As I delve into the topic of Yugoslav Wars from the view of this wiki, I find that there are rather pro-Serbian narratives taken from Michael Parenti's book "To Kill a Nation". First, I inquire on the fact that there seems to be some downplaying of the crisis of Yugoslavia. Not a single thing is mentioned about the United States indirectly influencing Slobodan Milosevic with Chetnik propaganda.
During the 1970s and 1980s, there were Serbian anti-communists in exile in the United States. Momcilo Dujic, a Chetnik vojvoda, awarded his title to Vojislav Seselj who was also in the US. Seselj went on to found the neofascist SRS party (Serbian Radical Party) in 1991. Nikola Kavaja, infamously known as "Tito Hunter" attempted to intentionally crash a Boeing 707 (American Airlines Flight 293) in Belgrade in 1979 but was arrested. In an archived interview by TIME in 1995, Milosevic said that all his speeches until 1989 (probably referring to the Gazimestan speech) did not have any nationalist sentiment.
Parenti also states that Radovan Karadzic wasn't even a communist to begin with but then goes on to imply that he appointed "leftists" even though the SDS (Serb Democratic Party) was not communist, which leaves me suspicious of this dubious statement that there were "leftists" in SDS. Biljana Plavsic on the other hand, who was a member of the SDS and an open Nazi who advocated for genocide of non-Serbs (Mann 2004, p. 389), is the only one being criticized and not Karadzic. Parenti also made no mention that Plavsic in 1994 literally called Bosnian people a "genetically deformed material that embraced Islam" (Shatzmiller 2002, p. 58).
But based on Seselj's testimony, Plavsic's Nazism was all but an act of the West, meaning that the West may have indeed told her to be a Nazi. However, she did award Momcilo Dujic, a Chetnik and Nazi collaborator in 1998.
So why praise Radovan Karadzic, despite the fact that the whole Republika Srpska thing was merely influenced by literal nationalism? Dobrica Cosic and Jovan Raskovic were the influence of Radovan Karadzic and both advocated for Serbian national revival and not Yugoslav preservation at all. Another missed out detail is that Milosevic in his early years tried to destroy Yugoslav economy with IMF free-market reforms in 1988 under the "Milosevic Commission" which had neoliberal economists (Karadjis 2000, pp. 39-40). Why has this not been mentioned in Parenti's book?
Why is it that the analysis of the Yugoslav Wars here in ProleWiki, is not based from the view of the Yugoslavs oppressed by nationalism and imperialism but instead ethnocentrically viewed as?