There is so much that I can write about this region; I can go on and on, so I'll be as short as possible.
The U.S. and Europe placed an arms embargo on Yugoslavia throughout the entire war, so most of the weapons used came from the Yugoslav National Army stockpile (JNA). However, most of the stockpiles were held in Belgrade and other parts of Serbia and the Serbs had access to most of the country's military weaponry. So, in all, it was a really lopsided conflict, where non-Serbs who had guns were outnumbered by Serbs who had guns by 1:10, sometimes by 1:100. When you're up against an opponent with such sophisticated miltary technology with tanks, missiles, etc. it naturally leads that one side will eventually be literally blown apart (genocide: see Srebrenica). Croatia, which has a coastline, could smuggle in arms so they were a little bit better off. The worst off were the Bosniaks in the middle in Bosnia.
I don't have the answer. There are a lot of theories supported by evidence. But I disagree with you about international powers quickly stifling a conflict. 4 years is a long time.
Who ended up in the best position? In the order of best to worst:
1. Slovenia: Barely saw any war; conflict over in a few weeks. Most economically developed country in Eastern Europe and quickly ended up joining the E.U. without any problems. When Slovenia seceded from Yugoslavia, they also took the only nuclear power plant in Yugoslavia so cheap energy for them!![[Image: smile.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Around 70% of Slovenia's energy comes from nuclear energy. There was also a movie (I haven't seen it yet) about a guy working at the power plant smuggling people over the border.
2. Croatia: Suffered a helluva lot more than Slovenia did, but not as much as Bosnia. Croatia will recover well and have already made some headway already. Furthermore, since they have a long coastline on the Adriatic Sea, Croatia attracts a lot of tourists (something the other former Yugoslav nations don't have except for Montenegro.) Tourism is a major component of Croatia's economy. Croatia is set to join the E.U. in 2012.
3. Montenegro: Experienced no war, so it's infrastructure is still intact. Has a coastline and access to the Adriatic Sea so that means more tourists. Gained independence in 3 June 3006. The country is almost empty--about 634,000 people. Not even a million people live there!
4. Macedonia: Landlocked country. Experienced no war. I don't know as much about this country as the others. It wanted to call itself the Republic of Macedonia, but that apparently got Greece angry, and the two were about to go at each other, so they decided on officially calling it the Former Yugoslavi Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). About 65% of all people that live in Macedonia are Macedonians, but there is a large minority of Albanians (25%) who also live there which is causing some ethnic tension in the region. Keep your eyes out on Macedonia.
5. Serbia: Corruption. Even though corruption is everywhere, the country is divided almost 50-50 with those progressive pro-western and those right-wing natinoalists almost evenly divided. When the economy turned shit in 2000 and power bills skyrocketed, Milosevic was overthrown by a coup and disappeared. The country seems to be in limbo between joining the rest of Europe or (long-shot) hoping for integrating into Russia or at least having closer ties with Russia. With Boris Tadic as president, however, they seem to be heading closer with the West than with Russia.
6. Bosnia and Hercegovina: The country is fucked up. They received the brunt of the war. The Dayton Accords created a huge monster of an ineffective bureacracy where bribery and corruption run rampant. Instead of uniting the country, districts and territories are even more divided along ethnic lines. They have no unified strong central government. Instead, there are two regional governments, the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska) and the Federation (Bosniaks and Croats). The RS makes up 49% of Bosnia while the Federation makes up 51% of Bosnia. One time when Sarajevo (the capital) called for a vote on creating one-central powerful government, the former PM of RS, Milorad Dodik, had threatened to call a referendum for Serb secession (which would have caused another war). I highly doubt that there will be another war. After the shit that went down in Srebrenica genocide, the West would be embarassed to let another massacre happen in the heart of Europe. Instead, I think that pressure will be put on Serbs to unite, because, until Bosnia has at least a fully functioning central government, they can't even apply for the E.U. All other Eastern European and former Yugoslav countries are making progress while Bosnia is stuck in stagnation.
Foreign aid that was supposed to be sent to desperate people ends up missing. They have around a 40% unemployment rate. Instead of one president, they have 3 presidents, one for each ethnic group (Bosniak, Croat, Serb), but this could be in violation of the constitution since people of other ethnic groups (Jews, Protestants, etc.) aren't allowed to run for president.
The country receives almost no tourists (self-explanatory).
Agree 90% with you, but why did the international community take action so late? What were they waiting for? Ulterior motives?
Quote:Quote:
Who financed it?
The U.S. and Europe placed an arms embargo on Yugoslavia throughout the entire war, so most of the weapons used came from the Yugoslav National Army stockpile (JNA). However, most of the stockpiles were held in Belgrade and other parts of Serbia and the Serbs had access to most of the country's military weaponry. So, in all, it was a really lopsided conflict, where non-Serbs who had guns were outnumbered by Serbs who had guns by 1:10, sometimes by 1:100. When you're up against an opponent with such sophisticated miltary technology with tanks, missiles, etc. it naturally leads that one side will eventually be literally blown apart (genocide: see Srebrenica). Croatia, which has a coastline, could smuggle in arms so they were a little bit better off. The worst off were the Bosniaks in the middle in Bosnia.
Quote:Quote:
Why was it allowed to continue
I don't have the answer. There are a lot of theories supported by evidence. But I disagree with you about international powers quickly stifling a conflict. 4 years is a long time.
Quote:Quote:
Who benefited
Quote:Quote:
What were the ultimate ethnic and geopolitical results?
Who ended up in the best position? In the order of best to worst:
1. Slovenia: Barely saw any war; conflict over in a few weeks. Most economically developed country in Eastern Europe and quickly ended up joining the E.U. without any problems. When Slovenia seceded from Yugoslavia, they also took the only nuclear power plant in Yugoslavia so cheap energy for them!
Around 70% of Slovenia's energy comes from nuclear energy. There was also a movie (I haven't seen it yet) about a guy working at the power plant smuggling people over the border.2. Croatia: Suffered a helluva lot more than Slovenia did, but not as much as Bosnia. Croatia will recover well and have already made some headway already. Furthermore, since they have a long coastline on the Adriatic Sea, Croatia attracts a lot of tourists (something the other former Yugoslav nations don't have except for Montenegro.) Tourism is a major component of Croatia's economy. Croatia is set to join the E.U. in 2012.
3. Montenegro: Experienced no war, so it's infrastructure is still intact. Has a coastline and access to the Adriatic Sea so that means more tourists. Gained independence in 3 June 3006. The country is almost empty--about 634,000 people. Not even a million people live there!
4. Macedonia: Landlocked country. Experienced no war. I don't know as much about this country as the others. It wanted to call itself the Republic of Macedonia, but that apparently got Greece angry, and the two were about to go at each other, so they decided on officially calling it the Former Yugoslavi Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). About 65% of all people that live in Macedonia are Macedonians, but there is a large minority of Albanians (25%) who also live there which is causing some ethnic tension in the region. Keep your eyes out on Macedonia.
5. Serbia: Corruption. Even though corruption is everywhere, the country is divided almost 50-50 with those progressive pro-western and those right-wing natinoalists almost evenly divided. When the economy turned shit in 2000 and power bills skyrocketed, Milosevic was overthrown by a coup and disappeared. The country seems to be in limbo between joining the rest of Europe or (long-shot) hoping for integrating into Russia or at least having closer ties with Russia. With Boris Tadic as president, however, they seem to be heading closer with the West than with Russia.
6. Bosnia and Hercegovina: The country is fucked up. They received the brunt of the war. The Dayton Accords created a huge monster of an ineffective bureacracy where bribery and corruption run rampant. Instead of uniting the country, districts and territories are even more divided along ethnic lines. They have no unified strong central government. Instead, there are two regional governments, the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska) and the Federation (Bosniaks and Croats). The RS makes up 49% of Bosnia while the Federation makes up 51% of Bosnia. One time when Sarajevo (the capital) called for a vote on creating one-central powerful government, the former PM of RS, Milorad Dodik, had threatened to call a referendum for Serb secession (which would have caused another war). I highly doubt that there will be another war. After the shit that went down in Srebrenica genocide, the West would be embarassed to let another massacre happen in the heart of Europe. Instead, I think that pressure will be put on Serbs to unite, because, until Bosnia has at least a fully functioning central government, they can't even apply for the E.U. All other Eastern European and former Yugoslav countries are making progress while Bosnia is stuck in stagnation.
Foreign aid that was supposed to be sent to desperate people ends up missing. They have around a 40% unemployment rate. Instead of one president, they have 3 presidents, one for each ethnic group (Bosniak, Croat, Serb), but this could be in violation of the constitution since people of other ethnic groups (Jews, Protestants, etc.) aren't allowed to run for president.
The country receives almost no tourists (self-explanatory).
Quote:Quote:
Likely, it falls under the category of regional ethnic civil war.
Agree 90% with you, but why did the international community take action so late? What were they waiting for? Ulterior motives?
Hello.