A NATO that stands by the Serbs

In light of recent events, and seeing how aparently people in Serbia still feel "betrayed" by Western powers, who were their historical allies:

What would it take for NATO or at least important NATO members to support the Serbian/pro-Yugoslavia faction in the wars of the 1990ies?

I admit that I still haven't completely processed the events and dynamics of that conflict, but it is argued that Germany's support for Croatia and Slovenia was an important factor in the way the conflict developed and how it was perceived, with France and the UK initially being opposed to the separatists.

If, say, Germany just kept quiet, would there be a chance for the French/British view to prevail? Would the conflict have remained much smaller, with a chance of Yugoslavia staying united in the end? Is it possible that NATO would have supported Belgrade against the separatists, in a peace keeping mission?
Would this lead to a general perception that the Serbs were the victims of this conflict and had to be protected against Slovenian, Criatian and Bosnian fringe "fascists"?
 
Not committing genocide would probably be a good start.

If the conflict remains relatively small it might never come to that. And even if (much smaller) serb atrocities happen - look, I'm really not for bashing NATO countries on principle, but it's a strategic military institution, not a moral one. I can't see it support full-blown genocide out of mere realpolitik, but at least turning a blind eye to something under that.... eeeeh.
 
Last edited:
Remember the origins of the (former Yugoslavia) civil war.
Serbs were Eastern Orthodox Christians who had long been supported by Russia and Greece.
Croatians were Roman Catholics most closely aligned with German-speaking Catholics.
Kosovars were Muslims, recruited by the Ottoman Empire many centuries earlier.

All these different hill tribes were recruited by the different empires to defend imperial borders in mountainous Balkan terrain. The various empires knew that they regular soldiers would die miserable deaths if they tried to invade narrow mountain vallies.
Sadly, the various Balkan wars turned so vicious, they then bred centuries-long feuds between the various mountain tribes. Those centuries-long feuds built tribal grudges that motivated massacres during the 1990s civil war. All Yugoslav factions were guilty of massacres. Mountain tribes continue those feuds long after the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Emperor (Holy Roman Emperor) and Russian Czar died.

So to answer the OP, NATO was culturally (religiously) bound to support Roman Catholic Croatians.
 
Last edited:
There is one crucial aspect here: the governments of Britain, France and the USA were initially "pro-Serbian", i.e. in favour of keeping Yugoslavia as a unified country. The biggest fear in the summer of 1991 was that the Yugoslavian example of secession and civil war would be a precedent for the fading Soviet Union (which had a nuclear arsenal). Their attitudes changed when it became clear that Milosevic did actually follow a very different agenda, namely a Greater Serbia. When the pictures of the concentration camps were shown in Western media in the summer of 1992, there was basically no turning back.

The original roots of the war went back a bit further, namely Tito's schizophrenic state-building of a politically centralist, but culturally federalist Yugoslavia. There always was a Serbian Nationalist wing in the Communist Party. But Milosevic went the full way in 1987 with his visit to Kosovo and his announcement to protect Serbian interests there. In his 1989 speech on the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje, he mostly talked about "Serbia", not Yugoslavia. In the West, many people mistook him as a stalwart for Yugoslavia, but he already was a disguised Serbian nationalist before Croatia and Slovenia voted for independence in 1990. So I'd say the only scenario in which Britain, France et al could support Serbia would be to prevent Milosevic's rise to power, enabling a more "Yugoslavian"-minded politician gaining control of the state. Then, Croatia and Slovenia going independent would merely be seen as separatist movements - like the Basques or the Catalans.
 
Hmm - wast majority of Croats lived in relative flatlans and 'milidly' hilly terrain, ditto for the Serbs. There was next to no feuds between Croats and Serbs before Kingdom of SHS was formed. Compared with Russo-Polish or Anglo-Scotish relations, the relations between Croats and Serbs were bed of roses before 1920s.
There was also not that much of 'recruiting' of the Kosovo Albanians by the Ottoman Empire either. Much greater was the recruiting of Croats and Serbs made by Austrian empire from 16th to 19th century.

These 3 nationalities were interlocked in many parts of ex-Yu, having an outside ruler kept them without war. Once the strive for nation states begun, with other players (Slovenes, Macedonians, bosnian Muslims; Montenegrins that felt that King Alexandar took away the state; toss in the powerful but banned Communists) it was just a matter of time for the spark to trigger the bomb, some 100 years than it was the case west and north from ex-Yu.

If we can elect Croatian 'natural' and cultural allies, that woul be Vatican and Austria, rather than Germany, that was obvoiusly most powerful ally they hoped for.
 
There is one crucial aspect here: the governments of Britain, France and the USA were initially "pro-Serbian", i.e. in favour of keeping Yugoslavia as a unified country. The biggest fear in the summer of 1991 was that the Yugoslavian example of secession and civil war would be a precedent for the fading Soviet Union (which had a nuclear arsenal). Their attitudes changed when it became clear that Milosevic did actually follow a very different agenda, namely a Greater Serbia. When the pictures of the concentration camps were shown in Western media in the summer of 1992, there was basically no turning back.

The original roots of the war went back a bit further, namely Tito's schizophrenic state-building of a politically centralist, but culturally federalist Yugoslavia. There always was a Serbian Nationalist wing in the Communist Party. But Milosevic went the full way in 1987 with his visit to Kosovo and his announcement to protect Serbian interests there. In his 1989 speech on the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje, he mostly talked about "Serbia", not Yugoslavia. In the West, many people mistook him as a stalwart for Yugoslavia, but he already was a disguised Serbian nationalist before Croatia and Slovenia voted for independence in 1990. So I'd say the only scenario in which Britain, France et al could support Serbia would be to prevent Milosevic's rise to power, enabling a more "Yugoslavian"-minded politician gaining control of the state. Then, Croatia and Slovenia going independent would merely be seen as separatist movements - like the Basques or the Catalans.

It's interesting how in retrospect it was "obvious" that yugoslavia would fall apart and that entities like Croatia would become nation-states. When I look at maps from the time today and look at yugoslavia it looks "fake", a weird blob where a bunch of borders should be. Yet aparently prior to the 1990ies it wasn't any more "weird" than any other country.

I wonder if there are countries today we will come to see like that in the future...
 
Perhaps a further rise of radical islamist elements in Yugoslavia opting for an islamist state would encourage NATO to support Serbis.

The other major issue was Russia. Russia was weak in the early 90s. What NATO pulled off in the early 90s would have been very difficult to achieve today with soneone like Putin in charge of Russia and Russia capable of projecting power.
 
Top