Friday, December 23, 2011

Don't rewrite Balkan history

National Post · Dec. 23, 2011
Last month, the National Post published an article entitled "A country called Macedonia" that contained scathing commentary about Greece - commencing with a reference to Greece's economic strife and segueing into a critique of Greece's opposition to the use of the name "Macedonia" by its northern neighbour. These accusations require a response.
Macedonia and the Macedonian identity have been integral parts of Greek history and culture since some of the first Hellenic tribes (known as Macedonians) settled northern Greek lands almost 4,000 years ago. Many renowned historians dispute the claims contained in the above-referenced article.
Apart from the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon - which existed almost entirely in what is now modern Greece - there had never been another "state" of Macedonia until communist Yugoslavia renamed its southern Vardarska Governorate region as the "People's Republic of Macedonia" in 1943. This was a plan to acquire Greek territory after the Second World War, harkening back to territorial aspirations that neighbouring states had on Greece's outlet to the Mediterranean. Greece objected, and the U.S. State Department noted this planned territorial grab with alarm in an official 1944 document.
The massive 1992 response of one-million-plus Macedonian Greeks demonstrating in Thessaloniki, the historic capital of Macedonia, against Yugoslav-Skopian Pseudomakedonism.
Left: Skopje promoting iredentist "United Makedonija".
Right: Makedonia in 1912 and in antiquity.
In 1991, when the Slavic republic broke from Yugoslavia, declaring independence under the name "Republic of Macedonia," Greece reacted strongly again. This was not a reflection of some spurious Greek political whim: The issue came before the UN Security Council. In 1993, the UN recommended that this Slavic republic be provisionally accepted into the UN as "the FYROM" (an abbreviation of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) until a mutually agreed UN-brokered solution. The government of FYROM agreed to these terms; yet it and its diaspora groups court foreign governments and media using all their power to promote it as the "Republic of Macedonia" - against UN wishes.
Greece did not invade any country named Macedonia, as is suggested in the aforementioned National Post article. In fact, in 1912, Greece liberated the area of the modern Greek province of Macedonia, where Greeks have lived since antiquity, from the Turks, leading to jubilation in the streets. The 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, which is referenced in the article in question, set the borders of a defeated Bulgaria vis-à-vis its neighbours after the Second Balkan War. Centuriesold Ottoman censuses, as well as those of other Western powers, do not record any "Macedonian" ethnic group or nation; and allegations of killings of "Macedonians" do not reflect historical consensus on the matter. The fact is that there are 2.5 million Greeks in the Greek province of Macedonia, and one million Macedonian Greeks in the diaspora who have always called themselves "Macedonians."

Greece has never viewed the name "Macedonia" as taboo, as the National Post article claimed; and is as proud of its Macedonian heritage as it is of its Athenian and Spartan ones. In fact, Greece was the first modern state to officially revive the name "Macedonia" in 1914 after years of Ottoman rule and Bulgarian expansionism.
Despite increasing public discord over its own economy (including 30% unemployment), limited media freedom, a large Albanian minority that rejects this new "Macedonian" identity, and other issues, the FYROM has spent millions to reinforce "Macedonism" on its people. This includes the erection of colossal public statues, renaming landmarks and thoroughfares after ancient Greek per-sonalities, and the proliferation of schoolbooks/maps showcasing a "Greater" (or "United") Macedonia - a geopolitical artifice containing Greek and Bulgarian territory. State media proselytizes "Macedonism" feverishly: A 2009 TV segment had "God" saying the country's inhabitants are "Macedonoids - progenitors of the white race" whereas others are "Negroids, Mongoloids, and Mullatoes." 

