>>Sounds there were three incidents yesterday in which Madeleine Albright
>>will be able to congratulate NATO for showing its moral superiority to
>>Milosevic by killing civilians by accident rather than on purpose. (!)
>>NATO is giving its responses slowly no doubt at least partly to diffuse the
>>news impact.
>>It sounds as if a small bridge was targetted on market day in the middle of
>>the day, instead of a larger bridge nearby. It was hit again after 15
>>minutes by the time rescuers had arrived to help the earlier victims.
>>Then there is the attack on the sanatorium in Surdelica, with another 11
>>reported dead, and the attack on the convoy of journalists in Kosovo.
>>All these may either build momentum for an early pause in the bombing or
>>momentum for Carter's strategy of putting more emphasis on ground troops.
>>Michale Pollak asked:-
>>>Has there been any indication that Macedonia has shifted from the position
>>>it has held since the beginning of the war, that it would not allow troops
>>>to attack Serbia from its territory? Or that Greece has shifted from its
>>>insistence that it will not allow Thessalonika to be used as a port of
>>>invasion? My impression from Tariq Ali's most recent article in
>>>Counterpunch is that both positions have if anything hardened. Without
>>>changes in those positions, an invasion from Macedonia is a fantasy. The
>>>only possible routes would be in from Albania, or attacking Montenegro and
>>>going in through there, or attacking the rest of Yugoslavia first through
>>>Hungary. In which case I wonder wonder what this targetting story
>>>represents -- ignorance, wishful thinking, posturing or secret diplomacy.
>>I would have thought that throughout, this war has developed through a
>>process of movement in which NATO has not been united but Clinton and Blair
>>have calculated at any one time how far the next move can go, and how to
>>prepare for it.
>>For example less than two weeks ago, Schroeder declared a ground invasion
>>"unthinkable". Blair and Cook got people thinking about it by proposing the
>>scenario of what would happen if the Serb troops were demoralised, lightly
>>armed, but not surrendering. The question was also posed about the need to
>>give a signal to Milosevic even if not acting upon it. Last week the troops
>>were built up to 50,000.
>>Although NATO continues to hold that the people of Kosovo should look only
>>to them, as condescending saviours, and that the KLA should not be armed,
>>the shelling by Serbs into Albania, has given an excuse for NATO planes to
>>work in close coordination with KLA fighters on the ground in attacking
>>Serb positions near the border. We could still see the scenario develop
>>that if the KLA could secure some land with infantry then the Apache
>>helicopters could move in behind this with safety from shoulder to air
>>rockets.
>>The Serb repetion of an agreement with the G8 principles today suggests the
>>possibility of an end soon.
>>All these different stories may contribute to NATO being able to shrug off
>>a day of 20 or more civilian deaths without having to call a pause in its
>>bombing.
>>What is the peace platform for the demonstrations planned for Washington
>>and London for 5th June? It will not be enough to have even a moderately
>>large demonstration in both capitals expressing moral objection to the war,
>>because that is counterbalanced by moral objection to what the Serbs have
>>done to the Kosovans.
>>Chris Burford
>>London