by Ljubiša Malenica for the Saker Blog

When one speaks of Srebrenica and events which transpired in that town, especially within context of Western media, a biased interpretation of events has already become the norm. The narrative, backed for years by media outlets, NGOs and The Hague tribunal, has focused on crimes and alleged crimes by Serb forces against the Muslim population, deliberately deciding to ignore two years of crimes by the so-called “Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina” against the Serbian civilians in the same region.

When Srebrenica is mentioned, it must remind of Serbian guilt and Muslim victims. Anything that questions this propaganda message must be kept away from the mainstream media so as to assure the preservation of the sterilized and idealized image of events presented to both domestic and foreign audiences.

Even a discussion about Serb victims cannot be allowed, as it opens space for unpleasant questions. The introduction of Serbian victims into the story of Srebrenica shakes the very foundation of established narrative, undermining the malicious premise of Serbian guilt. Serbian victims, especially those belonging to the category of civilians, point to the long-term presence of Serbs in the region and erode the image of “Serbian aggressors” who emerged from somewhere to destroy Bosnia and Herzegovina. Once the killing of innocent Serbs is accepted, then the question of who are the individuals or military units responsible for these crimes and destruction of Serbian property must inevitably be asked. This line of reasoning, immediately afterwards, proceeds to logically undermine a phrase very dear to the Western media, which continues to insist on the “demilitarized”[1][2][3] nature of the Srebrenica enclave.

The issue of perpetrators is automatically followed by question regarding severity of their punishment and its implementation. The knowledge that main organizers of Muslim attacks on Serbian villages went unpunished and that today are considered “exemplary” citizens of BiH, would further shake the narrative about Srebrenica, already on glass legs.

The need to preserve the image of Srebrenica as it was shaped by the Western media and the propaganda of the Muslim leadership from BiH does not exist in a vacuum. Moreover, Srebrenica has been used on several occasions, since war in Bosnia ended, as justification for alleged US humanitarian interventions in other countries.

During the aggression of the United States and its allies on FR Yugoslavia, Western demagogues and media personalities often referred to Srebrenica, noting, in a very serious voice and with a worried expression, how they would not allow its “repetition”. U.S. spokesmen in preparation for attack on Iraq also mentioned Srebrenica and warned that such events must not be allowed to be repeated under Saddam Hussein’s regime.[4] The attacks on Libya and the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi were preceded by a media campaign in which Srebrenica found its place again[5] only for motif of Srebrenica to finally be used during conflict in Syria as a tool in an attempt to further demonize the government of Bashar al-Assad.[6]

The irony of all this lies in the fact that events in Srebrenica, and their later interpretation, were instrumental in destruction of several stable states, where death toll was measured in tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilian victims, mostly Muslims. All of this came to pass by will of the same people who “determined“ what happened in Srebrenica and agreed that such a thing should never happen again.

As already pointed out, for the needs of internal stability of the Srebrenica narrative, Serbs could not exist as victims, while in the international context, Serbian victims could not be mentioned as that would humanize the enemy that West was warring against. The suffering of Serbs within the story of Srebrenica would by automatism indicate existence of the other side of the medal for each of conflicts listed above. Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, and of course Serbs, had to be thoroughly dehumanized so that the crimes against them would lose negative aspect and be accompanied with indifference or joy.

In an earlier text, entitled “US support for the project of Greater Albania” [7], the author drew attention to the development of the social background for the American society as it is today. At the heart of this development is leftist ideology. Within the previous text, this ideology is treated in somewhat broader lines, but for the purposes of this text, we will limit ourselves to a briefer explanation.

A thread of racial relations between the inhabitants of the United States has always run through US society. Fact that the first blacks arrived in United States as slaves over time became one of the basic identity characteristics for the black population. Needless to say, overemphasizing the role of victim can badly affect a certain community. Through mass media and the entertainment industry, a dichotomy has been created within American society since the 1960s. Whites in United States were assigned the role of oppressors while blacks, along with other minorities, became victims. The former have been pressured to develop a guilt complex while the latter where encouraged to accept the victim complex.

Multiculturalism and globalism transfered these relations to the global level, including Europe, where the European left, ideologically barren, accepted the new dogma from US and significantly expanded it through Western Europe, thus encouraging americanization of European nations.

By the means of a “long march through institutions,” American leftists have succeeded in imbedding their cadres within a large number of important positions both in American society and within US political structure. These ideologically imbued individuals and groups recognized in Serbs the historical actors who perfectly fitted the constructed stereotype of “bad guys”.

An illustrative example are the current developments in United States themselves. Despite their very different nature, death of George Floyd and the events in Srebrenica were covered by the Western media, especially the official ones, almost identically. The similarities are reflected in a few key details. The first, and perhaps the most important detail, is concentration of attention to the moment of the event itself. In case of Floyd, focus was given to the moment of his death, while within Srebrenica narrative, all attention was given over to the events after Serbian forces entered into the enclave. The image created in this manner is very narrow and simplified, thus it can be easily interpreted by means of a very simple good-bad dichotomy. At the same time, nature of this image provides those who created it with the opportunity to interpret it in a way most suited to their interests. Nothing else exists but an image and only that one moment becomes the foundation of reality.

Judging by data on his earlier life, George Floyd was not an exemplary citizen, moreover, his behavior was far from that. In period from 1998 to 2014, Floyd was arrested several times for criminal behavior and ended up in prison five times.[8] In 2007, he was arrested after, accompanied by others, he forcibly entered the house of a woman, who was also of African descent, and threatened her with a gun while others searched the building looking for money and narcotics. According to some sources, woman was pregnant at the time.[9][10]

As can be seen from the way George Floyd’s character and work are currently glorified, his earlier behavior seems to be non-existent and, through the media narrative, is completely separated from the framed moment which became the totality of Floyd’s existence. In that one moment, he is a martyr, and as such is portrayed through entirety of his life, even though such depiction is completely unrelated to reality. This exact perspective was used to observe the events in Srebrenica.

Attacks by Muslim forces, fact that a military unit, a division in fact, functioned within the “demilitarized” zone, and the killings of Serb civilians by that same military unit were completely ignored while the narrative of Srebrenica was taking shape. As in the case of Floyd, Srebrenica was reduced to a two-dimensional, low-resolution image in which the fall of the enclave became the only significant event. Moreover, one gets the impression it was this very event that inexplicably introduced Srebrenica itself into the currents of reality. As if the town in question did not exist before 1995.

This frozen moment served as a starting point for building the whole story regarding the event itself, in accordance with the wishes of those who interpreted it. During the narrative creation, it was necessary to divide the roles, which had to be clearly defined and opposed, in order to maintain the imposed perception of events and simplify its consumption by a society that has changed from civic to consumer. Earlier mentioned good-bad dichotomy enters the scene.

An accompanying feature of narrative development is demonization of the other through generalization, neglect of facts and manipulation of data from the field so as to burden the perception of events with additional emotional baggage. In turn, this further leads to reduced ability to rationally perceive happenings by those defined as victims and rational contemplation by those who are interested in objectively investigating the case in question. Conformism is required and it is forbidden to question the established “truth”, but only to accept the role of the victim, the culprit or the observer who inevitably takes the side of the victim, so that his humanity itself would not be called into question.

As we pointed out earlier, George Floyd was not an exemplary citizen, much less someone who deserves to be hailed as a hero, but that doesn’t matter. Roles were assigned and the narrative set. Those who accept the narrative are allies and, according to the logic of the narrative itself, “good guys”, while everyone else falls into the category of “villains”, even those whose only sin is found in desire to investigate certain segments of the story, so as to create a more complete picture . The frozen moment must not be disturbed in any way.

Having established an “appropriate” picture of the events in Srebrenica, the Western media, wholeheartedly supported by the political elites, conveyed through generalization sentiment related to these particular events onto the entire course of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosmet. Retroactively, Serbs became the “bad guys” of the wars from the nineties, not in terms of military units or political leadership, but as an entire nation.[11] Some Western media, such as the British Guardian, supported bombing of FR Yugoslavia by emphasizing that Serbs, again as a nation, were incapable of running their own affairs and needed to be reduced to status of an international protectorate. London’s attempt to push through United Nations a resolution that would characterize the events in Srebrenica as genocide and declare July 11 a day of remembrance is an excellent example of the mentioned demonization, given that the entire document was ranged against Serbs as a collective.[12][13]

The manipulation of information about the events in Srebrenica and war in Bosnia, by Western media, was ubiquitous, starting from the alleged number of Muslim victims to the real nature of the so-called “demilitarized” zone in Srebrenica. Already in the first half of 1993, Muslim political leadership claimed that 200.000 Muslims in Bosnia had died since war began. Although the inflation was obvious, the Western media accepted it unreservedly, as it corresponded with the narrative.[14] The same thing happened during the war in Kosmet, where American officials claimed in the early days of conflict that the number of dead Albanians exceeded half a million. After the end of the war in BiH, it turned out that the total number of victims on all sides was around 100.000, while the final figure in Kosovo ranged between six and seven thousand dead on both sides.

When prompted to speak about Srebrenica, Western officials and media will never mention the claim of an experienced British journalist, Joan Phillips, that by March 31, 1993, of the 9.300 Serbs who had previously resided in Srebrenica, less than 900 remained, nor the fact that by that time about 26 Serb villages had already been destroyed. There is no discussion of Islamist ideological background to Alija Izetbegovic political activities, which is recognized easily enough from his “Islamic Declaration”, a text that does not differ in nature from the propaganda material of Islamic terrorist groups. Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie insisted that the black-and-white narrative represented in the media did not correspond to the situation on the ground, pointing out that „evidence to date suggests that he (Naser Oric, a Bosnian Muslim commander in Srebrenica) was responsible for killing as many Serb civilians outside Srebrenica as the Bosnian Serb army was for massacring Bosnian Muslims inside the town.”[15]

Forensic expert dr. Zoran Stanković, long before July 1995, discovered more than a thousand corpses of Serbs in the vicinity of Srebrenica, but of course he could not be trusted, he was a Serb and therefore completely unreliable as a source. The narrative insisted so. The stingy articles of Bill Schiller, Toronto Star journalist and John Pomfret, Washington Post journalists, within which Oric boasted about murder of Serbs, attracted little attention and were quickly forgotten. The book “Planned Chaos” by a Muslim official from Srebrenica, Ibran Mustafić, which unreservedly defines Naser Oric as a war criminal, was neglected despite the fact that the author was one of the “good guys”. As in previous cases, he deviated from the established narrative.

After discovery of mass graves, which supposedly indicated Serbian responsibility, couple of facts were conveniently overlooked. First among them is discovery of Serbian remains among the bodies, while the second one is that Muslim soldiers who had died in earlier fighting or attempted breakthrough from Srebrenica were included in the category of victims.[16]

As can be noticed, even within the West there were people from different spheres of life who sought to present events on the ground in accordance with their real nature. Since their views did not coincide with the desired image of the Western political elite and large media houses, very little attention was paid to them.

Data manipulation and demonization of rivals[17] were the initial steps in an attempt at social engineering, directed against the Serbian people, where guilt over the events in Srebrenica was to become the central motive on which to base future Serbian identity. An identity created in this manner would, over time, lead to loss of attachment to the Serbian nationality, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, and the extinction of the nation. Insisting on a version of events supported by the West and the Muslim leadership reflects this intention.

