May I ask if you've seen that Adam Curtis documentary called TraumaZone, which showcased - without narration - a bunch of footage out of Russia from 1985-89 (via BBC archives)? It was such a visceral plunge into the chaos and hope-and-haplessness of that period, and as such was very eye opening. The usual critiques of Curtis oversimplifying the problem(s) still apply, but for a storm chaser he's usually pretty damn close to the eye of the proverbial action he's looking at. I ask in the context of your latest piece in The Baffler.
If I had one riff of a reaction (or question) to what you wrote about the Yugoslov/Balkan wars it would be to wonder out loud, as a fellow member of the Western society that produced the "liberal internationalists," if our main task is to get both the elites and citizens of that vast society to inherently accept that we are not morally - and hence, not systemically either - a clearly superior choice for the rest of the word, never mind even for ourselves? Because as we look around us in 2026, what *exactly* has been achieved, and for whom?
I’m embarrassed to say that I haven’t seen seen TraumaZone, but now I really want to!
I think your question about what has been achieved and for whom is a really good one!!! That’s why I think the 1989-2001 period is such a fascinating one to look back at in 2026. It was the height of unipolar hubris, and there was a lot of liberal idealism (partly genuine, and partly opportunistic for sure). In a way, it’s like we’re entering the same period, but this time as the Soviets, with our very own Yeltsin…I’m sure many in Russia and Serbia would say the chickens are coming home to roost.
I found your article really interesting, particularly the way you describe the mix of foreign involvement in the conflict, and a number of the points you raise do line up with what is generally known, especially the presence of foreign fighters and the way people moved into the region via places like Italy.
That said, I have to admit that some of the more striking claims, especially around organised 'sniper safaris' as a widespread or structured activity, do not quite match my own understanding of the war. I have never come across credible evidence of anything like that, nor have I heard it substantiated by people from the region across different communities. Like in many conflicts, there were certainly rumours at the time, but I have never seen anything that was convincingly proven.
The Yugoslav Wars were heavily investigated, especially by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which examined patterns of violence against civilians, including the use of snipers during the siege of Sarajevo, in considerable detail. In that context, it seems likely that practices of this nature, if they were widespread or organised, would have surfaced and been subject to scrutiny. There was also some degree of scrutiny of foreign volunteers by their home countries after the war, although this appears to have been uneven and not always consistent.
I also found the references to foreign fighters being paid very small amounts a bit unclear. While that may well apply to some volunteers, it does not really reflect how professional contractor or mercenary work tended to operate at the time. The private military sector in the 1990s was smaller and more specialised, and those working in that capacity were generally operating on a very different financial footing. So it feels like different types of foreign involvement may be getting conflated here.
So while I think parts of the article reflect reality well, other elements feel less certain and not especially well supported in comparison.
Thank you for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment. However, I think you are ascribing to me claims that I don’t make. I didn’t use the word “widespread” to describe sniper safaris, and the first sentence of the second paragraph is “allegations of ‘sniper safaris’ have been polarizing in the Balkans; opinions diverge as to their extent.” As for foreign fighters, I’m sure there were a range of payment sizes, but many were paid very little and those coming for ideological purposes weren’t necessarily going to get rich. I don’t think I am conflating foreign fighters, because I don’t claim that they are all the same, but rather I emphasize that they had different motivations, different backgrounds, etc. The point was a broad survey of different kinds of foreign “interventions” so to speak, and to highlight the ways they were different but also the places where they converged.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you taking the time to engage.
I take your point on how you framed the sniper safari claims, and you’re right that you do present them as allegations rather than settled fact. I think where it gave me pause was less the wording itself and more the level of detail, which made it feel a bit more concrete than the underlying evidence might support.
On the foreign fighters point, I agree there was a wide range of motivations and backgrounds, and that some were clearly not motivated by money at all. I suppose my hesitation there is similar in that it can be easy for very different types of involvement to sit quite close together in the narrative. Volunteers, ideologically motivated fighters, and those operating in more structured or professional capacities were often working in very different contexts, and sometimes that distinction can get a bit blurred.
So I think we’re broadly aligned on many of the underlying points, it’s more a question of emphasis and how some of these more uncertain or varied elements come across in the overall picture. Overall, I found it a very enjoyable read.
Happy very belated birthday!
thank you!!!
May I ask if you've seen that Adam Curtis documentary called TraumaZone, which showcased - without narration - a bunch of footage out of Russia from 1985-89 (via BBC archives)? It was such a visceral plunge into the chaos and hope-and-haplessness of that period, and as such was very eye opening. The usual critiques of Curtis oversimplifying the problem(s) still apply, but for a storm chaser he's usually pretty damn close to the eye of the proverbial action he's looking at. I ask in the context of your latest piece in The Baffler.
If I had one riff of a reaction (or question) to what you wrote about the Yugoslov/Balkan wars it would be to wonder out loud, as a fellow member of the Western society that produced the "liberal internationalists," if our main task is to get both the elites and citizens of that vast society to inherently accept that we are not morally - and hence, not systemically either - a clearly superior choice for the rest of the word, never mind even for ourselves? Because as we look around us in 2026, what *exactly* has been achieved, and for whom?
I’m embarrassed to say that I haven’t seen seen TraumaZone, but now I really want to!
I think your question about what has been achieved and for whom is a really good one!!! That’s why I think the 1989-2001 period is such a fascinating one to look back at in 2026. It was the height of unipolar hubris, and there was a lot of liberal idealism (partly genuine, and partly opportunistic for sure). In a way, it’s like we’re entering the same period, but this time as the Soviets, with our very own Yeltsin…I’m sure many in Russia and Serbia would say the chickens are coming home to roost.
Happy, happy birthday, sweet lady! It’s still your birthday where I am, so I am not late!! Ha! I hope you had a fabulous day! Xx
Thank you, Michele!!! ❤️
we don't know each other, but belated happy birthday. I've enjoyed your writing quite a bit. All the best from Chicago. - Mark
thank you, Mark!! All the best from Istanbul!
Happy Birthday Lily! I really enjoy reading your articles! Thank you for all you do to get this news for us. 🥰
thank you, randi! :)
I found your article really interesting, particularly the way you describe the mix of foreign involvement in the conflict, and a number of the points you raise do line up with what is generally known, especially the presence of foreign fighters and the way people moved into the region via places like Italy.
That said, I have to admit that some of the more striking claims, especially around organised 'sniper safaris' as a widespread or structured activity, do not quite match my own understanding of the war. I have never come across credible evidence of anything like that, nor have I heard it substantiated by people from the region across different communities. Like in many conflicts, there were certainly rumours at the time, but I have never seen anything that was convincingly proven.
The Yugoslav Wars were heavily investigated, especially by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which examined patterns of violence against civilians, including the use of snipers during the siege of Sarajevo, in considerable detail. In that context, it seems likely that practices of this nature, if they were widespread or organised, would have surfaced and been subject to scrutiny. There was also some degree of scrutiny of foreign volunteers by their home countries after the war, although this appears to have been uneven and not always consistent.
I also found the references to foreign fighters being paid very small amounts a bit unclear. While that may well apply to some volunteers, it does not really reflect how professional contractor or mercenary work tended to operate at the time. The private military sector in the 1990s was smaller and more specialised, and those working in that capacity were generally operating on a very different financial footing. So it feels like different types of foreign involvement may be getting conflated here.
So while I think parts of the article reflect reality well, other elements feel less certain and not especially well supported in comparison.
Thank you for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment. However, I think you are ascribing to me claims that I don’t make. I didn’t use the word “widespread” to describe sniper safaris, and the first sentence of the second paragraph is “allegations of ‘sniper safaris’ have been polarizing in the Balkans; opinions diverge as to their extent.” As for foreign fighters, I’m sure there were a range of payment sizes, but many were paid very little and those coming for ideological purposes weren’t necessarily going to get rich. I don’t think I am conflating foreign fighters, because I don’t claim that they are all the same, but rather I emphasize that they had different motivations, different backgrounds, etc. The point was a broad survey of different kinds of foreign “interventions” so to speak, and to highlight the ways they were different but also the places where they converged.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you taking the time to engage.
I take your point on how you framed the sniper safari claims, and you’re right that you do present them as allegations rather than settled fact. I think where it gave me pause was less the wording itself and more the level of detail, which made it feel a bit more concrete than the underlying evidence might support.
On the foreign fighters point, I agree there was a wide range of motivations and backgrounds, and that some were clearly not motivated by money at all. I suppose my hesitation there is similar in that it can be easy for very different types of involvement to sit quite close together in the narrative. Volunteers, ideologically motivated fighters, and those operating in more structured or professional capacities were often working in very different contexts, and sometimes that distinction can get a bit blurred.
So I think we’re broadly aligned on many of the underlying points, it’s more a question of emphasis and how some of these more uncertain or varied elements come across in the overall picture. Overall, I found it a very enjoyable read.