3 ms·

> civil war in former Yugoslavia (instigated further by supporting the separatist forces) I don't think you understand this topic at all (also seeing your othe

by nsajko 3y ago

> civil war in former Yugoslavia (instigated further by supporting the separatist forces) I don't think you understand this topic at all (also seeing your other, flagged, comment). Two major things I'd say you get wrong: 1. The break-up of Yugoslavia wasn't so much a result of the civil war, it was rather a process that led to the war. The Yugoslav Federal institutions (except the Army, JNA) were weak, perhaps so weak that the constitutional order was simply not sustainable. As the leaderships of each constituent republic drifted apart from each other, so the country, too, gradually split apart (effectively). The important thing about the Yugoslav constitutional order that is often missed is that the Army (JNA) was something of a constituent republic in its own right: apart from other kinds of power, the Army had representation in the federal government as though it were a constituent republic. So the Army was basically the last thing binding the country together in practice, and it was naturally aligned with preserving the country, which led to the war. Furthermore, by something like 1992, the Serbian side (Milošević) basically usurped the Army (in what some called a coup). This situation, among other things, made it almost inevitable that a war will break out. 2. It doesn't seem like the USA supported any side in the war very much. For example, the US President (Bush) objected when Germany recognized the independence of Slovenia and Croatia.

wheelerof4te 3y ago
To answer your first point, I agree. But having weak Federal institutions isn't a reason to break up the country, it is a reason to strengthen them. "Furthermore, by something like 1992, the Serbian side (Milošević) basically usurped the Army (in what some called a coup)." Explain this please. How did the Serbian side "usurp" the army? By trying to prevent the separatists from leaving? Isn't that what any country's army would do? "It doesn't seem like the USA supported any side in the war very much." The US politicians cheered on with glee seeing how once one of the most powerful countries in Europe, the last bastion of socialism, fell apart. And of course they supported and trained and equipped the separatist forces. First in Croatia, then in Bosnia, and finally in Serbian Kosovo and Metohija. Please, don't try to educate me on my own country's history. I've lived through all the MSM propaganda and bullshit, I know a lot more than you. Including the entire process of NATO's preparing for the war. You can't just mobilize 27 countries on a whim to bomb one country. You have to have plans. And they had them, for a long time. Maybe even before Tito died.

by nsajko 3y ago

wheelerof4te 3y ago

To answer your first point, I agree. But having weak Federal institutions isn't a reason to break up the country, it is a reason to strengthen them. "Furthermore, by something like 1992, the Serbian side (Milošević) basically usurped the Army (in what some called a coup)." Explain this please. How did the Serbian side "usurp" the army? By trying to prevent the separatists from leaving? Isn't that what any country's army would do? "It doesn't seem like the USA supported any side in the war very much." The US politicians cheered on with glee seeing how once one of the most powerful countries in Europe, the last bastion of socialism, fell apart. And of course they supported and trained and equipped the separatist forces. First in Croatia, then in Bosnia, and finally in Serbian Kosovo and Metohija. Please, don't try to educate me on my own country's history. I've lived through all the MSM propaganda and bullshit, I know a lot more than you. Including the entire process of NATO's preparing for the war. You can't just mobilize 27 countries on a whim to bomb one country. You have to have plans. And they had them, for a long time. Maybe even before Tito died.