NATO was no longer relevant when the USSR collapsed and the cold war supposedly ended. It took over a quarter of a century of irrelevance for this war to happen and it’s not unreasonable to think that NATO played a role of escalation in order to ensure job security.
NATO is application only. It’s growth is because Russia sought to exert power through punishment instead of cooperation. It drove people to NATO for safety.
It is not definitively stated that it didn’t help the situation. The article provides just as much evidence that it was decisive in Yugoslavia capitulating.
At the end of the day, we can agree that the civilian casualties were unacceptable, and upon discovering unexpected conditions, NATO should have called off the attack and reconsidered their approach.
It’s intellectually dishonest however to make a condemnation either way with certainty. It’s a disputed event without consensus. It’s perfectly valid to say that it’s unclear if it actually helped the situation or made it worse, but it’s incorrect to suggest a historical consensus on its judgment. As with pretty much every modern conflict, you’ll have academics who condemn US intervention and who condemn US inaction.
The one thing I can definitely say though is it was unconscionable to use cluster bombs, and that was incredibly fucked up.
I don’t believe for a second that NATO cared about the civilians or infrastructure. They were governing by force like you said Russia was in your first comment.
Russia sought to exert power through punishment instead of cooperation
NATO was no longer relevant when the USSR collapsed and the cold war supposedly ended. It took over a quarter of a century of irrelevance for this war to happen and it’s not unreasonable to think that NATO played a role of escalation in order to ensure job security.
NATO is application only. It’s growth is because Russia sought to exert power through punishment instead of cooperation. It drove people to NATO for safety.
The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations.
Turns out when a country is commiting genocide and refuses to stop, military action is required.
Plus, wasn’t this a UN sanctioned attack?
Read the article there’s a whole section on why this wasn’t a good idea: Arguments against strategic air power
It didn’t help the situation, and ended up killing a lot of civilians.
It is not definitively stated that it didn’t help the situation. The article provides just as much evidence that it was decisive in Yugoslavia capitulating.
At the end of the day, we can agree that the civilian casualties were unacceptable, and upon discovering unexpected conditions, NATO should have called off the attack and reconsidered their approach.
It’s intellectually dishonest however to make a condemnation either way with certainty. It’s a disputed event without consensus. It’s perfectly valid to say that it’s unclear if it actually helped the situation or made it worse, but it’s incorrect to suggest a historical consensus on its judgment. As with pretty much every modern conflict, you’ll have academics who condemn US intervention and who condemn US inaction.
The one thing I can definitely say though is it was unconscionable to use cluster bombs, and that was incredibly fucked up.
I don’t believe for a second that NATO cared about the civilians or infrastructure. They were governing by force like you said Russia was in your first comment.