When I decided to translate the Academic paper by the Romanian scholar Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu (Annals of the Romanian Academy Series II - Tom, XXIII, pages 103-113 in 1901), I knew that I would find specific difficulties familiar to professional translators.

One issue is that the centennial document uses contemporary to its time vocabulary. Another predicament is primarily mechanical, depending on the quality of the product because of the scanning setup. Not only do diacritics exist in Romanian and not in Albanian and vice versa, e.g., diacritics like ä appear as ā or ă in the other, but also occasionally, the scanned text does not do justice to even Latin. In contrast, all Greek texts have been butchered. I tried to improve the original text by not adding my information but correcting the garbled text.

In the case of Latin and Greek, I was forced to research the sources and then add the corrected texts for the reader's benefit. If the author introduced text in other than Romanian languages, I attempted to translate it into English.

Here is the Greek text as a result of scanning:
(71, 12, 1: «την των Κοστουβώκων χώραν τοίς δπλοις κτησόμενοι, νικήσαντες δε εκείνους και την Δακίαν ουδέν ήττον έλίπουν.»)

And here is the original text in (Dio Cassius, Roman History, book 71, 12, 1)
«τὴν τῶν Κοστουβώκων χώραν τοῖς ὅπλοις κτησόμενοι, νικήσαντες δὲ ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν Δακίαν οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐλύπουν»

I entered most of the translated text in brackets, as one or two words, or as endnotes, depending on the length of the text and the situation. However, I faithfully tried to keep the text intact.

Regarding the Illyrian descent of the Albanians, it is only a myth. Here are some facts.

Appian, Illyrian Wars, chap. 1 states: The Greeks call those people Illyrians who occupy the region beyond Macedonia and Thrace from Chaonia and Thesprotia to the river Ister (Danube).

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, book 3, 22 (144); and Pomponius Mela, book 2, 55-57 explicitly state that the Illyrians were a small tribe just south of the of the Lake Scodra and the Greeks generalized the name for all tribes of the area.
​

I want to stress the connection between Romania-Moldova and Albania. "Pe-al nostru steag e scris Unire" (transl. "Unity is written on our flag") is a Romanian patriotic song dedicated to the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, established in 1859. ​Andrei Bârseanu wrote the lyrics, and Ciprian Porumbescu composed the music in 1880.

When the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Italy aggressively assisted the independence of Albania, the new Albanian government chose the music of the Patriotic Song of the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. The Albanian poet Aleksandër Stavre Drenova wrote the lyrics into the Albanian language, following closely the original Romanian lyrics. The original title of the Albanian version was "Betimi mbi Flamur" (The Pledge on the Flag). [1] The title of the present Albanian National Anthem is Himni i Flamurit.

Here is the Patriotic Song of the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8gMhgRVdzw

Here is the National Anthem of Albania
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQbBoPlGaE

Regarding the various endonyms Albanians have used in the past, one must read National Fog (Medieval tribes of Albania and Montenegro; and Serbs and Albanians (Their Symbiosis in the Middle Ages), 1925. The
same author, Milan Šuflay, wrote both books. [2]

​

It has been ten years since I started studying, and I will not stop following the significant problem of the genealogy of the Balkan peoples. In my study "Layer and substrate," I obtained two capital solutions:

1. In the 7th century, there were still two compact Latin elements south of the Danube: Meso-Romanians in present-day Bulgaria and Illyro-Romanians in Serbia, especially in Dalmatia, whom the Bulgarians, on the one hand, and the Serbs on the other;
   
   
2. The so-called Macedo-Romanians and Istrian-Romanians today are Daco-Romanians. They were driven in the 9th century from Pannonia by the Magyars, from where other Daco-Romanians took refuge in Moravia and glorified themselves. These two solutions, peremptory in my opinion, will be completed and definitively demonstrated in successive subsequent conferences before the Romanian Academy; first: "Who are Bulgarians and Serbs?" and the second: "Who are the Daco-Romanians and the Pannono-Romanians?"

However, I am concerned with another solution, which I have not discussed in the past. It is the most important because it is the starting point for all the others.

Who are Albanians? Some historians and philologists, including Tomaschek [Wilhelm Tomaschek,1841-1901], believe it to be the posterity of the ancient Illyrians, who remained unmoved from time immemorial. Others, including Benlöw, go up to the Pelasgian ante-historians, and Reinhold does not shy away from naming a booklet about the Albanian language "Noctes pelasgicæ" [Pelasgic Nights]

1. Blau tries deciphering the Lycian inscriptions from Asia Minor through the Albanians. At the same time, Moratti also uses them for the Messapian inscriptions from Italy. Girolamo de Rada, an Albanian himself, does not let himself be the least bit lower, assuring us that: "Gli albanesi, popolo
   semitico disperso intorno al 1900 a.C. al tempo degli Hyckshos, andarono in Grecia, in Italia e in altri luoghi del Mediterraneo" [The Albanians, a Semitic people dispersed around 1900 BC. in the time of the Hyksos, they went to Greece, Italy and other places in the Mediterranean]. My illustrious friend Ascoli speaks seriously about opinions of this kind. Still, he does not take them seriously and does it well.

Nevertheless, let us ask ourselves once again: Who are the Albanians? What should their true provenance and relations be, especially with the Romanians? When and where did they come to settle in Epirus? Here is the only question, which I still lack to prove to the last certainty the persistence of the Romanian element in Trajan's Dacia. If the Albanians were autochthonous where they live today, then willy-nilly, we would be forced to admit that the Romanian nationality was explicitly formed in Illyria and not North of the Danube. Only through a community of origin and through an intimate old cohabitation at the same time can the primordial organic nature of the links between the Romanian and Albanian languages be explained. In addition, when I say this, I am not referring to any formal similarity, no matter how surprising, but the background and only the background of Romanian speech.
​

The number of such words, essentially Albanian in our native language, i.e., from the mouths of the peasants, is quite large, most unknown until now, some being preserved only as prehistoric remnants in a corner in a district, in each locality. I will give a sample of the many. In everyday speech, the synonyms snail and culbec mean "limacon."

For culbec, the old form is cubelc to the metropolitan of Dosoftei. The combination of snail and cubelc in children's games also features an extended form: in Munteni codomelc, in Transylvania codobelc, with
random variants, as noted by Professor Crețu. Snail is a separate word with the same meaning in the Celts: in Celtic dialects, snails are "limagon." Codobelc is a consonant accommodation from codomelc. Cubelc is a contraction of codobelc.

Finally, codomelc is a compound of two words, as is the French colimaçon from "cochilas + limax" [from Greek: κοχλίας + λίμαξ]. Among the Romanians, however, codomelc lives on together with snail and cubelc, although among Albanians, only the composition has survived: cadmili "limacon," where there are many variants, all corrupted, while the primitive Romanian form is intact, preserved only in children in their traditional games, an admirable "Ueberlebsel in Kinderspiel." (Dr. Ploss, Das Kind, vol. II, p. 308.)

Very few Albanian words among the Romanians could be disputed as terms that crossed over to us through a non-Albanian channel, perhaps through the Bulgars or Serbs or directly or indirectly through the Celts; the others are exclusively Albanian. However, the Albanian-Romanian lexical identity is secondary, in my opinion, compared to the grammatical identity. Especially characteristic are the meetings between Romanians and Albanians not through vocabulary but through phonetic, morphological, and syntactical peculiarities, which under no circumstances can be borrowed from foreigners, cannot be grafted over time, but date from the language's very origin.

For example, on the phonetic field, the transition of the consonant n to r between vowels, e.g., window from fenestra, does not exist among the Celts, nor the Neo-Latins, nor the Germans, nor the Slavs, nor the Greeks, but only among the Romanians and the Albanians, even under the same secondary conditions. Among Albanians in the Tosk dialect, the phenomenon is general; in the Ghegh dialect, it is more partial; likewise, with Romanian in the Istrian-Romanian dialect, it is broad and more partisan in the other dialects. Still, it is found in all of them. In Romanian, as in Albanian, past n in r can return to the primitive n. In Moldova, r from n is more often in the old language, in the Cazania of Metropolitan Varlam, in the Romanian glosses from the Slavic documents from Ștefan-cel-Mare, everywhere in the text of the Scheiane Psalter. In Transylvania, r from n, common even today in Moți, appears to be fully developed in the Măhăcene textures near Turda from around 1600: lura = moon, cire = who, oa meri = oam eni, măra = hand, and so forth. Through this phonetic, most Latin words sound slightly Albanian to us.

In the same way, a purely Latin word among Romanian becomes a true Albanianism through a change of meaning, through a logical process, through another idea instead of the Latin one. An example: a small fleshy extension that hangs at the end of the roof of the mouth in the neck [aka uvula], is called luette in French, in old French l'uvetíe, which is diminutive of the Latin uva, which means grape. It is called omușor in Romanian; however, the word om is a diminutive of the word "homo" in Latin or man. Among the French, the association of thought is Latin, just as the vocabulary is Latin. The same particle of the body [i.e., uvula] among the ancient Romans, and in Pliny in particular, it is called uva or "grape." Which language is Romanian thought associated with? It is Latin but also Albanian, depending on the word. In Albanian, the word for man is njeri, the diminutive of njeri or njerith, which is "small man/dwarf" or uvula; Thus njerith, which means small man or dwarf to the Albanians, simultaneously means that part of the body in the roof of the mouth, also known as uvula.

Semasiological engagement between Romanian and Albanian is significant, as it is not found elsewhere. In other peoples, as we see, for instance, in the Italian, in the French, ugola, uvola "grape"; in Spanish campanilla "bell"; in German Zäpflein, Zächen "stopper"; in Russian jazyčok (язычок), and Polish jezyczek "little tongue" and so on. There is no inkling of a uvula being similar except solely among Romanian and Albanian.

Finally, the morphological and syntactical structure identity in Romanian and Albanian, entirely in opposition to Latin and the other Romance languages, hit the top. Some phenomena have long been observed in passing by Kopitar, Miklosich, and Ascoli. I extensively followed a small part of this vast sphere in my study under the title: "A page from the Romanian-Albanian syntax" in "Words of the Elderly." I limit myself to drawing attention to it. There, you will see the two definite articles: one post-positive substantive and the other prepositive adjectival; duplicating, tripling, and even quadrupling both articles; the same rule in the construction of the noun with the adjective; same adjective-adverbial and genitive-dative form; the same genitive use of the prepositional definite article, and so on.

Based on the syntax, one might say that from the very beginning of the formation of a national language, the Romanian limited itself to placing the Latin material over the Albanian background. However, by the irreversible and unshaken crux, the Romanian language is Albanian, as the French is Celtic. Celtic in the French is not visible to the common eye, yet through analysis, Celticism is discovered everywhere. Germanic elements in the French are very numerous and palpable, just like the Slavic elements in the
Romanian. As Slavisms among the Romanian language, like Germanisms among the French, being accidental, almost all of them could be banished without thereby shaking the edifice of the national language. Notwithstanding, Celticisms among the French and Albanianisms among the Romanian cannot be achieved without a total catastrophe.

According to the above premises, the mind is afraid of consequences, consequences "in the manner of  Dr. Réthy Làszló" from Budapest, who concludes his argumentation with the sentence: "L'Académie de Bucharest ne pourra jamais décerner à qui que ce soit le prix of 20,000 francs fondé par le prince Couza" [The Academy of Bucharest will never be able to award anyone the prize of 20,000 francs founded by Prince Couza]; the mind is frightened by the Hungarian threat, and asks for a pause to wonder what to do next. I, for one, will not seek to facilitate my transition with many words and sideways. However, instead, I will cut Gordian's knot.

​Thus, I ask bluntly:
Is it possible that the current Albanians are the posterity of some Dacians, transported across the Danube in the era of Emperor Aurelian, that is, 150 years after the conquest of Dacia? Is it possible?

Answer:
It is not only possible, but the historical data fully confirm the linguistic data. After the fall of Decebalus, part of the Dacians submitted to Trajan. It began to amalgamate slowly with the Roman colonies, giving birth to the Daco-Roman ethnicity. Other Dacians, however, retreating higher into the Carpathians or further east of the Traian Province, maintained their individuality under various ethnic names, especially three Dacian peoples completely unsubordinated to Rome, namely the Costoboci, the Carpii, and the Bessi.

Almost a century and a half after Trajan, when the tamed Dacians could be and were already Romanized, the rebellious Dacians took advantage of the great movement of the Germans, known in history under the term "bellum Marcomannicum," and became dangerous for the peasant Romanians. Then, under the emperor Antoninus the Philosopher, perhaps even a little earlier, we see a very pronounced imperial tactic of moving over the Danube and settling there, on a long-secured territory, entire Dacian tribes and peoples, since they were defeated. The free Dacians, i.e., the non-Romanized ones, willingly or unwillingly had to move to Moesia and beyond.

The first ones, it seems, were the Costoboci. They enjoyed a very independent regime, even having their own kings, two of whom are known to us from Roman epigraphy. My friend Tocilescu mentioned one the other day: "Pieporus rex Coisstobocensis," who was captured by the Romans and taken to Rome with his entire family. The other, who escaped from the sight of our historians, appears in an even more interesting inscription from Rome: "Sabituus rex Ostabocesis Dacus."

In the same period, before the emperor Aurelian, under Marcus Aurelius, Dio Cassius says that the Astingian Germans invaded and succeeded in capturing the land of the Costoboci (Dio Cassius, 71, 12: "καὶ τὴν τῶν Κοστουβώκων χώραν τοῖς ὅπλοις κτησόμενοι, νικήσαντες δὲ ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν Δακίαν, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐλύπουν"). [3] In this way, Rome had to do one of two things: let all the Costoboci settle in Traian Dacia above the provincials or move them across the Danube. Nevertheless, they were taken to Moesia and then pushed as far as Epirus, where, even there, they did not cease to harry. Indeed, the contemporary Pausanias (Paus. 10.34.5), after AD 150, complains that the Costoboci raided far into Hellas: “τὸ δὲ
Κοστοβώκων τε τῶν λῃστικῶν τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐπιδραμὸν ἀφίκετο καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἐλάτειαν”. [4]

Here is the powerful Dacian tribe of the Costoboci on the coast of Greece, near Fokida, exactly where the Tuscan branch of the Albanian race lives today. The very current name of these Albanian Tosks is just a simple metathesis from Costo, such metatheses being common among Albanians, e.g. ιχνάρε = χιλνάρε, φελτόνjε = λεφτόνjε, etc., as observed by Camarda: "Le metatesi, sia di consonan t i sia di voweli, o di syllablebe intiere, sono tra le affezioni, che molto spesso si manifestano nei vocaboli albanici" [see
conclusion note 1]. [5]

The second great migration of the Dacians, towards the same territorial point as the Costoboci or somewhat higher, but in any case in the vicinity, were the Carpi Dacians or Carpiani or Carpodaci, "Κάρποι, Καρπιανοὶ, Καρποδάκαι," as the Greek authors call them. About Carpi, as about Costoboci, the contemporary text is very clear. Aurelius Victor speaks of the emperor Diocletian: "caesi Marcomanni, Carporumque natio translata omnis in nostrum solum, cujus fere pars jam tum ab Aureliano erat". [6]
Therefore, Diocletian moved the whole nation of the Carpi, "natio omnis," across the Danube after Aurelian had already moved it in part.

And since we are talking about the emperor Aurelian, here is the place to understand the famous passage from Flavius ​​Vopiscus, quoted in one and not understood until now: "Quum vastatum Illyricum ac Moesiam deperditam videret, provinciam trans Danubium Daciam a Trajano constitutam sublato exercitu et provincialibus reliquit, desperans eam posse retineri: ab-ductosque ex ea populos, in Moesiam collocavit, appellavitque suam Daciam…" [7]  About this text, Nisard rightly says: "tout ce passage est un peu obscur dans notre auteur [8]." One could even say: "trés obscur" in all the usual editions, which blindly reproduce Puttmann's one from 1774. However, the passage is very clear in the old edition, which I find in Wolfgang Lazius, Reipublicae Romanae commentariorum libri duodecim, Francofurti 1598, p.34: "Quum vastatum Illyricum ac Moesiam deperditam videret, provinciam trans Danubium Daciam, a Traiano constitutam, sublato exercitu provincialibus reliquit, desperans eam posse retineri. Abductosque ex ea populos, in Moesiam collacavit, appellavitque suam Daciam".[9] In the Lazius edition, correct punctuation has been introduced, and above all, the absurd et between "exercitu" and "provincialibus" has been abolished, the meaning becomes as clear as possible, namely: considering that the army is no longer able to defend the Traian Province, where the provincials, i.e. the Roman colonies and the Romanized Dacians, were exposed not only to attacks from outside but also to the peoples the disobedient Dacians, Aurelian withdrew the army
from there and removed from Dacia the Dacians who were dangerous for the province, especially since Illyria and Moesia needed inhabitants, being deserted. The words: "provincialibus reliquit Daciam" in front of "populos abduxit ex Dacia" clarify everything perfectly. Among the Dacians who were moved in the passage from Vopiscus [10], there is also that "part of Carpi," "pars nationis Carporum," in the passage from Aurelius Victor precisely about Aurelian. One supplements the other (Aurelian, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, III. 39).

So essentially, the text renders: When he saw the province of the Illyricum devastated, and Moesia destroyed, he left Dacia, the province beyond the Danube established by Trajan with the provincial army,
hopeless of being able to retain it. Moreover, he settled the people he had taken from Dacia and settled them into Moesia and called it his own Dacia. Among the Dacians, the Carpi were always the most implacable enemies of Rome, "qui saepe Romanis investi sunt," [frequently hostile to the Romans] as Jordaness says.

The inscription from AlbaIulia in Transylvania is remarkable, where a Roman, Gaius Valerius Serapides, thanks the gods for having escaped easily from the hands of the Carpi: "a Carpis liberatus" [freed from Carpi], precisely because of the extreme energy of the Carpi, "Carporuni natio omnis" Et interea caesi Marcoinanui Carporuimpie natio omnis ui solum Komanum transjata est [And in the meantime the nation of Marcoinanus Carporuimpie was slain, and all the people who lived there were crossed over to the Komans alone] from Aurelius Victor (Epitome De Caesaribus) cannot be taken in a literal sense. However, we must understand that most were taken out of Dacia, but not all. A certain number remained in the inaccessible shelter of the mountains. It reappeared in Zossimus (New History, IV, 34 [11]) in the age of the Huns in alliance with other barbarians. However, most of the Carpathians once crossed the Danube; they never returned, walking towards Illyria in the footsteps of their Costoboci brothers, next to whom they formed the northern branch of the Albanians: the Gheghi.

The name Karp means "vulture" in Albanian. This word has remained almost intact to this day: karbă
"eagle, (French:) aigle, (German:) Adler" [(Greek:) chrysaetos] in folk songs of Culuriotis. This name of "vultures or eagles," birds of prey, was very appropriate for a mountain tribe, the cruelest and most unbridled of the Dacians. It is worth noting that even with the current Albanians, with the Gheghi in particular, their common name Şkiipetar comes from şkiipa, "eagle." Şkipetar is simply a synonym for "Karp": "die Skipetaren als das Adlervolk erscheinen," [the Skipetars appear as the eagle people] says the Albanian Stier.

It is important to note that the Gheghi, the posterity of the Carpi, do not themselves bear the name of Ghegă, which the Tosks give with a kind of contempt, as Hahn tells us: "diese Benennung wird eigentlich nur von dem Sudalbanesen gebraucht, der Gege halt sie fuer unehrenhaft und nennt sicii selbst Skipetar". [12] But the old name of Gheghi is only "vulture," either Carp or Schipetar, two forms for the same meaning. The term karp "eagle" is becoming rare in speech. The Gheghi did nothing but replace it with the
widespread synonym šiciipa "eagle," the background remains the same.

First, the Costoboci, then the Carpi, two distinct dialects already in the Dacian era, settled in Illyria, establishing the new nation of the Albanians in both branches: Tosci and Gheghi, already before AD 300. A third Dacian tribe had left Dacia at about the same time as the emperor Aurelian. However, he lingered longer on the southern shore of the Danube, and later he stopped in the Rhodope Mountains. These were the so-called Bessi, who were pure Dacians; therefore, they should not be confused with the previous Bessi, described in Herodotus: Thracians and those, but not Dacians. In Caesar's time, the Dacians constituted a mighty empire in the Carpathian region, so there were also the Bessi Dacians among them, while at that time - according to the contemporary Strabo ([Book 7. Chapter 12) - The Bessi Thracians lived far from the Danube in the Balkans, where the geographer explains very precisely their borders.

Mr. Tomaschek commits a serious error in not distinguishing the Bessi Dacians from the Bessi Thracians; better to say, the eminent professor from Vienna commits here one of the fundamental errors, of which there are quite a few in his successive studies about Bessi. Nevertheless, I note right from the start, that in the present case, we are dealing only with the Bessi Dacians, whom Ptolemy places not only in the Carpathians: "εἶτα Πιενγῖται καὶ Βίεσσοι παρὰ τὸν Καρπάτην τὸ ὄρος," [Book 3, Δακίας θέσις θ] whom therefore Trajan had found among the Dacians, and who also among the Dacians we see appearing in the era of the Marcomannic war at Capitolinus, as Mr. Tomaschek himself testifies in passing.

The name of these Bessi from Dacia immediately recalls the Albanian word bessă , which means "faith" and constantly circulates in Albanians' mouths as their most familiar oath. The late Ioan Nenițescu, in his journey through Turkey (p. 478), tells us: "The foreign traveler, when he walks through the parts of Northern Albania, takes as his guide an Albanian, who, after giving him his word: bessa-bess, must die defending it."

As a Dacian, the Bessa word with the same sense of faith, with the same sense of oath, was preserved among the Romanians as a popular provincialism. In the precious Romanian-Banățian dictionary, written near Lugoș or Caransebeș around 1670, the word abesh appears without explanation. Researching, I was able to verify that until today it is heard very often in the eastern part of Banat. Banat resident Sofronie Ljuba from Maidan wrote to me: "Abeș is used in speech as an affirmative adverb. For example, I hate that I call people stupid and do not call them in vain. Also, when one says something, the other affirms the word, saying: abeş!"

Therefore, abeș means: before the law, on honor, on faith, "ma foi, en vérité," exactly the Albanian affirmative adverb: bessa-bess! besa për besa! By omission, I said in Etymologicum Magnum that bessa is
preserved among Albanians only in the Tosk dialect. It's not like that. The word is also widespread in the Ghegh dialect, common to Albanians. Romanians adding the preposition a (=lat. ad), the Banatian Abeş will literally say: "ad fidem," while the Albanian pár bess = "per fidem".

After crossing the Danube, the Bessians were in no hurry to move away. For some time, they remained close to the great river. In the 6th century, Jordanes knew from an earlier well that the language of the
Bessians could explain the name of the Danube: "Danuvius qui lingua Bessorum Hister vocatur" XXXVII. [13]

This word is of extreme importance. It was not the Bessians who called it the Ister, which has existed since prehistoric times through the age of the Argonauts. However, Jordanes tells us that in the language of the Bessi, there is the word Ister with a meaning applicable to this river. In truth, Albanian i-sterhă is an articulated adjective, which means "very black," (Germ:) "tiefschwarz," or "deep" concerning water, as in Greek, a deep water was called "black" or "μέλαν ὓδωρ." In Ister in Bessi we see not only the Albanian adjective stēr, but even the adjectival prepositional article i of today's Albanian: I-stër = the deep one. The passage in Jordanes sheds light on the linguistic identity between the Bessi and the Albanians. Instead of the Ister in Albanian, Mr. Tomaschek ran with the Bessian word to the Ossetians from the Caucasus!

Jordanes also speaks about the emperor Leon the Thracian from the middle of the fifth century: "Leo Bessica ortus progenie," meaning "Leo, the offspring of Bessi" (Jordanes Romanorum, Chapter 14, 105).

D. Tomaschek also adds that the Byzantine Malala [§ 14.369] also calls Emperor Leo Bess: "ὁ Βῆσσος" [After the reign of Marcian, the most godlike Leo the great, Bessos]. However, in this regard, the most important source is forgotten, namely Candidus Isauricus, a historian contemporary with the emperor Leo himself, who tells us that he was a Dacian from Illyria: "ὃς ἧν ἐκ Δακίας τῆς ἐν Ἰλλιυρίοις," not from the Balkans, nor Rhodope. This Bess of Illyria was Albanian, like the Costoboci and the Carpodacii. The Bessians were then no longer near the Danube, but in the direction of the Adriatic Sea. [14]

All that can interest us from Mr. Tomaschek's research on Bessi is only the collection of data relative to the Christianization of this people, from which the Belgian Jesuit Van den Gheyn then reproduced them. Both, however, always avoid emphasizing that these Bessi were Dacians who came explicitly from Trajan's Dacia.

At the time of Herodotus, the Dacians and Daco-Bessians could not live in the Carpathians because a heterogeneous race of the Agatirsi lived there. They were still south of the Danube, but under what kind of name among the other Thracian peoples? If we admit that in that period of their history they were "καὶ Θρᾳκῶν τῶν μαχαιροφόρων τοῦ Διακοῦ γένους ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας" according to Thucydides (VII, 27), who distinguishes them among the Thracians as "καὶ μαχαιροφόρων, οἳ Δῖοι καλοῦνται" (II, 96), i.e., "bearers of swords," such a characteristic weapon of the Dacians on the Trajan Column, in this hypothesis, we will also admit the Daco-Bessi under the name of Diobessi (=Dio-Bessi) in Pliny, where even there they are not confused with the Bessi proper. Be that as it may, Mr. Tomaschek's pan-Bessian theory is destroyed by a robust and rigorous line of demarcation between the Traco-Bessi and the Daco-Bessi.

The Arnauts (medieval term for Albanians), strong and brave as always, are mentioned under the name of Bessi more than once, either as isolated soldiers or as numerous bands, in the Byzantine writers until the middle of the 6th century, as a completely different nationality from the other ethnicities of the Balkan Peninsula, and even as a separate ethnicity from the other Thracians, namely in Theophanes [Chronicles] 145, 17-20: στρατιὰ Γότθων τε καὶ Βέσσων καὶ ἑτέρων Θρακίων ἐθνῶν. In the year AD 539, the name of Bessi disappears. Over five centuries, in 1079, the name of Arnăuti (Arnaut) appears in Byzantine history: Ἀρβανῖται.

Here is the entire genesis of the Albanians: three Dacian peoples — Costoboci, Carpi, and Bessi, wandered from the Carpathians in the era of Emperor Aurelian. First, over 150 years, they had already collaborated here in Traian Dacia to form the Romanian ethnicity. From the year AD 300 to the great Scanderbeg, the national hero of the Arnauts, almost 1200 years had passed. In such a dozen centuries, standing still in the same place in Illyria, it is not surprising that the posterity of the Dacians came to
believe that they were autochthonous on the shores of the Adriatic so that Scanderbeg wrote to an Italian prince: "You do not know my Albanians! We descend from those Macedonians, who conquered India with our Alexander." [15] Today, history disproves the Arnauts' Macedonianism but still recognizes their no less illustrious lineage. A new Scanderbeg might say to them: "We bear the name of Decebalus, who had made the Roman empire tributary and had scared Trajan himself!"

I stop here. I will return in my later study: "Who are the Serbs and Bulgarians?" especially in the conference: "Romanians from Pannonia," where we will analyze the new confirmatory text of the Byzantine Kekaumenos.

The Albanians, however, are not just related to us, the Romanians. However, they are our good brothers from the same Dacian blood. The Albanians are to us what the Celts are to the French.

In closing, I will draw two topical conclusions:

1°. Any Romanian philologist, no matter how serious or how methodical, will go completely astray, especially in terms of grammar, if he does not first study the Albanian language in all its dialects, as well as Albanian folklore;

2°. The Romanian nation owes a brotherly support to the Albanians, as it supports the Macedonian-Romanians, who, the Macedonian-Romanians and the Albanians, have always loved each other and could together very well, "If they were revived" form one day a beautiful neo-Dacian kingdom of 3-4 million, joined the current neo-Hellenic kingdom.

______________________________
[1] Vasil Tole, "Edhe një herë rreth himnit tonë kombëtar".

[2] Nacijonalne Maglice. Sredovječna plemena Albanije i Crne Gore, AND Srbi I Arbanasi (Njihova Simbioza u Srednjem Vijeku), 1925.

[3] Original text and translation Dio Cassius
ὅτι Ἄστιγγοι, ὧν Ῥᾶός τε καὶ Ῥάπτος ἡγοῦντο, ἦλθον μὲν ἐς τὴν Δακίαν οἰκῆσαι ἐλπίδι τοῦ καὶ χρήματα καὶ χώραν ἐπὶ συμμαχίᾳ λήψεσθαι, μὴ τυχόντες δὲ αὐτῶν παρακατέθεντο τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τοὺς παῖδας τῷ Κλήμεντι ὡς καὶ τὴν τῶν Κοστουβώκων χώραν τοῖς ὅπλοις κτησόμενοι, νικήσαντες δὲ ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν Δακίαν οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐλύπουν.

The Astingi, led by their chieftains Ratis and Raptus, came into Dacia with their entire households, hoping to secure money and land in return for their alliance. But failing of their purpose, they left their wives and children under the protection of Clemens until they should acquire the land of the Costoboci by their arms. However, upon conquering those people, they proceeded to damage Dacia no less than before.

[4] Original text and translation Pausanias
10,34,5 (Phocis and Ozolian Locri)] τὸ δὲ Κοστοβώκων τε τῶν λῃστικῶν τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐπιδραμὸν ἀφίκετο καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἐλάτειαν: ἔνθα δὴ ἀνὴρ Μνησίβουλος λόχον τε περὶ αὑτὸν ἀνδρῶν συνέστησε καὶ καταφονεύσας πολλοὺς τῶν βαρβάρων ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ μάχῃ. οὗτος ὁ Μνησίβουλος δρόμου νίκας καὶ ἄλλας ἀνείλετο καὶ Ὀλυμπιάδι πέμπτῃ πρὸς ταῖς τριάκοντά τε καὶ διακοσίαις σταδίου καὶ τοῦ σὺν τῇ ἀσπίδι διαύλου: ἐν Ἐλατείᾳ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ δρομέως Μνησιβούλου χαλκοῦς ἕστηκεν ἀνδριάς.

[10,34,5] An army of bandits called the Costoboes, who overran Greece in my day, visited, among other cities, Elateia. A certain Mnesibulus gathered a company of men around him and put many of the barbarians to the sword, but he fell in the fighting. This Mnesibulus won several prizes for running, including prizes for the foot race and the double race with shield, at the two hundred and thirty-fifth Olympic festival. In the running at Elateia, there stands a bronze statue of Mnesibulus.

[5] Metathesis, both of consonants and of vowels, or of whole syllables, are among the terms of endearment which very often manifest themselves in Albanian words

[6] The Marcomanni were slain, and the whole nation of the Carpi was transferred to our soil, almost a part of which had already been taken by Aurelian.

[7] When he saw Illyricum devastated and Moesia destroyed, he left the province across the Danube, Dacia, established by Trajan, with a raised army and provincials, despairing of being able to retain it: and having taken the people from it, he placed it in Moesia, and called it his own Dacia..."

[8] This whole passage is a little obscure for our author

[9] Twelve books of commentaries on the Roman Republic, Frankfurt 1598, p.34: "When he saw the Illyricum devastated and Moesia destroyed, he left Dacia, a province across the Danube, established by Trajan, with an army of provincials, despairing of being able to retain it. He placed the people abducted from it in Moesia, and called it his Dacia."

[10] Vopiscus is a Roman praenomen, signifying a twin child born safe, while the other twin died before birth. (Plin. Nat. 7.8. s. 10; Solin. 1.; Val. Max. Epit. De Nominum Ratione, pp. 878, 879, ed. Torrenius.) Like many other ancient Roman praenomens, it was afterward used as a cognomen.

[11] Zosimus (Greek Ζώσιμος): Early Byzantine, pagan author of a history of the Roman Empire, published in the first quarter of the sixth century CE.

[12] This name is really used only by the South Albanians, who consider it dishonorable and call it Skipetar themselves

[13] The whole sentence is: The Danube in the language of the Bessi is called Ister, and it has profound waters in its channel to a depth of quite two hundred feet or 60 meters.

[14] Leo I, also known as "the Thracian," was the Roman emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire from AD 457 to 474. He was a native of Dacia Aureliana near historic Thrace.

[15] Alexander the Great, whose name is frequently abbreviated to Leka in Albanian, inspired the name of the lek. The face of the 1-lek coin featured a portrait of Alexander, and the reverse featured him mounted on a horse.

In the 2022 Macedonian League Annual Assessment, we talk with Marcus A. Templar for an in-depth analysis of some of the most pressing questions from our audience, including among others: the Turkish government; Russia; the Greek Genocide; the Greek political establishment, and much more.
​

"The Turkish MİT and the Russian SVR are "excellently" sending Greece to its demise one piece at a time. In this manner, Greece will disintegrate piecemeal and become easier to be manipulated to its demise. I know how both operate, and this is a warning."
                                  -- Marcus A. Templar

Let us start with the term Rum, which puzzles many people. Its origin is found in the Quran. It is the source of the term. "The Romans" is the title of the 30th chapter (sūrah) of the Quran, consisting of 60 verses (āyāt). The term Rūm originates in the word Roman existing during the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It is referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium. The title, Roman, is sometimes translated as "Greeks" or "Byzantines," essentially an officially Greek state.

Muslims believe the above was a prophecy fulfilled by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, who launched a campaign in AD 622 against the Sassanid Persians in Asia Minor. The campaign started as a Byzantine military counter-offensive resulting in a crushing defeat for the Persians. Muslims cite the above as an example of the miraculous nature of the Quran. (Geisler; Saleeb 2002, 107 and Shanker, 1992, 129).[1][2]

Perversely, the Turks based on a continuous regression line of reasoning starting with the Quran, they made anything Byzantine, i.e., Christian Greek items, institutions, and buildings, became Rum, and anything Rum, built by pagan Greeks remained Rum translated into Roman. Even Greeks under the Ottoman Great State started calling themselves Rum, or in Greek, Ρωμιοί (Romioi), but unfortunately continues even today in the modern Turkish Republic.

The phrase «ἐγῶ Ῥωμιὸς γεννήθηκα, Ῥωμιὸς θὲ νὰ πεθάνω» pertains to the under Ottoman yoke Greeks. Yet it exists even today in their mind. For instance, my father, born within the Ottoman Great State, was a Rum, or Roman, but since I was born in Greece, I am Yunanlı or Greek. This was the explanation I received from one of my teachers from Adana.

However, let us not forget the term Rumeli, "the land of the Rum"; of course, it was a term when Greece was under Ottoman rule, but I have heard many Greeks of the present referring to Sterea Hellas (Central Greece) as "Rumeli." That tells me that the Ottoman thought is still in the minds of some Greeks in modern Greece itself.

To recap, under such Turkish logic, EVERYTHING built, say, between 1500 BCE and today by Greeks (Ionian, Dorians, Aeolian) in areas controlled by Turkey falls under the category of Rum.

So when one visits Ephesus, a city built around 1000 BCE by Greeks, according to the Turks one visits a Roman city. The fact is that the Romans appeared in the area in 129 BC. In that year, King Attalus of Pergamum ceded Ephesus to the Roman Empire in his will, and so Ephesus became the seat of the Roman provincial governor. It is similar to how many ignorant "experts" state "ancient Turkey," as absurd as it is. Nevertheless, the absurdity continues.
​

Something positive could happen when people leave their social or political prejudices and everything their grandparents told them about the Turks and Turkey.

However, people must know that Turks work as ONE TEAM for the benefit of Turkey regardless of political views. It is okay for people to enjoy the views of those Turks who want to change Turkey. However, they must keep their eyes on the ball. The MİT (Turkey's National Intelligence Organization) does not employ cub scouts.

Their network is beyond the understanding of ordinary people. Propaganda, bullying, extortion, and a few other ways of persuasion are means employed in the name of Turkism. Nobody is spared. They work like the spy systems of the GESTAPO and NKVD/KGB, but now they go after those who use the Internet.

Turks reward journalists and

1. social media like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit;
2. social question-and-answers website like Quora and The Onion;
3. non-academic reference source like Wikipedia and all other Wikis-type social media

with all kinds of bribes and payments maintaining fake accounts managed and staffed by the MİT.

Albanians are slightly different but aim toward the same goal: establishing excuses and propaganda exalting the state, the language, and "race."

​One can easily find who is employed by the MİT by the arguments they present against Greece and in favor of Turkey. Never mind what names and credentials they present online. I had fun with a man with an Anglo-Saxon name who was supposedly born in New Jersey and attended Tufts University with a Master's degree while he attacked Greece using very bad English. Another one was supposedly from Zimbabwe, protecting the might of Turkey until I gave him some facts he could not respond to.

​Turks always have or find excuses to justify any crime the Ottoman Great State and/or the Turkish Republic committed in the name of Pan-Turkism. 
​

Turks, Skopjans, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Serbs have very proactive foreign policies. They do anything to show the flag. On the other hand, Greeks are very reactive only if they are pressed to do something. They have a mentality of a follower, not a leader. 

When the Turks left Greece, they took away everything good Greece had to offer. Greeks stayed back with the mentality the aghas had imposed on them during the 500-year occupation. “Σφάξε μὲ ἀγᾶ μου γιὰ ν' ἁγιάσω, δὲ βαριέσαι, ὅλοι ἀδέλφια εἴμαστε” are only part of the remnants of Ottoman misrule. It has little to do with Islam. It has everything to do with Pan-Turkism.

A few months ago, Greece delivered humanitarian aid to Odessa. Nobody heard about it, not even the Greeks. If Turkey had done it, the whole world would know about it. Turks know whom to lobby, how to lobby and encourage their lobbyists to do the job they are paying for. When it comes to Turkey, there is no such a thing as wishy-washy partisan politics followed by the Ottoman, "μὰ τί θὰ πεὶ ὁ κόσμος"?

Part of how Turks work is the example of celebrity Dr. Mehmet Öz. He was born in Cleveland, OH, on June 11, 1960. In 1980, he went to Turkey to serve the Turkish Land Forces (Türk Kara Kuvvetleri) as an officer to keep his dual nationality. He was quoted as saying,

Although Dr. Oz's allies blast his critics as "racist and pushing dog whistles," Dr. Oz dodges to answer the question of the Armenian Genocide, and one could easily assume he will do the same regarding the Greek and Assyrian genocides. After all, the Turkish culture has molded him under the doctrine, "Turkey might not always be right; but she is never wrong."

Of course, it is nothing wrong with him serving his home country for whatever reason, except that the reason he gave means that it is crucial to him to owe allegiance to two countries. That holds true for many people except those elected to make laws based on often highly classified information, civil servants, and the military required by law to hold office, necessitating clearance to handle classified information.

These individuals fill out the Standard Form 86, or SF-86, which is nothing less than a whopping 127 pages long. It is packed with questions requiring a very high level of transparency and honesty. Any answers that the investigators consider murky have to be clarified to the satisfaction not only of the investigators but, most importantly, by granting the clearance authority.

According to the late Senator Patrick Moynihan, elected officials automatically receive a clearance because their voters trust them. I do not remember the highest level of clearance they receive based on such a trust. However, those in Congress who participate in select committees must be cleared by the FBI, or perhaps now by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to handle Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance that is not available to the public.

Because of it, the matter has further implications since it constitutes a national security risk. Dual nationality is a forbidden indulgence for military personnel and civil servants assigned to jobs requiring a security clearance, much more for those in Congress and their aids. After all, these people determine highly classified information and enact laws that directly involve and affect issues about the national security and interests of the United States.

Holding dual nationality, Dr. Oz is a threat to the national interests and security of the United States. He can be easily extorted through his relatives by the very proactive Turkish government and its MİT.

The idea behind one's clearance is based on the level of trust the government has in the person regarding the lifestyle for which he or she might be susceptible to blackmail or coercion. Furthermore, there is the issue with Dr. Oz's dual nationality and celebrity status.

Nevertheless, another question that arises is Dr. Oz's residence. Since he lives in New York, how can he run from Pennsylvania?
​

Unfortunately, some people have not gotten the memo. Especially those who live abroad although they post their residence in the Balkans. Although the Skopjans are not as active as they used to be, the Albanian diaspora has started their bravado attitude. Most of them live either in Kosovo or Albania.

I remember one Albanian tried to push the Greek name Εὐνίκη (Eunice) as Albanian. After I explained a few things to him, he asked me what I had against Albanians. I responded, "I have nothing against Albanians, but I hate poppycock garnished with malarkey regardless of their source and ethnicity. Give me facts. Do not convey your beliefs as facts to me." But the way he wrote his texts, vocabulary, and grammar made it evident to me that he lived in Australia. So, I asked him how the weather was in Australia. He never responded.

Over the years, several scholars have studied Albanians' genetics, focusing on historical and linguistic facts. However, very few of them did proper research. The argument of Albanians that they are descendants of Illyrians because they live on an Illyrian territory is, at best, childish.

One may easily assume that everyone in the former Illyrian territory can now claim Illyrian heritage by looking at a map of the regions where the former Illyrian tribes once existed.

One of the best books on the ancient Thracian language group and its relationship to Greek, Dacian, Moesian, and Illyrian is the book written by Vladimir Georgiev (Владимир И. Георгиев, Траките и техният език, Издателство на Българската Академия на Науките, София, 1977).[3] The problem is that Georgiev's 348-page book is in Bulgarian with only one French version. However, he wrote a short academic monograph published "The Genesis of the Balkan Peoples." The Slavonic and East European Review 44, no. 103 (1966): 285–97.

One can read Georgiev's book summary in Kroraina <http://www.kroraina.com/vg/vg.html> or one may access it in JSTOR <https://www.jstor.org/stable/4205776>.

I am offering two paragraphs of Georgiev's monographs for the reader's convenience. They both regard the relationship between Albanian on the one hand and the Dacian, Moesian, and Romanian languages on the other.
​

​And after he explains facts on the issues in seven points, he concludes,
​

It seems that the Romans, especially Emperor Trajan, are behind the forced migration of Dacians and Moesians to the lower Balkans along the Adriatic Sea and their partial transfer to the Italian Calabria and parts of Adriatic Italy like Abruzzo. Their descendants are today's Albanians or Arbëreshë (Albanese) in Italy. For the Romans, the defeated enslaved people were a force of cheap labor.

Albanian nationalism started with the Austro-Hungarian Empire's national interests.

Certain Western scholars studying the origins of the Albanians advanced the now discredited hypothesis that the Albanians descended from the ancient Pelasgians. One of them, Austrian linguist Johann Georg von Hahn, in his Albanesische Studien (Albanian Studies) published in 1854, hypothesized that the Pelasgians were the first Proto-Albanians and that the languages ​​of the Pelasgians, Illyrians, Epirotians and ancient Macedonians were closely related. It is beyond my comprehension why a linguist got mixed up with mythology. It would be most appropriate for a historian to do so only to attempt to explain certain historical events or locations. Then, a linguist would compare the phonemes of Albanian speakers to other Balkan people, possibly using various historical events as migrations.

Another event in which Austria silently pushed the existence of Albania was the acceptance of Albanian delegates in the 1878 Council of Berlin.

All this started in the19th century nationalism (Albanian Rilindja), which resulted in the Italian invasion of Greece in the early hours of October 28, 1940, after the Albanian Parliament declared the union of Albania with Fascist Italy.

Albanian nationalism continued under Enver Hoxha and his Yugoslav friends, who deprived Greece of Northern Epirus. When the PM and MFA of Greece Tsaldaris went to Paris in 1947 for the Peace Treaty, he suggested to the Yugoslavian delegation to split Albania. Unfortunately, he went unprepared and was a victim of his ignorance and clumsiness. Before one engages with an opponent, whether on the negotiating table or the battlefield, one must know one's opponent and oneself.

Some "academics" using Kling-Klang etymology and imaginary history went beyond that. Recently, Elena Kocaqi wrote a book in which the Trojan war was a civil war between two Illyrian tribes, essentially making both Greeks and Trojans, Illyrians. The Albanian government supports and indirectly sponsors such extremism under the banner of academic freedom.

Under the title "Austrian Scholars Leave Albania Lost for Words", Besar Likmeta published in Balkan Insight on March 25, 2011, a very caustic article regarding the findings of two Austrian Academics.

Of course, the issue is not whether Albanians should have a country or not. The point is that Albanian ultra-nationalists using cockamamie ancestry, false linguistic derivation, and invented historical continuity keep shaking the regional stability of the southern Balkans.

We must, therefore, attract the attention of the White House on this; it needs to apply EO 14033.

People investigate phonemes comparing Armenian to Albanian without paying attention to whether they evaluate Albanian of the Caucasus, i.e., Aghwank and Aluank, or Albanian of the Balkans, i.e., Shqip.

Albanians play the whole world like a Stradivarius violin. One advocate and troublemaker is Joseph John DioGuardi, an American certified public accountant and a Republican politician. DioGuardi served in the House of Representatives, representing the 20th Congressional district of New York from 1985 to 1989. He was the first Albanian American voting member of Congress. The family traces its roots to the Arbëreshë (Albanese) minority in Italy, officially established by Mussolini. A former member of Congress had and has ample access to visit and lobby for Albanian causes. He had a lot to do with the bombing of Serbia and the independence of Kosovo.

The importance of Emperor Trajan in the formation of Romania is depicted in the second stanza of the Romanian National Anthem: 
​

The Roman emperor Trajan conquered Dacia, a land that covers roughly the same territory as modern Romania. As a result, Romania became the land where Roman veteran soldiers could move in and live by getting their homesteads. The Dacians fought the Roman tooth and nail but succumbed to the Roman might in the end.

Trajan and his successors forced the migration of the Dacians and or part of the Mysians (Moesians) to the locations where present-day Albania is and also to Calabria and the Adriatic coast of Italy. To the Romans, it was a case of cheap slave labor.

I am thinking of writing something on the issue.

As I have mentioned before, I was born in a family in which each branch spoke different languages.  Greek was our lingual franca. Thus, I appreciate the existence of all languages. I feel very sad when I find out that a language is extinct. Thank God, Tsakonika is being taught in some schools.

I must stress that live languages develop. Latin itself is a dead language, but it survives in its derivative languages like Italian, Spanish, Romansh, and so on.  What I cannot stand is the falsification of a language's origins as a tool for a nation's false origin and vice versa.
​

Russia in the 1920's eyed the transfer of the title of the Ecumenical Patriarch from Constantinople to Moscow. So, what Russians do is nothing new. They will succeed because they have on their side the Slavic populations regardless of assurances and the help of a good number of Greeks, especially abroad.

When one researches a matter, asking the wrong questions, surveying the wrong people, using an exclusive collection method, and misinterpreting data results could easily create problems.

Also, one must keep in mind that, at that time, people had limited resources. The standards the Fathers of the Church had placed were as high as they should.

The New Testament had to be God-inspired and canonical, i.e., apostolic origin, have universal acceptance, liturgical use, and consistent message. They took the Old Testament as it was in Judaism. To Christians, the Old Testament constitutes an educator in Christ.

Now returning to the political side of it, Turkey will not let the title go, not because its politicians are in love with Christianity, but because it is a matter of prestige for Turkey. It will never give up the title of Ecumenical out of its soil unless the Greeks, especially of the diaspora, help.

But like all documents written in the past, one must consider the culture of each nation and time. I remember one man could not understand why it took the Apostle Paul six months to travel from the area of Troy to Kavala or Neapolis. I was tempted to respond that he could find an earlier flight. But, no, it is not funny. Such logic creates problems in interpreting older events and deeds.
​

As President Biden said, "ignorance has no bounds." Attending classes and receiving degrees do not mean anything unless you can put the knowledge you get into practice. Unfortunately, sheer logic is not something that comes to one's head through schooling. They would be right if they admitted that Cyprus was not a European country at the time or that the Turkish invasion had never happened.

On the other hand, I remember the invasions of the USSR on Hungary on November 4, 1956, and Czechoslovakia on August 21, 1968. So, I put their multi-annual occupation aside. I could add some more, but since the starting point is WWII, it is a matter of opinion whether the starting dates should be in 1945, 1946, 1947, and so on. Of course, the other reason could be quasi-medical; it is called Politically Induced Dementia (PID). Some people would call it cowardice!
​

Greek organizations are member-driven instead of staff-driven, which encourages false choices.

I happened to have a little experience on the matter, so, I slowly withdrew in early 2000. What annoyed me the most were the unscrupulous demagogues who found fools and told them what they wanted to hear. Also, the businesspeople thought because they run successful businesses, they could succeed in running organizations the same way.

You won't believe how many and how often people take ego trips. Things might work out in Greece but dealing with foreign-based organizations that follow their constitutions and laws may not be as easy or good as politicians hope. In general, people do not know their cognitive limits. Because today it is easy to find something online, everyone has become an "expert" until they face a real expert. Then although they should listen to experts, they argue with them, agitating a reaction that would help them learn something new. Then, they use the information they received from the experts, presenting it as their own. When I face know-it-alls, I do not argue with them. Instead, I let them unveil their unconscious incompetence on a specific subject matter. In English, they are called dumbasses! In Greek, κουτοπόνηροι!

The other problem is that political aides try to please the bosses who run the government of Greece in a transactional manner.

Organizations that take it upon themselves to solve Greece's "national issues" do not have the resources (human resources, financial resources, physical resources, and information resources) to weigh the potential consequences of each decision, including unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated or unforeseen) of a purposeful action that are not intended or foreseen.

Worse, since politicians of Greece use transactional relationships with the diaspora, they hold the reins on how any such organization would effectively move. They always consider at home voters connected to the organization. Greece has a lot of politicians who care only about the next elections. So, they sacrifice what is good for them and their political party than for the national interests and security of the country. I am slightly paraphrasing Aesop's statement, "after all is said and done, a lot is said, but nothing is done." Greece needs STATESMEN. It has a lot of politicians.

In an organization, one does not manage people; one manages affairs. One leads people, and leading people is not easy.

​The first thing I learned in Political Science and fully agree with is that one cannot run a government of any kind as one runs one's business. But on the other hand, an organization is a government.
​

I think the answer I gave above touched on a few things. First, however, let me go to the core of the matter. Greece must change its election laws. I find it appalling and inconceivable that people who live in Athens have the right to be elected in a region where their family descends.

Almost half the country's population lives in the basin of Attica because everything is going on there. Most companies exist, and consequently, most jobs and other opportunities exist in the basin of Attica. So, people from all over the country move to Attica.

Who is behind all this? The same people who have lived in Athens all their lives. Still, they supposedly represent Patras, Euritaneia, Thessaloniki, Chania, Kozani, and what have you. It is why they own houses in Athens.

I know only of one who actually rented during his tenure in government. He was renting a place in Athens. Even his boss was after him because he was working for the people who had placed him in the Parliament. He did what everyone else did not do. He WORKED for the people whom he represented.

A movement had started to transfer the Capital of Greece to Lamia, demographically, a great idea because Lamia is in the center of the mainland. However, I wonder why it has died out. The hydrocephalus of Athens is killing it.
​

It is hard to tell, but I cannot see this charade continuing. North Macedonia is a simple geographical name turned into a political entity by the communists. Ethnicity is one thing, and allegiance is another. But this now. Then it was a different story. However, this is the Balkans, so "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend" from director John Ford's Western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962). It is precisely what the Skopjans do. But I also falter the Bulgarians. They do not tell their people that their language is divided into Eastern and Western dialects. A few months ago, I was talking with a Bulgarian who had no idea about it. She did not know that it took the Parliament of Bulgaria 25 years to decide which would be the official language. In the end, they chose the Eastern dialect in 1899. The Western dialect is still spoken; somehow, Bulgarians call it "Macedonian" as if it is not their language.

At first, these two speeches are the closest languages to the Old Church Slavonic. Western Bulgarian is actually the language that the Thessalonian Brothers Cyril and Methodius using the alphabet they had invented, translated the Bible from Greek to the then Slavic language of Macedonia.

Bulgarians living under Ottoman rule never expressed an individual ethnic conscience in any form. Slowly, however, things changed, and while Bulgaria was independent, those within the Skopjan state were under Serbian linguistic influence until the breakup of Yugoslavia. On the other hand, easterners also had stronger ties with Russia. As a result, their dialect was considered the purest dissociated from a non-Slavic foreign influence. Over and above, Bulgaria had short but firm periods of autonomy and absolute independence on October 5 [O.S. September 22] 1908.

Now, coming to the language. Standard or colloquial Bulgarian does reflect some western features, even though it is primarily based on the eastern dialect. One would contend that it happens due to the notoriety of Veliko Târnovo as the old capital of Bulgaria. Also, the geographical structure has more dynamic financial advancement on both sides of the Stara Planina or Balkan Mountains compared to the Western half of the linguistic domain.

After the communist takeover, the Skopjan language was codified and slowly Serbianized;  in the early 1960s Cyrillic alphabet was established according to the Serbian version of the Cyrillic alphabet.

On the other hand, Bulgaria made a few changes in its alphabet, it could come into an understanding with Skopje to find common ground in revising both alphabets to the point that they could serve both dialects.

Grammatically, the differences between both languages are almost non-existent. But, of course, one cannot stop the nationalists of both sides from telling you otherwise. So, whether the two countries will unite one day, my answer is maybe, but I do not expect the union to be like the one between West and East Germany. I think it will be gradual.

At the beginning of the last century, people's communication was rather impossible. First, we had the telegraph, then the telephone came, and now we have reached the point of not even thinking about reaching someone on the other side of the Earth. I can say the same thing about transportation, as well. Lack of communication and meager transportation made diasporas live in a time warp. Today, such a thing is hardly true.

The reason I mention it is that people from both countries are going to get closer and closer. Since the language will no longer be a barrier, it will help assimilation. The time is here of essence.
​

At first, the Turkish MİT and the Russian SVR are "excellently" sending Greece to its demise one piece at a time. In this manner, Greece will disintegrate piecemeal and become easier to be manipulated to its demise. I know how both operate, and this is a warning.

It will be a blessing if those who descend from Pontus of Anatolia dispose of the underhanded provocations separating themselves from the rest of the Greeks. In case they have missed it, Pontians are Greeks. There is no parallel to Greek ethnicity. Either they are Greeks, or they are not.

Even people who are not Greeks in origin are proud to say that they are Greeks since they were born in Greece.

As for the date, the Greek government has established September 14 as the date of the Greek Genocide in Asia Minor, and it looks okay to me. The exit of the Greeks from Smyrna took place on September 13; the next day, September 14, is the commemorative date of the Elevation of the Venerable and Life-Giving Cross. Therefore, the government of Greece combined these two days into one.

It will be a blessing if the Pontians who claim to be Greeks learn the etymology and the meaning of the word GENOCIDE and think about it.

GENOCIDE is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

In other words, GENOCIDE is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

I do wonder in what way the Pontians differ from the other Greeks and why the promotion of a separate Pontian-specific genocide?

Incidentally, a friend sent me this very interesting documentary on Vimeo entitled "Lethal Nationalism: Genocide of the Greeks 1913-1923" https://vimeo.com/ondemand/lethalnationalism/​

Mr. George Mavropoulos, Director of the Asia Minor and Pontos Hellenic Research Center (AMPHRC), located at 801 W Adams St, Chicago, IL 60607, phone: (312) 964-5120 and the members of the board would be delighted to discuss issues of the Greek Genocide. https://hellenicresearchcenter.org/#AboutTheAMPHRC ​
​

Bibliography
Keyes, Nelson Beecher. Story of the bible World in Map, Word and Picture, . New York: C. S. Hammond, 
     1959.
Ptolemy, Claudius. Geography . Edited by J. Lennart & al Berggren. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 
     2001.
Suvorov, Viktor. Inside the Soviet Army. New York: MacMillan, 1982. "The Great Patriotic War of 1941-45."
     Российская военная энциклопедия (Koutchkovo Polje) III (2012).
Георгиев, Владимир И. Траките И Техният Език. София: Институт За Български Език, Издателство
​     На Българската Академия На Науките, 1977.

Endnotes
[1] Norman Geisler; Abdul Saleeb (2002). Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross (revised ed.). Baker Books. p. 107.

​[2] Uday Shanker (1992). Internal Unity of All Religions. Enkay Publishers. p. 129.

​[3] Владимир И. Георгиев; ​Траките и техният език (1977 В Георгиев) - [PDF Document] (cupdf.com)

​[4] ​https://balkaninsight.com/2011/03/25/austrian-scholars-leave-albania-lost-for-words/

_____
About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst. During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

​_____
About the Macedonian League
We are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity. As of 12 February 2019, the Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Prespes Agreement", as this Agreement is a serious national security issue for Greece and the wider Balkan region. The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in Skopje.

For more information, follow us on: Website, Facebook, Twitter

Adolph Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (My Struggle),
​ ​

The bottom line is this: If one keeps repeating a lie, people will believe it is true. The whole thing reminds me of the American Wrestling Association (AWA) case. Although everyone knew that professional wrestling was fake, their fans did not care. They continued to watch it even after the AWA finally admitted it. It is a broken record mentality.

Let me start with a misunderstanding that flows everywhere. Those who know of the manner Julius Caesar died are familiar with the statement, "Et tu Brute". But there is not one ancient author, Roman or Greek, to support such an expression.

It is found only in Shakespeare's play, "Julius Caesar," Act 3, Scene 1, line 85 (FTLN 1238), where Caesar states: "Et tu, Brutè?—Then fall, [he] dies." The above is repeated on and on to the point that almost everyone believes Julius Caesar cried "Et tu Brute" as he fell to his death.

But according to Suetonius who wrote about Caesar's life, Caesar did not say "et tu Brute"; what he said was in Greek, καὶ σὺ τέκνον; (; = ?), which is a free translation meaning, "even you, my child?"

Here is the original.

And here is the translator's adaptation of the original text.
​

That Caesar and his environment spoke or wrote in Greek is clearly stated in Plutarch's The Parallel Lives - The Life of Julius Caesar, 46, 2 and 66.7. The keyword is ἑλληνιστὶ in the original or "in Greek" in the English translation.

Politics and Truth

The only truth in Politics is perception. The winner is the side that persuades the public for its version of the story. A constant repetition creates a narrative in which the proponents of special interests in the specific matter take advantage and amplify, like a megaphone, a fabrication to achieve their goals and objectives. One could call it propaganda; after all, propaganda means propagation.


                                                       The infamous Greek lobby

Although the term Greek lobby started as a joke in the offices of the U.S. Congress, wishful thinking became a fact in the minds of the Greeks whether they lived in the United States or abroad, including Greece. We had kind of a lobby when the late Archbishop Iakovos was a functional primate. However, Archbishop Iakovos' power and love for Greek issues bothered a few in Greece, especially the Greek American community, forcing him to resign. The chopped Greek Orthodox primacy in America that followed speaks volumes. No, it was not Turkey nor the Ecumenical Patriarchate behind it. It was Greek Americans who did it. A group of affluent Greek Americans was behind the scheme, which they coordinated with politicians of Greece to protect the earlier interests. Thus now, we have NO voice.

The other day, a good friend of mine admitted to me that he discussed with the editor of a major Toronto-based Greek newspaper the issue of the Greek Genocide. The editor told him that my friend's views about the case of the Greek Genocide are dangerous, and he would lose his advertisement dollars if he dared discuss the Greek Genocide. In all likelihood, he'd probably lose funding from the Greek MFA as well. The same Greek newspaper claims they pursue all subjects objectively, except the Genocide. That subject is "untouchable" in Toronto."

I have learned in my 30-year service as a U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist, Lead Senior All-Source Intelligence Analyst, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Military Instructor on Strategy:

1. Do Not Discount Discipline
2. Excellence is a Habit
3. There is NO 'I ' in Teamwork
4. Readiness is Responsibility
5. Guarantee that something is being done
6. Results Matter

The so-called Greek "lobby" has met NONE of them. 


                                                        The “Macedonians” of Skopje

We live in the age of information, misinformation, and disinformation through public media and social media. It started with the radio and television, and there is an end in sight.

Greece should have taken advantage of it by spreading facts when Yugoslavia associated the Hunza tribe with its "Macedonians" using ANY means possible and disseminated the newly found "truths" via documentaries in the 1960s and 1970s.

We saw and still see the effectiveness of repetition in the case of the Macedonia name dispute. The issue started in the mid-1940s when Federative Yugoslavia put an indirect claim over the Greek region. To contribute to a successful outcome, Yugoslavia named one of its constituent republics "Macedonia," giving the new name international recognition. However, as time passed, constant, fierce, and unrelentless repetition forced the revised history into school books of various countries, including the United States. Yugoslavia's historical poppycock bore fruit as Greece's unparallel sluggard behavior accompanied it. It was behind the success of Skopje, which forced Greece to sign the Prespa Agreement in 2018.


                                                               Turkey and its Army

The Turkish media and government keep disseminating disinformation about Turkey's baseless position regarding the legality behind the militarization of the islands. Thus far, Greece has assisted the Turks in rallying moral support against the "warmongering" Greeks. There is no question that Greece is legally correct under international law. Still, it seems that media and politicians are either ignorant or indifferent. Repetition on the one hand and silence on the other.

What about the myth that Turks are fierce fighters? The tale started in Korea under very militarily questionable criteria dumped journalists with non-military backgrounds and, through repetition, is still alive.

In 1954, a Turkish film titled Şimal Yıldızı after the Turkish Brigade's name, directed by Aıtf Yımaz Batbeki and starring Ayhan Işk, was released, praising the unit's performance.

Here is some reality: Certain Turkish patrols consistently reported high losses. In general, they preferred to be on the offensive and handled it quite well. They were not as good at defensive positions and indeed never retreated. The Turks, armed and trained by American military advisers, did better than even they had hoped or expected to do. But that does not mean that they did well. Regardless of the so-called accomplishments of the Turkish Army in Korea, the fact is that they had participated in three battles with a fourth assigned a rear-guard duty.

The total number of Turkish troops was 14,936 men who served in the 1st Brigade from 1950 to 1953, with about 5,455 troops in Korea at one time.

In the U.N. offensive and the Chinese counter-offensive, the 1st Turkish Brigade suffered 3,514 casualties, of which 741 were killed in action, 2,068 wounded, 163 MIA, and 244 taken prisoner, as well as 298 noncombatant casualties. This is an indicator of about a 24% casualty rate.

So, achievement always depends on the standard one sets. If the standards are low, anything above that is an achievement.

But such a bad performance did not stop the friends of Turkey from promoting it. For example, in one of the episodes of M.A.S.H. Turkish soldiers were projected as courageous, who face danger and even death with defiance while simultaneously benevolent. Sergeant Attias was a Turkish army sergeant who made a single appearance in the Season 5 episode of the CBS-TV series M*A*S*H titled "Post Op." The part of Attias was played by Argentinian-born actor Zitto Kazann.

As insignificant as it seems, it remained in viewers' sub-conscientious minds.

Also, the Turkish Army, especially its officer corps, lacked experience since their first actual combat was in World War I and the Greco-Turkish war (1919–1922). In addition, Turkey was neutral during WWII, although unofficially was on the side of the Nazis.

We saw the performance of the Turkish military in the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Forty thousand men of an army with far superior equipment invaded a small country with lightly armed national guardsmen. The lightly armed National Guard of Cyprus immobilized the invading force in the perimeter of Kyrenia's beaches for ten days. Then, after the U.N.S.C. declared a ceasefire and the Greek Cypriot forces stopped fighting, the Turks advanced to the present-day occupied lands. The Turkish air force lost 19 aircraft against no opposing air force and the navy lost two ships against no existing navy. The Turkish ships had collided with each other; the Israelis had fished the sailors out of the water.

This is the case that the Turkish General Staff and politicians have done an excellent job silencing their military ineptness. Yet, for a country that prides itself on its mighty armed forces, it is incomprehensible that its political and military leaders are afraid of their own shadows.  Seeing enemies everywhere is paranoia, but they know they precipitate regional instability. It goes to the heart of Turkey's education system, and by that, I mean formal, informal, and non-formal education.

Regarding the bravado tactics of both Tayyip Erdoğan and Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu against Greece, I must stress that those two should consider the fact that what they think their military can do is not what their military is capable of doing.

Being browbeating creatures habitually cruel, insulting, and threatening their neighbor who, solely in their minds, is vulnerable to their whims, helps neither their country nor themselves. Greece is not Cyprus. Of course, they both know it because if they were confident that the Turkish military would have an easy time taking the Greek armed forces without any political or military cost, they would have already done it. The Aegean islands are LEGALLY Greek territory, and since their militarization was legally accepted in 1936 by Turkey and 1947 by the international community, Turkey has NO legal case.

On the contrary, such actions might even earn them the fate of Adnan Menderes, who was accused of orchestrating the September pogrom against Turkish citizens of Greek descent! As a result, he hunged in prison on the tiny island of İmralı just south of the Sea of Marmara and west of the Armutlu-Bozburun peninsula within Bursa Prefecture.


                                                             USSR / Russia

World War II – USSR

Sheer superior numbers of troops do not guarantee a military victory. Instead, other factors contribute to whether a victory translates to success or failure. But here, I must stress that soldiers fight to win the war; politicians are responsible for winning the peace.

Many people will state that Russia was only part of the USSR, so it is unfair to stick USSR's, i.e., communist crimes, to Russia. The fact is that Russia was the driving force behind USSR's sociopolitical and military development.

​Here is the first stanza of the national anthem of the USSR between 1943 and 1991.
​

Fifty-one states signed the Charter of the United Nations on June 26, 1945, which came into force on October 24, 1945. Because of how the UN was set up, the USSR had three UNGA votes.

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (1945–1991) and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic were among the first countries that signed the United Nations Charter, becoming founding members of the United Nations among 51 countries.

So, the USSR had three votes in the UNGA and occasionally two or even three votes in the UNSC, depending on the UNSC rotation. However, only the USSR had the veto power. Isn't it interesting that out of 15 USSR republics, only Russia became the only heir of the USSR in the UNSC?

Most Russians used to the WWII storyline that, thanks to the will of the Soviet people and the ingenuity of its leadership, overcame the enemy, i.e., Hitler's hordes. There is no doubt that the Soviet people gave their lives at war. There is no doubt that religion contributed to the victory after Stalin weaponized it for his survival. The above is true in some sense. But the ordinary person had never ventured to consider the above, which was summarily constructed and propagated during the periods between the death of Stalin and then the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev. After all, someone had to be blamed for millions of deaths during and after Stalin.

The whole idea is to offer history and the sources that it arrives from with all its glory and shame. There is no doubt that "the victors write history." But the challenge is to expose all facts, so that upcoming generations learn lessons of success and failures to replicate the earlier and reject the latter in the future.

Aiming at knowing the facts, we can discover the truth that the leadership of the USSR and now Russia willfully ignore. First, we must overview some of the most controversial events and battles of the war to single out the cause for failure. We must understand that many have abandoned facts and truth, especially in Russia.
​

In October 1941 - June 1942, the most significant part of the Lend-Lease supply tonnage (1.42 million tons in total) was metals (about 30%) and products (22%), military equipment was in third place (15%), slightly ahead of oil products (12%). Including British aid, armaments and explosives were roughly equal in volume to products. However, the United States and its allies in the Pacific were at war in December 1941. In addition, Japan forced the British and American industries to restrict their supply options and intensify hostilities in North Africa.

Under the second protocol, the USSR and the Allies signed deliveries in June 1942 (July 1942 - June 1943), two of which were - 3.1 million tons. A third of them were food (24%), metals, military equipment (15%). Oil products, explosives, and equipment filled 7%, 6%, and 5% of the tonnage, respectively.

The most significant deliveries were under the third protocol (July 1943 - June 1944), including 5.75 million tons. However, 30% of deliveries were products as 18% metals, the share of military and transport vehicles decreased to 13%, oil products, explosives, and equipment equalized - 8% each.

Under the fourth protocol, the USSR received another 5.5 million tons of aid before May 12, 1945. This time the share of products and metals was almost equal (21 and 20%, respectively), the volume of oil products (13%) was ahead of military equipment and transport (12% ). The volume of equipment reached 9%. In addition, compared with the second period, the role of transport equipment has increased dramatically (from 1% to 6%).

Eleven million tons of 15.7 million tons of cargo during the war with Germany (more than 200,000 tons arrived before the conclusion of the first protocol), or 70.7%, were received from the second half of 1943 to May 1945.

Stalin was very familiar with the "Murmansk Run" (from 1941 through 1945), the shortest and most direct route that about 40 convoys totaling more than 800 merchant ships used to supply the USSR. About 350 of those ships were under the U. S. flag.

An article published on the science page of Gazeta.RU by Ekaterina Shutova on March 11, 2016, under the title: How the Americans supplied the USSR with goods: 75 years ago, an act was signed on providing goods from the United States to the allies, offering similar accounts.
​

The Katyń Massacre

One of the poppycock that circulated a lot by the Soviets was the massacre of Katyń. It is another example of repetition deemed effective in the case of the USSR and Russia's accessory after the fact in the Katyń Massacre.

In April 1943, Nazi Germany's authorities declared the discovery of mass graves in the Katyń Forest. Stalin severed diplomatic relations with the Polish government-in-exile in London after the latter requested an investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Soviet Union claimed that the Nazis had murdered the victims.

The Katyń massacre was a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia in April and May 1940 by the Soviet Union. Specifically, the NKVD (Народный комиссариат внутренних дел or People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs), the Soviet secret police. This shocking crime is known as the Katyń Massacre, after executions within the timberland at Katyń, near Smolensk. In addition, The Russians executed the Polish officers in prison camps at Kozelsk, Starobyelsk, near Kharkiv in Ukraine and Belarus.

The slaughter had started based on NKVD chief Lavrentiy Beria's proposition to Joseph Stalin to execute all Polish officer prisoners of war. The Soviet Politburo under Stalin's grip affirmed such an illegal act.

The total number of murdered individuals, almost 8,000, were officers detained amid the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland. Over and above that, another 6,000 were police officers. The remaining 8,000 were Polish intelligentsia that the Soviets considered "intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials, and priests."

The Polish Armed Forces Officer Corps represented the multi-ethnic Polish state. The slaughtered officers included ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Jews, including the chief Rabbi of the Polish Armed Forces, Baruch Steinberg.

After the fall of the USSR, prosecutors of the Soviet Union (1990–1991) and the Russian Federation (1991–2004) conducted a thorough investigation confirming Soviet responsibility for the massacres. However, the commissions refuse to classify the matter as a war crime or as an act of mass murder. Furthermore, the commissions closed the investigation since the perpetrators had already died. The Russian government would not classify the dead as victims of the Great Purge. Under these circumstances, a formal posthumous rehabilitation was deemed inapplicable. In November 2010, the Russian State Duma or Parliament approved a declaration blaming Stalin and other Soviet officials for ordering the massacre. The falsified Soviet version of the events has become known as the "Katyń lie."

However, Russia kept denying responsibility for the massacres till 1990, when the Russian government officially recounted and condemned the NKVD's killings, as the Soviet government's subsequent cover-up and disinformation campaign through repetition.

Under the title" Russia removes memorial to Katyń Massacre in new attack on historical truth," the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group explains Russia's determination to erase facts. [3]

Despite the above, here is also the harsh reality of WWII for the Soviet Union, according to Viktor Suvorov.
​

​Here are some of the victims

May 30: People's Commissar of Ammunition Ivan Sergeyev and Major General Ernst Schacht
May 31: Lieutenant General Pyotr Pumpur
June 7: People's Commissar of Armaments Boris Vannikov and Colonel General Grigory Shtern
June 8: Lieutenant General Yakov Smushkevich
June 18: Lieutenant General Pavel Alekseyev
June 19: Colonel General Alexander Loktionov
June 24: General Kirill Meretskov and Lieutenant General Pavel Rychagov
June 27: Lieutenant General Ivan Proskurov

Stalin's political purge was primarily an attempt to eliminate challenges from past and potential opposition groups, including the left and right wings led by Leon Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin, respectively.

According to official figures, 777,975 executions for political reasons occurred between 1929 and 1953. Of them, 681,692 executions took place in 1937 and 1938. Unofficial accounts appraise the number of Stalinism suppression deaths in 1937 and 1938 at 700,000–1,200,000.

The Red Army Officer Corps' purge was a power play that resulted in Stalin consolidating his power as leader of the Soviet Union. The loss of nearly the entire command structure of the Red Army had substantial adverse effects on the ability of the Soviet Union to win a war.

Such purges, however, could cost the USSR the victory and indeed territory since Stalin eliminated competent people replacing them with individuals loyal to his person, but with inadequate training, skills, and capabilities. As a result, Stalin got the people he wanted to have around, but he almost lost his country. Unfortunately, Putin repeats Stalin's mistakes.


                                                        Conclusion

A consistent reiteration makes a story in which the proponents of uncommon interface within the particular matter take advantage and increase, like an amplifier, a creation to realize their objectives and goals. One may call it publicity; after all, publicity implies engendering.

So, one must be very careful what one obtains through media, especially social media. A reliable source provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc., based on solid evidence.

Individuals, prisoners of illusions, must free themselves from the cave and realize that the shadows on the wall are not reality. They must recognize and see the higher levels of reality. But, be that as it may, those liberated must offer assistance to the other prisoners of the cave, as Plato suggested. They do not indeed crave to leave their mental prison, their illusory truth effect, for they know no better life.



_____
Endnotes
​[1] Помощь Советскому Союзу в борьбе против общего врага оказывали союзники по антигитлеровской коалиции, которая окончательно сложилась к лету 1942 г.  Экономика США и Великобритании все больше перестраивалась на военный лад. В 1942 г. по ленд-лизу в СССР было поставлено более 2,5 тыс. самолетов, 3 тыс. танков, около 79 тыс. автомобилей, радиотехнические средства, гидроакустические приборы, бензин, продовольствие, обувь и прочее.  Однако «к концу 1942 г. согласованные программы поставок в СССР были выполнены американцами и англичанами на 55%. В 1941–1942 гг. в СССР поступило всего 7% отправленных за годы войны из США грузов. Основное количество вооружения и других материалов было получено Советским Союзом в 1944–1945 годах» (Российская военная энциклопедия, Великая отечественная война 1941-45 г. в 12 томах. 2012. Москва: Кучково поле. Toм 3, стр.358).

https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/files/VOV/tom2/Velikaya_Otechestvennaya_voina_Tom_2.pdf

[2] https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2016/03/11_a_8115965.shtml

[3] https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2016/03/11_a_8115965.shtml

[4] Viktor Suvorov, Inside the Soviet Army (New York: Macmillan, 1982), 145-6.  The author's birth name is Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, born in Barabash, Primorsky Krai (near Vladivostok Russia), Soviet Union.

[5] Павел А. Судоплатов, Спецоперации. Лубянка  и Кремль 1930-1950 годы, ОЛМА-ПРЕСС, 1997 г.  (Pavel A. Sudoplatov. Special operations. Lubyanka and the Kremlin 1930-1950, Olma-Press Publishing House, 1997)

В мае 1941года немецкий  "Юнкерс-52" вторгся  в  советское  воздушное пространство  и,  незамеченный,  благополучно   приземлился  на  центральном аэродроме в Москве возле стадиона "Динамо". Это вызвало переполох в Кремле и привело  к  волне  репрессий  в  среде  военного  командования:  началось  с увольнений,  затем  последовали  аресты и расстрел высшего командования ВВС. Это феерическое  приземление в центре  Москвы  показало  Гитлеру,  насколько слаба боеготовность советских вооруженных сил.

_____
About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst. During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian.

He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

_____
About the Macedonian League
We are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity.

As of 12 February 2019, the Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Prespes Agreement", as this Agreement is a serious national security issue for Greece and the wider Balkan region.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in Skopje.

For more information, follow us on Website, Facebook, Twitter: 

When it was time for the Greek Parliament to ratify or reject the Prespa Agreement, Nikos Voutsis, the then Speaker of the Parliament, declared that the matter would be offered to the Parliament for discussion and ratification. Nonetheless, he mentioned that ratification of this Agreement would require a three-fifths majority out of 300 in the Greek Parliament. However, he added, "There is no constitutional provision for 180 votes, but for such a serious matter, the larger the majority will be, the better for all". Unfortunately, it is doubtful that Nikos Voutsis had read and understood Article 28 (2) of the Constitution, which he had sworn to uphold.

On January 25, 2019, out of 300 representatives, 153 voted for the Agreement, 146 against it, and 1 voted "present." The day after the Agreement's ratification, Greece's Alternate Foreign Minister, Georgios Katrougalos, signed the Prespa Agreement's enacted law in the Greek Parliament following Article 35(1) of the Constitution.

What is ironic about the whole thing is that although 146 representatives voted against the Agreement, not one of them protested against the violation of the Constitution.

The vote was unconstitutional since the Greek Constitution requires a minimum of 180 votes in the positive given the provision, "[a] majority of three-fifths of the total number of Members of Parliament shall be necessary to vote the law ratifying the treaty or agreement." Since NOT one member of the official opposition said anything about it, it means that they were ALL in it, including and not limited to N.D., and especially Golden Dawn and any political party in between. All this happened because SYRIZA was the political sacrificial lamb. SYRIZA did what N.D. wanted and what the Golden Dawn was begging for to have something to yell against. In such a manner, all parties would gain more members as being more "patriotic." Right now, we have the Skopjan Church throughout the world, Skopje's football federation and the Skopjan Consul General in Toronto implicated in raising the illegal flag of Vergina, and the government of N.D. is as loud as a fish. We also witnessed two foreign politicians being embroiled in the same issue - one Australian, on purpose, and one Canadian, who was caught unaware.

The majority's affirmative vote followed by the absolute silence of the minority made the Prespa Agreement constitutional and consequently very legal.

To put it another way, Nikos Voutsis, the Speaker of the Parliament at the time, acknowledged that Greece's Basic Law was flawed and too vague to be applied fairly.

The answer to whether a Court, any Court, local, or the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) having jurisdiction on the matter may revoke the said Agreement is NO.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (May 23, 1969), entered into force on January 27, 1980, registered with the United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331, a diplomatic instrument may not be revoked unless it meets one of the grounds that Article 62 (Fundamental change of circumstances) specifies. The Prespa Agreement does not meet any of the grounds for revocation. Thus, parenthetically, once a diplomatic instrument is in force, it may not be revoked. 

In my article Petition to the Government of Greece dated January 28, 2019, I warned the Greek government about the hurdles it would face. As Suetonius attributed to Julius Caesar on January 10, 49 B.C., "Tunc Caesar: "Eatur," inquit, "quo deorum ostenta et inimicorum iniquitas vocat. Iacta alea est," inquit. [Upon this, Caesar exclaimed, "let us go where the omens of the Gods and the iniquity of our enemies call us. The die is now cast."] (Suetonius, The Life of Caesar, chapter 32, section 1, Perseus Digital Library - Tufts University).

​
I wrote it from experience. I have seen it happening in a couple of Task Forces that I had participated in and in the Strategic Intelligence discipline. Organizations, especially those with limited resources, would benefit from the above setup.

A team is an entity that reflects its members' common qualities and consensus without eliminating their individuality.

Strategic Leadership is an approach in which one learns the fundamentals of effectively leading people, teams, and organizations. It helps one develop tools to analyze organizational situations. In addition, one knows how to build a conceptual framework for leadership by devising and putting strategies for immediate impact into practice.

The specialization covers the strategic human resource and organizational foundations for creating and capturing value for long-term competitive advantage within a single organization.

Finally, a leadership and management strategy apply everything one has learned to a real-world issue. The immersive and hands-on deliverable will provide valuable practice and create value from the standpoint of potential members with the cooperation of one or more focal firms.

Coming to the politicians of Greece and their advisors, I can easily say that they have not impressed me. They were elected and hired for their connections instead of for their knowledge and skills. The fact that most of them have graduated from fancy universities means nothing before actual knowledge and experience. I have met a few of them. As I have mentioned many times before, a degree from a fancy university does not make one anything. Each individual makes the degree. The people of Greece hope for the best having these "selected" individuals in mind. Hope is good, but it does not solve any problems.

Another product with suspicious "Macedonian feta" that appears in the colors of the Skopje flag is this: https://www.dizin.ca/macedonian-feta-cheese-700-gr-doric/ The same goes for a feta cheese sold as other than "Greek feta."

Check out the same Feta at the Krinos URL (posted below). The LEGAL Trademark for Feta is "Product of Greece." One might add any region of Greece one wants as long as the container states "Product of Greece." One may not make Feta in the United States and call it Greek Feta. One must call it White Cheese. It may be regionally made in Macedonia, or Epirus, or the Peloponnese for all I care, but the trademark feta is for a product produced ONLY in Greece. It is not Feta because the person who made it is of Greek descent or was born in Greece but lives outside of Greece. If the cheese is produced outside of Greece it is still White Cheese; no matter who has made it, it is not Feta. In the case of the Canadian-based Krinos company, it is NOT Greek Feta produced by Greeks in Canada. It is a Greek White Cheese produced by Greeks in Canada.

Check the Prespa Agreement articles 1 and 7. Do not be fooled by words such as Doric and Macedonian. Instead, check the country of origin; the color of the containers helps a lot. They reflect the colors of the flag of Skopje. It does not state "Made in GREECE." It states that it is "Made in CANADA", which means that it may not be sold as Feta in any form.

Specifically, here is the statement as found on the Krinos website: Popular in northern Greece and other Balkan countries, Macedonian style feta, also known as Doric Feta, exhibits the unique characteristics of a "double-cream" cheese, containing a low milk-fat content of 22%. Unlike traditional Feta, it has a smooth and spreadable texture, making it perfect as a morning spread during breakfast.

Made in Canada. Gluten and sulphite free. (Emphasis is mine).

Unfortunately, since the Krinos company cares only about profits, it does not bother with details. The Ministry of Agriculture of Greece should.

and
​

Εὔξεινος Πόντος [Efxinos Pontos] means φιλόξενος πόντος [filoxenos pontos] or hospitable sea as a euphemism like the Pacific Ocean. Πόντος [Pontos] denotes something sunk. In this case, a sunk piece of land filled with water and quite broad; it is why it is accepted that πόντος [pontos] means "sea." In reality, πόντος [pontos] derives from the verb ποντίζειν [pontizein] or to sink (Liddell–Scott–Jones).

According to D.A. Hardy (1989) and J. Antonopoulos (1992), the Minoan Eruption traditionally took place around 1600. We know that the Thyra (Santorini) eruption took place approximately between 1538 and 1527 BC per Eusebius, Chronicles, 71 & 183. From 1628 BC and 1450 BC, I speculate that the Eastern Mediterranean's geological region suffered a series of changes as tsunamis flooded the land today is the Aegean Sea. Perhaps, the splitting of Olympus and Ossa that created the fertile ground of Thessaly was part of a series of earthquakes and other geological changes that formed the earth as it is in that region today.

On the other hand, the word Pelagos derives from Πέλιον Ἂργος [Pelion Argos] or Old Land. The name indicates that the region of the Aegean was a flatland. Still, some barrier that held the water away from it broke, sunk(?), and the water surged over the land due to some geological changes in the southern part. The story of the "Kabeiri" (also Cabeiri, Cabiri; ancient Greek: Κάβειροι, Kábeiroi) in Samothrace collaborate this. Here is the summation of the story: Just after the waters stopped rising, the Pelasgian inhabitants of Samothrace built an altar in honor of Poseidon, the god of the sea. Now was time for reconstruction, time for reproduction. The incoming waters perished too many lives and property. This flood took place when Deukalion was king of Achaia, i.e., southern Greece. Since then, the inhabitants of Samothrace re-enacted their plight to save their lives. Such a geological change was probably recent to remain in the memory of people.

Γενοκτονία (genoktonia, Greek for genocide) originates from the Greek words γένος (genos, "race") and κτείνειν (= φονεύω) (to kill). Since the Pontians are Greek in γένος (race), they cannot be excluded from the Greek ethnos, as if they were a separate ethnicity. One could attribute such an act to either ignorance or contempt for their Greek origin or even egomania and megalomania of the movement's originators and leaders.

Not one conqueror of the Pontic lands ever separated them from Asia Minor. The Greeks named the lands Asia Minor, i.e., Small Asia, as opposed to the Asian continent. As part of general geographical designations, Byzantines divided the Empire into two sectors. One was Ἀνατολικαί Ἐπαρχίαι (Eastern Provinces) which referred to the Asian lands as opposed to Δυτικαὶ Ἐπαρχίαι (Western Provinces), which were the European regions. Ἀνατολικαί Ἐπαρχίαι turned to Anadolu in Turkish, which gives us the westernized modern term of Anatolia. Anatolia College in Panorama of Thessaloniki stands witness to such toponym.

The Anatolia College was established in at Pontic town of Merzifon, which is at the district in Amasya Province in the central Black Sea region, i.e., Pontos. One may find more information at the website of Anatolia College.

​Here is what the website of the school states.
​

Intelligence agencies and especially those of human intelligence manipulate their victims' character blemishes as gambling, alcoholism, spousal unfaithfulness, and anything they consider sources for extorsion. They all use psychology to evaluate virtue, like religion, patriotism, regionalism, language, and a few other parts of individual identities by either flouting them or encouraging them depending on the motives, goals, and objectives.

The secret lies with actual knowledge of one's own national strategic culture and the opponent's national strategic culture. To find it, one MUST re-examine, evaluate, understand the perceived cause and effect, and estimate all probabilities. One must also consider the hindsight biases in evaluating intelligence reporting of all biases as information, selection, and confounding, not just one's cognitive and inherent biases while avoiding simplification.  It is significant for one to prevent a mirror image.

Cognitive bias is dangerous because it affects the processing of information. It is crucial to distinguish cognitive biases from other forms of prejudice, such as cultural bias, organizational bias, or bias that marks one's self-interest. Their goal is to divide the people of the adversarial country in any way that would bring good results for their national interests. It is the oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer.

Notwithstanding, the main issue is this. Those who advocate Pontian "separatism" should bear in mind that Military Unit 11135 and the 18th CRI- Central Research Institute of the GRU are excellent in signal intelligence research capability, including research and development in wireless devices, SCADA electromagnetic protection systems. Unit 01168, 27th CRI is a research institute in information technologies and command and control systems.

These agencies also covertly encourage the so-called "Pontian Genocide," which they purposely promote among the Pontian Greeks as separate events from the Greek Genocide.  These Pontian "separatists" allow themselves to become pawns of the MİT and the GRU.  The most prominent voice for promoting a separate international recognition of a "Pontian Genocide" is Ivan Savvidis, the Russian-born Pontian Greek billionaire and personal friend of Vladimir Putin. According to the Moscow Society of Greeks' website, Savvidis is the leader of the Greeks in Russia. Coincidence? Not at all! They work for the Russian intelligence agencies and indirectly for the Turks against Greece, either not seeing the unfolding damage in front of their eyes or not caring.  The bottom line is this.

The advocates of the separate "Pontian" Genocide have unconsciously become intelligence assets of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), the Russian Military Intelligence (GRU), and the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MİT). The above mentioned intelligence agencies play them like a Stradivarius violin against Greece, Greek national interests, and national security. They want to destabilize Greece.

Although their goals differ, both Turks and Russians work toward similar objectives using the same types of Greeks similarly. They have found the appropriate switch in the people that I have described above. The Turkish and Russian operation assets do not feel that they get played by the above powers' intelligence agencies because the members of the MİT and the GRU (Military Unit 44388) are professionals. The Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups are obscure, outstanding, and very active organizations inflicting mayhem on their targets like these Pontians federations and their collaborators.

Some Pontian Greeks are such self-aggrandizers that they are ready to serve anyone who gives them what boosts their ego. They close their eyes to the goal of Turkey and Russia to split the Greeks. They refuse to realize that a divided Genocide plays right into the hands of Turkey and Russia.

Nevertheless, many Pontian federations, supported by Pontos-centric historians and a mathematician who is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial in the subject, went a little further. They contended that we must never denounce Turkish acts of Genocide because the Greek Army had done the same. They got the "evidence" from the GRU and MİT.

Perhaps an explanation of a few things about articles 58 and 59 of the Treaty of Lausanne is in order.

The governments of Greece and Turkey signed the "Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations" at Lausanne, Switzerland, on January 30, 1923. The Treaty of Lausanne incorporated the Convention.

The Treaty of Peace with Turkey, aka the Treaty of Lausanne, signed at Lausanne on July 24, 1923, was not just between Greece and Turkey. Other signatories of the Treaty were France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

Before I proceed, I wish to stress a few points that will enlighten the reader regarding a few provisions in the above-mentioned diplomatic documents.

A constant point that all professional amateur "experts" on the "separate" "Pontian Genocide" keep pointing out is article 59 of Lausanne's Treaty, which they take out of context and, of course, out of ignorance.

Yet, after reading article 58, it does not take much to understand that there was more than meets the eye. According to Article 58, Turkey has no pecuniary claims against any powers except Greece. However, being a "benevolent" victor with an "understanding" that Greece's finances were in disarray, it successfully "persuaded" the Greek negotiators to afford some other accommodations, which we shall see as my explanations unfold.

The Treaty of Lausanne prompted the global acknowledgment of the new Republic of Turkey's sway as the replacement legal entity of the Ottoman Empire. As an aftereffect of the Treaty, the Ottoman state's public debt was split among Turkey and the nations that arose out of the previous Ottoman Empire.

Articles 58 and 59 of the Treaty of Lausanne refer to Greece's political instability that followed the Balkan Wars. At that time, Greece had two governments, one in Athens and one in Thessaloniki (the Provisional Government of National Defense, State of Thessaloniki, 1916–1917). A few other events made furthermore Greece's position rather precarious.

Nonetheless, here is the revealing point. Some professional amateurs operating out of their realm have instigated and keep supporting the anti-Hellenic pack in Greece. Some professional amateurs support the anti-Hellenic endeavors of the professional amateurs since the latter have taken upon themselves "to clean the Greek Augean political stables from its garbage," as the website of the Greeks in Moscow states. The question is, on behalf of which foreign intelligence organization do the professional amateurs intend to "to clean the Greek Augean political stables from its garbage"? Knowing how the Russian intelligence agencies work, I can make an educated guess that Putin is behind the project of the Pontian Genocide aided by Erdoğan.

The opportunity for Turkey to demand reparations from Greece came from Greece itself as a result of domestic instability and National Schism (Εθνικός Διχασμός), aka "The Great Division" that had started on August 30, 1916, and ended on August 4, 1936, after a series of trials, assassination attempts (1933) and an attempted coup (1935).

In consequence of the above-mentioned political instability, on November 15, 1922, the Greek government held the so-called "Trial of the Six" (Dimitrios Gounaris, Georgios Baltatzis, Nikolaos Stratos, Nikolaos Theotokis, Petros Protopapadakis, and General Georgios Hatzianestis). The verdict came as "guilty of treason." They were all executed on November 28, 1922. Admiral Michail Goudas and General Xenophon Stratigos received a life imprisonment sentence.

Prince Andrew, who was in Corfu at the time, was arrested, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death a few days later; however, since he held the rank of ex-officio without any military training, his death sentence was commuted to exile.

The whole matter might have raised political notches for some; it was detrimental for Greece and its national security. The court-martial and its outcome gave the ammunition to İnönü to demand reparations for the war's unnecessary prolongation. The excuse of İnönü at the Conference appertained to Greece's acceptance that its Army unnecessarily prolonged the war. It is why Turkey demanded remedies. It was not alleged atrocities.

What did İnönü want in exchange? İnönü sought and received something of a significant strategic military value; it was Karaağaç, the small area of approximately 31 square km west of Edirne on the west bank of Evros.

Is it possible that Turkish or Kurdish villagers had engaged in such warfare? It is probable. It is why the Treaty of Lausanne had not included what civilians perceive as atrocities committed by both Greek and Turkish armies. The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate perfidies sometimes blurs. Once civilians commence hostilities against an attacking military group, the latter has the right to defend itself.

The most challenging part is a similar situation in hospitals. An illegal ruse is when a defending military group occupies a building identified as a medical facility and fires from it against the attacking force.

The Big Red One, a 1980 American epic war film, includes such a scene. One of the movie's memorable scenes takes place in a mental hospital complete with throat slashings and inmates walking around unconcerned while fighting within the hospital rages and romantic music plays. As men are killed, one patient picks up a German MP40 submachine gun and begins shooting at everyone in sight, shouting, "I am one of you now! I am sane! I am sane! I am sane!"

If the belligerents of Greek and Turkish forces had bona fide cases of war crimes committed against each other's populations, they would have brought such allegations to the Peace Conference of the Treaty of Lausanne for investigation.

The Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine of November 27, 1919, brought by Serbia against Bulgaria, already included such war crimes. So a precedent already existed.

I am offering as an example the story of Serbia's case against Bulgaria included in articles 57, 113(3), 119, 120 of the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine of November 27, 1919.

On October 15, 1915, two Bulgarian Armies attacked and overran Serbian military units penetrating the South Morava river's valley near Vranje. They occupied the area on October 22. 1915. Eventually, the Bulgarian forces occupied Kumanovo, Štip, and Skopje. In this manner, they prevented the Serbian Army's withdrawal south to the Greek border and Thessaloniki. At that time, Greece was neutral (Falls and Becke, 1933). Aleksandar Protogerov was the Bulgarian commander of the 3rd Brigade of the 11th Bulgarian Division occupied Štip, which unruly Bulgarian soldiers had heavily looted (Fischer, 1967).

On October 26, 1915, Aleksandar Protogerov ordered the execution of 118 wounded and sick Serbian soldiers who were recuperating at the Štip town hospital. Ivan Barlyo, commander of the local VMRO (IMRO), transported the Serbian soldiers to Ljuboten village and summarily executed them. The above is only one example of Bulgarian atrocities.

One must bear in mind that Todor Aleksandrov commanded the local VMRO (IMRO) band. Later on, Alexandrov's followers emigrated to the United States, Canada, and Australia in the mid-1930s (Pissari. 2013). These are the "Macedonians" that Greeks of the United States, Australia, and Canada have to deal with.

The above Pontian "separatists", following the Russian and Turkish guidance, consider the Greek Army's expedition beyond Ionia's area as an invasion of Greece against Turkey.

To justify their thesis, Pontian federations and their surrogates pushed for bizarre reasoning that defies any logic unless one is mentally incapacitated. Here is their illogical reason. Since Greece had "invaded" Turkey, then Greece had to have committed numerous atrocities. The Mudros Agreement, aka Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918), is a simple 2 ½ page document dictating to Turkey what it has to do with its territorial possessions. Such clauses and a few others of a more specific nature are included in the Treaty of Lausanne.

During the pre-Treaty of Lausanne Conference, both the Greek and Turkish sides presented their list of alleged atrocities against the other side starting in April 1921. Information on suspected Greek atrocities derived from the Turkish side without independent collaboration and proper investigation. If the Turkish allegations had legal standing, the Treaty of Lausanne would have stipulated any and all violations of the laws of war at the time.

Under such an assumption, Turkey's violations of human rights, such as Genocide against the Christian populations of Asia Minor, including Ionia, are justified and excused. Fotiadis stated as much in 2019 on Open TV. The above Pontians advocate that the burning of the Greek and Armenian sectors of Smyrna by Ataturk is also justified. Under such a logic, international recognition of the "Pontian Genocide" is warranted according to these groups, but not the Greek Genocide, since Pontians never invaded Turkey, but the Greeks did. Do not attempt to find any logic in the irrational string of thought.

No Greek national or any other Christian minority of Turkey had invaded Asia Minor, including the Pontian Greeks. What was the excuse for the CUP government to commit such crimes? If we want to talk about who invaded whom, then Turks were the invaders starting at the Battle of Manzikert (August 26, 1071).

When I asked a community leader who claimed to be "a Pontian genocide expert" to specify the "atrocities" allegedly committed by the Greek Army that he claimed "invaded" Asia Minor, he referred to article 59 of Lausanne's Treaty, not at a specific act. An atrocity on the battlefield is a matter of opinion that differs in substance between people who know all about it firsthand from those who watch war movies.

The U.S. Field Manual (1956) states:

During the Battle of Khafji that took place January 29 to February 1, 1991, a column of Iraqi tanks T-55s rolled up to the Saudi Arabian border with their gun turrets pointing backward, a sign of surrender. As Saudi Arabian troops approached them, the Iraqi tanks reversed their turrets and opened fire. Their action prompted air support from a nearby  AC-130 gunship destroying 13 vehicles.

The above act of the Iraqi tanks was an illegitimate ruse of war.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, atrocity implies conduct that is outrageously or wantonly wicked, criminal, vile, cruel, too horrible, and shocking.

However, how many acts of war do not meet the above definition? War itself is a great atrocity. Nevertheless, I KNOW what war is all about. The online "experts" watch war movies instead.

I wish to remind the reader that Greece was legally in Asia Minor under the mandate stipulated in the Armistice of Mudros (October 30, 1918).

The claim that Pontians merit their Genocide absent from that of the Greeks of Asia Minor shows a separation from reality.

Whether they are uninformed of the etymology and definition of the word "Genocide" or feel an exceedingly conceited regionalism, it demonstrates their despise and contempt for the rest of the Greeks. Their demand that their regional plight is higher in importance than the national anguish indicates shameful hatred of their ethnic roots. The question is, why does he listen to the voice of Greece's enemies to the existential detriment of Greece?

The recognition of a Genocide is awarded to ethnic groups, not toponymic demonyms. Once Pontians demand and accept the recognition of the Pontian Genocide, they declare that they are not of the Greek genos but a separate ethnic group. One either is a Greek, or one is not a Greek. There is no parallel ethnicity to the Greek. The recognition of a "Pontian Genocide" versus Greek Genocide sows the seeds of Greece's death warrant as a modern state.

So, all people enamored by the "Pontian Genocide" had better think twice about what they wish for unless it is precisely what these Pontian organizations and their cohorts desire. It is a simple but firm warning to the Pontians and ALL supporters of the "Pontian Genocide" as a separate event away from the Greek Genocide.

I am finishing with two verses that I dedicate to the devotees of the "Pontian Genocide." They are from the poem Ἀνθολογία τῆς Οἰκονομίας by Georgios Souris (1853-1919) written in 1910:

By Marcus A. Templar

Abstract

The focus of this monograph is to offer a simple understanding to those unfamiliar with the issue of national security as related to disciplines of Strategic Intelligence, the collection of information, its analysis, and exploitation for the benefit of a state’s national security as it fulfills the satisfaction of its national interests.

In his book Espionage and Treason, the late André Gerolymatos articulated the role of proxeneia in Classical Greece (Gerolymatos 1986). The book offers Gerolymatos’ excellent understanding of how diplomatic missions worked and still do. Nevertheless, espionage is a term that covers a variety of actions employed by states for a wide range of reasons and does not cover the full scope of the tradecraft.

The correlation between intelligence and, more specifically, strategic intelligence and national security is coefficient and mutually dependent. This monograph has used the core of a speech under the title Intelligence in Contemporary America that the author had delivered at the Kiwanis Club on December 2, 2019.

What is Intelligence?

The definition of intelligence has troubled many intelligence professionals throughout the years, especially those who understand the full scope of their tradecraft. Even professionals shrink from answering the question “what is the definition of intelligence” and rightly so. Nevertheless, to an intelligence professional who has worked in that specific part of National Security, the simple definition of intelligence is the analysis of carefully collected information free of contaminated and inaccurate material. It includes objectivity independent of political considerations based on all available credible sources and timeliness.

It is true that in some cases, the analyst might seriously consider information collected from dubious informants with sketchy motives or documents of unknown origin because they match some person’s beliefs. It is the case that verification for the accuracy of such information is of great importance. It is not unusual that adversaries intentionally or sometimes unintentionally release essential details of certain subject matter. One may also receive speculative or unreliable information pushed in by politically motivated personnel, most of whom are appointees to please the boss. Conspiracy theories are not part of reliable intelligence. To avoid mishaps, a departmental fusion process exists. Agencies propel the evidence to the Office of National Intelligence, where specific information gets an exhaustive examination that follows by a thorough sanitization.

Knowing oneself and one’s adversary is extremely important in intelligence. A significant advantage of an intelligence officer is not only to know what one knows, but to know what one does not know, i.e., one must attain the psychological stage of Conscious Competence. It is the stage in which one knows what one knows, but most importantly one knows what one does not know.

Sun Tzu, the Chinese general, military strategist, writer and philosopher who lived in the Eastern Zhou period of ancient China, and author of The Art of Warfare, states in Section III, “Attack by Stratagem”, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle” (The Book of War 2000, 80-81).

In Ancient Times

The Book of Numbers

The first recorded example of intelligence collection comes to us from the book of Numbers (Hebrew: Bəmiḏbar meaning "In the desert") is the fourth book of the Tanakh and the fourth of five books of the Torah.

According to the text (chapter 13), Moses sent 12 men to spy on the inhabitants and land north of Kadesh Barnea, which was at the edge of the desert of Paran, where the Israelites were encamping (Numbers 10:12; 12:16). The 12 men journeyed north to Hebron, and from there, they traveled north toward the valley of Eshkol and then the hill country, i.e., around present-day Jerusalem and beyond exploring the territory up to the Heights of Golan near the present-day Quneitra, Syria.

After the scouts had explored the entire land, they returned to Kadesh Barnea where two of the spies, Joshua and Caleb, reported that the area was abundant "flowing with milk and honey, probably a date syrup. The members of the reconnaissance team brought “back samples of the fruit of the land, most notably a gigantic cluster of grapes which requires two men to carry it on a pole between them.” Nevertheless, they also reported that the people who dwelt in the land were strong; the cities were fortified, and also, the cities were huge, but compared to what? Ten out of 12 mentioned that the people of those cities were giants and also reliable, kind of cruel, bogeymen, and hobgoblins. However, the twelve spies cataloged the human terrain, i.e., the inhabiting tribes and the specific locations of their habitation.

Such are the problems an intelligence analyst faces daily since it crucial that one decides what is factual and fictional. What the 10 out of the 12 men had reported about the “giants” is a matter of opinion or a case of exaggeration out of fear or unwillingness to fight them. These were the Israelites who were born in captivity. They had learned to be subservient instead of fighting for their rights. After this occurrence, God punished all of them by keeping them in a place for 40 years so that those who were born in captivity, in Egypt, die and the new generation who was born in the wilderness and free not knowing enslavement were ready to fight and win (Num. 32:13).

The above is the first example of human intelligence of tactical, operational, but most importantly of strategic value. The answers Moses received were enough to assess the risk but also to design the path. Per God’s instructions, Moses assigned the leaders of each tribe to deploy, coordinate, and participate in the tactical on the ground situation.

The team of scouts produced intelligence by querying information repositories and generating reports. The scouts devised methods for identifying factual patterns and trends in available sources of information. They also determined capabilities, vulnerabilities, and probable courses of action of their adversaries. They acquired the psychological aspects of the people and what made them tick.

They then communicated to Moses and through him possible suppliers, and others to stay abreast of industry or business trends. In this manner, they developed the strategic analysis that became the cornerstone of strategic planning that led the Israelites to the promised land.

Sinon (Σίνων), the Double Agent

As an example of a double agent in the ancient world, but also of selfless dedication to the cause, we take the situation in the Trojan War and the Wooden Horse or as I call it the Greek Horse. His name was Sinon (Greek: "Σίνων"), and he was a relative of Ulysses. Although Homer does not mention Sinon’s name, he does mention the incident with the Horse. Sinon’s name comes to us from Virgil’s book of Aeneid II, 77, but also Quintus of Smyrna. The details of the story appear in Aeneid, book 2, 77, but also in chapter 12 of Quintus of Smyrna in his Post-Homerica.

After Ulysses put the plan down, the task building of the horse was given to an excellent carpenter and skilled boxer (Iliad XXIII) from Phocis, Epeius (Ἐπεύς or Ἐπειός) who told the Greek leadership of the design, the quality and quantity of logs needed for the project. The Greeks went to mountain Ida (presently Turkish: Kazdağı = goose mountain) just southeast of Troy (Turkish Truva) for the timber. Epeius built the horse with a hollow belly so that several warriors could fit in it. We know of the names of 30 warriors who entered the belly of the horse. Epeius was the last one to enter the horse through one of the doors.

After the horse was finished and the warriors entered the hollow horse, the Greek fleet sailed and hid behind the island of Tenedos, but not before they left a wandering warrior at the hills of near Troy. His name was Sinon. Sinon had volunteered for the mission knowing full well that he would be tortured and even killed by the Trojans.

Quintus of Smyrna states that the Trojans woke up in the morning getting ready to attack, but they could not see anyone there except for one man, Sinon, next to the wooden horse. The camp was deserted, and one could see only smoke coming from the Greek campsite. Apollodorus (5.14–5.18) states that Sinon was the one who started the fire only to attract the attention of the Trojans to him.

In the beginning, the Trojans encircled him and gently asked him questions, which he refused to answer. Then the Trojans grew angry and began to threaten him with stabbing. Sinon remained defiant to their threats, not answering their questions. As a means of unfriendly persuasion, the Trojans cut off his ears and then his nose. Finally, under pressure, he told them the pre-rehearsed story, i.e., the Greeks had fled, and they built the Trojan Horse to honor Athena.

According to Quintus of Smyrna (chapter 12), Sinon claimed that Ulysses (Odysseus) wanted to sacrifice him, but he managed to escape and hid in a swamp. When the Greeks gave up looking for him and left, he returned to the Trojan Horse adjacent to the camp. Sinon claimed that out of respect for Zeus, the Greeks stopped looking for him. All the Trojans believe this story, except Laocoön, who, along with his two sons, who were attacked by a giant sea serpent. Following this, believing that Laocoön was assaulted because he offended the gods, the rest of the Trojans began to accept Sinon's fictional story. Feeling bad for Sinon, and fearing the wrath of the gods, the Trojans brought Sinon and the Trojan Horse into Troy. We all know what happened next.

In keeping with another account by Virgil (Aeneid 2: 57- 198), Sinon wandered until he met with three shepherds and surrendered to them. They, in turn, escorted him to Priam, the king of Troy.

According to Virgil (Aen. 2.79) Sinon (Σίνων) was the son of Sisyphus and a grandson of Autolycus, and because of it, he was a relative of Odysseus. He is described in later poems as having accompanied his kinsman to Troy (Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 344; Heyne, Excurs. iv. ad Virg. Aen. ii.).

Alexander the Great – Strategic Intelligence

Alexander the Great put together a coalition of almost all Greek states, except the Laconians who excused themselves as by tradition they had to lead, not follow another force even if it were a Pan-Hellenic expedition against a common enemy. Alexander had inherited a well-trained fierce Army, which combined with the armies of the current powers as Corinth, Athens, Thebes established an unbeatable force. He only needed a carefully crafted strategic plan that exuded the sense of victory suited to a masterful expedition.

Nevertheless, Alexander the Great had already founded the groundwork for a great plan, Strategic Intelligence. Before he moved against the Persians and Medes, Alexander had ample knowledge of what prudent and visionary generals ought to have on their opponents. He possessed the coup d’oeil, the glance that takes in a comprehensive view what one needs to utilize Strategy, Grand Tactics, Logistics, Engineering, and Tactics along with diplomacy in its relation to War (Jomini 2006, 13 & 337). Alexander knew his adversary but most importantly he knew himself.

In the chapter, “Knowledge of the Enemy - Strategic Intelligence” John Keegan explains that,
​

Besides his elite cavalry units known as Companions, his Army (infantry, cavalry, peltasts, which is the modern artillery), and his Navy (sea and riverboat fleets), Alexander the Great brought his staff, court officials and their staff, intellectuals, diplomats/envoys, rhapsodes (ῥαψωδοὶ), harpists; jugglers, flutists, guitar players, tragic and comic actors, physicians, seers, engineers, experts on harbors and water/irrigation, suppliers of food, arms, and equipment, architects, surveyors, mining experts, finance officials, recruiters (troop suppliers), military advisers on elephants.

The artists mentioned above provided the necessary entertainment to the troops and their families, something like the modern “rest and recuperation” (R & R), part of the Morale, Welfare and Recreation activities which is significant for the morale and self-esteem of those involved in the expedition.

Over and above those teams, he had enforced his Army’s top cadre with well-known generals and admirals, and their staff not only to ascertain that the campaign worked unhindered by incidental mishaps but also to establish the basis for possible opportunities transferring his own culture to places that Greeks did not know about or they had heard in countless myths. Nevertheless, most importantly, Alexander expecting a long campaign suggested to the above individuals to bring their families with them. And so, they did. It is no wonder that he demolished the Persian Empire only after five battles, the Battle of Granicus (334 BC), the Battle of Issus (333 BC), the Siege of Tyre (332 BC), the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC), and the Battle of Hydaspes (326 BC).

From the preparation of his operation, the outcome of his undertaking and written material of Greek and non-Greek authors, we conclude that Alexander did not only pursue the destruction of the beast, i.e., the Persian Empire but besides, he engaged in the expansion of the Greek culture over the Persian Empire and beyond. It is why Alexander had gathered all and any information he could that he needed to start his military expedition. Not only he collected information, which he analyzed it, but also, he exploited the information to his advantage. But that was not all. As he advanced, he kept collecting, analyzed, and exploited new information as was subjected to many social, cultural, but also political challenges while he was prosecuting the war against Persians and Medes. He intended to transform all captured regions from the local culture to Greek.

Unfortunately, Alexander passed away before he fulfilled his plan. Jealousy, greed, ambition, fear, corruption, and malfeasance made Alexander’s heirs of his empire aka Diadochi to undermine each other’s legitimacy to the point that vastly contributed to their demise, their kingdom’s downfall, and consequently the decline of the Greek culture in favor of the Romans.

One must never undermine someone else without thinking about the unintended consequences that could follow because one might ruin oneself, and simultaneously the principle one is prepared to defend or advocate. Political upheavals and machinations as a result of selfish intentions, personal ambitions prove fatal for the country, culture, and, of course, the expected cause, regardless of the projected excuse malefactors offer to cover their innermost objectives.

Levels of Intelligence

Collected Information is divided into three different levels of intelligence value, and it is crucial for intelligence analysts involved in the security of the country to recognize them. Generally, there are three ‘levels’ of intelligence value: tactical, operational, and strategic.

Tactical intelligence primarily deals with the current situation and gives customers the information they need to carry out existing policy initiatives, but for a narrow area. This level of intelligence is intended primarily to respond to the needs of military field commanders of company or battalion strength so they can plan for and, if necessary, conduct combat operations. The area of engagement would equate to a town or even township.

That brings us to the next level up, the Operational Intelligence. Operational Intelligence is where the combined actions or even decisions of larger military units like a Brigade or a Division are affected. Operational Intelligence embraces and coordinates several tactical intelligence areas. Information about a military campaign is of operational intelligence significance. The maneuvering of battalions and brigades is of functional intelligence value. It is like such an operational level would equate to a state or a region. Operational Intelligence is actionable information about specific incoming attacks.

Law enforcement agencies rely on tactical intelligence as they obtain important information through individuals or even networks of informants. It is not unusual that the same agencies involved in a broader range of issues continuously without affecting the national or international stage pass the threshold of operational intelligence.

If the issue at hand reaches the national or international arena, then the matter falls under Strategic Intelligence. Strategic Intelligence is the cornerstone of our country’s national security. It involves an array of already analyzed information, i.e., intelligence, coming from all disciplines of intelligence bracing: Foresight, Visioning, System thinking, Motivating, Partnering.

Strategic Intelligence helps the decision-makers of our country to look ahead. Analysis of collected information at that level stimulates dialogue, not only exchanging arguments and counterarguments but also articulating various propositional approaches, such as claiming, inspiring, admitting or retracting a plan among the policymakers. The outcome of such a communication establishes a future policy that could affect either the national interests or the national security of our country or stability of a region or even the world. Regional and global stability is a fundamental prerequisite for peace between peoples and cultures.

Strategic Intelligence expresses the highest-level planning of political and military objectives dealing with national interests and national security because it has national security and foreign policy implications. It provides the policymakers with the information needed to create a new initiative that carries the country forward. One needs to realize that the products of national security of a foreign country come in direct agreement with our national interests since it contributes to regional and perhaps global stability.

The definition of what Strategic Intelligence is was given by Sherman Kent put in his book titled, “Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy.” He wrote,
​

Early American Spy-Masters

Intelligence played a significant role in the birth and survival of the United States, especially during its infancy. For instance, George Washington, the first President of the United States, was a skillful spymaster. As a military officer, he directed numerous spy networks, “provided comprehensive guidance in intelligence tradecraft to his agents, and used their intelligence effectively when planning and conducting military operations.”

John Jay, one of the three authors of the Articles of Confederation who later became Chief Justice of the United States, is considered the first national-level American counterintelligence chief.

Benjamin Franklin was dexterous in covert operations, and during the Revolutionary War, he engaged in propaganda operations while directing paramilitary operations against the British.

Starting the Country

When a people of a region develop confidence in themselves and feel the ability to govern themselves decide to create a country of their own, they usually write the reasons for their decision. Whether they call the document declarations of independence, reports, acts and manifestos is immaterial since all of such statements rise from the same foundation.

In the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated that people have certain inalienable rights, including Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. All Men are created equal. Individuals have a civic duty to defend these rights for themselves and their posterity.

These were the reasons behind the revolution for independence in 1776. They were the values they cherished. Such values gave rise to the goals that the new country ought to have in order to prosper. It took a few years to establish the final set of government starting with the first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation under which John Hanson, a Finn was the first President of the United States with a term lasting only one year. Following the same articles, seven more presidents followed in subsequent years. In 1789, the founding fathers, replaced the Articles of Confederation with the current U.S. Constitution, which was ratified on June 21, 1788, and went into effect on March 4, 1789.

Therefore, the next step for them was how to achieve the goals through sound policies. Here comes the information needed in order to determine the country’s national interests and secure these interests with appropriate institutions that inaugurate the nation’s national security through sound National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy.

The preamble of the U.S. Constitution sets as goals of the American people "to form a perfect Union" aiming at establishing “Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

National Interests in the Ancient World

The Story of Jason

The fight for safeguard a state’s goals based of the prevalent values goes back to antiquity and even to pre-historic times. We see that in the old times, Greeks fully understood the meaning of national interests, although they did not have a collective conscience as one ethnos yet to speak about national security.

The story of Jason, the argonaut expedition, and the golden fleece indicates the resources Greeks were extracting from Georgia. In the case of the golden fleece, it was similar to present-day panning; instead a man the Greeks placed in the water the fleece of the ship. The momentum of the creek or river flowing water created electricity on the wool, which attracted the golden nuggets as they were trapped in the moving sand.

Trojan War

The 10-year long war of Greek city-states against the city of Ilion, aka Troy as Homer narrates in his Iliad, was only a segment of a more significant campaign of interests or as we would describe it “national Interests” of Greek city-states at the time. Although the excuse for the expedition was the abduction of Helen, the reality is that Troy dominated and controlled the straits of Dardanelles as well as the proximal interior of the western part of Asia Minor. It is a fact that Greek city-states had expanded their interests by colonizing coastal areas in the Mediterranean Sea, but also most coastal regions of the Euxine (Black) Sea. The whole issue was a matter of trade between the colonies and their home city. It was a fundamental economic concept involving the procurement and trade of goods and services. Evidently, the Trojans hindered such trade and had possibly imposed some toll or even hindered all navigation forcing the Greeks to retaliate.

Nevertheless, the fact is that not all Greeks were affected in the same way. Some were affected by the hindrance of a trade by the Trojans more than others or not at all due to either alliances or diversion of resources. Those who were affected much more than others had figure out was how to unite all Greeks under a common cause creating a formidable alliance.

As a result, the Greeks who were affected sought an excuse that would unite them against the violator of their trading interests, i.e., Troy. Furthermore, the excuse was the abduction of Helen, which bruised the honor of the King of Sparta Menelaos. It was insulting that a Trojan pirate went into the Palace of a Greek king and stole under the king’s eyes his wife, who happened to be a very beautiful woman. Perhaps Menelaos was not as a famous or powerful king, but his brother Agamemnon was.

The matter was of utmost importance for the Greeks considering that the force and determination of the expedition of a united Greek fleet were 29 contingents under 46 leaders accounting for a total of 1,186 ships (Iliad book 2). If we use the Boeotian figure of 120 men per ship, then the count results in a total of 142,320 men transported to Troy. According to Apollodorus, there were 30 contingents under 43 leaders for a total of 1013 ships of several regions of Greece participated. He lists the participating city-states and their demonyms. Somehow, I doubt that Greek states would mobilize such strength against Troy just for the beauty of Helen and the honor of Menelaos.

The Peloponnesian War

The study of the eight books of Thucydides, summarized under the title “History of the Peloponnesian War,” is imperative for those dealing with strategic concepts as is strategic intelligence. He has recorded political and moral analysis of what today we consider the nation’s policies and the intended or unintended consequences of their outcome. The books include 104 passages that refer to 47 elements of Strategy and Public Policy, among them issues of national interest, strategic culture, and national security.

“The Peloponnesian War” offers passages about alliances, appeasement, arms control, balance of power, balance (external), balance (internal), bipolar international system, border disputes, coercive diplomacy, defense planning, deterrence, domino effect analysis, correlation of economics and strategy, expected utility as an incentive for war, fear, and national security policy, force-to-space ratio, geography, horizontal escalation, hostile feelings-hostile intentions, imperialism, domestic and international legitimacy, logistics, loss-of-strength gradient, military discipline, military initiative, military necessity, military tactics, military training, naval power, morale, strategic culture, national interests, misperceptions, neutrality, numerical superiority, overextension, power, prestige, preventive war, principle of concentration of force, principle of unity of command, reputation as a strategic asset, security dilemma, surprise, terrain, unequal growth. It is why Thucydides is one of the most researched and read author of the ancient world (Koliopoulos 2010, passim).

Such passages establish strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of adversaries. This kind of information helps one to devise methods for identifying data patterns and trends in available information sources. Furthermore, the analyst seeks details to determine changes in adversaries’ capabilities, vulnerabilities, and any probable courses of action.

National Interests in the Modern World

Policymakers aim at defining the national interests of the country by answering several questions and answering them in earnest. Some of the fundamental questions are:

​By far, most national interests include, starting with self-preservation through political independence, not in terms of boundaries, but in terms of policies, flourished economy, and military security. Nevertheless, it requires domestic and regional political stability supported by economic constancy and growth while it is safeguarded by the country’s strategic intelligence that supports its national security.

Stability in a democratic state with fully functioning democratic institutions means a predictable political environment, which in turn attracts investment, both internally and from outside. The resulting virtuous circle of poverty reduction, job creation, increased state revenues, and investment in welfare and education bring benefits to all in society such that a return to violence or chaos is in no-one’s interests.

When a country is already in fiscal troubles due to a series of governmental improprieties, e.g., irrational taxation and unreasonable partisan spending aiming at political causes that regress at least 30 years the last thing the country needs is political instability regardless of how good the reason for instability is, as some people might feel. "These people cannot see the forest for the tree.
​

I must explain that the argument for stability applies solely to countries with functioning democratic institutions. It does not apply to autocratic and repressive regimes. Regimes that are led by a dictator or one who believes that laws do not apply to him, domestic stability could lead the country to an oblivion more than one way. For instance, Mobutu Sese Seko, an excellent example of a tyrant, political stability, made him filthy rich. He became notorious for corruption, nepotism, and the embezzlement of between US$ 4 billion and $15 billion during his “reign.”

The Kim family in North Korea, a hard-core communist country in which all peoples are only in theory equal, is another of a hereditary line of governing tin-pot-dictators with delusions of grandeur. Any attempt by the administration of the President of South Korea, Kim Dae-jung, to soften the ruler of North Korea, Kim Jong-Il, by proposing the so-called “Sunshine Policy,” had failed. The obstinacy of the North Korean “Great Leader” and the unification the latter had in mind was a politically stable under his terms and rule. In such cases, political stability is a significant liability to human decency, to say that least.

National interests can be based on the following criteria and more: Ideological, moral, legal, religious, pragmatic, bureaucratic, partisan, racial, class-status, foreign-dependency, and others. In some cases, due to populism, politicians apply the country’s national interests based on sentimentality, often unreasonable.

Once the national interests of a country are defined, the government needs to form or/and join alliances with countries that they consider and pursue similar or identical national interests. A good example of countries caring about their own and regional interests in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It started as an administrative agency that was established by a treaty in 1952. I was designed to integrate the coal and steel industries in western Europe. The original participating countries were France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. However, taking into consideration political and economic interests, it developed to the European Economic Community (EEC) and later the European Union (EU).

One must bear in mind that the national goals might change for various reasons as domestic and international circumstances warrant, but the values that founded the country do not; that means that the goals always reflect the values that urged the people to fight for their independence.

Scholars such as Charles Lerche, Abdul A. Said, Vernon Von Dyke, Hans J. Morgenthau, and others have similarly defined national interests. In general, national interests comprise anything a state feels that it is necessary to establish the physical and psychological perimeters of its national security and enhance the welfare of its people. It is a vague definition that requires a lengthy list of needs and wants of the state, which must revisit regularly.

One of the modern devotees of the realist school, Hans J. Morgenthau, wrote “The survival of a political unit, such as a nation, in its identity is the minimum, the necessary element of its interests vis-à-vis other units” (Morgenthau, 1952a, 973).

The Intelligence Process

Individuals

The intelligence analyst gathers information on a specific issue, makes an assessment using an exact intellectual process that transforms a plethora of information into judgments relevant to the formulation of national policies on some issues or topics.

At first, the analyst carefully considers the objective and scope of the assessment. The analyst decides about them on the basis of his background, education, understanding, and any other close association that he might have with the subject matter. If a government official has requested guidance or advice, the analyst concentrates on the issue and articulates his conclusion in a manner that a generalist or an irrelevant person understands it. What is important here is that the analysis as a whole must be free and independent of political considerations.

The analyst must explain the validity of the information and the reliability of his sources. If necessary, he must caveat and express all relevant uncertainties and distinguish between information, assumptions, and judgments. When and where achievable, the analyst incorporates alternative analysis while he establishes relevance to U.S. national security or U.S. allies. In more specific to military cases, he assesses U.S. military operations and capabilities as he assesses the strength and capabilities of adversaries.

Often, the analyst must explain logic and reasoning that led him to crucial judgments, while he must establish “consistency with previous judgments or highlight deviations and justification to protect against factual creep.” Along these lines, he makes accurate judgments and assessments. The analyst never works alone as he seeks and receives advice from his team and joins forces during research and analysis according to time and topic.

On the intellectual side, the standards of an analyst are clarity, relevance, depth, breadth, precision.

It is not unusual that stale, fragmentary, and speculative, and even nefarious and unreliable information is pushed in by politically motivated personnel, most of whom are political appointees to please the boss. Such was the case that led to the invasion of Iraq and a few other adventures (Clarke 2008, passim).

Intelligence Teams

In general, intelligence teams collect information and appropriately interpret it, aiming at concluding the kind of specific information and disseminate it to personnel with expertise in specific disciplines. One-fits-all does not exist in intelligence. It is one of the reasons our intelligence community is compartmented.

Specialized personnel is divided into more specialized management and treatment departments depending on the specialty and geographical area of military interest. Staff is asymmetrically divided into academic disciplines, current needs, experience, and experience in research, analysis, capability, a process utilizing various forms of engagement (productive, inductive, deductive).

To accomplish these tasks, the teams make use of the requisite concentrated information related to research, existing military doctrines, combat, and equipment development and improvements through translations and analyzes that satisfy the potential of multimedia information. Information is collected through geospatial media (satellite and aerial photography), health sources, information collected through interpersonal communication, open sources, signals, scholarly sources, digital networks, financial, cryptanalytical, meteorological, security, and information. Besides, NATO has the "Storm," but also the “Battlefield Information Collection and Exploitation Systems” (BICES) systems.

The analysis of primary data concerns the processing of aggregated information interpreted through a rapid and transparent organization, management, and processing, in order to avoid the accumulation of inaccurate, false, and useless information.

Sources, flow, frequency, quantity, arrangement, and especially the quality of information are taken into account to avoid misleading and misinformation due to emotional and political manipulation.

The credibility of the sources is significant. Rumors, occasions, and conspiracies are always contested. That is why unreliable or questionable sources are not sufficient to establish an event and are treated with great caution when the histories reported are based on entirely hypothetical scenarios.

Finally, team leaders, regardless of grade and grade, meet and put forward partial merging of the conclusions into a general statement. Their focus is on protecting the country's national interests and national security, not protecting the President's political goals. Their oath is to the Constitution and the country against foreign and domestic enemies.

The Intelligence Cycle

I must explain that the process of intelligence never stops. Intelligence professionals call it “the Intelligence cycle.”

The Intelligence Cycle is a concept that describes the general intelligence process in both civilian or military intelligence agencies or law enforcement. The cycle is typically represented as a closed path of activities.

The Intelligence Cycle includes 1. Planning and Direction; 2. Collection; 3. Processing / Exploitation; 4. All Source Analysis and Production; 5. Dissemination/Integration; 6. Evaluation /Feedback.

This cycle never stops, because one must correct any point that did not work for whatever reason simultaneously considering what domestic or international situations influence activities.

Intelligence and National Security

National Security is anything that directly or indirectly affects or violates vital sovereign rights of a country against, and in such a case, the country must react to defend itself. Since it is psychologically connected to the people of the country, it is irrelevant whether other countries agree or disagree with what the country considers issues of national security.

Although countries still use the old and traditional profession of human intelligence to spy on others and deflect their adversary’s espionage, today they rely heavily on technology, which makes it easy for governmental agencies to predict, detect or deflect. Since the establishment of the National Security Act of 1947 that created the (NSC), the intelligence apparatus of the United States has expanded vertically and horizontally. The NSC is the coordinator of the policies and functions of governmental departments and their agencies that relate to all aspects of national security, one of which is the U.S. Intelligence Community. This expansion includes agencies directly under civilian direction and others under military leadership, although under the control of civilian authorities.

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly concede a formal responsibility regarding the authority of the U.S. Congress to oversee or investigate the executive branch; it implies a responsibility of the U.S. Congress to oversee an array of enumerated powers (Article I, Sec. 8 and Article II, Secs. 2 and 4). Thus, one of them is the Congressional Oversight of national intelligence. It exists to protect the Constitutional rights of our citizens. We, the people, cannot allow the Executive Branch to manipulate received intelligence for political or selfish reasons. In brief, we cannot allow our country to end up in the same situation it existed before 1776 from which the people of the United States decided to be free. We have elected officials, not hereditary potentates, nor we have autocrats.

Some information may also be based on dubious informers with sketchy motives or leaked or stolen documents of unknown origin because they match some person’s beliefs, or even the potentially flawed perceptions of intelligence agents and analysts. It is precisely the reason why a departmental fusion process exists, and agencies propel the information to the Office of National Intelligence, where specific information gets an examination after it undergoes a thorough cleansing.

Assessments on the future of a country regarding its national security come from unexpected, but very unexpected, but relevant sources. A major determining factor of both the structure and operation of institutions of states is the Infant mortality rate. This is a fact. The United Nations keeps track of the Infant Mortality of the world, and intelligence agencies use the infant mortality rate to ascertain the direction of a country’s future. The higher the infant mortality of a country, the gloomier is its future. Primary medical care, a highly nutritional diet, suitable education and a few other essential services that promote the health and welfare of the mothers are vital for the country’s existence. The logic behind it is simple. If a country cannot or will not provide all necessary attention through its institutions to its children, which are the future, the country’s future is questionable.

From the statistical point of view, starting from 1 for the worst and out of 225 countries, the United States ranks approximately 170th depending on the year. Afghanistan holds the 1st position almost invariably while at the end, Iceland competes with Monaco for the best country with the lowest infant mortality.

​So, what is “Intelligence”? To a man like me who has worked 30 years in that specific field of National Security, intelligence is the analysis of carefully collected information free of contaminated and inaccurate material. It includes objectivity, which is independent of political considerations based on all available credible sources and timeliness.

National security

National security includes everything that has the potential to endanger our country’s existence or way of life. Public institutions can prevent adversaries from using various means to harm our country or its National Interests. Also, it is the confidence of the citizens of the country in their government and established social, political, legal, financial, and other institutions. Once these institutions cease to exist, the country is considered failed, collapsed, and it is why national security is physical but also psychological.

​The National Security Council of the country must respond, at least, to the following questions:

​Although countries still use the old and traditional profession of human intelligence to spy on others and deflect their adversary’s espionage, today they rely heavily on technology, which makes it easy for governmental agencies to predict, detect or deflect. Since the establishment of the National Security Act of 1947 that created the National Security Council (NSC), the intelligence apparatus of the United States has expanded vertically and horizontally. The NSC is the coordinator of the policies and functions of governmental departments and their agencies that relate to all aspects of national security, one of which is the U.S. Intelligence Community. The said expansion includes agencies directly under civilian direction and others under military leadership but under Congressional Oversight.

The U.S. Intelligence Community is composed of 17 organizations:

Two independent agencies

1. the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and
2. the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);

Eight Elements of the Department of Defense

1. the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),
2. the National Security Agency (NSA),
3. the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), 
4. the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), 
5. Army, 
6. Navy, 
7. Marine Corps, and
8. Air Force.

Seven elements of other departments and agencies

1. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence; 
2. the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis; 
3. U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence; 
4. the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
5. the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of National Security Intelligence;
6. the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; 
7. the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Each one of the above organizations and this is true especially of agencies under the Department of Defense, have their branches of specialties. For instance, the Signal Intelligence includes Electronic Intelligence and Communication Intelligence, and each one of them breaks down to their specific technological disciplines. A rather complete list of intelligence gathering disciplines are:

Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), Measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT), Open-source intelligence (OSINT), Signals intelligence (SIGINT), Technical intelligence (TECHNINT), Cyber or digital network intelligence (CYBINT or DNINT), Financial intelligence (FININT). If one adds Cryptanalysis, Meteorological intelligence, Operations Security, Spy satellites, Telecommunications Electronics Materials Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions (TEMPEST), and Traffic analysis, Strategic Denial and Deception (D&D) one synopsizes the full scope of intelligence collection.

Let me offer MASINT as an example, so that one understands the complexity of some disciplines of Intelligence.

Measurement and Signatures Intelligence

The Measurement and Signatures Intelligence (MASINT) includes organic sensors that may contain those in everyday use by tactical forces (e.g., radar, electro-optic and infrared, Electronic Surveillance, acoustic, and non-acoustic electromagnetic identification, and may be deployed on air, ground, surface, or unattended platforms). It is, so to speak the CSI of the Intelligence Community. Of course, focusing all disciplines of intelligence to a specific target coupled with information obtained through Human Intelligence, excluding micro-politicking and political appointees subservient to their agendas, our intelligence community is unbeatable.

Quoting from the U.S. Army Field Manual 2-0. Chapter 9, the subdisciplines within MASINT include, but are not limited to, the following:

Radar Intelligence (RADINT). The active or passive collection of energy reflected from a target or object by LOS, bistatic, or over-the-horizon radar systems.

Frequency Intelligence. The collection, processing, and exploitation of electromagnetic emissions from a radio frequency weapon (RFW), an RFW precursor, or an RFW simulator; collateral signals from other weapons, weapon precursors, or weapon simulators (for example, electromagnetic pulse signals associated with nuclear bursts); and spurious or unintentional signals.

Electromagnetic Pulses. Measurable bursts of energy that result from a rapid change in material or medium, resulting in an explosive force, produces RF emissions.

Unintentional Radiation Intelligence (RINT). The integration and specialized application of MASINT techniques against unintentional radiation sources that are incidental to the RF propagation and operating characteristics of military and civil engines, power sources, weapons systems, electronic systems, machinery, equipment, or instruments.

Electro-Optical (E-O) Intelligence. The collection, processing, exploitation, and analysis of emitted or reflected energy across the optical portion (ultraviolet, visible, and infrared) of the EMS.

Infrared Intelligence (IRINT). A subcategory of E-O that includes data collection across the infrared portion of the EMS where spectral and thermal properties are measured.

LASER Intelligence (LASINT). Integration and specialized application of MASINT E-O and other collections to gather data on laser systems.

Hyperspectral Imagery (HSI). A subcategory of E-O intelligence produced from reflected or emitted energy in the visible and near-infrared spectrum used to improve target detection, discrimination, and recognition.

Spectroradiometric Products. Include E-O spectral (frequency) and radiometric (energy) measurements. A spectral plot represents radiant intensity versus wavelength at an instant in time.

Geophysical Intelligence. Geophysical MASINT involves phenomena transmitted through the earth (ground, water, atmosphere) and manmade structures including emitted or reflected sounds, pressure waves, vibrations, and magnetic field or ionosphere disturbances.

Seismic Intelligence. The passive collection and measurement of seismic waves or vibrations in the earth's surface.

Acoustic Intelligence. The collection of passive or active emitted or reflected sounds, pressure waves or vibrations in the atmosphere (ACOUSTINT) or in the water (ACINT). ACINT systems detect, identify, and track ships and submarines operating in the ocean.

Magnetic Intelligence. The collection of detectable magnetic field anomalies in the earth's magnetic field (land and sea).

Nuclear Intelligence (NUCINT). The information derived from nuclear radiation and other physical phenomena associated with nuclear weapons, reactors, processes, materials, devices, and facilities.

Materials Intelligence. The collection, processing, and analysis of gas, liquid, or solid samples.

Over and above the previously stated collection disciplines, one must consider the disciplines of all aspects of Counterintelligence as assembled in Field Manual (FM) 34-60.

Accordingly, when the Intelligence Community of the United States, says “the Russians did it,” it means “the Russians did it,” whether one likes it or not.

Presidential Briefings

The daily Presidential Briefing is part of collective intelligence production and dissemination. It is the result of analyzed information that each agency assembles and disseminates to the ODNI. The ODNI determines what the POTUS must know, and after gathering all 16 one-liners, upholds the most vital information to bring to the attention of the President where selected briefers explain to the President the domestic and global issues of the day in the form of visual aids.

The 21st century began for the United States with rather extraordinary events, which, although directed towards our country, these events have affected the world politically and militarily. While the wars in the Balkans were concluding, the 9/11 attack marked the first remarkable assault on the heart of our country. What followed was the war in Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq.

In the last 20 years, the United States has encountered several setbacks in intelligence, not as much because of the rank and file, but because of presidential appointees and politicians who either wanted to please the boss or they considered that some action was needed to show that they were doing something. The only truth in politics is perception, which, by the way, could end up being worse or better than reality.

The emerging challenges and threats of the 21st century are complex and contradictory. They are a far cry from the standard threats we were accustomed to in the past. They are the amalgamation of old antagonisms, ambitions, mingled with advanced technologies having countries or hostile organizations on an equal setting. The prototype of the old times, also known as human intelligence is no longer the only method for a country to learn about their adversaries. Even that type of espionage has changed and has become more sophisticated. It takes 10 to 20 years and sometimes even longer to establish a mutually trusting relationship on both sides. Intelligence collection works based on trust. It is like an alliance or even friendship.

It is why the worst blunder that a decision-maker could make is to treat and implement a well-designed strategic policy as if it were tactical. Everything that was planned and worked for years and years could be destroyed in a matter of minutes. Thus, politicians who relish a short-term gain, they deprive the country and the world of long-term goals, stability, or even long-term solution.

One must always bear in mind that the most significant collection of information and the best analysis in the world means NOTHING if the decision-maker in charge is incapable of understanding facts or unwilling to protect the national interests and, consequently, the national security of our country for a personal gain.

Though, as it happens in our social and business life, our behavior matters also in the international arena as a nation. In politics as well as in foreign relations, our conduct as a country is significant since it tarnishes or enhances our name and reduces or increases our credibility. Intelligence is about planning, while one is ready for the unexpected. Nevertheless, collecting information does not always take place through a cloak and dagger situation. Open sources, like mass media, social media, statistical polls, political or diplomatic receptions, diplomatic instruments, also provide information that trained people can legally gather from free public sources about an individual, organization or country.

An array of websites collects public information about books one checks out of a library, articles in a newspaper or statements in a press release, information in images, videos, webinars, public speeches, and conferences. Collection of information is evident when after research on a matter of interest one keeps receiving snippets exactly on products he had researched in the past with the help of the Internet Protocol address or IP address which offers the actual location of a server or any instrument that requires an IP address.

An IP address information opens the door to the attacker who can use the intelligence created to form a threat model that develops a plan of attack. Targeted cyber-attacks begin with reconnaissance as it happened in 2016, thus testing our readiness to deflect and our resolve by allocating resources to protect our country and its institutions. On the military side, it is passively acquiring intelligence without alerting the target.

Anyone involved in cybersecurity understands how to collect open-source intelligence, which is a vital skill. Whether one defends an enterprise network or tests it for weaknesses, one knows about its digital footprint, which enables one to see it from an attacker’s point of view. Armed with that knowledge, one can go on to develop better defensive strategies.

Conclusion

"Serving in Silence"

Hence as one sees, we collect information, and we advance it to the appropriate persons to start the process and the business of protecting the country. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I have copied the following from the NSA/CSS website,
​

Those professionals who have spent their lives defending the country must effectively manage stress since besides keeping every secret that they have learned and know, concurrently, they have to live a normal life. They are husbands and wives with families. They cannot talk about their jobs even to their spouses.

They do their duty to the country without ego, devoid of bombast, and with no reward whatsoever. The satisfaction intelligence officers receive keeping their homeland safe is the greatest reward they can ever have.

The Cryptologic Memorial of the Central Security Service (CSS) within the National Security Agency (NSA) pays tribute to those who gave their lives in the line of duty, "serving in silence." It is a reminder of the crucial role that cryptology plays in keeping the United States secure. It also reminds us of the devotion to Duty, Honor, Courage that these individuals exercised to carry out their mission at such a dear price.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ake, Claude. "A Definition of Political Stability." Comparative Politics 7, no. 2 (1975): 271-83.

Chambers, Donald E. Social Policy and Social Programs. A Method for the Practical Public Policy Analyst. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986.

Clarke, Richard A. Your Government Failed You. New York: Harper Collins, 2008.

Crankshaw, Edward. Khrushchev's Russia. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1959.

Dearth, Douglas H., and R. Thomas Goodden. Strategic Intelligence. Theory and Application. Second Edition. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College. Center for Strategic Leadership, 1995.

Djilas, Aleksa. The Contested Country. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Djilas, Milovan. Conversations with Stalin. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962.

Djilas, Milovan. "Yugoslavia: The Outworn Structure." New York Times (CIA Directorate of Intelligence), no. XLVII), Reference Title: Esau; 0048/70, RSS N 0.; 1970, 20 November (October 1970).

Dodds, Anneliese. Comparative Public Policy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013.

Edward R Stettinius, Jr. Roosevelt and the Russians: the Yalta Conference. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1949.

Edward R. Stettitnius, Jr. Lend-Lease Weapon for Victory. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1944.

Gerolymatos, André. Espionage and Treason: A Study of the Proxenia in Political and Military Intelligence Gathering in Classical Greece. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben Publishers, 1986.

J.S. Przemieniecki, Eds. Critical Technologies for National Defense. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Institute of Technology, 1991.

Jović, Dejan. Jugoslavija - država koja je odumrla: uspon, kriza i pad Četvrte Jugoslavije (1974-1990). . Zagreb: Prometej, 2003.

Kardelj, Edvard. Borba za priznanje i neovisnost nove Jugoslavije. 1944-1957. Sećanja . Ljubljana: Drzavna Zalozba Slovenije, 1980.

—. Reminiscences. The Struggle for recognition and Independence: The New Yugosavia 1944 -1957. London: Blond & Briggs, 1982.

Keenan, John. Intelligence in War. The value – and limitations – of what the Military can learn about the enemy. (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2002.

Kent, Sherman. Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. Princeton University Press, 1966.

Koliopoulos, Athanassios G. Platias. Constantinos. Thucydides on Strategy: Grand Strategies in the Peloponnesian War and Their Relevance Today. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.

Lemkin, Raphael. Axis rule in occupied Europe: laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange., 2008.

Maccoby, Michael. The Leaders We Need, And What Makes Us Follow. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2007.

Moore, David T. Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: Joint Military Intelligence College, 2006.

Morgenthau, Hans J. "What Is the National Interest of the United States?" The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 282 (1952): 1-7.

—. Another "Great Debate: The National Interest of the United States." The American Political Science Review 46 (December 1952 ): 961-88.

—. In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951.

Ristović, Milan D. Dug povratak kući: deca izbeglice iz Grčke u Jugoslaviji 1948-1960. Beograd: Udruženje za društvenu istoriju: Čigoja Štampa , 1998.

Rogel, Carole. "The Education of a Slovene Marxist: Edvard Kardelj 1924-1934." Slovene Studies II, no. 1-2 (1989): 177-184.

Roy Godson, James J. Wirtz. Strategic Denial and Deception. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Transaction Publisher, 2007.

Shafritz, Jay M. The Dictionary of Public Policy and Administration. Univ. of Pittsburgh: Westview, 2004.

Snell, John L. Illusion and Necessity, The Diplomacy of Global War 1939 - 1945. Boston: Houston Mifflin, 1963.

Trittle, Lawrence. "Alexander and the Greeks. Artists and Soldiers, Friends and Enemies." In Alexander the Great. A New History, by Lawrence A. Tritle, Eds. Waldemar Heckel, 121 - 140. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Tzu, Sun. The Art of War. London: Arcturus Publishing, 2008.

Waltz, Edward. Information Warfare. Principles and Operations. Boston: Artech House, 1998.

Ристовић, Милан. Експеримент Буљкес - Грчка утопија у Југославији 1945-1949. Нови Сад: Платонеум, 2007.



-



1 The author of this monograph is an experienced cryptanalyst, military intelligence instructor and all-source intelligence analyst.  Cryptanalysts, also known as code breakers design, implement, and analyze algorithms solving thus problems. They analyze and decipher secret coding systems and decode messages for military, political, or law enforcement agencies or organizations. One of the primary duties of all-source intelligence analysts is to conduct data gathering operations. Depending on the specific military branch or civilian organization, this may involve collecting unclassified and classified information on potential threats, strategic targets and prepare biographies of persons of interest. Their goal is to inform politicians of the U.S. Government and the Congress, who are generalists regarding vital and critical events that could affect and are influencing the national interests and national security of our nation.

If I were to ask one to name something that constitutes part of national security, by far, most people would mention the military. However, it is much more encompassing.

National security includes everything that has the potential to endanger our country’s existence or way of life. It can be physical or psychological.

National security is the ability of national institutions to prevent adversaries from using various means to harm our country or its National Interests. Also, it is the confidence of the citizens of the country in their government and established social, political, legal, financial, and other institutions. Once these institutions cease to exist, the country is considered failed, collapsed.

Infant mortality is a major determining factor of both the structure and operation of institutions of states. This is a fact. The United Nations keeps track of the Infant Mortality of the world, and intelligence agencies use the infant mortality rate to ascertain the direction of a country’s future. The higher the infant mortality of a country, the gloomier is its future. If a state cannot or will not provide all necessary attention to its children, for example, primary medical care, highly nutritional diet, suitable education and a few other essential services that promote the health and welfare of the mothers, it signifies that the country’s institutions do not work, and the future of the country is highly questionable.

From a statistical point of view, starting from 1 for the worst and out of 225 countries, the United States ranks approximately 170th depending on the year. Afghanistan holds the 1st position almost constantly while at the end Iceland competes with Monaco for the best country with the lowest infant mortality.

• ​In 1950, Afghanistan 289.197 deaths per thousand, the United States 31.951 and Iceland only 23.983.
  
  
• In 1960, Afghanistan 244.266 deaths per thousand, the United States 26.364 and Iceland only 17.305.
  
  
• In 1970, Afghanistan 203.3 deaths per thousand, the United States 20.524 and Iceland only 12.625.
  
  
• In 1980, Afghanistan 162.926 deaths per thousand, the United States 13.016 and Iceland only 7.826.
  
  
• In 1990, Afghanistan 121.58 4 deaths per thousand, the United States 9.634 and Iceland only 5.293.
  
  
• In 2000, Afghanistan 91.56 deaths per thousand, the United States 7.263 and Iceland only 3.24.
  
  
• In 2017 Afghanistan 53.386 deaths per thousand, the United States 5.844 and Iceland only 1.318.

​Although countries still use the old and traditional profession of human intelligence to spy on others and deflect their adversary’s espionage, today they rely heavily on technology, which makes it easy for governmental agencies to predict, detect or deflect. Since the establishment of the National Security Act of 1947 that created the National Security Council (NSC), the intelligence apparatus of the United States has expanded vertically and horizontally. The NSC is the coordinator of the policies and functions of governmental departments and their agencies that relate to all aspects of national security, one of which is the U.S. Intelligence Community.

This said expansion includes agencies directly under civilian direction and others under military leadership although under the control of civilian authorities.

Before we deal with the subject of intelligence, we should know the meaning of the word as it is used by professionals. The definition of intelligence has troubled many intelligence professionals throughout the years, especially those who understand the full scope of their craft. Even professionals shrink from answering the question “what is the definition of intelligence” and rightly so.

So, what is “Intelligence”? To a man like me who has worked 30 years in that specific field of National Security, intelligence is the analysis of carefully collected information free of contaminated and inaccurate material. It includes objectivity, which is independent of political considerations based on all available credible sources and timeliness. Having said that, it is not unusual that stale, fragmentary, and speculative, and even nefarious and unreliable information is pushed in by politically motivated personnel, most of whom are appointees just to please the boss.

Some information may also be based on dubious informers with sketchy motives or leaked or stolen documents of unknown origin because they match some person’s beliefs, or even the potentially flawed perceptions of intelligence agents and analysts. It is precisely the reason why a departmental fusion process exists, and agencies propel the information to the Office of National Intelligence, where specific information gets an examination after it undergoes a thorough cleansing.

Collected Information is divided into three different levels of intelligence value, and it’s crucial for intelligence analysts involved in the security of the country to recognize them. Generally, there are three ‘levels’ of intelligence value: tactical, operational, and strategic.

Tactical intelligence primarily deals with the current situation and gives customers the information they need to carry out existing policy initiatives, but for a narrow area. This level of intelligence is intended primarily to respond to the needs of military field commanders of company or battalion strength so they can plan for and, if necessary, conduct combat operations. The area of engagement would equate to a town or even township.

That brings us to the next level up, the Operational Intelligence. Operational Intelligence is where the combined actions or even decisions of larger military units like a Brigade or a Division are affected. It embraces and coordinates several tactical intelligence areas.

Information about a military campaign is of operational intelligence significance. The maneuvering of battalions and brigades is of functional intelligence value. It is like such an operational level would equate to a state or a region. Operational Intelligence is actionable information about specific incoming attacks.

This takes us from operational conditions that take place in multiple areas and start developing a National or Strategic picture, but it could also epitomize the global level. This level is what we call Strategic Intelligence.

Strategic Intelligence is the cornerstone of our country’s national security. It helps the decision-makers of the country to look ahead. Analysis of collected information at that level stimulates dialogue, not only exchanging arguments and counterarguments but also articulating various propositional approaches, such as claiming, inspiring, admitting or retracting a plan among the policymakers. The outcome of such a communication establishes a future policy that could affect either the national interests or the national security of our country or stability of a region or even the world. Regional and global stability is a fundamental prerequisite for peace between peoples and cultures.

Strategic Intelligence expresses the highest-level planning of political and military objectives dealing with national interests and national security because it has national security and foreign policy implications. It provides the policymakers with the information needed to create a new initiative that carries the country forward. One needs to realize that the products of national security of a foreign country come in direct agreement with our national interests since it contributes to regional and perhaps global stability.

​The definition of what Strategic Intelligence is was given by Sherman Kent put in his book titled, “Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy.” He wrote,
​

This cycle never stops, because one must correct any point that did not work for whatever reason simultaneously considering what activities are influenced by domestic or international situations.

The daily Presidential Briefing is part of collective intelligence production and dissemination. It is the result of one-liners that each department of each agency prepares in the form of a triangle or a pyramid. At the end of the day, each agency assembles its own one-liner page and disseminates it to the ODNI. The ODNI determines what the POTUS must know, and after gathering all 16, one-liners upholds the most vital information to bring to the attention of the President where selected briefers explain to the President the domestic and global issues of the day. Whether or not the President pays attention to the information is out of the control of the Intelligence Community.

The 21st century began for the United States with rather extraordinary events, which, although directed towards our country, these events have affected the world politically and militarily. While the wars in the Balkans were concluding, the 9/11 attack marked the first remarkable assault on the heart of our country. What followed was the war in Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq.

In the last 20 years, the United States has encountered several setbacks in intelligence, not because of the rank and file, but because of presidential appointees and politicians who either wanted to please the boss or they considered that some action was needed to show that they were doing something. In politics, perception is the only truth, which, by the way, could end up being worse than reality.

The emerging challenges and threats of the 21st century are complex and contradictory. They are a far cry from the standard threats we were accustomed to in the past. They are the amalgamation of old antagonisms, ambitions, mingled with advanced technologies having countries or hostile organizations on an equal setting. The prototype of the old times, also known as human intelligence is no longer the only method for a country to learn about their adversaries. Even that type of espionage has changed and has become more sophisticated. It takes 10 to 20 years and sometimes even longer to establish a mutually trusting relationship on both sides. Collection employing human intelligence always work based on personal trust. It is like an alliance or but most of the time, even friendship.

It is why the worst blunder that a decision-maker could make is to treat and implement a well-designed strategic policy as if it were of a tactical nature. Everything that was planned and worked for years and years could be destroyed in a matter of minutes.

However, as it happens in our social and business life, our behavior matters. In politics as well as in foreign relations, our conduct as a country is significant since it tarnishes or enhances our name and reduces or increases our credibility. Intelligence is about planning, while one is ready for the unexpected. However, collecting information does not always take place through a cloak and dagger situation. Open sources, like mass media, social media, statistical polls, political or diplomatic receptions, diplomatic instruments also provide information that trained people can legally gather from free public sources about an individual, organization, or country.

This includes sites that collect public information about books one checks out from a library, articles in a newspaper or statements in a press release, information in images, videos, webinars, public speeches, and conferences. On the other hand, an Internet Protocol address or IP address can offer the actual location of a computer or any instrument that requires an IP address.

Such information opens the door to the attacker who can use the intelligence created to form a threat model that develops a plan of attack. Targeted cyber-attacks begin with reconnaissance as, in my view, it happened in 2016, when Russia tested our readiness to deflect and the resolve to pass laws to protect the country and its institutions. The GOP led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a two-volume report dated September 13, 2019, which concluded that Russia was behind the cyber attack of 2016. On the military side, it is passively acquiring intelligence without alerting the target.

Anyone involved in cybersecurity understands how to collect open-source intelligence, which is a vital skill. Whether one defends an enterprise network or tests it for weaknesses, one knows about its digital footprint, which enables one to see it from an attacker’s point of view. Armed with that knowledge, one can go on to develop better defensive strategies.

So as one sees, we collect information, and we advance it to the appropriate persons to start the process and the business of protecting the country. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I have taken the following from the NSA/CSS website,
​

Those professionals who have spent their lives defending the country must effectively manage stress since besides keeping everything that they have learned and know secret, concurrently they have to live a normal life. They are husbands and wives with families. They can’t talk about their jobs even to their spouses.

They do their duty to the country without ego, without bombast, and without any reward; the satisfaction they receive is keeping their homeland safe which is the greatest reward they can ever have.

The Cryptologic Memorial of the Central Security Service within the National Security Agency (NSA) pays tribute to those who gave their lives in the line of duty, "serving in silence". It is a reminder of the crucial role that cryptology plays in keeping the United States secure. It also reminds us of the devotion to duty, honor, courage that these individuals exercised to carry out their mission at such a dear price.

But one must bear in mind that the most significant collection of information and the best analysis in the world means NOTHING if the decision-maker in charge is incapable of understanding facts or unwilling to protect the national interests and consequently the national security of our country.

I want to assure all of you that despite some bad apples, civilian and military rank-and-file personnel are hand-picked for their skills, intellect, abilities, character, and morality. One must live an exemptlatory life in order not just to be included in such an elite bunch of professionals, but the most challenging part is to maintain an excellent way of life until one's death. We take the learned secrets to our graves.

We serve in silence, and we are ready to answer the call to arms in defense of the country’s national interests and national security.

Thank you.

-================

Please see below

                                                                              .-----------.
This is the location of the Russian company Internet Research Agency that manufactures all the disinformation and trolling under the sponsorship of Dept. 44388, i.e., Russian Military Intelligence (GRU). Once the trolls are ready, they are pushed to the public of most countries without exception within the scope of Russia’s national interests and at the expense of the national security of target countries.

Supplemental to the above-stated MASINT I am offering the following branches of MASINT:

U.S. Army Field Manual 2-0. Chapter 9.

Radar Intelligence (RADINT). The active or passive collection of energy reflected from a target or object by LOS, bistatic, or over-the-horizon radar systems.

Frequency Intelligence. The collection, processing, and exploitation of electromagnetic emissions from a radio frequency weapon (RFW), an RFW precursor, or an RFW simulator; collateral signals from other weapons, weapon precursors, or weapon simulators (for example, electromagnetic pulse signals associated with nuclear bursts); and spurious or unintentional signals.

Electromagnetic Pulses. Measurable bursts of energy that result from a rapid change in material or medium, resulting in an explosive force, produces RF emissions.

Unintentional Radiation Intelligence (RINT). The integration and specialized application of MASINT techniques against unintentional radiation sources that are incidental to the RF propagation and operating characteristics of military and civil engines, power sources, weapons systems, electronic systems, machinery, equipment, or instruments.

Electro-Optical (E-O) Intelligence. The collection, processing, exploitation, and analysis of emitted or reflected energy across the optical portion (ultraviolet, visible, and infrared) of the EMS.

Infrared Intelligence (IRINT). A subcategory of E-O that includes data collection across the infrared portion of the EMS where spectral and thermal properties are measured.

LASER Intelligence (LASINT). Integration and specialized application of MASINT E-O and other collections to gather data on laser systems.

Hyperspectral Imagery (HSI). A subcategory of E-O intelligence produced from reflected or emitted energy in the visible and near-infrared spectrum used to improve target detection, discrimination, and recognition.

Spectroradiometric Products. Include E-O spectral (frequency) and radiometric (energy) measurements. A spectral plot represents radiant intensity versus wavelength at an instant in time.

Geophysical Intelligence. Geophysical MASINT involves phenomena transmitted through the earth (ground, water, atmosphere) and manmade structures including emitted or reflected sounds, pressure waves, vibrations, and magnetic field or ionosphere disturbances.

Seismic Intelligence. The passive collection and measurement of seismic waves or vibrations in the earth's surface.

Acoustic Intelligence. The collection of passive or active emitted or reflected sounds, pressure waves or vibrations in the atmosphere (ACOUSTINT) or in the water (ACINT). ACINT systems detect, identify, and track ships and submarines operating in the ocean.

Magnetic Intelligence. The collection of detectable magnetic field anomalies in the earth's magnetic field (land and sea).

Nuclear Intelligence (NUCINT). The information derived from nuclear radiation and other physical phenomena associated with nuclear weapons, reactors, processes, materials, devices, and facilities.

Materials Intelligence. The collection, processing, and analysis of gas, liquid, or solid samples.

​​About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst.  During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian. 
 
He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

By Marcus A. Templar

In a recent fraudulent press release dated October 26, 2019, the World Macedonian [sic] Congress (WMC) and its accolades misrepresented the festivities of the traditional Greek 'Demetria' Festival from the Greek region of Macedonia as being a Slavic "Macedonian" event. They claim that the Greeks have illegally appropriated the festival from the Slav inhabitants of the Skopjan or 'North Macedonian' republic.

It is evident that the members of the Skopjan diaspora, as indicated by the WMC press release, have perpetually maintained their unconscious incompetence as far as learning about Greece, and Greek culture are concerned. They are not motivated to learn because they have no idea how ignorant they are. If they had the capacity to learn, they would know that the present-day Demetria festival in Macedonia, Greece, is rooted in the pagan past of the Greek people.

Intending to set the record straight, I am briefly citing the story behind the festivities of Demetria.

One of the commemorative celebrations that began during the prehistoric times of the Greek nation is the Cabeiria (Cabiria/Kaviria - Καβείρια), which is the ancestor of the Demetria. The Cabiria was the commemoration of events that followed the great cataclysm that overwhelmed the great valley, the famous Aegean. In Greek mythology, the Cabeiri or Cabiri (Greek: Κάβειροι, Kábeiroi) were a group of mysterious chthonic deities. They were worshiped in a mystery cult closely associated with that of Hephaestus, the god of the underworld. Their worship centered in the north Aegean islands of Lemnos and Samothrace (Herodotus book 2: 51.1-4). They can be identified with 'kallikantzaros' – a malevolent goblin in Greek folk tradition.

The inhabitants of Samothrace attributed the earthquake that sunk the land and allowed the water of the Mediterranean Sea to fill the vacuum, to Cabeiri. People started withdrawing to the top of the mountains as their land kept disappearing under the rising sea levels, seeking refuge to the highest mountain top, named Saos. (Diodorus Siculus 5.47.5). The etymology of the word pelagos or πέλαγος as a designation of the Aegean adds to the story of the said flood. The etymology of Pelagos (Πέλαγος) derives from the words πέλειον ἂργος (peleion argos) which denotes a lowland area flooded with water; "peleion argos" means "old land" as opposed to the word πόντος (pontos) which means "sunk land" (Lexicon Liddell and Scott).

It should be noted that Phillip II, the King of Macedonia met and fell in love with Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great, during the Cabirian Festivities in Samothrace (Plutarch, Alexander 2.1). This is a fact that any true Macedonian of Greek heritage knows all about.

Later on, in about the 5th century – a couple of centuries before the ancestors of the present-day self-proclaimed "Macedonians" arrived in Macedonia proper (which is actually in Greece) – Christianity and Saint Demetrius replaced the Cabeirians in worship. A witness to the cruel persecutions against the Christians, launched by the pagan Roman Emperor Maximian Galerius, Saint Demetrius was killed in 306 AD. He was recognized by the AD 5th-century as the patron saint of Thessaloniki.

One wonders, why do the Slavs of Skopje and their diaspora keep attacking everything Greek accusing Greeks of appropriating their culture? A transparent mirror image perception is an easy way out.

The only explanation I have is that they intrinsically want to be part of the Greek nation. They have demonstrated this by adopting the regional designation of "Macedonian" and making it an ethnic identifier, perpetually ignoring their Bulgarian heritage!

I would suggest that they keep trying – who knows, perhaps someday the Skopjans might become Greeks? Barking and clamoring while playing the victim card is a sycophantic reaction to the Greeks and it has stopped working.

Through their government, the people of Skopje came to terms with their Slavic origins, relinquishing any and all rights and connection to the ancient Macedonian Greeks and their heritage, as clearly stated in Article 7 of the Prespa Agreement of 2018, that came into force on February 12, 2019.

To be more specific, Article 7 of the said Agreement states:

Section 2. When reference is made to the First Party [Greece], these terms [Macedonian] denote not only the area and people of the northern region of the First Party [Greece], but also their attributes, as well as the Hellenic civilization, history, culture, and heritage of that region from antiquity to present day.

Section 4. The Second Party [Skopje] notes that its official language, the Macedonian language, is within the group of South Slavic languages. The Parties note that the official language and other attributes of the Second Party [Skopje] are not related to the ancient Hellenic civilization, history, culture and heritage of the northern region of the First Party [Greece].

Taking into consideration the aforementioned Prespa Agreement of 2018, we can definitely state that the WMC has been deprived the right to bark. They are barking up the wrong tree!

​About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst.  During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian. 
 
He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

CONTENTS

A. Introduction.
B. Main Aspects of Prognostication.
C. Factors of Prognostication.
D. Global Ecology.
E. Future Changes in the Climate.
F. Be Fertile And Multiply; Fill The Earth And Subdue it."
G. Our Future (?).​

Last year the Macedonian League publicly sought the stability of the Greek government. Some agreed. Many fought against the position and attempted to skew our call for stability. Explain the need for stability of the Greek government.

At first, I must explain that the Macedonian League's call for political stability took place about six months before it was announced that a final agreement between Skopje and Athens had taken place. One of the very relevant politicians of Greece thought that I was in favor of Skopje’s name that would include the word “Macedonia.” I gave him a couple of names that I would go for, as Central Balkan Republic, South Slavonia. However, I knew in my heart that it would be impossible because of the position of the Greek MFA since the party of New Democracy (2004–2009), which not only had accepted a name that would include “Macedonia” with a geographic designation, but also Mrs. Bakoyanni (Feb 15, 2006 – Oct. 7, 2009) was entertaining the idea that any name would be for “international use only”.

Greece has seen a lot of instability. Since 1821, Greece had three civil wars, five bankruptcies, a few political upheavals, which had resulted in The National Schism. The latter brought the defeat of the Greek Army in Sangarios River and Afion Karahisar the reasons behind the loss of Smyrna. Another one of the political upheavals in the 1960s brought the seven-year dictatorship (1967-1974) to the stage which was followed by the tilting of Greece, dangerously I might add, to the left. The organization ΑΣΠΙΔΑ (Αξιωματικοί Σώσατε Πατρίδα, Ιδέα, Δημοκρατία, Αξιοκρατία), which until late 1980 was treated as a total lie which was used as an excuse for the 1967 dictatorship. Of course, nobody was talking about the involvement of Andreas Papandreou. In reality, the whole affair was very accurate.

In the middle of March of 1967, at the call of Ενιαία Δημοκρατική Αριστερά (ΕΔΑ) in silent cooperation with Ένωση Κέντρου (ΕΚ), farmers brought tractors, threshing machines and other farming equipment and other vehicles coming from all over had effectively sieged Thessaloniki. Brigadier General Andreas Erselman of the III Army Corps was ordered to send armored units to open all roads leading to Thessaloniki. About one month later, the Colonels took over. I had just turned 19.

Consequently, I do not want to see Greece suffering the consequences of characters with limited understanding of the present world. Tunnel vision is not a way of seeing the world. They should take a few steps back and then they can see. All the clueless individuals lead movements!

My birthplace has suffered enough in the hands of irresponsible politicians since the assassination of Count Ioannis Kapodistrias in September of 1831. The last thing Greece needs at this point is a bunch of egomaniacs who in the name of their pseudo-patriotism are ready to throw the country into chaos and even bloodshed destroying the crumbs of prosperity and dignity the people of Greece have left with, in order to get the desired results for their kicks.

The fact is that the political leadership of the country regardless of political leanings and social capital with their silence have sanctioned the auction of the national interests and endangerment of the national security of Greece since 1950 and especially since 1991. They cared more about their political party and ideology than the welfare of their country.

Greece’s adventures start in the mindset of its citizens who when they enjoy the fruits of corruption, forget that they will pay for their choice in the future. However, when it is time for them to pay, they forget their past choice claiming that it is not their fault. There is a Greek word which encapsulates the behavior of individuals that use no common sense, who instead, repeat the same mistakes many times over while maintaining an attitude of self-righteousness. It is up to the reader to figure it out.

The issue of the Macedonian State goes back to 1924 and specifically regarding Skopje it retrogresses to November 1950 and the normalization process of Greece with Yugoslavia. For those who now scream foul it is too late. Where had they been ten, twenty, or even twenty five years ago? I was yelling “national security,” and their answer was “Alexander the Great was Greek.” I still have the e-mails.

Finally, we also need stability in the diaspora. I received the following message from Melbourne. It refers to the issue of the Melbourne University Macedonian [sic] Student Society - MUMSS and their alliance with the Turk and Albanian students against anything Greek.
​

Due to the rapid developments following the ratification of the agreement between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the final and official name of the latter, I appeal to all competent authorities of Greece to keep at all costs what remains of the name Macedonia, its derivatives and whatever implies such a name.

This appeal is of direct and pressing importance for the prevention of abuses, denunciations and other deliberate offenses, particularly from the diaspora of Skopje which, as they show things, intends to follow the old tactics of the challenges and to attract world public opinion that the "Macedonians" passed in the hands of the Greeks. Already there has been such propaganda in Greece.

This appeal publicizes a simple path to address the continued harassment of Greeks abroad, especially those from our Macedonia.

Neither the present nor future governments of Greece should ever relax the oversight and enforcement of the contents of the Prespes agreement.

Regardless of the content of articles 4, 5, and 6 of the agreement and in order to avoid unpleasant, distressing and irritating incidents that the diaspora of Skopje intend to cause, especially in Australia, I would suggest to the Greek government to take some necessary measures in hopes that they will not leave anything to chance.

It is very wise that Greek representatives abroad listen to what the Greek diaspora has and will have to say. When I visited Australia in 2010 for a series of lectures, the Greek diaspora complained that the appropriate department of the Greek MFA was indifferent ignoring their warnings. The Greek diaspora knows the Skopjan diaspora much better than the officials of the Greek MFA. I know from personal experience that the latter have no idea how Governments in other countries work, although they are the first to opine about on the topic making suggestions.

I would respectfully recommend to the pertinent Minister or the designated Department to create a section either by itself or within the Department A3 of the Ministry dealing with the country and the diaspora of Skopje with seriousness and responsibility. The Skopjans in the diaspora have already begun to attack anything Greek in violation of the provisions of articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the agreement in an effort to deprive the right of Greek organizations to include the name Macedonia and mislead the unfamiliar with the issue population of countries they live in claiming that the name Macedonia and its derivatives represent the Slavic history and heritage exclusively.

I predict legal challenges and similar harassment of Greek organizations on the part of organizations and individuals within the diaspora of Skopje through foreign governmental agencies and even judiciary.

​As odd as it may seem, it would be wise to inform the head of Greek diplomatic missions of all countries, and particularly those who have extensive Skopjan diaspora on the contents of article 7 (history, language, heritage, and so on). The recent photo and other indicate how seriously the articles 7 and 8 are taken into consideration by the Skopjan diaspora.

​It is also a reasonable argument for the Greek diplomatic missions to collect and to systematically report to the competent authorities of Greece all breaches of the final agreement (Agreement of Prespes) instigated by the diaspora of Skopje, as well as by representatives of the Government and of Church. The latter is the most likely source of violations. Also, the same service should be watching the movements of "The National Aegean Macedonian Council of Australia", which is a branch of the "World Macedonian Congress," as well as the organization of the "United Macedonian Diaspora." The last one is in alliance with the Heritage Foundation located in Washington, DC.

The entire content of irredentism that under the Prespes Agreement prohibits could easily be duplicated abroad and spread to the diaspora of Skopje. Although local laws of each country protect freedom of speech, it does not mean that actors inciting violence should be protected under the cloak of the same.

