Well, they were planning on announcing it at the party congress next tuesday. You know how the general secretary loves surprises.
More to the point: what makes you think that the general population of NATO countries would be the desired recipients of such a message? Or whether the message itself would have been desirable. Indeed, it would work *much* better had the serbs stayed quiet, and then pointed to the resulting bloodshed as examples of NATO aggression against the peace-loving serbian nation.
I think (given my own tendency for armchair quarterbacking) that the FRY recognizes that it is not a military match for NATO - either on the air or on the ground. The war, for them, is fought on the airwaves, in the hearts and minds of the citizenry (both domestically, to avoid a coup, and in NATO countries, to blunt their will to go to war). If so, better then to avoid seeming like the aggressors themselves.
Why would you want potential aggressors to know about your defenses, military or otherwise? If you have the doomsday machine, certainly; if not, probably not.
marco
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | We know what causes violence: poverty, <
> Marco Anglesio | discrimination, the failure of the <
> mpa at the-wire.com | educational system. It's not the genes <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | that cause violence in our society. <
> | --Paul Billings. <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'