What do you think?
Rate this book
Conversations with Milosevic
Conversations with Milosevic is a firsthand portrayal of the so-called Butcher of the Balkans, the Serbian president whose ambitions sparked the Bosnian conflict. At its heart the book is a portrait of an autocrat who rode the tiger of nationalism to serve his own ends and to promote those who furthered his agenda. The architect of ethnic cleansing in modern Europe, Slobodan Milosevic created and sponsored two Frankenstein's monsters, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who were also indicted for war crimes.
Through these personalities, diplomat and political advisor Ivor Roberts analyzes the unfolding of the Kosovo conflict, which directly sowed the seeds of radicalization in Europe today. He contends that this conflict later provided a false template for the Bush/Blair administrations' illegal invasion of Iraq: regime change under the guise of a humanitarian war. He further investigates how international recognition of Kosovoin the years after the conflict in breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions set a disastrous precedent for the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Through these personalities, diplomat and political advisor Ivor Roberts analyzes the unfolding of the Kosovo conflict, which directly sowed the seeds of radicalization in Europe today. He contends that this conflict later provided a false template for the Bush/Blair administrations' illegal invasion of Iraq: regime change under the guise of a humanitarian war. He further investigates how international recognition of Kosovoin the years after the conflict in breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions set a disastrous precedent for the Russian annexation of Crimea.
- GenresHistory
216 pages, ebook
First published July 30, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 1, 2021
Anyone writing a book on conflict in former Yugoslavia should write it as if that will be the only book ever written on the topic. Why? The odds are that it will *actually* be the only book any non-“Yugoslavian” will ever read on the topic so its effect will be ever-lasting. Or the book will be read by people from the affected former Yugoslavia region and documenting something as crucial as conversations with Milosevic, from the United Kingdom independent view, could bring groups at conflict a bit closer.
The book comes ever so close to meet the above criteria but sadly it fails.
Recommendation for anyone reading the book – read the introduction first, then conclusion, then everything in between. This way you may be able to detect and disregard bias that is often present.
What bias? The book was written at the time when a lot more was known about issues Ivor Roberts writes about. If just those tidbits of information were offered maybe the book could be a go-to document for settling of groups. For example, groups “X” and “Y” live in on the same territory (X/Y used not to introduce more bias). When a group “X” overtakes a territory with population “Y” horrific incidents are covered in detail. When a group “Y” overtakes the very same territory and rules group “X” not much, if anything is mentioned about any atrocities. Knowing the Balkans, and the times & circumstances (I.e. late-Ottoman rule, WW1 and WW2 etc) it is hard to imagine there was any restraint by group Y. Now, if you belonged to group X what would your reaction to the book be? Many instances loke that are present, such as - a major incident happens which alters the course and dynamics of the region. What was believed to have happened in I.e. 1998 was discovered to be a false-flag incident in 2005 by international and independent bodies. No mention of that. Again, I am omitting details and names not to draw focus to one particular incident, but rather the tone of the book.
Having lived through this conflict, and also being a student of this topic, I must say the book has confirmed what the ‘rumor mill’ would generally say about Milosevic and his clique. But, I must say, when I ignore the bias Mr. Roberts had, I still learned a few new things. Also at times Ivor does bring a good dose of independent view that I feel all conflicted groups would agree on.
In closing Mr. Roberts writes he left Serbia with the feeling “he could have done more”. I can appreciate the pressures he was under, and that often timing and tight deadlines sometimes produced sub-optimal decisions or actions. But, for the book that could be such a great testimony, he had all the time of the world to write and hone every word so it brings conflicted groups closer. This is what Mr. Roberts should feel bad about.
The book comes ever so close to meet the above criteria but sadly it fails.
Recommendation for anyone reading the book – read the introduction first, then conclusion, then everything in between. This way you may be able to detect and disregard bias that is often present.
What bias? The book was written at the time when a lot more was known about issues Ivor Roberts writes about. If just those tidbits of information were offered maybe the book could be a go-to document for settling of groups. For example, groups “X” and “Y” live in on the same territory (X/Y used not to introduce more bias). When a group “X” overtakes a territory with population “Y” horrific incidents are covered in detail. When a group “Y” overtakes the very same territory and rules group “X” not much, if anything is mentioned about any atrocities. Knowing the Balkans, and the times & circumstances (I.e. late-Ottoman rule, WW1 and WW2 etc) it is hard to imagine there was any restraint by group Y. Now, if you belonged to group X what would your reaction to the book be? Many instances loke that are present, such as - a major incident happens which alters the course and dynamics of the region. What was believed to have happened in I.e. 1998 was discovered to be a false-flag incident in 2005 by international and independent bodies. No mention of that. Again, I am omitting details and names not to draw focus to one particular incident, but rather the tone of the book.
Having lived through this conflict, and also being a student of this topic, I must say the book has confirmed what the ‘rumor mill’ would generally say about Milosevic and his clique. But, I must say, when I ignore the bias Mr. Roberts had, I still learned a few new things. Also at times Ivor does bring a good dose of independent view that I feel all conflicted groups would agree on.
In closing Mr. Roberts writes he left Serbia with the feeling “he could have done more”. I can appreciate the pressures he was under, and that often timing and tight deadlines sometimes produced sub-optimal decisions or actions. But, for the book that could be such a great testimony, he had all the time of the world to write and hone every word so it brings conflicted groups closer. This is what Mr. Roberts should feel bad about.
September 5, 2022
Interesting as it gives some more insights what was going on in the 1990s, as author was the UK Ambassador in Serbia in that period and provides first hand experience with the former dictator. It departs from the usual narrative described as Balkanism (as defined by M.Todorova) in comparison to other types of these books. I truly believe that author represented events as factual as possible. However, what is enlightening about the book is that it is full of mistakes regarding events, places, people related to Serbia proper made from the wrong perception of the Serbian society and politics. So I am not talking about mistakes in the assessment, but about factual mistakes. I am amazed that even author who is a scholar could have operated under such wrong premises. So for those not well familiar with the region the book will provide some misconceptions in regards to the events. No matter above mentioned observations, the book is the best account I have read so far on the wars in 1990s.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews