OUT OF THE SIEGE OF SARAJEVO: MEMOIR OF A FORMER YUGOSLAV by Jasna Levinger-Goy

October 17, 2025October 17, 2025szfreiberger Balkans, European History, Yugoslav Civil War Leave a comment

(Smoke rises from the Jajce barracks Tuesday after it was hit by artillery fired by the Yugoslav Army from the hills surrounding Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital. Army artillery pounded Sarajevo on Tuesday, May 5, 1992 leaving the city cloaked in flames and smoke and its streets strewn with corpses)

A few weeks ago, my wife and I drove from Dubrovnik, Croatia to Sarajevo, Bosnia after spending a few hours in Mostar. We observed remaining damage from the war for the homeland, a.k.a. the Yugoslav Civil War, and many signs of repairs and rebuilding. The city of Sarajevo which suffered the longest siege in Europe since Stalingrad came across as a vibrant urban area that seems well on its way in recovering from a war highlighted by ethnic cleansing , unfathomable cruelty, and enormous destruction, and random death. There are many exceptional historical works recounting and analyzing the breakup of Yugoslavia and the four separate conflicts that followed, including; the 1991-1992 war between Serbia and Croatia; the 1992 war between Serbs and Muslims; the 1993 war between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia; lastly, the 1998-1999 war in Kosovo.

The horrors of these wars may have receded in the historical memory, however for most of those affected the scars remain as depicted in Jasna Levinger-Goy’s memoir of being on the front lines in Sarajevo in her at times, gut wrenching book, OUT OF THE SIEGE OF SARAJEVO: MEMOIR OF A FORMER YUGOSLAV.

(A 7-year-old girl who was wounded minutes before by mortar shrapnel cries as she is helped into the emergency room of a Sarajevo hospital on August 3, 1992)

The author was born and educated in Sarajevo, in addition to the United States and England. She taught at Sarajevo and Novi Sad Universities and later moved to England during the Bosnian Civil War. Levinger-Goy grew up in a non-religious middle class Jewish family in Sarajevo with parents who survived the Holocaust. During the war 9,000 out of 12,000 Sarajevo Jews perished. Her parents believed in what communism promised and readily accepted the concept of a unified Yugoslavian identity. The author, a non-religious Jew had no issue accepting a life in a socialist country. However, as the years passed Levinger-Goy realized that after ignoring her Jewish origins it took a civil war and fleeing her home for her to accept Judaism as part of her identity. She admitted to herself that her Yugoslav identity was an artificial construct and after registering as a refugee in 1992 in Belgrade her Judaism was brought home to her.

In explaining the origins of the war, she points to the socio-political fabric of Bosnia and Herzegovina as always being extremely complicated, remaining so today. The touchstone of the war came as different political parties emerged by 1991 representing different ethnic groups. One of those parties was led by Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian Serb former politician who served as the president of Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War. He was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Under Karadzic the Serb Democratic Party withdrew its representatives from the Bosnian Assembly and set up a Serb National Assembly in Banja Luka. President Alija Izetbegovic reacted on March 3, 1992, proclaiming the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, mainly a coalition of Croats and Muslims.

(One of 110 children at an orphanage in war-torn Sarajevo looks out from his crib on July 26, 1992. Many of the children lost their parents during the war)

As storm clouds appeared, the author, like many, was mostly in denial. She convinced herself that the coming war had nothing to do with her – it involved Serbs, Croats, and Muslims which she was none of. She realized that in a multi-ethnic country, a unified ideology based on a single-ethnic values were impossible. A war based on ethnic domination and power was the result. One of her primary concerns was the condition of her father who was dying of bone cancer. This would be played out throughout the memoir particularly trying to decide to leave Sarajevo once the war was ongoing and escape to Belgrade. The overriding theme of Levinger-Goy’s memoir is that of identity. First, latching on to her Jewish background to acquire food and an escape, second, she thought of herself as a teacher and academic, lastly, she was not a member of any of the fighting groups. At the outset she thought she could maintain her profession and who she thought she was, later she would realize how naive she was. In the end after living in Belgrade and London she described her new identity as a “British traditional secular Jew of Yugoslav origins!

As the fighting progressed it became eerie to be out on the streets with shelling and snipers to avoid constant trips to the shelter in the cellar of her building, then sheltering on the first floor, later in her family’s apartment. Streets were unsafe, but the author clung to teaching, finding food, and staying in touch with friends and relatives. She would become immune to bullets around her – her existence seems to decline in value, except for doing what was best for her parents. The author would go from indifference to denial, to delusions and the final reality that they must leave Sarajevo as walking on glass and cement fragments everywhere was the norm.

Jasna Levinger-Goy - Registered Counsellor

(the author)

Sarajevo was surrounded by three impenetrable belts made up of different ethnic militias who made sure no one could come or leave the city. Levinger-Goy spends a great deal of time recounting the daily struggle of life in the besieged city. The crowded cellar, the constant shelling and sniper’s bullets, the search for food and medical care, and the psychological impact on Sarajevo’s residents who were powerless to deal with the randomness of death. After a while the struggle to survive would become the norm as did the fears everyone experienced. Fears they had to overcome on a daily basis.

Perhaps the most evocative chapter in the book is entitled, “Blind Denial,” as the author describes the decision making process and the actual move to leave Sarajevo and travel along the dangerous road to reach Belgrade. High on her list was her father’s health and her mother’s mental state. Reflecting everyone’s desperation she agreed to a marriage of conveniences with the son of a friend in order for him to take advantage of her Jewish identity so he could escape. It is interesting that the Jews and their Jewish Community Center seemed to be in a better position than others in the city – something that feels antithetical to history.

Levinger-Goy’s work will change after leaving Sarajevo she concentrated on family, friends, and survival in Belgrade and eventually London. She morphs into a philosopher as her commentary focuses on the positives and negatives of the human condition. She spends a great deal of time ruminating on the life of a refugee and how people reacted to and treated them. Interestingly, in Belgrade, which she viewed as the capital of her country she was treated as a refugee. It was difficult for her to accept that her country, Yugoslavia, no longer existed.

My only suggestion for the author is that I wished she had spent more time on what life was like inside the siege of Sarajevo. I realize for her it lasted months, but for others it was years. An inside account portraying more of the daily existence was warranted. Over half the book is devoted to her time after the siege focusing on her relationships, her battles dealing with depression, surviving on charity which she abhorred, and her personal demons as she tried to acclimate to a new culture. At times, the book is rather poignant, particularly as she talks about her marriage to the love of her life. A marriage which was sadly cut short when her husband, Ned passed away suddenly. The book is insightful, and its conclusion provides the reader with the hope that Levinger-Goy has overcome her demons and can life as much of a fruitful live as possible in the years she has remaining.

(A Muslim militiaman covers the body of a person killed yesterday during fierce fighting between the Muslim militia and the Yugoslav federal army in central Sarajevo on Sunday, May 3, 1992. Bosnian officials and the Yugoslav army bargained Sunday over the release of President Alija Izetbegovic from military custody)

CROATIA: A HISTORY FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE PRESENT DAY by Marcus Tanner

October 2, 2025szfreiberger Balkans Leave a comment

I have always been fascinated by the History of the Balkans since I was in graduate school, studying European diplomatic history. There I came across Otto von Bismarck’s 1888 commentary that a future European war would be sparked by a conflict in the Balkans, referring to the region as a powder keg. Two of his most notable quotes illustrate his apprehension: “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans;” and the “whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” Obviously, Bismarck was correct based on the events of June 28, 1914, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand while visiting Sarajevo which led to the outbreak of World War I.

My interest in the region has not waned over the decades, particularly with the Yugoslav Civil War of the 1990s. Last year my wife and I worked with a wonderful guide on a trip to Portugal and Spain who was from Zagreb. After two weeks of travel and conversation we agreed that a visit to Croatia and other Balkan areas would be a wonderful agenda. Fast forward, my wife and I traveled to Croatia, Sarajevo, and Trieste. Before leaving for our journey due to my inquisitive nature (there is a Freudian term which I will not use) I picked up a copy of Marcus Tanner’s informative book, CROATIA: A HISTORY FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE PRESENT DAY which was first published in 1997 and has gone through four printings. The original edition was the first history of Croatia written by an Anglo-Saxon author and is important because of its coverage of Croatian history from Medieval times through its transformation into a modern state with membership in the European Union and NATO. Tanner, a former reporter for London’s Independent newspaper who covered the Yugoslav wars, authored the book to fill in the gaps in understanding the former Yugoslavia and in his view Croatia deserved to be studied separately.

