When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

A Ukrainian In Belgrade: The Straight Line From Milosevic To Putin, And Back Again

As hostilities flare again between Serbia and Kosovo, the writer draws connections between the dissolutions of both the USSR and Yugoslavia, and the leaders who exploit upheaval and feed the worst kind of nationalism.

A man walks on the sidewalks in Belgrade, Serbia

On the streets of Belgrade, Serbia

Anna Akage


At high school in Kyiv in the late 1990s, we studied the recent history of Yugoslavia: the details of its disintegration, the civil wars, the NATO bombing of Belgrade. When we compared Yugoslavia and the USSR, it seemed evident to us that if Boris Yeltsin or Mikhail Gorbachev had been anything like Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, bloody wars would have been unavoidable for Ukraine, Belarus, and other republics that instead had seceded from the Soviet Union without a single shot being fired.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Fast forward to 2020, when I visited Belgrade for the first time, invited for a friend's wedding. Looking around, I was struck by the decrepit state of its roads, the lack of any official marked cabs, by the drudgery, but most of all by the tension and underlying aggression in society. It was reflected in all the posters and inscriptions plastered on nearly every street. Against Albania, against Kosovo, against Muslims, claims for historical justice, Serbian retribution, and so on. A rather beautiful, albeit by Soviet standards, Belgrade seemed like a sleeping scorpion.

And all this was set in motion by the actions of a single person. In Serbia, it was Slobodan Milosevic, who, with his nationalist and populist rhetoric, inflamed ethnic war, with his taciturnity and stubbornness triggered thousands of rockets aimed at Croatian and Kosovar civilians. He was finally tried for crimes against humanity by an international tribunal in the Hague and died in prison before his sentence was announced.

What unites Serbia, Russia and China

Years later, with Yeltsin and Gorbachev long forgotten, the Milosevic of Moscow finally showed his true colors. Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, supported separatists in eastern Ukraine, and on Feb. 24 launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. All the bloodshed and isolation in order to reclaim some imagined past and reunify the territories which, in his very personal opinion, were destined to be united.

Serbia, Russia and China are all trying to turn back time.

Historical justice, sacred land, nationalism — all these terms in the speeches of politicians gathered at the very pinnacle of power promise wars, inevitably followed by degradation, poverty, and oblivion.

Meanwhile back in the Balkans, the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo has flared up again in recent days. Against the background of Russia's war with Ukraine and China's claims over Taiwan, it seems as if the world risks entering a new era of neighborhood wars with territorial claims that threaten to conflagrate into one big war, even another world war.

All three conflicts are similar to each other in one important factor: Serbia, Russia and China are all trying to turn back time.

\u200bMilo\u0161evi\u0107 meets with U.S. President Bill Clinton in Paris on 14 Dec. 1995

Slobodan Milosevic meets with U.S. President Bill Clinton in Paris in 1995

The Central Intelligence Agency

Nationalism and spheres of influence

Behind each of these conflicts are not the civil unrest of the masses, but individual nationalist leaders who do not live peacefully within their domain, expressing some dire need of regaining lost territories and expanding spheres of influence as some kind of manifest destiny.

The Soviet Union, for all the horror of its machine, ultimately collapsed with relative ease and justice, granting each of its republics a chance to live and prosper. What was once Yugoslavia instead descended quickly into bloody wars and ethnic cleansing.

Today there are countries from each respective disintegration that are now part of the European Union, enjoying relative peace and prosperity. Kosovo and Serbia are not among them, while Ukraine is betting everything on trying to get there. In the meantime, one can be sure that Vladimir Putin is not only reveling in all the would-be Russian empires of the past, but remembering how the story ended for Slobodan Milosevic.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Look At This Crap! The "Enshittification" Theory Of Why The Internet Is Broken

The term was coined by journalist Cory Doctorow to explain the fatal drift of major Internet platforms: if they were ever useful and user-friendly, they will inevitably end up being odious.

A photo of hands holding onto a smartphone

A person holding their smartphone

Gilles Lambert/ZUMA
Manuel Ligero


The universe tends toward chaos. Ultimately, everything degenerates. These immutable laws are even more true of the Internet.

In the case of media platforms, everything you once thought was a good service will, sooner or later, disgust you. This trend has been given a name: enshittification. The term was coined by Canadian blogger and journalist Cory Doctorow to explain the inevitable drift of technological giants toward... well.

The explanation is in line with the most basic tenets of Marxism. All digital companies have investors (essentially the bourgeoisie, people who don't perform any work and take the lion's share of the profits), and these investors want to see the percentage of their gains grow year after year. This pushes companies to make decisions that affect the service they provide to their customers. Although they don't do it unwillingly, quite the opposite.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

Annoying customers is just another part of the business plan. Look at Netflix, for example. The streaming giant has long been riddling how to monetize shared Netflix accounts. Option 1: adding a premium option to its regular price. Next, it asked for verification through text messages. After that, it considered raising the total subscription price. It also mulled adding advertising to the mix, and so on. These endless maneuvers irritated its audience, even as the company has been unable to decide which way it wants to go. So, slowly but surely, we see it drifting toward enshittification.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest