In order to determine the strategic and operative diplomatic and political directions to resolve some open issues, such as the name dispute with Greece, the character of the same should be known, my dear ones. This is significant not because of a scientific whim or seminar eloquence, but because it is the basis of how and with what measures the opening and closing of this issue will be approached and led to its outcome.
There is no need to mention that "our lot" does not have a clue about what they are arguing about and how they should be managing the process of this dispute. Namely, the nature of the dispute between Macedonia and Greece, or vice versa, is not really political, but symbolic. It is a conflict about controlling knowledge, that is, semantically and essentially a postmodern dispute. This does not make it easier or - God forbid - less bloody, but it is mostly of such nature. This means that it is not the strategic confrontation of economic and geopolitical interests (there may exist such interests, but they are not crucial for the dispute) between Macedonia and Greece that is contentious, but that of the interests of a cultural, symbolical, and identity nature. This is what the Greek politicians, who (after our lectures in Athens) have said here for the first time that this dispute is "ideological" (according to [Greek politician] Pangalos), are talking about.
The term "Macedonia/Macedonian" is a strong name and a powerful license, which, if distributed merely to Macedonia, will push the country like a typhoon towards the cultural mythological centres of importance in the globalist world. Greece knows this well from its own experience. It has become an EU and NATO member due to its attitude towards the Hellenic heritage and for meeting the membership criteria. This is why it has spread the denouncement that Macedonia is "stealing away its history." You cannot comprehend this side of the dispute unless you are aware of its nature.
The Greek emigrants have about 15 "attack-arguments," all of them along these lines. This means that the confrontation centre is here. This is the centre where the acupuncture needle should pierce to relax the dispute. This is the division of connotations and the attempt to divide the heritage and mark the pluralities that succeed history without resorting to the grotesque theories of ethno- genetic, direct origin from the ancient nation-making groups of whomever nowadays.
The second problem is the Greek policy of discrimination against and utter rejection of its Macedonian minority. Instead of applying polemics that will solidify its positions, Macedonia should try to "indirectly" help its people in Greece through every available line of struggle to make Greece recognize all minority groups on its territory, including the Macedonians.
Second, instead of the empty "opening-closing" of issues, the Macedonian state should logistically help them to form teams of legal experts that will formulate the "Aegeans'" private complaints against Greece to its courts and Strasbourg, while waiting for the moment when it will be in a position to offer a bilateral agreement on resolving the remaining package of cases regarding Greece.
The third characteristic in this dispute is that it is UNBALANCED [capitalization as published]. Specifically, we are not having a bilateral debate with Greece, even though we do not want to admit this. It underestimates and avoids us, which is a typical Balkan syndrome of a state that thinks highly of itself. Yet, this is only for the time being. When they "polemize," they threaten us, but they actually do this every time the others are listening or in order to send out a message somewhere (to the United States, the EU states, its neighbours, and so forth). Let me give you this piece of advice: never insist on bilateral meetings because they are hardly attainable and futile. Always work in a "threesome" with a strong mediator. We are lucky that this has been the United States so far, given that it supports us. Only in this way - and never in a bilateral manner - can we come to a solution.
The fourth characteristic in this dispute is that it is a dispute of two radically opposite states and societies. The dispute has "a Laconic characteristic" [should read Lacan characteristic, after French psychoanalyst and philosopher Jacques Lacan] in these terms. Greece is an attempt to obtain a hysterical, ethnically clean, and homogenous culture and a political system within which the homogenizer in the face of religion and Hellenism will dominate. Macedonia is a "nightmare" for such systems because it is their essential opposite. If we succeed, then this will mean that they have made a mistake with the hysterical ethnic homogenization. Macedonia is a multicultural country with an inclusive policy, which it should interpret as an advantage or at least a thorough characteristic. It should not avoid it or imitate Greece in its nationalism, but should instead use its openness as an advantage for an offensive. The moral of this is that its openness and multiculturalism should be used as an advantage in achieving democratic standards, rather than the nation being used to pretend being hysterical, thus pushing it towards a loser's position.