About similar activities of Greek organizations, I want to reassure the politicians of Greece that the Greek organizations are harmless. Bark a lot, but they do not bite.

Although the diaspora of Skopje is extraordinarily organized and active, on the contrary, Greek organizations are extremely busy fighting among themselves about who is going to be the Supreme President, what title s/he should have, and which of the organizations involved in the fight should be the prominent within the Greek diaspora and representative of all other organizations.

Also, all extraneous people of the diaspora who «know» everything regarding the "national issues" of Greece although they know absolutely nothing about Greece’s “national interests” and consequently “national security” of Greece, nor understand their true meaning and how they are formed, get together in radio and tv shows to discuss them. At the end of such appearances, the person who swears nastier and yells louder emerges more “Patriot” and of course the “winner.” They who laugh at this nonsense are considered "traitors".

Whether diplomatic officials abroad or officials of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs or generally politicians of Greece are responsible for the ultimate inertia and inaction of Greece regarding the name issue, is an internal matter of the Parliament and the Ministry and it does not involve anyone outside the political world. What counts is that the diaspora needs the help of the home country and not its slap.

Be wise the MFA to take preventive measures to avoid nasty complications in the future. We have been tired with the "Oh, man, don’t bother me - we are all brothers." Something like this applies only to the Greeks, not to the Skopjans. They do not have such expressions in their speech.

About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst.  During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian. 
 
He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

It has come to my attention that a few Skopje surrogates in Greece headed by Alexandra Ioannidou wrote an article of some type back in February 2018 insisting that the FYROM Slav speech is a language, not a dialect. The codification of an oral or written speech is a philological issue that follows a political decision. Linguistics deals with the vernacular of speakers of a specific region, a town, or even a neighborhood.

What is the difference?

Usually, I would not care about this, but when I read lame arguments from people who are educated in cognate fields of linguistics as philology and even applied linguistics in order to promote their political pro-Skopje affinities under the cloak of science I perceive it as a personal attack on my intelligence. A true linguist knows that in a strict linguistic sense of the word there is NO difference between a language and a dialect. In order to support their views, Alexandra Ioannidou has brought up scientific issues of pronunciation in hopes that they raise a winning argument to support their political views. The author’s angle was philological at best with a fig leaf of linguistics under the burqa of politics.

The text below is for the benefit of those who might have gotten confused by the politically motivated nonsense of the people in question. I am giving an example of an issue in a more familiar setting to the Greeks.

The ancient Athenian grammarian Aristeas codified the Greek language, and to my knowledge, the whole process lasted about 20 years (285 -265 BC). At that time, over the Greek-speaking world, one would hear Ionic, Doric, and Aeolic as the primary forms of speech, but also the Doric Koine, Northwestern Doric, Attic Koine, and their linguistic offshoots.i

The Macedonian Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II sponsored the language codification project for strategic cultural and political reasons. Geostrategically speaking, a river and sea thoroughfare offer means of communication with other cultures develop trade, grow the economy, foster language promotion that in turn stimulate the foundations of cultural expansion advances people’s education. In essence, the sky is the limit of what individuals and societies can do.

Over the years, the product of Aristeas’ assignment developed to the point that the Greek language became the beacon of enlightenment to the world. One of the results of such colonization gave rise to the Latin alphabet as the result of such use of the language and culture of the colonists from Euboean town of Cumae (Κύμη), the spread of Judaism and Christianity, the emergence of the Cyrillic Alphabet.

Then darkness came to the land, the Ottoman Turk oppressed education in the local speech. It lasted until 1830. Governor Capodistrias ordered the establishment as Greece’s literary language the Koine dialect, which was already codified. In 1976, the vernacular was declared the official language of Greece, having incorporated features of Katharevousa and giving birth to Standard Modern Greek, which is used today for all official purposes and in education. That was also a political decision.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I chose to copy the opinion of the famous author and true linguist, Mario Pei.

Politically speaking, one might answer that a language is what is officially accepted as the national form of speech, a dialect what does not have such acceptance. This definition would eliminate as languages such tongues as Welsh and Breton, while Lithuanian and Lettish, not having been languages under the Tsars, would have become languages with the creation of the Lithuanian and Lettish Republics at the close of die First World War, and then would again have ceased to be languages as soon as these nations were absorbed by the Soviet Union.

From the literary standpoint, one might say that a language is a form of speech that has given rise to a literature, a dialect one that has not; this would establish Sicilian and Neapolitan, Ozarkian and Brooklynese as languages, while it would eliminate Sardinian and most of the languages of the African and Native Americans.

A third reply is that there is no intrinsic difference between a language and a dialect, the former being a dialect which, for some special reason, such as being the speech-form of the locality which is the seat of the government, has acquired preeminence over the other dialects of the country.

Actually, there is no clear-cut reply to the question. Even linguists shrink from answering it, and rightly. When a language is examined under the microscope, it is found to be infinitely diversified. There is one form of cleavage and stratification along social and cultural lines, which leads to the infinite gradations of standard tongue, vernacular, slang, cant and jargon. There is also a local, geographical division which extends not merely to regions and sections of a country, but also to towns and quarters of towns. Some linguists go so far as to assert that each speaker may be said to have a dialect of his own, as evidenced by the fact that his friends can identify him by his speech (Pei 1949, 46).

Whether a speech is a dialect or a language is always a matter of the criterion one uses. Alexandra Ioannidou chose the political criterion concluding that “Macedonian” is a language, not a dialect.

My background

Before I proceed, let me explain my linguistic background. I was born in an extended family of four languages with Greek being the fifth language as lingua franca. I learned the speech of the Bitola – Prilep, which to me is one of the South Eastern Linguistic Bulgarian group of dialects, from my maternal family from the day I was born. It was my first language, which I heard from my dearest mother. The first alphabet I learned was the Serbian based Cyrillic alphabet of Skopje even before the Greek kindergarten. As far as my mom was concerned, she spoke Srpski or Serbian as she used to call her speech. Why Serbian?

To begin with, at the time of my mother’s birth the region of the FYROM was called South Serbia. Blazhe Koneski standardized the language under the auspices of the Marxist government of Yugoslavia. It was a philological product for political expediency.

The Past

Misirkov suggested that the new country, Macedonia, as visualized by the Socialist fighters of the VMRO and later resolved by communists should recognize the central dialect as its literary language. He did not suggest that the government assign the task to a pro-Serbian linguist who would take it away from the original tongue. I have no idea what happened to the – Шо праиш? Aрнo! (Sho prajish? - Arno!” (How are you? Well!) of the Prilep-Bitola dialect. It has been replaced by the Serbian – “Kako si? – Dobro”. This is only one small example of how Koneski had fixed the new “language.”

However, the language started as part of the Western Bulgarian group of dialects, and through the intervention of politicians, it was navigated towards Serbian away from the original speech. I would never forget my mother telling her first cousin in the 1960s, “What have you done to our language? In a few years, we will not be able to communicate any longer”.

The explanation of whether the language that my mother spoke was called Serbian or Macedonian exists in the annals of the Illyrian Movement. Dragutin Rakovac, author and publicist with degrees in law and philosophy, wrote a fascinating observation in his short essay entitled Mali katekizam za velike ljude (Small Catechism for Grown Men), in which he remarked, and I am translating,

The names of peoples and languages may not and cannot be invented. The Croat, Serb, and Slovene names would, all else being equal, have the greatest right to the common appellation for our language and literature. These three names are hereditary in southwestern Slavia, as the names of the three main branches of the southwestern Slavic people. But we know that a brother does not tolerate a brother's supremacy and experience teaches us that a Croat will never accept a Serb or Slovene name; a Serb will never accept a Croat or Slovene name, and neither will a Slovene accept a Croat or Serb name. (Dragutin Rakovac, Mali katekizam za velike ljude, Zagreb: Illyrian National Press of Dr. Ljudevit Gaj, 1842, p. 16) -- Translation is mine.

Members of the Illyrian Movement knew who the South Slavic tribes were. How is it possible that they missed the Macedonians and their distinct language? That movement gave rise to Yugoslavism and later to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. As it is apparent, ethnicities as Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Macedonian were missing. It was before Communism started implementing The National Question as the tool serving the national interests of Russia under a different administration.

In the sixth paragraph of the Resolution of the Comintern dated 11 February 1934 is stated, “The chauvinists of Greater Serbia, referring to the presence of Serbian impurities in the language of the local Macedonian population, declare this population as one of the tribes of the single Yugoslav nation-state and forcibly serve it.” The tribes the resolution had mentioned were Serbian, Montenegrins, and “Macedonians.” They all spoke the Štokavian dialect during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Alexandra Ioannidou also mentioned something about phonemes and alphabets. There is a difference between the standardized alphabet, which in theory represents the phonemes of a language, and the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The standardized alphabet of any language is part of philology, although letters, in theory, represent phonemes. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), is part of linguistics of that language, but it is not part of philology. Such an alphabet concerns the phonemes of a speech in any conceivable way regardless of how they are presented in the standardized alphabet. For instance, if we take the Greek language, we see that the alphabet does not include letters reflecting the sounds of λ, ν, μ, π, in λαλιά (lj), νιάτα (ŋ), μιά (ɱ ), ποιός (πχ). We can have the r flat or roll, and yet we use only one letter for both. Something similar one can say about the letter L that is known as dark L at the end of a word or light L at the beginning of a word. What can we say about the Pelasgian remnants found in the Greek language as σσ, ρρ? They exist, but their sounds are questionable.

I would expect some candor over the political poppycock from someone who pretends to be a philologist, even in Russian. Such a philologist remind me of a Croat teacher in DLI who insisted that Croatian and Serbian are different languages; then a Bosnian Muslim came into the discussion noticing that Bosnian was a completely different language from the other two. A young Muslim woman from Ženice, Bosnia told me, “Now that we have a country; we have our own language, Bosnian.” Furthermore, their governments of the former Yugoslavia had certified interpreters for communication among themselves. It is ridiculous.

Thus according to the specifications of Alexandra Ioannidou, a country has to have its own language. As late as 1920, an attempt was made to coin the term Unitedstatish to describe the language of the American Union (Pei 1949, 298). This means that if the U.S. Congress had succeeded in passing the law, the official language of the United States would not have been English, but Unitedstatish language!!! Under the same logic, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Irish, and all other people whose governments have imposed on them English do not have their own language. We have to push for Austrian and Swiss languages. I do not even want to touch the issue of Spanish, French, Portuguese, and a few others. My goodness, billions of people are mute! Are we serious? It is the ultimate extreme of nationalistic inferiority.

Some “linguistic” examples from my life

In the Slavic languages ​​of the same group, in particular, the distinction between languages ​​is more difficult than anyone can imagine. People can easily communicate after they dismount from their nationalistic high horse.

Nevenka was a Serbian refugee who lived at the UN housing at the Votsi area of Thessaloniki. She and my grandmother had befriended each other after an accidental encounter. All the years of friendship, Nevenka used her Serbian jekavski dialect while my grandmother spoke her native Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect.

In my life, I have attended meetings of Serbs discussing matters with Bulgarians by using the kje (ќ) speech as they had mentioned, i.e., the Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect. In my presence Croats from Zadar, Dalmatia spoke in ikavski with Serbs from Vojvodina in ekavski of the Što dialect. I have attended conferences and meetings of the people of Yugoslavia back in the 1970s and 1980s. Every single speaker spoke in his or her dialect. They just used the vocabulary of their preference without any problem of understanding each other and that included the Slavonic months that Croats use.

When I attended the U.S. Army certification course of translator/interpreter, one of our teachers was a Croat from Bosnia, one from Montenegro and one from Serbia.

In 1968, near the White Tower of Thessaloniki, where the touring coaches are parked, I spoke Serbian to a group of Slovak tourists who came to see the birthplace of the great brothers Cyril and Methodius. We did not have a communication problem.

In the late 1970s and before I joined the U.S. Army, two women, and I were talking as going to work at Sears Tower in Chicago. One of the women spoke Russian, the other one Polish, and I spoke Serbian. We had no problem communicating.

In 1973 waiting for the train for Zagreb at a Train Station platform in Trieste, Italy, I was speaking Croatian to someone thinking that he was a Croat. As we saw the train coming, the man asked, “Where did not you learn such excellent Bulgarian?” I was stunned. He explained to me that he was a Bulgarian diplomat. He thought I spoke Bulgarian as an educated Bulgarian would. We had spoken for approximately 20 minutes, and yet we never realized that we spoke different languages, both Slavic of the South Slavic group.

In 1984, as a valedictorian student of my Czech Class at the Defense Language Institute, Monterrey, California, I gave my speech in Slovak, not in Czech. To this day, I am the only one who has done so. Nobody had any problem understanding it. I spoke about the city of my birth Thessaloniki and the contributions of its two children (Sts. Cyril and Methodius) to the Slavic enlightenment. Its title was Solún, nevesta Termy (Thessaloniki, the bride of Therme).

In 1993 while in Sofia, I used my maternal dialect of Bitola – Prilep communicating with my Bulgarian collocutors as if we spoke the same language, we actually did speak the same language! I had attended my Sunday liturgy in Bulgarian; no sweat.

I know a woman who works as a cashier in a grocery store nearby; she is from Petrich, Bulgaria. One day I spoke to her in the central Skopjan dialect, per Misirkov. She said to me that my Bulgarian reminded her of her grandmother. To me, it was a compliment.

Politics is Perception

Nevertheless, the issue that Alexandra Ioannidou has raised is not linguistic; it is philological, which means very political. They have made evident that their concern was strictly political as they allied with gods and demons defending not their own country’s national interests and national security, but the adversary’s national interests acting as Skopje’s fifth phalanx and proxies.

Politics is perception. The nationalistic overtones as Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates put it, had to do with slogans like Η Μακεδονία είναι μία και είναι ελληνική. Such slogans perhaps facilitated more Skopje’s positions internationally than strengthening Greece’s rights. Although I fully understand the meaning of “Macedonia is one, and it is Greek,” because I have read Strabo (Ἐστι µέν οὖν Ἑλλάς καί ἡ Μακεδονία), billions of people around the world might have thought that the Greeks wanted to annex Skopje. After all, the republic of Skopje is known to be called “Macedonia” all over the world for 30 years now.

The idea was not to hide into our shell ignoring the world, nor was it a psychological mirror image of the world, i.e., since we see it our way, everyone else sees it likewise. The whole idea was to win both the hearts and minds of the world. Slogans that emanate nationalistic and expansionistic overtones as historically correct, as they were, hindered our objective. A very slight change in the wording would make the essential vital difference. Perhaps, the organizers should consult people who understand advertising and how the market works to prepare slogans that sway people to their destined target.

Nevertheless, I would not be hastened to blame the demonstrators whose region and indeed the country are under attack for the failure of the organizers (leadership and sponsors) of such demonstrations. To me, it is a patriotic sentiment expressed in a misguided mode. In the article by Alexandra Ioannidou, I had not read anything that condemned the truly irredentist slogans, maps, photographs by the WMC, UMD, and other Skopjan Organizations. I am not even touching the issue of Skopje’s official violations of articles 2, 3, 4, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 11.1 of the Interim Accord or pre-Agreement if you wish, which include the antiquization project regardless of the intended purpose, always according to Skopje.

As I started writing this paper, Skopje’s Prime Minister has already violated Article 4.3 of the Prespes Agreement (The ink is not dry yet.), article 6.2 of the Interim Agreement, and the Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

I do agree with Alexandra Ioannidou that the acronym The FYROM was stupid, but not for the reasons they think. It is downright stupid knowing how International Law works.

Greek diplomacy should have known better. The termination of the acronym, i.e., Macedonia gave the right to Skopje to maintain it in the final name. It was also the name responsible for the whole world to call Skopje, Macedonia. It was not an accident that Mr. Vasilakis a fine diplomat and negotiator back in the 1990s had started pushing for the name Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) under the precedent principle of Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa). The argument was simple, “since Greece had accepted the word Macedonia in the Interim Agreement, it shall accept it in the final name. International Law is based on the principle of stare decisis; once a country accepts something, it establishes a new reality even if in the future the new reality proves impractical or detrimental to the country at hand leading to various troubles or being impossible for it to carry on without further complications. We all see the complications now.

The other issue is that people tend to simplify official names of countries that look complex, names such as United States of Brazil, United States of Mexico, and United States of America to respectively Brazil, Mexico, and America. They did the same with Skopje’s stupid acronym.

Many years ago, I read an article of Nova Makedonija in which a journalist was asking, “Who has ever heard a country to adopt the name of its Capital?” The journalist, had never heard countries such as Mexico and Panama that took their name from their Capital. Both cities, Mexico and Panama, preexisted the countries and their names.

Greek blogs very irresponsibly did everything possible to fall for any sensationalist trash prepared by the propaganda experts of Skopje and its diaspora that read online pushing people to react taking away the attention of the Greek population from the real issues of national interests to one shoddy information or another. The sensationalist trash of the Greek blogs, in reality, was a manufactured compost.

Finally, Greek Mass Media recklessly filtered the thoughts, mouths, and hands of those few Greek Vouleftes who wanted to mention something sensible away from the rubbish of their party line. As if they were scandalmonger tabloids, the Mass Media seeking political dirt in order to improve their ratings and revenue started calling such Vouleftes undignified and pejorative names as “dolphins” who wanted to take over the leadership of a Party even when the so-called leadership stank. Obviously, for these media, Article 60.1 of the Greek Constitution is subject to lavatory use.

Misirkov and Today’s Reality

Misirkov, the so-called Father of Macedonism, wrote a book On Macedonian Matters, and some articles and essays. One of his essays and two articles in addition to the book are pertinent to this article.

One of these essays On the Significance of The Moravian or Resavian Dialect for Contemporary and Historical Ethnography in the Balkan Peninsula offers scientific argument that Alexandra Ioannidou in Greece forgot to mention. It is about the Resavian dialect the phonemes of which coincide with the central dialect of the FYROM.

Although the book On Macedonian Matters originally was published in the late autumn of 1903, there are certain words and expressions that suggest some redactions, at least three times. One emerged after 1914. The second redaction occurred after May 1919, i.e., after the formation of the Third or Communist International Association aka Comintern and the third modification ensued after July 1924, i.e., publication of the III Communist International, Fifth Congress Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans - The Balkans: Macedonian and Thracian Questions.

The above book and the two articles published in Mir in 1925 expressed one and one thing only. The separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria that Misirkov advocated had nothing to do with the existence of the Macedonian people as I am explaining below. Misirkov advocated the separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria in order to stop Bulgarian ideological interference in Macedonia that Misirkov did not like. I am quoting him,

To avoid copying them blindly and transplanting socialism into Macedonia instead of nationalism, as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization has done. By divorcing our interests from those of Bulgaria we will be saved from aping the merciless acts of the Bulgarians and from having to accept their assurances that Bulgaria is our benefactor and Russia our greatest enemy; thus we will also develop a critical attitude towards our own actions and those of others (Misirkov 1970, 111-2).

Misirkov used the phrase “Macedonian people” in the sense of a Slavic ethnicity, but he recognized the fact that in Macedonia other ethnicities existed, e.g., using the same demonym. Any time he wanted to clarify who were the Macedonians he was writing about, differentiated his “Macedonian” compatriots and of course himself as “Macedonian Slavs” (27 times).

As the Comintern was concerned, Hristo Andonov-Poljanski, a historian and former rector of the University of Skopje, gave the following explanation regarding the definition of the Macedonian people, “In Comintern papers, the expression Macedonian people cover all populations that inhabited the region of Macedonia. That is, all the inhabitants of Macedonia, irrespective of ethnic origin, constituted the Macedonian people” (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. 1981, v. 2). Such a definition is also evident in Misirkov’s book in which he wanted to see Macedonia as a country with the Macedonian Slavs as its dominant ethnicity and the central Macedonian dialect its literary language for all Macedonia.

He also explained that on March 12, 1925 (Macedonian Nationalism) the Macedonian Slav intelligentsia was scientific in thought, Macedonian in conscience. The first term means that the Macedonian Slav intelligentsia was revolutionary socialist or communist if you wish and the second one means that the revolutionary socialist or communists were compelled to follow the edict of the Comintern issued about nine months earlier.

However, since Alexandra Ioannidou brought up certain phonemes to prove her philological points using some sketchy phonemes, here what Misirkov read into one of the meetings of the St. Petersburg Ethnographic Society and afterward printed in the journal Живая старина (Live Antiquity) of the Society VII Edition; III and IV Sections; V, 482-485 and also in the Bulgarian Review, V, volume I, September 1898, 121-127.

Bearing in mind the role that language plays in the classification of different tribes and larger units, as nations, I draw attention to research that I have done in the South Slavic transitional dialect between the Bulgarian and Serbian languages and currently very important because of the historical ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula. I mean the Moravian or (according to the Karadzić) Resavian dialect, to which more than two-thirds of all the Slavic population in Serbia speak.

The Moravian dialect covers the entire southern, eastern, and central Serbia to the River Kolubara and the tributaries to the left of the River Ibar. [The Moravian dialect] is very near to both Shopski and Skopjan speech indicating the ethnicity of the modern Moravian peasants. Also, taking into account the prevalence of the relationship of the spoken word, the latter understand the speech of those mentioned within the borders of the medieval Serbian kingdom. It seemingly gives us knowledge of the ethnicity of the Slavic tribes, which composed of the kingdom.

Here is what Misirkov articulated:

Instead of the Old Slavonic also known as the Old Bulgarian nasal sound ь as in ръкa, мъка, път the nasal sound converts to y ( = u) as in рука (ruka = hand), мука (muka = torture), пут (put = road).

The voiced л (L) does not exist anymore and instead of l turns into u, e.g., from влк, ябълка, вълна to vuk (wolf), yabuka (apple), vuna (wool).

Old Slavonic dark sounds ъ and ь are replaced by the sound 'a,' which, when it is not emphasized is pronounced on more or less between а and ъ, e. g.: пожаревац and пожаревъц.

Instead of the Old Slavonic шт (sht) and жд (zhd) the sounds of ћ (ć), i.e. between ts and ch; it is a voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate, and ђ (đ pronounce dz - дz), which people older than 30 years of age pronounce it softer, almost palatalized as к and г in кь, гь or к' and г') (Translation is mine).

Based on the above features of the Moravian dialect, its proximity to Bulgarian is higher than to the Serbo-Croatian language. The use [of the Serbian language] at the western limits of the medieval Serbian kingdom, the absence of accurate data on the existence of Serbs in the territory of [modern day] Serbia specifically those speaking the Moravian dialect until the founding of the kingdom of Nemanjić, and finally, because there is indirect evidence pointing at the absence of Serbian tribes in the area of Morava, I came to the following conclusion.

1. That the modern Serbian Slavs from Moravian speech are closer to Bulgarian Slavs than to Serbo-Croats,

2. That the ancestors of the Moravian Slavs were closer to those Slavs, which afterward formed the Bulgarian nation;

3. The medieval Slavic kingdom founded by Nemanja enlarged but his successors called Serbians was formed by tribes closer to those Slavs, which was initiated Bulgarian kingdom than to Serbo-Croatian tribes

4. That in the Serbian kingdom only the Nemanja dynasty was Serbian.

Misirkov, Importance of Resavian or Moravian dialect of Contemporary and historical ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula, Saint Petersburg, 1897.


The readers can draw their own conclusions. Misirkov continued,

“these principles should guide us in creating our literary language and orthography. These principles entail:

1) The adoption of the Prilep-Bitola dialect, as the central dialect in Macedonia for the purpose of creating a literary language equally different from Serbian and Bulgarian.
2) The adoption of a phonetic orthography with letters as used in this back and with minor concessions to etymology.
3) The collection of lexical material from all the regions of Macedonia”. (Misirkov 1970, 202).

Regarding the speech Misirkov stated,

Each national language has its history and its contemporary variants, dialects, sub-dialects, etc., and our language is no exceptions. The history of our language shows that the present variants are derived from older ones, which is proof that they originate from a common Macedonian language, and that Macedonian comes from the South-Slav group, and so on. On this basis, one may determine which variant or dialect in any particular period was most used in the written language.

The history of Macedonian, like the history of other languages, shows that any dialect, regional variant or accent may be used in literature. The privilege any dialect or regional, accent may enjoy through being made the vehicle of literature as historians of the language might say is not granted on the basis of any aesthetic superiority it may have, but for purely practical considerations, i.e., as a result of historical and cultural circumstances (Misirkov 1970, 194)

Thus when Misirkov mentioned that the Macedonian Slavs could not understand the Bulgarian literary language what he meant was that they could not understand the Eastern dialect of the Bulgarian language. The Eastern dialect employs free intonation and in general sounds like Russian while to long e of the Western dialect becomes ya in the Eastern dialect.

That is (W) mléko = (E) mlyáko = milk. Under such circumstances, any illiterate, uneducated, or untrained Macedonian Slav was bound not to understand the new literary language.

I could easily contribute some truly linguistic information regarding the pronunciation of the letter ѫсъ aka юсъ большой (big yus) in Russian after its abolition from modern Cyrillic. Although it is not written anymore, it does affect the pronunciation of words that used to include it. This is only the pronunciation in areas mainly of Bulgaria and the FYROM, but also the region of Pirot. The original spelling was зѫбъ (tooth) and мѫжъ (man) although the pronunciation of the same letter differed. The actual pronunciation of the words зѫбъ (tooth) and мѫжъ (man) in the modern era is зъб, мъж, заб, маж, зуб, муж, зôб, мôж, зоб, мож, зêб, мêж, зъмб, мънж, замб, манж, зôмб, мôнж in different regions of Bulgaria, the FYROM, and Serbia transcending political boundaries.

One cannot judge the linguistic family of a speech and its relationship to other vernaculars by its vocabulary or even by the philological codification, but by its grammar and syntax. Notwithstanding, the literary language of the FYROM grammatically is identical as all Western Bulgarian dialects whereas its vocabulary has been “improved” by insertion of Serbian, Greek, and even Polish words in order to make it a language separate from both Bulgarian and Serbian. If such a move is not political, I have no idea what is.

Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje’s surrogates in Greece got a chance to mock the Greek public since very few Greeks know the philology and linguistics of the Skopjan Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect. Alexandra Ioannidou actually in her effort to describe the grammar and syntax of the FYROM literary speech she described the grammar and syntax of ALL Western Bulgarian dialects, but she coined it as “Macedonian.” In their mind, such a criterion makes the Skopjan dialect, a language. Whom are they kidding?

The arguments they have brought could buy them a bravo among the linguistically ignorant people. If we apply identical criteria to Greece, each village and town in Greece along with cities like Athens and Thessaloniki would end up having about 10 to 20 dialects each and not one of them could reach the point of a language unless the government of Greece designates which of them will be Greece’s literary language. That is a political criterion, not a linguistic one. Greece did the same at the beginning of 1982. Indeed each of us has his or her dialect.

Phonological differences make one speech different from another and in this case the grammatical or phonetic differences are in general the characteristics which one may apply or attributed on all of the Western Bulgarian linguistic group that includes more than 30 dialects. We could easily add the transitional dialects or the Torlak group.

Let me add something else that Misirkov wrote:

Hence one ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighbouring ethnicities make up a name for it, and the [said] ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighbouring ethnic groups. So, the neighbouring ethnic groups are related like a godfather and a godchild (Misirkov 1970, 168).

I wonder why didn’t Skopje want Greece to baptize their ethnicity? If it were up to me, I would have baptized the country as Yugoslavonia, which would apply as the nationality to all citizens and Slaviani for the ethnicity of the Slavic population per Misirkov (Misirkov 1970, 168).

Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece missed Misirkov’s book and essays preferrering Skopje’s absurdities only because they want to support Skopje’ positions, not of their birth country.

Conclusion

I found the explanations of Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje surrogates in Greece very political, perhaps somewhat philological, but not at all linguistic. As far as linguistics is concerned, what the Skopje surrogates in Greece wrote was,

                                               Από την πόλη έρχομαι και στην κορφή καν' έλα
                                         Ν' ανοίξω το μπαστούνι μου να μην βραχεί η ομπρέλα.

As one of the greatest minds of all times put it, “It is no mark of a man's intelligence to be able to confirm whatever he pleases: but to be able to discern that to be true which is true, and that to be false which is false, is the mark and character of intelligence” (Swedenborg 1912, 334).

If Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece are behind the recognition of the Macedonian language as referred to in Article 1.3c of the Prespes Agreement and whether the same people had influenced the process or deceived as volunteered experts the Greek negotiators and the political world, the only conclusion one reaches is that Greece lacked negotiating strategy and experts. The country was led like sheep to the slaughter.

I only hope that Skopje keeps violating the Agreement to the point that the blame game starts and the UNSC forces take some action against Skopje. With the present crop in the Greek Parliament regardless of political party, I cannot see any future government taking Skopje to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requesting cancellation of the Agreement by pressing for the International Law Commission to investigate based on Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter or other pertinent articles of the Vienna Convention.

The question I have is, how is the Greek government going to implement the Agreement. As it is drafted is bound to fuel domestic instability considering the irredentism promoted by external third parties and extremist groups, it undermines Greece’s national interests, and leaves Greece’s psychological aspect of national security undefended; it is a clear threat to Greece’s stability. Usually, a country in psychological disarray seeks solace in some positive aspects of the tragedy. I have no idea what kind of a solace one can reap from the Agreement of Prespes.

Biographical Note

Marcus A. Templar is a Slavicist and former Code Breaker, and Principal Subject Matter Expert in Signal and All-Source Intelligence Analysis serving the U.S. Intelligence Community over 30 years. During his Intelligence career, he has supported U.S. intelligence operations on a national level and served as a professor of Intelligence and National Security Courses in U.S. Intelligence Schools.

His academic research includes the political ideology of Bulgarian intellectuals after the Commune of Paris and the effect of their ideology to the establishment, development, and activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) aka VMRO. The research also examines the organization’s activities in order to create a communist regime of Bulgarians in Macedonia at least 20 years before the founding of the USSR. More specifically, his work analyzes the relationship and interaction among members and factions of the organization (IMRO) with contemporary political, pan-Slavic movements and governments, as well as the organization’s political and terrorist activities.

Academically he is intrinsically interested in matters of national security, public governmental policy, and strategy.

Professionally he has been involved in the Order of Battle, Military Doctrine, and Strategic Culture of Turkey, Ukraine, as well as Counter-terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

________
iFor details on the ancient Macedonian dialect of the Greek language family read, https://www.academia.edu/23581922/Hellenic_Migrations_and_Katadesmos_A_Paradigm_of_Macedonian_Speech

The Hellenic Cultural Commission sponsored a Panel Discussion on July 25 in Atlantic City, New Jersey.   The panel discussion transpired during the Convention of the Family Supreme Convention of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA). 

​The moderator of the panel was Mr. Lou Katsos, and the participants in the discussion were Professor Alexander Kitroeff, former Ambassador Karolos Gadis and I. The subject of the discussion was, "Turkish Irredentism and the Finlandization of Eastern Mediterranean."

As it is known, Finlandization is the process or result of being obliged to favor, for economic reasons, or at least not to oppose, the interests of a great power as in the case of Finland the interests of the former Soviet Union despite not being politically allied to it.

The panelists suggested and discussed several points of view from historical, political, diplomatic and psychological aspects of Turkey and its present leadership especially of President Recep Tayyıp Erdoğan. Some of the opinions expressed below were also communicated during a radio program and individual conversations.

The core of the discussion was Erdoğan and the new Turkey as he has envisioned it and to implement his vision, even before he took an oath as President, he issued a published a 143-page dictum changing the operation of every single Ministry and other agencies under the Ministries. After that, Erdoğan continued issuing decrees after decrees making the Republic of Turkey, a fully functional dictatorship that Ataturk would be jealous and the Sultan disgusted. 

Controlling all political life, Erdoğan could essentially become President for Life whose psychopathic cruelty would make François Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc, of Haiti a Cub Scout. This man fundamentally holds an unchecked wicked authority as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban. They all used democracy to expand their influence in the same manner that the Communists had done in the past.

But Erdoğan’s vision for Turkey is magnificently ambitious and costly. Because the Straits are getting shallower and narrower, Erdoğan is determined to open a canal from the Black Sea – five km from Baklalı - to the Sea of Marmara – Küçükçekmece 25 km west of Istanbul; the name of the canal is, Canal Istanbul.  Erdoğan is determined to make the canal the rival of Suez and Panama. Erdoğan has brushed aside legal, environmental, and budgetary questions to make the canal a central plank of his re-election bid on June 24. The Financial Times has quoted Erdoğan saying, “One of my first projects in the new era will be to start building Canal Istanbul”… “There may be a Suez somewhere, a Panama somewhere else, but with Canal Istanbul, we will send the world a message.” (Financial Times, Ayla Jean Yackley, May 29, 2018)

The problem is monetary. When Erdoğan announced the Canal in 2011, the estimated cost was 13 billion U.S. dollars. Today it has increased to 15 billion U.S. dollars, and by the time the project ends its price could reach the 20 billion U.S. dollars.

Also, Erdoğan wants to build at least one runway, long enough to take care of taxiing needs of such a military aircraft as an F35. However, it always depends on specific variants as whether Turkey will be trusted to own such an aircraft, the capability for such a heavy and costly aircraft to maneuver (turn, climb, run), the specific models of the aircraft (traditional takeoff/landing versus vertical takeoff/landing), guns, and a few others. With a price tag of $94.6 million U.S. dollars each for only the basic F35A, the price for a more advanced model of F35 could increase its cost to 132.44 million U.S. dollars.

If we add the above sums to Erdoğan’s grand plan regarding the Istanbul Airport, we can quickly add the cost of 12 billion U.S. dollars. The idea is the improvement of the airport by adding six runways across a strip-like land. It will take about a decade to complete with the projection of making the busiest airport not just in the region, but also on the planet. The projected number of passengers could hit the 200 million people annually.

However, in a global economy, which is afflicted gradually by worries from an unfolding trade war to higher oil prices, Turkey could be very close to comfort. Turkey’s economy is 22nd in the world below that of the state of Illinois, which is 20th, and Russia, which is 13th in the world. Starting a business is not an easy venture, but including family in the governments is unwise. In a country whose finances constitute a bubble ready to burst it is the worst thing anyone wants to do; yet, Erdoğan has installed Berat Albayrak as the Finance Minister, who is a businessman and politician, but also his son-in-law. 

The question is whether Erdoğan will listen to his relative or he will tell his son-in-law to implement his personal policies. “It is abundantly clear that the president’s whim will appraise all future strategic decisions taken about anything in Turkey, and the new cabinet will function purely as a rubber-stamping forum,”… “The only constraints set to be imposed on Erdoğan are those likely to derive from bond and currency markets, which may inhibit any overtly reckless economic policymaking” (Bloomberg Businessweek, Onur Ant, July 10, 2018).

The changes in the function of the government are expected to have a severe impact on Turkish assets. It is assumed that “Turkish assets to remain under pressure unless policy measures address the country’s high inflation and external dependence. The central bank has not raised rates enough like some other countries given the government’s focus on GDP growth rather than inflation or currency stability” (Gopalakrishnan, DBS Bank). On the other hand, Turkey is likely to face many challenges ahead, as it’s running a massive fiscal deficit but “don't have savings to fund it.” 

Also, Erdoğan was the one who decided Turkey’s monetary policy, keeping the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey captive. He has recently prevented constraints attempted by the Central Bank. In the last two years under Erdoğan’s control of monetary policy helped the Turkish voters to do better by offering cash bonuses and other bribing methods. But Turkey has had extraordinarily relaxed both monetary and fiscal policy, which created a variety of issues: The Turkish lira has declined, the inflation rate is in the area of 12% although the target was 5% and also Erdoğan’s restriction of the Central Bank’s independence. Sitting on interest rates while opting for a monetary policy that prioritizes growth over controlling its inflation is a real problem.

Nevertheless, the voters preferred the man who as Mayor of Istanbul had cleaned the city even if their first choice was a bit shaky is an understatement. Democracy in Turkey suffers since its inception oscillating from the Socialists of Ataturk to the right wing Islamists of Erdoğan, and that includes about 1.5 million who live abroad most of them in Germany.

The burst of the economic bubble and the consequent implosion of the present political survival of Turkey is not a matter of supposition, but a matter of time.

About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst.  During his career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer, besides organizational duties, he discharged the responsibilities of a U.S. Army Observer/Controller, Instructor of Intelligence Courses specializing in Deconstruction of Strategies, Foreign Disclosures Officer, and Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian. 
 
He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

Not taking into account the recent Prespes Agreement, where did the Greek political establishment go wrong on domestic and foreign policies, especially as it concerns the “FYROM Name Issue?”

The answer is simple, EVERYWHERE!
 
Modern Greece does not have a clear, coherent national goal. The national objectives of the Greek revolutionaries as expressed at the Declaration of Independence, Justice, Personal Freedom, Ownership, and Honor, over the years have become irrelevant as politicians interpret these goals as part of their personal, not national aims. They have the mentality of the kodzabashis, i.e. the appointed heads of village councils, and the Phanariot hospodars, i.e. the masters who ruled the Rum millet as a second governing tier. This mentality has overshadowed the spirit of the 1821 revolution. 

​Like the Phanariots of the old times, who “sold the offices under their control and exacted extraordinary taxes and contributions to the fullest extent of their power.  Corruption, initiated at the top, extended down to the lowest levels of administration” (Jelavich, 1962). Nikolaos Soutzos expressed decadence of the Greek political crème de la crème as follows, “The prevalence over their competitors and their dominance through the use of insidious means, which the Turks highly encouraged, became the constant pursuit of the Phanariots. It was an incessant struggle, especially when the stakes were linked to their fortune, and often their life." (Soutzo, 1899, 4).  ​

But the kodzabashis the headmen of the enslaved Greece, were not any better. They had prolonged the enslavement of Greece and through their spiritual offspring continue to ensure the maintenance of their Ottoman mentality. This time the terminology and the names are different, but not the narrative. Nothing has changed since. Expressions such as «Ξες ποιος είμαι
εγώ, ρε;» or «μία θεσούλα στο δημόσιο,» «το μέσον» and a few other similar expressions explain why Greece is a mentally Ottoman province. The political elite of Greece and their cohorts govern the country as if they are the hospodars, kodzabashis, and kaymakams of the estate. The sad part is that Greek voters have entrusted them and preserve them with their vote. No matter which party is in government it controls the country through the use of advertising funding in the media. Not only have they managed the country, but they also restrain the diaspora using the same method. No wonder nothing happens in Greece.  
 
The problem is that the above “masters” have downgraded the social education of the Greek nation by indirectly bribing the means of formal, informal, and non-formal education. Such a downgrade benefits the crème de la crème of the Greek ruling society. Under this downgraded learning, patriotism has turned into nationalism and sometimes ultra-nationalism, and hard-core communists give lessons on something they do not understand – democracy. 
 
Only those who understand the full meaning of Socrates’ Crito can fully comprehend the meaning of homeland.  Greeks have lost the ideals of their ancestors and the direction that those ideals could lead the country into the 21st century and beyond.  Democracy does not work when people think only of themselves and not the general good.  Also, people in Greece did not learn and have not learned how to think.    
 
The lack of articulate national goals has resulted in Greece’s lack of coherent national interests. It is why Greece is deprived of proper foreign and domestic policies. Thus Greece has partisan interests which are reflected in foreign and domestic policies. If a country does not arrange a national path for the future it cannot develop a strategy to achieve any goal. Greeks think emotionally based on stories that only those who believe what they read in the “National Enquirer” would believe.
 
Since 1829, Greece’s foreign and domestic policies revolve around personal interests, direct and indirect reward of the political elite which is reactive, not proactive, to external pressures, movements, events, and circumstances that feed decision-making and behavior of its politicians.
 
It is said that possession is nine-tenths of the law. This adage means that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. In the case of Skopje, Skopje possesses the name “Macedonia” since 1943 as a constituent republic within Marxist Yugoslavia with full government structure whereas Greece had Macedonia as an administrative unit and often the Press of Athens would call it Northern Greece. Even now, the Athenian Press continues to call Macedonia Northern Greece, never mind the cop-out they give when asked. I understand that in using Northern Greece the Athenian government meant Macedonia and Thrace; however, as Northern Greece or later as Macedonia-Thrace, Macedonia did not have the international exposure that Skopje had.
 
Yugoslavia started having indications and warnings of political upheavals in 1990. The 14th and last Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists took place on January 20-22, 1990, the Slovenian and the Croatian delegations left during the Congress. That move by the delegations should have been a warning that something serious was going to happen. By May of 1991, despite the draconian efforts of Vasil Tupurkovski to keep the Republic together, the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was over.  Greece as a neighboring country directly affected by any political and military turmoil should have monitored the situation and it should have assessed the fallout of any mishap in a wide range of possibilities that could affect the region, especially Greece. 
 
The following would hit Greek politicians on the head – on January 3, 1992, and during the informal meeting that took place in Athens between Greek and FYROM experts, the talks were deadlocked because of the insistence of Skopje delegates not to discuss the name of their country. That should have been a very serious indicator and warning of things to come. However, as we say in Greek «πέρα βρέχει» and «τα βόδια μου αργά». On January 26, 1993, six days after Pres. Bill Clinton took office the Greek Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the new President stating that Greece was ready to compromise with Skopje on the name issue. Greece surrendered before the first shot of the war was fired. The same man stated later that in 10 years nobody would remember Macedonia. 
 
Most Greeks and especially politicians and their advisors do not know the national strategic culture of Greece’s neighbors. Greece’s present electoral system does not help either. Most politicians and their advisors not only don’t know Greece’s neighbors but worst of all, they don’t know Greece. They do not care what occurs north of Thebes and south of Corinth. If they knew Greece’s neighbors and Greece itself, the issue of Skopje’s name would not exist at all. But nobody cared. What kind of impression should one form when people in Rhodes say that they lived better under the Italians?
 
I have talked with a few diplomats and politicians of Greece, and was shocked by their naiveté. They could not even distinguish the difference between how many countries have recognized the FYROM, in general, from those countries that have recognized Skopje under its so-called constitutional name. Skopje keeps promoting that about 130 nations have recognized them, which means nothing. About ten years ago, they claimed something similar until it was revealed that out of 110 or so countries, only 78 of them had recognized them as “Republic of Macedonia.”
 
So they should have three numbers.
 
1) How many countries have recognized the FYROM?
 
2) How many countries have recognized the FYROM as “Macedonia”? Was it a bilateral or erga omnes recognition?
 
3) How many countries have recognized the FYROM under its provisional name?  
 
Clearly, the Greek MFA has no idea because Greece does not have a functional intelligence process within the MFA. The A3 is as busy as the Maytag repairman under the principle «δε βαρυέσαι» and «ωχ αδερφέ.» The less they know, the better it is for the boss! He can always truthfully say, “nobody told me”. They are supposed to be professionals; it is their job to know.
 
What is happening today, reminds us of what had happened in 1902. The Bulgarians had sent Sarafov, a Supremist, to Western Capitals to push for the Bulgarian cause over Macedonia. 
 
The Greek government was asleep then as it is today, including the Greek people! Pavlos Melas wrote to Bishop Karavangelis, «Διάβασα τήν ἐκθεσί σου στο ὑπουργεῖο. Μά ἐδῶ κοιμοῦνται. Τί νά σοῦ κάνω ἐγώ;»  Moreover, the weapons (Gras, Mauser, Mannlicher-Schönauer) were transported to the Bulgarian komitadjis in Macedonia by Greek mule drovers or αγωγιάτες, so that the Bulgars can fight against and kill Greeks in Macedonia.
 
On at least one occasion, one of the chief komitadjis, Vasil Tsakalarov, went in person to Athens to buy weapons. There’s no difference today. Skopje has its fifth phalanx in the Greek Parliament itself.
 
I remember one diplomat had mentioned that Skopje would change its name, as did Myanmar which changed its name from Burma. When I told him that Myanmar was Burma’s ancient name and asked him to name the old name of the FYROM region; he could not even come up with Paeonia.
 
While Skopje governments implemented the strategy of protraction as they negotiated under the Turkish model of negotiation, it simultaneously bolstered excuses for Greek politicians to procrastinate, as they wanted to avoid signing a treaty on the name that would make them and their party appear as betraying Greece.
 
While this was taking place, Skopje threw ashes into the eyes of the Greek people, entertaining the thought of being descendants of the ancient Macedonians who miraculously were not Greeks. ALL subsequent governments of the FYROM used denial and deception via non-state and illicit actors working in the background and successfully persuading foreign governments to recognize them as “Republic of Macedonia.” The FYROM diplomacy was and is extraordinarily active on the name issue and recognition of the state as “Macedonia.” They’ll do anything to show their flag!   
 
In contrast, Greece employed extremely dormant and reactive diplomacy lacking a strategy of deterrence with tactics of a courteous, but fatalistic policy. Even the reactive tactics of Greece’s foreign policy proved to have been through an entirely personal lens of her politicians and diplomats who cared more about pleasing their bosses than doing their job by committing to their homeland and protecting the national interests of Greece.
 
Under such peculiar circumstances, the answer to your question is “Greece went wrong everywhere,” starting in 1951, the year Greece had recognized Marxist Yugoslavia. Would the same politicians direct negotiations of their real estate in a similar manner as they have negotiated the future of one-quarter of Greece’s land and indeed Greece’s future territorial integrity? 
 
The fact is that all governments of Greece, and by their silence the politicians of Greece, have created the problem that Greece has in the form of a self-inflicting wound. Some countries in the world had or still have names such as the Federal Republic of Brazil, Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Germany, and United States of America. These countries were or are known under the name portrayed last: Brazil, Yugoslavia, Germany, America. What did, if anything, the Greek MFA think that the popularized name of “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” would be? Patagonia?
 
They only looked at the official name of the country, not the popular name that people would be using, especially when we all know people do not care about official names, not even diplomats. Didn’t they know that while Greece would be in its usual lethargic state, Skopje would launch any power in the world to achieve what it wanted and still wants?

Some would argue that during the second century AD, the Romans had called the region of the FYROM, Macedonia Secunda or Salutaris. Doesn’t this justify the present name of the republic?
 
The argument that the area of the FYROM was called Macedonia Secunda (or Macedonia Salutaris) and this justifies the present name of the Republic is very weak.
 
To begin with, depending on the time and type of Administration in the Roman Empire, provinces used to change names as well as borders. On one occasion, we see Macedonia starting just north of Stobi excluding Skopje which was in Dardania, and continues south of Lamia, leaving for Epirus a slice of land from Dyrrachium to Messolongi. Romans called south Greece, Achaea, and we had two lands named Epirus: Epirus Vetus and Epirus Nova. Another mess with names comes to us from what are today France, Belgium, and Northern Italy. There we see Gallia Belgica, Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Lugdunensis, but in other times we know the name Gallia Lugdunensis and Gallia Narbonensis as Celtica while the toponym Gallia is found as Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Transalpina around Switzerland. At that time one also finds Palaestina Salutaris or Palaestina Tertia and Galatia Salutaris and so on.
 
The whole naming of a region had to do with whether the administration was in the hands of the Emperor or the Senate. It is also immaterial because not one Macedonian King had named the region of the FYROM as Macedonia. Alexander the Great and his Greeks had reached India, China, and Uzbekistan, but none of these can claim to be ‘Macedonia’.
 
It is true that King Philip VI of Macedonia had conquered the area up to about the Shar Mountains, but he never changed the name of the region and did not move any Macedonians from Macedonia to Paeonia and Dardania. So, the ethnicity of the local population from Paeonian and Dardanian never changed ethnically to Macedonian Greek.
 
Romans had occupied some territories of Alexander the Great and his Diadochi and they also occupied almost all of Europe. They did not change the human terrain of the regions they occupied. They had local garrisons and used Latin as their lingua franca of their wide Empire. 
 
Another example is the Ottomans who ruled the area of the Western and South Balkans for about 500 years. They could not alter the local populations even though they settled Turks in the occupied regions and some of the locals changed their religion to Islam.  They succeeded in changing the religion of some Slavs like those in Bosnia, who were mostly Serbs, but these people remained Slavs. Muslims of Bosnia are proud of their Slavic heritage and they are first to claim it.
 
Conquest does not mean occupation with resettlement. On the contrary, when the Byzantine Emperors resettled about half a million Slavs from Macedonia to Bithynia the resettled Slavic population amalgamated with the indigenous population.Over the years and after numerous political and ethnic fusions, the Slavs ended up Turkified (Türkleştirme). That means what actually happened is exactly the opposite of what the FYROM Slavs advocate.

Although the Prespes Agreement is not a done deal yet, what are the national security implications for Greece if the final name of the FYROM includes “Macedonia?”  Are its ethnically diverse citizens of the republic going to be recognized as “Macedonians?”
 
The final name of the FYROM is significant not just to Greece’s national security and territorial integrity but is also essential to the national security of all countries adjacent to FYROM, including the stability of the Peninsula and the Middle East.   
 
The issue of the country’s name is different from the subject of the ethnicity of its citizens. What is important is the name of the ethnic group of the Slav people who have no ethnic surname. According to international norms, nationality follows the name of the country regardless of the actual or perceived ethnicity of the person. Holders of passports of multiethnic nations as the United States, Canada, Australia, etc. see the name of the land next to “Nationality.” Thus, the issue comes down to one segment of the FYROM citizens who until November 29, 1943, were considered as part of the Serbian nation along with Montenegrins. This is evident from the Comintern Resolution of January 11, 1934.
 
Thus if we assume (without taking into account the Prespes Agreement) that the country’s final name is Povardarie, then the passports of Povardarie will indicate as “Nationality: Povardarie,” even if the bearer is ethnically Albanian, Turk, or Greek. In general, ethnicity of individuals is something personal. On the other hand, the ethnicity, language, and heritage of the Slavic population as far as I am concerned should be ‘Jugosloveni’ or South Slavs. This better reflects their slavic heritage, which constitutes an ethnic and linguistic transition zone between Bulgaria and Serbia.
 
It is a thorn in the whole agreement. The government of the FYROM cannot say on one hand that they are Slavs, but on the other, they call themselves “ethnic Macedonians.”  Even Misirkov did not call them “ethnic” Macedonians; He made sure he mentioned them as Slavs. ‘Macedonians’ for Misirkov was a regional name and applied to all people of Macedonia regardless of ethnicity.By “Macedonian people”, Comintern meant all the people of geographic Macedonia regardless of ethnicity (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. 1981, v. 2). 
 
I am not even touching the issue that the region of the FYROM became officially “Macedonia” in 1900. I consider myself a Macedonian of Greek heritage since I was born within the geographical area of the ancient kingdom. Who are these people to take away my right to call myself a Macedonian?  
 
I would push for the name “Central Balkan Republic” or “Jugoslavonija”, or better “Povardarie”. It is an existing name within the FYROM and all its people are very familiar with it. It is also a name of the Bishopric of Veles and Povardarie.

Let’s stay on the previous topic and focusing only on the Slavic population of the FYROM, why is the issue of ethnicity, language and heritage so contentious for both sides these days?
 
The Interim Accord was only about the name of the country. Here’s my argument that Greeks do not know their neighbors. 
 
What about the National Anthem of the FYROM, which is being played outside of the country as well? Nobody thus far has answered this simple question: How can the state change its name “Macedonia” but keep its national anthem intact? Does anyone in Greece know its lyrics? The first verse calls the nation “Macedonia” (Today over Macedonia, the new sun of Freedom is being born).
 
Has anyone in the Greek MFA thought about it? Or are they going to conveniently claim that the national anthem is a domestic issue as are the ethnicity, language, heritage and all other derivatives of “Macedonia”?
 
The claim that the “Macedonian” language was recognized by the UN in 1977 is absurd.  The UN recognized Taiwan, a country with a vital economy, since the 1945 San Francisco Conference. The country was a Charter member of the UN. Despite such a status, Taiwan was expelled by the General Assembly of the UN on October 25, 1971. It was unrecognized for political reasons. The issue of recognition of a language by the UN is not linguistic, but political; it may and can be unrecognized. The question is whether Greece has ever recognized anything “Macedonian”. We are referring to one-quarter of purely Greek land, not the ciftlik of Nasreddin Hodja.
 
Typically, the issue of ethnicity, heritage, and language are issues of domestic use, but  in this case, they are very important. When Greece signed the Interim Accord, the people responsible should have known better. They messed up due to their ignorance and personal convenience, so they can’t expect others to get the snake out of its den. And, what about the last failure? Whose fault is it? This has been going on for 75 years, however, the Greek political elite keep governing like ostriches. 

We have seen many Greek organizations demand that Greece withdraws from negotiations altogether. Let’s say the recent Prespes Agreement fails, what would happen if Greece withdraws from future negotiations with the FYROM on the name issue?
 
My first recommendation is that all Greeks who follow the moves of the FYROM Slav diaspora should stop imitating them. They are nonsensical and their goals are different from the aims of Greek people. This idea of withdrawal from the talks started by the Skopje diaspora about ten years ago and I was hoping that Skopje under Gruevski had listened to them. I was thinking, “get more rope to hang yourselves,” but unfortunately it did not happen. 
 
I have read some Greeks are calling for such a thing. It shows how little these people understand the international political scope of the issue.
 
In answer to your question, Greece could withdraw from the negotiations if the issue were bilateral. It would be with little or no political cost for the country. Skopje has tried to make it bilateral in the past; and luckily Greece fought against it. This is one of the correct things Greece has done on the issue. 
 
On a bilateral basis, the Interim Accord would be null and void making the erga omnes and inclusion of the name in the FYROM’s Constitution irrelevant and illogical. Every single country would recognize the FYROM as “Macedonia” leaving Greece on its own. The FYROM would get into the EU and NATO and in every organization it wishes, since the name issue would not exist. Greece would have to deal with Skopje being alone and without international support. I do not believe that any Greek wants such a thing.
 
All those people who want Greece to withdraw from negotiations because it cannot give the name Macedonia to the Slavs, in fact, become agents of Skopje on the issue because they’re thinking with their heart and not their head. I would say the same thing for those who want Greece out of the EU and NATO. They think that Russia will help Greece. That might be true, but knowing the foreign interests of Russia one of those interests is the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its move from Constantinople to Moscow. Such is the goal of Russia. Russia will also help its Pan-Slavic friends, which means that Thessaloniki will go to the FYROM and Kavala will become part of Bulgaria leaving Alexandroupolis to Turkey.
 
If this is what the Russophile Greeks want, then their wish will materialize. It should be known that since Aleksey Mikhailovich, father of Peter the Great, Russia’s main national interest is to support its goal for World supremacy and consequently Russian domestic and foreign policies reflect just that. This explains why the Russian Patriarch was absent from the Synod in Crete a few years ago although the preparation for the Synod had started about 35 years earlier.
 
The Vatican Newspaper, Il Osservatore Romano, had indicated that if the Patriarch of Moscow attended the Synod, the Orthodox Church would split because of the demands of the Russian Church. Their argument is that they lead 350 million Orthodox faithful whereas the Ecumenical Patriarch leads only about 1,500 souls. Such a statement indicates that the Patriarch of Moscow does not consider the Patriarch of Constantinople as Ecumenical, but only a local bishop with a limited flock. In reality, an Ecumenical Patriarch includes all Orthodox faithful of the World including the Russians; it is why he is called Ecumenical, not because of the number of his direct followers.
 
Greeks should be careful what they wish for regarding the Russians because they might get it. Then they will not be able to blame others, but themselves. International law is not case law or statutory law, but a common law. To quote Wikipedia, “The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts.” In the case of treaties, the precedents seek answers from previous similar treaties. The UN is in possession of such treaties.   
 
Some international norms, precedents, and guarantees regulate international talks and treaties as they are incorporated into the set of rules generally accepted as binding in relations between countries, aka international law. 
 
Greece is not in a position of prestige because the people are disunited and the political parties deal with their micro-political scheming issues, just as the kodzabashis did two hundred years ago. Greece is only a European country geographically speaking. It is progressively becoming worse in a disappointing way.

Some erroneously believe that the name issue is a uniquely Greek issue. But, that is not the case. Explain how other countries deal with similar issues of shared regions.

Let me start by saying that many countries in the world share regions. Luxembourg, for instance, shares the French prefecture with the same name. Vojvodina (Serbia), Romania, and Hungary split the region of Banat. The Flemish, i.e., Dutch-speaking part of Belgium is the continuation of the Netherlands, and the French-speaking is a continuation of France.  The name Great Britain goes back to Britany in France; both names go back to the Bretons, a Celtic tribe. There are two European regions with the name Galicia, one in Spain and one in Eastern Europe. Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia share the territory of Baranya or Baranja. Let us not forget Thrace. 
 
The name is not the problem. The United States has a state named New Mexico, and Mexico has a state called Baja or South California. I can go on with similar examples.  
 
Let’s go a little bit further than that. The most striking element of the National Anthem of the Netherlands is at the end of the first stanza. It states, “The prince of Orange I am; afraid of nothing; I have always remained loyal to the king of Spain.” It is a remnant of the Napoleonic Wars, but I have not heard any Spaniard claiming the Netherlands.  Therefore, the whole matter goes to the mentality of the people of the south Balkans.   
 
The name of the region of FYROM as Macedonia is the result of political events:

• Some intellectuals participating in a convention in Belgrade in 1865 envisioned the Balkan Federation in a politically socialist basis, not in a religious sense as Rhigas Pheraios had done many years before.

 

• The Berlin Conference of June 1878 deprived Serbia of expanding west although Serbia received other means of compensation from Austria. Serbia thus extended south, a move that conflicted with the territorial aspiration of Bulgaria even after its territorial folding. Bulgaria had maintained its national ambitions long after its defeat in the Berlin Conference. It moved its Capital to Sofia (1879), annexed Eastern Rumelia (1885), which the Berlin Conference had made an autonomous territory within the Ottoman Empire. To balance the domestic political scene, the current Bulgarian government also made the Eastern Bulgarian dialect its literary language (1899).

 

• Communism took advantage of the Bulgarian expansionist foreign policy and proceeded with a strategy that even if Bulgaria were not directly involved, she would have a lot to say on the Federation of Macedonia and Thrace. 

 
I have translated the three primary documents that are related to Macedonia; the six-page 1924 “May Manifesto”; the nine-page III Communist International, Fifth Congress - June 17–July 8, 1924 "Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans,” which includes the Macedonian and Thracian Questions. I have also translated the three-page Comintern Resolution 11 January 1934 “The Macedonian Question and the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - United (IMRO-U)”.
 
When the three documents are studied, one understands that the main objective was a federal Macedonia and Thrace under the administration of the communist IMRO. It is obvious that the word “nation” in those documents referred to a multicultural nation-state or a nation as in “United Nations,” not an ethnic one. Such multicultural nations were the answer to the Communist “National Question.”

Based on your experience, what is the driving force behind the FYROM’s irredentist claims on the northern Greek province of Macedonia? Using past examples how could these irredentist claims serve to affect Greece’s national security.
 
Briefly put, the driving force is the territorial expansion over Macedonia by military occupation; it cannot be done otherwise. Their strategy hides this fact behind the imaginary issue of the so-called human rights of “Macedonians.” They do it because they think in a Court of Law such nonsense prevails; it does not. They see other cases of legitimate minority complaints around the world, the intervention of great powers in setting new borders and they hope they can identify themselves with such matters. But to do it, they employ deceiving and criminal means. Photoshop is one of the methods they employ. The bottom line is that they cannot Photoshop facts.
 
For the second part of the question the answer is that they work with two domestic Greek groups – the communists of Greece who still support Comintern’s resolutions under the doctrine “Comintern might not have been right, but it was not wrong”, and the ultra-right wing who believe that they are the only ones who care about Greece. Most members of these two groups do not even know the modern history of Greece and how Greece’s political instability has affected the country so far. Both groups live in a parallel universe.
 
The brief history of Modern Greece is as follows:
 
Greece declared independence in 1821 (officially on January 26, 1822, in Epidavros). However by 1827, while fighting the Turks, Greeks engaged in two civil wars while the Turko-Egyptian Ibrahim was threatening to suppress the revolution. After its independence in 1829, the first political parties that sprang up were the "Russian," "English" and "French," while the newly established country was already bankrupt.  Nicholas Karlovich Giers of the Asian Section of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated the following regarding the assassination of Capodistrias: “the assassin, Mavromichalis, belonged to one of the most distinguished families of the region, who looked with envy upon [Capodistrias] rise. The only thing that has changed since then are the names of the political parties, not the mentality of the Greeks. Personal ego, especially among those disqualified to speak, feeds Greece’s political instability.
 
The “Μαύρο '97” or “Ατυχής πόλεμος του 1897” (Eng: “Black ’97” or the “Unfortunate War of 1897”) took place because of people’s wishful thinking instead of weighing up reality and waiting. The result of that war was an Ottoman military victory after which Greece ceded small parts of Thessaly to the Ottoman Empire. It would be nice if people read the background of the war and the full outcome to understand that ultra-nationalistic overtones brought Greece to humiliation and bankruptcy. The embarrassment came when the commander of the Ottoman Army stated ostentatiously that he was ready to march to Athens and drink coffee on the Acropolis. Thankfully the Great Powers of Europe intervened stopping the Turks from advancing south of Olympus.
 
That was not enough. Following this, we had the National Schism between 1914 and 1917. The National Schism set the foundations for the foolish overconfidence of an unprepared, almost defunct Army to at least control Ionia and a government to lay claim on Constantinople. Instead of being satisfied with whatever the ally victors had given to Greece, they wanted more. They proceeded to capture and destroy Ankara. The Battles of Sakarya and Dumlupınar (26–30 August 1922) brought Greece to reality. Ionia was damaged, and Constantinople was lost. Turks still remember the date of their victory.  August 30 every year is the date of military promotions and new positions.
 
Due to National Schism, the loss of prestige and non-existent political will, Greece could not even enforce the Autonomy of Northern Epirus. 
 
In the case of the Greek-Italian War (1940-1941), Greece was a clear victor delivering to the Allied Powers not only a physical victory but also a tremendous moral victory; it was the first Allied victory they so badly needed. One must consider the defeat of the UK at the beaches of Dunkirk, Belgium, and the annihilation of France by Germany that rendered the Maginot lines a simple hurdle. For that decisive victory, Greece was awarded the Dodecanese.
 
Despite the prestige that Greece had enjoyed, due to securing the first allied victory in defeating an Axis power, the domestic instability, and fanfare during the WWII Peace talks in Paris (1946-1947) was responsible for Greece losing Cyprus. The United States wanted to pass Cyprus to Greece. However, the domestic turmoil in Greece and the usual fanfare and bogus claims of some Greeks from Florida brought the intention of the United States in the open and found stiff resistance by the Soviet Union and the UK.
 
Between 1966 and 1967, Greece was in political turmoil changing governments as often as people change their shirts. I witnessed it firsthand. I still remember the blockade of Thessaloniki by land about a month before the coup of April 21, 1967. Communist-led farmers had closed the co-capital of Greece from all nine land connections. I was in Thessaloniki, and I know what happened. Such domestic instability led to the revolt of April 21, 1967. Following seven years of uncertainty, another coup, dual at this time, took place. The first one resulted in the displacement of the Papadopoulos regime. The new military government, feeling that it was their “patriotic” duty to unite Cyprus with Greece launched a coup in Cyprus under the EOKA fighter Sampson giving the excuse to Turkey to intervene to “protect” its minority. The Greek Generals and the “inactive” politicians behind them should have known better. Turkey wanted to do the same in 1962, but its invasion was averted by the United States. The situation worsened because in 1964 the United States wanted to see Cyprus united with Greece under certain conditions (Acheson Plan). Both Archbishop Makarios and the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou rejected it because the plan included “a sovereign Turkish base on the island that would limit enosis and give Ankara too much say in Cyprus’ affairs”.
 
Between 1829 and the present, Greece has gone bankrupt five times each time bringing the nation into further instability; as if the political instability was not enough. Uncertainty in Greece means calamity for the country. It will be beneficial for Greece if her people start thinking in these logical terms.

Now to the hot topic on everyone's mind lately: the "North Macedonia Agreement” at Prespes. What are your views on this Agreement?
 
This Agreement goes far beyond the scope of the Interim Accord of 1995, which only applied to the name of the country. It seems that the FYROM’s negotiators seized this opportunity during negotiations. The Greek side should have refused to negotiate anything more than the name of the country. It seems however, the Skopje’s negotiators got the hint that Greeks were easy prey from the manner Mrs. Dora Bakoyanni had negotiated and accepted the adjective “Macedonian” as ethnicity, language, and heritage. Actually, at that time, she had accepted and pushed the name to the Greek American diaspora not as erga omnes, but “for international use” claiming that it was the same thing. Actually, Mr. Panagopoulos or Panagiotopoulos, I do not exactly recall, of the Greek Embassy in Washington was the bearer of the news. The Greek side should stick to its guns and refuse to talk about issues that were not included in the Interim Agreement. Bulgaria was not stupid to have done so.
 
Having said that, I was hoping that it would not be an Agreement, but a Treaty. I am against this Agreement for a number of reasons especially the fact that it does not clearly address the false informal and non-formal education that the FYROM diaspora disseminates to themselves and their posterity, including the influence of their Church.  In addition, I have a problem with the FYROM diaspora that injects hatred in their offspring against the Greek nation. It offers lip service to such a vital issue. 
 
To me, the most important issue is that it is NOT a Treaty, but an Agreement. Although in international law, there is no real difference in validity, they do differ in the manner that the two are handled and the level of their standing. The difference is often the number of votes needed in a country’s Parliament to ratify an Agreement or a Treaty.  As Greeks know, although the Interim Accord was ratified by the Parliament in Skopje, the Simitis government never brought it to the Greek Parliament for ratification because it was an Accord or Agreement. The problem I always had is, although the governing party was silent on the issue, the official opposition was silent as well. Agreements do not have to be brought for ratification. It is true that it was a command of the UNSC, the law enforcement body of the United Nations, but it should have still been offered to Parliament for discussion and ratification. Mr. Papoulias would have had a lot of explaining to do. 
 
Coming to the present issue, Nikos Voutsis, the present Speaker of the Parliament, declared that the matter will be offered to the Parliament for discussion and ratification. What is unclear is that he mentioned ratification of this agreement will require a very large majority in the Greek Parliament. “There is no constitutional provision for 180 votes, but for such a serious matter, the larger the majority will be, the better for all”. Really?
 
What exactly does the Article 28.2 of the Greek Constitution stand for? It states,  
 
“Authorities provided by the Constitution may by treaty or agreement be vested in agencies of international organizations when this serves an important national interest and promotes cooperation with other States. A majority of three-fifths of the total number of Members of Parliament shall be necessary to vote the law ratifying the treaty or agreement (website: Parliament of Greece).
 
Mr. Voutsis is the Speaker of the Parliament, but he has no reading comprehension.  The whole article 28 deals with international law, but he cannot find the reason for legal approval of a treaty or agreement?
 
As for the Agreement itself, between 1950 to 2015, Greece, directly and indirectly, gave up about 80% of what the FYROM wanted. The name “Macedonia” was given indirectly in 1950 when Greece established a Consulate General in the Capital of the People’s Republic of Macedonia. The mere establishment of an official Greek diplomatic office within the former Yugoslavia implied an indirect recognition.
 
So in essence, the negotiations between the FYROM and Greece did not start subject to a clean slate. International law is common law based on precedent unlike Greece's domestic law, which is based on statutes. Thus as time passed since the 1951 normalization of relations between Greece and the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, SFRJ, Greece kept giving away or recognizing institutions and agreements. Also, by ignoring developments on the Macedonian issue, even as a side effect, such acts kept accumulating. Thus by 1995, Greece had already given about 50-60% of what they wanted as fait accompli. Most of the time under the upsetting procrastination and indifference expressed by «ωχ, αδελφέ» «δε βαριέσαι», «ε και τι έγινε», «και ποιος θα το μάθει;». According to the former MFA of Greece, Dora Bakoyanni, by 2010 Greece had already awarded Skopje 80% of what it sought by constantly giving in. Thus, Skopje had no incentive to allow Greece to receive the remaining 20%. Holding to the already possessed 80%, it negotiated the remaining 20% adhering to the dictum “what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable.” It has been Skopje’s traditional approach to the name issue since 1991(Templar, August 28, 2014).
 
Upon reading the entire agreement, the deficiencies were evident as if it were put together by a group of 15-year-old high school students who wrote their individual pieces and compiled the agreement without even reading it.
 
The agreement covers legal issues at the government level. It offers lip service to how legal definitions and provisions would be used by the people of Greece and its Macedonian Greek diaspora. It provides ethnic cover for the Macedonian Slavs, but it does nothing to protect the regional identity of Macedonian Greeks like me. As the diaspora of the FYROM has embraced the Macedonian national identity, they will have a very solid stance to declare that they are rightfully Macedonians. Nobody among the common international community would care about the Agreement, nor that their history has nothing to do with THE ancient Macedonians. The so-called experts in the Greek MFA have started an inferno that will die when the Macedonian region of Greece gets incorporated into ‘North Macedonia’. The geniuses of humanity from the ‘Republic of Athens’ have NO idea whom they are dealing with. They should come to Australia next year to learn a thing or two and leave their conceit back in Greece. 
 
Some parts of the Agreement make sense, but others do not; their vagueness will hurt Greek national interests but mostly the relations of our diaspora. Making the FYROM Slavs “Macedonians” even under the definition that Misirkov offered in his book On Macedonian Matters deprives the Macedonian Greeks of their true Macedonian Heritage. Other provisions nullify or even contradict stipulations of the same article or muddy other articles of the agreement. 
 
In general, Article 3, for instance, reinforces the Peace, Friendship and Mutual Protection between Serbia and Greece signed in Thessaloniki on June 1, 1913, by the Greek ambassador to Belgrade, Ioannis Alexandropoulos, and the Serbian ambassador to Athens, Mateja Bošković; it is known as the Koromilas - Bošković Protocol. Under article 3, Skopje accepts the borders of 1913.
 
Then we jump to the issue of citizenship or legal nationality.  Article 1.b in the Agreement is unacceptable.
 
The Agreement offers two meanings in the term "nationality". In international law, the term nationality is a loose term of citizenship. American passports for instance bear as nationality “United States of America”; it does not state “American”. In the case of this agreement, the two parties should have done the same; on the issue of nationality, the name of the country should be written, not the adjective Macedonian as it refers to ethnicity in article 7. That would have prevented part of the future headaches.
 
The agreement sees all citizens of the FYROM as “Macedonians” from the scope of a community of descent. So according to this agreement, the FYROM is 100% Slavic, but also North Macedonian. Thus the people of FYROM are given a choice, the Slavs are Macedonians in nationality, but the rest of them are North Macedonians. The problem from the point of international law is simple. There are two countries, one is Macedonia with its own nationals and the other one is North Macedonia with its own nationals. But how can citizens belong to a country under the name Macedonia that does not exist?

Coming to the issue of history, it correctly deprives the Slavs of any part of Greek history. However, the real issue was not, is not, and will never be ancient history as most Greeks believe. There is nothing in the history of the Slavs that connects them to ancient Greek history. Misirkov born in Pella knew extremely well who and what the ancient Macedonians were. He had never mentioned ancient history at all.
 
The history myth started in 1936 in Melbourne from the followers of the Bulgarian General Mihajilov and it continued later by their posterity under the thought, "if we are Macedonians, we must be descendants of the ancient Macedonians; otherwise what kind of Macedonians are we?" It was based on faulty logic and stories that their grandparents told them. 
 
Some historians doubt that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks on various pretexts, but not a single historian connects the Slavs a historical continuity to the ancient Macedonians, not one. Nobody considers the sermon of Pribojevic and the Book of Orbini as historical theses.
 
But the issue is very different from what the agreement addresses. Even if the FYROM had signed treaties that excluded the name Macedonia in their name, language, ethnicity and heritage the morons of VMRO-DPMNE, their Golden Dawn type (and there are plenty of those), will still claim ancient Macedonian ancestry. I had a numerous conversations with Hungarians and Croats of the Golden Dawn type and I could not believe the absurdities they said.
 
But what concerns me is not only the combination of the entire Article 1, Article 7 (paragraphs 2, 3, 4) and Article 8 (paragraphs 1, 2, 5), but in particular, Article 8.5. 
 
As previously stated, I wonder if anyone in the A3 has ever read and understood the national anthem of the FYROM. The agreement does not indicate anything of the kind.  Despite the explanations in article 7, the agreement considers the country to be “Macedonia” and treats it as such, since it does not touch its national anthem. If everything is erga omnes, the FYROM under the name “North Macedonia” cannot have a national anthem that pertains to Macedonia, which is a region of Greece. 
 
In addition, what exactly does paragraph 7.5 mean in relation to Article 7 as a whole?
 
The main concern is, who will be scientists and experts from the Greek side that will negotiate the history of Greece, including ancient history, and the history of the Macedonian struggle? If the Minority Research Center (KEMO) and the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) get involved in “negotiating” the agreement, then:

• a) All the Vlach-speaking Greeks of Krushevo, that is the victims of Ilinden, will be renamed "ethnic Macedonians"

 

• b) the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (EMEA) will be proclaimed an "ethnic Macedonian Liberation Movement" with philanthropic and benevolent intentions, forgetting their terrorist acts of the “Boatmen” and the “Miss Stone Affair”

 

• c) Pavlos Melas, the Metropolitan Germanos Karavangelis and so many other Greeks who gave their blood for Macedonia will be called "terrorists"

 

• d) The approximately 30,000 kidnapped children from all over Greece will end up being boy scouts going camping with the blessings of their parents 

 
One must always bear in mind that even though the Agreement states the preservation of Greek history within Greek contexts, it does NOT explicitly and unambiguously state that ancient Macedonian history is an integral part of Greek history.
 
Do not assume that this is implied by the wording of the Agreement. Such an issue can be resolved by the exchange of letters between the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Skopje. Exchange of letters is a regular institution in diplomatic services.
 
What makes it particularly intriguing is Article 8.
 
Article 8.1 cannot be clearly understood. What I have not yet understood is the issue of Article 8.1. This article is an exact copy of Article 7.3 of the Interim Agreement. It is the same article that helped Gruevski and others steal Greek history and transplant it to their Slavic country. Why did they put it back, particularly when Article 8.5 exists? Have there been no lessons learned by the MFA?
 
8.2 Gives the government in Skopje six months to consider whether the statues are historical or not. What have they done so far?
 
8.3 In this article, the last paragraph allows any Slav to make copies of whatever Greek they want (e.g., Sun of Vergina) and sell them anywhere. These copies can be in clothes, flags, etc. Its prohibition under Article 8.3 applies only to the government and any organizations affiliated with the Skopje government, either directly or indirectly. Unless I have missed something, it does not apply to the private sector. This means that the spread of Skopje can follow their own drummer.
 
8.4 This is standard practice in the official gazetteer. It is no longer Solun or Monastiri in official documents. But this is normal for all official documents. Names used in the interior of a country are preferred by names used abroad. These names will be used in the list of UN names, i.e., gazetteer.
 
As for Article 13, it deals with the former Serbian> former Yugoslavian> current Serbian Free Zone at the harbor of Thessaloniki. Greece has already passed part of the same Zone to Skopje.
 
Never mind the explanation of Article 7. Greek-Australians should prepare for the fight of their lives. Greece has ensured that they and their offspring will be fighting against the FYROM Slav diaspora for as long as they live. 
 
The negative side of this agreement is that the Greek diplomatic corps, following the official line of the Agreement, will assist the FYROM Slav diaspora, declaring that the Slavs are actually Macedonians and the Macedonian-Greeks are just Greeks who live in Macedonia. The Slavic diaspora is not interested in the agreement or the emphasis on different historical context and cultural heritage. This Agreement actually strengthens their effort to “explain” why they are Macedonians.
 
Until now, the FYROM Slav diaspora only had academics side against them. Even Badian and Borza were clearly stating that the modern “Macedonians” could not claim a historical continuity with the ancient Macedonians. Now they have the official political side stating that they can be called Macedonians, because they moved to Macedonia during the 6th-7th centuries, and their name comes from their habitation. It gives them a regional, not a sanguine disposition but it still gives them the historical name. It clearly states their Slavic origin and it does the same with their language and heritage. 
 
I’m assuming that according to Article 15, visitors from the FYROM to archaeological sites will follow the rules of the Ministry of Culture that only certified guides will explain any and all historical facts related to the site. This must apply especially to the students, who until now they had their own “learned” teachers to explain.
 
From the composition of the Agreement, it looks like after the negotiating teams finished their job, someone took a superficial glance over the Agreement and approved it, without considering possible redundancies or conflicting statements in different sections. To put it bluntly, the Agreement was rushed kicking the tin away for others to get the snake out of its den. Eventually, and I suspect sooner than later, the snake will prove to be a gargantuan komodo dragon with lethal saliva.
 
As it is, the Agreement needs many explanatory notes and exchange of official letters like the ones that accompanied the Interim Agreement, but very few people know about those letters.
 
When one regresses to 1822, the connection to issues associated with the problems that Greece has becomes apparent. Political expediency, along with ignorance of the real world outside of Athens, is the source of all evils created by Athens. Because the creators of the problems are either incapable or politically unwilling to solve them, they turn around and ask for foreign help, whilst simultaneously releasing their partisan henchmen to tacitly “inform” the public that the Germans or the Americans are behind all of Greece’s calamities. Of course, they are behind them – their own boss had asked them to help.
 
For the sake of Greece’s survival, the Greek MFA needs to understand that Greece is far beyond the real estate between Thebes, Sounion, and Corinth – Athens is not Greece; it is simply part of Greece. Greece includes all of us who expect guidance and enlightenment from our home country, but all we get is a luminous darkness of corruption, conceit, and indifference that amounts to political immaturity.
 
The way politicians govern Greece is reminiscent of the Phanariots of Wallachia and the kodzabashis of the Sultan. The Sultan is dead, but their spirit lives on in the Parliament of Greece.
 
They better go back and re-write this Agreement before it is too late to save Macedonia.
 
​If you were tasked with changing something in the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic, what would it be?
 
Oh, that’s easy. We have to try to at least keep the politicians honest:

1. Residence
All elected officials shall physically reside within the district they are elected and represent for at least 10 years before they register their candidacy. Such a clause shall apply to all elected officials including the leaders of all political parties in the Parliament without exception. They shall be Greek citizens by birth or naturalization. No elected official shall be allowed to hold any other nationality but Greek. It also applies to residents of the diaspora unless the law changes to allow representatives of the diaspora in the Greek Parliament.  

* Explanation: As it is today if a person from the diaspora wants to run for office in Greece this person will have to follow the same rules that apply to all residents of Greece who want to be elected in the Parliament.

2. Nationality
Civil servants no matter how high or how low in rank or position shall have only Greek nationality. Such a requirement shall apply to all and any military personnel with any kind of Security Clearance. If such personnel have dual or multiple nationalities, the same personnel shall renounce all foreign nationalities before they enter the service or force. As the New Testament states, "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.”

3. Referendum
a. The Parliament will decide on issuing a notice of a referendum concerning specific matters within its sphere of competence by a simple majority vote of the total number of Representatives. The decision of the majority of voters in a referendum shall be adopted on condition that more than half of the total number of registered voters had voted. 

b. The Parliament will be obliged to issue a notice of a referendum if one is proposed by at least, say, 5% of the registered voters. The decision made in such a referendum will be binding.     

4. The President of the Republic will be elected directly by the people
The President of the Republic will be elected in general and direct elections, by secret ballot, for a single six-year term. The President of the Republic shall physically reside for a minimum of ten years within Greece at the day s/he is elected to office. The President of the Republic shall be a national of the Hellenic Republic by birth and only of the Hellenic Republic even if she/he resides abroad.  A person may be elected President of the Republic if over the age of at least 40 on the day of the election. A person may not be elected President of the Republic if, on the day of the election, he/she has not been a physical resident of the Hellenic Republic at least ten years in a row. Owning property in Greece while physically living abroad does not qualify one as being a physical resident.  
 
Greeks in Greece and in the diaspora held rallies on the “Macedonia” name issue sporadically. Some of these rallies were quite large, but the question remains: was there a message attached to those rallies or did the outside world penalize the message and Greece along with it?
 
Many messages used in those rallies make sense only to Greeks; however, they give the wrong message to foreigners with no understanding of the issue. Either the organizers do not seem to care, or they feel like isolating people who genuinely care about Greece. People have to understand that what makes sense to us is not necessarily a useful tool to spread our message. ‘One message fits all’ is the wrong concept. We can satisfy our pride and our ego, but simultaneously sacrifice our message or play it smart and spread the right message without over-dramatization, sensationalism, and ultra-nationalism.
 
To foreigners, slogans such as “Macedonia is Greek” sounds like it hides an ultra-nationalistic message with an expansionist connotation against the FYROM. Strabo said, “Indeed, Macedonia is part of Greece”; however, one must consider that at his time Greece was only a geographical term under the Romans; it was not a country. The Hellenic Peninsula was divided into two administrative segments, one of which included Macedonia.
 
In my view, people who prepare advertising should take Strabo’s statement and present in a way that the word “Macedonia” does not refer to the FYROM in any way and form, but to Greece. Something like “Macedonia is already a part of Greece”; “No state with the name Macedonia”; “Macedonia IS in Greece”; something like that would be more effective and to the point. People should stop thinking emotionally and start thinking strategically. People in the advertising industry are genuinely creative.   
 
I love Greece, I truly do, but loving something or someone does not mean I have to be blind; it means I should face reality and distinguish between what is right and wrong. I cannot restrict my mind of the truth whilst ignoring facts. It is said that love is blind; however, it does not have to be senseless.
 
People have the right to hold rallies and they should. In a democracy, it is the right and obligation of the citizens to petition their government. However, the same demonstrators and especially their leadership must debilitate all elements who misdirect the tide of the demonstration whether they come from the extreme right or extreme left. Leaders are responsible for anything that takes place in protests. About ten years ago, I suggested that we demonstrate before Greek diplomatic missions, not in front of foreign government buildings but I was turned down flat. Ten years later, they decided to do it, but it's too late. Even when I had suggested it, it was late; now it is much worse.     

Australia, USA, and Canada are home to an extensive Greek diaspora. However, we are a diaspora divided especially on advocacy. Why is this?
 
We are divided because those in leadership not only undermine each other but also don’t know what they are doing.  Others accept bribes from subsequent Greek governments about 25 to 35 thousand U.S. dollars monthly under the guise of promoting Greek causes or advertisement. This is true for some well-known Greek NGOs and mass media of the Greek Diaspora. Since it is an issue pertaining to all Greeks, where is the voice from key Greek American NGOs? They are silent on the matter of Macedonia because they are probably on the take.  
 
In some cases, those who think of themselves as superior homeland patriots are in fact so irrational that they end up collaborating with the FYROM Slavs without even realising it. Some go as far as getting their supporters to troll both Greeks and Slavs online and to exchange absurd nonsense as if they were Karagiozis (Karagöz) and Hatzivatis (Hacivat). The fact is the Sultan hung them both. More recently these ‘patriots’ have even put people’s lives in danger by “outing” some of our FYROM Slav supporters in the diaspora who work for the Greek cause. These trolls consider these public outings as an “achievement.” However, it never occurred to them that the people they have outed may be providing very useful information to Greece. A nation cannot survive with such people and is doomed to fail.
 
How can the Greek diaspora create advocacy groups when they have such members? One does not find this kind of behavior in the FYROM Slav camp.
 
Ultimately, intelligent Greeks of the diaspora become non-inclined towards involvement in such destructive organizations.

How would you describe the FYROM Slav diaspora organizations and the methods they employ to get their message heard not only within their community but also in the public sphere?
 
From the efficiency of their work, they are very well-organized with discipline and attention directed toward their goal not at each other. Their lobby works under a strategy that employs professional experts in disciplines where the lobby needs to spread the word. Their experts are not FYROM Slavs and they often resort to proxy struggle just like the VMRO in the early 1900s.
 
Also, FYROM Slavs have money, and the methods they employ are put together professionally. The coordination of tactics as part of a strategic purpose is apparent.  Their community takes “guidelines” from both Skopje and Ankara - Turkey is helping them a lot and supports them unquestionably. Not one of the members of the various groups would dare disobey it. When it comes to “Macedonia” they face it with religious reverence. It is exactly why the FYROM is where it is. Additionally, they don’t troll each other, nor divulge or out their sources, or attack each other, because they take the issue seriously.

Going back to the Greek diaspora, you are an advocate for the creation of a Greek lobby. Many in the diaspora already believe that there are Greek lobby groups at work to protect the interests of both the diaspora and to lobby their respective governments. What are the facts on this issue?
 
The myth about the Greek lobby started after the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey. As I understand it, a couple of Greek restaurant owners went to the U.S. Congress to talk to their Congressman about the invasion. As they were leaving the office, someone asked who these men were; one of the present office workers said “the Greek lobby.” More or less, it is how the myth started.   
 
Well, if so many lobby groups existed, Greece would not have been continuously on the receiving end. Since Greece never had a lobby, most Greeks do not know what a lobby is, what it needs to operate, nor the amount of money involved. Greeks are also tribal. They do not have the national unity necessary to address domestic and national security issues. I have been attacked as a pro-Skopje Slav only because my last name is not Greek. If they take the telephone book of, say, Athens, they will be surprised how many so-called Greek names are Arabian, Persian, Turkish, Slavic, Albanian, etc. A name ending such as “-is” does not make a name Greek, by the way. A name ending in “-oğlu” which is a possessive genitive of oğul (son) cannot be purely Greek. Papazoğlu, for instance, is purely a Turkish name. The Greek word for a priest is “ἱερεύς,” not papas. Papas is remnant of Greece’s Ottoman past. In Turkish “papaz” means “Christian priest.”
 
Skopje has only ONE national issue, their survival as a state. They have Turkish-trained personnel on issues of lobbying and their experts listen to professional advice. In the United States, lobbyists for other powers are required to register as Foreign Agents (FARA). The President of the UMD is a designated Foreign Agent. Additionally, the Ministry of Culture of the government of the FYROM, has for 10 years now employed people full-time to work solely on articles published in Wikipedia promoting the “Macedonian Heritage” of the Slavs turned “ethnic Macedonians”. 
 
Greece on the other hand has five national security issues; (Macedonia, Northern Epirus, Thrace, EEZ, and Aegean Air Space) and two national topics (Cyprus, and the Greek Genocide). Each one of them needs a separate lobby. 
 
The reason why we don’t have a lobby is because the political establishment of Greece does not allow it and does everything possible to subvert, sabotage, and weaken any attempt for a valid and honest lobby. Secondly, those who want to lead a lobby do not have any idea what a real lobby entails – dreams don’t count. Lobby means M-O-N-E-Y and expertise (love for the homeland or I want to help are fine, but they do not count as expertise). Just to open its doors for example, an active lobby requires a minimum of three million U.S. dollars. The operating costs reduce as the organization depreciates its assets but salaries and other operational expenses need to be factored in. If this sum seems exorbitant, one must start working in a Cost Accounting manner and without discounting any costs. 
 
A lobby is a fully organized operation consisting of adequately staffed and equipped teams with a single scope tasking that does not lose its peripheral vision. A team is a group whose identity reflects the consensus of its members without suppressing their individuality.
 
A lobby needs teams of experts, groups of professionals with expertise in the specific cause they advocate without interference or meddling in the business of other teams.  The experts are dedicated to their field and they do not need to be of Greek descent.  Each of the lobby teams consist of experts on specific subject matters, as geologists, national security experts with a specialty in geostrategy, experts in avionics, attorneys specializing in international law, diagnosticians, analysts, strategists, tacticians, operationalists, a lot of full-time staffers; but most of all, a lobby needs famous spokespersons in the community they operate and FUNDING.
 
Lobbies are connected to foundations or nonprofit public policy organizations using all forms of mass and social media and mass communication to influence a government or individual politicians. They demonstrate that the public demands a particular action. Such is the advocacy side of the lobbies that works overtly through lectures and presentations. 
 
A real Greek lobby requires serious funding because our multiple causes have been neglected or marginalized for a long time. The number of personnel required for a lobby can be anywhere between twenty to thousands; it always depends on what the aim and objective is. A few years back, I met someone who worked for a lobby as a Human Resource Manager, but the lobby in my opinion was insignificant. Yet she still had close to 100 personnel on her payroll. Not only do we have no lobby in Washington, but we don’t have appropriate people to lead such a lobby. All those who lead numerous Greek organizations have no understanding what a true lobby is, no appropriate training, no suitable contacts, and lack leadership ability.
 
Lobbyists are naturally accountable to their supporters who usually remain anonymous; it is why professional lobbies work quietly and behind the scenes using covert techniques. 
 
On the public relations side, a simple garden party with a politician today will cost a lobby about US$400-500,000 in the United States. The only Greek-American firm registered in the United States as a public relations firm is Manatos and Manatos. This firm was charging US$300,000 for garden parties about ten years ago.  
 
Most organizations of the Greek diaspora that I’m aware of are organized under the scope of cultural, societal, or educational societies with appropriate by-laws. Their part-time leadership, boards, and sometimes paid employees, lack what it takes to undertake the duties of a lobbyist. Unfortunately, they seek ‘lobbyists’ among themselves, restricting any possible expertise in the realm of the Greek diaspora.  Such mentality hinders the achievement of goals. The people who believe they currently lead a lobby are unaware that they do not have the suitable skills and information to deliver what is required. Titles, academic standing, or military and social eminence do not provide what it takes to operate and lead a political or national security lobby group, nor do they provide appropriate methods and strategies to achieve set goals. 
 
Those involved, do not understand what a lobby is nor its definition. The most critical part of lobbying is an affinity for the cause, not lust for it. Affinity lends itself to using logic, but passion raises emotional ties which are counterproductive. What one loves to do does not mean that it is the right thing to do.  
 
However, the problem within the Greek diaspora is more profound.  When irresponsible people spread the news that they are lobbyists while they do nothing near lobbying, they raise expectations by throwing ashes into the eyes of those who hope that someone is doing something. If they were honest about it, people would not have such expectations, and they would take the issue seriously trying to do something to fill the gap instead of being complacent. 
 
Others believe that educated people know what they are doing. To begin with, it is a faulty assumption. Let us take a teacher. There is a difference between teaching a five-year-old from teaching a 60-year-old. It is worse when a teacher of English is trying to teach English as a Second Language to foreigners. In my Turkish language class, for example, there were three engineers from Turkey teaching us Turkish as a Second Language. It was a farce. 
 
Another way of looking at the knowledge and expertise required for an effective lobby is like this. The human body and a house use plumbing. The gastroenterologist and the plumber do similar jobs.  They both take care of the plumbing, the first one of the human body and the second one of the house. The question is simple; would you visit a plumber to perform a colonoscopy?
 
I remember a Greek Cypriot professor of Political Science who teaches in the UK claiming that he knew a lot about Turkey. When he read my paper on the Strategic Culture of Turkey, he said: “I did not know all these details.” I am sure others would have presented a different set of details on the same subject. A lobby needs eloquent people to control the ground, spin the media, have credibility, sponsor a think-tank, neutralize the opposition without criminal means, control the web, and have access to government offices.
 
Most of the issues Greeks have arisen from targeting the wrong audience. They keep preaching to the choir. The message to the Greeks and non-Greeks can never be the same. They make videos in Greek explaining to the Greek audience that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Why? If the Greek audience does not know that, why are we attacking the FYROM Slavs for their historical ignorance? Why don’t the same people make a video in the language that the FYROM Slavs understand? What about in Serbian or even Russian? I am sure there are a few of Slavic descent who are willing to do it for a fee. They can even dub the voice. They can just narrate without showing their faces. It is exactly why a true lobby needs money. But who has the intelligence to think about it? According to Mr. Philip Christopher, President of the International Coordinating Committee – “Justice for Cyprus” (PSEKA), Turkey has spent US$102 million to professional lobbying firms such as Gephard, Livingston, Dole, Wexler, etc. Turks seek experts regardless of their ethnic background. Greeks look for people of Greek background. That alone limits the choices that Greeks have.  
 
In saying this, I want to clarify that I am not a lobbyist and will never be one. I do not have what it takes to be a lobbyist. I can organize a lobby without any outside interference and I can task the necessary research with a team of true researchers; that is what I can do.
 
We cannot end this interview without discussing our organization. Why has the Macedonian League resonated with so many people young and old? We see it from the constant communication and the enthusiasm of our followers. We see it with foreign government officials who follow us seeking answers to the name issue. What does the Macedonian League offer that other Greek organizations don't?
 
We are a small group of professionals specializing in various disciplines. Since its inception, our website and social media has remained and will remain clear of sensationalist articles with unproven “facts.” We welcome articles from professionals that have something to do with Greece’s domestic and national security issues. All of them pass through the editorial board. We have several professional editors who check the accuracy and the tone of articles.
 
What people like is the thoughtfulness behind the maintenance of our website and our social media sites. It is why foreign governments and intelligence agencies are our followers. It is only for a mature following and for people who want to learn something. It is precisely why the Australian Institute of Macedonian Studies (AIMS) has honored us with the Research Fellowship. People have noticed that anything we do is based on facts and not rumors or hallucinations.
 
It also depends on your readership. We do not care about spreading nonsense to gain readership. From the beginning we decided to keep our website content of high quality caliber and we stayed focused on the national security of Greece. Quality is always better than quantity. From a personal perspective, I’ve had many opportunities in life to follow popular movements and webinars. I did not do it because of the people I had to deal with and the direction the webinars would take. My father fought against fascists, Nazis and Communists and I would not forgo his example. I would never allow myself to be used by people who seek my knowledge on the matter to promote their pre-existing beliefs or political ideology.
 
Marcus Templar, your closing thoughts. Seeing that the global Greek community is extremely unhappy with this ‘Agreement’, going forward, what is the best way to protect Greece’s national security interests, and undo some of the damage done so far?

Well in closing, I wish that the governments and the people of Greece had woken up in 1990 regarding the name issue. Some Greek politicians have a problem with Skopje taking the name “Macedonia” as part of its final name, but I wonder where they had been since then? The demagogues who now take advantage of the issue could easily create social and political upheavals in the country by using toxic populism.
 
Having said that, the following course of action will help undo damage done so far:

• Firstly, people whose education, employment and expertise have nothing to do with issues of political science (foreign affairs, national security, etc.) should stay out of these issues because they are unskilled in the craft. Imagine how senseless it would be if I got involved in their profession whether they were engineers, physicians, teachers of literature, etc? Serious issues are not for kafeneion discussion and Politicial Science is not kafeneion politics.

 

• Secondly, establish Professional Lobby groups; one to lobby Greek politicians and others to lobby governments of the countries they live in.

 

• Thirdly, hire a legal team of experts in international law to look into protesting and consequently annulling the present Agreement between Athens and Skopje under any or all of the following: 

 
                 – Ultra vires;
                 – Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion in accordance with Articles 46–53 of the Vienna
                    Convention on the Law of Treaties;
                 – Contrary to peremptory norms.

Then re-negotiate an Agreement based on the findings of the Legal Group and this time assign diplomatically relevant and politically competent negotiators instead of international nation-nihilistic organizations. The name of the multi-ethnic country must be Modern Yugoslavia or Yugoslavonia. The Nationality (which is a loose term of citizenship) must follow solely the name of the country and its Slav nationals should be designated as South Slavs speaking a South Slavic, with South Slavic Heritage. 

• Fourthly, employ full-time multilingual personnel, dedicated to maintaining Greek-related content on Wikipedia in more languages than Greek. Never underestimate the influence of Wikipedia on people especially on children.

​

• Finally, implement all the changes to the Greek constitution that were proposed in the report above.

 
Marcus Templar, The Macedonian League wishes to thank you for your genuine and in-depth analysis in presenting the causes and consequences of this serious national security issue.
 
Your academic and strategic insights are vital to the future direction and success of the Greek position on the Macedonian issue.

​--

About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

​To read all his papers, please click here.

About the Macedonian League
We are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity. 

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

For more information, follow us on: Website, Facebook, Twitter

Department of Communications
Macedonian League 

I am sure everyone in this room has heard of Thucydides. His analysis of the political reality behind the military operations of both camps during the Peloponnesian War made him known as the father of the Realist Political thought. The same thought that war colleges around the world teach and analyze. 
 
Reasons behind the Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War

Thucydides states that the three greatest events related to the Peloponnesian War were fear, honor, and self-interest. 

Regarding fear, Thucydides indicates that the growth of Athens pushed Sparta to launch the war.  On the other hand, Pericles paid tribute to the dead soldiers delivering the most famous statement, “any place is the tomb of prominent men; they are honored not only by columns and inscriptions in their own land, but in foreign nations on memorials graven not in stone but in the hearts and minds of people.”[i] 

As Thucydides put it, the personal self-interest and the personal gain of those in power was the reason that Athens was driven to oblivion. Other historians, orators and politicians have collaborated Thucydides assessment on issues of private gain versus public interest and political flattery versus frankness and honesty. Pericles died in 429 BC, long before the end of the Peloponnesian War, and he was fortunate enough not to see the shameful end of the Athenian hegemony. 

According to Xenophon, Athens surrendered to Sparta in 404 BC, and its allies surrendered soon after.  The capitulation stripped Athens of its walls, its fleet, and all of its overseas possessions. The Athenian hegemony was over. Sparta’s allies, especially the Corinthians and the Thebans, demanded that Athens should be burnt to the ground and all its citizens enslaved. However, the Spartans, magnanimous as they were, refused to destroy a city that had done a good service at a time of great danger to Greece, alluding to the Persian Wars.[ii] 

In 13 paragraphs, Thucydides enumerates what caused the Athenians’ failure. Malcolm Heath has summarized the reasons behind the failure, as follows:

Introduction

Misirkov’s extensive biography provides a view as the author understood the overall political reality in Europe and particularly in the Balkan Peninsula during his time.  It is also necessary for the reader to bear in mind the alongside creeping progress of the Pan-Slavic movement and the awakening of the Slavdom, i.e., regions of Slavic linguistic and cultural traditions who lived in Central, Eastern and Southeast Europe outside of the Russian boundaries.

The Roman Catholic Church started and sanctioned the Pan-Slavic movement as it brokered the marriage of Sophia Paleologue to Ivan III in 1472, supporting the theories of Vinko Pribojević, and Mauro Orbini, and authorized the voyages of Juraj Križanić to Russia silently endorsing his actions.  Also, Russia’s foreign policy on the Balkans, which Peter the Great had established, continued uninterrupted and contributed to Misirkov’s life of movement or resettlement from one political jurisdiction to another.  It is worth noting that while in Belgrade attending the teacher’s academy, Misirkov befriended some future members of the VMRO as Petar Pop-Parsov, Dame Gruev.

Misirkov

Misirkov was born in the town of Aghoi Apostoloi or Holy Apostles of the Pella Prefecture, Macedonia, Greece on November 18, 1874.  The town of Aghoi Apostoloi is adjacent to the ancient Capital of Macedonia, Pella.  Not only he attended the Greek elementary school of his village under the Ottoman rule, but also he could physically see the ruins of the ancient city.  He knew the history of Macedonia much better than the modern Slav inhabitants of the FYROM and its diaspora do today.  He could read the inscriptions chiseled on the stones and the language of the ancient population of Macedonia, which was Greek.  It is why Misirkov never invoked the ancient Macedonians as his ancestors, but he always referred to himself and his compatriots as Macedonian Slavs. 

The only person with the name Alexander whom Misirkov mentioned is Alexander Obrenović (1876-1903), who became king of Serbia at the age of 13 and assassinated at the age of 26. 

As a charter member of the “Macedonian People’s Science and Technology Association, ‘Sveti Kliment’ ” (Saint Clement) along with the Chuparov brothers from Papradishte (Veles), Misirkov published the Македонский голос (Macedonian Voice) in Russian.  Later the society changed its name to “Macedonian Slav Literary Society, Sveti Kliment.”  It is notable that although they could name the Association after St. Cyril, they preferred to recognize Saint Kliment, Saint Cyril’s disciple one of their own who became the first Bulgarian Bishop.  The leadership of the association knew that Saint Cyril was Greek.  The fact is that Misirkov never mentioned anything that would indicate even remotely the appropriation of Greek history.  The adjective “Macedonian” was regional according to Misirkov (1974, 159). He used the term Macedonian as the Greeks use it today, a regional connotation.

Misirkov’s book

The language Misirkov used in his book was not the Central Slavic dialect of Bitola – Prilep as he had suggested that should become the literary language of the Macedonian state he had proposed, but instead, he used the vernacular Bulgarians spoke in his vicinity at that time.  The dialect maintained archaisms of the literary standard of the southern dialect of the Old Church Slavonic language from which Bulgarian dialects evolved.

The current region of Macedonia is a product of political alchemy that started in the mid-1800s and continued in 1940s. Present geographic Macedonia is far more extensive than the great kingdom of Macedonia. Only a tiny part of their legendary kingdom fell within Serbia and Bulgaria because of the 1878 Conference of Berlin that caused the quarrel between those two countries. The Conference had deprived Serbia of enlarging west and Bulgaria from expanding south and west.  While Serbia envisioned her presence south, Bulgaria moved her Capital from Turnovo to Sofia in the hope that one day she would gain the lands that the Conference had taken away.  Their rivalry and their war of 1885 turned the lands of ancient Dardania and Paeonia into Macedonia by 1900 (Novaković 1906).

Misirkov was an intellectual but also an indecisive ideologue who wrote expressed his emotions over pragmatism, an individual who kept changing his ethnic allegiance while maintaining his loyalty to the region of Macedonia.  By that, I mean that although Misirkov vacillated from being a Bulgarian of Macedonia or a Macedonian Slav who despised the Bulgarians of the Principality, while he remained a provincial Macedonian.

Lazar Koliševski, a prominent communist politician of Marxist Yugoslavia, explained, “The book appeared at the end of that year, but because of the intervention by greater-Bulgarian circles in Sofia the entire edition was destroyed at the printing works. Only very few copies remained. After that Misirkov had to leave Sofia and went to Russia for the third time” (Kolishevski 1980, 236).

To Misirkov, Macedonian people were all residents of Macedonia irrespective of their ethnic background.  When he was referring to his ethnicity the term he used was Macedonian Slavs. His exact thoughts are capsulated in the sentence, “The emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slav people is a perfectly normal historical process which is quite in keeping with the process by which the Bulgarian, Croatian and Serbian peoples emerged from the South Slav group.” 

But because Misirkov was cognizant that the Macedonian people transcended ethnicities, and simultaneously his people had no ethnic name, he further wrote,
Is it possible now for the national unification of the Macedonians, when in Macedonia there are a lot, not just one ethnicity, and when there is no single Macedonian Slav nation?[i]

As for the nameless Slavs of the Balkans, Misirkov suggests the following. 
“And so, one people [narod or ethnic group] can be without an ethnic name for a long time if there is no other ethnic group nearby and if there is no need for that [nameless] ethnic group to make a distinction using a specific ethnic name. That means that an ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighbouring ethnic groups make up a name for it, and the [nameless] ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighbouring ethnic groups. So, the neighbouring ethnic groups are related like a godchild and a godfather”.

Misirkov identified himself and his Slav compatriots as being South Slavs, i.e., descendants of the original invading the region nine Slavic tribes.

Misirkov spoke like a man who knew about the Comintern and its 1924 Resolution on Macedonia and Thrace because he said to his closest and friends before he died, "I regret that I did not foresee federalism."

Also from other essays, Misirkov had published, e.g., The Macedonian Culture (1924), it is noteworthy that he was familiar with the work of Ziya Gökalp.  While in On Macedonian Matters Misirkov refers to Bulgarians as Mongols, in The Macedonian Culture he refers to “Turanian Bulgarians,” an association of Bulgarians to the Turks brought up by Gökalp in Thessaloniki in 1911. The fact is that not one Turkic tribe is Turanian. The story of Turan is Persian and refers to the son of a Persian king, and has nothing to do with Turks (Templar, November 15, 2015).

I have examined the two existing versions of the book that claim to be copies of the original text: a)  On Macedonian Matters, Sofia, Printing House "Liberal Club," 1903 and b)  On Macedonian Matters, State Book Publishing House, 1946.  I compared both to the English translation of the book contingent upon the copy from Skopje (On Macedonian Matters, 1974).[ii]

How original is it?

The most striking evidence of inconsistency regarding Misirkov’s book is the conflict between the name of the Capital of Imperial Russia, Petrograd and the time of publication, 1903.  The toponym Petrograd that appears in Misirkov’s book is something I have kept to myself since I read the book many years ago.  It is interesting that some new publications of the same book have attempted to “correct” the older edition by replacing Petrograd with Saint Petersburg; however, they cannot reverse facts.

The Capital of Imperial Russia was officially named Saint Petersburg on May 27, 1703. It kept the name until August 18, 1914, one day after Russia had declared war against Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  The Czar changed the name of his Capital to Petrograd believing that the new name was more Slavicized than the previous German sounding name.  About ten years later, as consequence of the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s death, the city was renamed Leningrad on January 26, 1924.

How was it possible for Misirkov to have published a book in 1903 anticipating the toponym of the Russian Capital that would appear 11 years later between August 18, 1914, and January 26, 1924?

The answer to the above question comes to us from the forward of the Skopje edition of the “original” Book.  The forward of the 1946 edition published in Skopje starts with a very interesting heading, foreword to the 2nd Edition, which points to a modified version that appeared 43 years after the first one.  The author of the introduction does not explain who and when had redacted the Second Edition of the book and neither he explains who took care of it before it ended up at the Skopje City Library titled “Brothers Miladinov” (Библиотека Браќа Миладиновци).  However, consistent with the note by the Journal for Slavonic Philology of the Serbian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Serbian Language, the person who technically changed the orthography was Bozhidar (Dare) Dzhambaz (Божидар (Даре) Џамбаз).[iii] He also wrote the forward of the book reflecting his contemporary political views with tainted rationalizations.

Misirkov had probably redacted and published the version of the book available today during Stamboliski’s government (Agrarian National Union, 1919-1923) in Sofia, an ally of the Bulgarian communists.  Aleksandar Stamboliski had officially declared in the Bulgarian Parliament that he was “neither a Bulgarian nor a Serb,” but a South Slav or “Yugoslav,” as a declaration of his beliefs for a Balkan Federation.  The other possibility is that Misirkov had republished the book in either Kishinev, Bessarabia (Moldova) or Odessa, Ukraine between 1918 and 1923.

The original Cyrillic Alphabet comprised 44 letters which were subject to contemporary local dialectal needs.  As phonetics keep changing linguists keep creating alphabetical innovations.

Although not a linguist, Misirkov had created his phonetic soft sign, a simple ‘ (apostrophe) that he added next to letters  Г, К, Л, Н, instead of the traditional Ь. Also, he employed the use of i instead of І or Ї. The apostrophe was postpositional to particular Cyrillic letters (Г, К) converting them to Г’, K’ that arguably gave rise to new letters Ѓ, Ќ.  Regarding the Л’, Н’ for some reason ignored the already existing in the Serbian alphabet thanks to Vuk Stefanović-Karadžić’s innovation (Л + Ь = ЛЬ => Љ and Н+ Ь = НЬ => Њ).  

That could have something to do with the dubious change of the letter “i” of the original book to the letter j in the version of Skopje, i.e., from известiа to известjа or “notice, notification, report.”

Although both versions claim to be copies of the original, a trained eye can detect alphabetical discrepancies in the content of both texts. Thus immediately one wonders, how many unique copies exist out there?  For instance, the spelling of the Bulgarian version seems genuine as compared to the Skopjan version since the redactor admitted his action.  However, while the Bulgarian edition claims that the “Liberal Club” published the book in 1903, textually, it agrees with the Skopje version released in 1946 while both versions bear same toponymic inconsistencies.

Misirkov wrote the preface of his book just before he published the original version and Blagoja Korubin contributed to Misirkov’s biographical summary at the end of the English translation.  One gathers that Misirkov composed the first three chapters from a collection of shorter essays that he had previously written and read in the “Macedonian Slav Literary Society, Sveti Kliment” in Saint Petersburg, the Capital of Imperial Russia.  He recited the three chapters at the Sveti Kilment society between August and November 1903.

The final version of the essays, which constitute the first three chapters of the book, are:
 
1. What we have already done and what we ought to do in the Future?
2. Is there a need for Macedonian national scientific and literary societies?
3. National separatism – the basis on which we have been developing and on which we shall continue to develop?
 
Before he sent the above essays to Sofia for publication, Misirkov added the following articles, which he placed as the last two chapters in the book. 

4. Can Macedonia turn itself into a separate ethnographic and political unit? Has it already done so?  Is it doing so now?
5. A few words on the Macedonian literary language.
 
Misirkov arranged and managed to send the manuscript to Bulgaria, through his revolutionary socialist, i.e., communist friends in Sofia had the book published by the Printing House “Liberal Club” in 1903.  

The Translation of the book into English.

In the 1800s, Macedonia was changing to the direction Bulgarians had resented.  Rayko Ivanov Zhinzifov (Райко Иванов Жинзифов), a Bulgarian educator, and poet from Veles published his essay "Prospect" in the Russian journal "Brotherly Labor," Moscow, 1862, p. 38-58.  He stated in a regretful tone in his essay, "In villages and cities, Bulgarian youths are using more “Greekisms” on a daily basis as "kalimera” (good morning) and "kalispera" (good evening).”  Zhinzifov wrote his observations 31 years before the establishment of the VMRO, an organization that through extortion, murder, and coercive persuasion intended to establish its government over Macedonia by the 1934 Resolution of the Comintern.

Being fair to Alan McConnell, the Australian translator, even if he had translated the text very faithfully aiming at the spirit rather than the letter of the version the redacting committee of the book had a lot to do with the political direction of the text.  It is evident that the translation into English is a product of an ideological redaction that confirmed the bias of the institution. 

Let us see a couple of the issues that the translation addresses as the translator wished to express his political beliefs and financial interests.  It makes a significant difference in understanding the name issue and the behavior exerted by the FYROM nationalists. 

The English version translates the word tatkoina (modern ascription: tatkovina) as a country.  The word country is more of an independent state under a fully functioning government with internationally recognized boundaries.  In 1903, Macedonia was not a state, but part of the Ottoman Empire. Considering that at the time, Macedonia was under Turkish rule until 1912, the definition tatkoina that Misirkov implied was either birthplace or native land.

Another word is the noun narod.  The English version translates the word narod as a nation.  Not only narod does not mean a nation, but also the word nation has a dual sense: a) an ethnic group and b) a state.  Nevertheless, narod implies folk, society, who are not necessarily related.  Misirkov as an initiated communist, he followed the party line, which he deemed emblematic.

Conversely, natsiya or a nation in the communist sense is a historical community of people that come into existence with the formation of a common territory, common economic ties, a standard literary language, a general character, and specific cultural features that constitute its identifying traits.  A nation as a community of descent is a tribe (Stalin 1934, 8; Stalin 1975, 11; Lenin 2002, 197).  In the specific case of Macedonia, the expression Macedonian people or makedonski narod also covers the non-Slavic populations inhabiting Macedonia, i.e., Greeks, Albanians, Turks, Jews, Roma, etc.” (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski 1981, v. 2, 181).

Misirkov used националност or “nationality” to refer to “ethnicity,” which, by the way, appears only four times in his book.  A related word is the adjective народен, народна, народно as in народна песна or folk song.  The English translation of the book has the adjective as connoting national.  Such a translation disregards the fact that most often songs and dances are regional as it is the food, especially in a mixed society of Misirkov’s Macedonia.  I would have translated narodna as folk, people’s an adjective with plural meaning as in the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia or Federativna narodna republika Jugoslavija. The Slovenian title of the same was Federativna ljudska republika Jugoslavija, which makes clearer as it translates the word narodna to ljudska an adjective of the noun in plural ljudi or људи or люди or “people.”

Toward the end of page 120 of the English version, Misirkov referred to the Macedonian “job.”  The Macedonian “job” was a Bulgarian attempt to bulgarize all Christian Macedonians, their ethnicity notwithstanding.  Anastas Yankov, a communist Bulgarian colonel of volunteers from the village of Vassileiada (Zagorichani), led a battalion strength band aiming at the revolt of the people of the region of Kastoria in 1902.  He issued a proclamation calling ALL Macedonians regardless of their ethnic origin “historical heirs” of the great glory of Macedonia, naming “the great Alexander of Macedon,” “the brave king Samuel,” and “the marvelous Marko Kralyevich.”  He further stated that all the above had Macedonian blood flown in their veins mixing all regional Macedonians as if they were of one tribe (Ristovski 1999, 207).  Yankov and other Bulgarians had asserted that Alexander the Great and Aristotle were Bulgarians (Brailsford 1906, 103, 105, 121, 122; Allen Upward 1908, 163).  “He [Yankov] died as the leader of a detachment in engagement with the Turkish army in 1906 at the village of Vlakhi”, Melnik, Bulgarian region of Pirin (Khirurgia, Vol XV, No 12, Sofia, 1962, pages 1118-1122 in JPRS: -18,462-, 1963, 1)[iv].

Misirkov also clarified that the slogan “Macedonia for the Macedonians” referred to all inhabitants of Macedonia, not just the Slavs of Macedonia.  While mentioning the Committee, i.e., VMRO, Misirkov stated, “The revolution must be the work of all Macedonians or at least the majority of them so that it can be identified as a popular revolution.  All ethnicities should be represented in the committee itself or at least most of the ethnicities.  The intelligentsia of these ethnicities needs to assist each other while each of them should undertake to popularize the idea to their people (Misirkov 1946, 7- translation is mine).

In its present form, Misirkov’s book is not the original edition nor is it immaculate of political innuendos.  Nevertheless, Misirkov does often stress the fact that Macedonians were not just the Slavs of Macedonia as Skopje propagates, but all inhabitants of the then Ottoman region as both resolutions of the Comintern of 1924 and 1934 promoted.

The text of the book has been altered, and its interpretation is guided to the point that it misguides the reader away from the intended disposition of the author; to what degree the redaction transpired is unknown.  We can only speculate that the original text was more radical than the present version; perhaps the tone was too sharp for the government of the Principality of Bulgaria in 1903.  Regardless of the apparent discrepancies, both versions (Skopje and Sofia) are similar indicating that they are products of the same second edition. 

Conclusion

One could use On Macedonian Matters as a historically and politically useful book, at least as intended by the author’s point of view.  Unfortunately, the Slavs of Skopje use the same book to rationalize their nationalistic bias by twisting words, disregarding common sense and willfully reversing distasteful to them passages.  Such a selective and discriminating discernment leads to statements and actions of denigration of Greece and her symbols.

In 1990, Greece informed Slobodan Milošević that the republic of Skopje should stay independent if its people wished it.  In 2001, the FYROM reached dismemberment to the point that a Parliamentary Slavic delegation visiting Athens asked to unite politically with Greece in a confederation; it was the only viable solution, still is, in case the FYROM disintegrated.  Greece kept the FYROM together.  On the business and finance side of national security, about 280 Greek businesses operate in the FYROM employing thousands of people, pay taxes, and stabilize the FYROM economy.  Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou said “an international peacekeeping force was needed…  We have an immediate interest. There are many Greek companies that have invested substantial funds in this country" (CNN.COM/World; Leaders gather for Macedonia[sic] talks, June 13, 2001).

Disparaging the reality that the FYROM exists and survives, because of Greece and Greeks, is unwise.  It indicates weak intellect and absent acumen; in plain language, it suggests a brain of an 11-year-old going down to 5-year-old.

Endnotes

[i] From the FYROM text:

Зар и возможно ли јет сега националното објединуајн’е на македонците, кога во Македонија имат многу, а не једно националност, и кога немат једна оддел'на македонцка словенцка нација?

[ii]

1. „3а Македонцките работа“, София, Печатница „Либералний  Клуб“, 1903.
2. „3а Македонцките работа“, Државно книгоиздателство на Македонија, 1946.
3. “On Macedonian Matters”, Macedonian Review Editions, Skopje, 1974.

​
[iii]  
Српска Академија Наука, Институт за Српски Језик Јужнословенски Филолог, Повремени Спис за Словенску Филологију, XVIII Књ. 1—4 (БЕОГРАД, 1949 — 1950).

[iv]
JPRS:  The United States Joint Publications Research Service is a government agency which translates foreign language books, newspapers, journals, unclassified foreign documents and research reports. Approximately 80% of the documents translated are serial publications.  JPRS is the largest single producer of English language translations in the world.  More than 80,000 reports have been issued since 1957, and currently JPRS produces over 300,000 pages of translations per year. In its early years JPRS concentrated heavily on scientific and technical material from communist countries. Gradually coverage has broadened to include more non-scientific materials (See: Open Source Enterprise (OSE).

About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

​To read all his papers, please click here.

About the Macedonian League
We are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity. 

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

For more information, follow us on: Website, Facebook, Twitter

Department of Communications
Macedonian League 

Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor | Macedonian League​
Second Edition

Fallacy #1

The inhabitants of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM) are ethnic Macedonians, direct descendants of, or related to the ancient Macedonians.

Fact #1

The inhabitants of The FYROM are mostly Slavs, Bulgarians, and Albanians. They have nothing in common with the ancient Macedonians.

Dr. Eugene Borza, a historian of Classics in his academic paper  "Macedonia Redux," in The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Frances B. Titchener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999, 255, has stated on the matter,

“If the claim is based on ethnicity, it is an issue of different order.  Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians[sic], cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions – mostly in the United States, Canada, and Australia – even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity… Politics in the Balkans transcends historical and biological truths”.

The assumption of Slavs of ethnic consanguinity between them and the ancient Macedonians has been refuted long ago by testimonies of The FYROM’s officials:

a. The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov declared, “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century … we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians” (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

b. Also, Mr. Gligorov proclaimed, ”We are Macedonians, but we are Macedonian Slavs. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century” (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

c. On 22 January 1999, Ambassador of the FYROM to the USA, Ljubica Achevska gave a speech on the present situation in the Balkans. In answering questions at the end of her remarks, Mrs. Acevshka articulated, “We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s[sic] second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimetz.” In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that “we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”

d. On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM’S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.” He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country.”

e. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they “belong to the same Slav people.”

Fallacy #2

The Macedonian Greeks are of the same ethnic group as the “Macedonians” of The FYROM.

Fact #2

The Macedonian Greeks are NOT of the same ethnic group as the "Macedonian" Slavs of The FYROM. The Macedonian Greeks are just that, Greeks who live in or originate from the region of Macedonia. They are the only people that by heritage, can be called Macedonians. Macedonian ethnicity did not and does not exist. The term “Macedonian” is not ethnic, but regional; even Misirkov agreed to it (Misirkov, Skopje, 1970, 159). 

Fallacy #3

Ancient Macedonians were a tribe similar to the Greeks, but not Greek themselves.

Fact #3

Ancient Macedonians were one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Maccabees I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that the Slavs have challenged their Hellenism for expansionistic reasons.

Fallacy #4

Ancient Greece was a country, a legal entity, as we understand it today.

Fact #4

No. In ancient times Greece was not a country. Hellas (Greece) was first recognized as a nation state or legal entity as we understand it today in 1830. From the beginning until that time, the term Hellas was only a regional term or an administrative area whose borders were changing depending on the needs of the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires.

Fallacy #5

There was one ancient Greek language, and the ancient Macedonians spoke Macedonian, not Greek.

Fact #5

Linguistically, there is no real distinction between a dialect and a language without a specific factor. People usually consider the political factor to determine whether a particular kind of speech is a language or a dialect. “Politically speaking, one might answer that a language is what is officially accepted as the national form of speech, a dialect what does not have such an acceptance” (Pei 1966, 46). The name of the language of a country depends on the name that the government of a state calls it. Many countries do not include provisions in their Constitutions naming specifically an official language, e.g., Greece, USA.

Since the Pan-Hellenic area consisted of many small city-states or tribal states one might argue (Attica, Lacedaemon, Corinth, etc.), and more important states (Molossia, Thesprotia, Macedonia, Acarnania, Aetolia, etc.).  It was common knowledge at the time that the people of all those states used different speech, but it was a matter of what presently we call dialects of the same language, i.e., Hellenic or Greek. The most advanced of all Hellenic dialects was the dialect of Attica (Athens) or Attic. When people state “ancient Greek language” they mean the Attic dialect and any comparison of the Macedonian dialect to ancient Greek is a comparison to the Attic dialect. The difference between Macedonian and Attic was like the difference between Low and High German. Nobody doubts that both are Germanic languages, although they differ from one another. Another excellent example of a multi-dialectal linguistic regime is present-day Italy. The official language of Italy is the Florentine, but ordinary people still speak their dialects. Two people from different areas of Italy cannot communicate if both speak their particular dialect, and yet they both speak Italian. Why should the Hellenic language be treated differently?

At that time, Greeks spoke more than 200 Hellenic dialects or languages, as the ancient Greeks used to call them. Some of the well-known idioms were Ionic, Attic, Doric, Aeolic, Cypriot, Arcadic, Aetolia, Acarnanian, Macedonian and Locrian. Moreover, we know that the Romans considered the Macedonians as Hellenic speaking peoples. Livy wrote, “…The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time …” (Livy, History of Rome, b. XXXI par. XXIX). The Aetolians and Acarnanians were Hellenic tribes. On another occasion, Livy writes “…[General Paulus] took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowd of Macedonians … his announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius, the praetor…”. If the crowd of Macedonians was not Greek-speaking, the Romans would not translate Paulus’ speech into Greek, but into the native tongue so that people would understand (Livy, History of Rome, b. XLV, para XXIX).

The Macedonian dialect was an Aeolic dialect of the Western Greek language group (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 193). All those dialects differ from each other, but never in a way could that one person not understand the other. The Military Yugoslavian Encyclopedia of the 1974 edition (Letter M, page 219), a very anti-Hellenic biased publication, states, “… u doba rimske invazije, njihov jezik bio grčki, ali se dva veka ranije dosta razlikovao od njega, mada ne toliko da se ta dva naroda nisu mogla sporazumevati.” (… at the time of the Roman invasion, their language was Hellenic, but two centuries before it was different enough, but not as much as the two peoples could not understand one another). What the encyclopedia did not explain is that currently, the Greek language did not exist. Furthermore, the Greek the reference insinuates is the Attic dialect. Thus, in fact, the comparison was not between the Macedonian and the Greek, but between the Macedonian Aeolic based with the Attic, a daughter so to speak of Ionic dialect.

After the death of Alexander the Great, the situation changed in the vast empire into a new reality. Ptolemy II, Philadelphos (308-246 BC) the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt realized that the physical unification of the Greeks and the almost limitless expansion of the Empire required the standardization of codification of the already widely used common language or Koinē. Greek was already the lingua franca of the vast Hellenistic world in all four kingdoms of the Diadochi (Alexander’s Successors). It was already spoken, but neither an official alphabet nor grammar had yet been devised.

Alexandria, Egypt was already the Cultural Center of the Empire in about 280 BC. Ptolemy II assigned Aristeas, an Athenian scholar, to create the grammar of the new language, one that not only all Greeks but all inhabitants of the Empire would be able to speak. Thus, Aristeas used the Attic dialect as the basis for the new language. Aristeas and the scholars who were assisting him eliminated the Attic idiosyncrasies and added words as well as grammatical and syntactical rules mainly from the Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic dialects. So, they standardized the Hellenic language, called Koine or Common.

The language was far from perfect. Non-Greeks encountered difficulties reading it since there was no way to separate words, sentences, and paragraphs. Also, they were unable to express their feelings and the right intonation. During that time, Greek was a melodic language, even more, melodic than Italian is today.

The system of paragraphs, sentences, and punctuation were the result of continuous improvement and enhancement of the language with the contribution of many Greek scholars from all over the World.

There were a few alphabets employed by various Hellenic cities or states, and these alphabets included letters specific to the sounds of their particular dialect. There were two main categories, the Eastern and the Western alphabets. The first official alphabet omitted all letters not in use any longer ( Ϡ sampi, Ϙ qoppa, H heta (served as consonantal function and a letter), Ϻ san, Ϝ digamma also known as a stigma in Greek numbering) and it presented a 24-letter alphabet for the new Koinē language. However, the inclusion and use of small letters took place over a period of many centuries after the standardization of the Koinē.

After the new language was completed and codified, the Jews of Egypt felt that it was an opportunity for them to translate their sacred books into Greek since it was the language that the Jews of Diaspora spoke. So, on the island of Pharos, by Alexandria’s seaport, 72 Jewish rabbis were secluded and isolated as they translated their sacred books (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim, etc.) from Aramaic and Hebrew to the Koinē Greek, the newly created language. It is known as the Septuagint translation. The Koinē evolved, and in about two to three centuries it became the language that Biblical scholars call Biblical Greek. In fact, only those who have studied the Attic dialect can understand the difference between the Septuagint Greek and the Greek of the New Testament. It happened about 265 BC.

Although the Koinē was officially in use, ordinary folk, in general, continued to speak their dialect, and here and there one can sense the insertion of elements of the Attic dialect in various documents such as the New Testament. The Gospel according to St. John and the Revelation are written in perfect Attic. The other three Synoptic Gospels were written in Koinē with the insertion of some Semitic grammatical concepts (i.e., the Hebrew genitive) and invented words (i.e., epiousios).

The outcome is that today in Greece there are many variations in speech; of course not to the point of people not understanding each other, but still, there is a divergence in the Greek spoken tongue. Today the Hellenic language accepts only one dialect, the Tsakonian, which is a direct development of the ancient Doric dialect of Sparta. The Demotic is a development of mostly the Doric sound system, whereas the Katharevousa is a made-up language based on the Classical Attic. Presently, the speech in various areas of Greece somehow differs from each other, and sometimes an untrained ear might have difficulty understanding the local speech. Pontic and Cypriot Greek are excellent examples of such cases to the unacquainted listener. Tsakonian dialect, the descendant of the Spartan Doric, is almost impossible to understand if one is not familiar with it. It is the only dialect accepted by the Academy of Athens. 

Over the years, Macedonia had several names. At first, the Macedonians gave the land the name, Emathia, after their leader Emathion. It derives from the word amathos, amathoeis meaning sand or sandy. From now on, all of its appellations are Greek. Later it was called Maketia or Makessa and finally Makedonia (Macedonia). The latter names are derived from the Doric/Aeolic word “makos, (in Attic “mēkos) meaning length (see Homer, Odyssey, VII, 106), thus Makednos means long or tall, but also a highlander or mountaineer. (Cf. Orestae, Hellenes).

In Opis, during the mutiny of the Macedonian Army, Alexander the Great spoke to the whole Macedonian Army addressing them in Greek (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 9,10). The Macedonian soldiers listened to him, and they were dumbfounded by what they heard from their Commander-in-Chief. They were upset. Immediately after Alexander left for the Palace, they demanded that Alexander allow them to enter the palace so that they could talk to him.

When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their restrained disposition; he heard the majority of his soldiers crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him. One of them, named Callines, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent expressed as follows, “Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your ‘kinsmen’, and the Persians are called ‘kinsmen’ of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 8-11).

The previous story reveals that the Macedonians were speaking Greek since they could understand their leader. There were thousands of them, not just some selected few who happened to speak Greek. It would be unrealistic for Alexander the Great to talk to them in a language they supposedly did not speak. It would be impossible to believe that the Macedonian soldiers were emotionally moved to the point that all of them were lamenting after listening to a language they did not understand. There is no way for the Macedonians to have taken a crash course in Greek in 20 minutes so that they would be able to understand the speech simultaneously as Alexander was delivering it.

Furthermore, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” (καυσία) (Polybius IV 4,5; Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz, Macedonian Dialect, 41) from the Greek word for heat that separated them from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the hat.” The Macedonian hat was very distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not distinguish the Macedonians because the Macedonian speech was also Greek (Hammond, The Macedonian State p. 13 cf. J.M. Balcer, Historia, 37 [1988] 7).

“On the mountainsides of the Himalayas and the Indian Caucasus and under Pakistani and Afghanistan jurisdiction lives a tribe whose people call themselves Kalash. They claim to be the descendants of Alexander the Great’s soldiers who for various reasons were left behind in the depths of Asia and could not follow the Great General in his new conquests. Having no contact with the outside world for almost 23 centuries, they are entirely different from any other neighboring nations.

Light-complexioned, and blue-eyed in the midst of dark-skinned neighbors, their language, even though it has been affected and influenced by the many Muslims of nations speaking different languages that surround the Kalash tribe, still incorporates vocabulary and has many elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with “ispanta” from the Greek verb “ασπάζομαι” (greetings) and they warn them about “heman” from the ancient Greek noun “χειμών” (winter). These indigenous people still believe in the twelve Olympian gods, and their architecture resembles very much the Macedonian architecture (National Herald, “A School in the Tribe of Kalash by Greeks,” October 11, 1996)”.

Michael Wood, the British scholar in his In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (p.8), quotes the following statement made by a Kalash named Kazi Khushnawaz:

“Long long ago, before the days of Islam, Sikander e Aazem came to India. The Two Horned one whom you British people call Alexander the Great. (sic) He conquered the world and was a very great man, brave and dauntless and generous to his followers. When he left to go back to Greece, some of his men did not wish to go back with him but preferred to stay here. Their leader was a general called Shalakash [Seleucus]. With some of his officers and men, he came to these valleys, and they settled here and took local women, and here they stayed. We, the Kalash, the Black Kafir of the Hindu Kush, are the descendants of their children. Still, some of our words are the same as theirs, our music and our dances, too; we worship the same gods. This is why we believe the Greeks are our first ancestors”. (Seleucus was one of the Generals of Alexander the Great. He was born in 358 or 354 BC in the town of Europos, Macedonia and died in August/September 281 BC near Lysimathia, Thrace).

The Kalash today worship the ancient Greek gods and especially Di Zau [Dias Zeus], the great sky god. Unfortunately, their language died out only in Muslim times. It is further evidence that Macedonians and Greeks spoke the same language, had the same religion and the same customs.

Accusations of Macedonians being barbarians started in Athens, and they were the result of political fabrications based on the Macedonian way of life and not on their ethnicity or language. (Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, p158, Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4). Demosthenes traveled to Macedonia twice for a total of nine months. He knew very well what language the Macedonians were speaking. We encountered similar behavior with Thrasyboulos. He states that the Acarnanians were barbarians only when the Athenians faced a conflict of political interest from the Acarnanians. The Macedonian way of life differed in many ways from the southern Greek way of life, but that was very common among the Western Greeks such as Chaones, Molossians, Thesprotians, Acarnanians, Aetolians, and Macedonians (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 4.) Macedonian state institutions were similar to those of the Mycenean and Spartan (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 23). Regarding Demosthenes addressing Philip as “barbarian” even Badian an opponent of the Greekness of Macedonians states “It may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators’ tirades against their personal enemies usually have.” (E. Badian, Studies in the History of Art Vol 10: Macedonia And Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Greeks and Macedonians).

Fallacy #6

Ancient Macedonia was a nation state as we presently understand it.

Fact #6

Before Phillip II, Macedonia was divided into typical small city-states having adopted the same concept of internal civic structure as the southern Greek city-states. Each Macedonian city-state or area had its main city and government. Philip II united the Macedonian city-states by instituting and establishing a Homeric style of a Kingdom, maintaining the infrastructure of the smaller city-states with the various kings paying tribute to the king of all Macedonia. We know this from the fact that at one time the king of Lyncestis (present-day Bitola – Florina) was Alexander III. The point that has to be made clear is that a man’s first loyalty was to his city, not to the King of Macedonia. (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 9).

Fallacy #7

Over the years the ancient Macedonians disappeared.

Fact #7

The ancient Macedonians did not disappear; over the years they were amalgamated with the other Greeks did among themselves. 
  
Fallacy #8

If the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, why then was Alexander I, the king of Macedonia, named Philhellene (lover of Greece)? This title is bestowed only to foreigners.

Fact #8

The king of Macedonia, Alexander I, was named Philhellene by the Theban poet Pindaros for the same reason Jason of Pherrai and Euagoras of Cyprus were called Philhellenes (Isocrates 107A, 199A). The title Philhellene in ancient times meant Philopatris (lover of the homeland) or just put “a patriot” (Plato, Politics, 470E; Xenophon, Agesilaus, 7, 4), which is why Alexander the Great did not touch the traditional house of Pindaros when he ordered his soldiers to burn Thebes.

Fallacy #9

The ancient Greeks had a Greek or Hellenic national conscience, but the Macedonians proved that they were not Greeks because they destroyed Greek cities.

Fact #9

Greece is a peninsula, which lacking geographic continuity fostered alienation of individual tribes not only in the general sense but also in a narrower sense. That explains why the ancient Greeks did not have a collective national conscience which is why they were warring against each other. The Macedonians destroyed or burned cities belonging to other Greek City States for the same reason the Athenians, the Thebans, and the Spartans battled one another.

The Peloponnesian War authored by Thucydides, the first and foremost scientific historian ever, explain all about Greeks fighting each other and the reasons behind the authorship of this book. The Melian Dialogue in the same book (Thucydides V, 84-116) explains a few more things besides the result of that debate.

According to Xenophon (Xenophon, Hellenika Book II, chapter II, sections 19-20) at the end of the victorious for Sparta Peloponnesian war, Spartan allies Thebes and Corinth suggested that they burn the city of Athens. Spartans being magnanimous refused to do so.

I am offering information on a few more battles as the Battle of Helos that took place in circa 1213 BC, 20 years before the Trojan War (1193-1183 BC), the Battle of Leuktra (371 BC), the two Battles of Mantineia (418 BC and 362 BC).

They knew that somehow they were related, but localism and tribalism were much stronger than an ethnic Pan- Hellenic one. Ancient Greeks, of the Hellenic mainland, were united before an enemy attack that could endanger their freedom and welfare. This fact was displayed anytime the Persians attacked the Hellenic lands. Greeks from Ionia and Aeolia (present-day Aegean shores of Turkey), however, were mostly Persian allies in opposition to the Mainland Greeks.

It was common practice for various Hellenic states to form political/military alliances with each other and against each other, but they did not develop ethnic partnerships. There are plenty of such partnerships in the ancient Hellenic world.

A few centuries went by until the Greeks began developing a national conscience. The Greeks had achieved the completion of a national conscience by the time Justinian was crowned the Emperor of Byzantium. Very few ancient Greeks, such as Pericles, Demosthenes and Phillip II of Macedonia had the vision of a united country, but each one wanted to see his state as the leading force of such a union. Pericles dreamed of it, Demosthenes advocated it, but Phillip II materialized it. Also, the Macedonians had shared religious practices and customs as the Spartans.

Fallacy #10

The ancient Macedonians were one of the Illyrian tribes.

Fact #10

At that time, Illyrians lands were much to the north beyond the River Shkumbin. Although there is a lot of evidence (mostly indirect) regarding the language of the ancient Macedonians, there is one piece of evidence offered by Polybius in book XXVIII, paragraphs 8 and 9, where it states that the Macedonians were using translators when they were communicating with the Illyrians. It means the Macedonians and the Illyrians did not speak the same language. For instance, Perseus, the Macedonian king, sent Adaeus of Berroia (who spoke only Greek) and Pleuratus the Illyrian, as a translator (because he spoke the Illyrian language) on a mission to the Illyrian king Genthius (169 BC). Pleuratus was an exile living in Perseus’ court. Moreover, there is evidence that the Illyrians and the Macedonians were vicious enemies.

On the contrary, Macedonians and the rest of Greeks did not need nor use any translators.

Fallacy #11

Many of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees that came to Macedonia during the First World War and especially during the 1920’s and 1930′ from Turkey, the Middle East, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria.

Fact #11

It is very accurate that a good number of the Greeks living in Greek Macedonia are refugees from various Middle Eastern countries. However, it is also true that these Greeks are descendants of those ancient Greeks, including ancient Macedonians, who either colonized multiple areas of what presently are Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Middle East, or followed the greatest General of all times, Alexander the Great. These Greeks just came home after at least two and one-half millennia of spreading the Greek spirit, culture, language, and civilization. Mother Greece made her lands available to her returning and thought to be lost offspring. It was the least she could do. After all, they had every right to come home, just as the Jews did and they are still going back to Israel.

Fallacy #12

Sts. Cyril and Methodius were Slavs, and that is the rationale why they are called “the Apostles of the Slavs” and also “the Slav Apostles.”

Fact#12

The term “Slav Apostles” or the “Apostles of the Slavs” does not mean that the two brothers were Slavs. St. Thomas is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. He merely taught Christianity to the Indians. The Greek brothers from Thessaloniki taught Christianity to the Slavs, they gave them the alphabet (presently called Cyrillic), and they translated the sacred and liturgical books of Christianity into the Old Church Slavonic, otherwise known as Old Bulgarian.

Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Epistles of December 31, 1980, and June 2, 1985, while he was commemorating the two brothers, affirmed the fact that both were Greeks from Thessaloniki.

Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria in their book, Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. The late Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, in his book Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod.

Fallacy #13

The present-day emblem of the right wing VMRO-DPMNE party and other ultra-nationalist organizations in the FYROM is the lion. This lion is the same lion that Alexander the Great is depicted wearing above his head imprinted on some old coins.

Fact #13

There is nothing in common between the lion used by the right wing VMRO-DPMNE party and other ultra-nationalist organizations in the FYROM and the lion’s skin Alexander the Great wears as depicted in some coins. The FYROM’s lion is the Bulgarian lion, which is depicted in the Bulgarian Coat of Arms.

Alexander’s lion is the lion’s skin that Heracles killed in Nemea, which is one of the 12 deeds executed by the mythological hero. The lion skin that Alexander the Great wears signify his genetic relationship to Heracles (Hercules). There is an unpublished inscription from Xanthos dating from the third century BC (cf. Robert, Amyzon, 1,162, n 31) where the Ptolemies refer to their Ancestors as “Herakleidas Argeadas” (Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 265, n 6).

Fallacy #14

In other coins we see Alexander the Great having two horns on his head, and this signifies that he was an evil man.

Fact #14

In the Middle Eastern tradition, a horned man meant that he was dominant. Darius in his letters to Alexander the Great called him, Zul-Al-Kurnain or Double Horned one. Thus the horns on Alexander’s head means that he was recognized as most influential.

Fallacy #15

After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a present, with the following inscription: “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persian who dwell in Asia.” J. R. Hamilton in a note on this event states, “Given the small part, which the Greeks had played in the battle the inscription [with the omission of any mention of the Macedonians] must be regarded as propaganda designed for his Greek allies. Alexander does not fail to stress the absence of the Spartans.”

Fact #15

J. R. Hamilton’s assumption is unconvincing. Alexander the Great had no reason to please anyone because the troops from South Greece were only 9,400, and as he admits, they only played a small part in the battle. Being the master of the expeditionary force and ignoring his Macedonians while exalting the “foreign Greeks,” Alexander would have faced the same angry Macedonians that he was confronted with in Opis when he appointed foreigners (Persians and Medes) to high ranks and offices in his Army and administration. However, none of the Macedonians complained about the inscription after the battle of Granicus because they considered themselves included in it.

The fact is that Alexander the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry on his mother’s side from Achilles and his father’s side from Hercules (Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus, Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45).

The Macedonians themselves were Greek speaking peoples (see: Papazoglu, Makedonski Gradovi, p 333 and Central Balkan Tribes, p 135; Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, pp157-162; NGL Hammond, The Macedonian State, pp 12-15 and 193; Cavaignac, Histoire générale de l' Antiquité, i, p 67; Hoffman, Die Makedonen, p. 259; Errington, A History of Macedonia, p 3; Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia 1974 “Antička Makedonija”; Hogarth, Philip and Alexander, p.5, n 4), Urlich Wilcken, Alexander the Great, II pp 23 and 24, Botsford, Hellenic History, p 237).

Some of the scholars mentioned above initially were not sure about the Greekness of the Macedonians (i.e., NGL Hammond). Newly discovered artifacts and monuments that were excavated indicating the Macedonians were Greek made them admit their previous error. NGL Hammond explains the reason why scholars like Badian do not consider the Macedonians Greeks in his book, The Macedonian State (page 13, note 29). Hammond states that most recently E. Badian in Barr-Sharrar (pp 33-51) disregarded the evidence as explained in A History of Macedonia (NGL Hammond and G. T. Griffith, 1979 pp 39-54).

Borza wrote concerning Demosthenes, "Only recently have we begun to clarify these muddy waters by realizing the Demosthenes corpus for what it is: oratory designed to sway public opinion in Athens and thereby to formulate public policy. The elusive creature, Truth, is everywhere subordinate to its expressive servant, Rhetoric" (Borza1990, 5).  Demosthenes was using a political attack on his enemy and was not referring to the Macedonian speech.

In response to Demosthenes’ political accusations, Aeschines reminded the Pnyx, i.e. the Parliament of Athens, that Philip’s father, Amyntas, was invited as a Greek to sit at the Peace Conference of Greek States of 371 BC which took place in Sparta because as a Greek “he was entitled to a seat.” Amyntas participated through an ambassador and voted in favor of Athens. The relevant text is as follows:

For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was entirely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this, I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted (Aeschines, On the Embassy, 32).

All names, whether members of the royal family or not, including names of other simple Macedonian citizens, i.e. Kallinis (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII par 11), Limnos from Chalastra (Plutarch, Parallel Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans, chap. Alexander) and all toponymies in the area of the Macedonian homeland were Greek. The Macedonian homeland included the city-states of Imathia, Pieria, Bottiea, Mygdonia, Crestonia, Bisaltia, Sintiki, Odomantis, Edonis, Elimea, Orestis, Eordea, Almopia, Lyncestis, Pelagonia and Macedonian Paeonia. Macedonian Paeonia is the part of Paeonia which lies south of the narrow pass at the area of Demir Kapija (The FYROM).

Fanula Papazoglu indirectly agrees with the concept of the above borderlines stating, “… it is often forgotten that ancient Macedonia occupied only a relatively small part of the Yugoslav Macedonia” (Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, p. 268). Papazoglu’s two maps at the end of her doctoral dissertation (Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba, Skoplje, 1957) portray only Macedonian territories under Roman rule.

Macedonia conquered the already Hellenized Paeonia in 217 BC under King Philip V, 106 years after the death of Alexander the Great. Any map that incorporates Paeonia into Macedonia before that year is utterly false. The conquest did not in any way alter the ethnic demography of the Paeonia.
 
All inscriptions and artifacts excavated, including those in Trebenište and Oleveni near Bitola, are in pure Greek. With a few exceptions, the only time one sees non-Greek names and toponymies is in areas that constituted the expansion of Macedonia, i.e. Paeonia, Thrace, etc. Any non-Greek names, words or toponymies found in the Macedonian homeland are remnant of Thracians, Phrygians or Paeonians that used to live there before their expulsion by the Macedonians.

Participation in the Olympic Games was unequivocally and unquestionably a function that only athletes of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22).

It is stated by Herodotus (Histories VIII, 43) that some Peloponnesian cities inhabited by Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Troezinians, and Hermionians and that except Hermionians all others were of Dorian and Macedonian blood. The above people were living in cities located in Peloponnesus, which makes the Macedonians as Greek as the Dorians.

The answer as to why Alexander sent the 300 full suits of Persian armor to goddess Athena, goes back to the battle of Thermopylae and all events that followed. But for one to understand it better, one has to know the story of the battle of Thermopylae.

The Persian Army and Navy, headed by Xerxes, won the battle against the 1300 Greeks (1000 from Phocis) lead by the 300 Spartans whose commander was Leonidas. It is essential for one to note that the Persians were victorious only when a local Greek, Ephialtes, betrayed a secret passage to the enemy who came from behind and thus surrounded the few Greeks. It is also important to know that according to Lycourgos’ laws, Spartans were not allowed to leave the battlefield for any reason, nor they were allowed to follow anyone in the battle. That’s why the Spartans did not follow Alexander against the Persians.

Herodotus (Histories b. VIII, 114) tells us:
 
“… the Spartans upon the urging of the Oracle of Delphi sent a messenger to Xerxes demanding reparations for the death of Leonidas. The man who obtained an interview with Xerxes said to him: ‘My lord, King of the Medes, the Lacedaemonians and the house of Heracles in Sparta demand satisfaction for blood, because you killed their king while he was fighting in defense of Greece.’ Xerxes laughed, and for a time did not answer…”

The royal house of Sparta (Herodotus VII, 204), and the royal house of Macedonia (cf. Fact #13) both claimed descent from Heracles (Hercules). Taking into consideration all of the above, we conclude that Alexander the Great, being victorious at the battle of Granicus, sent 300 full armor uniforms to goddess Athena who was also the goddess of war, and in this way, he AVENGED the 300 Spartans who died defending Greece.

Conclusion:

An abundance of information regarding the ancient Greek past comes to us from the Greek Mythology. Unfortunately, Mythology cannot be a dependable source since it cannot furnish accurate details which would help us reconstruct the Hellenic past. However, it does not mean it is entirely useless either. It elucidates through symbolism truths leading us to the right path while searching for historical facts through written or unwritten monuments. Such monuments are the only ones accepted by historians in their attempt to unlock hidden elements that hold the key to the reconstruction of the past of all Hellenic group of nations.

Countries are products of historical events, which is why they are born and die. Ethnicities are another matter. It takes a very long time to evolve. The same is true for appellations. Ethnicities cannot be given birth and receive names according to their political whim, as it is the case of the FYROM. Even Misirkov agrees with it (Misirkov, Skopje, 1974, 167).

The present-day Hellenic nation is the result of the social, civic and linguistic amalgamation of more than 230 tribes speaking more than 200 dialects that claimed descent from Hellen, son of Deukalion. The Hellenic nation is blessed to espouse in its lengthy life great personalities such as politicians, educators, soldiers, philosophers, and authors. They have all contributed in their way to the molding of their nation. They are the result of natural maturity and a consequence of historical, social, civic, linguistic and political developments that have taken place in the last 4,000 years.

“When we take into account the political conditions, religion, and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south…” (Wilcken, Alexander the Great, p 22). Most historians have assessed the Macedonian state of affairs similarly. The Macedonians were a Hellenic group of tribes belonging to the Western Greek ethnic group.

The Macedonians incorporated the territory of the native people into Macedonia and forced the Pieres, a Thracian tribe, out of the area to Mt. Pangaeum and the Bottiaiei from Bottiaia. They further expelled the Eordi from Eordaia and the Almopes from Almopia, and they similarly expelled all tribes (Thracian, Paeonian, Illyrian) they found in areas of Anthemus, Crestonia, Bysaltia and other lands. The Macedonians absorbed the few inhabitants of the above tribes that stayed behind. They established their suzerainty over the land of Macedonia without losing their ethnicity, language, or religion (Thucydides, II, 99). They also incorporated the lands of the Elimeiotae, Orestae, Lyncestae, Pelagones, and Deriopes all tribes living in Upper Macedonia who were Greek speakers, but of a different (Molossian) dialect from that spoken by the Macedonians (Hammond, The Macedonian State, p. 390). Then, living with savage northern neighbors such as Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians and later Dardanians, the Macedonians physically deflected their neighbors’ hordes forming an impenetrable fence denying them the opportunity to attack the Greek city-states of the south, which is why they are considered the bastion of Hellenism.

The evidence above shows that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Hellenic groups of tribes speaking a Greek dialect and having the same institutions as the Spartans and especially the Greeks of the Western group of nations. Thus, the fallacies emanated from the FYROM and its diaspora are vigorously repudiated.

About Marcus A. Templar
Professor Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses, Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer, Certified Translator Interpreter of Serbo-Croatian, SIGINT / All-Source Intelligence Analyst. He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor.

​To read all his papers, please click here.

About the Macedonian League
We are an international professional Hellenic advocacy group. Our primary purpose is to advance our interests to informed and responsive governments on issues concerning Greece's national security and territorial integrity. 

The Macedonian League's main focus is on the “Macedonian name dispute”, as this dispute is a serious national security issue that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece.

The Macedonian League also focuses on exposing and combating anti-Hellenism and analyzing political developments in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

For more information, follow us on: Website, Facebook, Twitter

Department of Communications
Macedonian League

From the February 25, 2018 "Rally for Macedonia" in Melbourne, Australia

The FYROM diaspora had developed the notion, “what kind of Macedonians are we if we cannot claim ancestry to the Macedonians of Alexander the Great?”

-- Marcus A. Templar








​Speech by the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor, Marcus A. Templar, read out by Chris Moutzikis, Director of Pan-Macedonian Melbourne: 
  
To begin I would like to read out a message from Professor Marcus Templar that provides a very brief synopsis on the FYROM Name issue.

Professor Marcus A. Templar is:

• a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist,
• Certified U.S. Army Instructor of Intelligence Courses,
• Certified Foreign Disclosures Officer,
• Certified-All-Source Intelligence Analyst.
• He is the Macedonian League's National Security Advisor and,
• one of the world’s foremost experts on the subject, and
• an authority on geopolitical analysis and recent history of the Balkan region.  

My dear Australian friends,
 
The issue of the final name of the FYROM is not a matter of ancient history. History is in the past, and it is indisputable. It is a matter of national security for Greece as well as stability, territorial integrity and peace for the Balkan region. Allow me to provide you a very brief synopsis of the FYROM name issue:
 
The failure of Russian diplomacy to establish a dominant satellite state in the southern Balkans at the Council of Berlin, transformed into the impetus to do so after the complete control of the communist forces that established the Soviet Union in October 1917.  The new Russian-led government realized that to spread the communist ideology and encroach as many lands as possible for the benefit of the Soviet Union; the state had to continue the foreign policies of Imperial Russia. Such a foreign policy meant for the south Balkans that, the national interests of Bulgaria were identical with national interests of the Soviet Union.
 
In 1919, the Central Committee of the Soviet Union created a body that would be tasked with the spreading of the communist ideology worldwide through a series of indoctrination.
 
Krste Petkov Misirkov, a Bulgarian socialist, published a book in Sofia, Bulgaria, titled On Macedonian Matters in 1903. That book either was edited or even revised between August 1914 and the end of 1923. In this book, Misirkov referred to the Slav population of the region of Macedonia as Macedonian Slavs or sometimes “Macedonians” explaining on page 159 that the term was regional, not ethnic. It is the same name that Greeks who live in Macedonia have been using for centuries and still use today. There is NO Macedonian ethnicity; it never was. Ethnically, ancient Macedonians were Greeks as are over 4M Macedonians currently residing in the Greek province of Macedonia and throughout the world. But let’s keep focus on the present.
 
During the Fifth World Congress in mid 1924, the communists Comintern issued a lengthy resolution titled “Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans”. The resolution declared the establishment of the “Balkan Federation” to be created in the region of Macedonia from territories of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece. The communist so called “liberation” of Macedonia from the clutches of the capitalist West would be achieved by vigorous “support of the national revolutionary movements of loyal communist forces who would terrorise and agitate for the formation of independent republics”, which then would unite into one communist state. The people of the region of Macedonia were all inhabitants of those lands regardless of their ethnic background or religion.
 
Moving forward to The 11 January 1934 A  Resolution was drafted in Moscow under the title “The Macedonian Question and the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - United”. Its purpose was the reinforcement of the previous resolution (1924). While section I recognized the so called “Macedonian” nation not as a community of descent, or ethnicity if you like, but as a political entity or a state, to use the words of the communists Comintern. In section II of the resolution, the communists Comintern appointed the government of the state to a Slavic Organisation transforming into a nation-state. As for the people in the region of Macedonia, according to the Communists were, again, all inhabitants of those lands regardless of their ethnic background or religion. Section II of the resolution referred to the governance and indoctrination (or brainwashing) of the people mentioned above.
 
It is remarkable that not one of the above documents referred to a “Macedonian people” as a community of descent, i.e., a nation in an ethnic sense. On the contrary, the main goal was the appropriation of lands which would be ceased by the communists and indoctrinated later by the Slavs.
 
At first the communists of Skopje attempted to connect themselves to the ancient Macedonians, but they were turned down by the Yugoslav communists as their claim was “deceptive.” Simultaneously, Yugoslav communists were adamant, “We cannot recognize you as a national distinction” i.e an ethnicity.
 
In fact, there is no explicit recognition by any legal authority in the Marxist Yugoslavia of an ethnic group called “Macedonian”. For Yugoslavia, the Macedonian ethnicity developed in the same manner that the Montenegrin ethnicity did, implicitly.
 
It is in this spirit which Kiro Gligorov, the first FYROM President, addressed your (Australian) FYROM diaspora, making it clear to them, who refused to accept the facts with respect to their Slavic ancestry. According to Historian Eugene Borza, “Modern Slavs, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia… Only the most radical Slavic factions – (mostly from the comfort of affluent) United States, Canada, and Australia – even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity[…] Politics in the Balkans transcends historical and biological truths” said Borza
  
The Marxist government of Yugoslavia let the so called “Macedonian” ethnicity develop only to use it as a tool for further expansion. Such a seemingly preposterous ethnogenesis could establish a birthright of Slav people over the land of Greek Macedonia with the port of Thessaloniki as its prize. Thus, the concept of Pseudomacedonism was developed.
 
The FYROM diaspora had developed the notion, “what kind of Macedonians are we if we cannot claim ancestry to the Macedonians of Alexander the Great?” Under monetary, non-monetary influence, and political extortion of its diaspora, politicians of the FYROM at first entertained the thought of their “blood relationship” to the ancient Macedonians. However, as the time passed, this pure wishful thinking developed to a staunch belief and beefed up by distortion, twisting and manipulation of historical facts turned into irredentism or rather expansionism.  Since the independence of the FYROM, Greece has confronted and endured aggressive predisposition to include but not limited to:

• demographic manipulations,
• forgeries of history, and
• relentless disinformation,

especially from the FYROM ultra-nationalistic diaspora.
 
If one desires regional stability and peace in the Balkans, one must help eradicate the source of the evil; stop assisting the verbal and tangible provocation of the FYROM diaspora in the world. 
 
Sincerely Yours,
Marcus A Templar.
 
For a more academic account of this and other insightful articles and information from Professor Templar, please visit macedonianleague.org.
 
Chris Moutzikis continues with his own speech...

So, ladies and gentlemen we see from Professor Templar’s synopsis on this issue that the legacy of cold war politics is the emergence of pseudmacedonism and that has created a very volatile situation in the Balkan region, putting its people on a course of conflict.
 
A recent survey conducted in Skopje (capital of the FYROM) by the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” showed that 61% of the multi-national residents of the republic accept the change of the republic’s name, of these 44% accept a new name that does not include the Greek name of “Macedonia”.
 
While in recent times pseudomacedonism was heavily propagated by the previous corrupt and ultra-nationalist Gruevski government, the people of FYROM have finally elected a government, whose leadership are showing signs of progression and willingness to repair their country. They appear to be dismantling the pseudomacedonian policy the previous government so vigorously applied spending billions of Euros on a project that transformed Skopje’s city centre into a kitsch, Disney land type of ancient Greek park. All the while inflation was rampant, unemployment soaring, and the state being rejected from joining global institutions that would guarantee their security and put them on the road to prosperity.
 
In the bid to transform public opinion, many of its leaders and influential personalities have acted responsibly and followed the example of their first President Gligorov and former Prime Minister Ljupko Georgievski in distancing themselves from pseudomacedonism.
 
FYROM is desperate to enter NATO and the EU and Greece is ready to support their euroatlantic aspirations once they drop pseudomacedonism and their expansionist propaganda. 
 
Unfortunately, we are not immune to the conflict in this wonderful and peaceful country of ours -Australia and particularly in the world’s Most Liveable City-Melbourne.
 
The growing sentiment against pseudomacedonism in FYROM has not reached their diaspora, who in the comfort of their well-functioning state, stable employment and economic prosperity, prefer to support proponents of pseudomacedonism. Despite their Slavic heritage, which they should be very proud of, they prefer to parade around as descendants of Alexander the Great and other ancient Greek historical figures. Unfortunately, here in Australia, such supporters are more militant and would not hesitate in provoking anyone that challenges pseudomacedonism even to the point of intimidating and threatening violence. Regrettably this behaviour has raised its ugly head In Melbourne last Sunday morning when some FYROM Ultra-nationalists pasted racist and very offensive posters at a Greek Orthodox Church. The posters proclaim their expansionist agenda at the expense of Greek, Albanian and Bulgarian territory while using images of the star of Vergina (a Greek national symbol) and Alexander the Great. Another had an image that desecrates the Greek flag with some very racist and derogatory terms that captioned the image. This behaviour is reminiscent of the 90’s where tensions grew so high between our communities that it lead to violence and fire-bombing of churches and other community property. The windows of the Pan-Macedonian Hellenic Centre in North Fitzroy, still display the bullet marks. As recently as yesterday this building was once again vandalised by ultra-nationalist thugs. We are confident that our outstanding police force is on top of this dangerous situation and will prevent matters from escalating.

We have had enough of this rubbish and remind the Greek Government that they have no right to negotiate the use of our Hellenic name and offer future ultra-nationalist governments of FYROM the opportunity to reintroduce Pseudomacedonism.
 
We declare here today that:

• We call upon our Australian compatriots to support its Greek-Australian community’s rightful stance against those negotiating the use of the Hellenic name of “Macedonia” to be part of a composite name of the FYROM.

• We let the mainstream Australian media know that we are deeply disturbed and offended by their unjustified persistence in referring to FYROM as “Macedonia” in contrast to UN resolutions and our federal government's policy.
• We have had enough of being discriminated against by media and many quasi government organisations that refer to FYROM as simply “Macedonia” and the Slavs of FYROM as “Macedonians” We respect the right to self-determination but others right to self-determination does not mean that our rights should be infringed upon.
• To raise community awareness of the inherent injustice flowing from Australia's FYROM community who usurp Greek history and aspire to expand into Greek territory. 
• We want to co-exist and live in peace in this wonderful multicultural society of ours without constant provocation and threats from ultra-nationalist thugs.
• To call for the recognition of human rights of indigenous Macedonian ethnic Greeks living in the state of FYROM.

Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor | Macedonian League​

One of the most challenging questions in Political Science is: What is the difference between patriotism and nationalism?  The distinction between them is somewhat confusing, although they differ in origin. They are both political and appeared in the 18th century with the emergence of nation-states.

Patriotism originates from one’s citizenship. One is proud of the country one has pledged allegiance to and is ready to defend the national rights and interests of one’s country.

Nationalism derives from one’s ethnic identity sometimes with positive implications. A revolt or insurgency of people occupied by another nation-state is an act of a noble nationalism, mainly when the uprising or insurrection succeeds, i.e., revolution.  Such examples are the American Revolution 1775-83 and the Greek Revolution, 1821-9. After independence, the same people turned to patriots because they defended their country against its enemies. So there is a correlation between virtuous nationalism and patriotism.

This paper focuses on the issue of the incendiary side of nationalism, which considers one’s ethnic or national identity is more significant in destiny than any other ethnicity, or that one race is superior as in Hitler’s National Socialism.  To indicate the superiority of one’s race over another, nationalists demean anything or anyone for what other people stand.  And to support their views individuals resort to the employment of immoral or illegal means.  The difference between being proud of your national origin and believing one’s race is superior to any other is clear enough.

People who underestimate, belittle, derogate, minimize, deflate, disparage, depredate, and so on indicate malicious, wicked nationalism.  Here are a few examples of dangerous nationalism:

The Cultural-Information Center in Skopje defames the Greek flag and Greece by positioning the Greek flag on a marquee, which instead of the cross brandishes the swastika. To express their deep feelings against the symbol of Greece and to draw sympathy, the organization added a family depicted as refugees who left Greece because of the Greeks. What they did not explain is that these “poor” refugees had left Greece on their own volition during the civil war (1946-9). What is significant is that instead of condemning such an act of hatred based nationalism, the Gruevski government justified it as an indication of freedom of speech. Therefore, the Gruevski government became an accomplice. ​

In another form of hateful nationalism, one sees the same Greek flag on a marquee in Skopje displayed on a T-shirt, but instead of depicting the family of refugees, it flaunts a gesture made by holding up the middle finger with the others folded down essentially saying, ''up yours.” 

​There are a plethora of other irredentist slogans, photographs, and maps brandished at parades of the ethnic Slavs at home and abroad and also social media manifestly living in a time warp, not in reality of 2018.

But the fish stinks from the head. On December 13, 2016, the Macedonian League condemned the swastika t-shirt incident online.

Mr. Meto Koloski is an attorney and the President of the United “Macedonian” Diaspora, headquartered in Washington, DC, United States. In supporting his home country’s strategic culture and national goals, his organization exhibits inciteful nationalism.  In his infinite wisdom, he tweeted under the photograph of the above T-shirt, “Since when did Greeks become a race?” 

Click here to view this incident directly on Twitter.

The same desecrated Greek flag featuring the swastika is seen on a poster that was taped on the doors of the Greek Orthodox Parish "The Presentation of Our Lady to the Temple" in Balwyn North, Victoria, Australia.

The poster depicts the swastika coloured in blue with a felt marker, the same middle finger gesture that was featured on the t-shirt above and, as is visible, also contains a few choice phrases towards Greece and Greeks.

In the video below, dated February 6, 2018, Mr. Koloski claims that his home country must not compromise anymore since it has done everything possible to satisfy Greece’s demands. Primarily, Mr. Koloski does not see why the FYROM should make more concessions other than those it has already made.  He opposes to any change of the FYROM’s final name, and he thinks it violates the rights of the “Macedonians”. He noticeably adheres to the nonsensical sermon of Fr. Vinko Pribojević according to whom “all the ancient heroes of Thrace, Macedonia, and Illyricum were Slavs. Alexander and his generals, Aristotle, scores of Caesars, and Saint Jerome, were Slavs. And bellicose Mars was himself born among them [Slavs]” (Banac, 1988, p.71). ​    

In the above video it is evident that Mr. Koloski over and above the confusion he has about the difference between patriotism and nationalism, he is also ignorant about the difference between ethnic identity and national identity.

As the former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once stated, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." So, let us see the facts.

1) The UN admitted the FYROM on April 7, 1993, only after the latter amended its Constitution to meet the minimum required qualifications per UN Charter, Chapter II – Membership.   The FYROM was found to be in violation of articles Article 2 (7) on noninterference on the domestic affairs of other states.  Yes, the FYROM was admitted to the UN on April 7, 1993, but only after Greece had allowed the membership of Mr. Koloski’s home country. Despite popular belief, the UN is a closed club, which requires the consensus of its member states.

The UN Security Council (UNSC), is the most important body within the UN. It is the law enforcement authority. According to the Charter, the UNSC has four purposes:

     a) to maintain international peace and security;
     b) to develop friendly relations among nations;
     c) to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and
     d) to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.  

​Membership of a state is granted only at the recommendation of the UNSC (Chapter II, Article 4.2). All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.

​Since the UNSC found sufficient evidence to address Greece’s national security concerns, it mandated the negotiations for the change of the FYROM’s name. The map below tells all. It goes to the intent, not just the letter. Such a map is an indication of expansionism and irredentism.

​The irredentist map below was designed by Bulgarian “ethnographer” Vasil Kŭnchov in 1900 to serve the hegemonic interests of the Bulgarian Principality as the basis for its later independence by making almost all the population living within the territory of what he considered to be Macedonia, Bulgarians (green background). The map included Mount Olympus within Macedonian territory.  The VMRO modified the map slightly and later, Marxist Yugoslavia added the region of Prohor Pcinski into Macedonia for political reasons, a modification that was relished by the VMRO which added the area surrounding the lakes Ohrid and the Prespas. Below left one sees the original map of Vasil Kŭnchov and to the right the enhanced map by the VMRO making all Bulgarians, Macedonians.  ​​

The letter S/1995/794 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, dated 13 September 1995 with Annexes I to IX explains the reasons behind all changes that the FYROM had to implement. The modifications were necessary for the FYROM to meet the minimum standards required for the maintenance of regional stability. They are the heart of all modern day organizations that the FYROM was and is desirous of joining.
 
The UNSC through S 817/1993 unanimously approved the accession of the new state to the UN under the provisional name ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (the FYROM) but without flag hoisting rights, since the flag was one of the issues of the dispute. The UNSC further considered the name dispute capable of influencing the good neighborly relations and peace in the region and invited the co-chairmen of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) to offer their good services towards the settlement of the dispute. The intended agreement transpired in the interest of world peace, regional stability and good neighborly relations which is one of the fundamental obligations for membership in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), another UN organization.  The same is true for accession into NATO and the EU.
 
The above is not a concession, but an obligation, a requirement that applies to all member states. If the FYROM does not agree with the obligations of membership, it is free to leave the UN. Member states must demonstrate a commitment to and respect for the norms and principles of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), including the resolution of ethnic disputes, external territorial conflicts including irredentist claims or internal jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means. 

2) As the result of the FYROM’s UN membership and acceptance of the rules of the UN, on May 14, 1993, the Council of Europe granted the FYROM the special guest status, with no voting rights. Having completed a round of separate talks with the Foreign Ministers of Greece and the FYROM, the ICFY co-chairmen Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen handed the two parties a draft agreement on ‘Friendly Relations and Confidence Building Measures.’
   
On June 18, 1993, the UN Security Council, through it resolution S 845/1993, recommended the Vance-Owen proposals as a ‘sound basis’ for the settlement of the Athens-Skopje dispute and urge the two parties to resume negotiations.  Both countries agreed to continue talks bound by their signature.    
 
As a result, both countries entered into the Interim Accord (Sep 13, 1995). It is remarkable that nationals of the FYROM engaged in an assassination attempt against Mr. Kiro Gligorov, the republic’s first president.  It indicates the level of the lack of respect for law and order in the FYROM and its diaspora.  
 
Regarding the final name of the FYROM, why don’t they follow the advice of the “father of Macedonism,” Misirkov?  What Misirkov states in his book is, “An ethnic group can be without an ethnic name for a long time if there is no other ethnic group nearby and if there is no need for that ethnic group to make a distinction using a specific ethnic name. Hence an ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighboring ethnic groups make up a name for it, and the ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighboring ethnic groups. So, the neighboring ethnic group is related like a godfather and a godchild”.[i]  
 
As for the ratification of the Accord, since both parties had expressed their intention to the UNSC to implement the Accord and proceeded to it, further sanction by the competent authority of both countries was not necessary. The intent to negotiate for a peaceful solution of the issue sufficed. The New Democracy Party, the official opposition of the Greek Parliament, did not object to the implementation.  An accord or agreement is not a treaty. In International Law, as Mr. Koloski is aware of, the implementation of the Accord equals ratification. After all, all documents about the Accord had been duly registered with the Office of the Secretary-General of the UN.

3) The two amendments that the FYROM was directed by the UNSC to incorporate into its Constitution resulted from the legal language used in the official text under cover of which the FYROM implied,

a) The eventual implementation of its national goal by its strategic culture, i.e., the annexations of territories from each of its neighbors.

(Click pictures to read description)

(Click here to view more provocative, anti-Greek pictures on our Facebook page)

Perhaps Mr. Koloski could explain the meaning of the lyrics of the song “Izlezi Momce.”