Talk:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

The Arbitration Committee has placed the Kosovo article on probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from that and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

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)

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)