The EU thread

[Sheilbh]

I thought this was a really interesting piece - I still don't generally agree with him but very interesting and I think perceptive takes on some points:

The world according to Wolfgang Schäuble
President of German parliament says his country shouldn't lecture its eastern neighbors.
By Matthew Karnitschnig
June 24, 2021 10:26 pm

BERLIN — Germany needs to start showing Central and Eastern Europe more respect, and stop all the lecturing and acting as if it were the Continent's know-it-all.

The view from Budapest? Warsaw? Guess again.

"Why do Germans think they can teach Poles what democracy is?" Wolfgang Schäuble, the president of the German parliament, asks in his office overlooking the Bundestag's giant lawn, before extolling the "courage and tenacity" of Central Europe's people. "Think of Vaclav Havel!"

If it weren't for the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. "none of it would have been possible," he added, jabbing his index finger into the air.

By "it," Schäuble means not just the end of communism in Europe but also German reunification and the decades of peace and prosperity the region has enjoyed (notwithstanding a few bumps in the road) ever since.

So what about the rule of law being under threat in the here and now?

"It's completely legitimate to have differences of opinion," he said. "When I meet [Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor] Orbán, I tell him exactly what I think he's doing wrong."

In the end, it's up to the European courts to decide where the boundaries are, even when it comes to Germany, he added.

At a time when much of Central Europe is on Europe's naughty step for flouting democratic norms, attacking the LGBTQ+ community and generally undermining the progressive image the EU tries to project to the rest of the world, Schäuble's agree-to-disagree vibe towards the East might strike some as a bit out of touch. Yet in his world, the growing East-West divide represents a greater danger to Europe's future than anything happening in an individual member state.

"We need to change the attitude in Europe that everyone thinks he's is something better and the others are not so great," he said.

Anyone who remembers Schäuble as the bête noir of Greece and the eurozone's other fiscal delinquents during the debt crisis that nearly sank the common currency a decade ago might ask if he is now playing the pot or the kettle. Back then, as German finance minister, he was vilified across southern Europe as the quintessential tight-fisted, arrogant kraut. He even served as the Greek far left's poster boy in its successful 2015 referendum campaign to reject the terms of Greece's bailout.

But then, as now, Schäuble's actions were born of a noble impulse (at least in his own mind) — to protect and preserve Europe.

A deep sense of purpose

Whatever one thinks of Schäuble — and he has many critics both inside and outside Germany — few would dispute that the best way to describe him is duty-bound. 

He has served uninterrupted as an MP since 1972, making him by far the longest-serving member of the Bundestag. Not even an assassin's bullet — fired by a mentally ill man on the campaign trail in 1990 — managed to halt his career. Though he's been in a wheelchair ever since, the attempt on his life appeared to only deepen his sense of purpose. 

After the assassination attempt, Schäuble, who like many of his colleagues studied law, managed the reunification of West and East Germany, led various ministries and even served as leader of his party, the Christian Democrats (CDU). Many saw him as Helmut Kohl's crown prince. But whatever dreams Schäuble had of becoming chancellor were shattered by a party financing scandal that forced him to step down as CDU leader in 2000. He was succeeded by an ambitious up-and-comer named Angela Merkel.

Despite repeated clashes with Merkel over everything from whether to usher Greece out of the euro to refugee policy, Schäuble has remained loyal.

That devotion hasn't always been reciprocated. Merkel denied Schäuble his dream of becoming German president, repeatedly passing him over. Then, in 2017, she asked him to trade in his finance ministry job to become president of the Bundestag. Though the second-highest office in the land in terms of protocol (after the president), it's a largely administrative role that involves acting as parliament's chief referee.

Nonetheless, thanks to his stature, Schäuble has lent the office new prestige. He has also managed to curb the antics of the far-right Alternative for Germany, currently the largest opposition group in the Bundestag.

He has remained active in the CDU's internal politics too. After failing to install his one-time protégé, Friedrich Merz, as party leader this year, Schäuble went to battle for the man who won — Armin Laschet — helping him secure the conservative bloc's nomination for chancellor against a challenge from the leader of the CDU's Bavarian sister party.   

Even if Schäuble embodies the proverbial good soldier in deed, he doesn't shy from telling the world how he really feels.

During the interview in his vast receiving room, decorated with the replica of a large eagle sculpture that once adorned the German Kaiser's palace, he took aim at Europe's migration policy, saying both the European Commission and member states had fallen short. Europe needs to be more flexible in its approach to the realities in individual member states, he argued, especially when it comes to rejecting certain ethnic or religious groups.

"If someone says, 'in the tradition of our country it is difficult to explain to our population that we're going to take in large numbers of Muslims, or people from Muslim countries,' one should say, 'Ok, then let's talk about how else you can contribute,'" Schäuble said.

He also reiterated his concern over how member states planned to spend the money they receive from the EU's pandemic recovery fund.

"If we use these €750 billion to plug holes in budgets instead of for investments in the future, then it won't make any difference," he warned.

Though often caricatured as the eurozone's "Dr. No" during the debt crisis, Schäuble, unlike many in his party, never ruled out issuing common debt per se, but only for as long as there isn't a common economic and fiscal policy along with adequate enforcement to ensure that countries don't spend beyond their means.

"I support more Europe, but then we have to give Europe the necessary powers," he said.

But given that such a Europe would require member states to relinquish their most potent remaining influence — the power of the purse — Schäuble's dream scenario is unlikely to be realized anytime soon.

Even so, Schäuble expressed optimism about Europe's future and welcomed the normalization of relations with the United States under President Joe Biden. He signaled support for a harder line against China than that voiced by either Merkel or Laschet.

"No one should try to rule the world," he said, saying that China needed to stick to its international agreements. "America needs more European partnership and when the Americans are right, they're right."

Schäuble is bound to make his outspoken voice heard on China, Europe and a number of other issues in years to come. His name will once again top the ballot of his home constituency in southwest Germany in September's general election.

Though more popular than ever in Germany, Schäuble was coy about whether he intended to remain president of the Bundestag, saying only: "I enjoy the work."

The couple of things that struck me as interesting were around the "lecturing" of CEE states - and I wonder if there is something to it, but not necessarily in the way that he describes. What I slightly wonder is whether the European model and vision of democratic transition is perhaps shaped by the extraordinary German transition (twice) - but that was extraordinary in both cases. I wonder if we maybe should have paid more attention to the specific circumstances of CEE during their transition and joining Europe?

Similarly which is linked to the Russia thing I do think Europe needs to be closer to and almost let CEE lead policy on Russia - again the example of Ireland sticks out, but also I was thinking of the way France and Greece have become such close allies in the Eastern Mediterranean. I think that sort of leading Europe from the peripheries is perhaps a better model - of going to where the issue is most acute and other states working with the most affected states to develop a common policy rather than the traditional Franco-German motor?

The other point was I just don't think his comment on immigration works if we are accepting as an idea that Muslims are European and will become European citizens - they will be German and French and Belgian. If countries in Europe has an issue with immigration on that ground, I don't see how that can sit alongside the reality of modern Europe

[Duque de Bragança]

The other point was I just don't think his comment on immigration works if we are accepting as an idea that Muslims are European and will become European citizens - they will be German and French and Belgian. If countries in Europe has an issue with immigration on that ground, I don't see how that can sit alongside the reality of modern Europe

Fiscal delinquents? I hope they use that kind of  language against illegal migrants. 

I will pass on Schäuble's Stasi 2.0 background for once.



Muslims should also accept the idea that being European means duties as well, not just rights. If the country they live in has an assimilationist policy, if they disagree, then they should reconsider their whole migration project, or get a different one.

[Sheilbh]

I think this is the most interesting and convincing case for the EU's approach on China - I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but I think this is possibly the best (and most upbeat explanation):

Surprise! The EU knows how to handle China

Brussels is ahead of Washington when it comes to dealing with Beijing.
CHINA-POLITICS-CONGRESS
China's President Xi Jinping, center, fought hard to take the EU deal over the line | Noel Celis/AFP via Getty Images
By Bruno Maçães
June 22, 2021 4:03 am

"Do we need a new adversary?" With those words, Armin Laschet summed up the European response to Joe Biden's efforts to convince Europeans to get tougher on China.

As the politician best placed to become the next German chancellor, Laschet's open rebuke of the U.S. president was the latest example in a series of polite disagreements between the two pillars of the transatlantic alliance over how to deal with the rising Asian superpower.

What's usually overlooked, however, especially in Washington, is that the Europeans aren't reluctant to get on board with Biden's efforts because they don't want to confront China. They're cold on the idea because they have a plan of their own — and so far, it's working.

The plan was first devised a little over two years ago, at a time when Trump's America had turned its back on its European partners. As described by a senior official in Brussels, the decision to call China a "systemic rival" in March 2019 was everything that the EU's foreign policy strives to be, almost always unsuccessfully.

The European Council had given the European Commission and the European External Action Service a mandate to come up with a new China strategy. And the two institutions took full advantage of it, drafting a bold document that never traveled to national capitals for assent.

I was living in Beijing at the time and can attest to how much the term riled and confused Chinese officials. And that initial salvo was not an isolated move. One month later, the EU issued Beijing with an ultimatum, calling on it to conclude negotiations on the China-Europe investment agreement, known as CAI, by the end of 2020.

Those negotiations had been dragging on for five years. Brussels wanted results.

To this day, the logic behind these moves remains poorly understood. As one person closely involved in the 2019 deliberations explained this week, the words "systemic rival" were meant to denote something very different from the formulation used in Washington: "strategic rival."

With the notion of systemic rivalry, the European Union hoped to separate political differences and economic links. In strategic rivalry, conflict leads. In systemic rivalry, conflict is limited to the political sphere. It is part of the EU's political tradition to believe that politics and the economy can be insulated from each other. Even inside the bloc, political differences with Poland and Hungary are not allowed to interfere with the single market.

Performing the same trick with China is far more difficult, but the Commission has been busy putting the plan in practice. Over the past two years, it approved a barrage of new regulations limiting the Chinese state's ability to interfere with the framework of economic links between the two blocs. These include investment screening, trade defense instruments, a package against state subsidies and a public procurement tool.

At the same time, Brussels — with a push from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who renewed the ultimatum in June 2020 — moved forward with negotiations on the CAI, finally agreed on by both sides in December. The senior official in the Commission, who requested to remain anonymous in order to speak freely, described China's assent to the agreement as "a gift from Beijing."

The deal included significant concessions from Beijing, including a greater level of market access and disciplines on state-owned enterprises, transparency of subsidies and rules prohibiting forced technology transfer. "By giving us a big gift, they hoped to prevent a united front with the Biden administration," the official said.

Beijing's hope was not to be. What surprised China is that the EU never regarded the CAI as a political agreement. Having forced Beijing to concede on key points, the bloc did not hesitate to walk over China's most salient red lines. On March 22, the EU joined the U.K. and the U.S. in imposing sanctions aimed at Chinese officials believed to be involved in human rights violations in Xinjiang province.

The move threw Beijing off balance — as evidenced by its reaction. Many in Brussels believed China would be too concerned with preserving the CAI to react or would do so within strict limits. Instead, the Chinese Foreign Ministry reacted with blind brutality.

Chinese embassies in Europe had been asked in advance to collect a list of undesirables, which included members of the European Parliament belonging to almost every political group. That list seems to have been approved by the top leadership in Zhongnanhai with little or no scrutiny, and little concern for the agreement's fate.

That reaction reveals a lot about the relationship between the EU and China, and the fact that Beijing felt it had been outplayed. While a second official in the Commission told me that the top leadership in Beijing was poorly advised, none of the Chinese officials I talked to expressed any doubt that, on March 22, the Chinese leadership decided to kill the investment agreement with the European Union. The choice was conscious and deliberate.

Since taking over the brief in August 2020, Xi Jinping had fought hard to take the deal over the line. So why did he change his mind? The clue is in something the influential academic Cui Hongjian told me this week: "Strategic partners do not sanction each other." The Chinese side had seen the CAI as a political agreement.

Like good Marxists, Chinese officials do not believe in the separation between politics and the economy. But Brussels' decision to sanction four political officials showed that "systemic rivalry" was still valid and operational. According to an official in the Chinese State Council, Xi decided that the Europeans had betrayed the spirit of the agreement and that China should put its foot down.

Liu Zuokui of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences expanded on the feeling of frustration in a conversation this week: "In other words, on the one hand, the two sides should overcome their differences and negotiate. On the other hand, the EU can punish China at any time according to its own needs, and it is estimated that China may acquiesce to such punishment."

What this means is that Brussels — not Washington or Beijing — has a clear vision of what the terms of the relationship between the West and China should be: economic integration but on a European not a Chinese model.

Chinese officials may complain about the term "systemic rivalry," but they believe in it as much as Brussels. The difference is that for Beijing, there is no separation between market and state. Interestingly, this is also the view in Washington — but Europeans are convinced they have a better plan.

They will keep insisting that to do business in their territory, China will have to do it on European terms. And indeed, Chinese officials have sent some messages that they want to continue talking. "We are very calm," said the official in Brussels.

On a purely semantic point I see systemic rival as worse than strategic rival, but apparently that's not how it's meant

Separately I think this approach works in theory but I just don't think it survives contact with reality because, as the article notes, the Chinese state does not accept the distinction of economic and political. I also think the Chinese state has a fairly embedded view that the "West" is in terminal decline - so there is no need to compromise when you can, instead, wait. So the only way I see this vision working is in some way the EU model can sort of prevail because it's how the EU behaves and reality follows, which I'm not convinced is likely.

The example he gives is Poland and Hungary who I think have not yet adhered to the EU's model and that's with all of the institutional and power structures which should give the EU leverage over those states. I don't know that it will be more able to succeed with China.

And I think I've said it before - but I think the EU has a blindspot for non-economic motivations. I think institutionally they struggle to understand motivations and actors that are not driven by rational, material concerns - and in part I think that's because it's a project to banish those motivations from Europe after centuries of war. But when they are then faced with embedded sectarian conflict, like in Northern Ireland and Bosnia (from what a friend who worked in the Western Balkans has said) the EU really struggles to use the leverage it has because the incentives etc that it cares about are irrelevant to the actors in that sphere. I think there's an element of that with China (and Russia or Poland and Hungary for that matter), except instead of sectarianism it's more around ideology/worldview.

But I could be totally wrong and I think at least this piece does make me think there is a theory shaping EU policy in this area even if I have some doubts about it.

[Josquius]

What I don't get is that it seems to be just in Japan where you've actual government efforts to divert corporate investment away from China and towards SE Asia instead.
Sure, Japan Inc, the government and un-zaibatsu have a pretty incestuous relationship. But still, you'd think there'd be something the west could do to encourage the same more strongly than they are.

[Sheilbh]

I feel like this is probably positive news, as I've always quite liked Tusk - but I'm not sure about the language of "evil". But those poll numbers don't look great and I think there's always a bit of a risk of this sort of comeback. But I hope it works:

Tusk returns to Polish politics denouncing 'evil' ruling party
The battered opposition Civic Platform party sees Tusk as a potential political savior.


Donald Tusk speaks at a Civic Platform congress on July 3, 2021 | Wojtek Radwanski/AFP via Getty Images
By Zosia Wanat
July 3, 2021 1:54 pm

After seven years in Brussels, Donald Tusk is back in Polish politics and he's got one goal — to defeat the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party.

"I'm back in 100 percent," the former Polish prime minister and ex-president of the European Council told a Saturday congress of Civic Platform (PO), the troubled liberal party he founded in 2001.

He's now the head of the European People's Party, the EU's largest grouping of center-right parties, but he made clear that he's diving back into national politics to lead the charge against PiS — which has seen relations with Brussels sour thanks to accusations that it is backsliding on democracy, undermining the rule of law, curbing media freedom and unleashing attacks on the LGBTQ+ community.

"The evil that PiS is performing is evident, shameless and permanent. It's happening every day, in almost every matter," Tusk, 64, said in an emotional speech that accused the government and its backers of corruption, clashes with the EU and Poland's European partners, restriction of women's rights, mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic and climate change denial.

The party's current chief Boris Budka stepped aside to let Tusk retake the top job. He's been accused of doing a lackluster job in leading a party that has failed to retake the political initiative since losing power to PiS in 2015.

"I put the future of the country and the future of PO above my own ambitions," Budka said. "Donald Tusk is returning to Polish politics at my invitation and at my request."

The party has long looked with longing at Tusk, who led Civic Platform to two electoral victories and ruled Poland from 2005 to 2014, seeing him as someone who could reenergize the party.

But it's not clear if the wider electorate shares the same hunger. One recent survey found that more than 60 percent of respondents said he shouldn't return to Polish politics.

Old enemies

PiS is also certain to rewarm accusations that dogged the final days of Tusk's government — that it was aloof, didn't understand the needs of ordinary Poles, had no ambitious programs and that several ministers left after being embroiled in a scandal after recordings of their conversations in a fancy restaurant were published.

His old enemy Jarosław Kaczyński, the 72-year-old leader of PiS and Poland's de facto ruler, unleashed that line of attack in an interview earlier this week. He accused Tusk of returning to Poland because he is lazy and loves Germany.

"That's the brutal truth," Kaczyński said. "All the rest with this asking and waiting is a bit of theater to sweeten this return."

PiS holds its own party congress this weekend, where Kaczyński will be reaffirmed as leader. However, he is politically vulnerable — the ruling United Right coalition led by PiS is consumed with internal battles and last week lost its formal majority in the Polish parliament.

"After almost six years can we talk about success? Yes, we can," Kaczyński told his party faithful, spelling out changes in social, international, cultural and educational policies. "We can say in every area."

Tusk denounced the PiS congress as "a grotesque group of people."

"It's quite a pitiful parody of dictatorship," he said. "This is not an overwhelming power. What's overwhelming is our lack of faith and our weakness"

That means Tusk is back at a time when the opposition sees a chance of the government imploding and being forced to hold elections earlier than the scheduled date in 2023.

Tusk will have his work cut out for him in uniting squabbling opposition parties and adding energy and optimism to a grouping that's lost faith in its ability to win. Civic Platform is trailing in opinion polls behind Poland 2050, a new grouping formed by Catholic journalist Szymon Hołownia that has succeeded in attracting some politicians from PO.

Tusk said he's back because he believes PO is still able to win. "What's the most important in politics, what's so important today, not only for PO, is to regain the faith in its own agency and the possibility to win. Those who don't believe in their own capabilities won't win; a party that doesn't believe in the meaning of its own existence won't win," he said.

The EPP did not issue a formal statement, but indicated there was no issue with Tusk staying on as the group's chief while returning to active politics in Poland.

I suspect they'll get a bump in the short term but I think the main challenge is what Tusk has identified of basically re-establishing PO as a credible winning force given the position polls has collapsed to about 15% of the vote and third place. I think there is also a risk that basically he does okay but it ends up splitting the more liberal vote with Poland 2050 and, possibly, the better route would've been to let PO decline to a clear junior partner and Poland 2050 as the new up-and-coming liberal party to keep climbing

[Sheilbh]

The response of the PiS media indicates this might well work because this is Tusk derangement syndrome:

Stanley Bill
@StanleySBill
The PiS-controlled Polish public media's non-stop negative coverage of Donald Tusk's return is getting wilder and wilder. This article is entitled "Saruman pretending to be Gandalf", and warns of Tusk's plan to sell an "old evil" as "good".
https://www.tvp.info/54709244/powrot-tuska-saruman-zgrywa-gandalfa

[Sheilbh]

Polish Constitutional Tribunal has handed out its ruling on the CJEU interim orders around the Polish judiciary. They found that those orders were incompatible with the Polish constitution. This follows on from the German Constitutional Court's case earlier this year (which was referenced in the hearing) and both are real threats to the EU's legal order - if the courts of member states rather than the CJEU have the power to interpret what is and isn't in accordance with European law then you'll have 27 versions of European law and 27 interpretations of the competencies of European bodies..

I'm sure there'll be more coverage and proper articles but it's a big deal and re-opening settled European law from the 60s/70s.

Edit: This is what The Economist called Europe's "Calhounian moment" and EU law academics have agreed that it's basically a nullification debate - to give a sense of why it matters so much.

[Tonitrus]

Yeah, ugh. 

And we've a good shot to enter another nullification crisis ourselves, from GOP/Red states, over voting rights laws (if that federal bill somehow makes it through Congress). 

[Valmy]

Yeah, ugh. 

And we've a good shot to enter another nullification crisis ourselves, from GOP/Red states, over voting rights laws (if that federal bill somehow makes it through Congress). 

Everybody is always so short sighted. If the GOP creates nullification as a principle it will destroy their ability to govern once they do get back in power in DC.

[The Brain]

Yeah, ugh. 

And we've a good shot to enter another nullification crisis ourselves, from GOP/Red states, over voting rights laws (if that federal bill somehow makes it through Congress). 

Everybody is always so short sighted. If the GOP creates nullification as a principle it will destroy their ability to govern once they do get back in power in DC.

Thank God.

[Tonitrus]

Yeah, ugh. 

And we've a good shot to enter another nullification crisis ourselves, from GOP/Red states, over voting rights laws (if that federal bill somehow makes it through Congress). 

Everybody is always so short sighted. If the GOP creates nullification as a principle it will destroy their ability to govern once they do get back in power in DC.

I think it has been well demonstrated that a failure to leverage hypocrisy is not one of their shortcomings.

[Sheilbh]

I mentioned it earlier but the CJEU have ruled that employers can sack or refuse to hire Muslim women for wearing the headscarfy if it is justified in the interests of "neutrality". This is the latest in a bit of a string of cases within the EU.

I don't quite follow the thinking because they acknowledge that this could constitute direct discrimination (which is never permitted). I assume what is meant is that you can't ban the headscarf specifically but you can ban all religious, political or philosophical symbols, which will constitute indirect discrimination which can be allowed for "neutrality". In particular a genuine need to prevent "social conflicts" or present a neutral image of the employer to customers or with other workers.

Also relevant for a genuine need are the "rights and legitimate wishes of users" and more particularly parents in education to be served by/have children educated by etc individuals who "do not manifest their religion or belief".

I think it's a pretty bad ruling and I think it is going to lead to discriminatory hiring practices

[Sheilbh]

Not sure if this needs a separate thread yet - but Euro-news.

The background is that since Kosovo's independence Serbia has required Kosovans to change their license plate when they go into Serbia. Kosovo have now introduced the same rule for Serbs driving into Kosovo and placed a special police unit to the border to enforce it - this policy was agreed with Serbia (and the EU) two years ago. Two vehicle registration offices have been torched by Kosovo Serbs who, Kosovo alleges, have links with terrorist groups and the Serbian government.

Serbia's responded by moved troops and equipment to the border and have also had planes buzzing above Kosovan territory while the Serbian Defence Minister and the Russian Ambassador toured the border.

Vucic was Milosevic's Minister of Information so has a pretty unsavoury past but had sort of reorganised that party as broadly Orbanist rather than full blown revanchists - but they never quite gave up the rhetoric of re-taking Kosovo, splitting up BiH etc and in the last few years regional neighbours have been sounding the alarm that they're taking a "Greater Serbia" stance again.

For example the government's launched a new national holiday for the entire "Serb world" of "the Day of Serb Unity, Freedom and the National Flag". The "Serb world" should, apparently, unify politically and that includes the Serbs in Bosnia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Croatia. The Croatian President said he couldn't believe the Serbs had nothing better to do than create holidays that sort of meddle with the internal affairs of neighbours and the interior minister replied that there is "nothing more important than the preservation of the Serb identity." At the celebrations in Belgrade Vucic boasted their army was "five times stronger" than a few years ago.

Meanwhile it seems like there have been organised events on the border where you basically have army veterans from the Balkan wars whipping up a crowd of young men who seem to have been bused in - this was a thing that Milosevic used to do too (it was sort of the background to the Gazimestan speech):

Serbian troops on heightened alert at Kosovo border
Government in Belgrade accuses neighbouring Kosovo of 'provocations' by sending special police units to border.
26 Sep 2021

Serbian troops have been on a heightened state of alert after the government in Belgrade accused neighbouring Kosovo of "provocations" by sending special police units to the border.

Already tense relations between Serbia and its former breakaway region have grown worse since the ethnic Albanian-led government there despatched the police units to an area mainly populated by minority ethnic Serbs, who reject the authority of the government in Kosovo's capital Pristina.

The deployment came as hundreds of ethnic Serbs have staged daily protests against a decision to require drivers with Serbian registration plates to put on temporary ones when entering Kosovo – a "reciprocal measure", according to Pristina.

"No one here wants a conflict and I hope there won't be one," said a 45-year-old protester who identified himself as Ljubo and was camped at the Jarinje border crossing.

"We want Pristina to withdraw its forces and cancel the decision on licence plates."

Hundreds of Serbs in Kosovo have been protesting and blocking traffic with trucks on the roads leading to two border crossings.

"After the provocations by the [special police] units ... Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic gave the order to heighten the alert for some Serbian army and police units," the defence ministry in Belgrade said in a statement.

Serbian fighter jets could again be seen flying over the border region on Sunday after several sorties on Saturday, AFP news agency reported.

Diplomatic pressure

The European Union's chief diplomat Josep Borrell urged Serbia and Kosovo to reduce tensions "by immediately withdrawing special police units and dismantling of roadblocks".

"Any further provocations or unilateral and uncoordinated actions are unacceptable," he said in a statement.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said he had spoken by phone to the Serbian president and Kosovar Prime Minister Albin Kurti.

"It's vital both Belgrade and Pristina show restraint and return to dialogue," he tweeted.

NATO troops have been deployed in Kosovo since the 1998-99 Serbian-Kosovar conflict.

Belgrade does not recognise Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in 2008 and sees Pristina's decision on the licence plates as implying its status as a sovereign state.

Vucic deplored the lack of reaction from the international community to "the total occupation for more than a week of northern Kosovo by Pristina's armoured vehicles".

"And everyone is suddenly worried when Serbian helicopters and planes are seen over central Serbia," Vucic said in a statement, adding, however, that Serbia "will always behave responsibly and seriously".

Kurti on Saturday accused Serbia of wanting to "provoke a serious international conflict".

Early on Sunday, Serbian Defence Minister Nebojsa Stefanovic visited troops at two military bases where they are on alert, including one that is just a few kilometres from the border.

Belgrade designates border crossings between Serbia and Kosovo as "administrative".

Serbian ally Russia also does not recognise Kosovo's independence, but most Western countries do, including the United States.

For its part, NATO member Albania, "concerned by the escalation of the situation", has asked Belgrade "to withdraw the armed forces deployed on the border with Kosovo".

Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani cut short a visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly "because of developments in the north of the country".

Kosovo's declaration of independence came a decade after a war between ethnic Albanian fighters and Serbian forces that killed 13,000 people, mostly ethnic Albanians.

The United States and the European Union have called for a de-escalation of tensions and for the two sides to return to normalisation talks, which the EU has mediated for about a decade.

The Serbian president said the normalisation process can resume only if Kosovo withdraws the special police forces from the north.

Meanwhile a tabloid with close links to the Serbian government have headlines that Putin's message to Serbia is to send tanks to Kosovo and from Lavrov saying if Serbia decides to intervene in Kosovo it can count on Russia.

Hopefully things will calm down and both sides can be convinced to return to the table (though given that the Kosovan sin is to implement a policy negotiated by the EU and agreed with Serbia two years ago I'm not convinced by both sidesing this) and de-escalate. Wonder if this is a canary in the coalmine after the US' Afghanistan withdrawal?

Edit: Basically - I hope this doesn't need it's own thread.

[Jacob]

I absolutely expect Putin to pull more shit in the European periphery at some point, and Serbia seems like a perfectly viable vector for it. Not that Serbia isn't able to stir things up on its own.

In terms of grand strategy, I wonder how deep the trouble in Europe would have to be to impact the current strategic shift to Asia-Pacific by the US?

[Valmy]

I absolutely expect Putin to pull more shit in the European periphery at some point, and Serbia seems like a perfectly viable vector for it. Not that Serbia isn't able to stir things up on its own.

In terms of grand strategy, I wonder how deep the trouble in Europe would have to be to impact the current strategic shift to Asia-Pacific by the US?

Can the Euros really not handle Putin and his nonsense on their own? The EU has more than twice as many people and tons more resources. Pretty comical. It would be like Mexico pushing us around. Granted Mexico with nukes but the Euros have nukes as well.