0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
2,640 $

The Military Neutrality of Serbia is a Great Deception with Serious Consequences

Support SouthFront

“As it is known , Serbia is a militarily neutral country and is not going to move into any military alliance …”

The Military Neutrality of Serbia is a Great Deception with Serious Consequences

Image: http://www.koreni.rs/pucanje-corcima/

Originally appeared at Fsksrb, translated by Igor exclusively for SouthFront

This is the phrase used by the Serbian government permanently , by the order of its policy of Western mentors, pressuring and lying to people for eight years . Since the so called progressive-express band of puppet’s took the reins of the Serbian Titanic, such rhetoric is reinforced in accordance with the final stage of the unstoppable state and national shipwreck .

The phrase which hides the bitter truth and that is, that Serbia has long been on their knees in the military sphere. And to be militarily weak and supposedly neutral, especially in the 21st century (if we use the example of Syria?), Is means to be completely powerless to the will and objectives of your enemies. And we see this in last act of the drama’s in Brussels, in which our Western “allies” are communicating clearly and unambiguously on which will give us thirty five negotiating burns on the occasion of the completion of the process of seizure of Kosovo and Metohija (as it is announced from the relentless Prime Minister).

Would they would dare to to try this humiliating way to seize the southern province if we were militarily strong, with the forces of the former 3rd Army on the outskirts of the administrative line and in operational depth, and Kosmet detachment down on the ground? In addition to the military alliance, say, with Russia?


The so-called military neutrality of Serbia is a cunning deception with serious consequences for the state and the nation, for at least two reasons – (1) as a term that is not recognized by international law and (2) in its content and essence, which is characterized.

To recap, at the end of 2007 the “Resolution of the National Assembly on the protection of sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia” [ii] (which has repeatedly violated until now), which in Section 6 (and nowhere else, in any other national document) literally says:

“Due to the overall role of NATO, from the illegal bombardment of Serbia without a Security Council decision to Annex 11 of the rejected Ahtisaari’s plan, which determines that NATO is” ultimate authority “in an” independent Kosovo “, the National Assembly hereby declares the neutral status of the Republic of Serbia in relation to existing military alliances until a referendum which would be a final decision on the matter. ”

So, what did the then National Assembly on the occasion of the agreed proposals: Government of Serbia (led at the time, Vojislav Kostunica) and the President (in the personage of Boris Tadic) do?

It was noted that, after the disclosure of the famous plan of Martti Ahtisaari, that our main opponents in the preservation of Kosmet is NATO and the alliance as a whole, and then, at the same time, in a highly mysterious way, and completely absurd fabrication on the so-called point that military neutrality, which the theory and practice of international relations and law, simply does not know. At first glance, it is completely unnecessary, but the background story is very interesting.

Declare military neutrality (such a notion is contrary to common sense) with respect to the two parties, one of which openly stealing part of the territory – that is NATO, and the other that in the international arena politically (and militarily) defending Kosmet within a union of Serbia – Russian Federation (and other free countries such as China), clearly confirms what was behind the curtain want to achieve so called military neutrality.

And nothing more was cleverly and cunningly push under the carpet permanently in orientation towards the Euro-Atlantic military alliance and the defence of the attained level of “cooperation” with no intent to do anything in relation to that change.

Even if it was a highly immoral and unfair decision on military neutrality rhetoric to put all sides in the same basket and put them in the same plane.

Military neutrality as a concept and as the essence of deception, as the current output from unpleasant situations, were planted by NATO experts who ruled (and continue to rule) Serbia.

Is Serbia since then really militarily neutral? Is such a thing even possible under international law, especially in the 21st century? When is such a status in the world recognized and obliged to? Are there similar examples in history? What do they want to achieve in the contents of Clause 6 of the aforementioned Resolutions (a point that is still valid and is constantly at our misfortune and abuse) and what is it really intended to hide?

Is it possible to be militarily neutral, and politically (diplomatically and internationally legal) classified (a roadmap to the EU) and whether the two processes, or statuses, are detachable through independent tracks?

