Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "How License Plates led to a Border Conflict: Serbia u0026 Kosovo Explained - TLDR News" video.

@timogul "Ok, twist my arm on it." The reason you gave was being at war a few decades back. When Yugoslavia broke up, to my knowledge only Slovenia and North Macedonia managed to become independent without fighting. "Cut off trade." That would be an excessive measure. It would only impoverish innocent Serbian civilians and make peace more difficult to achieve without any real benefit. "They could if NATO made a deal with them to that effect." It's at least unclear if Nato members would sign up for that but at any rate they don't enough reason to trust Nato.
2
@3ndrei "Kosovo does recognise Serbia, so it makes no sense to ban license plates from a country that you recognise" It was a tit-for-tat move. Therefore recognizing Serbia doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense.
2
Don't most countries have jets? It's not something to be surprised about.
1
@timogul I don't think that's any argument for not having jet planes. There's probably more potential for conflict with neighbors in the Balkans than in some other parts of Europe. Even if the probability for such a conflict isn't all that big having jets is probably more important to Serbian than, say, Switzerland.
1
@timogul That makes no sense. Firstly, most countries have jets and are not considered less trustworthy for it. Secondly, who would help them and could they really rely on that? If they'd have a conflict with Bosnia would Croatia help them, or vice versa? And even if your logic would make sense then shouldn't Serbia also be expected to help their neighbors if needed rather than just (somehow) getting protection without giving anything in return; if they're also expected to help their neighbors they'd need military capabilities to do that. The truth is that most countries want to have the capability to defend themselves. Just trusting, without even any explicit promise, that your neighbors would help is a more risky proposition. Also, you're more likely to get help if you also have some capability to defend yourself so that you don't just fold immediately. Would you say that the UK having a navy makes them less trustworthy? They should have none that! France can help them if they're ever attacked.
1
@timogul "IF NOT for how they had a war a few decades back" By this logic none, of the ex-Yugoslav republics other than Slovenia and North Macedonia should have jets. "cannot agree that their neighbor even EXISTS" Countries don't usually so easily let go of the territory they had. They've still shown the willingness to make agreements and they've not e.g. tried to bomb Kosovo with their jets. Trying to impose the unreasonable requirement of them having no capability to defend themselves would not be conducive to peace. How would you do that anyway? What would you do if they refuse to give up jets? "In the meantime, if someone attacks them, Nato can defend them." Nato doesn't have an obligation to defend them. They have no reason to trust Nato here.
1
@timogul "That would only happen if the Sebian government found jets more important than their people, and if their people let them get away with that." It's not a stretch to imagine that both the government and the people wouldn't want to be totally vulnerable, especially considering that past conflicts are still very much in living memory. "That's really their problem." It's also a problem for anyone wanting to enforce some kind of no jets policy unless they don't care at all about causing misery to ordinary people in the Balkans.
1
@timogul "Then they make their bed, and they have to eat it." So poverty and instability. It'd just be a dumb move to try use such measures for one's imposition. (And it's not them "making their bed" to just not accept unreasonable demands by outsiders.) "Again, you would enforce it economically, not militarily" That's what I was talking about. You'd thrust misery in the form of poverty unto ordinary citizens. "I don't know why you're arguing this as if there's a rational position on your side of the discussion." I could say the same thing to you. Has any politician or diplomat who has been working this issue considered your idea to be a good one?
1
@timogul "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." This "stupid prize" is excessive. Also, Serbia is no longer under Milosevic & his ilk. "No, their leaders would be doing that, by preferring jets to fixing those problems." I mean, trying to impose a no jets policy would likely result in that. It would be stupid to try as the harm done would be so great. Those who would suffer the harm wouldn't be comforted by and argument about who's morally culpable. "But that doesn't mean it isn't the right course of action." Not necessarily but it's some indication that people more knowledgeable about this haven't tried to pursue that route.
1