AH Challenge: Severed Serb-Russian ties

I'm aware of pro-independence countries sending military support to separatists or giving them refuge in "security pockets" to rest/rearm/regroup between guerilla raids or directly intervening on their behalf against Serbs, if arms supplies and refuge for separatists paramilitaries did not achieve desired outcome.

What are you talking about? military support? Direct intervention?

But you might be right about safe areas. MAkes sense Serbs overran one at srebrenica and removed that threat

I'm not aware of any anti-independence or pro-"law and order" attempts to assist Serbs or prevent Croats/Bosniaks/Albanians from cleansing Serbs.

Would impsoing arms embargo on all sides count? Seeing how serbs inherited the heavy stuff from Yugoslav army and others, well, didn't?

Oh well, I know one and proud of it, since they were Canadian forces who intervened to prevent ethnic cleansing performed by Croatians. What did happen next, you wonder? Canadians were hastily transferred to another area by leadership of the "impartial UN peacekeepers" and cleansing renewed with gusto.

Would that refer to Medak pocket, by any chance?

Do you still wonder why Serbs view ones who provided guns and refuge to their killers and bombed them as being less than friendly?

:rolleyes: Who started the war? Who comited first atrocity (hint, city lies in eastern Croatia and fell to serbs after moths of fighting). Who was responsible for Srebrenica, siege of sarajevo, shelling of Dubrovnik? Serbs had upper hand but overeached. they could have held Krajina (Z-4 plan) but rejected it. Then they got their asses handed to them when Croats got their shit together and built up their forces. RSK controlled 70% of Bosnia, but that wasn't enough. So Serbs got (again) their asses handed to them when other sides matched their equipment.

If anybody should be less then friendly to outsiders it should be Croats and Bosniacs because other nations simply didn't allow them to get weapons to defend themselves. serbs were top togs and have about as much right to complain about how things turned out as Germans have for devastation of their coutnry in 1945. What you sow is what you reap.
 
OK, I guess you are satisfied with my proposal of "no Western support for anti-Serbian separatists" as being the easiest tool of severing Russo-Serbian ties, as your posting answers another question, namely "why was West supporting separatists". This is interesting topic nonetherless.

What are you talking about? military support? Direct intervention?
Military support. Just ask yourself a question. Where all the GDR armament did go/ Intervention. NATO air strikes in Bosnia. I guess I gave you enough clues for Googling.

Would impsoing arms embargo on all sides count? Seeing how serbs inherited the heavy stuff from Yugoslav army and others, well, didn't?
Well, if I will go insane and challenge Valuev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Valuev), will it be fair for me to scream "gimme AK-47, so I can deal with him on equal terms" after I started the fight? You don't have means to deal with opponent with brute force, you don't start violence, as simple as that. I don't see Croats as being menthally challenged, so I strongly suspect they were counting on "heavy stuff" coming from foreign friends from the very beginning.

Would that refer to Medak pocket, by any chance?
Wow, I am delighted. You are one of very few who cared to remember.

:rolleyes: Who started the war? Who comited first atrocity (hint, city lies in eastern Croatia and fell to serbs after moths of fighting). Who was responsible for Srebrenica, siege of sarajevo, shelling of Dubrovnik?
Again, using hypotetical fight between me and Valuev as an example. After I challenged Valuev (and assuming I survived his first punch, which is extremely unlikely, unless he would be in particularly zen mood this day), would it be fair for me to scream "He hit me! He did the first atrocity! He unfairly used his might!"

Serbs had upper hand but overeached. they could have held Krajina (Z-4 plan) but rejected it. Then they got their asses handed to them when Croats got their shit together and built up their forces.
Well, Z-4 plan reminds me of another glorious peace plan 've read of. Making Israel an authonomous part of Jordan under Hashemite crown, with simultaneous disbandment of the Jewish army. Both are genuinely acceptable to perspective authonomous entities, aren't they?

RSK controlled 70% of Bosnia, but that wasn't enough. So Serbs got (again) their asses handed to them when other sides matched their equipment.
Well, taking into account that "other sides" include NATO, who desided to support their proteges when they utterly failed to deal with Serb militia by themselves, are you really wondering that tiny militia could not match NATO?

serbs were top togs and have about as much right to complain about how things turned out as Germans have for devastation of their coutnry in 1945. What you sow is what you reap.
Well, assuming that (1) trying to prevent armed guerillas supported by the foreign powers from tearing country apart is comparable to (2) attacking dozen or more independent countries and entertaining themselves with this funny Holocaust thingy are similar events, you are right.
 
Military support. Just ask yourself a question. Where all the GDR armament did go/

Arms embargo

Intervention. NATO air strikes in Bosnia. I guess I gave you enough clues for Googling.

1995. War started in 1991 (or 1990, depending on what you consider actual start of fighting)

Well, if I will go insane and challenge Valuev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Valuev), will it be fair for me to scream "gimme AK-47, so I can deal with him on equal terms" after I started the fight?

that would be proper analogy if you had your timeline straight. but you seem to ignore the fact that serbs started the fighting. So using your Valuev analogy it would be fair for you to scream for AK-47 after he would come after you.

