You suggestion (on compensation) kind of reminds me of debates here and elsewhere on (potential) Pareto efficiency. The (counter)argument goes like this: yes, it might be true the losers from a particular policy could be compensated and there would still be something left for the winners, but the compensation is never going to happen/never has happened. As I see it, a definite anti-free-trade slant of ET is directly linked to this argument.

Now, it is very funny to find someone seriously proposing a compensation scheme in a case where potential losses are much larger than even a long unemployment spell for a Barby maker whose job has moved to China. Do you really believe anyone would think about compensating the losers, especially the losers who fought under "Hitler of our times" and thus deserve everything they've got?

I don't really understand your argument in the first paragraph. Majority of ethnic cleansing has been accomplished already, and Mitrovica could be lazily dealt with once the international community declares victory and leaves. Of course serious politicians would not contemplate war-like events now - they are simply not needed.