Throughout world history, very many different political scenes were altered, former Yugoslavia not being an exception. Yugoslavia was considered to be one of the most liberal communist regime, led by dictator Josip Broz Tito. He kept complete control over the various ethnic, religious, and nationalist groups under a great superpower, “greater Yugoslavia”. Soon after Tito’s death, politicians began imposing nationalistic regimes, which only pinned the Serbs, Croats, and the Bosnians against each other which would later ignite the flame of a full blown nationalistic war. The Yugoslav wars facilitated the breakup of the country, which started on June 25, 1991 and it would prolong to 2001. The Republic of Slovenia, which was followed very shortly
…show more content…
Ullman raises some rather interesting points. In a very non-stereotypical way, meaning that he does not adapt to the pre constructed ideologies of the West that tries to impede in the Balkan region by granting all of the state independence. More bluntly, he does not follow typical American foreign policy procedures, where they implant themselves in the troubled region for their own economic and political gain. Something that I am going to call a one trick solution, where temporarily that might control the outbursts, but permanently it does more damage than good. He talks about how the conflict of the Balkans will never really be resolved; the only thing that is “keeping the peace” is the threshold of the European powers (Ullman, 1996, pg. 3). He makes the claim that the Balkans are an unresolved dangerous territory that have only survived the amount of time they have without any conflicts due to the other European powers, having a high threshold and basically acting as a parental …show more content…
The Croatian conflict lies right in the heart of the disagreement between urbanized Serbs and their rural relatives, and all of the key political figures most definitely underestimated the amplitude of differences between these two groups (Glenny, 1994, pg. 3-5). Croatian President Franjo Tudjman has just as much fault in the conflicts as does the Serbian President. He created a very big problem, by labelling and viewing the urban Serbs as overall representative of all “Croatian Serbs” (Glenny, 1994, pg.
Ullman raises some rather interesting points. In a very non-stereotypical way, meaning that he does not adapt to the pre constructed ideologies of the West that tries to impede in the Balkan region by granting all of the state independence. More bluntly, he does not follow typical American foreign policy procedures, where they implant themselves in the troubled region for their own economic and political gain. Something that I am going to call a one trick solution, where temporarily that might control the outbursts, but permanently it does more damage than good. He talks about how the conflict of the Balkans will never really be resolved; the only thing that is “keeping the peace” is the threshold of the European powers (Ullman, 1996, pg. 3). He makes the claim that the Balkans are an unresolved dangerous territory that have only survived the amount of time they have without any conflicts due to the other European powers, having a high threshold and basically acting as a parental …show more content…
The Croatian conflict lies right in the heart of the disagreement between urbanized Serbs and their rural relatives, and all of the key political figures most definitely underestimated the amplitude of differences between these two groups (Glenny, 1994, pg. 3-5). Croatian President Franjo Tudjman has just as much fault in the conflicts as does the Serbian President. He created a very big problem, by labelling and viewing the urban Serbs as overall representative of all “Croatian Serbs” (Glenny, 1994, pg.