Thread by @JasminMuj

Incredible the extent to which Russian nationalist revisionism has infiltrated ostensibly informed debate on the #Balkans, and filtered thru to Western discourses about the Kremlin’s foreign policy more broadly. 1/

For instance, the centrality of NATO’s bombing of Milosevic's regime in '99 in new pop-history of RUS revanchism. In this narrative, '99 was moment of trauma/betrayal for Kremlin as it signified NATO rubbing their faces in their inability, post-USSR, to protect a trusted ally. 2/

What’s notably absent in this narrative is i) any regard for the history of Yugoslav – Soviet relations, and more importantly ii) Russia’s deep and bloody involvement in the Yugoslav Wars prior to 1999. 3/

To begin with, Milosevic becoming a trusted ally of the Kremlin was a decision made by his *new* (post-1989) nationalist regime & did not reflect the half century of frosty relations btw Belgrade (esp under Tito) and the Soviet Kremlin. 4/

In other words, Russia becoming a patron of the Milosevic regime, and his wars of aggression in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, was a radical policy shift by the Kremlin and, indeed, it backed thereafter a radical, genocidal project. 5/

Said radical project, Milosevic's attempt to carve out of Yugoslavia a "Greater Serbia" was clearly the spiritual and political predecessor to Putin, Dugin et al's "Novorossiya" and was extremely popular w then "fringe" RUS nationalists. (See vid.) 6/

RUS was deeply involved in Bosnian War in particular. There were hundreds of Russian “volunteers” in Bosnia; this is openly acknowledged by both the Russian and Serb nationalist establishments. These men committed war crimes in Bosnia (& later in Ukraine & likely Syria). 7/

The Kremlin also provided explicit diplomatic cover for Milosevic, esp between 1993-1995, and worked closely w his proxy Karadzic (see article) to forestall NATO bombings during their monstrous siege of Sarajevo. 8/ washingtonpost.com/archive/politi…

So, the Kremlin was not a passive observer to the Yugoslav Wars, it actively backed the Milosevic regime throughout the 90s, and by ’99 it was prepared to nearly cause a shooting incident w NATO in Kosovo to try to protect him. 9/ theguardian.com/world/1999/jun…

Rather than being “betrayed” by NATO in ’99, Moscow simply lost; the genocidal dictator they had backed throughout the decade was finished, after having launched four separate wars of aggression against neighboring states. 10/

This is the historical record: in Bosnia alone, the Kremlin actively backed a regime which is responsible for the deaths of 100K. So, yes, I am therefore deeply concerned about the reappearance of RUS militants in BiH & the Balkans in 2018. 11/

And by the same token, I’m utterly unmoved by the “sober” views of analysts in London, Paris, Rome etc who tell us that bearded nationalist extremists w AKs running around eastern Bosnia is nothing to be alarmed about. Their predecessors said the same thing in 1991. 12/

I have no issue w being thought an alarmist or Chicken Little in this regard. If I'm wrong, that'll be my shame alone. But if I am right, even in part, about what we're seeing in the Balkans viz. RUS at present, then I have responsibility to try to speak & save lives. 13/13