> What I find even more laughable is that Serbia could have been the majority player in the region if they weren't just doing imperialism
All the Balkan states (Serbia is Balkan as well) are much smaller, and would end up being economically subsumed by larger neighbors like Greece, Romania, Germany, Italy, Türkiye, and Russia. This is already the case across the Balkans today, and nothing would have changed if Serbia were less belligerent.
Why is Hungary omitted from the list? It is between Türkiye and Greece in economic size and has a history of local imperialism, surely it's a notable contender?
I'd recommend reading my post again. I was saying the former Yugoslav states in the Balkans are much smaller economically and power projection wise than Greece, Russia, Türkiye, Romania, and Germany - all major players within the Balkans economically and politically.
Smaller countries have less weight, sure, what are you saying exactly? Nobody but Yugoslavs (or more precisely Serbs) themselves broke their state down, they were not forced into genocide and break up.
Had they chosen not to sperg out, who knows how well Yugoslavia would have done.
All the Balkan states (Serbia is Balkan as well) are much smaller, and would end up being economically subsumed by larger neighbors like Greece, Romania, Germany, Italy, Türkiye, and Russia. This is already the case across the Balkans today, and nothing would have changed if Serbia were less belligerent.