3 ms·
You're right, the war was a major reason. But economic sanctions played a part too, by not allowing the dictatorship to continue being a menace to its neighbour
by kspacewalk2 5y ago
You're right, the war was a major reason. But economic sanctions played a part too, by not allowing the dictatorship to continue being a menace to its neighbours and recover economically. No one wants to be ruled by an economic loser, and kicking the bum out hurts your ego a lot less when the reasons are economic, not a touchy subject like losing a war. After all, foreign policy wise most Serbians enthusiastically supported Milosevic.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> kicking the bum out hurts your ego a lot less when the reasons are economic, not a touchy subject like losing a war. If you lost the war, it's generally not you kicking the bum out. The winners will handle it for you.
- vasac 5y agoSanctions from 1992-1995. were far heavier than one that existed in 1999. and 2000. and economy was in better shape in 2000. Yet he lost elections in 2000. while he easily won earlier elections (easily as in he stole some votes but his party would won majority anyway). What was different after 1999 was big US effort for regime change - not just financing opposition and media (they did that before too) but forcing opposition to unite behind a single candidate and, most importantly, making deals with parts of regime to get rid of Milosevic. They were promised not to be touched after the change so most if them switched sides - parts of police, military and paramilitary forces along with influential people who made their fortune during the war. Sanctions royally fucked ordinary people, but Milosevic was safe until his support infrastructure wasn't dismantled (brought).