Should Kosovo have an army?

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:32

Написано Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 18:48

...
...Countries violate sovereignty all the time, ... all sorts of institutions out there that violate sovereignty ... What if "the west" believe Kosovo to be sovereign? What if "the west" believes Serbia un-rightfully is holding sovereign territory? ...

i don't know of any truly sovereign nation except maybe N.Korea or Cuba. What do you mean by 'sovereignty'?

I would like to claim these words as being mine, but I took from the internet. This is a pretty good definition:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty

I would agree with this... so if a sovereign has absolute power, and can do whatever they want, including make war and peace, then a 'violation' of sovereignty is impossible. It can always break it's own rules and agreements by definition of being sovereign.

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 09:25

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:32

Написано Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 18:48

...
...Countries violate sovereignty all the time, ... all sorts of institutions out there that violate sovereignty ... What if "the west" believe Kosovo to be sovereign? What if "the west" believes Serbia un-rightfully is holding sovereign territory? ...

i don't know of any truly sovereign nation except maybe N.Korea or Cuba. What do you mean by 'sovereignty'?

I would like to claim these words as being mine, but I took from the internet. This is a pretty good definition:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty

I would agree with this... so if a sovereign has absolute power, and can do whatever they want, including make war and peace, then a 'violation' of sovereignty is impossible. It can always break it's own rules and agreements by definition of being sovereign.

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

I think u missed the point brian

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:37

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 09:25

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:32

Написано Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 18:48

...
...Countries violate sovereignty all the time, ... all sorts of institutions out there that violate sovereignty ... What if "the west" believe Kosovo to be sovereign? What if "the west" believes Serbia un-rightfully is holding sovereign territory? ...

i don't know of any truly sovereign nation except maybe N.Korea or Cuba. What do you mean by 'sovereignty'?

I would like to claim these words as being mine, but I took from the internet. This is a pretty good definition:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty

I would agree with this... so if a sovereign has absolute power, and can do whatever they want, including make war and peace, then a 'violation' of sovereignty is impossible. It can always break it's own rules and agreements by definition of being sovereign.

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

I think u missed the point brian

Isnt that the issue though? Kosovo is recognized as serbian territory by many nations, it even encompasses one of the earliest known serbian sovereignties in the duchy of raska. That would be like a million Mexicans migrating to texas and turning it into a sovereign country.

Написано Helly, 25.12.2018 at 10:46

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:37

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 09:25

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:32

Написано Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 18:48

...
...Countries violate sovereignty all the time, ... all sorts of institutions out there that violate sovereignty ... What if "the west" believe Kosovo to be sovereign? What if "the west" believes Serbia un-rightfully is holding sovereign territory? ...

i don't know of any truly sovereign nation except maybe N.Korea or Cuba. What do you mean by 'sovereignty'?

I would like to claim these words as being mine, but I took from the internet. This is a pretty good definition:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty

I would agree with this... so if a sovereign has absolute power, and can do whatever they want, including make war and peace, then a 'violation' of sovereignty is impossible. It can always break it's own rules and agreements by definition of being sovereign.

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

I think u missed the point brian

Isnt that the issue though? Kosovo is recognized as serbian territory by many nations, it even encompasses one of the earliest known serbian sovereignties in the duchy of raska. That would be like a million Mexicans migrating to texas and turning it into a sovereign country.

which would be possible if it was recognized by a large majority of states, which Kosovo has. If that immigrant caravan made its way into the us and declared itself independent, they would probably have to fight for it if they weren't recognized by the un or such. in kosovos case, it has been recognized by a majority of states, so therefore it is a sovereign nation, and if it wants to maintain its sovereignty and not be stamped out by serbia or some other power, itll need an army

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано Columna Durruti, 25.12.2018 at 06:53

Написано dk97.__, 24.12.2018 at 14:48

All counties have army even Swiss
Why Kosovo can't?

Not true. Costa Rica abolished army 70 years ago and Panamá around 10 year ago.

Because United States; we are here to protect them

Bullshit.
Sorry for being sincere. The US have actually been the major threat to security (and peace) in Central America.
The Monroe Doctrine still prevails; major atrocities and human rights violations have been perpetrated (and are being carried out) with the silent aproval of US foreign policy.
No matter if democrats or republicans; US foreign policy for the region is intrinsictly associated with crime.

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:48

Написано Helly, 25.12.2018 at 10:46

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:37

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 09:25

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:32

Написано Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 18:48

...
...Countries violate sovereignty all the time, ... all sorts of institutions out there that violate sovereignty ... What if "the west" believe Kosovo to be sovereign? What if "the west" believes Serbia un-rightfully is holding sovereign territory? ...

i don't know of any truly sovereign nation except maybe N.Korea or Cuba. What do you mean by 'sovereignty'?

I would like to claim these words as being mine, but I took from the internet. This is a pretty good definition:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty

I would agree with this... so if a sovereign has absolute power, and can do whatever they want, including make war and peace, then a 'violation' of sovereignty is impossible. It can always break it's own rules and agreements by definition of being sovereign.

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

I think u missed the point brian

Isnt that the issue though? Kosovo is recognized as serbian territory by many nations, it even encompasses one of the earliest known serbian sovereignties in the duchy of raska. That would be like a million Mexicans migrating to texas and turning it into a sovereign country.

which would be possible if it was recognized by a large majority of states, which Kosovo has. If that immigrant caravan made its way into the us and declared itself independent, they would probably have to fight for it if they weren't recognized by the un or such. in kosovos case, it has been recognized by a majority of states, so therefore it is a sovereign nation, and if it wants to maintain its sovereignty and not be stamped out by serbia or some other power, itll need an army

You know that's bullshit lol, wed tell the un, the entire world to fuck off and forcibly move them. That is an invasion and that's what Kosovo is. We as Americans are hypocrites.

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:48

i thought it was outrageous also. However once you realize they are all under IMF rules they aren't considered to be in violation of law. The IMF lends each of these nations money (and their armies are funded using IMF recognized currency) so each nation is under their control in accordance with some form of international admiralty/maritime/commercial law. From IMF point of view, it's like watching their children fight, and fighting is good for business and bankers. So it's not violation of the superior laws. It is in violation of the treaties, accords, charters etc. but these are agreements between the 'children' (i.e. nations), so the 'parents' (IMF and banks) don't need to respect them.

ONce you get to the truth, things usually make more sense ♥

I've recently read about IMF and BFIS, the source said IMF only have 100 billion dollars, then i checked wiki and it says 80bn. Maybe that's why IMF doesn't work alot in big nations like USA and Germany, but works alot in Africa and Eastern Europe? Since they can lend few billions in return for policy change, they can't lend more than 1-5bn, and that amount can't help developed nations, only developing right.

Article said that IMF is thus perfect US tool for global (indirect) control. In order to lend money, IMF ask for policy change like less pensions, more taxes etc in order for the government to repay in the future, thus making the people poorer while market is dominated by corporations. If this is true, then it is indeed a perfect system for domination.

About BFIS (Bank For International Settlements), wiki says it is Central Bank of Central Banks, i don't have time to dig deeper, does it have any influence at all or is it just 'bank archive'? I always think of Germany when i think about major issues, would Germany as developed and serious country allow interference by some external institution like BFIS?

Цитировать:

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:37

...

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

I think u missed the point brian

I suppose i could say the same. It's an interpretation thing. If you are the country invading, you are exercising your sovereign power to declare war. You are 'without foreign interference.' From the country being invaded perspective it appears the foreign country is invading you, and therefore interfering, which i assume is the point you are making. I'm just laying out the invading country's perspective... the moment it invades, it is interfering in that country, and so by the definition you gave, the country being invaded is no longer sovereign.

This is why the definition and the perspective are critical, and it explains why no violations are occurring from the sovereign's perspective.

Написано Skanderbeg, 25.12.2018 at 12:04

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:48

i thought it was outrageous also. However once you realize they are all under IMF rules they aren't considered to be in violation of law. The IMF lends each of these nations money (and their armies are funded using IMF recognized currency) so each nation is under their control in accordance with some form of international admiralty/maritime/commercial law. From IMF point of view, it's like watching their children fight, and fighting is good for business and bankers. So it's not violation of the superior laws. It is in violation of the treaties, accords, charters etc. but these are agreements between the 'children' (i.e. nations), so the 'parents' (IMF and banks) don't need to respect them.

ONce you get to the truth, things usually make more sense ♥

I've recently read about IMF and BFIS, the source said IMF only have 100 billion dollars, then i checked wiki and it says 80bn. Maybe that's why IMF doesn't work alot in big nations like USA and Germany, but works alot in Africa and Eastern Europe? Since they can lend few billions in return for policy change, they can't lend more than 1-5bn, and that amount can't help developed nations, only developing right.

Article said that IMF is thus perfect US tool for global (indirect) control. In order to lend money, IMF ask for policy change like less pensions, more taxes etc in order for the government to repay in the future, thus making the people poorer while market is dominated by corporations. If this is true, then it is indeed a perfect system for domination.

About BFIS (Bank For International Settlements), wiki says it is Central Bank of Central Banks, i don't have time to dig deeper, does it have any influence at all or is it just 'bank archive'? I always think of Germany when i think about major issues, would Germany as developed and serious country allow interference by some external institution like BFIS?

My understanding is BFIS is higher up and has more 'power' but it is less obvious. IMF is just easier to point out and is more obvious for people who want to consider researching this. But IMF works exactly as you describe (a leveraging tool typically implemented by US military). They don't lend enough money to actually change or improve things in the long term, but they create a debt obligation which gives them 'creditor status' so they can dictate policy to their 'debtor country' leaders, all of it then being lawful' under maritime/admiralty/commercial international laws.

Цитировать:

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 12:33

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:37

...

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

I think u missed the point brian

I suppose i could say the same. It's an interpretation thing. If you are the country invading, you are exercising your sovereign power to declare war. You are 'without foreign interference.' From the country being invaded perspective it appears the foreign country is invading you, and therefore interfering, which i assume is the point you are making. I'm just laying out the invading country's perspective... the moment it invades, it is interfering in that country, and so by the definition you gave, the country being invaded is no longer sovereign.

This is why the definition and the perspective are critical, and it explains why no violations are occurring from the sovereign's perspective.

But in todays international world, you can't just simply declare war, it doesnt work like that. There are all sorts of hoops and hurdles you'd have to get over through the UN to justify going to war. The international system is extremely complex

Написано Helly, 25.12.2018 at 10:52

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:48

Написано Helly, 25.12.2018 at 10:46

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:37

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 09:25

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано brianwl, 24.12.2018 at 22:32

Написано Sultan of Swing, 24.12.2018 at 18:48

...
...Countries violate sovereignty all the time, ... all sorts of institutions out there that violate sovereignty ... What if "the west" believe Kosovo to be sovereign? What if "the west" believes Serbia un-rightfully is holding sovereign territory? ...

i don't know of any truly sovereign nation except maybe N.Korea or Cuba. What do you mean by 'sovereignty'?

I would like to claim these words as being mine, but I took from the internet. This is a pretty good definition:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty

I would agree with this... so if a sovereign has absolute power, and can do whatever they want, including make war and peace, then a 'violation' of sovereignty is impossible. It can always break it's own rules and agreements by definition of being sovereign.

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

I think u missed the point brian

Isnt that the issue though? Kosovo is recognized as serbian territory by many nations, it even encompasses one of the earliest known serbian sovereignties in the duchy of raska. That would be like a million Mexicans migrating to texas and turning it into a sovereign country.

which would be possible if it was recognized by a large majority of states, which Kosovo has. If that immigrant caravan made its way into the us and declared itself independent, they would probably have to fight for it if they weren't recognized by the un or such. in kosovos case, it has been recognized by a majority of states, so therefore it is a sovereign nation, and if it wants to maintain its sovereignty and not be stamped out by serbia or some other power, itll need an army

You know that's bullshit lol, wed tell the un, the entire world to fuck off and forcibly move them. That is an invasion and that's what Kosovo is. We as Americans are hypocrites.

serbians im sure would love to the same thing ya? only problem is, the UN headquarters arent in their biggest city, they aren't the biggest funders, and aren't one of the superpowers of the world. Sure Americans are hypocritical, there's no denying that. But it goes back to international relations 101: the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must

in the case of kosovo, it seems the strong powers of the world see kosovo as legit. Therefore, I'm sorry little serbia, but your gonna have to give in to global authority. Getting back on topic (which i feel like a broken record at this point): if kosovo wants to remain sovereign, they will need an army.

Написано Columna Durruti, 25.12.2018 at 10:48

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 08:59

Написано Columna Durruti, 25.12.2018 at 06:53

Написано dk97.__, 24.12.2018 at 14:48

All counties have army even Swiss
Why Kosovo can't?

Not true. Costa Rica abolished army 70 years ago and Panamá around 10 year ago.

Because United States; we are here to protect them

Bullshit.
Sorry for being sincere. The US have actually been the major threat to security (and peace) in Central America.
The Monroe Doctrine still prevails; major atrocities and human rights violations have been perpetrated (and are being carried out) with the silent aproval of US foreign policy.
No matter if democrats or republicans; US foreign policy for the region is intrinsictly associated with crime.

In regards to Latin America, yes your right. American foreign policy to latin america is terrible, and is due to a lack of education on the region (which you would think we should be educated on it right? ...) However, in the case of costa rica, we are their most important trading partner, and have maintained quite an amiable alliance and have made a declaration of protection should war come (I don't see why anyone would war costa rica, but meh). Panama is a more complex situation, there's obviously a lot of moving parts vis-a-vis the canal and Noriega. But if your interested in learning more about US relations with central america, go check out (i think its called) the US Strategy for Central America. If i remember correctly it was published in 2015.

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 13:00

But in todays international world, you can't just simply declare war, it doesnt work like that. There are all sorts of hoops and hurdles you'd have to get over through the UN to justify going to war. The international system is extremely complex

USA didn't declare war on Serbia and UN didn't give green light for war, yet Serbia was attacked by 25 NATO nations which charter says alliance is only for defence :/

Not to mention 5 years sanctions before that imposed by the UN for not real reason, which made a country that just left communism to be without basic life supporting resources, like sugar, oil, fuel, salt, meds, flour.

Kinda made you think where is the line between hate and pursuing interest, do they go together or is one able to manifest without the other.

God is a Serb and he will protect us.

About Kosovo Army topic, don't forget that if that army is established, its leaders would be former terrorist leaders from KLA/UCK, who not only made terrorist attacks in Serbia, but throughout Europe, Russia and America as well, directly and indirectly, and are directly involved in crime orgs in Western Europe.

Many of them went to ISIS, and now with Kosovo having official army, it will basically be legitimate ISIS foothold in Europe, again shocking, what happens in modern age where everyone can see and understand, very hard to hide such things.

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 13:05

Around 80 years ago one nation also saw themself above everyone else. If the history repeats, the future is not very bright for you my little fella.

Цитировать:

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 13:00

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 12:33

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 10:37

...

But in todays international world, you can't just simply declare war, it doesnt work like that. There are all sorts of hoops and hurdles you'd have to get over through the UN to justify going to war. The international system is extremely complex

bullshit, 4 arab israeli-arab wars, iran-iraq war, vietnam war, iraq war 2002, afghanistan war, kosovo war, crimean independence. And many more minor conflicts and anti terrorist wars in all parts of the world.

Basically if a country wants to declare war it will need no reason.
nazi germany was part of the league of nations, did it stop them from conquering 90% of europe?

Цитировать:

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 13:00

...

But in todays international world, you can't just simply declare war, it doesnt work like that. There are all sorts of hoops and hurdles you'd have to get over through the UN to justify going to war. The international system is extremely complex

I'm not disagreeeing with you... its why i said in my first response that only N.Korea and Cuba have any semblance of Sovereignty, since they probably wouldn't bother going to UN to ask permission to declare war (as evidenced by nuclear tests and some other things that irritate the US). All those 'hoops' show that the other UN member states are not absolute sovereign, since none of them exercise absolute power independently. They all go to UN and get resolutions, permissions, justifications, etc. Children {dependents) ask permission. The Sovereign just 'does'.

Цитировать:

Написано brianwl, 25.12.2018 at 14:07

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 13:00

...

But in todays international world, you can't just simply declare war, it doesnt work like that. There are all sorts of hoops and hurdles you'd have to get over through the UN to justify going to war. The international system is extremely complex

I'm not disagreeeing with you... its why i said in my first response that only N.Korea and Cuba have any semblance of Sovereignty, since they probably wouldn't bother going to UN to ask permission to declare war (as evidenced by nuclear tests and some other things that irritate the US). All those 'hoops' show that the other UN member states are not absolute sovereign, since none of them exercise absolute power independently. They all go to UN and get resolutions, permissions, justifications, etc. Children {dependents) ask permission. The Sovereign just 'does'.

yea your right about that. Being apart of the UN surrenders a whole bunch of sovereignty

Написано Steve Aoki, 25.12.2018 at 13:50

Написано Sultan of Swing, 25.12.2018 at 13:05

Around 80 years ago one nation also saw themself above everyone else. If the history repeats, the future is not very bright for you my little fella.

oh ive said for a while the US is on a terrible course. We'll see what happens

In order to become a state you have to meet certain criteria:
1. There has to be a community of people.
2. There has to be sovereignty, which basically means government authority.
3. There has to be some sort of terroritory.

The 4th ''criteria'' is recognition by other states, because if nobody recognises you as a state/country, you won't be able to trade and basically just go bankrupt anytime soon. The 4th criteria isnt really a criteria, because without recognition you could still become a state, but it usualy shows that if a large amount of countries all around the globe recognize a state, it will most likely be able to trade with those states.

Above people said that the definition of sovereignty is ''The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed... without foreign interference'' yet they fail to understand that a state doesn't need to be fully absolute and uncontrollable, in order to have sovereignty.
Most countries in the EU are sovereign, yet most of them are part of the European Union, which is an supranational organisation that requires all the associated states to give up a part of their sovereignty in order to become a part of it. Most of the laws in the EU are the same and require those associated states to live up to the guidelines made by the EU.

As for the Kosovo matter, Kosovo has contented to all the criteria and is officialy a state. Kosovo has been recognized by alot of states world wide too, and as far as I am aware it already has its own army, called Kosovo Security Force (KSF) and a government. So not really sure if the OP just wants to create another flame war, since thats all he does, or is to ignorant to search things up.

Написано Waffel, 25.12.2018 at 16:42

In order to become a state you have to meet certain criteria:
1. There has to be a community of people.
2. There has to be sovereignty, which basically means government authority.
3. There has to be some sort of terroritory.

The 4th ''criteria'' is recognition by other states, because if nobody recognises you as a state/country, you won't be able to trade and basically just go bankrupt anytime soon. The 4th criteria isnt really a criteria, because without recognition you could still become a state, but it usualy shows that if a large amount of countries all around the globe recognize a state, it will most likely be able to trade with those states.

Above people said that the definition of sovereignty is ''The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed... without foreign interference'' yet they fail to understand that a state doesn't need to be fully absolute and uncontrollable, in order to have sovereignty.
Most countries in the EU are sovereign, yet most of them are part of the European Union, which is an supranational organisation that requires all the associated states to give up a part of their sovereignty in order to become a part of it. Most of the laws in the EU are the same and require those associated states to live up to the guidelines made by the EU.

As for the Kosovo matter, Kosovo has contented to all the criteria and is officialy a state. Kosovo has been recognized by alot of states world wide too, and as far as I am aware it already has its own army, called Kosovo Security Force (KSF) and a government. So not really sure if the OP just wants to create another flame war, since thats all he does, or is to ignorant to search things up.

KSF is international army, organised by KFOR (NATO-led international peacekeeping force which was responsible for establishing a secure environment in Kosovo) Anyways, this topic is way too boring. Vojvodina (North Serbia) should become a state aswell, Vojvodina will be new Switzerland!

Tbh, we must agree that this situation is very funny and interesting.

Which situation, you ask? The situation where Non-Balkan community (mostly from the USA and Westerm Europe) argues about Kosovo question

Non balkans arguing and talking about balkan issues?

Finally all those years of derailing every single thread into a balkan thread , now paid off!!



Ps. Kosovo land never belonged to serbia, it was taken away from albania and given to serbs in london conference of 1912 since ottomans lost ww1 and albania was considered their allies.
You should be hapoy the world powers didnt allow kosovo to merge back to albania where it always belonged.

Less cry, more cws

Написано Aristote, 26.12.2018 at 04:23

Non balkans arguing and talking about balkan issues?

Finally all those years of derailing every single thread into a balkan thread , now paid off!!



Ps. Kosovo land never belonged to serbia, it was taken away from albania and given to serbs in london conference of 1912 since ottomans lost ww1 and albania was considered their allies.
You should be hapoy the world powers didnt allow kosovo to merge back to albania where it always belonged.

Less cry, more cws

albania has 0 claim to kosovo even if it had 100% albanians in it. Kosovo is the historical core to serbia, the albanians arrived in kosovo in 1800s when the ottomans wanted to change the demographics to islam for their own benefits. Less lies, more cry.

Yes, history starts at 1912. AD.

Albanians claim clay from Ottoman Empire region, they don't have any other reason. Turkish Empire had regions which were called 'vilayat', Albanian Vilayat was one of them, including northern Greece, Western Macedonia, Kosovo and parts of Montenegro. Turkish Empire made it purely for administrative reasons, not ethnical, therefore Albanian Vilayat was not ethnically Albanian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Vilayet

This is the only proof they have to claim Kosovo and expand their territory. And they flew flag with those borders while playing football vs Serbia with drone.

That region was always populated by Greeks and Slavs since Medieval Ages, and now Albania claim all their regional history (like Skenderbeg), simple introduction in Albanian history shows they were unable to have a state system compared to other European nations, they were mountain clans, only coming to prominence when Islam entered Europe and they contributed their war effort. But that is racist to say in modern era.

Then they supported Axis war effort in WWII, then NATO war effort in 1990s, always on the wrong side of history...

Написано Aristote, 26.12.2018 at 04:23

Non balkans arguing and talking about balkan issues?

Finally all those years of derailing every single thread into a balkan thread , now paid off!!



Ps. Kosovo land never belonged to serbia, it was taken away from albania and given to serbs in london conference of 1912 since ottomans lost ww1 and albania was considered their allies.
You should be hapoy the world powers didnt allow kosovo to merge back to albania where it always belonged.

Less cry, more cws

I wanted to stay out of this, but this is way too amusing. Do Albanians know any history before 1912 AD?

Calm down. We are all ottomans no need to fight

Kosova is a nation and all peoples have the right to self-determination.

According to CIA, ethnic groups in Kosova:

Albanians 92.9%, Bosniaks 1.6%, Serbs 1.5%, Turk 1.1%, Ashkali 0.9%, Egyptian 0.7%, Gorani 0.6%, Romani 0.5%, other/unspecified 0.2% (2011 est.)

But the problem is there were an ethnic cleasing campaing in 1999, Serb population relocated to Serbia.
And again even in 1931 that was very different:
Pristina population in 1931
Turk- 7.573 (% 42)
Serp- 5.738 (% 31)
Albanian- 2.351 (% 13)
others - 2.651 (% 14)

after liberation of Kosova from Ottoman Empire, there were still more Albanians and Turks. however the Serbs owned Kosova before the Turks and the Albanians but at this moment we have to look demographic history of Kosova.

Albanians are part of the oldest european race Pelasgians (Pelasgians>Illyrians>Albanians). And their homeland were Albania and still it is.

Since we know the Serbs are southern-slavs which immigrated to balkans from east europe(wisła to pripet-dnepr).

So basically Kosova belongs to Albanians more than Serbs.

I don't tell that Kosova doesnt belong to Serbs just because Albanians lived there more than them but because, right now Albanians have more population and as we prove Albanians live there since centuries and they always had more population.
To make that much easier, for example; Istanbul originally belongs to Greeks but Turks conquered it and converted it to Turkish, but now Istanbul is more Turkish and less Greek, also Turks did conquer Selanik but there were always more Greeks and they didnt ethnically clean Selanik from Greeks, so Selanik belongs to the Greeks.
If we go for Kurdish states, we have to say Kurds have the right to self-determination. They have more population and they are older than Turks in Eastern Anatolia also in northern-Iraq and northern-Syria but they have no claim on Persia due to population and demographic history.

Sorry for my bad English, hope you guys understand, i tried to make it simple.