Talk:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. George Ho (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

} NATO bombing of Yugoslavia → NATO bombing of Kosovo – "Yugoslavia" no longer exists since the breakup in 1992. Of course, that led to wars. Speaking of wars, it should not be confused with NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina (former state of Yugoslavia), also called Operation Deliberate Force. George Ho (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • strong oppose that is very incorrect. Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003, when it was renamed to Serbia and Montenegro, the entity "Yugoslavia" ceased to exist in 2006, when Serbia and Montenegro split apart. Either way, 1992 was not the end of Yugoslavia. And the NATO bombings were in Yugoslav territory, including BELGRADE which is not in Kosovo. The Chinese Embassy was not in Kosovo, even though NATO bombed it. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - It was the "third" Yugoslavia that was bombed, the one that became Serbia and Montenegro per the above. This RM is not in accordance with the objective facts. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – The entire Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was bombed for 79 days and bombing was not limited to Kosovo. 23 editor (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NATO role

The entire article must start around the true reason NATO had decided to get involved, which is described in the book "A journey" of Tony Blair and other books, known as "liberal interventionism" consisting of "humanitarian interventions". The role of NATO has changed and from protectionism against USSR they decided to take the role of protecting "higher moral values" around the globe, especially in Europe.

For this reason the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia was heavily supported by strong media coverage that repeatedly used the strongest possible language of "genocide", "acts against humanity", "brutality" and so on, before, during and after the campaign, including the present day. This strong language is a trademark of every subsequent NATO campaign around the world. Many of the media "horrendous" and "unspeakable" claims were never proved, and many of them were disproved later.

At that time, smaller Yugoslavia and predominantly Serbian people were an instrument of justifying the continuous strong NATO presence in Europe. The NATO campaign lasted that long since its failure would put a question mark on the possibility of any similar future interventions around the globe as well. It had to end by some form of success literally by all means.

In that sense this article, and any similar articles will remain biased with strong possibility of actually justifying NATO actions at that time as "necessary" and "unavoidable".

For this reason this article, willingly or not, is part of the same media instrument that was used during the campaign, as it is, obviously, even today.

Aperisic (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion, since that was the question, is to remove the article all together.

Aperisic (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Clear Bias

"In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo. NATO airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined.[39]"

The above passage from the article presents a clear anti-Western bias. Not only does it contradict the rest of the article regarding civilian casualties that resulted from the bombings, but its source is suspect. First, it is well know that the Russian Times is mouthpiece of the Russian government. Second, the news article was published in March 2014. Considering the events in Ukraine and the anti-western rhetoric of the Russian government, the integrity of this source is clearly compromised.

108.28.70.18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no bias here, that is an estimation, and it should be noted, tehre is a bias towards NATO forces ofc., but that is understandable since meny missinformations and latter proven lies are still quoted here. About 249 soldiers died as result of bombing, and 22 policeman, other was not connected to the aiirstrikes, but in combat against "KLA" terrorists and so on. Another missleading numbers (and incorrect ones) are about aircraft losses, about 36 NATO aircrafts was shot (including B-2 bomber), +2 more helicopters. Yugoslavian (Serbian) army couldn't fire up 700 missles, since they didn't have that much, so, it is straight up lie, without any citation (someone claims, well, i can claim that there are green men on the moon...), since you didn't mentioned claims of Yugoslav army, and evidence for it, then, it is not objective to mention NATO claims, since it is irrelevand, and most likely inacurate. Also, there is no "anti-western" bias, there are facts on the ground, considering Ukraine, even bird with two brain cells can see facts on the ground, and anti-russian propaganda. So, your personal views are connected with POV damage. I'm usualy not interested in Englisha rticles, but if it was not tragic, it would be gunny what was written here in this article. Agan, wikipedia articles based on newspapers when it si suitable, and not based when it is not, proves highly inefficient concept and ofc. should be disputed as default in this type of topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.24.195 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Trilateral Commission voted for the bombing

In a recent (May 7, 2014) Czech parliament debate the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel Schwarzenberg (now in opposition) was labeled as supporter of bombing of Serbia. He denied this and said:

Já jsem nikdy nepodporoval bombardování Srbska. Naopak, to si dobře pamatuju, těsně předtím, než to začalo, bylo zasedání Trilateral Commission ve Washingtonu a tehdy byli tři, bohužel pouze tři přítomní, kteří se postavili proti plánu zahájit bombardování Srbska. To byl, budete se divit, Henry Kissinger, byl to nynější ministr zahraničí Království švédského Carl Bildt a potom jsem byl já v té diskusi. Je něco jiného, když ta válka proběhla a Srbsko ztratilo nadvládu nad Kosovem a nebyla nejmenší naděje možnosti, že by ji získalo zpátky, že jsem uznal Kosovo jako nezávislou zem. Ale bombardování Srbska jsem opravdu nepodpořil.
(public debate in Czech parliament, recorded on its website [1]).


My literal translation from Czech language:

"I never supported bombing of Serbia. Just the opposite, I remember the events well, it was just before the bombing started, there was meeting of Trilateral Commission in Washington and unfortunately only three people present there were against the plan to start the bombing. They were, you will be suprised, Henry Kissinger, then Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt and me. Something else is that the war started and Serbia lost their control over Kosovo and there was no chance to get it back, then I [as the Minister of Foreign Affairs] recognized Kosovo as independent country. But I didn't support bombing of Serbia."


Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I guess it will soon receive significant attention in secondary sources. Or not. Anyway, until then, I doubt this deserves too much weight. Maybe one or two sentences.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Numbers of military losess

Total = 1008. From NATO attacks = 271 killed (249 soldiers and 22 policemen). Rest lost lifes in direct combat with Albanian terrorists (KLA) or other couses. Official statistics are source (not newspappers as it is in this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.24.195 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Air combat section

The air combat section of the article could use some attention. There are conficting accounts on which aircraft were destroyed and by whom. The source used for the most of the information found in the section is an article called Yugoslav and Serbian MiG-29's featured on the website Acig.org. The article contradicts itself in its account of who was shot down and by whom. I wonder how reliable this article is as a source on this subject. There are also several sources that confirm that a dutch f-16 shot down a MiG-29, however in this article editors maintain it only damaged the MiG. I believe this information to be inaccurate considering the multiple sources that confirm the Dutch F-16 shot down a MiG-29: [1] [2] [3]

82.171.161.161 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

82.171.161.161 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The followin section is a direct copy of a newssite which cannot be seen as a verifiable neutral source (rt.com): In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo. NATO airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined.[39]

Requested change: In the course of the campaign, over 23,000 air munitions (rockets and bombs) were fired in 9300 strikes. Among the weapons used were cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs, which were controversial but not prohibited at this time. Strikes were aimed at armed forces, military positions and installations and infrastructure [1]. Civilian radio and television headquarters, usually residing in densily populated areas, were also targeted leading to a high civilan death toll. The same can be said for bridges used by civilian transport that were attacked in daytime. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of civilian casualties lies around 500, but other sources claim numbers varying from 1000 up to 5000 casualties[2]. [4] [5]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  Talk 13:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/Serbia_Montenegro.htm
  2. ^ http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article607.html
  3. ^ http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article230.html
  4. ^ http://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVA5
  5. ^ http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-01.htm
"a newssite which cannot be seen as a verifiable neutral source (rt.com)" it is just as "verifiable" as any large media company of the West. We know it well that censorship and propaganda are flourishing in both, especially in cases which concern their own crimes, so we should make an effort to expose the truth as long as nobody beats us for this, this state might not last too long. Don't reject russian TV in all cases, they sometimes are more truthful than any NATO media. 143.167.149.114 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

More neutrality problems

Unfortunately, each time I try to remove serious neutrality problems, Anastan comes and puts them back. Anastan, could you give us a good reason why the lede should harp on about RT's favourite distraction-points but cannot ever mention why the bombing happened? You know that the bombing was a response to Serb atrocities in Kosovo. I know it. Reliable sources know it. Why do you block any mention of it? Anastan, if you are unable to comply with core wikipedia policies, please step aside and stop reverting others. bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no neutrality problem, there are your non neutral editing. Try to have agreement here for your ideas, and only after that edit article. Also, more then half of the things from edit are unexplained. You didn't included or removed any source. You are editing in a very bad way, please dont edit artice anymore before other edits agree on your edits. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The lede is amply supported by the sources in the article. You know that the bombing was a response to Serb atrocities in Kosovo. I know it. Reliable sources know it. Why do you block any mention of it? Nonetheless, I have cited a source, just for in case you genuinely believed your argument about sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Anastan, your edit was a terrible one. Bobrayner is right. In general, this article has many very serious problems. Please don't add to them. --John (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Anastan, why do you keep on making terrible edits? Stop it. This article has enough neutrality problems already.
THis is direct quote from the source. If you have problem with source, solve that on proper place. If not, dont remove sourced content. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The very first sentence of the Guardian source reads "Nato launched fresh strikes against Serb forces tonight, amid fears of a renewed wave of ethnic cleansing atrocities in Kosovo." --John (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
So? --77.105.23.19 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
So it is a good source for "The operation sought to stop human rights abuses in Kosovo." Which is what it is sourcing. Not "According to NATO..." as you wish to add, Anastan. --John (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If it is from a reliable source, we can include it. The Guardian is a very reliable source. IJA (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@John You tell me that you have removed two sentences of sourced content because of the word "According to NATO..." before that? Did you even read the edit you reverted? i will write it here, so everyone must read it.

it was the first time that this military organisation used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to members of the alliance.

This is sourced, and this will and should be in the article. I looked like to me that you wanted to remove sourced content from article, but now i understand that you didnt wanted to, but you just didnt looked ad the edit reverted. "According to NATO..." is out now, and that is good edit, thank you for that, John. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, whats wrong with this? In article intro we must have important data. "During the bombing that killed between 2,000 and 4,000 civilians, destroyed many bridges, industrial plants, many civilian buildings, public buildings and businesses, barracks and military installations. It should be particularly noted the destruction of two oil refineries, demolition of Avala Tower, the Radio Television Serbia, the Pančevo petrochemical, shooting bridge building, car factory Zastava from Kragujevac, in the buildings of downtown Belgrade, Embassy of the Republic of China and many other civilian targets." All of those are mentioned below, so we do not need a source for the intro. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"It should be particularly noted the destruction of two oil refineries ... " is terrible English and cuts right across WP:NPOV. We could never include language like this in any article. --John (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the sockpuppets have won again. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "Nato launched fresh strikes against Serb forces tonight, amid fears of a renewed wave of ethnic cleansing atrocities in Kosovo." is bad. We don't know what were NATO's intentions with attacking Yugoslavia. Maybe they did it to help Albanians, maybe they were there to oust Milosevic and end Yugoslavia, or maybe to ignite another crisis point in the Balkans, or they just wanted to make room for their new bombs, drop old and obsolete ones and in the end have more budgeting for the military because otherwise NATO's spendings were useless which is the most likely scenario. The reasons behind the so called operation could be anything. The source doesn't clearly explain them and it's either because they didn't have a clue or they were part of the problem. Or it could be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.62.140.137 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.89.105 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.248.6 (talk)

If it is properly referenced then it isn't "bad". IJA (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and of course that is true, but replying to obvious sockpuppets tends to encourage them. bobrayner (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't properly referenced, that's the problem. The sentence says nothing about why did NATO attack Yugoslavia. Amid fears is not because of fears. And whose fears were those, mate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.68.215 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't referenced because that sentence isn't in the article. You can't really reference a sentence which isn't in the article. IJA (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Western editors, may think that the article is not neutral enough for them, but the reason why is because they know only the Western point of view and they think as reliable sources only the Western ones. There is also another point of view, that of the Serbian, Russian and other pro-Serbian side, and that needs to be acknowledged equally in order for the article to be neutral. When stating reasons for action, according to, is a correct term, because it is always according to, it is never a global opinion. In addition, facts, figures, war crimes, e.t.c need to be added in a real proportional way, in order for the article to be accurate. I hope I have helped slightly in your discussions. Take careRon1978 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree this article has neutrality problems. It tries to hide under the carpet the fact that the Yugoslavian army was committing atrocities against the Albanian population of Kosovo. The bombing was a consequence of failed political attempts to stop Milosevic from exercising his forceful nationalistic agenda, as he previously did in Bosnia. The way the article is written is pro-Serbian and pro-Russian POV, it intends to imply that NATO somehow used the human rights excuse to attack Yugoslavia for no reason. The reality is different, even the neutral International Court of Justice ruled that "NATO bombing was an instance of “humanitarian intervention" and thus did not violate Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.". It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to adjust this article in the spectrum of a "humanitarian intervention" and not an aggression towards Yugoslavia. We don't need a consensus on this point, since Pro-Serbian and pro-Russian editors never agree on any action of Nato. For the record they do not even agree that Srebrenica was a genocide despite plenty of sources on the contrary. So please someone experienced be bold and enter the correct version. 95.90.184.203 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets, and undue weight

Anastan, why are you collaborating with a sockpuppet? The stories about depleted uranium are very much WP:FRINGE. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sentence is sourced. I am sorry if you dont like it. I dont see anything "fringe" in the fact that innocent people was bombed with depleted uranium, sorry... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bobrayner. There exist reliable international institutions (UNEP) which are experienced and unbiased enough to investigate those cases. Wikipedia can not be a place where conspiracy and newspaper articles (without any concrete and professional evidences) counter-weight international institutions. Since UNEP ruled out the use of depleted uranium, insisting on the contrary is WP:FRINGE. 95.90.184.182 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet talking. no other edit except this page here. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 17:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry??? 95.90.184.190 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Bobrayner, I have also been 'collaborating with a sockpuppet' [2]. The modified text seems sufficiently neutral and RS to be not worth the fight. Is there some good reason to reject the source?Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Serbian police officers

According to Interior Minister Nebojša Stefanović, 167 police officers lost their lives.--Zoupan 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that he thinks the operation was called "Merciful Angel", is perhaps indicative of his accuracy level (see article lede).Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslav materiel losses

The current citations for Yugoslav materiel losses are kind of a mess.

  • Yugoslav casualties are not covered in the main body text at all.
  • The source cited from Yugoslav air force losses (PBS Frontline) gives the number of Yugoslav aircraft destroyed on the ground as 100+, while the Wikipedia article lists 4. It also lists 6 Yugoslav jets as being shot down in the air by NATO, while the article says 6 were shot down or crashed.
  • The source which lists artillery and tank losses for the Yugoslavs appears to be a broken link. I'm not sure what source is reliable enough to replace it. What about this one?1? Or the USDOD "Kosovo/Operation Allied Force After-Action ReporT", dated Jan. 31, 2000? How reliable are those?

Is there something I'm missing here?--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The figures are a total mess. They are terribly outdated and the article itself relies on contemporary sources, when newer ones are more precise and accurate. The Serbian prime minister recently released the most in-depth casualty figures for the Yugoslav Army during the bombing, saying that 956 troops and police officers were killed and a further 52 are listed as missing and presumed dead .
Another strange part of the infobox is the exaggerated NATO estimate of Yugoslav casualties, citing sources written while the bombing was still taking place (e.g. BBC, 3 June 1999). Indeed, NATO revised these estimates following the campaign to approximately 1,200 Yugoslav soldiers and policemen killed (which lends a certain legitimacy to the figures the Serbian prime minister mentioned, given that 1,200 is much closer to c. 1,000 than 5,000 or 10,000 killed). This B92 article indicates that 5,173 military or police personnel were wounded, though it should be taken with a grain of salt since it includes exaggerated claims of civilian casualties (2,500 killed and 6,000 wounded). Nevertheless, 956 killed, 5,173 wounded and 52 missing shapes us as the most credible outline of Yugoslavia's losses during the air war.
Yugoslav materiel losses are harder to estimate, but there is no doubt they were exaggerated by NATO during the war. For example, NATO officials claimed that 120 tanks, 220 APCs and 450 artillery pieces had been destroyed, but a U.S. government inquiry found the real number to be 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces . A further 136 military vehicles (Jeeps, trucks) were either damaged or destroyed . 121 jets and helicopters were also destroyed (mostly on the ground), likely because the Yugoslav Army couldn't conceal them as easily as tanks, artillery pieces, etc. 23 editor (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The 'monkey' figures of both sides are part of the story, and shouldn't be thrown away, but I agree shouldn't be in the info-box as fact. It is a truth universally acknowledged that a govt. seeking public support is going to exaggerate its 'successes' and minimise 'collateral damage', as least while the operation is underway and frequently for some time therafter. Pincrete (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) … … ps I think that whenever we are at all uncertain about figures, we should attribute them to the source of the info. Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Economic losses

User:Nihlus1 this revert:[3], for which you give this edit reason EVERY number in that box is an estimate. No need to give this special attention. That 3.8 billion figure (also from G 17) only talks about direct damage, while G 17's 29.6 b includes indirect economic damage. Human capital, loss of GDP, etc. … Yes other 'estimates' also give the source of the estimator. One of your sources, the BBC is specifically saying these are Yugoslav Govt figures given during time of war, it is falsifying the figures to represent them as 'objective' since it simply would not have been possible to know in the middle of the war, but I left them. It is equally false to exclude another legitimate (Dinkic) estimate, but say from-to.

If the figures cannot be represented with the full picture of who said it, given in words, then they should not be in the info-box AT ALL. Info in the info box should ALWAYS be in the text and if it is too complex to reduce to numbers, they should not be in the info box at all. Tomorrow I shall do what I am suggesting, put all three figures (with explanatory text), in a new section in the body of the article, and either nothing, or the full range of figures in the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that it being a claim would be obvious, and covered by the fact that the text says "$29.6 billion-$100 billion", indicating a wide range of estimates. That is the full range of figures, by the way. Your source cites G 17's estimate of $3.8 billion (not including Kosovo, so add another few hundred million)- but that was specifically for direct damages. G 17 is the same organization that gave the $29.6 billion figure (probably the most likely to be accurate), and they clarify that $23.2 billion of that was the lost value of GDP. $4.1 billion was direct damage to infrastructure (and materiel?), while the remaining $2.3 billion was the loss of human capital. [4]
Including only direct damages and acting as if that's all the damage that was caused is misleading, and including the economic loss in "casualties and losses" is important, since the damage inflicted on infrastructure had a far greater effect than the relatively paltry military casualties.--Nihlus1 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I was very tired when I wrote the above last night, I still think that this is better in text than in infobox, (in fact something should not be in the infobox if it isn't in the text, but this article is 'ragged' about that). Then it is possible to include all three figures and what EXACTLY they are, who calculated them, when and how. The 'BBC' source is the biggest reason I added the 'Yugoslav sources', because the source ITSELF says these are Yug Govt figures during/shortly after the bombing, such figures are notoriously inaccurate, whichever govt. claims them. I think it would also be good to find a better source for the G 17 figures, I DON"T mean a more reliable one, rather a fuller one that says how/what included in the figures. I don't have time today, but will try to construct some text over the next few days. Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree about the damage to infrastructure and GDP not belonging in the infobox; as I said, that $29.6 billion dollars in damage was far more of a loss to Serbia than 1% of their soldiers and 1% of their armored vehicles, and far more relevant to the overall result of the conflict... and this is an article that lists every individual NATO aircraft that even sustained damage, so it honestly strikes me as pretty weird not to include the cost of the bombing damage as a "loss" (same goes for a lot of other articles, actually). Plus, it's convenient for someone who just wants a quick overview of the conflict by looking at the infobox. I don't think just the range of damage as between 29.6 and 100 in the infobox and adding a bunch of text to the main body about those claims have to be mutually exclusive.--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Most of the articles on FYR wars try to cram far too much info into the box, including this one, it becomes unreadable, so I agree about that. … …ps, the 'BBC' source, apart from saying 'Yug Govt claims', refers to 'damage so far' not 'economic loss'. This claim is so weak that I don't think it can legitimately go in info-box, though attributed in a text section would be OK. I also think the item should go down in the info-box, normal understanding of 'casualties and losses' is human losses. As a temp fix, I'm going to move it down and remove the '100 billion' claim. I still think the full answer is a new text section detailing both 'damage' and 'economic loss' for which there may well be other available info.Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the Yugoslav government claim just staying in the text. However, I think that economic loss from infrastructure damage based on reliable estimates should stay in the infobox. I don't know why "casualties and losses" should be restricted to "human losses"; first of all, all these pages (by which I mean war/battle pages in general) list war materiel in the infobox if possible, including in "casualties and losses". Secondly, again, the damage done to infrastructure was much more crucial to the end of the campaign than the damage to Serbian military strength, and took up a good portion of the sorties flown as part of the campaign. Third, it's just kinda misleading not to put in the cost of damage done to infrastructure, both because it leaves vital information out of what should be a quick concise summary of the conflict, and because the whole goal of this campaign- and most conflicts in history- was to inflict enough damage on the enemy to get them to capitulate, not to kill as many people as possible (though killing people can serve as a method, in this case it took a backseat to destroying equipment and buildings). Including just human losses is really not that helpful.--Nihlus1 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I was in the process of drafting some text, when I got 'called away'. I think that both damage and economic loss are relevant and should be 'texted', if we start a section, it may well be that other research will have come up with other figures, but we'll have a start. Inflicting maximum damage to infrastructure, was clearly a 'war aim', so I agree with most of what you are saying. I intend to include the 100 billion figure (attributed to govt.), only for the full picture. Do you perchance know a better source for the G 17+ research? I mean a source which gives details of how calculated/what included as the present one doesn't give that info. Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I've added a new text section after military and civilian casualties, I've put a 'cit tag' on the final sentence, as although there is a source for the figure, there is no source for how that figure was calculated, I just copied from your text.Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Section "Criticism of the campaign"

This section has more text on rebuttals of criticisms than it does on the actual criticisms themselves. In particular the authors gloss over the fact that a UNSC resolution authorising the bombing was not obtained and therefore many consider the operation to have been illegal. Therefore as it stands the section inadequately covers the subject it refers to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombo the mzungu (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Information that could be of some use

Especially as it relates to Yugoslav military losses. Current article favors heavy Serbian propaganda and flawed reporting by Newsweek. The RAND Corporation is a rather objective think tank, frequently critical of U.S. policy. Excuse the Megaupload, I couldn't find an easy way to convert a Word file. https://mega.nz/#!84ogXKTJ!93NWyc40kDH2xc-s93135H3djMRSbzRsGod7kZtKgl8 Matt714 (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Matt714, I think it is a general principle that casualties and losses are the subject of political influence, during and after any combat. What specifically does your source claim which contradicts the article (to save me reading all of both) and what exactly is this present doc? Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete Especially as it relates to Serb tank/apc/artillery losses. The current article accepts the Serb claim at face value, moreso with a flimsy source. NATO claims are subject to transparency since the West has a free press. It's mostly on page 3. I'l try updating the page myself later when I have time. Matt714 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember that most claims have been questioned, and many have been subject to later 'adjustments'. If losses are substantially different, it might be better to attribute them to the various claims. A free press doesn't guarantee anything (especially at the time), when that press is dependent on military sources, which it often is in terms of 'hits', and in this instance, the military itself is dependent on 'sky cameras' Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Air combat or Boys' Own?

The Air combat section seems to contain a lot of supposition and at times is more like a 'Boys' Own' adventure story than an informative article. Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Talbott - Chomsky

BowlAndSpoon re. the Talbott (reported by Chomsky), the quote you supplied says 'It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO's war'. There is no mention here of 'liberalisation and deregulation of markets'. Nor is there in the Chomsky interview (though he says some much stronger things).

Immediately preceding your/Chomsky's quote is 'As nations throughout the region sought to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course.' This DOES mention reform of economies, but it is a leap of logic to go from 'reforming an economy' (ie moving away from centrally-planned Marxist economies) to 'liberalisation and deregulation of markets'. It is also clear that Talbott's emphasis is at least equally on 'mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society', and other 'political' considerations, to which he devotes much more space therafter.

The much longer quote supplied by DeLong emphasises 'political', the opening words are 'For Western powers, the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region' ... later … 'NATO went to war in Kosovo because its political and diplomatic leaders had enough of Milosevic and saw his actions disrupting plans to bring a wider stable of nations into the transatlantic community' … and … 'Fischer observed that he had originally resisted military action, but that his views had changed, "step by step, from mass murder to mass murder". Talbott also makes the point that most of the European NATO powers, were not 'hawkish' and 'were proponents of "third way" politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments'.

I don't doubt that Chomsky said these things and believed his case, nor that Talbott said the (brief) quote you give. The problem is to not imply that Talbott said things which are Chomsky's interpretation of Talbott's words, based on the two words 'economic reform' only, which Talbott claims other nations in the region sought. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted to fix things (and slightly expanded) by making it clearer WHO said WHAT, I was especially concerned that previous wording implied that Talbott said things which it is clear are NC's interpretation of ST's words.Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Brief reply, about to go to bed, so sorry if the tone seems brusk. I am tired and I am rushing. Fine about your point about who said what (though I've not checked what you've done), but Talbott said what he said. This was denied by you without checking (you undid my original edit that removed the claim that Chomsky was basically lying through his teeth and fabricating quotes from Norris's book, which means you cannot have bothered to check for yourself). Anyway, Chomsky quotes Talbott compeltely accurately. It's hard to put any other interpretation on the quote—I mean, it's there in black and white. NATO intervened, according to Talbott, not because of the plight of Kosovar Albanians. Cannot be any clearer. Anyway, as for dearest DeLong: he is obfuscating by babbling about something completely different: the reason for the crisis in Kosovo. Talbott was speaking about the reason NATO intervened, but the reason for the problems in Kosovo were Milosevic. What DeLong said about Milosevic being scum and behaving like scum in Kosovo is completely right, but also completely irrelevant. That will have to do for now. I will reply properly tomorrow. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Also brief, Talbott DID say the brief quote (political and economic reasons), he didn't 'interpret' them in the way Chomsky does, but our wording suggested that Chomsky's interpretation was Talbott's words. What I have attempted to do is put Chomsky's words, Talbott's words within the ref and 'pruned' DeLong's reply slightly. If this isn't OK, I have another possible approach. I have to say that since most of the European NATO powers are not 'neo-liberal' economies and since Talbott only briefly mentions 'economic reasons', in passing, I personally find it difficult to see how Chomsky concluded what he did about Talbott's words. I have no difficulty in agreeing with Talbott that sympathy for Kosovan's wasn't NATO's main motive, simply because I don't think countries go to war for 'sympathy' reasons, ever, broader political considerations are always uppermost. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Маленькая деталь, которую авторы упустили

>The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians

Было убито около 2000 человек, в их числе - маленькие дети. По всей Сербии печально известна Милица Ракич (Milica Rakic)- шестилетняя девочка, которую убило осколком кассетной бомбы. А из-за того, что бомбы содержали обеднённый уран, сейчас в Сербии невероятный рост раковых заболеваний. 37.194.189.130 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Basilissa, the same age as "Merciful Angel".

Google translation: A small detail that the authors missed
It killed about 2,000 people, among them - small children. Across Serbia Milica Rakic notorious (Milica Rakic) - six year old girl who was killed by a cluster bomb shrapnel. And due to the fact that the bomb contained depleted uranium, now in Serbia's incredible growth of cancer. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Google translation - дрянь. Но спасибо Вам. 37.194.189.130 (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Василисса
It looks like the issue raised, about inaccurate casualty numbers, has been addressed. From the info box: "Human Rights Watch was able to verify 500 civilian deaths throughout FR Yugoslavia (outside of Kosovo),[14][15] with other sources stating from 1,200 to 5,700.[14]." As of 4/19/2016. Charlesreid1 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

BORK. The link marked as dead was not dead, and works fine as of 4/19/2016.I have undone your erroneous edit. Charlesreid1 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies wayback works fine PBS is 404.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Result

Ekograf, I'm not sure what happened here, but the removal was accidental as part of another edit. HOWEVER, I wonder how useful either side's claim of 'victory' is. Neither NATO nor Milosevic are exactly known for admitting negative truths and in modern warfare, outright 'victory' is rare. Would it more useful to express 'result' solely as tangible (political?) outcomes, ie remove both claims ? Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, a few years ago, when there was an edit war over the result, I removed the victory claim by ether side and left only the Kumanovo Treaty and everything listed bellow in the result section. At first everyone seemed to agree to this compromise. But it would seem some months later someone reintroduced the NATO claim of victory. I would have no problem with removing a victory claim by ether side and only leave the Kumanovo Treaty and everything listed bellow it in the result section. PS I think it should be noted in the results section that (even though heavy destruction was done to Yugoslavia's economy and infrastructure) destruction to Yugoslavia's military was generally minimal in the airstrikes. Example - NATO claimed destruction of almost 1,000 vehicles and heavy weapons, while it was later on confirmed only about 50 were destroyed. EkoGraf (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The result was heavy damage to Serbia's infrastructure and economy, heavy civilian losses, minimal damage to the Yugoslav Army, the de facto partition of Kosovo north and south of the Ibar, and the beginning of the Presevo insurgency. 23 editor (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Ekograf, I would be quite happy to remove both claims, or leave both (though I don't see what they add). Both of you, I think detailed info belongs in the body rather than the info-box, claims about levels of damage are susceptible to a lot of political manipulation by both sides and that easily muddles an info-box. Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
23 editor That's mostly my reasoning as well, yes. EkoGraf (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference [57] does not support the text

Under subheadings "Yugoslav operations" the text reads:

Many accounts from both Serbs and Albanians identified Yugoslav security forces and paramilitaries as the culprits, responsible for systematically emptying towns and villages of their Albanian inhabitants by forcing them to flee.[5]

Unfortunately the reference does not support the claim. In the reference the german reporter Franz Josef Hutsch, during his testimony at Milošević trial, stated:

[...]several Albanian villages in the area between Orahovac and Suva Reka that were evacuated on KLA orders. [...] there were Albanian villages that were emptied after they were attacked by Serb security forces; according to him, "there was a mixed picture."

I would suggest to modify the paragraph to reflect the testimony or find additional sources to support the claims.

post left unsigned by 2001:981:528:1:64e3:f6a9:f125:50f8 … dated by Pincrete … … …IP appears to be correct, but I cannot fix now.Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft losses in casualties in info-box.

User:91.148.93.34, re this and this. That's not how it works. If other editors disagree with your edits to an article, we stay with the long term version until you are able to establish a concensus for your edit. You need to come to this talk page FIRST, not edit war, until you've gotten your way. The summarised version has been in place for AT LEAST the last 6 months, which means it stays until you have achieved agreement for your changes. You are also reminded that special rules apply to this article and sanctions against any editor who is edit-warring can be applied at the discretion of an admin and without further warning, see head of this page. I amm therefore reverting to the long term stable version until there is agreement on change. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • My version of infobox has been there since 2012, at least. On November 7th 2015 "23 editor" changed that infobox without consensus on a talk page, without agreement. I let it slide back then, my mistake. I am now fixing that mistake. As with special rules - don't threaten me. I am well aware how established users treat anonymous users. 91.148.93.34 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
User:91.148.93.34, Here is the June 2015 version, I looked at 6 or 8 dates in the last 7 or 8 months and all show the summarised version, so where there is a dispute, that is the version until a new agreement is reached.
You have already reverted 3 or 4 times to your favoured version in the last few days. You have not attempted any rationale as to why so much detail is necessary, personally I can see there might be opportunity for a meaningful compromise. I am not/was not threatening, merely making sure you understand that it is both discourteous and disruptive to re-insert your favoured version against the wishes of other editors and without ever even bothering to attempt to say why this extra info is necessary. It is a requirement that I inform you both of the unacceptability of edit-warring and the special rules on this article. Anonymous editors are, or should be welcome, but they don't get a 'get out of jail free' card to behave as they wish. I suggest you self-revert and attempt some explanation here as to why this much detail needs to be in the info box. Neither "It was like this in 2012", nor "I like it" is going to persuade anyone. … … … ps Serbian FRY losses are similarly summarised, because that is what an info box is for, a quick over-view. Pincrete (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Again with the veiled threats. And no, I am not going to self-revert my version. I am only doing what other editors are doing. As for that June 2015 mention, nice cherry picking. You completely ignored that my version was there for YEARS before being changed without consensus. I also contributed to that infobox years ago. And if you want to speak about "I like it" talk to "23 editor" who changed infobox first to his liking. PS When it comes to Yugoslav loses (not Serbian) those were also vandalised and replaced with "disputed numbers" even though there were sources for those losses. 91.148.93.34 (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
User:91.148.93.34, I'm attempting to fix the present text in my sandbox, with a compromise on level of detail. If you have to interpret disagreement as a threat, perhaps you should step back. You do realise that despite having 6 or 7 lines (cw 6 or 7 flags), you fail to inform what an 'Apache' is, plus what a UAV is. Only hardware buffs are likely to understand this. Still no rationale as to why the expanded text is necessary or an improvement, since hundreds of FRY equipment losses are covered in a single para and the 'Harrier' loss was anyway explicitly a training flight, which the source says clearly was not an operational loss. Pincrete (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't wait. 91.148.93.34 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
User:91.148.93.34, This, this, this and 100 others all show that the stable version for the past 10 months at least has been the summarisd version. I cannot see any point during that period that a longer version has existed, perhaps I missed a week or two. I'm sorry, but what happened in 2012 and what you wrote then is ancient history, 100s of other editors have edited since then. That's WP, if you want YOUR text set in stone, start your own web-site. If you want to make changes, persuade others or start an RfC.
I don't know which casualty figures you are referring to, I know that in ALL wars, and Yugoslavian ones are no exception, casualty figures are very disputed, very political, and we need to make choices about which to include/exclude. The Bosnian war had claimed deaths of over 400,000 at one point, the most reliable final figures were around 105,000. Call it a threat, call it a prediction, blame it on the way regular editors treat IPs if you want, but all you are doing at present is making an absolute certainty of the fact that YOUR text won't last five minutes. Maybe you don't care about that. Pincrete (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Nice. 91.148.93.34 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And / Including Kosovo

Regarding this edit, I cannot see how it is NPOV to imply that Kosovo IS currently part of Serbia. Pakistan was once part of India, Bangla Desh was once part of Pakistan, Ireland was once part of Gr Britain, we would not in any of these cases use wording that implied that any of them still were part of the larger units currently. I cannot see how it is NPOV, though would welcome a form of words that avoided the problem. Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said it is currently part of Serbia, so please don't put words in my mouth. That Kosovo was part of Serbia and the sovereign Yugoslavia in 1999 is axiomatic. The Kosovo article is written with extreme care and caution (by you as well so you know) and in no way applies anywhere that the region is independent or part of Serbia. The international community is clearly split over the issue. It's not the prcentage to support indepndence but rather the arguments on both sides which show that "some" countries will never change their views (e.g. Albania who supported the original Republic of Kosova, and China who is clear on its position of not favouring independence). I can only suggest leave the details off the infobox and say that Yugoslavia was targeted. Another way around it is to say that Montenegro got off slightly lighter with regards the attacks. That way you avoid an ugly debate. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Also if Pakistan was once part of Great Britian - as it was before 1947 - then it would be doubly wrong to speak of the "British Empire" and "Pakistan" as two different entities for any matter while India and Pakistan were British property. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Correction, Pakistan was never part of Great Britain - Great Britain means England, Scotland and Wales - "India" was part of the British Empire, which meant the United Kingdom and all of the territories it once controlled around the world. Sorry, but sloppy talk like that sets my historian hackles on edge.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Result

Saddam Hussein claimed Iraq won the Gulf War. That was his opinion, yet the Gulf War article does not hold back in calling it what it was - namely, a coalition victory. How come Milošević's victory claim is taken more seriously than Saddam's, even though the Kosovo War directly cost Milošević his presidency (a consequence not even Saddam Hussein suffered)? It seems odd to doubt this was a NATO victory when NATO achieved its objectives and Miloševic not only lost control of Kosovo, but also his political career. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. Milošević did not lose the presidency because of the war but rather because he was defeated in the following year's presidential elections (in which his opponents were heavily propped up with Western money and trained by the CIA in the use of non-violent resistance tactics). The war didn't end in a total NATO victory either. The organization had initially demanded that NATO troops be granted free movement in all of Yugoslavia, total control of the country's air space and the military occupation of Kosovo exclusively by NATO troops. Eventually, NATO acquiesced to occupying only the Albanian-dominated part of Kosovo (south of the Ibar river) and in conjunction with the Russians. The free movement of NATO and KPF troops in north Kosovo was only secured a few years ago through mutual agreement. So yes, while NATO achieved most of its objectives in 1999, it's a bit more complicated than simply labelling it an outright victory. 23 editor (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You are absolutely right Mikrobølgeovn. 141.136.247.79 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the guideline is, but I always feel that the 'what' result is more interesting/informative than the 'score card' of who won or lost, which should, IMO, only be used for wholly, unequivocal outright defeats. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@23 editor As the article states, the essence of NATO's goals was "Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back". Concessions on NATO's part owed to the fact that the war resulted in an international peace treaty, and do not take away the fact that NATO essentially achieved its aims without a ground invasion (avoiding this alternative was an objective in itself). NATO prevented ethnic cleansing of the Albanian population and secured Kosovo (largely) without boots on the ground. Military pressure and diplomacy allowed NATO to reach its objectives without high casualties. Even if NATO voluntarily let go of some of its demands, Miloševic was still the clear loser. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bias

This article has unbeliveable anti-Serbian bias. Even our civilian victims are denied, by picking one sided HRW as only source. I tried to remedy this a bit, but it is unbeliveable how some pro-NATO anti Serbian editors have taken ownership of this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.141.53 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Both the HRW and Serbian govt estimates are given. Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait

Why does Wikipedia call NATO forces "Allied Forces" if it has a neutral point of view, and the enemies of NATO are not "allied" with them? GermanGamer77 21:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't. The only uses are in proper nouns such as "Operation Allied Force". We can't tell NATO (or anyone else) to change their names and job titles! Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@GermanGamer77: - Have you found the term "allied forces" anywhere other than within the context of NATO's pet name "Operation Allied Force"? If so, kindly link the article. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Here. Hope you're happy. GermanGamer77 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean in reference to NATO, not the World War II nexus who fought Germany and Japan!!!! I thought that was what this thread was about. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Calm down, calm down. It's just that Wikipedia is neutral and not "allied" with NATO, just made in the USA, and I thought calling it "allied" was a little weird. `GermanGamer77 21:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If it is used anywhere other than by the moniker then you, I, or anyone is free to change it. I wasn't getting "uptight", I was just interested whether you found it used in this improper manner. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

Request to revert page back to changes made by MateoKatanaCRO 14:12, 19 February 2018‎. PR5634 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. To the extent that this request is clear, Ktrimi991's changes are sourced to a reliable source, whereas the previous text was not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
PR5634 this looks like a re-wording only, so I can't really see what the issue is. I don't mind making changes so long as I know the part that requires atttention. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I changed only the first sentence. The reason of NATO intervention was not only the bloodshed, the risk of conflict spreading into the wider region was also very important. The source I used for my edit is reliable. After I saved my edit, another experienced editor in the topic added a wiki link to the new sentence, a sign of approval I think. @PR5634, just out of curiosity, why did your first edit aim to undo an edit of mine? I ask because lately many socks of a blocked ediotpr VJ-Yugo have been reverting my edits. One of the reasons clerks identify those socks is that they always make one or two edits and dissapear. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Ktrimi added a reliable source and based the rewording with that. Checks out. No need for change.Resnjari (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991, sourced yes, but "bloodshed" was the billed reason for the intervention and not the real one. As for spreading, it did. First to Presevo Valley and then into Macedonia and in 2002 there was even a stand-off in northern Greece but this completely failed to launch (PS I have no links to VJ). --Coldtrack (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For all kinds of reasons, I think framing the text as a NATO claim is preferable. It allows the 'case for war' to be presented. I don't doubt that persecution of Kos-Albs was taking place, and maybe prev. text underpays that element. I don't agree that this was simply a 'billed reason', if what is meant was a mere pretext. However - as is often the case - the 'billed reason' is not the whole story. NATO was fed up with Milosevic ignoring all international norms and international mediation and disregarding international opinion and being indifferent to the destabilising effect on the region. His policies in Kosovo were the 'straw that broke the camel's back'. Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone didn't notice, the edit request was by a sockpuppet asking to restore their own edit. They have been blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete. International opinion of Milosevic was split between the west as one monolithic entity, and the rest of the world. The west was fed up with Milosevic full stop. They knew very well that if the four republics in 1991-92 had not broken away then Yugoslavia as before that time would have still existed for better or for worse. Note that I am a Ukrainian who follows and not a local Serb or local ex-Yugoslav. Milosevic would have never declared independence for Serbia either in its Yugoslav shape, nor in some "internally expanded" shape to include Bosnia and Croatia etc. Don't get me wrong. I am just as opposed to his corruption as I had been with our Yanukovich in 2014 (but I opposed/still oppose Maidan), but the fact was that Milosevic never played "good little boy" by signing Yugoslavia's death warrant, and he furthermore persuaded Montenegro's leadership to remain in a south Slavic union. If in the 21st century we have a modern nation based on Pan-Slavic unity, then there would have been no point to the country's breakup since the "seven entities" model (including Kosovo of course) merely symbolises western conquest and does for its locals exactly what Roman provinces did in antiquity for Rome. A Kosovan assembly declared independence in 1991 and the next seven years were marked by the establishment of parallel entities and the competition for influence in Kosovo amid low-scale fighting. Then from 1998, separatists began to receive gift weapons from western sponsors and other funding which was deliberately intended to bring the region into full-scale war. The only "mediation" I know about is the Rambouillet meeting which was more a dictat for the Yugoslav authorities to make way for the separatist faction to govern Kosovo. Apart from that, Milosevic himself held meetings with Ibrahim Rugova whilst the Serbian state did indeed try to reach agreements with local Albanian representatives. The Albanians were not at fault. It had been the West who were hell bent on their vision of making Kosovo separate from Yugoslavia/Serbia - and also separate from Albania, since an enlarged Albanian state would have also defeated purpose for the architects of the conflict. As for the rest of the world, nobody outside of the western bloc had a problem with Milosevic nor his two-republic Yugoslavia: Russia was an ally, China was fine with it, Ukraine and Belarus had warm relations with it, as did India, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, and even many of the countries deemed "pariah states" again in the west: Syria, Iran, Saddam's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya. Obviously the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are yes-men on the world stage to western dominance whilst their regimes are left alone to carry out more heinous atrocities against any rebelling part of their populations. So the Milosevic policies were not so much the "straw that broke the camel's back" (because Kosovo's expropriation was a fait accompli, this way or that way) but it was the smokescreen, no different to the establishment of ISIL as a "military straw man" to justify war in Syria in favour of the so-called "moderate terrorists". --Coldtrack (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018

cite the claim " with, the tenth page of this and add quote "It is NATO’s view that the Yugoslav military must be hit so hard that its capacity to continue the present offensive will be greatly reduced and further humanitarian misery prevented."--Jozias van Aartsen or quote "The targets of the air raids are military targets: anti- aircraft defences, command centres, means of communication and military installations."--Frank de Grave 67.242.19.37 (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  •  Done - high up in lede. There may be some who tweak and amend parts if my interpretation has not been 100%, but I've more or less conveyed the request. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete I don't know if it is lede-worthy. Yes it looks a bit out of place but I just couldn't find anywhere on the article to insert the details. Every section appears to have its own heading and its own specifics. I did say my edit may be tweaked and amended but it was done at another editor's request who is unable to edit the page. I have to be fair here. On reflection, yes "said" is better than "quoted" but I thought it all had the same effect. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian volunteers

Can Russian Volunteers be put into the FR Yugoslav side of the combatants section since there are sources confirming they were there to oppose NATO. 142.197.9.91 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I know of no substantial volunteer presence during the bombing campaign. Are you sure that you aren't mixing this up with earlier Yugoslav wars, where there was substantial foreign presence (on all sides)? Pincrete (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Russian Volunteers in Kosovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.9.91 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018

Change:

The [[German Navy]] deployed the frigate [[Bremen-class frigate|''Rheinland-Pfalz'']] and

To:

The [[German Navy]] deployed the frigate [[German frigate Rheinland-Pfalz (F209)|''Rheinland-Pfalz'']] and

as the ship now has its own article, and a link to the class page is no longer necessary. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

Name of operation "Allied Force" should be article name, "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" is a description. It should be immmidiately stated it was without declaration of war or UN approval.

More should be drawn from obvious illegitemacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Should include: - Strike without declaration of war or UN approval equaling it to alliance terrorism (later to be seen elsewhere) - Germnny intervening outside Germany (against German constitution and after WWII restrictions) - NATO changing from defensive to agressive alliance - A cause of attack "Operation Horseshoue" is proven hoax, so stated goals are imaginary since they come from wrong premise

These are 3 key components.


Also, well documented history of war crimes and use of forbidden arms has a nice Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_during_Operation_Allied_Force

Rastavox (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Farah

This has sat harmlessly for fully ten years ([6]). The source was placed even earlier (I'm not diving that far back). Editors must be given an opportunity to provide sources that Farah has made this claim. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack, it means no one bothered to check it for a decade until now. Thing is World Net Daily has repeatedly been up for discussions as to whether it is a reliable source. Most recent discussions, literally ending some days ago. [7], [8]. I don't see why Farah's opinion sourced through his publication (with all the problems it has) should be on this article. If you want to cite Farah's opinions, do it on his page. Or for here find a source that meets wp:reliability. Otherwise an RFC might be needed for clarification. But so far going with previous RFC's, content from WorldNetDaily is deemed wp:unreliable.Resnjari (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if WND portrays Farah's opinion accurately, we would need RS coverage to establish WP:WEIGHT. There is no indication that this is a significant viewpoint. We don't need to give editors the "opportunity" to provide sources; it is appropriate to remove the material for the time being and reinsert it in the event that reliable sources are found. –dlthewave ☎ 05:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree RS is required to establish the accuracy, and I agree that the part can be removed if this is not found. I don't advocate keeping the tag indefinitely or even for "very long". WEIGHT is another matter, and may I say another can of worms. Since the subject is notable, you'll have a hard time proving he isn't and so his stand should not matter. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
"Since the subject is notable, you'll have a hard time proving he isn't and so his stand should not matter." I agree that Farah himself is notable, however notability has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. We don't include or exclude a viewpoint based on the notability of the people holding that viewpoint. –dlthewave ☎ 20:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
WEIGHT is simply to do with bold presentation of something as factual. It's got nothing to do with reporting actual viewpoints. That's why these are confined to subsections such as "support for" and "criticism of". --Coldtrack (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Can't it be sourced to a publication that is not problematic? I'm mean if another publication can't be found and that sentence remains unreferenced it becomes wp:undue wp:POV and wp:OR. ok, some weeks then. Should be heaps of time. If nothing is found to compensate for the source, the sentence goes.Resnjari (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
With that I am absolutely fine. I mean no matter what position an individual has on the activity, the argument presented is not a game changer; it's not as if the inclusion clinches the argument for the opponents or its exclusion should win the argument for the proponents. I'll look over the next week and if I can't find something reliable, I'll mention it here and eventually it can all be removed. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It was a widespread belief among critics that the threat to Kosovar Albanians was exaggerated by NATO. I don't see why the view of this individual is especially notable ... outside the US he is unknown. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It is notable as he is notable. One man's opinion is only as valid as the next person's. The issue here is regards reliable sources to substantiate the points given. I haven't been able to find any prominent coverage and so I have no objections at this stage to the full removal of the part. If something comes along later, we can restore it with the relevant source. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky criticism

I think there should be changes made to this section:

"There has also been criticism of the campaign. The Clinton administration was accused of inflating the number of Kosovar Albanians killed by Serbs.[144] In an interview with Radio-Television Serbia journalist Danilo Mandic on April 25, 2006, Noam Chomsky claimed that Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton and the leading U.S. negotiator during the war, had written in his foreword to John Norris' 2005 book Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo that "the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians", but rather "It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated".[145] On May 31, 2006, Brad DeLong rebutted Chomsky's allegation and quoted from elsewhere in the passage which Chomsky had cited,[146] "the Kosovo crisis was fueled by frustration with Milosevic and the legitimate fear that instability and conflict might spread further in the region" and also that "Only a decade of death, destruction, and Milosevic brinkmanship pushed NATO to act when the Rambouillet talks collapsed. Most of the leaders of NATO's major powers were proponents of 'third way' politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments. None of these men were particularly hawkish, and Milosevic did not allow them the political breathing room to look past his abuses."[146][147]

The rebuttal of Chomsky by Brad DeLong is from a self-published blog (albeit from a university professor), that makes what I think is an error - perhaps from using a transcript of a spoken interview - in saying that Chomsky claims that John Norris makes the claim, when Chomsky, I think, says it was Talbott. The foreward in question (as quoted by DeLong - and I believe it's the foreward from the page number style) does indeed say a lot more than Chomsky says, but certainly includes the passage: "it was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO's war."

There's an argument to be had, no doubt, but perhaps Talbott's (or Norris's views) should be included in the "support for the campaign" section first-hand from that book (if anyone has read it or has a copy to reference), and if Chomsky's criticisms should be included - should they? - is there not a better source for them than a single television interview (where it's not 100% clear - as evidenced above - what he's saying)?

Thank you.

WattStreetWhiteStreet (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Some prev. discussion here. "Noam Chomsky claimed that Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton and the leading U.S. negotiator during the war, had written in his foreword to John Norris' 2005 book". Pincrete (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

thank you. I see I'm not raising much new then. It seems out of place to me to include DeLong's comments and the Chomsky interview, when Chomsky has written a long article on the intervention and even whole book - neither of which, but of bloody course(!), I've yet read in full. Norris and Talbott's views are of course very notable, but perhaps should be incorporated where they fit elsewhere in the article - again, uselessly, I haven't read the book! (I need to go to the library I see.)

I'm not yet a good enough or trusted enough editor to make changes, but - if I were allowed to - I would remove the whole lot and include something about the article and the book. Criticism of Chomsky's views - which includes substantial stuff from lots of sources, including Christopher Hitchens and George Monbiot I believe as well as Prof DeLong - on Serbia/Kosovo might belong somewhere else? I notice that there's not a section on this in Chomsky's "Political views of..." page for example, whereas there seems quite enough material.WattStreetWhiteStreet (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo's demographics show that there was ethnic cleansing of Serbian population

YEAR АLB. SERBS ОTHERS

1455[2] 1 % 98 % 1 % 1871 32 % 64 % 4 % 1899 48 % 44 % 8 % 1921 66 % 26 % 8 % 1931 69 % ?? % ? % 1939 60 % 34 % 5 % 1948 68 % 27 % 5 % 1953 65 % 27 % 6 % 1961 67 % 27 % 6 % 1971 74 % 21 % 5 % 1981 77 % 15 % 8 % 1991 82 % 11 % 7 % 20002 88 % 7 % 5 % 20072 92 % 5 % 3 %

SOURCE - WORLD'S STATISTIQUE BANK(2000), OSCE (2005)

It means, war was started on faked data and informations. Just like Iraq war, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.46.15 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The beginnings of the modern Serb-Albanian conflict lie in the Eastern Crisis when Serbia expelled (in modern terms: ethnically cleansed) Albanians from the Toplica and Morava valleys (See: Expulsion of the Albanians 1877–1878) to expand the Serb state.Resnjari (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Nato victory? Really? Fuck You! 178.120.126.207 (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Before this IP's post gets deleted, I wonder myself if this is apt. I realise that it is true to the extent that most NATO objectives were met, but I tend to always think that 'outcomes' - political and social are more informative than the slightly 'football scorecard' of win/lose/draw. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
All wars have their political and social outcomes. Its terms of the war, NATO won and the Kumanovo agreement was the document that stipulated terms to the defeated party, i.e Milosevic's government. However I understand where your coming from @Pincrete but things like the wiki infobox for wars is designed to show win/lose/draw and not the political or social effects. Instead its the article that is meant to do that (one hopes). Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Victory in a military conflict in Wiki is typically defined in military terms. This is problematic but also makes our lives much simpler -- as otherwise there might be no "victories", ever.--Calthinus (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everybody and dear contributors

I have had a look on the NATO FORCES / Aviation part of the article, and as it is an air military campaign, I would suggest to describe in more factual and details the Nato order of battle. I would suggest too to make a link between the country forces involved and the level of commitmment of the Nato countries to this operation. As the desciption of the involved forces are a little bit unstructured, I would suggest an overall view of the air forces, with a breakdown by country and/or by role of aircaft (CAS, Air superiority, C3I, refueling, etc...). The book "Air Warfare in the Missile Age" , from Lon O. Nordeen, ISBN-13 : 978-1588342829, seem to be a fair source about this subject.

Regards

BihacVet — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet (talk • contribs) 09:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia/Archive_2&oldid=1140263256"