You might ask the generally diplomatic and well informed Joana, who I sometimes refer to as Ste. Joana of Beograd
for her perspective. Anyhow, my post that you kindly referred to from that thread:
Probably, because the story of the former Yugoslavia was far more complicated than most ppl in the West thought. Sure Slobo did some bad things (and quasi-independent allies of his like Arkan worse ones) but the fact remains that even after seeing that the Croatian secession led to a war, George HW Bush forced the creation of a new state called Bosnia-Hercegovina that had never existed, had a large Serbian minority, and no real means to defend its newfound sovereignty
. (He's ovarated as a foreign policy genius IMO, mainly because he wisely didn't try to conquer Iraq after Desert Storm).
I was meaning to post your post directly here
After Germany recognized Bosnia, Serbs (former Yugoslavian Army) took control of the weapons in Bosnia..Bosnians were totally unprepared when the disaster struck. It was even worse than the Spanish Civil War, in that it was a veritable massacre, not a 'fighting'. Milosevic intended to get their Serbian share as MUCH as possible, so the means they employed was to force Bosnians to desert their home and move away..terror tactics were employed.
Later Bosnians in turn were 'radicalized' (so called 'thugs' were fighting)..and NATO FINALLY intervened from 1996 or something. But the damage was done by then.
This was the major cause for the Clinton administration to plot the removal of Boutros-Ghali from the Sec. General of UN. B-G was quite favorable to the Serbian 'cause'.. (Yeltsin's Russia -especially ultra right nationalists-of course too)
Was the creation of B-H a mistake? Was there an hidden agenda by the US or the West?
Was Serbia a 'victim' (as they are fond to say. Yugoslavia was actually not economically bad before the disaster struck) ?
What about the Bosnians? What were they exactly then?
What WAS Milosevic's intention and policy?
Was NATO intervention justified? Or was it too late?
(since there was no 'strategic interest' a.k.a. Oil?
Richard Holbrooke in his BOOK