic Baroque culture) was claimed to be Serbian by the Serbian nationalists, and it was claimed to be Croatian by the Croatian nationalists. The city of Dubrovnik with its historic hinterland (the territory of the former Republic of Dubrovnik) had to be included into either the Serbian or the Croatian united national state respectively. Both Serbian and Croatian nationalists claimed the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, too. Consequently, there was a strong tendency among the Serbs and the Croats, likewise among many other nations in Europe in the Romanticism period, to shape political borders of their national states according to the linguistic distribution of their people.
The linguistic component of 19th c. Serbian nationalism is investigated in this research-work. Alongside with the analysis of the Serbian linguistic nationalism of first half of the 19th c., the structure and development of the Croatian linguistic nationalism of the same period of time is analyzed. They are compared mainly due to the fact that they both struggled and clashed with each other over the same geographic areas: Austrian Military Border, Southern and Central Dalmatia, Slavonia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main characteristic of the Serbian and the Croatian linguistic nationalism is that their ideologists regarded the Štokavian dialect as a fundamental determination of their own ethnic groups – both Serbian and Croatian.
The present investigation has resulted in six main conclusions:
• Karadžić’s understanding of language in the conception of the Serbian linguistic nationalism was primarily of ethnic nature: Karadžić considered the Serbian language as one of the crucial integral parts of the Serbian national identification; in his view, the national language of Serbs was a key distinctive feature of Serbs as a national group which made them different from the Croats. According to Karadžić, Serbs and Croats did not speak the same language and were, therefore, two separate linguistic groups, two distinct nationalities who were supposed to live (according to Garašanin) in separate national states.
• In the Serbian and Croatian national ideologies of the first half of the 19th c., the national languages of Serbs and Croats were mentally and spiritually connected with the territory where they were spoken: the territories where the “national” languages were spoken had to be included into the “national” united states of Serbs and of Croats respectively.
• The claims made by Yugoslav historiographers that Vuk Stefanović Karadžić regarded Serbs and Croats as members of the same language-nation who spoke Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian are incorrect. In fact, Karadžić’s view was that Serbs had a language distinct from that of Croats and, consequently, the Serbs were one distinct nationality and the Croats were another one: in his works Писменица сeрбского iезика [Vienna, 1814], Српски рјечник [Vienna, 1818/1852] and the article “Срби сви и свуда” [Vienna, 1849], Karadžić’ clearly differenciated between the vernacular of the Serbs and the vernacular of the Croats.
• Vuk Stefanović Karadžić considered the Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects as Croatian national languages, and the Štokavian dialect as a Serb national language: only those who spoke Čakavian and Kajkavian were, according to Karadžić, ethnic Croats. The view of some of Karadžić’s critics that he considered all South Slavs as ethnic Serbs and that for him Croats did not exist as aseparate nationality, is a misinterpretation; in fact, for Karadžić’ only those South Slavs whose vernacular and literary language was Štokavian belonged to the Serbian nationality, but not all South Slavs.
• Ilija Garašanin, Minister of the Interior of the Principality of Serbia, drafted his project of a united Serbian national state in 1844 by implementing a linguistic model of Serb national identification, which was earlier developed by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić in 1814/1818/1836: therefore, the opinion of Serbian historiographers that Garašanin’s political project was based on the “historic” rights of Serbs should be rejected; contrary to this opinion, our research shows that Garašanin’s project for a united national state of Serbs was based on the “ethnic” rights of Serbs; Garašanin, like Karadžić, regarded all South Slavs who spoke the Štokavian language as “linguistic” Serbs.
• Ilija Garašanin projected the creation of a united Serbia, but not a united South Slavic national state: the opinion by some Serbian and Yugoslav historians that I. Garašanin was a programmatic architect of Yugoslavia or the “greater” Serbia is incorrect; in fact, Garašanin was a programmatic architect of a united Serbian national state.
In short, this research-work analyses both the linguistic mod...

Поштовани читаоци,

пред вама се налази књига која се састоји од деветнаест изабраних чланака писаних у протекле три године и објављених на неколико интернет портала. Неки од овде објављених чланака су већ послати редакцијама научних часописа и њихово објављивање се очекује следеће или за две године док ће други морати претходно да се дораде према свим захтевима знанственог објављивања пре него што буду послати за штампу. У овој књизи се датум коначне редакције сваког чланка спремљеног за штампање у овој збирци налази на његовом крају.

Тематика ове збирке чланака је комунистичко преотимање власти у бившој Југославији и завођење антисрпске и пре свега великохрватске диктатуре у циљу што темељнијег уништења Србије, Срба и свега што је српско, а на другој страни задовољавање националистичких апетита свих не-српских нација и појединих националних мањина. Југословенски комунисти, предвођени не-српским партијским врховништвом, су уништавање Србије и Српства као свој партијски и национални циљ зацртали још пре Другог светског рата да би у току самога рата уз помоћ солдатеске прекодринских Срба и пресвучених усташа успели да коначно освоје Србију и Југославију коју су преуредили и водили тако да су у њој Срби и Србија били једини губитници. Титоистичко силовање Србије и Српства се спроводило и преко прекрајања и подметања ноторних лажи о карактеру и току Другог светског рата у Југославији а у овим повесним кривотворинама и идеолошко-политичком испирању мозгова је предњачила пре свега новоформирана квазинаучна грана историјске науке - титографија чијој је основни циљ био да своје повесне фалсификате и ноторне лажи легализује и тако наметне као недодирљиву догму читавом друштву под називом титологије.

Циљ ове збирке је да се искључиво позивањем на релевантне истинске повесне изворе и логична закључивања ова великохрватска антисрпска титографска титологија бар донекле раскринка и разбије како би се коначно спаковала у мртвачки сандук и занавек покопала. На вама је да оцените колико смо успели у нашим намерама. 

7. јануар 2012. г., Виљнус

Ваш, Владислав Б. Сотировић 



Summary

This is a book composed by nineteen chosen articles written during the last three years and published at several internet pages. Some of them are sent to be published at scientific journals while the others are waiting to be firstly “scientifically arranged” and to be sent to the scientific journals for publishing as well. In this collection of the articles you will find at the end of each of them the date when the last version of the text was prepared for printing in this book. 

A thematic issue of this collection of the articles is a Communist overtaking a power in ex-Yugoslavia and establishing of the Communist dictatorship that was above all anti-Serbian and pro-Croat with a final aim on one hand to destroy Serbia and Serbian nation and on the other to satisfy all non-Serbian ethnic groups’ nationalistic claims. The Yugoslav Communists, led by non-Serb party leadership, have been fixed destruction of Serbia and the Serbdom as a party and national goal even before the WWII. They succeeded to occupy Serbia and Yugoslavia at the end of the WWII with a great help by redressed Croat Nazi ustashi and Serbian peasant who both of them joined Communist partisan movement led by half Croat and half Slovenian Roman Catholic, a former Austro-Hungarian soldier and sub-officer – Josip Broz Tito. In Titoist Yugoslavia, or better to say Croatoslavia, the Serbs and Serbia became the only losers.     

Post-war Titoistic raping of Serbia was systematically organized within a framework of falsification of both the WWII history and the history of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia that was based on notorious lies and fabrication of the documents as well as on constant process of ideologically-politically based washing brains of all Yugoslav citizens but primarily of the Serbs from Serbia. On this way it was established a quasi-scientific historiography – Titography, which had as a main political goal to legalize its own historiography fabrications for the purpose to impose them to the rest of society as a universal ideological dogma that we can call as Titology. 

The aim of this collection of the articles is to beat a nationalistic great Croatian Titographic Titology by using the relevant archival sources and logical conclusions for the sake to finally bury the Communist lies  forever. 


January 7th, 2012, Vilnius

Vladislav B. Sotirovic

The main scientific goals of the seminar “Serbia, Kosovo and the European Union” are to:
1. Present the main reasons and historical backgrounds of the current Serbian-Albanian dispute over the region of Kosovo
2. Present the crucial questions and features about the region
3. Present the most important points of the EU and the rest of “International Community” policy towards the “Kosovo Question”
4. Present Serbia’s and Kosovo’s politics towards the EU and possibility to join it in the future

The seminar format is divided into three parts:
1. Lecturing with power point presentation
2. Seminar with video material
3. Common discussion with active participation of the participants

The final aims of the seminar are to:
1. Understand the real complexity of the “Kosovo Question”
2. Understand the justifiable way of solving the problem
3. Understand the real possibility and problems of the EU enlargement in the area of the Central Balkans

Basic literature:
1. Michael Parenti, To Kill a Nation. The Attack on Yugoslavia, London-New York: Verso, 2000
2. Hannes Hofbauer, Experiment Kosovo. Die Rückkehr des Kolonialismus, Wien, 2008
3. Edward S. Herman, David Peterson, The Politics of Genocide, 2010
4. Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia, Museum in Prishtina (displaced), The March Pogrom in Kosovo and Metohija, March 17-19, 2004, with a survey of destroyed and endangered Christian cultural heritage, Belgrade, 2004

My aim in this article is to elaborate on the feature of the multi-party elections in Serbia in 1990 and to give an answer to the crucial question why did Slobodan Miloshevic with his SPS party win? After the investigation of the case we found that critical reasons for Miloshevic’s/SPS absolute electoral parliamentary and presidential victory in 1990 have been: 1) The countryside and small urban settlements voted for SPS due to the informative blockade; 2) Old population voted for SPS; 3) All minorities, except Hungarians, voted for SPS as a lesser nationalistic option than SPO; 4) The biggest minority – Albanians (10%) boycotted the elections; 5) All Kosovo Serbs voted for SPS; and 6) The whole electoral procedure was under SPS control.

Article „Hrvatska stranka prava i pitanje jezika u Dalmaciji od 1903. godine do stvaranja hrvatsko-srpske koalicije 1906. godine“, Vojno delo (Military Affairs), Interdisciplinarni naučno-teorijski časopis (Military Affairs, Interdisciplinary Scientific Theoretical Journal), Regionalno izdanje (Regional edition), No. 3, 2019 (April-May 2019), Ministarstvo odbrane Republike Srbije (Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia), Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 342−373

A geopolitical issue of South-East Europe became of very importance for the scholars, policymakers, and researchers with the question of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire as one of the most crucial features of the beginning of the 20th century in European history. A graduate collapsing of the one-time great empire was accelerated and followed by competition and struggling by both, the European Great Powers and the Balkan national states, upon the territorial inheritance of it. While the European Great Powers have the aim to obtain the new spheres of political-economic influence in South-East Europe, followed by the task to establish a new balance of power in the continent, a total collapse of the Ottoman state was seen by small Balkan nations as the unique historical opportunity to enlarge the territories of their national-states by unification of all ethnolinguistic compatriots from the Ottoman Empire with the motherland. A creation of a single national state, composed by all ethnographic and historic “national” lands, was in the eyes of the leading Balkan politicians as a final stage of national awakening, revival and liberation of their nations which started at the turn of the 19th century on the ideological basis of the German romanticist nationalism expressed in a formula: “One Language-One Nation-One State”.

With respect to Greece’s role in the Mediterranean security system, the multilateralist formula applied to the region including the Balkans as well as is the orienting principle for the Greek foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Since 1994, the opportunities for NATO’s and EU’s initiatives were more than apparent for Athens when Greece (wrongly) understood the Euro-Atlantic community as a fundamental security player for the extending the values of security and co-operation into this structurally unbalanced region. During the Cold War, the Greek policy-makers also found (wrongly) since 1952 that the US-led NATO offered allegedly excellent opportunities for the protection of basic national aims but the real disappointment came after Turkey’s military invasion of Cyprus in 1974 as the punishment did not come either from the US or the NATO (both Greece and Turkey are NATO’s member-states since 1952).

The war, which began in August 1914 – to contemporaries the Great War, to posterity the First World War – marked the end of one period of history and the beginning of another. Starting as a European war, it turned in 1917, with the entrance of the US into a world war. The spark that triggered it off was the assassination of the Austrian heir-presumptive, Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1864−1914), by a Bosnian nationalist of Serb origin – Gavrilo Princip , a member of the Young Bosnia (Mlada Bosna) movement, in Sarajevo on June 28th, 1914 on his official visit to administrative centre of Bosnia-Herzegovina – the province that was illegally annexed by Austria-Hungary in October 1908 by breaking the decisions of the 1878 Berlin Congress. What is today the proponents of revisionist historiography hiding from the discourse is a very fact that the Austrian-Hungarian authorities did everything to directly provoke Serbs in this province for the sake to have formal casus belli for the aggression on neighboring Serbia. Therefore, Vienna organized a massive military exercise on the very border with Serbia to be attended by a warmonger Archduke F. Ferdinand  exactly on the holiest day of Serbian history – the Kosovo Battle on June 28th (1389).

„Fragility of Belarussian National Identity“, Vojno delo (Military Affairs), Interdisciplinary Scientific Theoretical Journal, International edition, Vol. 70, Issue 8, 2018 (November-December 2018), ISSN 0042-8426, Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 24−37

The origins of Megali Idea Greece became the independent state (from the Ottoman Empire) in 1829−1833 with the crucial diplomatic, political, financial and military assistance by the UK and Russia. It was a very fact that the Kingdom of Greece incorporated at that time only around 25% of the Greeks who were living at the Balkans and Asia Minor (the Near East). Such situation created tensions between Greece and the Ottoman Empire as the Greeks wanted their total national unification what was possible only under the conditions of the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, from the very beginning of its sovereignty, the chief aim of the Greek foreign policy was to realize the idea of national unification which was some 60 years after the granting of independence officially formulated as an irredentist project of Megali Idea (Great Idea) – a territorial extension for the sake to create united (Greater) Greece 1 based on the claiming historical and ethnic Greek territories existing within the borders of the Byzantine Empire, which is considered by the Greeks as their medieval national state. Therefore, the capital of such Greater Greece would be Constantinople (the Ottoman/Turkish Istanbul). The proponents of Megali Idea, in other words, aspired to unite within the borders of a single national political unity all the areas of Greek settlement in the Near East.

Estonia with a population of 1.3 million with 400.000 of them living in capital city Tallinn has one of the lowest population density in the world (30 per sq. km.). According to the last official census (2011), the ethnic Estonians made 69.7% of the total population followed by Russians (25.2%), Ukrainians (1.7%), Belarussians/Belarusians (1.0%) and Finns (0.6%).  As it is obvious, from the time of second independence (1991)  up today the Estonian government has to deal primarily with the Russian ethnic minority concerning to find modus vivendi of the Estonian political prosperity. In other words, further political stability of Estonia primarily depended and depends on the issue how the Russian-speakers of Estonia are going to be integrated into or disintegrated from the Estonian political and social system established after the dissolution of the USSR.

Contemporary historiography and the Slavonic studies upon the question of the ethnolinguistic origin of the Croats and the Serbs more and more incline on the side of those authors who support the linguistic theory of the Indo-Sarmatian (the Iranian) origins of proto-Croats and proto-Serbs.

As a matter of very fact, regardless to the reality in global politics that the Cold War was over in 1989, Washington continued to drive toward the getting the status of a global hyperpower at any expense for the rest of the world. The Balkans undoubtedly became the first victim in Europe of the old but esthetically repacked American global imperialism.

The official end of the Cold War era in 1989 brought during the first coming years a kind of international optimism that the idea of the " end of history " really can be realized as it was a belief in no reason for the geopolitical struggles between the most powerful states. The New World Order, spoken out firstly by M. Gorbachev in his address to the UN on December 7th, 1988 was originally seen as the order of equal partnership in the world politics reflecting " radically different international circumstances after the Cold War ". 1 Unfortunately, the Cold War era finished without the " end of history " as the US continues the same policy from the time of the Cold War against Moscow – now not against the USSR but against its successor Russia. Therefore, for the Pentagon, the Cold War era in fact never ended as the fundamental political task to eliminate Russia from the world politics still is not accomplished. Regardless the fact that in 1989 Communism collapsed in the East Europe, followed by the end of the USSR in 1991, that brought a real possibility for creation of a new international system and global security 2 , the eastward enlargement of the NATO from March 1999 (the Fourth enlargement) onward is a clear proof of the continuation of the US Cold War time policy toward Moscow which actually creates uncertainty about the future of the global security. After the end of the USSR and the Cold War, there were many Western public workers and academicians who questioned firstly why the NATO has to exist at all and secondly why this officially defensive military alliance is enlarging its membership when the more comprehensive Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the CSCE, today the OSCE) could provide the necessary framework for security cooperation in Europe including and Russia. 3 However, the NATO was not dissolved, but quite contrary adopted the same policy of the further (eastward) enlargement likewise the EU. The Kosovo crisis in 1998−1999 became a formal excuse for the enlargement of both these US client organizations for the " better security of Europe ". The EU Commission President, Romano Prodi, in his speech before the EU Parliament on October 13th, 1999 was quite clear on this matter. 4 However, if we know that the Kosovo crisis followed by the NATO military intervention (aggression) against Serbia and Montenegro was fully fuelled exactly by the US administration, it is not far from the truth that the Kosovo crisis was provoked and maintained by Washington, among other purposes, for the sake to give a formal excuse for the further eastward enlargement of both the EU and the NATO. However, can we speak at all about the end of the Cold War in 1989/1990 taking into account probably the focal counterargument: the NATO existence and even its further enlargement? As a matter of fact, the NATO is the largest and longest-surviving military alliance in contemporary history (est. 1949, i.e., six years before the Warsaw Pact came into existence). No doubts today that the NATO was established and still is operating as a fundamental instrument of the US policy of global imperialistic unilateralism that is, however, primarily directed against Russia. The deployment of the US missiles in West Europe in the 1980s, regardless on achieved détente in the 1970s in the US-USSR relations, became a clear indicator of a real nature of Pentagon's geopolitical game with the East in which the NATO is misused for the realization of the US foreign policy objectives under the pretext that the NATO is allegedly the dominant international organization in the field of West European security. Although the NATO was formally founded specifically to " protect and

Да је југословенска повесница за време и након Другог светског рата плански, систематски и изнад свега крајње успешно кривотворена у корист физичких ратних победника који су " ослободили " и Београд и Србију 1944. г. а након тога и остатак Југославије и њених народа и народности је одлично познато сваком иоле поштеном и професионалном историографу за разлику од титоистичких историчара типа Др. Душан Ступар & co. Србија се од оваквих кривотворина, односно повесних фалсификата, на жалост све до данас није ослободила а када ће се и коначно курталисати истих такође на жалост није лако прогнозирати сем да то сигурно неће бити у скоријој будућности (читај у овом столећу). Засигурно је да је у центру титоистичке историје централна идеолошка фигура био Јосип Броз Тито чија се биографија намерно како фалсификовала тако и мистификовала. Ово прво из разлога да се да формални легитимитет победницима у грађанском рату над јединим противником – ЈВуО ђенерала Драгољуба Драже Михаиловића. Ово друго да би се око (званичне) личности загорског металца, (сакривеног) аустроугарског каплара и (самопроглашеног) маршала (sic!) створио психолошки ореол божанске тајновитости што је conditio sine qua non за прихватање оваквих персонажа за божанства од стране пастве, тј. широких народних маса. На овом месту бисмо се веома кратко осврнули на само једну ординарну пропагандно-фалсификаторску подвалу из револуционарно-гангстерског животописа " нашег највећег сина свих наших народа и народности " од Вардара па до Триглава. Наравно, овакве цртице из вођиног животописа нећете наћи у његовим званичним биографијама и хронолошким прегледима револуционарне делатности типа: Branislav Ilić, Vojislav Ćirković (priredili), Hronologija revolucionarne delatnosti Josipa Broza Tita, Beograd, Export-Press, 1978. Наиме, постоји фотографија дичног сина са рањеном руком у завоју на Сутјесци од 9. јуна 1943. г. за време немачке офанзиве " Шварц " , која је узгред била много више организована против четника Драже Михаиловића него против Брозових партизана. Објашњавано је од стране југотитолога да је наводно верни Брозов вучјак Рекс (Rex) спасао његов живот у шуми Милинкладе у долини реке Хрчевке јер га је својим телом наводно заштитио од немачког бомбардовања тако да је главни комад шрапнела уместо Броза усмртио вучјака а будућег југословенског доживотног председника један комадић само ранио у руку. То је она позната фотографија на којој Броз позира са руком увијеном у завој. Југословенска брозомбијевска политичка пропаганда је овај инцидент вешто кривотворила и искористила да прогласи вођу југословенске револуције за јединог антифашистичког (sic!) ратног команданта који је у току самога рата био рањен. О тзв. " Битци на Сутјесци " југословенска брозомбистичка кинематографија је снимила дугометражно-пропагандни филм 1973. г. (најскупљи у Титославији) у режији Стипе Делића са главном улогом Ричарда Бартона као Броза и плејадом домаћих глумаца: Велимир Бата Живојиновић, Љуба Тадић, Љубиша Самарџић, Милена Дравић и Борис Дворник. Главни хонорар је наравно покупио сам Ричард Бартон у износу од неких милион америчких долара. У току снимања овог повесног фалсификата Бартону је

Taking into consideration FYROM’s name dispute between Athens and Skopje and a Greek fear of territorial irredentism coming from FYROM’s side, a strong obstruction of Greece towards international recognition and participation of FYROM from 1991 to 1993 was quite understandable at least from a political standpoint knowing that the ancient Macedon culture and history are deeply embedded into a Greek history and national consciousness. For all of these reasons, it is for Greeks very difficult to accept that another nation can claim a name, culture, and history which in their eyes are part of Greek civilization.

After the referendum’s results held in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on September 30th this year and the Western reactions on it (by the EU & NATO) it is absolutely clear that this small Balkan country is finally proven to be the Western puppet colony without its own real Government and above all the national sovereignty. To remind ourselves, the people of Macedonia were called to express their wish to change or not a state’s name into the Northern Macedonia and, therefore, its national name into the Northern Macedonians, in order to avoid further obstructions by neighboring Greece in the country’s accession to both the NATO and the EU.

In the recent future, if Kiev will continue with its anti-Russian and pro-NATO/USA/EU’s political-military course, it is expected that the joint republic of Luhansk and Donetsk regions (or more) is going to be declared as an independent state with a real possibility to join the Russian Federation as Crimea already did it in 2014. It can be, probably, the best solution of the current Ukrainian crisis at least from the perspective of the Russian-speakers in East Ukraine.

Article “The 1836/1844 Project of Resolving the ‘Serbian Question’”, Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, Vol. 29, ISSN 0742-3330, 2018, Slavica Publishers, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA, pp. 1−23

Preface Kosovo is today one of the most disputed territories in Europe and a real Balkan powder keg which can explode again at any time. It is a province within the Republic of Serbia, recognized as such by both Serbia's constitution and the Resolution 1244 by the Security Council of the United Nations (the UNSC Resolution 1244, June 10 th , 1999). However, Kosovo parliament with a clear Albanian majority proclaimed the independence of Kosovo (without a referendum) in February 2008 that was recognized by the majority of the Western countries followed by their puppet clients all over the world (in reality, today around 90 states). Nevertheless, since Serbia received the status of a candidate-state for the full EU membership in March 2012, the intensive negotiations between Belgrade and Prishtina about the ultimate status of Kosovo are going on under the umbrella of EU and today they are, in fact, entering the final stage. Kosovo is the birthplace of the first independent Serbian state in the Middle Ages, a center of Serbian state authorities, church, culture and civilization, and the location where Serbia fought a decisive battle (Kosovo Battle) in 1389 against the Muslim Ottoman invaders, protecting Christian Europe from the Orientalization and Islamization. What, in fact, the EU requires from Serbia in the current negotiations between Belgrade and Prishtina on the final status of the province is to recognize the independence of self-proclaimed Republic of Kosova for the very foggy promises about faster (in 2025) Serbia's EU membership. In order to make clear historiographical and political picture on the Kosovo issue, in the following paragraphs we are going to correct the basic Western misconceptions about Kosovo which are present in the mass media, popular literature but as well as in the academic publications even by the most prominent Western universities, institutes, and other organizations. In particular, the text is a critical contribution to one of the most misleading (quasi)academic publications on the Kosovo issue with a very bombastic title: Judah T., Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press, Oxford−New York, 2008. Basic Western misconceptions on the Kosovo issue and their corrections 1. Kosovo issue is a conflict between ethnic Albanians and ethnic Serbs over the territory Wrong: It is a part of the conflict between Balkan Albanians and the surrounding populations, in Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, and Greece (for instance, clashes between Albanians and Macedonians in Macedonia from 1991 onward including an open rebellion in 2001). 2. The issue is a fight of Albanians for their rights Wrong: The crux of the matter lies at the biological level. The real rationale is a demographic explosion which is going on within the Albanian population for a century or so (rate of growth by

„The Fundamental Misconception of the Balkan Ethnology: The ‚Illyrian‘ Theory of the Albanian Ethnogenesis“, American Hellenic Institute Foundation Policy Journal, Vol. 9, Spring 2018, 1−12, online: http://www.ahifworld.org/journal-issues/volume-9-winter-2017-2018

Article „Prva posthladnoratovska ‚humanitarna intervencija‘ – Vukovar 1991“ („The First Post-Cold War ’Humanitarian Intervention’ – Vukovar 1991“), Vojno delo, Interdisciplinarni naučno-teorijski časopis (Military affairs, Interdisciplinary Scientific Theoretical Journal), Regionalno izdanje (Regional edition), No. 3, 2017, ISSN 0042-8426, Ministarstvo odbrane Republike Srbije (Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia), Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 435−451

Article „A New Age of Global Security: The ‚Ukrainian Question‘ and ‚Kosovo Precedent‘“, Vojno delo (Military affairs), Interdisciplinary Scientific Theoretical Journal, International edition, Vol. 69, Issue 4, 2017 (May-June 2017), ISSN 0042-8426, Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 176−211

Article „Прва постхладноратовска 'хуманитарна интервенција'-Вуковар 1991“ („The First Post-Cold War ’Humanitarian Intervention’ – Vukovar 1991“), Зборник о Србима у Хрватској (Review of the Serbs in Croatia), Vol. 11, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art, Belgrade, Serbia, 2017, ISSN 0353-5967, pp. 111−128

The fundamental aim of the text below is to deal with the concept and models of global security as one of the crucial topics of global political studies. We have to keep in mind that a term and notion of security usually imply a kind of sense of protection and safety from different possible harms coming from outside. Therefore, it can be generally acceptable and understandable that the states want to protect their own territories by expanding great resources in making their territorial safe. Security topics are of very different kind, ranging from the causes of conflict between states to deterioration in the global climate or women's rights in global politics. The question of Security Studies as an academic discipline within the scope of Global Politics has been the subject of much debate and one of the most prosperous ways to deal with global security is firstly to analyze different standpoints which are existing within the research discipline. The article, in one word, will try to provide the readers with a basic approaches in the academic field of Security Studies with some necessary personal remarks by the author.

The article deals with the case-study of the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman government in the mid-WWI. The aim of the investigation is to present an ideological background of the Armenian genocide, its course and its consequences. In order to effectively realize the aim of the investigation, the research methodology of the text analysis of historical sources and scholarly research literature is implemented as the fundamental study approach. The final findings of the investigation suggest that the Armenian genocide of 1915−1916 had a deeper ideological-religious background, that was done for the very political-religious purposes having immediate consequences at the time of the next world war as unspoken and unpunished example of successful and brutal ethnic cleansing. The Armenian genocide can be called as the first modern Islamic-Jihad ethnic cleansing.

Article “The Idea of Greater (United) Croatia by Pavao Ritter Vitezović: An Early-Modern Model of the National Identity and Creation of the National State of the Croato-Slavs”, Logos, № 92, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017, ISSN 0868-7692, pp. 92−111

„Велика Кнежевина Литванија и уговор у Креви 1385“ („The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Krevė Treaty in 1385“), Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta. Philosophy, University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Philosophy, Pale, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Vol. 18, 2016 (2017), ISSN 2490-3566, DOI 10.7251/FIZN1701125S, pp. 125−145

The aim of this study is to make research on the main streams of historical development of national ideologies and claims of the peoples from the territory of ex-Yugoslavia from the time of national revivals up to the present day. The main research strategy is analyzing historical sources from the " first-hand " category, documentary material from different national archives, ideological works and newspapers of different ethnopolitical background. It is also applied the methods of comparison of different domestic and international scientific research results on the study-topic of our inverstigation. The results of research show that for the Yugoslav and Balkan nations territorial and national rights were always of much greater importance than the human or civic rights. This historical fact became a milestone for development of national ideologies among the Yugoslavs, which put on pedestal of " national policy " the aim to transform ethnographical borders into the national-state borders. The period of bloody dissolution of the SFR of Yugoslavia followed by the inter-ethnopolitical conflicts in Kosovo and the FYR of Macedonia (1991–2001) is typical example of such " national policy " overwhelmingly rooted in the idea of " inevitability " of ethnic cleansing, persecution, assimilation and the inter-ethnic exchange of the peoples. The study research has to be further continued by inverstigation of the prime historical sources, i.e. archival material, in several Balkan and international archives and libraries (for instance, in Albania and Vatican). Historical retrospective of development of the national ideologies and territorial claims is necessary for the reason to understand practical politics of the Yugoslavs after the end of the Cold War when the Balkans once again became the " powder-keg " of Europe in order to predict a future development of the local nationalism and regional political affairs for the matter of both regional and Europe's security. The case-study is based on 20 years of multi-sided comprehensive research and non-partisan scientific investigation.

Article „Хрватска ’правашка’ хисториографија и Срби“ („Croatian Historiography of ’Rights’ and the Serbs“), Зборник о Србима у Хрватској (Review of the Serbs in Croatia), Vol. 10, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art, Belgrade, Serbia, 2016, ISSN 0353-5967, pp. 199−212.

Article “Separatism in Kosovo-Metohija and the Caucasus: Similarities and Differences”, Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, Vol. 26, 2012, № 1−2, ISSN 0742-3330, 2015, Slavica Publishers, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA, pp. 107−117

Article “Who are the Albanians? The Illyrian Anthroponomy and the Ethnogenesis of the Albanians – A Challenge to Regional Security”, Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, Vol. 26, 2012, № 1−2, ISSN 0742-3330, 2015, Slavica Publishers, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA, pp. 45−76

Članak  “Saradnja Brozovih partizana i Pavelićevih ustaša u drugom svetskom ratu na teritoriji Nezavisne države Hrvatske” (“Collaboration between Broz’s partisans and Pavelić’s ustashi in the WWII on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia”), Serbian Studies Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2014, ISSN 2217-5210, Novi Sad, Serbia, pp. 119−144

Chapter “The European Union and the European Identity”, Vida Savonikaitė (ed.), Savas ir kitas. Šiuolaikiniais požiūriais [Contemporary Approaches to the Self and the Other], Vilnius: Lithuanian Institute of History Press, 2014, ISBN 978-9955-847-80-9, pp. 99−121