3 ms·

I'd be interested in your take on the UK documentary The Death of Yugoslavia[0], available on YouTube. It gave me the distinct impression that the US didnt have

I'd be interested in your take on the UK documentary The Death of Yugoslavia[0], available on YouTube. It gave me the distinct impression that the US didnt have a strategic vision so much as they got unwillingly dragged into it and felt that they had no option but to try and solve it. As a lay person not from the Balkans, I was impressed that the filmmakers got all the major players to speak candidly, on camera, about their involvement. Mladic, Tudjman, Milosevic, all there for example. Reminded me of another great series, the World At War.[1] [0] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-ur6mGQeTOmuwxnBW-ssXWDD-w5AEH9E&feature=shared https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-ur6mGQeTOmuwxnBW-ssXWDD... [1] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYxy4la9w2tfotW1Xs-7oICGflf4dJtj5&feature=shared https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYxy4la9w2tfotW1Xs-7oICGf...

foobarian 3y ago
I don't remember the US directly doing much of anything in ex-Yu, other than some sorties, though they did a lot indirectly by recognizing the new states and providing aid in various forms including armaments and other military supplies and training to make sure the stronger neighbors don't get too aggressive. (Which is way understating what happened in Bosnia, but still).
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I don't remember the US directly doing much of anything in ex-Yu, other than some sorties Reducing the US/NATO involvement in the former Yugoslavia (both the intervention in the Bosnia War and subsequent deployment of IFOR/SFOR and later the NATO-Yugoslavia War and the subsequent deployment in KFOR) to “some sorties” seems to be missing a bit. I mean, sure, the combat involvement prior to achieving agreements in both cases was application of air power, but...
  - foobarian 3y ago
    That's fair enough. I should not come off as critical of their involvement; without it (especially the less visible non-active pieces) who knows how things would have turned out. And most people I know from there are grateful for the help and view them as heroes. But compared to a theater like Kuwait or Afghanistan they had a lot less active deployment. IIRC there were many air missions out of Aviano.
cess11 3y ago
That documentary is very, very well done. The BBC journalists also wrote a book with the same name, which has more detail.
cameldrv 3y ago
I’ll check it out. We generally supported the independence claims of each breakaway state in turn. Some of that may have sort of been a default for the time given that the USSR had just broken up without too much violence, and shortly thereafter Czechoslovakia broke up fairly amicably. That probably made Clinton and his people more pro-breakup. This was discussed a lot in Iraq as well, but I believe the worry was that the Shia state would basically be absorbed by Iran. It’s not clear that what’s happening there now is much better, but Iraq had been seen as a useful counterweight to Iran and the neocons wanted to preserve that. The only problem is that they also wanted democracy, and most of the voters are Shia, so democratic Iraq is always likely to be friendly to Iran.

foobarian 3y ago

I don't remember the US directly doing much of anything in ex-Yu, other than some sorties, though they did a lot indirectly by recognizing the new states and providing aid in various forms including armaments and other military supplies and training to make sure the stronger neighbors don't get too aggressive. (Which is way understating what happened in Bosnia, but still).

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I don't remember the US directly doing much of anything in ex-Yu, other than some sorties Reducing the US/NATO involvement in the former Yugoslavia (both the intervention in the Bosnia War and subsequent deployment of IFOR/SFOR and later the NATO-Yugoslavia War and the subsequent deployment in KFOR) to “some sorties” seems to be missing a bit. I mean, sure, the combat involvement prior to achieving agreements in both cases was application of air power, but...
- foobarian 3y ago
  That's fair enough. I should not come off as critical of their involvement; without it (especially the less visible non-active pieces) who knows how things would have turned out. And most people I know from there are grateful for the help and view them as heroes. But compared to a theater like Kuwait or Afghanistan they had a lot less active deployment. IIRC there were many air missions out of Aviano.

cess11 3y ago

That documentary is very, very well done. The BBC journalists also wrote a book with the same name, which has more detail.

cameldrv 3y ago

I’ll check it out. We generally supported the independence claims of each breakaway state in turn. Some of that may have sort of been a default for the time given that the USSR had just broken up without too much violence, and shortly thereafter Czechoslovakia broke up fairly amicably. That probably made Clinton and his people more pro-breakup. This was discussed a lot in Iraq as well, but I believe the worry was that the Shia state would basically be absorbed by Iran. It’s not clear that what’s happening there now is much better, but Iraq had been seen as a useful counterweight to Iran and the neocons wanted to preserve that. The only problem is that they also wanted democracy, and most of the voters are Shia, so democratic Iraq is always likely to be friendly to Iran.