PressInfo #58 – PROCITAJTE VOJNI DEO SPORAZUMA O KOSOVU!

“Odredbe Vojnog dela Kosovskog sporazuma stavljenog na
sto u Parizu nemaju bas niceg zajednickog sa mirovnom
misijom (ocuvanje mira – peace keeping). Kao ni civilni,
tako ni vojni deo ovog sporazuma nece dovesti do mira medju
Srbima i Albanacima. On ce samo dodatno antagonizirati
medjunarodnu zajednicu i 10 miliona gradjana Jugoslavije. U
njemu Jugosloveni nece naci nista dobrog za sebe i stoga se
plasim da cemo svi uskoro biti svedoci neceg vrlo ruznog sto
se sprema. Citava ova prica nema niceg zajednickog sa
sprecavanjem nasilja, ustvari – odgovarajuci naziv za ovo
bio bi: sprecavanje mira (peace-prevention).

Vodeci mediji, komentatori, akademici i diplomate
ujedinjeni su u osudama jugoslovenske delegacije na
pregovorima u Parizu cime daju legitimnost buducem NATO
bombardovanju i de-facto NATO-ovoj kontroli nad tom
teritorijom. Ko bi se usudio da bude toliko nezahvalan,
bandoglav i siledzija pa da odbije ponudjeni mu mir?
Medjutim, nema nikoga da se zapita: sta to Kosovski
sporazum, tzv. “mirovni” plan, u sustini sadrzi?”

“Mislim kako ne mora biti da se sve to dogadja
namerno” kaze Dr. Jan Oberg, vodja TFF-ovog tima za
ublazavanje konflikata i bivsoj Jugoslaviji od 1991. “Pre ce
biti da ni medjunarodni pregovaraci ni mediji prakticno i
nemaju nikakvog profesionalnog znanja o razresavanju
konflikata, pregovaranju i posredovanju u njima, a ni o
mirovnoj politici uopste.

Kada se predlozi neki privredni plan, ekonomisti mogu da
diskutuju o njegovim dobrim i losim stranama. Kada se neki
dokument predstavi kao “mirovni” plan, svi prihvataju zdravo
za gotovo da on to zaista i jeste a da se i ne zapitaju: Sta
on to sadrzi? Koje su njegove dobre strane a sta su mu
slabosti? Zbog cega jedna strana kaze ‘da’ dok druga kaze
‘ne’? Hoce li se njegovim sprovodjenjem pomoci stranama da
zive u miru? Kako ce izgledati taj mir ako do njega uopste
dodje?

“Proucavao sam ranije verzije tog sporazuma i verziju od
23. Februara. U proteklom periodu taj dokument je doziveo
veoma znacajne promene. Moja je hipoteza vrlo jednostavna:
ovaj je dokument do te mere izmenjen da bi postao
prihvatljiv za albansku delegaciju da ga jugoslovenska
strana – u jednoj ranijoj fazi vec spremna da prihvati
njegove politicke delove – sada smatra potpuno
neprihvatljivim kako u njegovom politickom tako i u vojnom
aspektu. Zasto se dogodila bas tolika promena? Zato sto bi
za medjunarodnu zajednicu najgora varijanta bila da je
jugoslovenska delegacija rekla ‘da’ a Albanci ‘ne’.

Jeste li kroz vase medije saznali da se u tom dokumentu
nigde ne spominje OVK, Oslobodilacka Vojska Kosova
(Albanaca)? Nju nazivaju “Druge snage” uzduz i popreko ovog
Sporazuma. Neko bi mogao de se zapita: pa, na koji to nacin
moze da se odredi odgovornost jedne od strana ako se ni
njeno ime ni potpisnici uopste ne spominju u samom dokumentu
Sporazuma. Jos gore, da li mozda moze da se dogodi da se OVK
ili neka od njenih brojnih frakcija koja nije bila
zastupljena u Parizu, jednostavno ne oseti obaveznom prema
tom Sporazumu?”

Jan Oberg je zbunjen: ” Kao sto cete dalje i sami videti,
jugoslovenskom predsedniku Milosevicu tekst daje vise nego
dovoljno razloga da kaze ‘ne hvala’, a Jugoslaviji da se
mobilizuje i oseti ugrozenom, ponizenom, izolovanom i
neshvacenom. U Jugoslaviji ce svi cvrsto stati u monolitni
blok oko predsednika Milosevica i njegove politike – a bas
je to potpuno suprotno od ciljeva koje je proklamovala
medjunarodna zajednica. No, kako bilo da bilo, sta ako se
Milosevic predomisli i u zadnjem trenutku ipak kaze ‘da’?
Uprkos majstorstvu s kojim inace hoda po samom rubu
provalije mislim da je to sada potpuno neverovatno. Ako bi
medjutim ipak pristao, onda bi svom narodu mogao da se
obrati i kaze kako je eto, to ipak bilo neophodno dao bi
zemlju spasao od bombardovanja, drzeci pritom najvaznije
odredbe Sporazuma pod kljucem ili bi ih kasnije za vecinu
svojih gradjana reinterpretirao na sopstveni nacin a kroz
lokalne medije.

Jasno je da nijedna zemlja ne zeli da dobije strane
gospodare niti da bilo sta potpisuje na nevidjeno”, kaze
direktor TFF-a. “Ako su vec internacionalci zaista zeleli da
se i Jugoslavija saglasi, zasto se onda u Sporazumu ne
spominje maksimalan broj vojnika NATO-a kojima bi bilo
dozvoljeno da udje u suverenu drzavu Jugoslaviju? Odakle
cifra od 25.000 do 30.000 vojnika sa kojom se kalkulise po
medijima? Na osnovu cega se doslo bas do tog broja? To je
mnogo vise nego sto je neophodno da se obezbedi sprovodjenje
ovog Sporazuma AKO ga s iskrenim namerama potpisu obe
strane. U istocnoj Slavoniji je ‘robusna’ UN-ova vojna snaga
od 5.000 vojnika razoruzala 17.000 vojnika Srpskih
regularnih trupa a i sve srpske i hrvatske paravojne
jedinice.

Dakle, 30.000 NATO vojnika + 10.000 u Makedoniji i oko
300 borbenih aviona rasporedjenih svud uokolo predstavljaju
ili: a) paradu vojne sile pred 50-tu godisnjicu Saveza, b)
borbene snage koje treba da okupiraju Kosovo ako Jugoslavija
kaze ‘ne’, c) trupe koje ce ranije ili kasnije biti uvedene
i na druga krizna zarista kakve bi mogle da postanu
pokrajina Vojvodina ili Sandzak sto bi za posledicu imalo
de-facto rastakanje sadasnje Jugoslavije”.

Evo nekoliko primera odredaba iz teksta Sporazuma od 23. Februara koje ja licno smatram izuzetno problematicnim:

* Dokumentom Strane pozdravljaju NATO koji treba
da obezbedi njihovo pridrzavanje Sporazuma kroz
uspostavljanje vojne organizacije, KFOR-a, u cijem sastavu
mogu biti kopnene, vazdusne i pomorske jedinice zemalja
clanica NATO-a i drugih zemalja; nigde se ne spominje koliko
iznosi maksimalni dozvoljen ukupni broj NATO vojnika niti iz
kojih sve drzava; KFOR-om komanduje komandant, COMKFOR, koji
je vojno i politicki podredjen jedino Skupstini
Severno-atlanskog saveza.

* Za UN nije predvidjena nikakva uloga. Savet
Bezbednosti se jedino “poziva” da izglasa rezoluciju kojom
podrzava Sporazum – cinjenica za koju se moze reci da
predstavlja kapitalno ponizenje ovog klasicnog mirotvorca u
cijoj torbi osim bogatog, dugog i raznovrsnog iskustva
pociva i veoma uspesna misija u susednoj Makedoniji.

* NATO ce obavljati kontrolu vazdusnog prostora nad Kosovom.

* Sve letelice, radari, rakete zemlja-vazduh i
protiv-avionska artiljerija moraju odmah da se premeste u
uzu Srbiju; kako OVK nema svoje letilice ocigledno je da ova
odredba ima za cilj da onemoguci Jugoslaviju da ugrozi
NATO-ove snage.

* Oko Kosova ce se uspostaviti Granicna zona
sirine 5 km (ukljucivo i na delu prema ostatku Jugoslavije)
koja ce biti obelezena na terenu. Pristup u tu zonu ce biti
zabranjen svim trupama osim pogranicnih jedinica.

* Za 180 dana sve “ofanzivne” snage Savezne
Republike Jugoslavije moraju u potpunosti da se izvuku sa
Kosova i premeste u druga mesta u Srbiji; broj vojnika u
sastavu Granicnih jedinica ne sme prelaziti 1500 ljudi sa
jos 1000 u pozadinskim i logistickim jedinicama koje smeju
da se zadrzavaju samo na za to odredjenim lokacijama.
COMKFOR moze da zahteva i daljnje smanjenje ovog broja. To
prakticno znaci da Jugoslavija vise nece moci da sama
odlucuje o nacinu odbrane Kosovskog dela svoje medjunarodne
granice. Najvise do 2500 pripadnika Ministarstva unutrasnjih
poslova sme da ostane na Kosovu ali i oni moraju da se
razoruzaju i da svoje delovanje ogranice na civilne
policijske poslove.

* Potpunom ocigledno, Sporazum ne sadrzi ni jednu
jedinu odredbu kojom bi se ogranicavale vojne aktivnosti u
susednim drzavama, Makedoniji ili Albaniji odakle je OVK i
do sad dejstvovala, gde ima logore za obuku i odakle se
snabdevala i opremala.

* Nigde u dokumentu OVK nije ni spomenuta. Nju se
odredjuje izrazom “druge snage”. Slobodno se zapitajte kako
je moguce da se od nekoga ocekuje da odgovara za svoje
postupke kad se u dokumentu nigde ne spominje ni njegov
naziv ni imena njegovih potpisnika, ucesnika na
pregovorima?

* Dok se predvidja vrlo znacajna demilitarizacija
jugoslovenskih snaga, od OVK ili “drugih snaga” jedino se
ocekuje da se po stupanju Sporazuma na snagu “JAVNO OBAVEZU
da ce se razoruzati PREMA USLOVIMA KOJE CE COMKFOR NAKNADNO
DEFINISATI, da se odreknu nasilja, da garantuju bezbednost
stranog osoblja i da postuju medjunarodne granice SRJ”.
(Naglasio autor). Drugim recima, prava obaveza albanske
strane nastupa tek posto u Parizu stave svoj potpis na
Sporazum a o tome sta ce se i na koji nacin razoruzati
ostaje za kasnije da se vidi i to stvar ce se resiti
iskljucivo izmedju njih i COMKFOR-a.

* Tacno je da ce ih potpis obavezati da se
raspuste, da se suzdrze od nasilnih aktivnosti i da se
potpuno razoruzaju; 30 dana posto Sporazum stupi na snagu
svo zabranjeno oruzje ce se prikupiti i skloniti u skladista
a oni ce onda skinuti uniforme. Medjutim, velika je razlika
izmedju dva postupka demilitarizacije koji su predvidjeni za
jednu i za drugu stranu. Njom se Jugoslaviji ne ostavlja ni
jedna od garancija koje bi bilo normalno da ocekuje od
razoruzanja OVK – dok albanska strana moze da bude potpuno
zadovoljna bezbednoscu koju im pruza nacin na koji SRJ treba
da se demilitarizuje.

* Dva puta se naglasava: “COMKFOR CE (Naglasio
autor, i dalje.) odrediti postupak za razoruzavanje i nadzor
Drugih snaga na Kosovu i za daljnju regulaciju njihovih
aktivnosti…” Zbog cega ovaj dokument ne navodi precizne i
konkretne postupke u tom smislu?

* Dok ce se oruzje i ljudstvo SRJ ukloniti sa
Kosova, nigde se ne navodi da ce se i oruzje oduzeto od
OVK-Drugih snaga ukloniti iz regiona i barem jedan njegov
deo odneti tamo odakle je i stigao. Naoruzanje OVK ce biti
prikupljeno i registrovano u skladistima unutar teritorije
Kosova. Uklanjanje iz podrucja predvidja se jedino za ono
osoblje Drugih snaga ‘koje nije lokalnog porekla’.

* Glavna je osobina OVK da je to vojska sa
strukturom satavljenom od naoruzanih civila; mnogi srpski
civili takodje poseduju oruzje. Ovaj problem dokument uopste
ne dotice, on se bavi samo formalno prisutnim vojnim
snagama. Na taj nacin, usko ograniceno lokalno nasilje i
terorizam – oba tako tipicna pojava za ovaj region – ostaju
potpuno izvan domasaja ovog Sporazuma.

Clan VIII 7. Glave Sporazuma bavi se Operacijama i
Autoritetom KFOR-a – molimo obratite paznju na sledece –
koji deluje sa stanovista strogog postovanja suvereniteta i
teritorijalnog integriteta SRJ:

* KFOR ce “delovati bez ometanja” i preduzimace
“sve neophodne korake” da obezbedi pridrzavanje obeju
Strana. Nista nije receno sta to odredjuje pojam NEOPHODNIH
koraka i sile. O tome ce odlucivati iskljucivo NATO i
njegovi komandanti.

* SRJ ponovo niko nista ne pita u vezi ove strane
vojske na njenoj teritoriji i ona mora da se slozi “da se
daljim direktivama Severno-atlanskog Saveta mogu utvrditi i
druge, dodatne duznosti i odgovornosti KFOR-a na
implementaciji Sporazuma.” To drugim recima znaci da ukoliko
se “medjunarodna zajednica” saglasi da se prosire ovlascenja
i vojna snaga NATO-a, ne postoji vise niko i nista sto moze
u tome da ih spreci.

* COMKFOR ce biti ovlascen da bez ikakvog
uplitanja u njegove odluke ili saglasnosti bilo koje Strane
ucini SVE (Naglasio autor) sto nadje za shodno i potrebno,
ukljucujuci i upotrebu vojnih sredstava, radi zastite
KFOR-a…” U skladu sa ovim on moze da naredi obustavu ili
da prekine bilo koju aktivnost za koju sam proceni da
predstavlja pretnju KFOR-u ili bilo kojoj od Strana.

* Komandir NATO-a, dalje, jedini ima iskljucivo
ovlascenje da vrsi kontrolu vazdusnog prostora nad Kosovom i
dela prostora od granice Kosova ka unutrasnjosti SRJ u
sirini od 25 km.

* Sa obema Stranama uspostavlja se zajednicka
Vojna komisija sa ciljem da “resava sve otvorene prigovore,
pitanja i probleme vojne prirode koji treba da resi COMKFOR”
– tj. ona koja zahtevaju drukcije-od-uobicajenih postupke
odlucivanja.

* Nemojte imati ni trunku sumnje, kad dodje do
spora oko tumacenja Sporazuma “komandant KFOR-a ima najvisi
autoritet u podrucju” – isto kao i Sef implementacione
misije po pitanjima civilne prirode.

* Kada se u dokumentu pomene “NATO” to moze da
znaci bilo koja i bilo kakva vojna snaga “bez obzira da li
pripada drzavi clanici NATO-a i bez obzira da li jeste ili
nije pod NATO-ovom ili nacionalnom komandom i kontrolom.” Za
zemlju domacina ovo je sve samo ne idealna kombinacija – to
vise lici na sastanak sa nepoznatom osobom dok istovremeno
nemate pojma ni ko ce vam sve doci u goste ni koliko ce se
uopste “gostiju” pojaviti na kraju.

* Sada i nesto o ponasanju i nastupu medjunarodnih
vojnih snaga: prema slovu Sporazuma one nisu odgovorne za
bilo kakvu stetu na javnoj ili na privatnoj imovini koju ce
napraviti u obavljanju svojih duznosti; NATO ce biti izuzet
od BILO KAKVOG zakonskog postupka i “bez obzira na okolnosti
i bilo kada, bice izvan pravne nadleznosti bilo koje od
Strana.” Sebi su osigurali punu slobodu i nicim ometano
kretanje i pristup po svim delovima SRJ ukljucujuci i njen
vazdusni prostor i njene teritorijalne vode.”

* Za razliku od UN-a ma gde da je bio, NATO zemlji
domacinu nece placati bas nista. Bice oslobodjen carina i
poreza i nece placati nikakve naknade za vazdusnu i drugu
plovidbu, sletanje, uzletanje, itd. Strane se obavezuju da
ce NATO-u obezbediti, potpuno besplatno, sve javne sluzbe i
instalacije za koje NATO odredi da su mu neophodne da se
pripremi i da izvede svoje operacije.

* Na kraju, ko je taj ko treba da potpise ovaj
Sporazum? Predstavnik Srbije, predstavnik SRJ i “predstavnik
Kosova.” S obzirom na sastav delegacija oko pregovarackog
stola to znaci da ce vojni i civilni predstavnici jedino
kosovskih Albanaca – i nijedne druge nacionalna zajednica te
pokrajine – potpisati Sporazum o zajednickoj buducnosti.

Go to http://www.transnational.org, “Highlight”
or
“Links”
to find the Kosovo Interim Agreement!

© TFF 1999

• You are welcome to re-print, copy, archive, quote
from or re-post this item, but please retain the source.

• TFF’s website has all the relevant links to Iraq,
the Balkans, including media there + peace research, and
non-violence

• Teacher, activist, journalist?? You’ll always find
something interesting at TFF.

• Get your daily global news from the leading media
on TFF’s site, all in one place.

Peace & future researcher + ‌Art Photographer

Related Posts

The agreement is catastrophic both because of what it says and what it doesn’t mention. It reduces further the major asset of security policies: Freedom of action. Jan Oberg TFF director September 25, 2026 A couple of hours before the agreement was signed on September 22, 2026, I published the following 13 hypotheses about what it would most likely contain on TFF Substack (in English). I was wrong on only the first point. Contrary to what Trump had written on his Truth Social platform, it does not appear to come into force immediately. In fact, it turned out to be worse than even I had anticipated. After these hypotheses now come a number of reflections in light of what the agreement actually contains, and does not contain, as well as the way in which it has generally been presented by major media outlets and by the public-service broadcaster DR. My...
Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...

Recent Articles

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...

TFF on Substack

Discover and subscribe to more peace materials on TFF Substack

Most Popular

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Read More
Living-Peace-Sign-Budapest-copy
Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
b54a1f10-8c65-4f0b-9dd5-4abc0a7d04cc_2659x2659
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
010
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Screenshot 2026-10-02 011738
Jan ObergPhD, director, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFFLund, Sweden October 2, 2026 This is my full original manuscript. The Chinese Academy of Social Science, CASS, makes two publications out if it. 1. China’s Five-year plan emphasized the capabilities of basic research and original innovation. It is regarded as the goal of the future social development, which, as required, should be significantly enhanced. Can you comment on the importance of original innovation in research and academic study? I believe it is easier to define “original innovation” in the natural sciences than in social sciences. The breaking points of what constitutes something new, or innovative, are not quite as sharp in the latter. But in both fields it is about opening up something that was closed, unseen, unexplored before – making manifest what was earlier latent. Innovations come in many forms and shapes – naming something that was not...
arctic-circle-map
The agreement is catastrophic both because of what it says and what it doesn’t mention. It reduces further the major asset of security policies: Freedom of action. Jan Oberg TFF director September 25, 2026 A couple of hours before the agreement was signed on September 22, 2026, I published the following 13 hypotheses about what it would most likely contain on TFF Substack (in English). I was wrong on only the first point. Contrary to what Trump had written on his Truth Social platform, it does not appear to come into force immediately. In fact, it turned out to be worse than even I had anticipated. After these hypotheses now come a number of reflections in light of what the agreement actually contains, and does not contain, as well as the way in which it has generally been presented by major media outlets and by the public-service broadcaster DR. My...
girl-5894831_1280
Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...