I've taken a pretty strong "intervention never justified' stance, but I admittedly know little about the balkans, and if intervention ever were justified it would be in the case of genocide. I've heard Chomsky and Parenti called genocide deniers and justify the bombing because Serbia was doing that genocide. It sounds like every anti-communist smear ever created, but I know there weren't really any "good guys" here

  • geikei [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Both chomsky and Parenti are clear

    US intervention had nothing to do with the Genocide and didnt help shit

    Milosevic(fascist PoS) offered to surrender to the UN, but the US wanted NATO to control Serbia. So the Clinton administration refused and said he has to surrender to NATO. Milosevic said no. So Serbians conceded before the bombings started or were even announced and they were agreeing to peace towards all sides, retracting troops from seceded countries of Yugoslavia, and allowing UN intervention and investigation into the country to both aid them and make sure that genocide or human rights abuses won't happen. The US would only accept peace terms if Serbia accepted heavily biased, NATO troops INTO the country with the addendum that these troops were exempt from the Serbian Law, basically giving them free reign to rule the country and wreck shit. The bombing started as an extension of that

    Beyond that there are other things to keep in mind in this case like

    • All sides in the conflict commited multiple crimes against humanity and the people of yugoslavia, the KLA were basically nazis and commited multiple "genocides" against minorities that didn't necessarily include Serbs, like Roma people. Hundreds of thousands of refugees (Roma and Serbians) fled Kosovo for good reason to Serbia.

    • The US didn't bomb invading troops, they heavily bombed Yugoslav industry and infrastructure

    • The recognized serb genocide attempt that happened was Srebrenica..Milosevic had been officialy cleared by international courts as nothing to do with the Massacre. He was still a fascist and a piece of shit but the blame for Srbrenica (which was the specific justification used for intervention) lied on military leaders and officials that were already out of power or not important at the time of the US intervention

    • The international treatment of Yugoslavia (denying Yugoslavian sovereignty,immediately recognizing the right of self-determination in Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia but not extending comparable rights to the stranded populations who overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the federation, withholding international recognition of the Yugoslav successor state and denying it the right to succeed the SFRY,expanding NATO to Yugoslavia's borders, sabotaging earlier peace efforts to sign a near identical agreement years later; the waging of "humanitarian war," a novel legal and political category; etc.) -- much of it without precedent in world politics -- exacerbated inter-ethnic violence with every new development and more or less assured that smaller conflicts would become open wars

    In general The idea that NATO(completely disregarding any notion of international law and going against the will of the UN) wanted anything but the complete annihilation of Yugoslavia for geopolitical and military reasons is laughable. All sides committed horrific atrocities, from the Croatian rapists to the Roma killing KLA, fuck the Serbian government of the time and also fuck Milosevic, but not only was he completely cleared from Srebrenica, his involvement in Kosovo is also dubious at the very least and NATO intervention didnt stop or protect shit. Giving NATO URANIUM BOMBS and supporting the Albanian Nazi side a pass becaus because "we wanted to protect Serbs from genocide" is whitewashing. ANd its not like these are things that werent known then,

    Read/Sources

    • To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia by Michael Parenti

    • Yugoslavia: Peace, War, and Dissolution (compilation of stuff by Chomsky)

    • First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia

  • CheGueBeara [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    NATO doesn't do interventions, it does sociopathic bombing campaigns designed to destroy its enemy states.

    The question of whether an "intervention" war justified is premised on the propaganda that NATO is some kind of peacekeeping defensive force.

  • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    It really wasn't and caused a much bigger humanitarian crisis. Romani and other ethnic minorities were simultaneously targeted by KLA or whatever roaming gangs, while if they tried to escape the refugee corridors were only really open to kosavar albanians which meant they had to identify as if they wanted aid.

    Coincidentally all that former SFRY industry got bombed into the stone age while western owned factories escaped that. :shrug-outta-hecks: