Who started burning books in Cyrillic, firing Serb people from government jobs, fighting in the streets and killing those Croats that were for peace at the start? Whose president refused EC brokering and monetary help but only if Yugoslavia survived?
And it was Yugoslavian army that did those things.
The fact that you can't see the irony in supporting bombing of independent countries and at the same time not supporting it for those same stated reasons is unbelievable.
This is so false that I don't know where to begin. Maybe it's best at the end, when in 2004 after all the wars, when UN and NATO troops were actually stationed there, a pogrom of a minority happened just because the majority heard a rumour that they killed some children somewhere bin the country.
It's not cynical, it's exactly what was happening. It was the police that was cracking down on terrorists, not army. Army only became involved with NATO involment. And before you say that Albanian guerilla organizations were not terrorist, the US state department classified them that way up to less than one year before the bombing happened.
And as for that supposed policy of Albanian expulsion, by how much did the percentage of Albanians diminish during the Serbian rule of Kosovo? And by how much did the number of Serbs diminish during the Albanian rule of Kosovo?
It's not arguing about nameing, it's about command line of control. Serb Republic ním Bosnia was a completely different entity than the Republic of Serbia. I mean, Serbia even put sanctions on Serb Republic during some period of the war.
Justifying bombing of Serbia because of Bosnia would be like justifying bombing of Belgium because of the Netherlands. Yeah, sure they are kinda allies but that's it.
>You mentioned that this cannot be said for a lot of EU countries. Turks born in EU do not have to learn German. Immigration within EU is free from language requirement too.
So Turks in Germany can have schools in Turkish for their children? Do you have a source for this?
>I do not even understand why do you think minorities not learning Serbian is impressive?
Because language rights are central for the survival of minority communities.
>Croatia and Kosovo both have schools that can use Serbian in their curriculum and no one is forcing Croatian on them.
Yeah, when they are not being stoned in Kosovo or have their Cyrillic signs smashed in Croatia.
It very clearly is an insult against people because of their nationality but I discovered these days that online communities are a lot more accepting of such statements.
>I mean, except Putin talking about how Ukraine is fake nation that should be part of Russia.
>How can you believe this? Which part of Ukraine declared independence?
Didn't those two breakaway republics declare independence?
>Well, if your country is in EU, the citizens of EU are not forced to learn any language, even if they live outside of their country of origin. Language requirements for non-EU exist due to EU being an extremely lucrative place to live. Moving to Serbia and trying to hop on social benefits will not be as lucrative, so language requirement for citizenship might be unnecessary.
I am not talking about EU citizens moving to another country, I am talking about minorities living in Serbia.
I am a part of minority that lived in the now Serbian territory for over 250 years and there's no legal requirement for us to learn Serbian. You can live your perfectly happy life without it. We have our schools, our communities so learning the Serbian language is not a requisite although most people learn it because it offers some benefits.
I found it odd that you thought I was talking about foreigners.
>I think you’re still oversimplifying. NATO countries may have been involved in bloody wars, wars which were varying degrees of bad idea, but at least those wars were fought against regimes which were terrible - brutal and repressive towards their own population. Ukraine is a mostly liberal democracy, which makes invading it even harder to justify.
And the point is that you got this information from the ruling class who were for those wars. Or their allies abroad.
And as for Ukrainan democracy, from the Freedom house report in 2019 it sits between Burkina Faso and the Philippines.
I was using a personal anecdote what happens when some foreigners sanction "our" nation, so I used UEFA as an example. It's a similar mentality when it comes to other kinds of sanctions waged against "our" nation.
>not out of spite for a whole population
You may see it that way, but you and average Russian were consuming different media up to this point, and if we admit or not, media has an enormous influence on our worldview.
It's not temporary, or it depends on what time scale do you define "temporary".
>“no matter what your government says, nobody supports you”
Exactly my point, people at this point flock toward their country not against it. They develop this "so fuck 'em" mentality which would just enable wars to go on.
Maybe not the leader, but around the country itself. Even people that were vehemently against the leader were deeply against "the West".
>Start an actual war to depose the leader (not always turning out great, and I'm assuming your country wasn't a nuclear superpower)? Leave everything as it is, let the leader invade neighbors with no repercussions?
I don't know, I am not a world leader but I know that those sanctions are not going to have the intended consequences, just about the opposite.
If I had to say something, I would recommend to let them battle em out, with substantial military aid to Ukraine. Throwing out common Russian people from universities and jobs across Europe is just going to feed a siege mentality and its plainly speaking, racist.
>NATO bombing was not really out of the blue. The head of Yugoslavia was a similar mad man, just warring out of desperation.
Nobody said it was out of the blue, but it was illegal, wrong and plain terrorist like.
>The best proof one has of his lunacy is the fact that Montenegro split from Serbia without any issues. How did this happen? Lucikly, the mad man died in 2000.
And the best proof of NATO lunacy is that Kosovo declared independence in 2008 because they feared Serbia which at that point wasn't in Kosovo for almost 10 years, during which Kosovar population carried out pogroms of Serbs while the UN forces just watched.
Also Milošević died in 2006, never convicted of any war crimes. Later rulings on other people incriminated him but the same can be said for Tuđman. So, I guess if you die early you are not a war criminal.
>Serbia is also the only country out of these conflicts that does not guarantee seat in the parliament for the exYugoslav minorities.
It guarantees us a seat in the parliament, you just have to pass a laughably low percentage of the general vote. As a minority from Serbia, there's lot of problems in that country but minority representation is not one of them. If I wanted I could go through life without ever using Serbian language, I am not sure the same can be said for a lot of EU countries.
>While the general sentiment of people/press in Serbia is that NATO bombing is equivalent to Putin bombing Ukraine.
Because it is the same, a territory within a country decided it wanted to be independent and it is supported by an outside imperial force.
Mostly yes. That's certainly why the Russian narrative won in Russia and Belarus.
Propaganda/media is one of the most useful ways to steer a population, it even doesn't have to be particularly good propaganda if its voluminous and exclusive.
That's not a source that tells Serbia committed a genocide, because such source doesn't exist.
Ethnic Serbs in Bosnia are a different thing, same as ethnic Bosniak in Serbia are a different thing. Also I found it telling that used Serbs in quotation marks.
And it was Yugoslavian army that did those things.
The fact that you can't see the irony in supporting bombing of independent countries and at the same time not supporting it for those same stated reasons is unbelievable.