Well, these types of nations, have plenty of pros and cons. I have family that hate the USSR and I have family that love the USSR (of course of the ones that lived during that time). When it comes to Yugoslavia, the same story, I've met and spoke with people that either hated it, loved it, or were simply satisfied (wasn't bad, wasn't great either, just satisfactory). So for people that are liberal and aggressive, these environments are certainly a threat. It limits their capabilities. But for those that are more simple minded, peaceful, hard working, and conservative, it's probably more ideal for them. They just want their basic needs met (family, food, home, school, work, basic survival).
As for Milosevic (in reference to the operator), I think some Serbs will probably admire him because of patriotic reasons, while others will despise him for being a dictator. But of course today since he's old news, I think some people probably won't care talking about him.
I would agree with what you say in the first part. My grandfather was a communist and WWII resistance fighter. He was also a medical doctor. During the period when Tito's relations with Stalin were cooling, my grandfather stated privately to a colleague that it was not right that relations with the USSR (i.e. Russia) be suspended so easily, especially given the role the USSR had in setting up communist Yugoslavia and liberating the area from the Nazis. That was sufficient to end up in prison, I guess.
I think Milosevic had very little support in 2000, because he was perceived at best as incompetent and at worst as a Western spy. Almost nobody in Serbia, other than the far left liberals, perceived him as a racist, rabid nationalist, or dictator. That's because, compared to many other people at the time and particularly his political opponents in Serbia and abroad (Seselj, Djindjic, Draskovic, etc.), Milosevic was actually quite a moderate. He was cast in the same socialist mold as his wife, Mira Markovic, which meant elevation of socialist PC ideals over crude nationalism. He was in many ways a relic of socialism after most of Eastern Europe had turned to capitalism and Eurointegrationist politics.
Milosevic started regaining some support until his death because his defense at The Hague was seen by many Serbs - including myself - as well as outsiders, as a refutation of the Western media/historical narrative. He didn't try to merely save his own skin by claiming ignorance, lack of control, or shifting the blame to a subordinate. He actively worked to present the other side of the story, to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecutors, and to undo a false picture. Whether he succeeded or not is not yet clear, but anybody who reads the transcripts of his ICTY trial will see that he was not the person he was portrayed as being and that the history of the destruction of Yugoslavia was very different from the pabulum fed to the masses by Western and Islamic media outlets.
I am sure that you, as an Iranian (I suppose), are well aware of the power of media demonization. Overlook facts, take up false and idle reports, inflate figures, cover up history, and outright lie, etc. It's yellow journalism. If you read the contemporary Greek/Russian/Chinese media on the destruction of Yugoslavia, it will seem that Milosevic was a peacemaker trying to combat madmen on the opposing side.