You don't have means to deal with opponent with brute force, you don't start violence, as simple as that.

Which is why Serbs made their moves when they had the guns and their opponents didn't.

I don't see Croats as being menthally challenged, so I strongly suspect they were counting on "heavy stuff" coming from foreign friends from the very beginning.

Which is funny, seeing how Serbs disarmed local TDF's and Croat and Bosniacs failed to rearm. Dosn't sound like they were planning on offencsive moves. It would indicate, however, that Serbian leadership was planning exactly that and wished their opponents to be military weak. and it worked (for most part).

Again, using hypotetical fight between me and Valuev as an example. After I challenged Valuev (and assuming I survived his first punch, which is extremely unlikely, unless he would be in particularly zen mood this day), would it be fair for me to scream "He hit me! He did the first atrocity! He unfairly used his might!"

Using Valuev analogy, after you and he were roomies for a while (and you paid majority of rent and other expenses) you decided to go separate ways and find a place of your own. then Valuev would pounce on you saying "oh no, you don't. You stay right here." and started punching you. then yes, it would be fair of you to scream for that AK-47.

Well, Z-4 plan reminds me of another glorious peace plan 've read of. Making Israel an authonomous part of Jordan under Hashemite crown, with simultaneous disbandment of the Jewish army. Both are genuinely acceptable to perspective authonomous entities, aren't they?

Except that Serbs didn't move in area in force few years prior and started expelling Croats. So your analogy doesn't hold water

Well, taking into account that "other sides" include NATO, who desided to support their proteges when they utterly failed to deal with Serb militia by themselves, are you really wondering that tiny militia could not match NATO?

Do explain, where was NATO during battle of Vukovar? During shelling of Dubrovnik? Seems like they stayed out during Croatia's darkest hour and decided to intervene in neighbouring country 5 years alter. Doesn't sound like a friend to me

Well, assuming that (1) trying to prevent armed guerillas supported by the foreign powers from tearing country apart is comparable to (2) attacking dozen or more independent countries and entertaining themselves with this funny Holocaust thingy are similar events, you are right.

you made that assumption based on god knows what. It seems you are comparing Serbian actions with that of Nazi Germany. I wouldn't go that far but if you think it's appropriate comparison go ahead.

But I would say that in the end Serbs got served what they dished out for past couple of years. Same as Germans in 1945

and so far you have failed to provide any evidence that there was outside support during initial phase of war(s) 1990-93. There is evidence that several outside powers tried to keep Yugoslavia together (Us and SU among them).
 
OK, I'm glad we're firmly settled an answer for the OP question. No Western support for militant separatists will most likely mean no warm feeling between Serbs and Russia.

Now, going back to technicalities.
1995. War started in 1991 (or 1990, depending on what you consider actual start of fighting)
Well, you fooled me with your casual reference to Medak Pocket to overestimate your knowledge.
http://www.fas.org/news/serbia/931119-nuke.htm
Serbs were resorting to desperate gambles to ward off NATO strikes in 1993. Threat of direct Western military intervention was very real year or two after war started.

that would be proper analogy if you had your timeline straight. but you seem to ignore the fact that serbs started the fighting. So using your Valuev analogy it would be fair for you to scream for AK-47 after he would come after you.
I guess it were Serbs who unilaterally and without talks declared independence of unitarian Croatia and moved ethnic Croat paramilitaries into Krajina. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia it gives surprisingly sane account regarding chain of events leading to war.

Using Valuev analogy, after you and he were roomies for a while (and you paid majority of rent and other expenses) you decided to go separate ways and find a place of your own. then Valuev would pounce on you saying "oh no, you don't. You stay right here." and started punching you. then yes, it would be fair of you to scream for that AK-47.
Not discussing validity of the "we paid majority of rent and other expenses" claim (which will be an off-topic of off-topic), reasonable people negotiate terms of separation. Violent ones buy themselves illegal guns and go after former roomies, claming that they own what is theirs plus part of roomie's belongings (remember, there was never a war between Serbia the state and any of it's internationally recognized neighbours with possible exception of Dubrovnik, it was always struggle between separatist entities and Serb ethnic minorities on territories claimed by separatists).

Do explain, where was NATO during battle of Vukovar? During shelling of Dubrovnik?
Cheering from the sidelines hoping that clandestine weapon deliveries would be enough for Croats to drive Serbs off. Let's be realistic, it is not an easy thing to convince public opinion that bombing one group of militants on behalf of other group 300 miles from Rome and Athens is extremely wise things. Requires good deal of PR effort. BTW, even Wikipedia (which is usually tilted toward Western POVs for very natural and obvious reasons) consider "international pressure" as key factor preventing officially Montenegrin forces from mounting attack on Dubrovnik. BTW, after billions of dollars worth of destruction levelled by the NATO warplanes on Serbian parts of BiH and the Serbia proper in 1995 and 1999, are you entirely comfortable calling siege of Dubrovnik (which, according to Croatian calculations, destructed under 10 mlns worth of property and killed grand total of 82-88 civilians "the darkest hour of Croatian struggle" and still stick to this "savage Serb attackers" caricature?
 
OK, I'm glad we're firmly settled an answer for the OP question. No Western support for militant separatists will most likely mean no warm feeling between Serbs and Russia.

Hardly. Serbia and russia were close anyway so why should non existance of something that didn't exist anyway change that?

Now, going back to technicalities.
Well, you fooled me with your casual reference to Medak Pocket to overestimate your knowledge.
http://www.fas.org/news/serbia/931119-nuke.htm
Serbs were resorting to desperate gambles to ward off NATO strikes in 1993. Threat of direct Western military intervention was very real year or two after war started.

I guess it worked since they had two more years of doing pretty much what they wanted.

and anybody who would believe that story should be sold some seaside property in Mongolia

I guess it were Serbs who unilaterally and without talks declared independence of unitarian Croatia and moved ethnic Croat paramilitaries into Krajina. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia it gives surprisingly sane account regarding chain of events leading to war.

First of all there were talks, plenty of them, to figure out what to do with Yugoslavia.

Second of all, yes, it was Serbs who picked up arms first. Trunk revolution, as it was called back then.

and your "sane" account (Wiki, of all sources :rolleyes: ) gives no mention to various negotiations before the war.

Not discussing validity of the "we paid majority of rent and other expenses" claim (which will be an off-topic of off-topic), reasonable people negotiate terms of separation.

Sure. And when one side covers it's ears and goes "lalala, I'm not listening to you, you are mean and I want it my way" sensible people walk away

Violent ones buy themselves illegal guns and go after former roomies, claming that they own what is theirs plus part of roomie's belongings

and some don't have to buy them illegally because they already have them and took away their roomie's guns as well so he can't defend himslef

(remember, there was never a war between Serbia the state and any of it's internationally recognized neighbours with possible exception of Dubrovnik, it was always struggle between separatist entities and Serb ethnic minorities on territories claimed by separatists).

Bullshit. There was no serb ethnic minority in Slovenia (there are serbs but they are result of economic migration after WW2). It was Yugoslav army vs slovenian forces. Granted slovenia wasn't recognised back then.

Cheering from the sidelines hoping that clandestine weapon deliveries would be enough for Croats to drive Serbs off.

and when these alledged weapons deliveries failed to do what they were alledgedly supposed to do NATO did nothing.

Let's be realistic, it is not an easy thing to convince public opinion that bombing one group of militants on behalf of other group 300 miles from Rome and Athens is extremely wise things. Requires good deal of PR effort. BTW, even Wikipedia (which is usually tilted toward Western POVs for very natural and obvious reasons) consider "international pressure" as key factor preventing officially Montenegrin forces from mounting attack on Dubrovnik.

Which makes one wonder why did NATO alledgedly do this in the first place and had no plan for PR campaign when their alledged weapons deliveries failed to provide.

BTW, after billions of dollars worth of destruction levelled by the NATO warplanes on Serbian parts of BiH and the Serbia proper in 1995 and 1999, are you entirely comfortable calling siege of Dubrovnik (which, according to Croatian calculations, destructed under 10 mlns worth of property and killed grand total of 82-88 civilians "the darkest hour of Croatian struggle" and still stick to this "savage Serb attackers" caricature?

I didn't call siege of Dubrovnik Croat darkest hour, I called period of 1990-93 their darkest hour, when they were military weak and powerless. I don't know if this was deliberate misquote or not by you but if you are going to quote me do it properly.
 
Strong Serb US relation due to a large Croat terrorist treat?

That is assuming that Serbia can't have strong ties to Russia at the same time they have strong ties to the US. It might not be true.
 
Last edited:
Strong Serb US relation due to a large Croat terrorist treat?

That is assuming that Serbia can't have strong ties to Russia at the same time they have strong ties to the US. It might not be true.

The only Croat terrorist threat was Croat emigrant groups that tried to raise troubles in 1970s by infiltrating into Yugoslavia. Msot were raised from emigrants in Australia. They were destroyed

And Croatia was target of islamic terrorism, suffering first suicide bombing in Europe (sorry Londoners, you weren't first)
 
The only Croat terrorist threat was Croat emigrant groups that tried to raise troubles in 1970s by infiltrating into Yugoslavia. Msot were raised from emigrants in Australia. They were destroyed

Exile Croats had a terror campaign in Sweden, including attacking the Yugoslav embassy, a consulate (I think they killed people in both attacks)and highjacking a airplane. I saw a programe on Discovery about some attacks in thye US.

What I'm saying (*) is that if we multiply that with a hundred, the Croats will be unpopular.

(*) And I'm not blaming Croats in general.
 
Exile Croats had a terror campaign in Sweden, including attacking the Yugoslav embassy, a consulate (I think they killed people in both attacks)and highjacking a airplane. I saw a programe on Discovery about some attacks in thye US.

What I'm saying (*) is that if we multiply that with a hundred, the Croats will be unpopular.

(*) And I'm not blaming Croats in general.

It would likely be aimed at Serbs and relatively confined to Yugoslavia. In other words people in balkans are killing each other and nobody really cares.
 
Top