The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video] | Hacker News Reader

The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

youtube.com

25 pointsspaceheater25 comments

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why?

It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other factors like who is dominating, who is controlling the media, religious issues, etc. A big mess. The UN mission was a total failure.

An then, after NATO bombings, the war stopped. Yes, it was wrong. Yes, they were afraid of flying low and killed civilians. But they never said it was good, everybody knew it was bad and immediately they set up a fund and help program for the victims.

Was there any other way to end this war? If so, please tell me.

There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used by Russia to steal Crimea.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo

There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.

You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?

I don’t mean to say that UN is not capable of ANY action, but rather increasingly not capable of the scope of action that is meaningful in my view.

Also, I think the impotence of the UN is a recent and progressing phenomenon. That is to say that its possible it was more capable and willing to act in the 90ies and progressively became less so since.

If Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.

> Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades

And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.

>And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.

I'd agree with "one of the reasons", but there are also base reasons for unrest there that are unrelated to anything outside the Middle East.

NATO Pretends it is a defensive alliance, and yet Russia can point to shit like this as proof positive that is a lie and use it as justification to take offensive action to prevent them encroaching closer and closer, encircling them[1], as NATO has continued to do since then.

So yes, there were unintended consequences from this non-defensive NATO war.

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/1...

Yes, Putin loves to use the example of Yugoslavia because on the surface it's similar and it also resonates well with the Serbs. However, there are several important differences:

* NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing

* Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO finally decided to intervene.

* And of course NATO didn't do any of the atrocities Russians are doing now like massacre in Bucha etc.

  > Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. What precipitated that, what exactly was going on in the Ukraine at the time? Or was it just a random decision one day to invade?

Also, is it true that Crimeans didn't fight back and in fact voted to be annexed into Russia afterwards? On the surface that seems like a strange way to handle a foreign invasion, curious as to your thoughts on this.

Actually this is very clear to me as I was there a few times and talked to my friends on both "sides" - that is, from both Eastern and Western Ukraine. They had very different views.

The people from Donbas were very poor. Actually Ukrainiansin general were poor but e.g. in Donyetsk there were whole districts where people stopped paying for electricity etc. They had the idea it would be better to live under the Russian rule. Same in Crimea: there were mostly Russians or people speaking Russian everywhere. They thought that if Crimea was Russian they would be better off as more rich Russians would come there.

Western Ukraine was very different. I asked someone on the street in Russian and he kindly answered this is not Russia, they have another language etc. I was surprised as I didn't mean to start a debate, I just wanted to know my way to the train station.

Back to your question. It's very clear why the war started and Putin explained it in very simple terms in the victory piece that was published by RIA and quickly retracted[0]. In short, he felt like Peter the Great and wanted to take over the whole Ukraine to be remembered in history books as someone who gathered both Belorussians and Ukrainians under single Moscovian rule.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240

You didn't actually answer the question, which is a sign of bad faith in the discussion. So I will restate them, and number them for ease of reference:

1 - Isn't it true that the democratically elected government in Ukraine had just been overthrown (call it a coup or a revolution, doesn't matter) leading to Russia annexing Crimea? I mean, the annexation happened the very next day after the government had been overthrown so you don't see that as unrelated do you?

2 - Do you support the vote that Crimeans then had on their desire to be annexed by Russia following their democratically elected government being overthrown?

1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way, in the spirit of support and collaboration. But Putin doesn't understand this language, he only understands conquest and power. He doesn't care at all about people. Now people living in Crimea are in constant fear and many of those who could moved elsewhere.

  > 1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result?

  > 2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way

And then here where they actually did vote democratically, you don't support it because you wish it had been done a different way?

To sum up, you support violently overthrowing the democratically government in Ukraine, but don't support a democratic referendum in Crimea. Well, that's certainly a position to take.

> Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result?

I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat and some people buy it. Euromaidan happened for just one reason: Putin pressured Yanukovych not to sign the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement and he gave in. Ukrainians didn't want to share the fate of Belorussians though. So Putin decided to invade as it was a slap in his face.

> And then here where they actually did vote democratically, you don't support it because you wish it had been done a different way?

No, any vote under the Moscovian rule is not democratic. Actually I don't care that much about Crimea as very few people died but I do care a lot about Donbas as people were suffering enormously. Of course the Russian media portrayed it as if everything was done by Ukrainians. My friends who lived there at the time said the thugs that ruled there didn't value human life at all, something that the whole world was to see a few years later. It was a tragedy that the West didn't react in 2014 and went for the appeasement strategy instead.

  > I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat

Putin is an autocrat, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the democratically elected government of Ukraine was violently overthrown in 2014. You keep trying to change the subject from that for some strange reason.

There was a democratic election in Ukraine and that duly-elected government was overthrown in a coup/revolution in 2014. Are you trying to dispute that, or just trying to pretend it had nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea the next day?

You call others bad faith and then you yourself act in bad faith.

The Ukrainians were being shot at by Ukrainian and beaten up by OMOH, but of course ordinary people are the evil makers here.

And the revolution only became a revolution after the security forces (alongside OMOH) started to try and disrupt the then peaceful protest.

Maybe look in the mirror before you call others bad faith.

Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone).

I've to this day not heard a single good argument from the "anti-imperialists" of what the world should have done after multiple attempts with large peace treaties being violated.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8

Here's a much better video showing the time line.

> Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone).

That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of 6 Balkan countries, didn't exist anymore in 1999. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of Serbia and Montenegro, existed between 1992 and 2003. Colloquially, they're both referred to as Yugoslavia, and it's clear from the date and context which one is referenced.

> Here's a much better video showing the time line.

I haven't seen the video from the OP yet, but this one from Johnny Harris, while slick and well produced, refers to SFR Yugoslavia being communist. It was actually a more liberal form of socialism (the S in SFRY) than communist USSR countries ever enjoyed. Tito famously established the Non-Aligned Movement of countries that rejected both Western and Eastern influence.

Overall, it gets many things right, but my history knowledge in the period isn't great to fact-check what else it got wrong.

>That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong.

I'm sorry but you don't see the irony of saying my point is "pedantic" and then you go well ashctually.

And even if we skip past that I'm not wrong since I said de facto not de jure (which even then you are wrong, _socialist_ federal republic is not the same as federal republic, that's like saying USSR is the same as modern day Russia).

The video is about the war not the state, since the war didn't happen during titos reign.

Hence why I think you can gloss over the oversimplification.

CW: Michael Parenti inside

If it was not for American intervention in Kosovo in 1999 my entire extended family would probably be refugees or dead. Fuck these leftist “anti-imperialists” that hate the west so much they resort to genocide apologia and love affairs with Milosevic and his type.

Yeah, so instead the Serbs became refugees and dead and most of the Christian history of Kosovo was wiped out under the watch of the Americans[1][2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritag...

These kinds of arguments seem very similar to the Israelis arguments with their occupation of Palestine.. The numbers on one side are 10-100 times higher than the other, with one group having losses so high it is mere statistics while every loss by the other is mourned individually.

As for religious artifacts, I find the whole concept of institutional Christianity a mockery of the Jesus from the bible. It is hard to imagine Jesus in a world where Rome remade it's coins with his picture accepting his new role and mocking the downtrodden while crying if they take revenge on the boots of the establishment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com