Why did US shift its policy towards Yugoslavia?

[punisa]

Interesting read by the "dear leader" mr. Ronald Reagan:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-133.htm

Also, there is a good report called "U.S. Policy toward the Demise of Yugoslavia: the "Virus of Nationalism", but can't find the text online.

My question is this - if Yugoslavia served as an ally and a buffer zone (as Reagan stated himself in the files above) between the USSR and the west, how come there was the radical shift in US policy immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
I'm having a difficult time understanding these moves. Why would several new nations be a better choice for the US global policy then 1 big one?

Separatist wars that broke out in the early 90's could not have happened if the US didn't gave the "green light" for it.
Naturally US documents from this era are mostly still classified.

I hope some of you who are more into geopolitics can help me on this one:
1) why break Yugoslavia into several small capitalist nations instead of transitioning the whole country into capitalism (like Russia) ?
2) why let random Islamic radicals like Taliban organize camps in central Bosnia so close to Europe (they're still there btw) ?
3) why pursue the plan of conflict rather then peaceful disintegration ?

I state all these questions describing the US as the grand puppetmaster of events that took place 1990-now in the Balkans, some may disagree, but lately more and more evidences back up this claim (for example, recently it has been acknowledged that Croatian forces liberated parts of the country by the direct US command etc.)

[FSL]

Why would several new nations be a better choice for the US global policy then 1 big one?


For one thing, smaller states would be more inclined to "offer themselves" to US in return for "protection".

Most of the countries that emerged in the 90s and continuing today with Kossovo etc might be small but they can still offer their ground for hosting a military base, secret prisons or anything else US might ask them.

[Philosophical Materialist]

/why break Yugoslavia into several small capitalist nations instead of transitioning the whole country into capitalism (like Russia) ?

Remember, Russia was not a sovereign state itself before the collapse of the USSR in 1990-91. Indeed the USSR collapsed, leaving many small capitalist nations in its aftermath.

[rebelmouse]

1) why break Yugoslavia into several small capitalist nations instead of transitioning the whole country into capitalism (like Russia) ?
2) why let random Islamic radicals like Taliban organize camps in central Bosnia so close to Europe (they're still there btw) ?
3) why pursue the plan of conflict rather then peaceful disintegration ?1) because yugoslavia was created by riches and politicians and not by the people. if you forgot, already before IIWW croatian and serbian politicians had conflict about power inside of Yugoslavia. In IIWW croatia was on the side of germany so there was killing between people of Yugoslavia. Tito united people after war is finished, but do you really think people forget who killed their mother, brother, etc.? of course, they don't forget, so YUgoslavia after war was possible only with dictatorship. beside it, nationalism was hidden many years and some new generation in 80ties were reeady to move their mask of communists and show their face of nationalists. but political party was responsible for giving of power to fake communists. they destroyed in the end yugoslavia, not people who work on the land or in factory. beside it, communist party cared about making of cult of leader, so people believed in leader like idiots, and when leader died they started to follow new leaders (milosevic, tudjman, etc). new leaders were fake communist and they used chance to be "king in their own garden" rather than to be presidents in republics (republics had someone over them (federal government)). leaders have their personal interest to be the top of the top. and people followed leaders like ships without brain. that's what communist party learned them during 50 years. therefore, milosevic and tudjman didn't have problem in spreading of mass hate and extreme nationalism, after 50 years of socialism and brotherhood. whole system worked for leaders and people followed leaders whatever they say.

2) this is more blabla. I don't keep anybody's side, war in bosnia was the worst, and of course, muslims, the same as serbs and croatians, had to organize themselves and protect themselves from other 2 sides. if muslims got help from abroad, so what? they support each other the same as anarchists should support each other in trouble. croatians in bosnia got help from croatia, and serbs in bosnia from serbia. so, why muslims should not get help from abroad?

3)my opinion is that milosevic made shit when he didn't accept borders from the time of tito, so he started a war. he wanted to use "historical chance" to make big serbia (to include serbs from croatia in serbia and he planned together with president of croatia to take part of bosnia, so the both of them didn't want existance of bosnia). so as you see, milosevic and tudjman are the most guilty for war in bosnia.
of course, west europe wanted there capitalism and entrance for corportions, they didn't care how milosevic, tudjam and izetbegovic will solve their problems. when they saw there is a war, of course, every country started to help their favorites (germany and hungary helped to croatia with weapons, etc). simply, war bring business for some people and for some countries. war bring them cheap factories and workers, when war is finished also. so, summa summarum, west profited from war in more ways: debts to rebuild destroyed country, etc.

[Dimentio]

I have read that it was Germany which influenced America to take a Pro-Croatian position, as Germany and Austria have had good relations with Croatia for centuries and wanted the country as an economic colony.