Syria – Another Yugoslavia?

It is difficult to find anything positive to say about the awful situation in Syria. All one can say is that it is starting to resemble a re-run of the conflict in Yugoslavia.

In Yugoslavia, we had a country that, like Syria, was a patchwork quilt of different ethnic groups and religions. In Yugoslavia the west was very slow to react to the growing crisis. Had NATO stood up to the likes of Milosevic earlier (notably during the early stage of the conflict, when it was just Croatia and Serbia) then its possible things could have been nipped in the bud. Instead the conflict spilled into Bosnia with scenes and events reminiscent of nazi occupied Europe played out in the country.

And as in Yugoslavia, one of the reasons for western dithering was a fear of upsetting the Serb’s Russian allies. Similarly in Syria, there was a brief window of opportunity where western intervention could have had an effect. I suspect that if, during the initial shelling of Homs, NATO had acted, that this would have had the desired effect of making sure the Syrian military stepped back from the abyss.

Indeed it is possible that some in the army may have calculated that Assad was now more a liability than a help, ousted him from power and tired to negotiate with the rebel forces. While there’s no guarantee such negotiations would have succeeded, the natural pause they would have created in the conflict would have perhaps spared Syria the wider ethnic conflict now on-going.

But, like I said all of this is hypothetical scenario, because the window of opportunity where western intervention would have had any positive effect has now long since passed.

Arming the rebels is something I’m dubious about, given the not unrealistic probability they’ll end up in the hands of Islamic extremists or ethnically cleansing death squads on one side or the other. Indeed exactly how a couple of rifles and bullets are going to allow the rebels to take on an army with access to tanks and aircraft I do not know. That is unless the west is prepared to give the rebels the sort of fire power that would actually make a strategic difference (e.g. anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles, heavy weapons, GPS units, satellite phones, etc.) which would probably not be to the liking of Israel.

As far as the proposed peace talks, I hate to sound all negative but this was tried in Yugoslavia and it didn’t work, largely because the Serb’s knew they had the Russians backing them up. Similarly does anyone honestly think the Syrian government is going to take any peace talks seriously when they know the Russians are supporting them. The only time Milosevic took such talks seriously was after NATO launched a bombing campaign against them.

And of course we all know how Yugoslavia eventually finished, with western peacekeepers in on the ground. As things stand this is the fate I see for Yugoslavia, a combination of peacekeepers from NATO (likely Turkish led) backed up by Western friendly Arab nations and Russian peacekeepers inside Syria, probably for a decade or two.

Indeed perhaps this serves as an obvious way for us to, as it were, scare Putin straight. Point out to him that the rebels aren’t going to pack up and go home, nor is the Assad regime (that’s the problem with civil wars, they are at home!) and the likely outcome of further conflict is eventually going to be Russian troops spending the next couple of years refereeing suicide bombing competitions.

The Russians need to not only get the Syrian government to commit to peace talks, but to lean on them to take them seriously…and make sure part of that process involves Assad “retiring” in some capacity….before someone else “retires” him “with extreme prejudice“.

5 thoughts on “Syria – Another Yugoslavia?

  1. As many experts on the Middle East, such as Robert Fisk, have pointed out – guns are actually a form of currency and will be traded from one group to another whatever their politics / religious extremism.
    The yanks were happy to arm the Afghan Muhajedin and look what happened.
    We should be very careful when we go about romantically calling rebels “freedom fighters”….some of these people don’t believe in any kind of freedom at all.


  2. I don’t agree with you here Daryan.. firstly why should the west intervene in any civil war? can we afford it in these times of austerity for some not all?

    And are our interests really sincere and not imperialistic as Bushka says?

    ALso i dont fancy your chances of getting Putin to change his mind – maybe if the USa stop supporting dictatorships in Bahrain and Saudi- the old double standards and self interest rises it’s head again…

    And if we had rebel freedom fighters in uk and china supported us – do you think Cameron wouldn’t shoot us?


    • And the price to be paid for inaction on Syria will be that this conflict, in which chemical weapons have almost certainly been used by one side (if not both sides), will continue probably for years to come. During which time hundred’s of thousands more will be killed.

      And there’s a fairly high risk that terrorist groups (some of whom aren’t terribly keen on Israel…or Russia!) will gain access to WMD’s (if they haven’t done so already). So those deaths won’t be limited to Syrian civilians.

      In the worse case scenario the conflict could, like Yugoslavia spill over the borders in Lebanon, Iraq and/or Turkey, where tensions are already high as it is.

      It’s about considering least worst options!


  3. all through history there hs been conflict – where is the evidence that arming more people will help reduce the number of deaths?

    I think the main trajedy is that the people who do not carry guns leave(are refugees) or are stuck in the middle of it and those sides left fighting unfortunately will take the reigns of power at some point.

    in the end they will have to talk to each other to broker some sort of peace…. so the weapons manufacturers get richer..#
    we as a country (uk) have also committed amazing colonial atrocities in the past – also carving up palastine and reneging on promises – the source of a still volatile conflict in the middle east- how do we have the moral high ground to intervene?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s