Ukraine, Kosovo, Serbia, and the Third World War

In the Cold War era, a joke circulated in the Balkans about a conversation between two of its inhabitants, the first of which began by asking the other "if he knows what the most expensive thing in the world is". An atomic bomb, the interlocutor answered. Oh, how I would like one to fall in my yard, concluded the other, hoping for 'easy wealth'.

For these two fortune hunters, the chances of realizing their unusual wish have increased today like never before. The Ukrainian conflict, in which Russia is involved as a nuclear power, has been accompanied from the beginning by fears of the use of nuclear weapons and fears of its development into a general conflict. Even after a year, these possibilities have not stopped disturbing the world. It is clear, violence is unpredictable, once it starts you never know where it will go next and how it will end.

But Ukraine is not the only region where the 'most expensive thing in the world' can come. In the Balkans, by all accounts, preconditions are being created for the development of the potential for a broader conflict through the radicalization of the 'Kosovo issue' and the ultimate approach that is now being exercised in relation to Serbia.

The last great man of world diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, in his 100th year, regularly warns of the danger of the outbreak of the Third World War and nuclear conflict. In mid-December, Henry Kissinger wrote an op-ed on whether Russia's attack on Ukraine could be prevented from escalating into a catastrophic World War III. Writing on the subject for the conservative British magazine 'The Spectator', Kissinger stated that the Ukrainian conflict had clear parallels with the year 1914 when all the great powers had been gradually drawn into the military conflict and highlighted the Balkans as the trigger of that conflict. He repeated the same this week, in his video presentation at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

But, the general circumstances are full of conflicting charge, and it is difficult to say where it is stronger and more dangerous. The Bulgarian President, Rumen Radev, joining the pan-European debate on even stronger aid to Ukraine, the delivery of modern tanks, and preparations for the spring offensive, assessed that military aid to Kyiv meant agreeing with the position that the conflict should be fought until the complete defeat of one side, which was inevitable and was gradually drawing the country 'into global conflict and the possibility of nuclear self-destruction'.

The meeting in Davos devoted time to Ukraine like never before. The most surprising aspect of this year's World Economic Forum meeting, which ended on Friday, was the extent and nature of its focus on Ukraine. Even more significant was the growing number of voices that emphasized the danger of this war for the global system of rules and institutions, and thus accepted and demanded greater support for Ukraine.

It was concluded that an 'offensive' was needed to break the Russian operation in Ukraine. That 'offensive' should include: more effective weapons and training, longer-range missiles, more Patriot missile systems, and air defenses - including coordination with Poland and Slovakia, which should use their 'Patriots' along Ukraine's borders to provide a shield for western Ukraine - Abrams and F-16 tanks. The second part of this strategy should include sanctions and export controls in coordination with the European Union.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte framed that line of thinking as imperative for Europe to continue to stand up to "Russian aggression," saying the region must do "everything it can to help the Ukrainians." "If the aggressor is not stopped, it will not end with Ukraine." The whole West is under threat,' Rutte said.

Russian officials, on their part, have compared these Western strategies to Napoleon's conquests and Hitler's war against Russia, again noting the conditions under which Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons.

In his speeches, Henry Kissinger regularly mentions the Balkans as the place where the spark of conflict ignited, with which he compares the current situation. Historically, the Balkans is one of the regions that was almost always taken as relevant for consideration in the creation of conditions and the outbreak of a new world war.

The threat of a 'third world war' was not just a possibility that preoccupied war planners and war game enthusiasts. It was real even for the highest statesmen and politicians. American President Richard Nixon wrote: 'World War III is a truly global war. There is not a single corner of the earth that it has not reached. The United States and the Soviet Union are two global powers, and whatever affects our balance affects the balance anywhere. The Soviets get it. We also have to understand it and learn to think in global terms,' US President Richard Nixon claimed.

In a 'fantastic' study from 1977 called 'The Third World War', written by, at the time, high commander of NATO, British general and later rector of the King's College in London, John Hackett, the circumstances leading to a new world war where the former Yugoslavia is at the center are described. According to NATO plans, it was foreseen that the Russian army would attack Yugoslavia from three directions, towards Belgrade, towards Zagreb, and from both - towards Ljubljana. Russian and American forces would clash "between Ljubljana and Zagreb, near Kostanjevica ?!- (probably referring to Kostajnica, author’s note)".

General Hackett claimed in his book that 'Poland and Yugoslavia are the most dangerous crisis areas in the Soviet West'. Going by the assumptions from the analysis of the intelligence services at the time, the problems for the West in Yugoslavia begin when the "regime Yugoslavia after Tito" is not able to oppose the installation of "pro-Soviet cells" and nowhere else but Serbia. "It can be imagined that the Red Army will provoke and accept the invitation of pro-Soviet cells in Serbia to suppress the so-called 'capitalist counter-revolution' in Slovenia and Croatia," the British general predicted.

Israel daily 'Jerusalem Post' recently transferred the possibility of a global conflict to Kosovo, where NATO and Russian forces would clash. 'Imagine the following scenario: a boy is shot and wounded in Kosovo after carrying a Serbian Christmas tree. The boy later died of his injuries in the hospital. Serbia had to respond, so it decided to send military forces to the border. In response, NATO is sending troops. A NATO soldier was killed by an accidental bullet fired during the conflict between the armies. NATO must react, and then Russia intervenes. While the eyes of the world are on Ukraine and Kosovo, China is attacking Taiwan. The Third World War begins. Does that sound contrived to you', Israel daily asked at the end.

The former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the FR Yugoslavia, Zivadin Jovanovic, sees the same thing differently, on the occasion of the stay of five envoys from Germany, France, Italy, the EU, and the US on Friday in Belgrade, when they submitted a document that, in their opinion, should enable Kosovo to become an independent state and member of the UN with the consent and recommendation of Serbia, at the expense and detriment of Serbia. According to reports, the "Five" delivered an ultimatum to Serbia that it would be punished if it did not accept to confirm Kosovo's statehood with a declaration.

In his analysis of the meaning of that Franco-German plan for Kosovo and Metohija for regional and European peace, Jovanovic sees in it a repetition of the "Sudetenland agreement" from 1938, which preceded the world war.

"We have to take into account the fact that in the history of Europe, some other imposed solutions were offered as 'saving the peace', but in fact, they opened wide the door to a global catastrophe. It must not be taken for granted that the seizure of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia today is less relevant for peace and security in Europe than was the case of the German seizure of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in September 1938, with the secondment of France, Great Britain, and Italy. It is worth reminding that even then it was done 'behind Russia's back', which is still attempted today by seizing Kosovo and Metohija. Do Scholz and Macron have that historical experience, as well as the US, which so wholeheartedly supports their plan for the violent seizure of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia? Or, in their arrogance, the new gamblers thought that they were the messiahs of salvation for the less gifted,' the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Zivadin Jovanovic asks.

It is clear, from all this, that an escalation of the conflict is being prepared in the east of Europe, in which NATO is involved in all ways, except for ground troops. In the hinterland of that escalation, in the Balkans, according to everything that can be seen now, events are moving in the direction of further aggravation and the creation of a new Balkan crisis, a new "Eastern question" with all the challenges and risks that it carried in history and that it carries to this day,"

By: Dragan Bisenic, a journalist