Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Georgiokg (talk) to last version by Gloss
Line 94: Line 94:


look the history about Macedonia.. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.107.233.33|79.107.233.33]] ([[User talk:79.107.233.33|talk]]) 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
look the history about Macedonia.. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.107.233.33|79.107.233.33]] ([[User talk:79.107.233.33|talk]]) 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This is a very disquieting scenario if it were to happen:

I purposely deleted the author's name ~

In choosing the title, “Skopje 2014,” I am referring not to the costly, kitsch Vegas-on-the-Vardar reconstruction of downtown Skopje, but rather the state of the Slav Macedonian state in 2014. This country is in existential peril and this serious and unfortunate situation merits our close attention.

Greece and FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) are at odds over the name of the state and the question of whether a separate nationality exists in FYROM or elsewhere calling itself “Macedonian.” The issue then extends to ownership of Ancient Macedonian history and provocative claims to Greek Macedonia.

But Greece is not FYROM’s real problem, its identity and demographics are the problem. Albanians make up well over 30 percent of the population, with a birth rate far higher than Slav Orthodox Macedonians. In 1999, using a borrowed air force from NATO, the Albanians succeeded in ripping Kosovo away from Serbia. Just a couple of years later, the Albanians in FYROM rose in rebellion and all Orthodox countries, Greece included, jumped to Skopje’s aid, and Greek peacekeepers patrolled in FYROM. The Ohrid Agreement, signed in 2002 to end the hostilities, basically turned FYROM into a joint state, Slav and Albanian, with the Albanian language having equal status as Slavomacedonian. The clock is ticking.

It has been over 10 years since the Ohrid Agreement, and the percentage of Albanians only grows as more and more Slavs leave the country for the large diasporas in Europe, North America, and Australia. Sometimes Slav Macedonians take Bulgarian nationality offered to any Slav Orthodox inhabitant of FYROM (Bulgaria claims that Slav Macedonians are really Bulgarians, and until the 1940s most people in the area self-identified as Bulgarian, which is now conveniently forgotten in FYROM’s national mythology). While the economy improved in the early years of 2000s, mostly due to Greek investment and growth of the Greek bubble economy, all has once again collapsed. FYROM has always had over 25 percent unemployment and a per capita income one fourth that of Greece. Corruption and cronyism are rife; all economic activity is politicized and ethnicized.

Then there is the issue of Slav Macedonian identity. As is often the case in the most existential of times, particularly in this part of the world, the leadership became more, not less, provocative and nationalistic. The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (VRMO) won the election over the more moderate Slav party, and upped the rhetoric on Greece even as Albanian coalition partners grabbed key seats, including [!] the defense ministry. Prime Minister Gruevski, whose grandfather fought and died for Greece in Second World War, is at the forefront of a much harsher line on the name issue, backed to the hilt by diaspora cliques in Toronto and Melbourne. Whereas in the past most Slav Macedonians readily admitted no relation to the Ancient Macedonians, new official history now claims more or less direct ties with Alexander the Great, to the disdain of most academics, even in Skopje. Many now refuse to call themselves Slavs at all, seeking to distance their identity from Bulgarians and Serbs. Notwithstanding, more and more Slav Macedonians are rediscovering Bulgarian, Serbian, Vlach or Greek roots, even as the Albanian bloc grows.

Gruevski was the main impetus behind “Skopje 2014,” a megalomaniacal, bombastic plan to facelift Skopje with buildings, statues, and monuments of all styles (most recently there is talk of doing a replica of Rome’s Spanish Steps). This in a country at the edge of financial and political collapse. Best known is the giant kitsch statue of Alexander the Great, but they have also built neoclassical, Byzantine, and even baroque buildings to celebrate the glory of their threadbare state. Most unbiased critique has been negative about this massive construction project and local opposition figures remind us of the state of the economy and that most contracts were sweetheart deals.

In the midst of hard line politics, the EU has expressed frustration with FYROM’s increased nationalism, authoritarianism, and her simmering internal troubles. Greece and Bulgaria, as EU members, are sure to block the present FYROM regime’s EU application. Bulgarian nationalism is growing and many Bulgarians actively look for FYROM to fall apart in order to gain land and a population Bulgarians always claimed as theirs. Daily ethnic incidents between Slav and Albanians are deliberately downplayed but the economy is deteriorating and to think that the current state of FYROM is sustainable is to be delusional.

What Could Happen?

Virtually anything could set the spark. A fight at a soccer game, a political rally gone wrong, a confrontation at a church, mosque in any city or town with an ethnically mixed population, could set things off at digital Twitter/Facebook speed. FYROM’s army is tiny, ethnically mixed, with an Albanian Minister of Defense. Kosovo and Albania are next door and have porous borders over which guerillas could easily infiltrate. Within hours or days the country could be divided roughly west to east along the line of the Vardar (Axios) River, with enclaves elsewhere. This roughly corresponds to where Albanians have local majorities. The southern part of the country along the Greek border will likely remain in Slav hands, and Skopje itself will likely divide along ethnic lines. The Albanians will likely take as much land as possible to establish a fait accompli, and then be prepared to bargain out some of this land in a settlement.

And Then What?

After neglecting this part of the world, once again it comes to center stage. There will be calls for intervention, but who would intervene, either for humanitarian reasons or to try to stitch this “Humpty Dumpty” of a state back together again? The FYROM Albanians are likely to have been emboldened by Kosovo’s declaration of independence to try something similar. The most powerful military in the immediate border is Greece, but it is altogether likely that the Slav Macedonians might characterize any Greek intervention as an invasion of conquest. The same goes for the Bulgarians, who, unlike the Greeks, do have a latent territorial claim to parts of FYROM. Most importantly, Turkey may want to step in the fray, acting both as an “honest broker” having good relations with the Albanians, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, and with the Slav Macedonians, whose national aims they support vis-a-vis both Greece and Bulgaria. Also, there is a small Turkish minority in FYROM they can claim to support and to protect.

The prospect of a Turkish base in FYROM, to the rear of both Greece and Bulgaria, is terrifying. It would also likely result in a permanent Turkish presence there, because, as we know, when Turks occupy a place, they usually stay. It would also likely result in a de facto division of the country into a Greater Albania and a rump FYROM as a Turkish protectorate likely to be rabidly anti-Bulgarian and anti-Greek. The Turks would effectively control Greece’s road and rail corridor to Serbia, and therefrom to Central Europe, effectively giving Turkey control over Greece’s road access to Europe. From there Turkey could expand its political influence into a Greater Albania as well as Bosnia.

This is the worst case scenario, and likely Greece and Bulgaria would have to respond militarily to a Turkish attempt to re-colonize the Balkans and Russia would likely not remain idle. It is unlikely that Europe and America would stand for this either, particularly as Erdogan is increasingly less popular in the West. In order to forestall this, and a possible Greek-Turkish confrontation (or Russian intervention), NATO and the EU would probably intervene with rapid reaction forces (whatever is available) in a patch-together effort to separate warring parties and forestall outside intervention. With a throw-together peacekeeping/peacemaking force, they could probably do no more than stop the shooting war, and actually harden the lines.

Perhaps the international community would prevent the Albanian piece from declaring independence, and/or uniting with Albania and/or Kosovo. Perhaps FYROM will be like Cyprus, with a divided capital and a portion of its internationally recognized territory outside of its control. What is certain is that the state will become even more of a welfare case, dependent on its diaspora for a lifeline as well as the goodwill of its neighbors it can ill afford to upset. Bulgaria will likely press its claim for annexation, citing the large number of Slav Macedonians who have Bulgarian nationality. Whether the Slav Macedonians will accept annexation to Bulgaria is a matter of debate; it could cause its own mini-civil war, in fact. It is not impossible that stateless Slav Macedonians might launch their own liberation front, with support from the diaspora. Greece would not be unaffected.

Where does this leave Greece? The worst case is the Turkish incursion, or a low intensity insurgency affecting the region, including parts of Greek Macedonia. Even absent this scenario, FYROM’s breakup would be a cause for worry. A larger Albania is not at all in Greece’s interest, and certainly a war to our north would be a humanitarian disaster which Greece should care about. Further, Greece has considerable investment in the region that would suffer, and the Thessaloniki-Belgrade corridor is vital to the Greek economy. Watch this space. Like everything else concerning FYROM, “it’s complicated.” Let’s not forget, also, that 2014 is the centennial year of a world war that started in the Balkans. [[Special:Contributions/124.186.96.6|124.186.96.6]] ([[User talk:124.186.96.6|talk]]) 06:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014 ==

Revision as of 06:50, 18 February 2014

Template:Article probation Template:Vital article

"Officially?"

The name is officially "Republic of Macedonia", the same as greek's country is officially "Republic of Greece". But people usually call it Macedonia, as they call it Greece. Because Greeks want to make problems to Macedonians, Macedonians were not allowed to be called as Macedonia in the UN, but it was agreed that Macedonia will be referred to (NOT RENAMED) as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" by UN (and countries that want to humiliate Macedonians), while the country's official name is still Republic of Macedonia, and this is how it is referred to by more then 130 countries where there is democracy and respect for human rights of Macedonians (countries such as: China, USA, Russia, Canada, India, ...). So - officially it is "Republic of Macedonia"! And there is no official dispute. There is just talks about our name, so Greeks will be sure that it doesn't mean any territorial pretensions, even it never had any.

The name is officially "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". There is a dispute so having it listed as the "Republic of Macedonia" is incorrect and basically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SStefanakis (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an objection about the word "officially" at the begining of the article. The country's name, officially, is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", not Republic of Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedes19 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the official title used by the people living in the country: Republika Makedonija. The Former Yugoslav/FYROM is nonsense/a nonsense acronym.
I think "Constitutionally known as the Republic of Macedonia" would solve the dispute. Philly boy92 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for "constitutionally". That term implies that Macedonia uses something else besides what is written in their constitution. By the word "officially" we mean the name that the country uses for itself in official matters. It doesn't matter one bit what other countries (Greece particularly) think of it, "officially" means the name that the country officially uses for itself. "Myanmar" is the official name of Burma, whether anyone else uses that name or not. "Republic of Macedonia" is the official name of Macedonia whether the Greeks like it or not. "FYROM" is not an official name. The UN considers "FYROM" to be the "term of reference" until the Greeks and Macedonians agree to an official name to replace "Republic of Macedonia". But until then, "Republic of Macedonia" is the official name. --Taivo (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabour the point too much with you, Taivo, but doesn't that nudge the POV that this name is uniformly accepted? If it were "officially" known as that, there wouldn't be a point to all the discussion in the UN and bilaterally between the two countries, would there? Perhaps some wording is in order that doesn't suggest this name is anywhere near universally accepted?86.148.132.223 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "It became a member of the United Nations in 1993 but, as a result of a dispute with Greece over its name, it was admitted under the provisional reference of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, sometimes abbreviated as FYROM"? Bagunceiro (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Officially" refers to the official name by which the country refers to itself. That is standard Wikipedia usage and the standard meaning of the word "officially" in English. It doesn't matter one bit what the UN does or does not do. "Officially" means the official name by which the country refers to itself in all official documents. The official name of Macedonia is Republic of Macedonia. Your characterization that "Macedonia" is "nowhere near universally accepted" is completely wrong. See Macedonia naming dispute to see that a large part of the world does, indeed, use "Macedonia". And that still doesn't matter at all. "Official" means what the country calls itself in official documents. Even if no other country in the world used that name, it would still be the "official" name. And Bagunceiro, we already discuss the UN reference later in the lead and the article. It's not appropriate in the first sentence because that is an exonym, not the name by which they refer to themselves. The common English name for Macedonia is, well, Macedonia. That is the name you will find most commonly in the major English language media, in major English language atlases, etc. Read WP:MOSMAC. --Taivo (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I agree with you. I was trying to make that point (probably a bit obtusely) that the article already covers anon's concern by quoting that part of the lead. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good. I misunderstood your point, Bagunceiro. --Taivo (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support clarifying the meaning of using "officially", because the name "Republic of Macedonia" is not internationally accepted. This is a rarity and must be accounted for in the naming. I propose either replacing "officially" with "or", or specifying with respect to what (the country's constitution) is the name official. Kupraios (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Kupraios, there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the usage of "officially". International acceptance has absolutely nothing to do with a country's official name. None. The official name is the name by which the country refers to itself in official documents. That's the end of it. That is precisely the meaning of "official". We already discuss in the lead the nature of the international usage of this official name, Greece's objections to it, and the international naming quagmire that Greece has caused for Macedonia. The official name of Macedonia is Republic of Macedonia. There is no other official name. There are other terms that other countries and international organizations use to refer to Macedonia (and these are already appropriately referenced in the lead), but Macedonia's official name is Republic of Macedonia no matter what other countries wish to call it. "Official" is entirely internal, not external. --Taivo (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it is problematic. Because before I clicked here I knew the country as the former Yugoslav... Macedonia is therefore used as a short hand in the English Language and nowhere have I heard republic of Macedonia being just used. GAtechnical (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the way the article is now, as it follows the convention used on most articles about countries, namely, opening the article with the name most commonly used for the country in English, then mentioning the official name (which for literally every other country article, is the (translated) constitutional name of the country for itself). As examples, see the lead sentences of Russia, Brazil, India, Germany, Venezuela, Greece, South Africa, Mexico, and many many other articles. There is no reason why this article should be any different. J.delanoygabsadds 16:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Taivo's predilection for snappy, admonishing sentences and unhelpful oversimplification of the term 'officially', I do not see any problem with its usage here. Indeed, it is even included in the opening paragraph of the internationally unrecognised 'TRNC' and J.delanoy helpfully gives various other examples. However, Tavoi, it is not standard usage in Wikipedia, while in the world of international politics the terms 'official' and 'officially' are often debatable. Politis (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No "oversimplification" about it "Pliotis" and the only time that "official" and "officially" are not the internally official, constitutional names is when the specific context is otherwise. If we were talking about the UN specifically, then it would have the UN meaning, but in general, without any specific context such as here it is the internally official name. --Taivo (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to continue this discussion is here --94.70.87.23 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Officially indeed. Neither history, what the United Nations think or how the Greeks feel about this, matters one bit. Any sovereign state can, by definition, decide how it is to be called. In this case the Republic of Macedonia. Sometimes historical and geographical definitions shift and sometimes change meaning entirely. Learn to live with that! Countries that recognize Macedonia (all in the world but one) accept it under it's own name. The UN is not a country and the terms under which the Republic of Macedonia joined that particular organisation are meaningless where international law is concerned. If Macedonia decides to rename itself "Kingdom of Cloud-Cuckooland" tommorow that would be their right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it's already existant.Better look at a map before posting here.There are a group of Greeks that call themselves macedonians for several thousand years now. Let's assume they wanted to get separated. Wouldn't fyrom(macedonia) oppose to them for wanting to call the country macedonia? --94.70.87.23
Sigh. It doesn't matter what Greece or Greeks think. If Macedonians want to call themselves "Macedonians", that's their right. No country owns an international copyright on its name. Ever notice that there are now two "Congo"s? Probably not. There are two "Korea"s, two "China"s, two "Congo"s, etc. And, in this case, there is not another country called "Macedonia", just Greeks who think that they own the trademark because of Alexander the Great. Just get over it, anon IP. --Taivo (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just not gonn comment on your ignorant last sentence.If you think more about it,the 2 congo's and china's are occupied by the same nations. Not greeks and slavs,as in our case,which cannot be both macedonians.What my problem is here?That wiki has picked a side,of the country which some decades ago,after getting a nationalistic gov to stand on its feet,claimed (basically grabbed)the domain of the name "macedonia",now projecting it toward the world.It's their right,but an arbitrary pick.And this results in historical mess.Wikipedia shouldn't promote this mess.If we used the non-disputed name FYROM,we would be neutral.Currently it's pov-pushing. 94.70.87.23--94.70.72.6 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical names sometimes undergo a bewildering number of changes throughout long periods of history in which they can change meaning and scope, are forgotten for centuries and later reinstated, apply to original and later added territories, while sometimes getting out of use in the original part. This all happens a lot. Take words like Saksony and Burgundy for instance. Or indeed France, which uses a name originally owned by what are now the Dutch and Flemish. Get over it! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Hebel. A sovereign people can call themselves anything they want to call themselves. Country names are simply not trademarked in any way, shape, or form. And, anon IP, "FYROM" is not "neutral"--the Macedonians certainly don't think it's neutral. It's an invention by the UN, and it's not even a name. It's a "placeholder" to keep the Greeks happy until the Macedonians change their minds about their name and choose a name that will make the Greeks happy. But the name chosen in Wikipedia doesn't rely on what either the Macedonians or the Greeks think. It is based on common English usage. If you actually took two minutes to survey English usage in media, in atlases, etc. you'd see that the country north of Greece is called "Macedonia" a vast majority of the time. That's the end of the issue. Wikipedia uses "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" because that's what English speakers overwhelmingly call the country and its inhabitants. --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we will comply with the ones that abused the right of self-determination.Until this right is revised,or the macedonian dispute has been resolved,my arguments end here 94.70.87.23--94.70.72.6 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have clue what you are hinting at. How does self-determination or it's abuse come into this? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Just another in a long line of editors storming in here to defend Greece's alleged trademark on the name "Macedonia". --Taivo (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Macedonia adopts a passport that is accepted globally, except by the Republic of Greece. The name of the country on the cover of such globally accepted passport is Republic of Macedonia. Because of such country name on the passport, Greek border officers instead issue a separate "paper" to Macedonians entering Greece which in their view "substitutes" the passport, and all stamps at the Greek border are put on such "paper" which, by the way, also mentions the number of the official passport that "doesn't exist" for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinooneita (talk • contribs) 10:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

79.167.154.190 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thing that officially the name of this state is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Well, I don't even agree with the "Macedonia" at the last of the name but we must show some respect to the international decisions, mustn't we? For this reason the title must be renamed as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

Well, you're wrong to say that the official name is that. Dealt with extensively at WP:MOSMAC.Jeppiz (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It doesn't matter what Greece or Greeks think. If Macedonians want to call themselves "Macedonians", that's their right. No country owns an international copyright on its name. Ever notice that there are now two "Congo"s? Probably not. There are two "Korea"s, two "China"s, two "Congo"s, etc. And, in this case, there is not another country called "Macedonia"...
— User:Taivo

  1. Actually, it does matter what Greeks think. Controversies exist when multiple conflicting opinions matter.
  2. Yes, you are right about two Koreas, but they are known (at least internationally) as North Korea and South Korea. The "two Chinas" is a defunct issue and I don't think you'd like the Congo solution. The naming situation with the Congos (Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo) is on par with the Macedonian situation ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Provence of Macedonia").
          If you like the Congo solution, then you should be happy with no one being able to call their land "Macedonia" (unqualified). If you like the Korea solution, than you should advocate calling the Republic of Macedonia "North Macedonia" and the Greek region "South Macedonia".
  3. Of course you're right that there are not two nations claiming "Macedonia" as their constitutional names, but the result is the same if two nations each consider a geonym to be exclusively part of their national heritage.
  4. Either way, both sides have remained polarized and more willing to go over the other's head internationally than find an actual solution. As such, it doesn't matter what you think, what I think, or what anyone else here thinks; the Wikipedia community has imposed WP:MOSMAC as its own provisional solution. This discussion, which originally focused on the wording of this article, long ago slid off topic. If you want to debate the merits of opinions in the controversy, an article-space talk page is not the place to do it. —Sowlos  12:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the officially name is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia such us the [greek article]. *(I am not here to vandalism wikipedia, if i want that i wiil had already vandalism this page) --Konstantinos13Macedonia is greek 08:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

these noobs are recently lost from FAXAKIA brotherhood!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.104.164 (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too much history on the main page

I think the history section on the main page for Republic of Macedonia is way too long and should be shortened. For example you can compare it to the articles for other countries. There should be much more about culture, cuisine and other things that give the right impression about the country nowadays and not about some old times. I am ethnic Macedonian, but I really don't see a point in having so much history at the main page because most of the "normal" people are not that worried about all that. Additionally, you can get the impression that besides history there is nothing else there in the country. Also there is a huge section about the naming dispute which can be significantly shorter.

On the other side, maybe I get that impression just because the other sections are too short.

I would like to hear other opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ДАБ (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not have much history on Macedonias wikipedia article? A national article should contain the history of the nation.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hronicni bolesti na tonzilite i adenoidite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.208.37 (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IS A F.Y.R.O.M. ΝΟΤ Republic of Macedonia

look the history about Macedonia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.233.33 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very disquieting scenario if it were to happen:

I purposely deleted the author's name ~

In choosing the title, “Skopje 2014,” I am referring not to the costly, kitsch Vegas-on-the-Vardar reconstruction of downtown Skopje, but rather the state of the Slav Macedonian state in 2014. This country is in existential peril and this serious and unfortunate situation merits our close attention.

Greece and FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) are at odds over the name of the state and the question of whether a separate nationality exists in FYROM or elsewhere calling itself “Macedonian.” The issue then extends to ownership of Ancient Macedonian history and provocative claims to Greek Macedonia.

But Greece is not FYROM’s real problem, its identity and demographics are the problem. Albanians make up well over 30 percent of the population, with a birth rate far higher than Slav Orthodox Macedonians. In 1999, using a borrowed air force from NATO, the Albanians succeeded in ripping Kosovo away from Serbia. Just a couple of years later, the Albanians in FYROM rose in rebellion and all Orthodox countries, Greece included, jumped to Skopje’s aid, and Greek peacekeepers patrolled in FYROM. The Ohrid Agreement, signed in 2002 to end the hostilities, basically turned FYROM into a joint state, Slav and Albanian, with the Albanian language having equal status as Slavomacedonian. The clock is ticking.

It has been over 10 years since the Ohrid Agreement, and the percentage of Albanians only grows as more and more Slavs leave the country for the large diasporas in Europe, North America, and Australia. Sometimes Slav Macedonians take Bulgarian nationality offered to any Slav Orthodox inhabitant of FYROM (Bulgaria claims that Slav Macedonians are really Bulgarians, and until the 1940s most people in the area self-identified as Bulgarian, which is now conveniently forgotten in FYROM’s national mythology). While the economy improved in the early years of 2000s, mostly due to Greek investment and growth of the Greek bubble economy, all has once again collapsed. FYROM has always had over 25 percent unemployment and a per capita income one fourth that of Greece. Corruption and cronyism are rife; all economic activity is politicized and ethnicized.

Then there is the issue of Slav Macedonian identity. As is often the case in the most existential of times, particularly in this part of the world, the leadership became more, not less, provocative and nationalistic. The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (VRMO) won the election over the more moderate Slav party, and upped the rhetoric on Greece even as Albanian coalition partners grabbed key seats, including [!] the defense ministry. Prime Minister Gruevski, whose grandfather fought and died for Greece in Second World War, is at the forefront of a much harsher line on the name issue, backed to the hilt by diaspora cliques in Toronto and Melbourne. Whereas in the past most Slav Macedonians readily admitted no relation to the Ancient Macedonians, new official history now claims more or less direct ties with Alexander the Great, to the disdain of most academics, even in Skopje. Many now refuse to call themselves Slavs at all, seeking to distance their identity from Bulgarians and Serbs. Notwithstanding, more and more Slav Macedonians are rediscovering Bulgarian, Serbian, Vlach or Greek roots, even as the Albanian bloc grows.

Gruevski was the main impetus behind “Skopje 2014,” a megalomaniacal, bombastic plan to facelift Skopje with buildings, statues, and monuments of all styles (most recently there is talk of doing a replica of Rome’s Spanish Steps). This in a country at the edge of financial and political collapse. Best known is the giant kitsch statue of Alexander the Great, but they have also built neoclassical, Byzantine, and even baroque buildings to celebrate the glory of their threadbare state. Most unbiased critique has been negative about this massive construction project and local opposition figures remind us of the state of the economy and that most contracts were sweetheart deals.

In the midst of hard line politics, the EU has expressed frustration with FYROM’s increased nationalism, authoritarianism, and her simmering internal troubles. Greece and Bulgaria, as EU members, are sure to block the present FYROM regime’s EU application. Bulgarian nationalism is growing and many Bulgarians actively look for FYROM to fall apart in order to gain land and a population Bulgarians always claimed as theirs. Daily ethnic incidents between Slav and Albanians are deliberately downplayed but the economy is deteriorating and to think that the current state of FYROM is sustainable is to be delusional.

What Could Happen?

Virtually anything could set the spark. A fight at a soccer game, a political rally gone wrong, a confrontation at a church, mosque in any city or town with an ethnically mixed population, could set things off at digital Twitter/Facebook speed. FYROM’s army is tiny, ethnically mixed, with an Albanian Minister of Defense. Kosovo and Albania are next door and have porous borders over which guerillas could easily infiltrate. Within hours or days the country could be divided roughly west to east along the line of the Vardar (Axios) River, with enclaves elsewhere. This roughly corresponds to where Albanians have local majorities. The southern part of the country along the Greek border will likely remain in Slav hands, and Skopje itself will likely divide along ethnic lines. The Albanians will likely take as much land as possible to establish a fait accompli, and then be prepared to bargain out some of this land in a settlement.

And Then What?

After neglecting this part of the world, once again it comes to center stage. There will be calls for intervention, but who would intervene, either for humanitarian reasons or to try to stitch this “Humpty Dumpty” of a state back together again? The FYROM Albanians are likely to have been emboldened by Kosovo’s declaration of independence to try something similar. The most powerful military in the immediate border is Greece, but it is altogether likely that the Slav Macedonians might characterize any Greek intervention as an invasion of conquest. The same goes for the Bulgarians, who, unlike the Greeks, do have a latent territorial claim to parts of FYROM. Most importantly, Turkey may want to step in the fray, acting both as an “honest broker” having good relations with the Albanians, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, and with the Slav Macedonians, whose national aims they support vis-a-vis both Greece and Bulgaria. Also, there is a small Turkish minority in FYROM they can claim to support and to protect.

The prospect of a Turkish base in FYROM, to the rear of both Greece and Bulgaria, is terrifying. It would also likely result in a permanent Turkish presence there, because, as we know, when Turks occupy a place, they usually stay. It would also likely result in a de facto division of the country into a Greater Albania and a rump FYROM as a Turkish protectorate likely to be rabidly anti-Bulgarian and anti-Greek. The Turks would effectively control Greece’s road and rail corridor to Serbia, and therefrom to Central Europe, effectively giving Turkey control over Greece’s road access to Europe. From there Turkey could expand its political influence into a Greater Albania as well as Bosnia.

This is the worst case scenario, and likely Greece and Bulgaria would have to respond militarily to a Turkish attempt to re-colonize the Balkans and Russia would likely not remain idle. It is unlikely that Europe and America would stand for this either, particularly as Erdogan is increasingly less popular in the West. In order to forestall this, and a possible Greek-Turkish confrontation (or Russian intervention), NATO and the EU would probably intervene with rapid reaction forces (whatever is available) in a patch-together effort to separate warring parties and forestall outside intervention. With a throw-together peacekeeping/peacemaking force, they could probably do no more than stop the shooting war, and actually harden the lines.

Perhaps the international community would prevent the Albanian piece from declaring independence, and/or uniting with Albania and/or Kosovo. Perhaps FYROM will be like Cyprus, with a divided capital and a portion of its internationally recognized territory outside of its control. What is certain is that the state will become even more of a welfare case, dependent on its diaspora for a lifeline as well as the goodwill of its neighbors it can ill afford to upset. Bulgaria will likely press its claim for annexation, citing the large number of Slav Macedonians who have Bulgarian nationality. Whether the Slav Macedonians will accept annexation to Bulgaria is a matter of debate; it could cause its own mini-civil war, in fact. It is not impossible that stateless Slav Macedonians might launch their own liberation front, with support from the diaspora. Greece would not be unaffected.

Where does this leave Greece? The worst case is the Turkish incursion, or a low intensity insurgency affecting the region, including parts of Greek Macedonia. Even absent this scenario, FYROM’s breakup would be a cause for worry. A larger Albania is not at all in Greece’s interest, and certainly a war to our north would be a humanitarian disaster which Greece should care about. Further, Greece has considerable investment in the region that would suffer, and the Thessaloniki-Belgrade corridor is vital to the Greek economy. Watch this space. Like everything else concerning FYROM, “it’s complicated.” Let’s not forget, also, that 2014 is the centennial year of a world war that started in the Balkans. 124.186.96.6 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

It if "Former Republic of Macedonia" 79.129.4.128 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read WP:NCMAC. --Taivo (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sly transition of Macedonia into a monarchy with this name bears thinking about. CMD (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

The reports in the international rankings section are out of date. Current reports are as follows:

2013 Global Peace Index ranking - 79 [1]

2013 Worldwide Press Freedom Index - 116 [2]

2013 Index of Economic Freedom - 44 [3]

2013 Corruptions Perception Index - 67 [4]

2013 Human Development Index - 78 [5]

Wsh81 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources appear to be WP:V -
2013 Global Peace Index ranking - 79 of 162
2013 Worldwide Press Freedom Index - 116 of 179
2013 Index of Economic Freedom - 43 (not 44) of 177
2013 Corruptions Perception Index - 67 of 177
2013 Human Development Index - 78 of 207 --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/11/global-peace-index-2013
  2. ^ http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html
  3. ^ http://www.heritage.org/index/country/macedonia
  4. ^ http://www.transparency.org/country#MKD
  5. ^ http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/MKD
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&oldid=595991990"