Interesting articles

I would say the main reason for places like chad is so DFA personal while dining in the UN in New york can say oh look we sent troops to such a country arent we good boys.

who knows.

its not about isolationism.

its just stupid to attribute past events in non eu countries to EU countries today, on the basis of a shared continent name.

If we attribute what happened in Bosnia to all European countries, then by that logic we should all be at war with Turkey.

They invaded an EU member country, timeline of cyprus' membership be damned.

At least in this above nonsense scenario its a member country.

In the 'US bailed out Europe in the balkans' fairytale the country in question (Bosnia) isnt even a member to this day.

Its the riddler!!

All that bilge is nothing to do with the point.

You cant do a favor for Peter, and then years later expect a thank you from Paul.

Your post is just specilation that if Peter wasnt helped then xyz would maybe be different.

Great. It didnt happen.

If xyz was the consequence then there'd be a different timeline, and a different me, and maybe that version of me would be saying 'hey i owe you one'. But thats not the case. So no. US did nothing for the EU of today by helping a (still) non-member 30 years ago.

If the US wants some thanks I suggest get on the phone to Bosnia.

Also, report from the European council in 1996 directly referencing the collapse of Yugoslavia and subsequent conflicts as a threat to EU Security and stabilisation

Crisis in the former Yugoslavia

edit:two other good papers on the Europeanisation of the Western Balkans, the positives and negatives, you probably won't bother even looking at them, but to say it wasn't and still isn't an EU issue, is hilarious.

The Crisis of Expectations – Europeanisation as “acquis démocratique” and its limits. The case of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia | Cairn.info

Making Bosnia Work: Why EU Accession is Not Enough | United States Institute of Peace

A peaceful, economically stable country takes about 10 year to gain access to the EU, Bosnia was neither until the early 2010's (some people will argue it still isn't).

I dont really have the time.

Whats the speculation? That the EU would take a different shape.

ok? Well … so what exactly?

Eh thanks America for saving europes ass??

We almost didnt have Slovenia as a member, possibly … or something.

I wonder should that be "before they fall out of the sky", I mean some of those cuts are just reality, Northumberland for example was already well known, losing the two Amphibs and more of the RFA hulls I guess is just admitting that the RFA is almost dead and they aren't in a hurry to try and save it. Wonder what it means for the MRSS project though?

For a major military like the uk would the gap of the pumas not be a major issue?

Ok I've read a small portion, and put one of the reports through a text reader.

Its all a dry pointless tome of tangential affairs in the 90s. Unless you're actually writing a report or a thesis these links lead nowhere.

Theres nothing of any relevance to take away. A rambling snoozefest.

Its evident you googled some keywords like 'balkans' and gave me some random links in an attempt to look legit. Its not working.

When you get to that point whatever half-point you were trying to make has clearly failed.

What are you even saying at this stage? I think you yourself dont even know.

I did notice this though:

"A structured EU policy towards the countries of the Former Yugoslavia can only be recognized from 1999 onwards." (your own link)

And I did notice the mentions of the work of the council of Europe, which long predates the EU and includes Turkey, Iceland, all the continent ex-Russia. An entity which you or I have roughly as much affiliation towards as the UN, which also gets mentioned.

From what I gather these are the organizations which concerned themselves in the 90s with stabilization of diverging ex-Yugoslav countries. At this point in time Finland and Austria would have been beginning membership of the EU. And 99% of those of us in the EU and the rest of Europe would have been either completely unaffected, or marginally affected in a secondary way, and/or largely oblivious to whatever was going on in those still foreign lands. *beyond the usual headlines.

tl;dr whatever went on between the u.s. and bosnia in the 90s still is of fck all importance to anyone else.

so we have these Nordic/Baltic states who are not neutral and on high alert, and yet they can't stop cables being damaged, how do you stop cables being damaged?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/20/sweden-denmark-undersea-cable-sabotage-navy-investigation

Much like what China does in the South China Sea, or the Russian's around Murmansk

whats there to minimise?

All you have is speculation about what would have maybe happened, 30 years ago, in a non-eu country.

We're supposed to owe the u.s. for what exactly.

Point to it. Tell me without conditionals about possible future timelines you imagine.

It brings brexit to mind. Some top economists and experts studied case scenarios and decided on all sorts of domino effects that never happened.

And now youre going to tell me something pulled from your arse relating to events almost a continent away, 30 years ago, means i owe the yanks. Would you ever go and

even in your fictional timeline it still wouldn't have stopped the consolidation of the eu.

you have 'what ifs'. thats it. nothing more.

in a world of pure imagination.

The pieces they publish are generally dross anyway.

Looking at that, is it much different than say the Norwegian Frigate sinking, or the multiple collisions the USN went through a few years ago?