This is not the first time that American media and administration have attempted something similar. As we pointed out earlier, referring to contemporary events in the United States, one of the current foundations of American society is a concept, invented and advocated by the American left, known as “white” guilt.

At the heart of this perspective lies the claim that those residents of United States who are of European descent are to blame for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, given that the first enslaved blacks were brought to America mostly by European slave traders. Several logical errors immediately catch the eye, which taken together make the complete idea insane and dangerous. When we talk about the slave trade and slavery as a social phenomenon, we must start from the fact that every human society, regardless of geographical location, at one point in history considered the existence of slaves a completely normal and acceptable social phenomenon. Throughout history, there were slaves of both sexes, of all ages and in all skin colors. It is a historical fact that Europeans were not the only ones to trade in black slaves. The Arabs did the same, together with African tribal chiefs and kings who sold prisoners from other tribes, and otherwise socially undesirable individuals, to slave traders.

The reactions of several important African rulers to decision of Great Britain from 1807, which prohibits any slave trade as an illegal act, are illustrative. The king of the African state Bonny, occupying the Niger delta, reacted to the British decision with dismay, emphasizing how “we think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”[18] Some thirty years later, King of Dahomey (the contemporary state of Benin), another famous African kingdom, noted during negotiations with British envoys that “the slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…“[19] Slavery in Africa was present for hundreds of years, long before the black slave trade for American plantations began, and interestingly, the question of black slave-owners possessing black slaves never arises. As can be seen from the narrative present within American society, “Muslim” and “black” guilt for the slave trade does not exist at all.

The question of time arises of itself, considering that today not one slaveowner of that period, either European, Muslim and African, is among the living. Undoubtedly there are those among the American population who are descendants of European slaveowners but the logical question is how can they bear any guilt for something their ancestors did three to four hundred years ago? The notion of “white” guilt does just that and removes the time dimension completely. Belonging to the white race is enough for a person currently alive to bear the blame for real or imagined sins of their ancestors from the distant past. If we follow logic of this argument to its end, it turns out that every race and nation on this planet is to be blamed for something that happened in the past. All Asian nations bear the blame for millions of killed and enslaved by the Mongols, while the whole of Africa must take responsibility for the actions of ancient Carthage, one of the largest slave-trading centers of the ancient Mediterranean.

There are no innocents, moreover, every individual is guilty for the crimes of his ancestors, regardless of whether they are real, the product of propaganda or ignorance. Within the demagoguery of the American leftist elite, this idea of ​​guilt will never be implemented to its logical end, since that would lead to a situation in which everyone is guilty and where there are no victims. This, of course, damages the constructed image of the world, therefore it becomes necessary to employ manipulation, lies, and fifth-column structures within targeted societies or groups. In Serbia and generally in Serbian lands, groups such as Women in Black, the Center for Decontamination and the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies are among some of the most infamous fifth-column structures at the moment.

The very notion of “white guilt” is, in its essence, racist. Name itself directly encompasses the totality of the white race, and thus, in the slave trade conducted mostly by limited number of people from Western Europe, all whites become accomplices and culprits. The fact that, for example, the Slavic countries in the Balkans never had colonies in Africa, and that they themselves were under Turkish yoke at the same time, means nothing to leftist ideologues. Despite cases being the same, or very similar, according to the “white guilt” narrative in the United States, it is enough to be white to become a culprit. In the end, we find ourselves in a situation where racists and auto-chauvinists with ease proclaim their ideology, labeling all those who oppose them as racists and chauvinists.

All of the above, step by step, can be applied to the events in Srebrenica and the narrative that was later built around it. The responsibility of Muslims and, if we look at the totality of war in Bosnia, of Croats for crimes against Serbs within the construction of the Western media does not exist, which according to twisted internal logic leads to the conclusion that the crimes in question were never committed. The British resolution, which Russian veto sent to the garbage heap of history, where it belongs, was an attempt to erase the temporal dimension by raising Srebrenica to a level of an event that would on a yearly basis remind all Mankind of the alleged Serbian guilt.

The language of the British resolution, when it comes to Srebrenica, is there with the intention of creating a national version of “white” guilt within Serbian people, mostly using the collective name Serbs to characterize participation in any political, social or military event during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. These events are always characterized as bad, regardless of the real situation, and by participating in them, Serbs are therefore defined as bad, collectively. The fact that Serbs are not a monolithic mass that is always completely in the same place or takes part in the same activities seems to be too abstract for Western journalists and officials.

Of course, issue here is neither naivety nor ignorance of facts, but a clearly defined intention to attribute blame for crimes, regardless of whether they are real or not, upon Serbs collectively and then to demand social change, “examination” of the past, fight against “evil” nationalism and the like, all the intellectual swill we’ve been listening for decades. In time, “guilt” would shift from the cultural to the political sphere, where, given their status as villains, Serbs would be expected to make political concessions aimed at further weakening their own interests.

The resolution of Great Britain itself becomes very interesting when you look at it in parallel with documents from which London recently removed the label of top secret, and which refer to the events in Srebrenica. Namely, within the published material, it is clearly stated that the attack on Srebrenica occurred as a reaction to provocations of Muslim formations from within the enclave itself.[20] Moreover, British documentation points out that the attack was not planned by then political and military leadership of Republic of Srpska, but is attributed to the initiative of the local military commander.[21] The size of the forces involved in the attack, one infantry company and four tanks, suggests limited initial targets which were later expanded when the absence of Muslim resistance was noticed. One of the most interesting segments of the new documentation refers to the suspicions of the Canadian government at the time regarding the real reasons for almost non-existent defense by Muslim forces and the fact that about two thousand Muslim soldiers participated in withdrawal to Tuzla, during which significant number of them died combating Serbian forces.

All of these informations must have been known to the authorities in London from the very beginning, so the case of British resolution must be viewed from perspective of an attempt to preserve the spent Western narrative about the events in the Srebrenica enclave.

The neglect of Serbian victims, in service of emphasizing Serbian guilt, can also be seen through the attempt of United States and its allies to divert public attention from activities which, ideologically speaking, countries full of self-praise for freedom, democracy and respect of human rights could not afford. The most important of these is the question of connection between United States, that is CIA, and presence of mujahedin in Bosnia.

During the civil war, Muslim forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina were assisted in weapons, equipment, money and volunteers by a significant number of Muslim countries such as Turkey, Iran, Malaysia, Sudan, Brunei, Pakistan, UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The US administration was fully aware of the weapons smuggling for the Muslim forces, and even assisted the process through the private military company MPRI, which in 1996 delivered 46.000 rifles, 1.000 machine guns, 80 armored personnel carriers, 45 tanks, 840 anti-tank weapons and 15 helicopters.[22][23] The American MPRI received 350 million dollars from the above-mentioned Muslim countries for the needs of training and equipping Muslims in BiH.

In addition to money, these countries sent Islamist volunteers to Bosnia and Herzegovina, including members of al-Qaeda, which did not trouble American political representatives at that time.

Two Islamists from Bosnia and Herzegovina later took part in the attack upon the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001[24] closing a deadly circle where United States trained and equipped the same individuals who later killed around 3.000 American citizens. This unpleasant truth was suppressed and within the Western media, the entire war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was reduced to the events in Srebrenica. In time, the truth about the Islamists involved in the attack on the United States became available to the public, but by the time attack on the Twin Towers in New York could provide clearer insights into the nature of the war in BiH, Serbs were already branded as the only culprits.

When it comes to Srebrenica, an unavoidable topic is the game with the number of alleged victims. According to the sources of Western countries and organizations themselves, the dogmatic figure of 8.000 is mere inflation and any further addition of victims, which the Sarajevo political and intellectual elite strives for, is nothing but a morbid show that is repeated annually for the international and domestic needs of the Muslim political leadership.

Two months after Serb forces took control of Srebrenica, the then director of operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross for Western Europe, Angelo Gnaedinger, asked the leadership from Republic of Srpska and FRY for information on “about the 3.000 persons from Srebrenica whom witnesses say were arrested by Bosnian Serb forces”[25] In the same period, Red Cross inquired from Muslim political leadership information regarding the fate of approximately 5.000 people who fled Srebrenica.

Eyewitnesses mentioned in the Red Cross report were actually members of a Dutch unit stationed in Srebrenica under the UNPROFOR flag. As they left the enclave, in a statement for the New York Times, Dutch soldiers pointed out that “that Bosnian Serb invaders executed at least 10 Muslim defenders and abducted between 150 and 300 men between the ages of 16 and 60”.[26] Interestingly, article continues emphasizing how the “Dutch accounts, by soldiers, officers and the Defense Minister, were unanimous in asserting that the Bosnian Muslim soldiers who had been under siege in Srebrenica for three years abandoned the town around two days before it fell. Before the defenders left the town, General Couzy said, Dutch soldiers saw “in two locations there was fighting between Muslims themselves, between those who wanted to stay and those who wanted to go.” Many Dutch soldiers said they had been upset and troubled by the sight of soldiers seeming to abandon their wives and children to the advancing Serbs.” If Serbs were truly so abominable and bloodthirsty, as the narrative would suggest, one might inquire which man in right mind would leave his wife and children to the mercy of the advancing forces?

It is important to keep in mind that several thousand Muslim men fled from Srebrenica. Are we to conclude all these individuals had no love for their family members? Should we believe all of them were so selfish to place their own survival above that of their loved ones, or could we presume they left their families behind because they knew Serbs would not actually harm women and children? Interesting question for sure. However, of key importance is the obvious difference between the figures given by Dutch troops, familiar with the events on the ground, and the Red Cross, looking for data on ten times more alleged missing persons two months later.

In a September 1995 article, American Associated Press carried out additional inflation of alleged victims, emphasizing how “8,000 Muslims are missing from Srebrenica.” [27] The language of the article, which was later taken over by the New York Times and other media, is such that it leads reader to conclude Serbs were responsibe for disappearances.

The manipulation becomes obvious when you take into account a fact that in the same period, Red Cross requested from political leadership in Sarajevo information on the fate of 5.000 people from Srebrenica who left enclave at the beginning of the Serbian offensive. Considering that these five thousand people were not mentioned in talks with the Serbian leadership, it is a logical assumption that the Red Cross did not consider Serbs responsible for their disappearance nor a source of information regarding their ultimate fate. Moreover, in the same article, the then US ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, referring to US intelligence data photographs, “said they were strong evidence that Serbs executed as many as 2.700 people from the Muslim enclave.”[28] What Madeleine forgot to point out is the fact that a significant number of Muslims were killed in the conflict with Serbian forces during the breakthrough from the enclave. [29]

If, for the purposes of this text, we accept Albright’s figure, then there can be no possible discourse about eight thousand victims. The magic number of 8.000 further loses its legitimacy when you take into account the fact that most of the previously mentioned five thousand “missing persons” were found alive and well in the territory controlled by Muslim forces. A New York Times article points out that “3.000 to 4.000 Bosnian Muslims who were considered by United Nations officials to be missing after the fall of the Srebrenica enclave have made their way through enemy lines to Bosnian Government territory.”[30] The same information is published by London Times.

It is of extreme importance to notice how articles dealing with this event avoid mentioning the true nature of participants in this long march towards Muslim controlled territory. In the New York Times text they are referred as “Bosnian Muslims” and “missing” and give impression of civilians or at least non-combatants. In truth, participants of the breakthrough from Srebrenica were military aged males, armed and equipped for combat and overwhelmingly members of the 28th division. Those who perished during this military operation overwhelmingly died in combat against Serbian forces and fights with each other.[31]

Drazen Erdemovic’s testimony is taken as one of the basic elements of the accusation and a kind of confirmation of Serbian responsibility. Erdemovic, during his testimony, points out that he took part in the murder of 1.200 Muslims on a farm near Pilica, but the investigation of the Hague Tribunal forensic team at place indicated by Erdemovic found between 150 and 200 bodies, which again circles back to the initial testimony of Dutch soldiers.

Moreover, Professor Milivoje Ivanisevic from the University of Belgrade, while reviewing the list of missing persons, the one compiled by the Red Cross, determined it contained the names of five hundred people who died before Serbian troops entered Srebrenica. Further comparing the Red Cross list with voter lists for 1996 elections, Ivanisevic found that 3.016 persons listed as missing were simultaneously registered as fullfledged voters, suggesting either electoral fraud or the fact that those allegedly executed were actually alive.[32]

By this point in time, the numbers game is all but obvious. Presence of Bosnian Muslims military personnel inside the “demilitarized” zone is an unquestionable fact, as is the breakthrough operation these units initiated as Serbian forces moved into Srebrenica. Many of these soldiers, in attempt to reach safety of territory under Muslim control, died either in combat or internecine clashes. Depending on the author, number of military casualties varies from around two thousand to almost five thousand Muslim dead. This begs a rather simple question. Where were all of these dead soldiers buried? Answer is obvious. They were used to inflate the number of supposed victims of “genocide” and were buried in Potocari. Author believes that for all intense and purposes, Potocari can be considered a military graveyard.

Recently finished work of the International Commission on suffering of Serbs in Sarajevo between 1991 and 1995[33] already upended the story of Sarajevo as a city besieged by dastardly Serbs who were using Muslim citizenry for target practice. The fact that Sarajevo had more than 200[34] camps, prisons and confinement sites for Serbs alone tarnishes the rather sterile picture of the Bosnian capital presented by mainstream media in the last 25 years. Work of the second commission, dealing with events in Srebrenica itself should be finished this year and further diminish already crumbling genocide narrative.

As part of their international efforts, regarding the events in Srebrenica, the Serbian political and intellectual elite must use fertile ground of the Russian Federation and China, which are ready to listen and cooperate constructively with Serbian experts on this topic. On several occasions, the Russian media has clearly shown interest in presenting the Serbian perspective and sources. On the other hand, in countries such as United States and UK, which are openly opposed to Serbian interests, it is necessary to recognize domestic actors, interested in the truth, and cooperate with them for purpose of refuting the already established narrative. The Serbian diaspora can play a significant role and it is therefore necessary to support, in every form, the efforts and work of Serbian emigrants in the West, given that this activity must be observed within efforts for preservation of Serbian identity and national belonging among those who were born or emigrated to other countries.

Our guiding idea in these endeavors should be the thought of ​ noble Tesla: “Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.”

Ljubiša Malenica was Born in Sarajevo in 1988. Elementary and High school attended in Srpsko Sarajevo. In 2014, after successful defense of master thesis “Geopolitics of the Byzantine Empire”, finished Master Degree Program in International Relations and Diplomacy at Faculty of Political Sciences in Sarajevo. Bearer of the Silver Badge award, awarded by University of Sarajevo for exemplary record and achievements during bachelor and master studies.  In roles of either organizer, lecturer or participant took part in 40 individual events, ranging from workshops, international conferences and festivals with themes reaching from international relations to education.  Author of more than forty articles dealing with topics of politics, geopolitics, international relations and society, published by several portals in Serbia, United States, Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Translated sixty different texts dedicated to medieval Serbian cultural heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina for association of history students “Dr. Milan Vasić” from Banja Luka. He has an excellent command of English with very basic knowledge of French, Chinese and Russian.

Currently lives and works in East Sarajevo.




The Essential Saker IV: Messianic Narcissism's Agony by a Thousand Cuts
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA