WE NEVER LAID OUR WEAPONS DOWN IN KOSOVO IN 1999! Krga for Kurir: 'Those bombing us NEVER CLAIMED Serbia was defeated!'

Retired General Branko Krga has devoted his whole life to the military – he was Chief of the Yugoslavian Armed Forces General Staff (2002-2005), head of the Military Intelligence Service (1994-1997 and 1999-2001), a diplomat in Prague and Moscow, and advisor to the minister of defence in charge of defence policy and international military cooperation. After retirement, he taught at the School of Diplomacy and Security Studies. Nowadays, he spends his time at the foot of Mount Avala and rarely appears in public, although he keeps himself updated on world affairs. Nonetheless, he agreed to speak with Kurir about all the important security issues and challenges, Serbia's military neutrality, and the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia.

Do you miss the military? Do you follow developments in the Serbian Army?

"It's been quite a while since I left the armed forces, so the uniform feels more distant now. I follow the developments in our military through media reports and occasional contacts with my junior colleagues. I can see that the military is improving in some respects, but there are still problems, which is normal. Now as much as in my day, whether the military is falling behind or making progress depends primarily on the government. Professional soldiers aren't the problem there – they can make best use of what the government provides for them. Here I mean above all providing modern weaponry and equipment to the military, providing training for both, as well as their practical use, if and when required."

Is the decision to remain a neutral country good or bad?

"Neutrality is the special focus of the Resolution of the Republic of Serbia's National Assembly on the Protection of Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and Constitutional Order. Passing such a resolution was inspired by the events involving Kosovo, i.e. the announced unilateral declaration of this province's secession. At the time – just as much as at the present moment – such a commitment was a logical response to the events in Kosovo. It concerns above all the NATO aggression against FR Yugoslavia, as well as a favourable view of the majority of the countries in this alliance on Priština's actions aimed at secession, which ran counter to the 1999 UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the 2006 Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. Time will tell whether the decision to remain a neutral country is good or bad. It seems that this decision was a forced response to the measures taken against our country. Perhaps the best thing to do would be for all countries to be neutral and cooperate well, because that would probably result in lesser tensions around the world."

We often hear that global powers fight for the dominant position in the Balkans, and that what we have here is a continued fight between Russia and China on one side, and the US and EU on the other. Are such claims realistic?

"Such claims are largely realistic. In addition to these powers, we should take into account the actions of the Islamic elements and the independent operations of the United Kingdom, especially after leaving the EU. Although the effects of all these vectors on this part of the world may on first glance strike one as a problem, it doesn't have to be so. These circumstances should be utilized in wise and principled policies. It isn't easy, but it is possible, on condition that we have our best and brightest in key diplomatic posts."

The Kosovo issue remains unresolved. Are you worried about the security situation in Kosovo?

"The security situation in Kosovo is a source of concern for all responsible citizens of Serbia. Others should also show more interest in these problems, especially the members of the international community who received a mandate to take care of peace and stability in the region. However, we are seeing disruptive events taking place – first and foremost unacceptable pressure, putting freedom, life, and property at risk, and preventing the return of the Serbian population. Furthermore, there are measures that are banned under Resolution 1244, such as practically creating the Army of Kosovo and simultaneously obstructing the return of the agreed-upon number of our military personnel to the province. Recently, in addition to the provisions of various adopted documents that are not complied with, what's particularly worrying is that there are more actions aimed at unifying Kosovo and Albania. These and other unfavourable developments notwithstanding, Serbia has the option of using additional measures to ensure a solution which is in the interest of both Serbs and other citizens of the province. In order for this to take place, it would be a good idea to take an integral approach to resolving the crisis, which means also involving domains beyond politics and diplomacy, e.g. the economy, culture, science, the Orthodox Church, the media, parts of the national security system, the non-governmental sector, etc., in following a single plan."

Did the Serbian army capitulate in Kosovo in 1999?

"Talking about victory and defeat in a war like the 1999 one is perhaps a little inappropriate. Still, this question should best be posed to the commanders of the military units that mounted a legitimate fight to defend Kosovo and the whole of FR Yugoslavia. There's no doubt that none of them would say that his unit laid down their weapons. How can anyone say that our army was defeated then? What would have happened had the war gone on, given the difference in power as well as our determination to defend ourselves, merits a separate and detailed analysis. The main idea behind the Kumanovo Agreement and Resolution 1244 was for the war to have an arranged end, which is what happened. During the negotiations in Kumanovo over several days, and then after that unfortunate war, as part of my duties I had numerous official contacts with the representatives of other countries. Some of them took part in the aggression, and yet no one told me that we were defeated. Sadly, there are people in Serbia – not many, admittedly – who keep saying that 'Serbia provoked and lost four wars.' Only they can explain why they do it. Most people know that it isn't a nice thing to do, not least because it isn't true."

Do you think that the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia could have been avoided? What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think back to that time?

"We had done a great deal to prevent the war from happening. At the same time, the aggressors had taken even more actions to ensure it did. Unfortunately, we failed, and that is a sad memory that I have of those days. Back then, I was heading the Military Intelligence Service. In addition to monitoring the activities of the forces preparing for the aggression, much of the Service's capacity was directed towards averting it. Those leading the preparations for the aggression evidently had an interest in making sure the war took place. If that mood hadn't been there, it could have easily been avoided."

What are your views on the current security situation in the world?

"Many people are interested in the security situation in our country and in the world, because all our lives are affected by it. The analysis of the security situation in the world indicates that there are multiple unfavourable and positive elements there. The unfavourable ones include rising tensions and distrust between the great powers; sabre-rattling on multiple sides; abuse of science and high technologies in subjugating people and adversely affecting their health; announcements of measures that concern people around the planet, such as the radical reduction of the global population; economic instability and the widening social gap, resulting in increased poverty and a small number of people amassing enormous wealth, which inevitably leads to various forms of protests in the long term; terrorism and uncontrolled migrations, with their standard effects; and now the pandemic as a specific health-related, social, and security problem; persistent double standards in dealings with specific countries, nations, and problems, which sparks more discontent and tensions; mass-scale abuse of the media, which are often utilized as instruments in the arsenal of hybrid war, soft power, etc., rather than providing information to people in a fair and objective manner. The favourable elements of the security situation include the fact that the world is becoming multipolar, so that the conditions are created for a relative balance of power; even though science is abused, there are more and more scientists, especially young ones, who strive to ensure the results of their research benefit humanity; people are markedly against war, which the decision-makers must take into account."

No world war over the crisis in Ukraine

'The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is unnatural'

Russia and Ukraine are on the brink of war, NATO is sending reinforcements to Europe, Russia is deploying troops on the border with Ukraine, the US is recalling diplomats from Kyiv. What would a conflict between Russia and Ukraine mean for the world? A new world war perhaps?

"No, there will be no world war over the crisis in Ukraine. Limited conflicts are possible, provoked by various irresponsible players. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is unnatural. Being in Moscow at the time when the Soviet Union was disintegrating, I saw some misunderstandings, but I realized that the friendly relations between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples were more significant, based as they were on their common historical experiences, the liberation wars they fought together, and many family ties. Anyone sparking conflicts between these two nations is guilty of a grave injustice. It would be best if the representatives of Moscow and Kyiv reached an agreement on how to overcome the most recent crisis without any tutelage from the outside. I'm convinced that it's possible, and that it would be the vital interest of both countries and nations, as well as that of others."

Do you agree with the views that the Russia-US relations are at the lowest point since the Cold War?

"Essentially, you could say that the relations between Russia and the US are indeed fraught with many problems and mutual allegations. That's what you see in the public arena. However, we should take into account the fact that the two great powers have traditionally had multiple communication channels below the radar, so there are reasons to expect that the worst-case scenario will be avoided. We should believe that the leaders of the biggest powers at the same time feel an appropriate level of responsibility for their own and other nations."

Similarities in the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union

'Foreign players helped the breakup along'

You have looked into the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Are there similarities between the two? Who was pulling the strings?

"I observed the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union as a military attaché in Moscow between 1991 and 1994. Based on this direct experience, I identified many similarities and differences in the process of breaking up the two countries. A key similarity between the two processes is the fact that foreign players used internal misunderstandings and so helped break up those federations. The differences between the breakup of Yugoslavia and that of the Soviet Union stem primarily from a disproportion between the potentials of the two countries. Much has been written about these processes in Serbia and abroad, but the latest developments indicate that these regions are still fraught with many problems, which merit continued study and from which we can draw suitable lessons."

Boban Karović