The "It was Boris" theory in regard to the Istanbul negotiations has been thoroughly investigated and debunked. But we know you will continue to cherish it anyway, no matter what the factual record actually says:
The Zimmerman-Izetbegović protocol is a bit murkier, and it doesn't help that the WP section you cite contains unsourced speculation. However it does seem to have been a genuine blunder from the US side.
That doesn't mean "the West wanted there to be a war", though, and I think that's a very naive and misinformed way of looking at the world. For one thing, it objectively wasn't true in that situation, as the EC and Canada, i.e. a solid majority share of "the West" were solidly behind the agreement. So right there, that perspective turns to mush.
It also essentially ignores (like most of these "torpedo" theories) the agency of local actors. And as such, it reflects an ironically imperial attitude toward the world.
The main reason the Lisbon Agreement failed was that Izetbegović was against it. So fundamentally it was his blunder to make. The US seems to have added to that blunder, most likely by not recognizing the (rather cold-blooded) intent of the Serbs to actually start a war if independence was declared and recognized.
But that doesn't mean "the US simply wants war". Rather, it's just another indication of what has been its primary character flaw for most of its existence since it became a world power: that it just assumes the rest of the world will see things the way it does, and go along with it.
Lastly (and back to cold-bloodedness), let's not forget that the failure of the Lisbon Agreement did not, by itself, cause those SDS snipers to climb to the top of the Holiday Inn in Sarajavo and start shooting into the crowd of peaceful demonstrators below on April 5th, killing 6, which was the actual kinetic trigger of the war. Or to cause the Serbian side to start engaging in massacres in outlying areas shortly thereafter.
In short - the US/West are often stupid/bad; yes. Some of its factions (like Cheney-Wolfowitz and now Trump-Musk apparently) do seem to genuinely want war. But "the West" does not, and most of the actors who manage to grab the steering wheel for long enough to have an impact plainly do not. Thinking that they do is just childish, and won't get you anywhere.
oh boy you want to sound confident but really you have no idea what you are talking about. lol at the sds snipers being cause of war. war in yugoslavia was already one year in by the time it started happening in bosnia. for objectivity reasons when talking about catalysts for the war you should also read about the wedding attack in sarajavo that happened several weeks prior to the sniper event. anyway if you are ukranian, pray that the peace agreement your country signs doesnt result in a type of governing system that bosnia has
the war in bosnia is generally thought to have started due to an illegal independence referendum held at the start of march 1992. if you are ukranian think crimea. also it wasnt a bosnian-serbian war. bosnian is not the same as bosniak. a bosnian is a person from a bosnian region (sometimes also incorrectly referring to people from herzegovina) and not a side in the conflict. you can more correctly say that the war was about bosnians killing bosnians. a bosniak is a nationality, historically slavic muslim, from the region of former yugoslavia. also it was a bosniak/croatian/serbian war, a three side war. moreover it wasnt really a Serbia vs Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Croatia war, as in state vs state, but a civil war faught by people living in bosnia and herzegovina. today bosnia and herzegovina has 3 constituent nationalities: bosniaks, croats, serbs
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41812302
The Zimmerman-Izetbegović protocol is a bit murkier, and it doesn't help that the WP section you cite contains unsourced speculation. However it does seem to have been a genuine blunder from the US side.
That doesn't mean "the West wanted there to be a war", though, and I think that's a very naive and misinformed way of looking at the world. For one thing, it objectively wasn't true in that situation, as the EC and Canada, i.e. a solid majority share of "the West" were solidly behind the agreement. So right there, that perspective turns to mush.
It also essentially ignores (like most of these "torpedo" theories) the agency of local actors. And as such, it reflects an ironically imperial attitude toward the world.
The main reason the Lisbon Agreement failed was that Izetbegović was against it. So fundamentally it was his blunder to make. The US seems to have added to that blunder, most likely by not recognizing the (rather cold-blooded) intent of the Serbs to actually start a war if independence was declared and recognized.
But that doesn't mean "the US simply wants war". Rather, it's just another indication of what has been its primary character flaw for most of its existence since it became a world power: that it just assumes the rest of the world will see things the way it does, and go along with it.
Lastly (and back to cold-bloodedness), let's not forget that the failure of the Lisbon Agreement did not, by itself, cause those SDS snipers to climb to the top of the Holiday Inn in Sarajavo and start shooting into the crowd of peaceful demonstrators below on April 5th, killing 6, which was the actual kinetic trigger of the war. Or to cause the Serbian side to start engaging in massacres in outlying areas shortly thereafter.
In short - the US/West are often stupid/bad; yes. Some of its factions (like Cheney-Wolfowitz and now Trump-Musk apparently) do seem to genuinely want war. But "the West" does not, and most of the actors who manage to grab the steering wheel for long enough to have an impact plainly do not. Thinking that they do is just childish, and won't get you anywhere.