Overall, Tanner describes an area that for centuries has been rife with conflict and external threats. Croatian history is disjointed and experienced many attempts to bring cohesion which usually resulted in failure. The author begins with a chapter on the early Croatian kings exploring how the area was first settled in the seventh century, highlighting its relationship with the Papacy and conflict with Slavs and Hungarians, culminating in the Pacta Conventa in 1102.

Tanner describes how the Hungarians would split the kingdom into north and south. The north was treated as an appendage of Hungary, and the south had its own kingdom. Croatia would be ruled as part of the kingdom of Hungary, and Habsburgs until the end of World War I. However, before Habsburg rule that lasted until the end of the Great War took effect the Dalmatian coast experienced a great deal of political conflict and economic competition among its towns and cities exhibiting a great deal of jealousy between themselves as well as Dubrovnik, which emerged as a dominant commercial center.

Aside from internal conflict the region also faced tremendous external threats especially from Venice and the Ottoman Empire. Tanner explains Venetian interest along the Dalmatian coast which was focused on the area between Zadar and Dubrovnik. In addition, the Croats were confronted by the Mongols who were beaten back by the Hungarian army in 1241. A century later the Ottoman Turks began to take hold of the region and slowly made their way through the Balkan peninsula seizing Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia and by the 1490s it was Hungary and Croatia’s turn at the Battle of Kosovo in 1493; though the fighting continued into the 16^th century. With the accession of Suleyman the Magnificent, the greatest of the Ottoman Sultan in 1521, the remainder of Croatia began to fall in the 1520s. As Hungary withered away the Croatian nobles turned to Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor who was more interested in crushing Martin Luther.

(View historical footage and photographs surrounding Gavrilo Princip’s assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand)

Tanner’s monograph is very detailed, and the reader has to pay careful attention to the myriad of names, places, and analysis that is presented. At times, the writing is a bit dense, but that goes with the detail presented. Once Tanner reaches the late 1800s his prose becomes crisper, and my interest piqued as the information is more easily digested as the writing seems to become more fluid. Despite any drawbacks, Tanner does a good job explaining the intricacies of Ottoman inroads into Croatia. One must realize the Croatia of today was split into three parts in the 16^th century; Croatia to the north, Venitia along the Dalmatian coast; and Dubrovnik. Each was treated differently by the Turks. Tanner explains the relationship among the diverse groups in the region and concludes that the Croatians were willing to accept Habsburg suzerainty, while Venitia and Dubrovnik were not. The high water mark for the Ottoman Empire in the region was the 1590s, then their interest began to slowly recede.

Tanner is spot on as he describes Ottoman rule over Croatia as “an unmitigated disaster with no redeeming characteristics.” Croatia was Catholic and the Turks had not forgotten the Crusades which led to the almost complete destruction of civilized life, the burning of towns, villages, and the mass flight of peasants. As they laid waste to the countryside their persecution of Roman Catholics was intense and forced many Catholics to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy as the Turks allowed it to become part of the Millet System which granted a measure of religious autonomy. By the early 17^th century, the two main noble dynasties in Croatia were defeated and from that point on there was no one to rally Croat nationalism.

count josip jelačić von bužim, 1801 – 1859, also spelled jellachich, jellačić or jellasics. ban of croatia, slavonia and dalmatia, austrian general - josip jelačić stock illustrations

(Josip Jelacic)

Tanner is once again correct as he points to the failure of the Ottoman attempt to conquer Vienna as a watershed moment in Central European and Balkan history. It would lead to the end of Turkish control over most of Croatia as the Sultan’s Grand Vizier, Kara Musrtafa tried to renew the tradition of conquest but was unable to defeat the largely unprepared Viennese. The failure was due to the combined army of Poles, Austrians, Bavarians, Germans, and Saxons under the leadership of Jan III Sobieski, King of Poland. It was as a result of this defeat that the Ottoman Empire earned the nickname, “the sick man of Europe.” In 1699 the Ottoman Empire signed a treaty resigning any claims to Hungary or Croatia.

Tanner points to a number of historical figures that greatly impacted Croatian history. One of these individuals is Josip Jelacic, an officer in the Austrian army during the Revolutions of 1848 as well as the Ban of Croatia, another is another 19^th century Croatian Ante Starcevic, a politician and writer who believed in self-determination for the Croatian people. He wanted a separate Croatian state, not unification with other southern Slavic states, and came to be known as “the father of the nation.” By the late 19^th century other individuals emerged as dominant politicians like Charles Khuen-Hedervary, the Ban of Croatia who tried to Magyarize his country. As we approach World War I Hungary and Habsburg’s discredit themselves in the eyes of Croatians with their political machinations and in 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia Herzegovina. What follows are the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, a rehearsal for the world war that was to follow. The impact of World War I on the Balkans was significant as the nation of Yugoslavia emerged in Paris with the Treaty of Versailles. From this point on the narrative picks up in intensity but Tanner should devote more time to the events leading up to war, the war itself, and the role of the Croats in Paris after the war.

Tanner succinctly recounts the diplomatic intrigues that produced a unified state in the Balkans and argues that Croats favored the creation of the new country. A constitutional monarchy emerges, but constant ethnic tensions dominate the 1920s as Serbs wanted a centralized state, and Croats favored a federal structure. These issues would dominate the remainder of the 20^th century as Croatia opposed unification, favoring regional autonomy.

(Ante Pavelic)

The dominant Croatian politician of the period was Ante Pavelic who created the Ustashe Croatian Liberation Movement in 1929. He would come under the protection of Benito Mussolini who allowed him to train his own fascist fighting force in Italy. Pavelic spent the 1930s in and out of prison, but his movement continued to expand. By March 1940 under his leadership Yugoslavia would join the Axis powers as Pavelic morphed into the dictator of the Croatian state. To acquire credibility among the Croatian people Tanner points to the support of the Archbishop of Zagreb, Alojzije Stepanic, an extremely controversial historical figure. Here Tanner goes into depth concerning the transformation of a Palevic supporter to saving Jews from perishing and being nominated as a “Righteous Christian” after the war.

The actions of Pavelic’s Ustashe during the war would scar Croatia to this day as Pavelic modeled his reign, racial ideas, and militarism on Nazi Germany resulting in the death of about 80,000 people (20,000 of which were children) in concentration camps, the most famous of which was Jasenovac, Croatia’s most notorious camp which I visited during my trip. As with other subjects, Tanner devotes a paragraph to the camp. Pavelic was a firm believer in ethnic cleansing and during the war for the homeland in the 1990s the Serbs accused Croatia of following the program Pavelic laid down decades before.

Tanner seems more comfortable analyzing events after World War II focusing on the rise of Josip Broz Tito who led a partisan movement that defeated the Ustashe. Tito would assume power after the war, setting up his own brand of socialism with a foreign policy that played off the United States and the Soviet Union. Tanner explores this period but does not provide the depth of analysis that is needed in discussing the 1948 split between Tito and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin which was highlighted by extreme vitriolic accusations, one must remember that Tito’s partisans liberated Yugoslavia, not the Russians which was the case in most of Eastern Europe. Tito would institute his own brand of communism and during his reign allowed more and more private enterprise. However, Tito brooked no opposition and ruled with a heavy hand which was the only way Yugoslavia remained united. A.J.P. Taylor, the noted British historian, explained Tito’s success as his ability to rule over different nations by playing them off against one another and controlling their nationalist hostilities.” The problem delineated by CIA report warned in the early 1970s that once Tito passed from the scene the Balkans would deteriorate into civil war.

Yugoslav President Marshal Josip Broz Ti

(Josp Broz Tito)

Tito will die in 1980, and Tanner carefully outlines the deterioration of the Yugoslav experiment which resulted in a number of wars in the 1990s. The two men who dominated the period in the Balkans was Franjo Tudjman, a former communist whose platform rested on Croatian nationalism and by the mid-1990s would prove the most successful Croatian politician of the 20^th century. His main adversary was Slobodan Milosevic, a Serbian nationalist who rose to power in Serbia who believed in the creation of a “Greater Serbia” by uniting all Serbs. The fact that tens of thousands of Serbs lived within the borders of other Yugoslav republics was a problem he would try to overcome.

From Tanner’s narrative it is clear that Serbia was responsible for instigating the blood and carnage that tore Yugoslavia apart. Tanner expertly details Slovenian and Croatian independence announced in 1991 and the war that ensued. Many argue that the Yugoslav Civil War was less a bloodletting of one state against another and more like a series of wars that was conducted with mini-civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia. My own view parallels Tanner’s that a series of separate wars took place once Milosevic used the civil war within Croatia as an excuse to redraw the borders of Yugoslavia. Further once the bloodletting ensued the European community and the United States were rather feckless in trying to control and end the fighting. Milosevic pursued what he called a “cleansing of the terrain” of non-Serb elements in Croatia and Bosnia, and Tanner does his best to disentangle the complexity of the fighting and the failure of European diplomacy. Further, after speaking with people in Croatia, the war should not be called, the Yugoslav Civil War, more accurately it should be described as the War for the Homeland.

(Archbishop of Zagreb Aloysius Stepinac)

It is clear that the first war was fought between Serbia and Croatia in 1991 and 1992 and Tudjman seemed to sacrifice a quarter of Croatian territory, i.e.; half of Slavonia and the Dalmatian coast excluding Dubrovnik to the Serbs. However, Milosevic’s hunger for a Greater Serbia and the atrocities that ensued particularly in Vukovar led German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich-Genscher to manipulate the situation allowing Croatia to emerge victorious with Tudjman emerging as a hero for the Croatian people, but at an unbelievable cost. For Zagreb, it was insidious and horrible for the Croatian people as 6,651 died, 13,700 went missing, 35 settlements raised to the ground, 210,000 houses destroyed…….. People described to me what the war was like and how the Croatian people suffered.

(Slobodan Milosevic)

The second war of the period was the situation in Bosnia in early 1992 between Serbs and Muslims. Within a few weeks of the fighting Serbia controlled 70% of Bosnia and after repeated atrocities against the Muslim community the United Nations voted sanctions, finally the Clinton administration and its European allies employed an arms embargo against the Muslims which Tanner does not really explain. Further, the siege of Sarajevo receives a cursory mention which is a mistake. The siege of Sarajevo and the massacre at Srebrenica deserved detailed exploration.

By April 1993, a third war ensued with Croat-Muslim fighting in Bosnia. Croat actions angered the United States and Germany who helped bring the fighting to an end. In discussing the conflict Tanner presents an interesting comparison of Tudjman and Milosevic which is worth exploring. Finally, the Clinton Administration pushed for peace through the work of Richard Holbrook to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, but yet again Tanner only provides a cursory mention of the diplomacy that ended the third war. The final war takes place as the 1990s ends in Kosovo whose detail is beyond the scope of Tanner’s narrative.

(Franjo Tudjman)

Tanner’s effort is the first of its kind since the end of communism and the rise of Croatia. Tanner’s work is essential reading for anyone interested in Croatian history, despite the fact that his coverage of the pre-18^th century is not as well written and dynamic as the periods that follow. In addition, the book rests on research in mostly secondary sources and there is little evidence of the use of primary materials. However, I found the book a wonderful companion as I explored Croatia, the Dalmatian coast, and Sarajevo and it appears now that Croatia is a member of the European Union and NATO it has tremendous potential for the future.

Balkins Road Trip Map: Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro

NOT ONE INCH: AMERICA, RUSSIA, AND THE MAKING OF THE POST COLD WAR STALEMATE by M.E. Sarotte

March 21, 2022March 21, 2022szfreiberger American Diplomatic History, Balkans, Northern European History, Russian History Leave a comment

File:President George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev pose for a photo during their meeting in Helsinki.jpg — (Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H. Bush)

As I am writing I am listening to the horrific news emanating from Ukraine. The Russian invasion that began on February 24, 2022, continues to produce atrocity after atrocity with no end in sight. By launching his “special military operation,” Vladimir Putin has ended the post-Cold War settlement in Eastern Europe in pursuit of his fantasy of an ethno-nationalistic Pan Slavic empire for Russia as he tries to recreate the old Soviet Union. His stated goal was to block the NATO threat embodied by Ukraine, a country that seeks to join the Atlantic Alliance for protection against Moscow. Putin’s actions were based on his perceived weakness of NATO countries and their lack of unity. The result, instead of pushing NATO away from his border, Putin has reinvigorated NATO and brought the west closer than it has been since World War II. Sanctions against Russia, arming Ukraine, financial aid, intelligence sharing, and humanitarian aid are all designed to help Kyiv overcome Putin’s rage as the war has not gone as he had planned. Based on the Russian President’s comments, who knows how far he will push his war of choice and how it will end. The question is how did we get to this point? What can be done to mitigate the situation? Lastly, what weapons will Putin employ as he hints about tactical nuclear weapons and chemical and biological warfare if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy does not capitulate.

M.E. Sarotte, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations has authored the perfect book to try and understand the background of the current crisis. Her monograph, NOT ONE INCH: AMERICA, RUSSIA, AND THE MAKING OF THE POST COLD WAR STALEMATE is an excellent analysis of events, personalities, and decisions made by western European, American, and Russian leaders from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 through the resignation of Boris Yeltsin as Russian president replaced by Vladimir Putin.

(President Bill Clinton and Russian president Boris Yeltsin)

Sarotte develops a thoroughly researched book that revolves around options faced by the west once the Soviet Union collapsed. The choice was clear; either they could enable the newly independent states of Central and Eastern Europe including the Baltic states to join NATO regardless of its impact on Russia or promote cooperation with Russia’s fragile new democracy. The move that made the most sense would have slowed the decision making process and proceeding carefully considering Russian sensitivities. The west created an incremental security partnership open to European and post-Soviet states alike. Potential NATO members could gain experience in working with the west and eventually gain Article 5 protection. However, Boris Yeltsin’s decision to shed the blood of opponents in Moscow and Chechnya, the rampant inflation in Russia as it tried to transition to a market economy, bloodshed in the Balkans, and domestic political changes in the United States as Republicans took over Congress pressured the Clinton administration to push for NATO expansion all impacted the course of NATO enlargement. As all of this evolved Vladimir Putting was rising through the Russian bureaucracy.

In breaking down her analysis into three parts, Sarotte tackles the 1989-1992 period dominated by President George H. Bush, Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Her focus is on the “promise” offered by Baker that “not one inch” of former Soviet territory would be subject to NATO expansion. This formed the basis of the Russian position, and as events evolved the United States and its western allies saw loopholes in any agreement that would allow them to offer NATO membership to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in the first wave of NATO membership and keep open the possibilities for further members including the Baltic states, Romania, and others. Gorbachev who faced internal opposition, economic issues and other roadblocks to reform would face a coup and eventual replacement by Boris Yeltsin.

The second part of the narrative, 1993-1994 was dominated by the “Boris and Bill” show as Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin developed a strong working relationship which would eventually flounder due to events and decisions that ruined their camaraderie as the US pushed for rapid NATO enlargement. By the third part of the book, 1995-1999 the situation in Kosovo, the failed Russian economy raped by oligarchs, and Yeltsin’s uneven and unpredictable personality heightened by his drunkenness would result in Moscow and Washington failing to create lasting cooperation in the thaw after the Cold war resulting in the rise of Putin and what the world would eventually face in Ukraine.

Late French President Francois Mitterrand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl stand hand in hand

(The odd couple: François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl link hands at the cemetery beside the battlefield of Verdun)

Sarotte covers all bases as she highlights negotiations between the west and Russia and delves into the motivations and policies of the main personalities. As she draws the reader in she offers a number of insightful comments and vignettes. Among the most interesting and almost laughable was the role played by the Lewinsky Affair and Clinton’s impeachment trial in finally expanding NATO in 1998. Sarotte’s meticulous presentation of how German unification was achieved and the withdrawal of Soviet forces from East Germany are among her strongest sections of the book, particularly the role played by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The nuclear problem was always present in the background. Issues of Ukrainian nuclear weapons, the cost to destroy and relocate them, and Russia’s role were paramount. In addition, the evolution of the situation in Ukraine is discussed further and Sarotte offers a number of historical keys that will play out and impact Kyiv which in the end will end up being invaded by Russia in 2014 in its seizure of Crimea and the recognition by Russia of two separate self-proclaimed republics in the Donbas region.

Sarotte’s work is impeccable, and I would recommend it strongly to anyone interested in a detailed presentation of the 1989-1999 period that resulted in the arrival of Vladimir Putin as the dominating figure in the Kremlin’s approach to the west and Russian expansion. Sarotte delineates the lost opportunity for a more peaceful world with increased Russian, American and European cooperation and integration between 1989 and 1991. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been lost and it will take many years for it to reappear, if ever.

Presidents Gorbachev and Bush hold a joint new conference at the White House to conclude the Summit meetings — (Gorbachev and Bush, Sr.)

OUR MAN: RICHARD HOLBROOKE AND THE END OF THE AMERICAN CENTURY by George Packer

July 28, 2019July 28, 2019szfreiberger Afghanistan, American Diplomatic History, Balkans, Biography, Vietnam Leave a comment

(Richard Holbrooke)

Perhaps the most colorful and able diplomat in American history has been Richard Holbrooke. The possessor of an irascible personality who was not the most popular individual with colleagues and presidents that he served but was a highly effective strategic thinker and negotiator with a number of important accomplishments to his credit. The success that stands out the most is his work that produced the Dayton Accords in 1995 that brought closure somewhat to the civil war that raged in the former Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. But he should also be given credit for his work as Ambassador to the United Nations, Assistant Secretary for East Asian Affairs, and his last position as Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan for which he gave his life.

Holbrooke exhibited a powerful ego that did not always play well with others be they friend or foe, but in the end, he was at the center of American strategic thinking throughout a career that spanned the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam through our continuing imbroglio in Afghanistan. A self-promotor who saw his work and ideas as the key to American success, Holbrooke was a dominating presence in the American foreign policy establishment for decades and is the subject of George Packer’s important new study, OUR MAN: RICHARD HOLBROOKE AND THE END OF THE AMERICAN CENTURY.

Holbrooke owned many personality flaws for which he paid dearly. His drive would in part destroy two marriages and his closest friendships. His character defects would cost him any chance of being chosen Secretary of State, a position he craved, for which he was eminently qualified. If he had the capacity of introspection and a dose of self-restraint, he could have accomplished anything. However, if he was able to tone himself down, he would not have been true to himself which is the core of why he was successful.

(Anthony Lake)

For George Packer, Holbrooke was the embodiment of the American Century (or half century!) which encompassed Holbrooke’s life. He was part of the belief that the US could accomplish anything, be it the Marshall Plan, remake Vietnam, bring peace to Bosnia, or make something out of the quagmire that is Afghanistan. For Holbrooke to be part of great events and decisions was his life blood and that is why it is important to tell his story.

In many ways Packer’s narrative is a conversation with the reader as he imparts practically all aspects of Holbrooke’s private and public life. He takes us inside his subject’s marriages and family life, his intellectual development, travels throughout the world and the important individuals who were his compatriots or enemies, and his obsession to create a foreign policy that would embody the liberal internationalism that was so effective following World War II. Packer makes assumptions about how conversant the reader is with post-war history as it relates to Holbrooke’s career and to his credit, he offers a great deal of background information to make the reader’s task easier. Packer prepares character sketches of all the major personages that Holbrooke shared the stage with; be it Edward Lansdale, the CIA psy-ops guru; Averill Harriman, a mentor and benefactor; David Halberstam, the New York Times reporter; Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton, presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama among many others.

(Sarajevo, 1995)

Perhaps the most poignant relationship that Packer describes is that of Anthony Lake who was a close friend of Holbrooke in the early 1960s as they both entered the Foreign Service and served in Vietnam. Packer follows their relationship and competition over the next five decades, they’re ups and downs on a personal level, policy disagreements all of which would ruin their friendship and turn them into bureaucratic enemies. At times it feels like Packer has inserted Lake’s autobiography amidst the narrative as a means of comparing the two and providing insights into steps and positions Holbrooke might have taken which may have altered his career path.

Holbrooke’s Vietnam experience would stay with him throughout his career. The military self-deception of Vietnam and the role of the national security establishment created doubts and reinforced the idea that Holbrooke himself knew what was best and would usually consider himself to be the smartest person in the room. This is evident in Holbrooke’s writings which critique US policy as he integrates his personal life into the narrative. Packer does an excellent job culling Holbrooke’s thoughts as he incorporates segments of his notebooks into his story. When it came to Vietnam, Holbrooke was very astute as he saw the failure of the Strategic Hamlet program early on and that fighting the Viet Cong only from the air could only result in failure. For Holbrooke the watershed date for the war was February, 1965 as the Pentagon issued an “evacuation order” for non-essential personnel and families as it brought an end “to the pretty colonial town of Saigon” and “was the beginning of sprawling US bases and B-52s and black market Marlboros and industrial scale-prostitution.”

(Henry Kissinger)

Packer’s discussion of Kissinger and Brzezinski are fascinating. Both men despised Holbrooke and the feelings were mutual. When three egos as large as theirs the result had to be intellectual and verbal fireworks. For what it is worth, Holbrooke felt Kissinger was a liar, amoral and a deeply cynical man with an overblown reputation who had contributed to the culture of Watergate and the events that followed. Kissinger described Holbrooke as possessing minimal intelligence and “the most viperous character I know around town,” which was something coming from Kissinger. Holbrooke saw Brzezinski as another Kissinger type who would destroy Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and seize control of President Carter’s foreign policy through his role as National Security Advisor. Brzezinski’s hard line view of the Cold War was born out with Russia, but “he did help destroy the last pieces of any postwar consensus, bringing viciousness and deception into the heart of the government.” Both men loved the spectacle of power and wielded it for its own sake, bringing Vance to tell Holbrooke, “I still cannot understand how the president was so taken with Zbig. He is evil, a liar, and dangerous.”

(Zbigniew Brzezinski)

Holbrooke’s greatest accomplishment was his work bringing a pseudo peace to Bosnia. Packer delves into the Yugoslav civil war in great detail providing character studies of the major players and/or psychopaths from Slobodan Milosevic, the president of Serbia, Fanjo Tudjman, the president of Croatia, Alija Izetegovic, president of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Radovan Karadzic, president of Republic Srpska, among many other “interesting individuals.” Packer’s details of the Dayton negotiations are priceless and reflect Holbrooke’s doggedness and highlights the difficulties that he faced dealing with such diverse characters steeped in their own ethnic, religious, and nationalistic hatreds. Packer describes Holbrooke’s negotiating tactics, ranging from bombasity, reasonable proposals, and Bismarckian type threats to achieve his goals. In so doing he believed he was rectifying Bill Clinton’s disinterest, ignorance, or lack of gumption in dealing with the Balkans. With the slaughter of Srebrenica and the siege of Sarajevo, Holbrooke was able to rally Clinton, foster NATO action by our European allies, who had done nothing to that point to bomb and coerce the participants to the negotiating table and foster a diplomatic agreement.

Holbrook always believed he should be Secretary of State, but his personality and poor judgement would turn off Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama in addition to his colleagues in the diplomatic arena whether it was Cy Vance, Madeline Albright, Susan Rice and a host of others. The bureaucratic battles behind the scenes and some in public are present for all to see, many of which Holbrooke won, but many of which he lost. It was only Hillary Clinton who saw the positives in using Holbrooke’s talents as she made him the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan which Packer discusses in great detail as Holbrooke worked to try and bring about negotiations with the Taliban and gain Pakistani cooperation.

(Kati Marton, Holbrooke’s third wife)

Packer delves into the personal side of Holbrooke particularly his marriages which resulted in two divorces and a decades long marriage to Kati Marton, who was more than a match for Holbrook in terms of ego, self-centeredness, and their own special type of charm. Holbrooke’s feelings are explored when he failed to achieve the positions he desired and Packer provides numerous insights into policy and personal decision-making that affected himself, his family, and the professionals around him.

Packer’s effort is to be applauded as he seems to have captured Holbrooke, warts and all in conducting research that included over 250 interviews, the liberal use of Holbrooke’s notebooks, and a strong knowledge of American post-World War II foreign policy. But one must remember that Packer and Holbrook were friends who strongly believed in a liberal-internationalist approach to foreign policy that encompassed a strong humanitarian component. The importance of the book cannot be in doubt as it rests on the major impact that Holbrooke had on the conduct of US foreign policy over four decades.