Will the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia continue?

[Sir Og]

Because organised crime hurts all. There is Kosovar mafia all over Europe.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sir Og
Because organised crime hurts all. There is Kosovar mafia all over Europe.

If the wars in the former Yugoslavia have shown anything, it's that the special relationships between the various yugoslav nations and their former great power allies are remarkably immune to current events, and nigh unshakable even by gross misdeeds and mass murder. Europe's unwillingness to tackle the situation fairly, or even slightly, should surprise precisely nobody.

[Sir Og]

It actualy hurts the contries that back them the most. It is also a perfect breeding ground for the next Osama.

[Cyclotron]

I'm sure both of those things are true. Unfortunately, countries do not always follow what is in their long term interests. Europe has proven itself unwilling to compromise its ties of alignment in any meaningful way, for any reason. I agree that there are things that should be done; I'm just saying that clearly they aren't being done and probably won't be done for a long time. I'm not typically a big fan of US intervention anywhere, but this in one situation in which the US has the greatest potential role to play, as shown by the Dayton Accords - the US is not traditionally in bed with one side or the other, or at least not as deeply as many European countries.

[Sir Og]

Albania and Kosovo are new countries that have no traditional alies from the big European states.
I can understand some of the big European countries being against Serbia but still this does not mean that they should tolerate the criminal state that is Kosovo.

I understand the actions of the European countries when the did not react to the situation in Bosnia. But this was not hurting those countries in any way. Some people were dying but they were from the Balkans and they were only killing each other so no problem.
The Kosovo sittuation however is very different. This is a state that is generating and in the future would generate even more problems for the countries that supported it. They export drugs, crime and most probably will start exporting terrorist in the near future.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
the US is not traditionally in bed with one side or the other, or at least not as deeply as many European countries.

The position of the US on the whole Yugoslavia mess was totally anti Serb/Yugo because the coutry was still run by the communists. And we all know that communist are worse than islamic fundamentalist and all third world right wing dictators combined.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sir Og
The position of the US on the whole Yugoslavia mess was totally anti Serb/Yugo because the coutry was still run by the communists. And we all know that communist are worse than islamic fundamentalist and all third world right wing dictators combined.

Maybe you missed the word "traditionally" in the post you quoted. It seems clear that the European-Yugoslavian alliances have much deeper and more historic roots than the much more recent comminist craze in the US - and now, Serbia isn't communist anymore, further de-emphasizing that relationship. I'm not denying favoritism exists, but it certainly seems less absolute and unyielding than that of the European states on this matter.

[Cort Haus]

The Bosnian war was a vicious and bloody three-way land grab, but it wasn't WW2-style genocide, whatever her Imperial Mightiness Carla del Ponte and the baying media say. The real genocide in Bosnia happened in WW2, but no-one talks much about that these days.

There needn't even have been a war in '92 if it wasn't for the US intervention egging the muslim side to renage on the Carrington-Cutileiro plan, which Izetbegovic had already signed. The US backed the muslim side all the way, allowing Iran and Saudi Arabia to get involved, and they still can't get rid of this influence today.

Both Bosnia and Kosovo are serious terrorist headaches for Europe.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by TCO
Could someone link to a good map of ethnic and political boundaries?

it's from 1991 though

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Well, there's your problem. Political is easy; there is no good ethnic map of boundaries. The existence of such a map assumes that there are actually clear distinctions, when in reality the identities of Serb, Croat, and so on were largely constructions of the post-Tito era.

Constructions of the post-Tito era?

Why do you speak about subjects you know nothing about?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Sir Og


The position of the US on the whole Yugoslavia mess was totally anti Serb/Yugo because the coutry was still run by the communists. And we all know that communist are worse than islamic fundamentalist and all third world right wing dictators combined.

Actually, in the beginning of the breakup of Yugoslavia, USA was opposing it.

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1801/Beelman/Beelman.html

Preoccupied with the Gulf War and concern over the future of the Soviet Union, the United States did not deploy its diplomatic big guns until June 1991, just days before the long-announced secession of Slovenia and Croatia and the outbreak of war.

Secretary of State James Baker flew to Belgrade for a one-day marathon of meetings with the leaders of federal Yugoslavia and the various republics. Baker declined to be interviewed, but in his autobiography, "The Politics of Diplomacy," he said his message was clear.

"While we supported the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and existing republic borders and would not accept unilateral changes, the international community, of course, recognized that if the republics wanted to change borders by peaceful, consensual means, that was an altogether different matter," he wrote.

A U.S. diplomat with Baker said the Serbs took his comments as a green light for sending in the federal army, while all the Croats and Slovenes heard was democratize. War erupted in less than a week.

Pointedly, Baker did not threaten any U.S. intervention should the Serbs use the army to quell secessionist attempts, only "ostracism" for the Serbs and a refusal by the West to recognize breakaway republics.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Constructions of the post-Tito era?

Why do you speak about subjects you know nothing about?

I have to agree that guy doesn't know diddlely about Yugoslavia. The people of the former Yugoslavia were one people at one time (the late Roman period) however they've been divided up due to historical circumstances. Croats are Catholics and use the latin alphabet while Serbs (and their off shoots the Macedonians & Montengrans) are Orthodoxed and use cyrilic, while the Muslims (excluding Albanians) are dispised by both Catholics and Orthodoxed as "Serbs who went bad". That is local people who collaborated with the Ottomans during their invasion and occupation of Serbia and Bosnia. That all occured long before anyone had ever heard of Tito.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I have to agree that guy doesn't know diddlely about Yugoslavia. The people of the former Yugoslavia were one people at one time (the late Roman period) however they've been divided up due to historical circumstances.

By the 'late Roman period', I assume this refers to the 7th century eastern empire of Byzantium, after the Slavs arrived in the 6th century.

The Albanians claim descent from the pre-slavic Illyrians, which is the basis for their historical claim to Kosovo (in addition to their demographic claim). Such a claim could theoretically extend to most of the peninsula, so watch out, everyone. I don't know whether non-Albanian historians agree with their claims to be the Illyrians.

At lot happened in terms of migrations / invasions in the 6th/7th centuries. In the same period the Saxons arrived in England, with significant consequences.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Croats are Catholics and use the latin alphabet while Serbs (and their off shoots the Macedonians & Montengrans) are Orthodoxed and use cyrilic,....

I am not quite sure what "off shoots" means but Macedonians have a lot more in common with Bulgarians than with Serbs.
They are Bulgarians based on evry criteria for nationality but since the collaps of the Ottoman Empire we have not lived together in the same country.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sir Og
I am not quite sure what "off shoots" means but Macedonians have a lot more in common with Bulgarians than with Serbs.
They are Bulgarians based on evry criteria for nationality but since the collaps of the Ottoman Empire we have not lived together in the same country.

All the names ending in 'ski' give it away! Why don't you invade and take it back? Or just split it with the Greater Albania crowd. Greece, erm, FOPOG, will be eternally grateful!