Three months ago, the main square in the capital of Skopje showcased a giant flag of a "United Macedonia," as part of the 20th celebrations of independence from Yugoslavia. As a result, Greece is not "paranoid about losing its northern territory" - without legitimate cause for concern for what may foment now and manifest itself in the future.
The recent International Court of Justice's judgment against Greece regarding the FYROM's 2008 NATO bid is not binding on the alliance. The court did not consider the fact that NATO allies decide by consensus, and this consensus was not there for the FYROM's bid. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the ruling of the ICJ, NATO maintains the position that the FYROM's accession to NATO is predicated on a resolution of the country-name issue with Greece.
The FYROM's irredentism isn't characteristic of a 21st-century country wishing good neighbourly relations. This is what Canadians should consider when they hear the complaints of the FYROM partisans, such as those who expressed themselves in your pages.
* The authors are leaders of the Hellenic Congress of Quebec, PanMacedonian Association of Canada, Hellenic Community of Greater Montreal, Macedonian Association "Philip-Alexander," Macedonian Association "Alexander the Great," Brotherhood Vogatsioton Kastorias "Ion Dragoumis," Society of Kastorians "Omonia," Pontian Association of Montreal "Efxinos Pontos," Greek Community of Toronto, and Hellenic Community of Vancouver. These groups represent more than 200,000 Canadians of Greek descent.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

FYROM vs Macedonia: In order for one to play with the big boys, one has to be a big boy!

They heard its Time to play with the big boys”, so they cross dressed as some sort of "Macedonians"

Let us Stick to Facts!

By Marcus A. Templar1
United “Macedonian” Diaspora’s recent underhanded vitriolic attack against anything and everything Greek and Greece, has raised questions as to the content of UMD’s accusations2. The article appeared on the National Post, which was more than happy to print trash without checking facts against true sources such as the UN, International Red Cross, etc.
The Skopjans have brought up the subject of paidomazoma and the Greek Civil War. According to them, the Slavs were killed and children were kicked out of their land. In essence they have unwillingly admitted that their parents committed treason against Greece by fighting the democratic forces of Greece in favor of their communist patrons. They also admitted that the well-known to the Greeks as paidomazoma (gathering of children) or children refugees, as the Skopjans are enjoying calling that occurred between 1948 and 1949 was actually genocide, except that the gathering of the children was done by them. I must explain that Skopje has been caught red-handed committing it as recorded in the annals of the UN and Red Cross, along with the reaction of Harry S. Truman, XXXIII President of the United States and Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. My essay “Eliminating Opposition One Way or Another” offers a few facts on the matter while adding the plight of the Swabian Germans3.
I am offering furthermore web links to United Nations General Assembly Resolutions that explain a few things for truth’s sake (UNGA 313 Plenary Meeting, December 1, 1950 § 381, §282 A, B, C; UNGAR 508-510, 355 Plenary Meeting, December 14, 1951, and UNGAR 517 (VI), 371 Plenary Meeting, February 2, 19524.
The Canadian Minister of Defense Robert G. MacKay’s statement regarding “consensus minus one” for new membership was a political absurdity aimed to collect votes from the desperate Skopjan diaspora given that in order to adopt such a change, consensus is required. There are a number of countries besides Greece that would not consent to the proposal, i.e. Skopje’s ally Turkey and Albania. Under that proposal, Turkey would have no say on Cyprus joining NATO and Albania would be out of the loop from objecting to Serbia’s membership before its recognition of Kosovo’s independence.
Regarding the ICJ, Eric A. Posner, Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar at the University of Chicago, author of a series of essays on Intelligence, Security and International Law has concluded in the essay “Is the International Court of Justice Biased?”
The data suggest that national bias has an important influence on the decision making of the ICJ. Judges vote for their home states about 90 percent of the time. When their home states are not involved, judges vote for states that are similar to their home states—along the dimensions of wealth, culture, and political regime.
By its very statute (article 65.I) the Court’s opinions are advisory and do not interfere with national security or internal issues of member states. The ICJ advisory opinion per FYROM’s request on whether Greece had violated the Interim Agreement was unfortunate and clearly political. It is an erroneous opinion.
If the only country that objected was Greece, NATO decision would have stated that the FYROM did not meet the requirements of the Alliance, period. The fact is that the Alliance not only stated that the FYROM meet the requirements, but in addition it set a special pre-condition that the FYROM had to solve the name dispute before it can get the desired membership. That means that NATO went much further that an alleged simple objection by Greece. A single country could not have swayed and reversed the opinion of the Alliance, including Turkey and Slovenia, both known for their pro-Skopjan stance unless they all thought that they had to have trustworthy members among them. The Court has missed the point, because the Greek side did not make the connection to this fact. The FYROM was found untrustworthy of a military alliance.
In April 2008, NATO had taken a decision by consensus not to invite Skopje to join it because of its name dispute with a member state, Greece. The decision came about by consensus, not because of a veto, but because a number of countries did not want to bring a problem into the Alliance5.
As for the effect of the ICJ advisory opinion on NATO decisions, it will be nil. The internal procedures of NATO could not be touched by the ICJ finding it as being not competent to decide. Since NATO membership is voluntary, candidate states have to meet all requirements (pre-conditions and criteria) with exceptions. The attitude of the Alliance basically is “take or leave it.” One of the pre-conditions is that a solution of the name issue to Greece’s satisfaction is a must. This can be reversed only by consensus as long as such a decision does not affect the national security of a state member (Greece), not the way Skopje likes it to be, but the way Greece understands it. This is very important because if the national security of a state member is at risk, the whole Alliance is at risk.
The argument by Skopje that Greece should allow it to join NATO and EU and then solve the problem is definetely another maneuver. Firstly during the last twenty years of the dispute, Skopje has indicated that it does not think of changing the name of the country not adhering to the principle pacta sunt servanda. Secondly Greece did not disallow Skopje to join NATO, but since it was a collective decision, the Alliance has to reverse itself. It is not going to happen because it is a matter of national security of its member Greece. In addition, Turkey is a bad example of political bad faith in negotiations with the EU and thus since most of the countries of NATO are members of the EU, NATO is not about to consent.
Skopje keeps bringing up the agreement between Slovenia and Croatia to settle their disputes after Croatia joined NATO. The border disputes between the two countries are negligible next to the name dispute between Skopje and Greece considering Skopje’s behavior. The border disputes of those two countries do not closely amount in strategic importance naming Old Serbia (later Governorate of Vardar) to Macedonia. The future of Greece depends as a country on it. Greece has very legitimate strategic concerns against the FYROM, because under the aegis of a powerful patron the FYROM could officially claim Greek territories and even acquire them. The matter of Eastern Rumelia in 1885 and Kosovo in 2001 are powerful examples on how the Great Powers work in the Balkans. It would be unwise if Greece allowed the FYROM to set the foundations for a second Asia Minor catastrophe.
The dispute between Greece and Skopje involves territorial claim on the 34,177 km2 (13,195.8 sq mi) real estate of the Greek region of Macedonia, inhabited by 2.5 million Macedonian Greeks. A good example would be bringing Slovenia and Austria into the discussion. Could Slovenia be a member of NATO or EU if it had raised directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially claims on Austrian territories of Carinthia (Koroška) and Styria (Štajerska)? Not a chance. But the Slovenes are simply intelligent, not conniving! The fact that the FYROM has modified its Constitution means nothing compared to the constant demonstrations of maps of a united Macedonia promoted internally and abroad. One should compare these indications to the pre-Falklands War period when “a generation of school children had been taught that the Malvinas were Argentine. Postage stamps proclaimed that the Islands were a part of the Argentine Republic. Argentine maps labeled the Islands as “occupied territory6.”
Skopje’s defense sufficiency does not provide or set as a target the security of all defensive means, as well as the quality of manpower, which constitute the necessary and sufficient conditions for the deterrence of any threat. At the same time, a systematic effort for the introduction of new technology and weapon systems that ensure the maximization of “cost-effectiveness” is absent because of lack of funding. The FYROM lacks necessary funding to buy new weapon systems and new equipment. Crop dusters cannot replace F- 16s. Besides, serious sums have been diverted from the Defense to the Ministry of Internal Affairs denoting that Skopje’s true enemies are internal not external.
In other words the FYROM not only does not meet the set pre-conditions, it does not meet NATO criterion of “Added transaction costs of a new member for the alliance’s cohesion and ability to perform its main missions on the basis of consensus” since it spends only 1.4% of its GDP while the required minimum percentage is 2%. Furthermore, the FYROM and UMD constant attack on the consensus decisionmaking of the Alliance, makes NATO decision makers wonder why should they accept a candidate who fights the way the organization works?
In addition, the article has attacked Greece’s financial mess, but we all know that financial services companies as Standard & Poor, Fitch, Moody’s and Dagong have downgraded a number of euro zone countries and one of them, S&P has threatened to downgrade 15 euro zone countries, including Germany and France. Is the attack against Greece by association an attack against all 15? The fact however comes from a study by the Bonn International Center for Conversion, which indicates that despite its financial mess, Greece spends 3.6% of its GDP versus 1.4% of the FYROM with BB rating stable economy!
But there is something else that one must consider. It is the testimony coming from the FYROM’s White Paper on Defense, which states,
The Republic of Macedonia [sic] is of the firm belief that isolated security systems, especially those of small and developing countries, are irrational and inefficient. Since its independence the Republic of Macedonia [sic] has therefore focused on participating in collective security activities with the ultimate objective of becoming a NATO member. To the Republic of Macedonia [sic], there is no alternative approach except to join NATO and the EU. This opinion has a wide political consensus robustly supported by the vast majority of the citizens.”
Breaking down the above statement one concludes that the proclamation made by the FYROM’s Ministry of Defense. “This opinion has a wide political consensus robustly supported by the vast majority of the citizens” is false. According to the MIA News Agency a total of 66.5 percent “the vast majority of its citizens” chose the name against 26.2% who favored FYROM’s EU, NATO membership8.
In addition to the conflict of statements, we have FYROM’s admission that for its security depends on NATO not on its own armed forces. It is nothing wrong with such mentality considering the size of the country. However that country may not simultaneously consider itself that important, indeed the center of the Earth, while it begs NATO for its external security and at the same time diverting its forces against its own citizens as we saw above. In view of the fact that it has realized that “there is no alternative approach except to join NATO and the EU” the FYROM has to conform to the conditions for membership of those two organizations. In order for one to play with the big boys, one has to be a big boy. Let us stick to facts!

1Marcus A. Templar is a former U.S. Department of Defense Subject Matter Expert in Intelligence Analysis specializing in the Balkans. He holds an MA in Human Resource Development from Northeastern Illinois University and an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the U.S. National Intelligence University (U.S. National Defense Intelligence College). He is member of National Intelligence Education Foundation (USA), National Military Intelligence Association (USA), Political Studies Association of the UK, Greek Politics Specialist Group (Greece).
2Metodija A. Koloski & Mark Branov, “Time to let Macedonia play with the big boys” National Post Nov 28, 2011, (accessed December 13, 2011).
3Marcus A. Templar, “Eliminating Opposition One Way or Another”,el/ (accessed December 11, 2011).
4Secretary General Trygve Halvdan Lie, United Nations, Treats to the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece, repatriation of Greek children (Lake Success, 1949). (accessed 2011), (accessed December 13, 2011), and (accessed December 13, 2011).
5Marcus A. Templar, “NATO is a Bona-Fide Military Alliance, not a Socio-Political Private Club”,el/ (accessed December 11, 2011).
6Lieutenant Commander, Richard D. Chenette, USN, “The Argentine Seizure of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands: History and Diplomacy” Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Marine Corps Development and Education Command, (Quantico, May 04, 1987). (accessed December 13, 2011).
7Jan Grebe and Jerry Sommer, , “Greece: High military expenditures despite the financial crisis,” Bonn International Center for Conversion, (accessed December 11, 2011).
8“Poll: Citizens choose name over Macedonia’s EU, NATO membership, Skopje, 12 July 2010” MIA,, accessed December 12, 2011).

AHEPA's reply to Koloski's and Branov's hateful writings on the National Post

National Post
Editor Department
1450 Don Mills Road, Suite 300
Don Mills, ON
Fax: 1 (416) 368-2305

December 13, 2011

Re: “Time to let Macedonia play with the big boys”, Full Comment, November 28, 2011,
Metodija A. Koloski and Mark Branov

“A Country Called Macedonia”, November 29, 2011, Met. A. Koloski and Mark Branov

Dear Editor(s),
I am writing to you this letter in my capacity as president of the Mount Royal Canadian Chapter of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA) to express the dismay and disappointment I felt when I read these hateful propaganda pieces in your newspaper, that I have been subscribing to from its initial publication.

I will not attempt to counter the contents of the articles, as they are full of falsehoods. The authors are desperately trying to re-write the internationally accepted and recorded history of the region completely. They adapt and present the ridiculous thesis of the recent governments of the F.Y.R.O.M. (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that somehow the southern Slavs and Bulgarians that settled in that region in the 7th century AD were transformed this past century into the descendants of the ancient Greek Macedonians that have been living there for more than 3,000 years. In this manner, they are expropriating another nation’s cultural identity and history, deluding their own citizens and fanning animosity, mistrust and hatred against the neighboring Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians. It is nothing more than identity theft and a ‘Big Lie’. 

By falsifying events in that region of Southeastern Europe and making several hateful and false accusations against Greece, these authors, using a respected newspaper such as The National Post, are aiming to mislead the public and arouse mistrust and hatred against Canadians of Hellenic descent.

AHEPA was founded in Atlanta, Georgia, in July 1922 to protect Greek Americans from attacks by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and to fight racial discrimination and bigotry. The first Canadian Chapter of AHEPA was founded in Toronto, Ontario in 1928. Since then, AHEPA Chapters have been established in many cities in Canada - Montreal, Ottawa, Belleville, Windsor, Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Regina and Vancouver. With the time of racial attacks and ethnic discrimination long past, the mission of AHEPA has evolved to promoting Hellenism, education, philanthropy, civic responsibility, and family and individual excellence.

The hateful writings by Metodija A. Koloski and Mark Branov, which unfortunately and curiously found their way into the pages of your newspaper, could bring us back to unhealthy divisions and ethnic intolerance and recrimination. As a Chapter president of AHEPA, I am asking you to live up to your responsibilities as a respectable newspaper by publicly distancing yourselves from groups that aim to spread lies and hatred through Canada’s media.


AHEPA Mount Royal CJ7 Chapter 

Monday, December 12, 2011

The Greece/FYROM dispute goes beyond what's in a name

Fake "antiquization" : a shaky identity hanging from a thread
The issue of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ("A country called Macedonia, Metodija A. Koloski and Mark Branov, Nov. 29) is not just a dispute over historical facts or symbols but the conduct of a UN member state, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), in contravention of fundamental principles of international law and order; specifically, respect for good neighbourly relations, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The name issue is thus a problem with regional and international dimensions, consisting in the promotion of irredentist and territorial ambitions by the FYROM, mainly through the counterfeiting of history and usurpation of Greece's national and historical heritage.

The name issue arose in 1991, when FYROM seceded from Yugoslavia and declared its independence under the name "Republic of Macedonia." Historically, the term "Macedonia," a Greek word, refers to the Kingdom and culture of the ancient Macedonians, who belong to the Hellenic Nation and are unquestionably part of Greek historical and cultural heritage. The roots of the name issue go back to the mid1940s, when, in the aftermath of the Second World War, General Tito separated from Serbia the region that had been known until that time as Vardar Banovina (today's FYROM), giving it the status of a federal unit in Yugoslavia, while cultivating the idea of a separate and discrete "Macedonian nation."

FYROM declared its independence in 1991, basing its existence as an independent state on the artificial and spurious notion of the "Macedonian nation." Greece reacted strongly to the theft of its historical and cultural heritage and the treacherous territorial and irredentist intentions of the FYROM, and the issue came before the UN Security Council, which, in two resolutions recommended that a settlement be found quickly, for the sake of peaceful relations and good neighbourliness in the region.

In 1993, following a recommendation from the Security Council, FYROM was accepted, by decision of the General Assembly, into the UN under this provisional name, until such time as an agreed solution is reached. In 1995, Greece and the FYROM concluded an Interim Accord, based on which the two sides began negotiations under the auspices of the UN. These negotiations have continued to this day.

In sharp contrast to Greece's constructive efforts, FYROM Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski persists with irredentist and nationalistic strategy of which the main elements include the continued use of "antiquization" tactics, the usurpation and distortion of history, the erection of grandiose statues, the renaming of airports, prominent landmarks and streets, the issuance of school books and maps depicting a so-called "Greater Macedonia" that includes large portions of northern Greece, to name but a few.

At the Bucharest NATO Summit in April 2008, the members of the Alliance decided in a collective and unanimous decision that an accession invitation will be extended to FYROM only if the name issue has been resolved in a mutually acceptable manner. Similarly, the EU decided at the June 2008 European Council, in a collective and unanimous decision, that the resolution of the name issue in a mutually acceptable manner is a fundamental necessity if further steps are to be taken on the FYROM's EU accession course.

The basic objective prerequisite for the continuation and completion of the European and Euroatlantic courses of every candidate country is the adoption of and respect, in practice, for the fundamental principles of the organization they want to join, and particularly the principle of good neighbourly relations, which is the basis for a partnership or alliance between states.

- Dimitris Azemopoulos is Consul General of Greece in Toronto.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Η αντεπίθεση ξεκίνησε από το Νέο Πετρίτσι

Νέου Πετριτσίου Σερρών

Μερικά σλαβικά Μέσα Μαζικής Ενημέρωσης της FYROM συνεχίζοντας την πάγια τακτική της παραπληροφόρησης και της αλλοίωσης της ιστορικής αλήθειας, αισθανόμενοι ,ανεξήγητα, ντροπή για τους 14 αιώνες της σλαβικής τους ιστορίας προσπαθούν να κατασκευάσουν ένα ψευδεπίγραφο έθνος.
Πανικοβλήθηκαν από την συνάντηση των Μακεδονικών Συλλόγων στο Νέο Πετρίτσι του Νομού Σερρών στις 12 Νοεμβρίου 2011, και αφού δεν μπόρεσαν να την ματαιώσουν με τις γνωστές κομιτατζίδικες μεθόδους τους, μέσω των εντός Ελλάδος φερεφώνων τους, προσπάθησαν να διαστρεβλώσουν το νόημα του Δελτίου Τύπου που εκδόθηκε με τα συμπεράσματα της συνάντησης.
Τους υπενθυμίζουμε ότι, το να αναφερθούμε στα “εντόπικα” που ομιλούν μερικοί από εμάς τους Μακεδόνες Έλληνες, και να τονίσουμε με τον πιο σαφή και επιστημονικό τρόπο ότι τα “εντόπικα” διαφέρουν από τη Σκοπιανή γλώσσα και ότι αυτοί που τα μιλάμε είμαστε Έλληνες, δεν αδυνατίζει αλλά αντιθέτως ισχυροποιεί πρωτόγνωρα την Ελληνική διαπραγματευτική θέση στις συνομιλίες για την οριστική ονομασία του κράτους τους.
Οι Μακεδονικοί Σύλλογοι των ντόπιων γηγενών Μακεδόνων, θα συνεχίσουν να προασπίζουν την Ιστορία και τον Πολιτισμό τους και εύχονται στους γείτονες Σλάβους της FYROM να βρουν τον εθνικό σλαβικό προσδιορισμό τους ώστε να μην απορροφηθούν από τους Σέρβους και Βούλγαρους ομόαιμους τους.
Προσκαλούμε, τέλος, τον κ. Freedman, καθηγητή του Πανεπιστημίου του Σικάγο, ο οποίος έκανε δηλώσεις στα Σκοπιανά μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης σχετικές με την συνάντηση των Μακεδονικών Συλλόγων στο Πετρίτσι, να επισκεφθεί με δικά μας έξοδα την Ελλάδα και να τον ξεναγήσουμε στο Δίον, την Βεργίνα, την Πέλλα και την Αιανή Κοζάνης, για να γνωρίσει την Ελληνικότητα των Μακεδόνων.
Νέο Πετρίτσι 30 Νοε 2011

Καί η αντεπίθεση βρήκε τον στόχο της:
Πεμπτη, 24 Νοεμβριου 2011 01:14    E-mail
Σκοπιανή TV για την ημερίδα στο Ν.Πετρίτσι για το Μακεδονικό

Η πρόσφατη ημερίδα που πραγματοποίησε (13/11) στο Νέο Πετρίτσι, ο Σύλλογος Σταρτσοβιτών «Άγιος Μηνάς» με θέμα : «Μακεδονικό ζήτημα. Οι νεότερες εξελίξεις» και τα όσα αποφασίστηκαν για συντονισμό και οργάνωση των μακεδονικών συλλόγων, απέναντι στην «εισαγόμενη» προπαγάνδα, φαίνεται πως μετά τους φιλοσκοπιανούς θορύβησε και τα ίδια τα Σκόπια. Ρεπορτάζ του φιλοκυβερνητικού SITEL, αναφέρθηκε την Τετάρτη (23/12) στα όσα λέχθηκαν στη διάρκεια της ημερίδας, επισημαίνοντας πως οι συμμετέχοντες δεν αναγνωρίζουν πως το σλαβόφωνο ιδίωμα που ομιλείται  σε ορισμένες περιοχές της Μακεδονίας, ταυτίζεται με τη γλώσσα των Σκοπίων, όπως μεθοδικά επιχειρεί να παρουσιάσει η προπαγάνδα των γειτόνων. 
Το ρεπορτάζ ωστόσο φιλοξένησε απόψεις του γνωστού για τα φιλοσκοπιανά του αισθήματα Αμερικανού γλωσσολόγου, Βίκτορ Φρίντμαν, που επανέλαβε τον ισχυρισμό του πως : «Οι διάλεκτοι στην Βόρεια Ελλάδα, είναι πολύ στενά συνδεδεμένες με τις διαλέκτους των Σκοπίων και αποτελούν βάση της σκοπιανής λογοτεχνικής γλώσσας». 
Ο ίδιος, εμφανώς ανενημέρωτος για τα όσα παρουσιάστηκαν και ειπώθηκαν, έφτασε στο σημείο να ισχυριστεί πως τα όσα ανακοινώθηκαν μετά την ημερίδα, αποτελούν αναγνώριση πως στην Ελλάδα ομιλείται η «μακεντόνσκι» γλώσσα και πως αυτό θα μπορεί να χρησιμοποιηθεί ως επιχείρημα από την πλευρά των Σκοπίων στις διαπραγματεύσεις για το όνομα με τη χώρα μας.
Η ουσία πάντως είναι, πως για πρώτη φορά ένας μεγάλος τηλεοπτικός σταθμός των Σκοπίων, προέβαλε ρεπορτάζ, παρουσιάζοντας ξεκάθαρα τις θέσεις των μακεδονικών συλλόγων, απέναντι στους ανιστόρητους ισχυρισμούς που αμφισβητούν ευθέως την ελληνικότητα των Μακεδόνων.