Timehost: We're very pleased to be joined tonight by Dimitri Simes, the President of the Nixon Center and a highly respected analyst of Eastern European and Russian affairs. NATO has rejected a unilateral cease-fire offered by Belgrade, and reports have surfaced that NATO is now bombing Montenegro, the relatively pro-West republic of Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosevic reportedly has offered to let refugees back into Kosovo so long as NATO groundtroops are not involved in keeping the peace and that Kosovo does not gain its independence. He made no mention of withdrawing the Serbian paramilitary troops or the Yugoslav army troops that are believed to be responsible for the bloodshed against Kosovars.
Timehost: Welcome, Mr. Simes.
Dimitri Simes: Thank you.
Timehost: Let's go to our first question.
katasha_14 asks: What is your opinion, Dimitri Simes, of the Kosovo crisis?
Dimitri Simes:I think that this is a great human tragedy.
I believe that it was mishandled by the Clinton Administration.
We now do not have good options.
NATO needs to prevail, but at the same time it would be dangerous to escalate the conflicts too much.
That may involve other nations in the region.
Russia may also feel obliged to become a part of the situation,
which would be contrary to U.S. strategic interests.
sweetie_pie_1999_13 asks: I have heard that this war could turn into World War III. Is that true? If not, what makes you think so?
Dimitri Simes: It doesn't have to turn into World War III -- if we force Milosevic to surrender without sending in ground troops.
Or, conversely, if we find a compromise diplomatic solution,
the conflict still can be localized.
But if NATO sends ground forces, and the Serbs resist,
that may bring Russia into the war with most unpredictable consequences.
The Russians are weak militarily and they would not be able to prevail over NATO on the ground,
but they may start supplying weapons of mass destruction and technologies to China, India, Iran and all
kinds of rogue nations, which would create a great danger to American lives worldwide.
lindyslips asks: Mr. Simes, Hi, I wonder, do you think that the three preconditions laid down by NATO for the cessation of NATO actions is actually a starting point for negotiations?
Dimitri Simes: I hope so.
Because condition number three essentially requires Milosevic to allow NATO to take over Kosovo.
Condition number one essentially demands that Milosevic withdraw all Serb military and intelligence from Kosovo.
Condition two essentially requires self-rule for Kosovo and the return of refugees.
Those two conditions may be negotiable.
It is condition number three, that NATO would be responsible for Kosovo indefinitely,
that would be unacceptable, unless the Serbs are defeated on the battlefield.
Because this condition guarantees that Kosovo would become independent and they don't think that Belgrade would accept that without more fighting,
and suffering many more casualties on all sides.
weemo131 asks: Who do you think will give in first? Milosevic or NATO?
Dimitri Simes: I think that Milosevic will offer concessions.
There is no question that Serbia is much weaker than NATO,
and with every day the balance of power will continue to change in NATO's favor.
But in international politics, as in everyday life, it is important to know when to stop.
If NATO's position will amount to independence for Kosovo, the Serbs are not going to surrender without more fighting, more refugees, more innocent civilians killed,
and a growing danger of escalation, and the U.S.-Russian estrangement which could turn victory in Kosovo into a Pyrrhic victory for the United States.
JOHN40NC asks: What would be the outcome if NATO eliminated Milosevic?
Dimitri Simes: If Milosevic was killed during airstrikes I think that it would a constructive development.
I don't believe it would be a solution, because Serbian nationalism would still be there.
But Milosevic is certainly a major part of the problem.
Having said that, it would be a mistake to make eliminating Milosevic a part of official NATO policy.
We may have to negotiate with dictators whether we like it or not.
After all, we negotiated with Yasser Arafat and even received him in the White House.
Killing your enemies during the war may be constructive.
Demonizing them is stupid.
It only limits your options.
lindyslips asks: Do you believe that we have reached the current crisis because, in part, NATO and the UN have showed great weakness in previous dealing with Milosevic?
Dimitri Simes: I believe it was a mistake to announce in advance that NATO would not send ground troops.
If you go to war, you do not provide assurances to your enemies what you are not going to do to them.
At the same time, I believe that it was a mistake to give the Serbs what amounted to an ultimatum: accept NATO's position, or we will bomb you.
There was room for negotiation.
There were ways to explore autonomy or even independence for Kosovo without creating the current crisis.
The Clinton administration reminds me of what Churchill long ago said about the Russians:
they are good at resolving problems which they unnecessarily create for themselves.
M_R_B_L_O_N_D_E asks: Wouldn't you agree that the fall of communism in the region has led to these crisis? Before the Iron Curtain fell few problems existed.
Dimitri Simes:Well, it is the collapse of communism and the disintegration of Yugoslavia that have unleashed a lot of demons in the Balkans.
Milosevic is the principal villain.
He encouraged and exploited the Serbian nationalism, which in turn triggered nationalisms in other parts of Yugoslavia.
lindyslips asks: Does Russia have the will to involve itself at the present time considering its own economic position and its reliance on western aid ?
Dimitri Simes: The Russian government is extremely reluctant to become involved.
They are very angry with NATO, particularly the US.
Because the attack on Yugoslavia demonstrates Russian strategic impotence, and also, to a lesser extent, because of Russian
traditional sympathy for the Serbs.
But Primakov knows that he needs the American goodwill much more than he needs Milosevic.
However, if the conflict continues to escalate,
if NATO ground troops go into Yugoslavia,
if there are more casualties among Serb civilians,
emotions in Russia may prevail over their pragmatic calculations.
g_olson_1998 asks: If Russia doesn't cooperate wouldn't that constitute another cold war?
Dimitri Simes: Russia, of course, is a sovereign state.
It is not a NATO member.
It cannot be expected automatically to follow NATO decisions.
Also, Russia is far too weak economically and militarily to start a new cold war.
I would worry more about Russia contributing to global disorder by proliferating weapons of mass destruction, and being
less focused on controlling nuclear weapons which are being sought by all kinds of terrorist groups, including, potentially, by groups of angry Serbs.
hpeter43 asks: What of the Muslim minority in Russia -- would they put up with a persecution of neighboring Muslims?
Dimitri Simes: Up to now, mainstream Muslim groups in Russia spoke against NATO attacks on Yugoslavia.
The only exception I am aware of are the Chechens,
but Chechnya is no longer really part of Russia.
flipflop123 asks: Do you think that the massing of troops from the U.S. are a build-up to a ground attack, or purely to aid the humanitarian effort?
Dimitri Simes: Well, I donŐt believe that anybody claims that this is purely for humanitarian purposes--
Apache helicopters, and heavy artillery arriving in Albania is clearly a part of the NATO attack force.
The Clinton Administration claims, however, that NATO ground troops would not cross the Yugoslavian border.
But, naturally, the more forces you put close to that border the more there is going to be pressure to use ground troops if airstrikes do not bear fruit.
Timehost: Do you think, though, that the US and other NATO countries have the political resolve to stand behind the decision to send in ground troops? Are ghosts of Vietnam lingering here?
Dimitri Simes: I think the ghosts of Vietnam are powerful.
But with shocking visual images on TV of Albanian refugees,
and with growing evidence that Yugoslav air defenses are not as strong as people expected,
there is a growing sentiment in the U.S. and in some other major countries, to go and finish the job.
The question is: how long would the sentiment last if American bodybags would actually start arriving in considerable numbers from Yugoslavia?
Or if NATO troops encountered Russian volunteers?
And there would be a real danger of confrontation with Russia with its 30,000 nuclear weapons.
The real test is not whether public opinion would support going to Yugoslavia and achieving victory on the cheap.
The test is whether the public would be prepared to support losing many American lives and risking a growing international tension over Kosovo,
which, after all, has little do with vital American national interests.
D_sarge asks: What can be done about the flood of refugees? Helping a few thousand here or there really doesn't solve their suffering.
Dimitri Simes: I think that a short term solution is to bring them to NATO countries, or to do whatever is possible
to help them get food, shelter and medical treatment.
In the long run, we need to send the vast majority of them back to Kosovo.
That is why I would favor a quick solution, which would not necessarily be perfect in terms of punishing Milosevic,
but which would allow people to go back to their homes with sufficient protection.
Timehost: Thank you very much for chatting with us tonight, Mr. Simes.
Timehost: We know you have to leave now, but before you go, do you have any closing thoughts you'd like to share?
Dimitri Simes: I'm convinced that NATO is capable of winning in Yugoslavia.
NATO has an enormous military machine built to prevail over the Soviet empire.
We can destroy ten million Serbs or force them to surrender.
The question is: at what price?
How is it going to affect innocent civilians,
especially Albanians in Kosovo?
What impact is it going to have with the U.S. relationship with Russia?
Would we further alienate China, and create conditions for rapprochement between China and Russia against the US?
While doing whatever is necessary to win in Kosovo, we should not forget about the big picture, about U.S. relations with other major powers,
about the need to combat nuclear proliferation,
about the danger of provoking terrorist acts against soft American targets.
Putting all American eggs in one Kosovo basket would not be very smart.
Timehost: Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Simes.
TIME.com Special Report: A Kosovo Primer
Copyright © 1999 Yahoo! Chat and TIME. All rights reserved.
