That's another story. My point was about rationality of chosen solution to the problems of SU. Sharwood said that break up of US is not rational and I countered it with examples where token course of action were not rational. For example, the main problem of SU was falling economy. Breaking up was chosen, though it just worsen things because economy ties were severed. Yugoslavia's way to solve its problem does not look "rational" as well. Independence of many country was made out of desire to be "independent and free" without any logic analysis will it be good or bad in the terms of well-being.
So, my main point is that rational or not, US can dissolute under some circumstances even if one consider this "irrational". And of course, another problem what is considered "rational" - because there may be different opinions, so it means Sharwood's words does not make a lot of sense.
As a side not, I will say that I do not lament USSR too much. What's done is done, and both USSR and USA failed to do what I would like them to
. So if USA will break up too, it will serve them right
.
Breaking away from the Soviet Union was 100% rational for every nation involved, even Russia. You will note that it was Russia which officially dissolved said Union, rather than use its military might to maintain dominance?
The USSR was a Russian-dominated empire. It was started by Russia, for the benefit of Russia. The establishment of "autonomous" republics was a clever method of averting nationalism - didn't work, but it was worth a shot. It was in the best interests of every nation under Russian dominance to break free of said dominance. Combined with that was the destructive and disintegrating Soviet economy. With few if any exceptions, every component nation of the USSR is now better off economically, and many enjoy more personal freedom than before. Even in the Islamic Central Asian states, under dictatorships, at least they're living a way of life more ideologically acceptable to their religion than Communism.
The
only case you can make for the break-up being irrational is that Russia may potentially have been able to retain its empire while eschewing Communism. But the economic situation argues against it, as Russia was already bankrupt, it couldn't afford to switch from communism to capitalism itself, let alone with the added territory involved in maintaining the territory of the USSR, not to mention the satellite states.
As regards Yugoslavia, Slovenia and Croatia were the most economically developed states, and were forced to pay to develop the poorer states. Obviously, such a situation is unreasonable for them to willingly be part of, unless they are the dominant group in that federation. But they weren't. Serbia was the most populace state, and controlled most of the military, giving it the position of dominance. As such, it was logical for Slovenia and Croatia to break away.
Serbia couldn't do anything to keep these states; its military wasn't that strong. But it could potentially keep some territory for itself. Thus, Croatia and Serbia began fighting over Croatian territory, particularly that with a majority Serbian population. The fighting spread to Bosnia and Hercegovina, another constituent state of Yugoslavia, which isn't even a traditional nation-state like the other three. Its inhabitants are Serbs and Croats, but many had adopted Islam.
Both Serbia and Croatia wanted to carve territory for themselves out of Bosnia, while the Muslim population feared dominance by either a Serbian (Eastern Orthodox) or Croatian (Roman Catholic) majority, largely for religious reasons. So is essence a three-way war developed, which was ended with Bosnia being granted independence in a federation of its own, half Serbian, half Croat-Muslim. This was the best result the Croats and Muslims could get, as Serbia's military threatened to overrun much more territory, including parts of Croatia itself.
With Yugoslavia now much smaller and weaker, and the Serbian military occupied, Macedonia was able to break away. It feared Serbia would tighten its control over the few territory's it had left, and turned out to be right, so decided to break away for its own protection. It was strong enough, with Serbia weakened by war, to do so.
Kosovo, also with a Muslim majority, and ethnically Albanian, doesn't want independence, but rather wants to be incorporated into Albania. As such, certain elements there began a guerrilla war against Serbian control, bringing reprisals. Kosovo is now nominally independent as an American puppet-state, largely due to it granting the right to establish American military bases. Serbia, as a Russian ally, is a state that the US and NATO want to keep weak, so splitting away Kosovo was a good strategic move by them. Since giving Kosovo to Albania would strengthen Albania more than the US wants, Kosovo is not permitted to join Albania. It's nbasically independent through the choices of others, not its own doing.
Regarding Montenegro, considering Serbian atrocities in the several wars it had fought since the break-up of Yugoslavia, Serbia's international standing was incredibly low. As such, it was in Montenegro's best interest to break away, despite the fact that, as Serbs, they were treated well under Serbian rule. They were able to do so peacefully, largely because Serbia's military is virtually non-existent anymore.
You'll not that the only territory for which breaking away from Serbia would not bring benefits, Vojvodina, the area north of Belgrade, has not made any attempts to break away. That's because it is more rational for them to remain under Serbian rule, because their economy is largely dependent upon feeding the rest of Serbia. If they broke away, Serbia may conceivably find cheaper sources of foodstuffs, and Vojvodina has few contacts with other nations. Its economy is dependent upon Serbia, so it stays.
If Serbia keeps periodically getting bombed by the US for no good reason, that may change, and we could see a Vojvodinian independence movement. After all, they're the target of choice whenever NATO attacks, as they are the most economically developed part of Serbia, and keeping Serbia weak is NATO's primary goal in the Balkans right now.
You'll note, there is absolutely no rational reason for any US state to seek independence. Puerto Rico even had a plebiscite a while back, and chose to remain part of the US. If one were held tomorrow, the result would almost certainly be the same. That's why your argument, and that of this Russian professor of crackpottery, is flawed beyond all measure.
Come up with more arguments please, I thoroughly enjoyed this.