Also the constant blunders in the EU dungeon as well as the so called political and military partnership relations with NATO, if it is completely understandable that these globalist creations, like two sides of the same coin, imposing on states and candidates for membership, common security, defence and foreign policy?

In accordance with these numerous obligations. Signed IPAP stage within the PfP program implicitly confirms that the path to EU membership goes through NATO military steps. Commitments by Serbia as a candidate for membership, just to the security and defence sector, so far it has been practically executed and as a whole.

And not only in terms of politics on various forums, conferences, seminars, workshops, joint military exercises, peacekeeping and other missions, but also a very recognizable practice, it is known who it is directed against and for the sake of which the imperialist goals.

Serbia in mid-2007 and at the time of disclosure of the Ahtisaari plan, completed the first phase of the military “reform” so that, according to the plans of NATO and under the direct guidance of experts of the association, practically dismantled the powerful military force, extensive capacity and infrastructure, reducing both defensive potential and the symbolic armed armada under complete influence of the Euro-Atlantic war machine, which has been irrevocably compromised its own defence, territorial sovereignty and independence.

And the province of Kosovo and Metohija has definitely been let down the ladder. Or are we still in a dilemma that the Western powers military factor in this case was irrelevant in the first place?

From 110 thousand soldiers in peacetime and about 450 thousand in a war, that did not succumb to aggression during the 99′, in less than six years “experts” have brought us (on paper) to the 20-something thousand people in peace and in total some about 70-odd thousand in military units. After strong armies, corps, divisions that have graced us and defended more than a century, from July 2007 now our “pride” is brigades and battalions. Units that layman can count and line up in no time and that, to serve in addition to the broader “peace” in the world, and for nothing else. And costing more than the large, proven military.

There should be no surprise about the unofficial already formed army “Kosovo” under the aegis of NATO? And not only did it come to life (because the KLA was never disbanded), but is a dangerous opponent for the rest of southern Serbia – from Presevo to Kursumlija. Who will it stop them? It is understood that when the time comes, we will be there somewhere.

Does Serbia, after the adoption of the Resolution on the “defence” of Kosovo and Metohija renounced the Euro-Atlantic path, whether it has changed the military direction in accordance with the so proclaimed. military neutrality, whether reversed a previously adopted procedures and standards of Euro-Atlantic military alliance, has it decided to stop further military self-destruction and at least attempts to restore extinguished operational formations – corps and divisions and for the military to get stronger again, whether it is put up knowledge that, so “neutral” (more original – neutralized) military, when conditions are ripe to defend Kosmet?

Did the officials of the Alliance at least thank you, for being housed since 2006 in the midst of the Ministry of Defence, a part of “Military NATO Liaison Office” and sent them, in accordance with established global diplomatic practice, in Brussels and Naples, there, where they came from?

Of course the Serbian government has done nothing except that couple of years before formally slowed the planned activities within the NATO program “Partnership for Peace”. So NATO’s shield wasn’t received neither officially nor unofficially. Nor are political and military relations disrupted. They have over time strengthened, reaching its full capacity, to implement a progressive coalition in power, and taken on the framework of the drug addiction.

Well, that was the real and only reason for the introduction through the small door in the theory of the gloomy Serbian idea of military neutrality. As the Serbs (and everyone else) would not figured out. The wolf full and sheep all present. And so it was – or our events afterwards deny, and say something else?

Finally, let’s see briefly what valid internationally law on war says about neutrality.

In international relations from the 17th century, when the famous Dutch jurist, writer and humanist, Hugo Grotius conceived “doctrine of international law”, up until the present time, there is no records of “armed neutrality” of a State that was also political comprised of one,two or three warring or potentially warring side’s and accordingly acted.

To this should be added, as it is of the utmost importance – international law (including the applicable UN Charter as well as numerous conventions, declarations and protocols) and does not treat or does not attach special significance “neutrality” as such in peacetime, but the terms and interpretations relating to potential or armed conflicts that are ongoing.

There are two types of “neutrality”. One is the “permanent neutrality” and it means that the state is neutral in the current armed conflict, but also in any future armed conflicts to which only can occur in the future (eg Switzerland as the only state with that status). Another kind of neutrality is “temporary neutrality” that indicates neutrality of the state in relation to any particular armed conflict, which is ongoing. This status is temporary, because the government may be changed in the course of armed conflict (eg in Italy first, and the United States in both the first and the second world war).

For the status of neutrality, either “permanent” or “temporary” international norms are explicit – it is not enough that the State itself declares its neutrality, it is necessary to agree with such an attitude and other member states of the international community. Especially major powers, permanent members of the Security Council.

Does Serbia have any valid document and safeguards in relation to the proclaimed military neutrality?

International law is regulated, that in every war, in addition to the parties in the conflict, some states do not in any way involve themselves in armed conflict. These states are referred to as “neutral state” and their rights and obligations are specifically governed by the rules of international law. So, there no “military neutrality”, but a “neutral country”, and not only the military but also all the other state capacity in the package.

International law is generally determined in a negative way by the content of neutrality, stipulating what activities a “neutral state” may not act upon countries that are in conflict.

The neutral state must not allow use of its territory for recruiting and equipping units of the armed forces of any party to the conflict. Prohibited are using its territory for transporting ammunition or other material for military purposes. The territory of neutral states can not serve for the accommodation of devices for communication, nor can the neutral countries installations be used for communication.

The neutral state is obliged to refrain from any kind of influence on any side in the conflict. She can not help them or that makes it difficult position. In doing so, it must act according to the warring parties in the same way – what prohibits one side must prohibit the another, or what it allows to one, it has to allow both.

So, how to interpret the above-mentioned provisions of international law through the prism of a non-existent military (and government) neutrality of Serbia, which is a black comedy that is complete, “enriched” by a very solid duty of SOFA, IPAP and other political and military agreements with NATO, as well as contractual “civil partnership” with the state of Ohio and a number of other so-called. European and regional military and security pro-NATO “initiatives” and sub-associations or groups?

Where is all this neutrality (especially the military as a non-existent category) if things are viewed from the geopolitical viewpoint and in relation to the other side of the world, primarily in relation to Russia?

Several exercises we did with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and symbolic participation in the military parade in Moscow (as opposed to hundreds of military activities with NATO) does not testify to any military neutrality. On the contrary. Amidst a common and a minimal inter-army practice, which regulates the so-called. “Annual plans of bilateral military cooperation.” Such activities, the Serbian Army has organised with dozens of the world’s Armies, they are a matter of the old military-diplomacy and military traditions persisting in the world, and even prestige, and do not prejudge anything more than that. And certainly no question of neutrality.

We are like an orb placed in the Euro-Atlantic community working on how to fulfil the applicable norms of international law, meanwhile it is quite certain direct armed conflict between Russia (and its sincere and honest allies such as Syria, Iran, China …) and both NATO members, led by the United States and the United Kingdom (through the so-called. Islamic countries and especially Turkey recently) on the other side?

In conclusion, compared to what we have (military) neutrality? In regard to the truth and falsehood, justice and injustice?

The truth can only be one. And on that side is justice. Our neutrality between lies and truth is our pride?

Just as we are militarily neutral and in relation to a binding military defence, namely the release of Kosovo and Metohija. Running from it or not, that job is waiting for us.

Finally we came to that banner – nothing can save us, but we will not perish.

We just need to be patient to see the backs of them. And we will.

[i] http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/blic-sta-pise-u-briselskoj-pregovarackoj-platformi-za-kosovo-%E2%80%93-predaja-gazivoda-administrativniu-prelazi-postaju-granicni-napustae-statusne-neutralnosti.html

[ii] http://www.srbija.gov.rs/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=80729

[iii] “The basics of international law and the international law of war”, author – professor. Dr Miodrag Starcevic, military school center VJ Generlaštabna School, Belgrade, 1998.

Support SouthFront


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x