Confrontation over Pristina airport (Kosovo War, Gen. Clark)

BBC ^ | March 9, 2000 | BBC

[eyespysomething]

Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.

For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission.

The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.

When they did not get it, they felt double-crossed.

As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first.

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

'Third World War'

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

General Jackson: Backed by UK Government

''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

Russian plans

The Russian advance party took the airport unopposed. The world watched nervously.

A senior Russian officer, General Leonid Ivashev, tells the BBC how the Russians had plans to fly in thousands of troops.

''Let's just say that we had several airbases ready. We had battalions of paratroopers ready to leave within two hours,'' he said.

Amid fears that Russian aircraft were heading for Pristina, General Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any transport planes from landing.

General Clark said he believed it was ''an appropriate course of action''. But the plan was again vetoed by Britain.

Partition fears

Instead, he asked neighbouring countries, including Hungary and Romania not to allow Russian aircraft to overfly their territory.

Russians are not under direct Nato command

During the stand-off, Moscow insisted its troops would be answerable only to its own commanders.

Nato refused to accept this, predicting it would lead to the partition of Kosovo into an ethnic Albanian south and a Serbian north.

A deal on the deployment of Russian peacekeepers was reached in early July.

The Russians now operate as part of K-For in sectors controlled by Nato states, but are not directly under Nato's command.

[eyespysomething]

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

[eyespysomething]

Found this old article about General Clark, and thought it would be timely in light of recent events.

[cwb]

I never thought I'd say this...but Clark's entrance into this race could provide a unique oppurtunity to reopen some questions about Kosovo. Kosovo came on so quick, with everyone's attention focused on impeachment that many missed the small, important, details. This could (depending on the media) backfire and open up a wound that Clark and Clinton prefered to keep covered.

[eyespysomething]

Exactly. That was the time of the start of my political awakening, and I really can't recall much about the Kosovo War, except the bridge full of people and cars being hit, and the bombing of the Chinese embassy.

[Centurion2000]

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

Thank God this guy kept the peace .....

[Centurion2000]

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

Thank God this guy kept the peace .....

[Poohbah]

Kindly note that Russian doctrine calls for the early and frequent use of nukes in the event of a war with NATO, as NATO's capabilities are far beyond Russia's.

[eyespysomething]

Thanks. I didn't know that.

[eyespysomething]

See, I remember the airport situation, but not that it was as serious as it was.

[cwb]

That's not your fault. The US media has a habit of sugar-coating certain events depending on who the WH occupant is. Little things that drag on for months (like 16 words) with Republicans, disappear overnite with Democrats.

[lugsoul]

Yeah, the butcher of Derry has such a cool head. Or haven't you heard of "Bloody Sunday"?

[lugsoul]

For the attacks on Clark, please deal in truth. The unsubstantiated attacks on him make it appear as if he is a threat.

Washington ordered Clark to take the airport, and backed down when the Brits objected.

Jackson is hardly a paragon of credibility. It is widely known that he participated in the cover-up of the "Bloody Sunday" massacre committed by his troops in 1972.

[eyespysomething]

same guy?

Gotta go google...

[eyespysomething]

Jackson is hardly a paragon of credibility. It is widely known that he participated in the cover-up of the "Bloody Sunday" massacre committed by his troops in 1972.

But in 1972, he was a captain carrying out routine administrative duties and was not involved in the decision to deploy 1 Para.

I think what you meant was that it was widely believed that he participated in the cover up.

And the inquiry is not completed yet, it is supposed to be in 2004.

There are more stories on this, with the same quotes, some quoting Gen. Clark saying Jackson said those things.

[lugsoul]

I don't doubt that he said it - I do doubt that his statement accurately reflected the situation. Just as I've seen many commentators say that Clark ordered Jackson to "attack" Russian troops - which is simply untrue.

As far as Derry is concerned - no, Jackson didn't order the deployment - he was commanding troops in the field, troops that killed unarmed civilians with single shots to the head. It is "believed," as opposed to "known", that he participated in a cover-up only if you lend any credence to the statements of the Paras that they were under attack. No weapons were found on any of the dead. No shell casings were found on or around the barricades where the shooting was allegedly occurring, and zero evidence of the alleged "petrol bombs" being thrown at the soldiers was found. Most of the dead were struck with single kill shots - they were not shot randomly. They included a steward of the protest march who was shot in the head while walking toward a wounded colleague with his hands raised over his head.

Yeah, this "inquiry" is really going to tell the truth. It is only 32 years after the fact.

[cwb]

"For the attacks on Clark, please deal in truth. The unsubstantiated attacks on him make it appear as if he is a threat."

It's hard to "deal in the truth" with a guy who has already been caught lying. These aren't unsubstantiated attacks as you can search and find many details...from Kosovo to Waco. Heck, the very left wing that is singing his praise today (Michael Moore) was just a few short years ago accusing him of war crimes for his indiscriminate bombing in Kosovo. At the very least, he's a hypocrite for his objections in Iraq, while he led an aggressive war against a man who posed no danger to this country.

If mass-graves and supposed genocide was good enough for Clark in Kosovo, than Iraq should be a no-brainer for the General. But no, he implies sinister motives and a rush to war without seeking UN approval. Gee...last time I checked, the war in Kosovo didn't have a UN mandate...and it didn't because Clinton, Clark and Co knew the Russians would've vetoed it. Yet, here we have the good General condemning Bush when at least, he worked for months, trying to get the UN to enforce "their own" resolutions.

And unlike Iraq, Clark's campaign in Kosovo/Serbia intentionally targetted life-sustaining infrastructure, responsible for providing electricity to hospitals and water supplies. This was suppose to be a war to stop genocide, but from the statistics I've seen, the body count prior to the war has only been listed as just above 2,000. And that includes casualties from over a years worth of fighting. This is genocide? If so, than Clark and Co. are just as guilty, since I've seen between 4,000 to 6,000 civilian deaths attributed to this war. In other words, US/NATO bombs may have killed more people than the Serbs did.

According to one story (WSWS) it was Clark who pressed Clinton to use the Racak Massacre and 100,000 mass-graves claim as a pretext to lauch the war. As hard as this is to say, it appears Clinton was the more moderate as he prefered one last shot using the Ramboullet agreement before launching the attack. Please...the hypocrisy of this man is just too much. He seems to have a much more aggressive nature than both Bush or Clinton. While he now presents himself as a restrained multilateral/internationalist, he is a proponent of nation building...using the full force of the US military to meet those objectives. And just now I'm reading how he has again changed his position on the "Iraq vote" within two days. Please.

[Incorrigible]

Important Thread:

Waco is Clinton's Bay of Pigs - The Defense of Wesley Clark