Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says Turkey's military offensive into northeast Syria is as "vital" to Turkey as its 1974 military intervention in Cyprus, which split the island in two.

In a speech he delivered in Baku, Azerbaijan on Monday, Erdogan also made clear Turkey would not halt its offensive despite the widespread condemnation it has drawn.

Turkey launched its offensive into northeastern Syria last week to carve out a "safe zone" along its border, ostensibly to push out Syrian Kurdish fighters it considers to be terrorists because of their links to Kurdish militants in Turkey.

Erdogan said: "We are determined to take our operation to the end. We will finish what we started. A hoisted flag does not come down."

Cyprus was divided in 1974 when Turkey invaded after a coup by supporters of union with Greece. Only Turkey recognizes a Turkish Cypriot state on the island's northern third.

​Source: Kathimerini

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.
​

Use of this flag has therefore been illegal since 1993 (UNSC Res. 817 and 845), and its illegality has been covered by articles 2.3 of the Interim Accord and Article 3 of the Prespes Agreement.

The question we are therefore asking is: why did the students illegally use a Greek national symbol and not the official flag, name, and symbol of their republic?

The answer is simple: racial hatred and political advertising.

The Racial Vilification Act defines racial hatred as being unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend, or intimidate another person or group in public based on their race. Specifically, the Act states: It is unlawful for a person to do an act in public, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

A variety of acts can constitute racial hatred, including speaking, singing and making gestures in public, as well as drawings, images, and written publications such as newspapers, leaflets, and websites.

The student photos and their actions illustrated here, clearly offend, insult, and humiliate the Greek Community and are in direct violation of the Act. They have also violated the use of amenities fees, which should be used in strict accordance with the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the Administration Guidelines made under the Act.

The students further aggravated, offended, insulted and humiliated the Greek-Australian Community by posing next to Turkish flags with these illegal, expansionist flags. The Vergina star flag was never part of their history, because it represents the Hellenism of Ancient Macedonians.

Professor Maskell, UMSU operations are funded annually by the university and the government on the percentage of votes made every year at student union elections. Under the Higher Education Support Act, providers must confirm with the Australian Government that fees were spent strictly by the Act and the Representation Guidelines made under the Act, and only on allowable services and amenities.

Clearly, funding and displaying a large banner of the WIPO-protected Greek Star of Vergina due to racial hatred and for political advertising contravenes the act. The students and their union should have exercised appropriate caution and not used tax-payer funds to incite racial hatred.

We are therefore requesting that The University of Melbourne urgently investigates this on-campus breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and the Department of Education and Training investigates these allegations of non-compliance under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

We also want to be advised on the outcome of these allegations and any penalties to be applied for breaching these requirements as soon as possible.

Department of Communications
The Macedonian League

cc:
Department of Education and Training
​President of the University of Melbourne Students Union
President of the Melbourne University Greek Association (MUNGA)
Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Embassy of the Hellenic Republic in Canberra
Consulate General of the Hellenic Republic in Melbourne
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic
General Secretariat of Greeks Abroad
Greek-Australian community associations
Australian politicians
Australian media
  ​
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 that threatens the territorial integrity of Greece and the regional stability of the Balkans.

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

The Prespes accord has emerged as a hot issue in North Macedonia’s upcoming presidential election.

Center-left candidate Stevo Pendarovski defended the name change at a campaign rally in the capital of Skopje on Sunday. He reminded the rally crowd that it was part of a deal with Greece that paves the way for NATO membership.

Conservative candidate Siljanovska Davkova blamed the current government for the “painful” name change on Saturday and accused it of corruption and nepotism.

North Macedonia and Greece reached a deal last year to end an almost three-decade dispute over the Baklan country’s name. The name change was one of the deal terms.

The election is April 21. North Macedonia’s prime minister is head of government, the president is head of state.

Source: Ekathimerini [via AP]

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.

The accession protocol for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to join NATO under the new name North Macedonia was approved by a Parliamentary Committee on Thursday.

The protocol is to go the House plenary on Friday for debate followed by a vote which is expected to approve it, bringing FYROM one step closer to joining the alliance.
 
Ahead of the discussion on Thursday, Independent Greeks leader Panos Kammenos, who quit the government over Greece's name deal with FYROM last month, called for an enhanced majority of 180 votes in the 300-seat House for the protocol which, he said, cedes Greek sovereign rights. 

​Source: Kathimerini English

A vote on the Prespes name deal is expected to take place in Greece's Parliament on Thursday night with debate having started at committee level on Monday afternoon before moving to the plenary, House speaker Nikos Voutsis said Monday.

The decision was preceded by much debate about the composition of the foreign affairs committee which is to examine the accord before it goes to the plenary session in view of several recent changes involving MPs switching leaving the Potami and Movement for Change parties.

As a result, Spyros Danellis, who was ejected from Potami for backing the government in last week's confidence vote, is to sit on the committee as an independent.

Independent Greeks (AN.EL) leader Panos Kammenos, who quit the coalition on January 13, is to replace ANEL MP Konstantinos Katsikis as the party's representative on the panel.

Following the ejection of Thanassis Theoharopoulos from KINAL, the party's second seat on the committee is to be filled by an independent to be chosen by lot.

​With the current balance in the committee, 28 MPs are in favor of the deal with 27 against.

​Source: Kathimerini

Following two days of vehement debate in Parliament, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras won a motion of confidence in his government late on Wednesday with 151 votes in favor and 148 against.

Attention now shifts to a vote on the "North Macedonia" name deal, which is expected to come to Parliament early next week and whose passage is less certain. 

In a speech to MPs before the vote, Tsipras said a vote of confidence in his government amounted to a vote for “stability.” “I took the risk showing political courage because what we have ahead of us demands clear solutions,” he said. 

For his part, New Democracy leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis reiterated his call for general elections and warned that a confidence vote in the government was like an “approval of the shipwrecked state of the country over the last four years.” He also said it “will pave the way for the recognition of a so-called Macedonian ethnicity and language, as stated in the Prespes accord.” 

However, Tsipras cited a note verbale issued by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia yesterday which provided further assurances with regard to Greek concerns over the name accord.

Tsipras said the note reaffirms that the term “nationality” refers exclusively to nationality and does not designate or predetermine the ethnicity of FYROM’s people. Moreover, it also groups Macedonian in the Slavic group of languages.

The outlook for a vote on the Prespes deal between Greece and FYROM, which is expected in the coming days, was unclear.

Centrist To Potami leader Stavros Theodorakis did not confirm whether his party would support the pact as it had initially pledged to do. He simply declared that a vote of confidence in the government was tantamount to support for the Prespes deal but contended that the opposite does not apply. “A positive vote for the Prespes deal does not mean a vote of confidence in the government,” he said. 

The outcome of the Prespes vote is largely dependent on how Potami will vote. Tsipras can count on up to 149 votes at the moment – from the 145 SYRIZA MPs, Deputy Citizens’ Protection Minister Katerina Papacosta, who is an independent MP, Spyros Danellis, an independent who was thrown out of Potami, Independent Greeks MP Thanasis Papachristopoulos and Tourism Minister Elena Kountoura. 

The government had also originally counted on Theodorakis, who has described the approval of the deal as a “patriotic duty.”

However, his position is complicated by the fact that two of his MPs – Giorgos Amyras and Grigoris Psarianos – are not only threatening to vote down the deal but also to quit if the party leadership insists on supporting the Prespes deal. If they do quit, the party would be left with three MPs, below the minimum of five required for representation in Parliament.

The party’s political council is to meet today to decide on its position.

The stance of Democratic Left (DIMAR) leader Thanasis Theoharopoulos could also be pivotal. He had also expressed a positive view of the deal in principle but is expected to take a final decision when party officials convene on Sunday.

Government spokesman Dimitris Tzanakopoulos said the administration’s aim was to secure 151 votes, though he added that technically this is not necessary.

Authorities are bracing for a rally on Sunday against the Prespes agreement in Athens as protests last year drew large crowds.

There are concerns about possible violence as tensions have peaked ahead of the Prespes deal vote. Police in the region of Macedonia arrested four people, two in Grevena and two in Kozani, over the past two days for sticking up “wanted” posters of politicians who have expressed support for the agreement. Another six people were detained in Serres after being found with such posters in their possession.

The arrests follow reports of politicians receiving threats warning them not to support the deal. A 62-year-old former navy officer was arrested earlier this week after allegedly admitting to sending threats to Papacosta.

​Source: Kathimerini English

Prime Minister Zoran Zaev of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was struggling Thursday to get the required number of lawmakers to finalize constitutional changes that will rename the country “Republic of North Macedonia” and allow its NATO accession under a deal with neighboring Greece.

Zoran Zaev told reporters in Skopje that he has not yet secured support from the required two-thirds of the 120-seat parliament, or 80 lawmakers. A planned parliamentary session on the matter Friday was postponed.

​Zaev’s efforts were complicated when a small ethnic Albanian party demanded that the planned constitutional designation “Macedonian citizenship” be changed to “citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia.”

The party says this will safeguard the identity of ethnic Albanians – about a quarter of FYROM’s 2.1-million population.

Zaev said the reference to “Macedonian citizenship” is key for his country in the deal with Greece. He also said that a group of opposition conservative lawmakers who had initially supported the constitutional changes – and were subsequently ejected by their VMRO-DPMNE party – strongly opposed the ethnic Albanians’ demand.

Hundreds of opposition supporters protested in front of parliament for a second day Thursday against the deal, demanding early elections and the dissolution of parliament.

VMRO leader Hristijan Mickoski addressed the rally, accusing Zaev of “bargaining” with lawmakers to secure the two-thirds majority.

He has claimed Zaev exerted pressure on members of the judiciary on cases involving conservative party lawmakers, or their family members, accused in connection with a violent parliament invasion last year.

“Look how publicly, how openly, this trade is going on with name and identity, like at a market stall,” Mickoski said.

Source: Kathimerini English

The Greek passport ranks in seventh place among the most powerful in the world, according to global citizenship and residence advisory firm Henley & Partners, which compiles an annual index.

Greeks can go to 184 destinations without aplying for a visa, along with Belgians and Canadians.

The ranking is based on data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which maintains the world’s largest and most accurate database of travel information, and on extensive research by Henley & Partners.

Japan tops the index with its citizens enjoying visa-free/visa-on-arrival access to 190 destinations.

It is followed by Singapore and South Korea in joint second place, with access to 189 destinations around the globe, France and Germany in third place, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Sweden come in fourth, while Spain and Luxembourg are in fifth.

Source: Kathimerini English Edition

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

On 15 November, Ankara’s mouthpiece in occupied Cyprus Mustafa Akinci ‘celebrated’, as he does every year, the purported establishment of Turkey’s illegal subordinate administration in the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus that Turkish forces arbitrarily seized in 1974. 

​Despite Akinci’s proclamations, the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ remains the crude product of illegality and mass inhumanity. While Mr Akinci might purport to be its ‘president’, UN resolutions 541 and 550 are clear. The ‘unilateral declaration of independence’ purportedly made on 15 November 1983 is part of a pattern of ‘secessionist acts’.  Furthermore, it is ‘legally invalid’ and must be withdrawn. In the meantime, all states must ‘respect’ the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus.

It is noteworthy that in an Advisory Opinion relating to Kosovo, dated 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice compared the illegal declaration of independence in the Turkish-occupied zone of the Republic of Cyprus with those relating to ‘Southern Rhodesia’ in 1965 and ‘Republika Srpska’ in 1992. According to the International Court of Justice, ‘the illegality’ of each of these of these ‘declarations’, including the one purportedly made in the Turkish-occupied zone, ‘stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens).’ (Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, page 403 at paragraph 81.)

It is a well known fact that in the summer of 1974, the armed forces of Turkey twice invaded the Republic of Cyprus. In the process, as confirmed by a report of the European Commission of Human Rights adopted on 10 July 1976, these forces illegally inflicted various forms of mass inhumanity, including the mass rape of women. And it is clear that Turkey invaded not only in order to forcibly displace the Greeks and Christians who formed the overwhelming majority of the lawful population in what became the occupied areas in the north. Turkey also sought to create a de facto Turkish-populated zone, to colonise it with citizens of Turkey, to eradicate its Hellenic/Christian culture and to manufacture a subordinate local administration fronted by the likes of Mr Akinci.

Thus, the illegal rogue regime in the Turkish-occupied zone is a secessionist, segregationist, supremacist and racist entity. However, it continues to exist on a de facto basis because the world has chosen to appease Ankara rather than implement Resolutions 541 and 550 in practice. As a consequence of this policy of appeasement, the Turkish-occupied zone has become a haven for criminals, fugitives from justice and perpetrators of barbaric practices. For example, the annual US State Department reports on human trafficking, including the 2018 edition, have branded the Turkish-occupied zone as ‘a zone of impunity for human trafficking’, including the trafficking of children exposed to the risk of being subjected to sexual exploitation or forced labour.

President Erdogan and Mr Akinci may choose to ‘celebrate’ illegality and inhumanity. However, the rest of the world must respond by taking concrete steps to terminate, not legalise, the rogue subordinate regime of Ankara and the protracted Turkish occupation which ensures its de facto survival.

Source: Lobby For Cyprus

Turkish provocations undermine the stability of the region at a crucial juncture and demonstrate the weakness of Turkey’s legal arguments.

Greece is not going to be influenced by the neighbouring country’s outbursts of aggressive rhetoric. On the contrary, as a factor of stability and security in the region, Greece will continue, in collaboration with its allies and partners, to defend international law and its own inalienable rights.

Whatever their differences, the rest of the countries in the Eastern Mediterranean recognise that energy must be a bridge of dialogue and cooperation in our region. Instead of insisting on threats and on its illegal claims and challenges, Turkey ought to adhere to this responsible stance.

​Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) will seek the arrest with an international warrant of conservative former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski after confirming he fled to Hungary to avoid serving a two-year prison sentence for corruption, authorities said Tuesday.

The Interior Ministry responded nearly five hours after Gruevski announced he was in Budapest in a Facebook post, as police continued searches in the capital Skopje to try and locate him.

The 48-year-old Gruevski who ignored a summons on Monday to appear at a Skopje prison to serve a two-year sentence after being convicted influencing officials to purchase a luxury car for government use.

He also faces trial in four other cases that emerged from a wiretapping scandal which erupted in 2015 and plunged the country into a deep political crisis. He has been charged with abuse of office, electoral fraud, criminal association and incitement to violence.

He had surrendered his passport and it was unclear how he reached Hungary.

Gruevski was prime minister from 2006-2016. He is the former leader of the conservative VMRO-DPMNE party, which is the main opposition party which is allied with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's right-wing Fidesz party.

Contacted by The Associated Press, the Hungarian prime minister's office refused to confirm or deny Gruevskis presence, adding that "ongoing asylum procedures" couldn't be commented upon.

Gruevski's flight marks the latest dramatic episode in a volatile confrontation between his conservatives and Prime Minister Zoran Zaev's Social Democrats.

The two sides remain bitterly at odds over a proposed deal to change the republic's name to "North Macedonia" and end a dispute with neighboring Greece that would allow FYROM to join NATO.

Western leaders provided Zaev's government strong backing in supporting the deal, while Russia argued that it was the target of the alliances expansion eastward.

The Social Democrats accused Gruevski of making a "cowardly escape."

Source: eKathimerini [AP]

Nikola Gruevski, the former prime minister of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on Friday lost his final appeal against serving a two-year prison sentence over corruption-related charges.

A panel of judges at the Skopje criminal court said in a statement that they rejected Nikola Gruevski’s appeal after "reviewing all the facts and evidence" in the case.

It was not immediately clear whether Gruevski intended to hand himself in to authorities to serve the sentence.

The former leader of the conservative main opposition VMRO-DPMNE party was sentenced in May to two years in prison for unlawfully influencing Interior Ministry officials over the purchase of a luxury vehicle at an estimated cost of 600,000 euros.

He was ordered to present himself at the capital Skopje’s "Shuto Orizari" prison Thursday, but submitted a last-minute appeal.

The 48-year-old politician, who served as prime minister from 2006 to 2016 and is still a VMRO lawmaker, had requested that the prison sentence be deferred, citing parliamentary duties.

​Earlier Friday, FYROM lawmakers fell short of votes needed to expel Gruevski as a member of parliament. Parliament voted 58-29 to revoke Gruevski’s mandate, but failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the 120-seat assembly.

Source: Kathimerini

Kate Marie Byrnes has been nominated by US President Donald Trump as the next ambassador to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

Byrnes, a 24-year veteran of the US diplomatic corps and a member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy in Athens.

​Her previous assignment was Charge d’Affaires, a.i. at the US Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, where she had also served as the Deputy Chief of Mission since September 2014.

Source: Kathimerini

Greek authorities have been in contact with their  Albanian counterparts and are closely following and monitoring the developments related to an incident in the Albanian village of Bularat where a Greek citizen allegedly opened fire on Albanian police with a Kalashnikov as they were attempting to apprehend him.

A short while ago, we were formally informed that Konstantinos Katsifas was killed during an exchange of fire with Albanian police.

We express our deep sorrow on the death of the Greek expatriate, as well as our condolences to his family.

In any case, it is unacceptable that the operation led to the loss of human life.

We await for the Albanian authorities to provide complete clarification about the conditions under which the Greek citizen lost his life, and we shall proceed with all necessary action immediately.

Source: With notes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic

Marcus A. Templar, National Security Advisor | Macedonian League
​Republished: This speech was given by Marcus A. Templar at an event held on Oct 26 to 28, 2013 in the hall of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in New York.

​Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
It is with distinct honor I have accepted to deliver this speech to you. It is about the region where I was born, reared, educated, and served as conscript in the Hellenic Army. Macedonia is my Hellenic homeland and Thessaloniki is the city where I was born.

Ever since Caranus (ΚΑΡΑΝΟΣ), the eleventh descendant of the legendary Hercules, led his people from Pindos to Western Macedonia and from there to the Pierian Mountains, Macedonia has been the heart of Greece. She is indeed in the heart of all Greeks.

Historians have written volumes on Macedonia and its history along with the contribution of Macedonians to the life within the Hellenic world, but also the spread of Hellenic ideals, philosophies, sciences, and in general the Hellenic civilization. Even today, one finds relics and remnants of the Macedonian presence in the cities of Bactria or Balkh, Kavoura or Kabul, Alexandria of Arakhosia or Kandahar, Aria or Herat, and others. All these cities were included in the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Greco-Indian Kingdom that lasted close to the Christian era. Actually, the Greco-Indian Kingdom lasted until around the year 10 AD with the defeat of its last king, Menandros. 

In addition, at present, one sees the Dioscuri brothers, Castor and Pollux or Polydeuces, on Afghani banknotes with the Greek inscription “Great King, Eucratides.” Furthermore, millions of Afghanis and Pakistanis wear the Macedonian kausia. The choice of the Dioscuri on the coin of Eukratidies has not been accidental. Oftentimes, Alexander the Great was identified as one of the Dioscuri brothers.

Macedonia was destined to play a very important role in religion and especially in Christianity. From the historical books of the Maccabees to the Apostle Paul, Macedonia has contributed the first Christian Church in Europe established in Kavala and the first European Christian, a woman named Lydia, baptized in Philippi, both cities of Macedonia.

The innovation of the first Slavic alphabet known as Cyrillic and the translation of the Bible by the two Greek brothers from Thessaloniki, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, into what is known as Old Church Slavonic language, had far-reaching implications for the present world which simultaneously meant that the message in the Bible is much more important than the sanctity of any language.

During its long history, Macedonia prospered in the Byzantine Empire despite repeated attacks by Avars, Slavs, Arabs, Bulgarians, Normans, and others. Many barbarities were committed on its people including slavery. Its allegiance was forced under one ruler or another, until it fell into the hands of Ottoman Turks. At the end of the 15th century, Macedonia received about 20,000 Jews driven out of Spain because of the Inquisition. 

In the early 1900’s Macedonia became a battlefield between Bulgarians, who were determined to make Macedonia Bulgarian, and the Greeks, who tried to keep it Greek. That conflict is known as the Macedonian Struggle. 

These are the main points of Macedonia’s past before the Balkan Wars. Today, we are here to commemorate two events that evolved in Macedonia. 

The first event is the celebration of Macedonia’s return to her mother Greece that took place during the two Balkan Wars that ended on August 10, 1913 with the Peace Treaty of Bucharest. The second is the celebration of the beginning of the Greco-Italian war that ended in Greek victory.  

By 1910, the Greek economy had become so dependent on the repatriated funds of Greek immigrants in America that the Greek government could do little to slow emigration, despite continuing, massive losses of work force. Interestingly, during the Balkan War of 1912, more than 40,000 Greek-Americans took note of the Greek government’s pleas and went back to Greece to fight. Overall, between 1910 and 1930, it is estimated that more than half of all Greek immigrants to the United States returned home.

As the First Balkan War broke out, Greece declared war on the Ottoman Empire and expanded its borders. When Eleftherios Venizelos, the Prime Minister at the time, was asked if the Greek army should move towards Thessaloniki or Monastiri, Venizelos replied “Thessaloniki, at all costs!” Because both Greece and Bulgaria wanted Thessaloniki, the Ottoman garrison became the target of both armies. The question was who was going to be the first to push the Ottomans to capitulation. The Greeks made it by one day. Securing Thessaloniki meant the reunification of Macedonia with Greece after centuries of Ottoman yoke. It was a brilliant military move.

On October 24, 1912, the Greek Army crossed the Axios River after the railroad bridge had been modified to accommodate the passage of the army.  One day later, at the urging of the consuls of the Great Powers, Hasan Tahsin Pasha and Crown Prince Constantine began negotiating the surrender of Thessaloniki and the Ottoman garrison.  The talks dragged on for nearly a day and a half, until a protocol of surrender was concluded and on October 26, 1912, the feast day of the city's patron saint, Saint Demetrius, the Greek Army accepted the surrender of the Ottoman garrison at Thessaloniki.  The Seventh Division marched into the city to begin the process of disarming the Ottoman garrison.  In the process, the Greeks took 1,000 Ottoman officers and 26,000 soldiers prisoner.

While the Army was fighting on land, the Greek Navy was triumphant in the sea. For our purpose, I must mention that the Navy Lieutenant Nikolaos Votsis took a small gunboat from Litohoron, got into the Bay of Thessaloniki and sank the Turkish Battleship Fetih-i- Bulend or “Great Conquest.”  

The Bulgarian army arrived one day after the surrender of the city to Greece, asking Tahsin Pasha to surrender the city to them. Tahsin Pasha told the Bulgarian officials "I have only one Thessaloniki, which I have [already] surrendered." About six months later, the excitement turned into mourning when on March 18, 1913 Alexandros Schinas, an alleged anarchist, assassinated George I of Greece in the city.

At the end of the First Balkan War during the London Conference of 1913, the allies signed the Treaty of London on May 30, 1913. Bulgaria requested that one of its units enter Thessaloniki with the excuse that they needed to relax. Crown Prince Constantine allowed one battalion of the Bulgarians to enter the city, but to the surprise of the Greeks, the Bulgarian battalion proved to be a 15,000 men force, which, after the signature of the Treaty of London, refused to disarm. In addition, Bulgaria demanded that Greece relinquish all territories north of the Pieria Mountains, including Thessaloniki.

On June 16, 1913, King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, without consulting the Bulgarian government and without a declaration of war, directed General Savov to order the attack against Greece and Serbia. The second Balkan war was on. After the Second Balkan War and the defeat of Bulgaria, the Treaty of Bucharest officially granted Thessaloniki and the rest of the Greek portion of Macedonia to Greece in 1913. 

Contrary to popular belief, the Treaty of Bucharest of August 10, 1913, did not set the present borders in the Balkans. What it did was to simply settle ONLY the borders of Bulgaria in relation to its neighbors.  Even those borders were modified later.  

The feeling of the inhabitants of the city is described in the following editorial of the Newspaper “MAKEΔONIA” published on Sunday, October 28, 1912.
​

As part of this year's Oxi Day commemoration events for October 28, two formal Memorial Ceremonies in Honour of the Fallen Greek Soldiers of the Greek-Italian War of 1940-1941 are going to be organised on Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the Military Cemetery of Këlcyrë, and at 12:00 p.m. at the Historical Military Cemetery of Bularat, Albania.

This year's commemoration events in Albania are taking place following the completion of the recent search, exhumation, identification and official burial of 673 fallen Greek soldiers who have been laid to rest in the aforementioned Military Cemeteries.

The remains of the 673 Greek soldiers were found in the Dragot region. The search for other fallen Greek soldiers will continue throughout various locations in southern Albania.

For the first time in history, the memorial ceremony will be organised in collaboration with the Albanian government as per the stipulations of the Inter-State Agreement of Cooperation between Greece and Albania “on the search, exhumation, identification and burial of Greek soldiers who fell in battle in Albania during the Greek-Italian war of 1940-1941 and the construction of cemeteries on the territory of the Republic of Albania for their burial.” 

​The Agreement was implemented following the meetings between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Greece and Albania in Crete, in November 2017, and in Korçë in January 2018.

Source: With notes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic