Being a Bosnian Croat who uses Twitter can be quite an annoying experience, especially since the topic of NATO and western interventionism is the subject of the day.
Lastly there is no mention of the dreadful aftermaths of the Kosovo intervention, which actual historians of the topic would argue proved genocide cannot be fixed with more genocide from our friendly humanitarians over at NATO. Which has proved again consistently in Libya, Syria, etc.
I understand this is a passionate topic for you, and this article is trying to combat vulgar narratives perpetuated by dishonest actors in the west, but the analysis you provided in this was dreadfully ahistorical and lacking. Not all westerners who criticize NATO intervention in Yugoslavia are vulgar genocide deniers. The fact is this article dangerously downplays the west’s consistent expansionism into the Soviet blocs. It also operates under the assumption that the west makes geopolitical decisions based on some humanitarianism, which is far from the truth. Aside from the passing mention of IMF loans the role of imperial financial capital is ignored in this piece. Many questions are left unanswered, such as why the west ignored other genocides in the Yugoslav wars not committed by Serbs. You fail to discuss the fact that Milosevic was first and firstmost the west’s man. Also no talk about the unethical targets of the Kosovo bombings including hospitals and economic infrastructure. Why did NATO have to destroy crucial infrastructure and target civilian centers during their so-called humanitarian intervention? Like I said, I understand this article is combating vulgar narratives but this article itself is a mess of emotion with little insightful analysis . Combatting vulgar narratives with more vulgar narratives is not the way to go.
Lastly there is no mention of the dreadful aftermaths of the Kosovo intervention, which actual historians of the topic would argue proved genocide cannot be fixed with more genocide from our friendly humanitarians over at NATO. Which has proved again consistently in Libya, Syria, etc.
I understand this is a passionate topic for you, and this article is trying to combat vulgar narratives perpetuated by dishonest actors in the west, but the analysis you provided in this was dreadfully ahistorical and lacking. Not all westerners who criticize NATO intervention in Yugoslavia are vulgar genocide deniers. The fact is this article dangerously downplays the west’s consistent expansionism into the Soviet blocs. It also operates under the assumption that the west makes geopolitical decisions based on some humanitarianism, which is far from the truth. Aside from the passing mention of IMF loans the role of imperial financial capital is ignored in this piece. Many questions are left unanswered, such as why the west ignored other genocides in the Yugoslav wars not committed by Serbs. You fail to discuss the fact that Milosevic was first and firstmost the west’s man. Also no talk about the unethical targets of the Kosovo bombings including hospitals and economic infrastructure. Why did NATO have to destroy crucial infrastructure and target civilian centers during their so-called humanitarian intervention? Like I said, I understand this article is combating vulgar narratives but this article itself is a mess of emotion with little insightful analysis . Combatting vulgar narratives with more vulgar narratives is not the way to go.