Why did US shift its policy towards Yugoslavia?
Monday, October 19th, 2009http://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.)
e-mail: kay.bulstreet[at]hotmail.co.uk 
Homepage: