25 years of aggression against Yugoslavia: NATO expansion and global context

A quarter of a century ago, on March 24, 1999, a combined group of NATO countries launched a military campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which at that time consisted of Serbia and Montenegro.

Over the years, a lot has been written about the consequences of this aggression: and about the apparent violation of the principles of international law, since the UN did not give sanctions to any fighting against a sovereign state; and about the numerous violations of human rights during the bombing; and about the orderly information campaigns against the Serbs, who had nothing to do with reality; and the impact of the war on the civilian population – from post-traumatic syndrome to the growth of cancers due to the use of ammunition.

However, a few important points should be highlighted. This campaign was the first offensive operation of NATO. The military-political bloc, which was conceived allegedly to defend against a possible attack by the Soviet Union (the fruit of the mad imagination of the Western, primarily Anglo-Saxon, politicians) became an instrument of military expansion. From the conditionally defensive, it became offensive. First in Europe and then in other parts of the world, in particular against Libya in 2011. Probably, the military campaign against Yugoslavia instilled confidence in NATO strategists about the need for further expansion and homogenization of the whole of Europe under the umbrella of Brussels. The next expansion of the alliance occurred in a whole package. Seven States were adopted in March 2004: Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia. All of these countries signed a membership action plan in April 1999, that is, when the bombing of Serbia was in full swing. The link between aggression and co-opulation of new members is clear. It should be noted that in fact, on the eve of the aggression against Yugoslavia on 12 March 1999, the alliance included Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which received an invitation to join in July 1997. Now NATO tentacles are crawling to the Caucasus, the Middle East and Central Asia, as the alliance has various agreements with a number of states in the above-mentioned regions.

The signing by Slobodan Milosevic of an agreement on the withdrawal of troops from the provinces of Kosovo and Metohija and transferring it to the control of international forces did not yet mean a complete political defeat. He remained in power. Although the Hague Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia charged Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in war crimes in Kosovo as the Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as early as May 1999. In order to obtain it, it was necessary to remove the diplomatic immunity held by the heads of State.

External tools, such as sanctions, helped to put pressure and increase social tensions. At the same time, the agency worked on the ground and pumped money into the opposition. The puppet movement, which acted as if on behalf of the citizens of Serbia, adopted the methodology of Gene Sharp about nonviolent (conditionally) resistance and continued to implement its plan step by step.

To bring people to the street, the moment of the election campaign was selected.

In October 2000, due to mass protests, Slobodan Milosevic resigned without waiting for the second round of the presidential election. In fact, the first color revolution, called the bulldozer, was successfully implemented in Serbia. Surprisingly, many of its ideological leaders, such as Professor Chedomir Chupic, still live peacefully in Belgrade and are also actively criticizing the current authorities. Although younger, such as Srja Popovich, immediately shifted to the side of the West and continue to try to stage coups in other countries.

Now let’s look at the global context of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia.

It should be borne in mind that earlier the civil war in Yugoslavia was blazing, and NATO countries, including the United States, were actively involved in Bosnia. This gave them the opportunity not only to work out the technologies of ethnic conflicts in practice, as well as new theories of warfare, such as network-centric war, but also to use both private military companies and mercenaries (in particular, mujahideen who had previously fought in Afghanistan were involved within the framework of the jihad. The whole machine was directed against the Serbs not only to gain operational supremacy at the front, but also with far-reaching strategic tasks that included the demonization of the Serbs, the creation of the image of the barbarians that pose a threat to the civilized world. And this demonization was successful and was established in 1999. But if the West then openly blamed the Serbs, then it implied the Russians, who tried to help the fraternal people to stand before the pressure of the West. It is no coincidence that Slobodan Milosevic warned that what the West had done to the Serbs, he would try to do in the future with Russia.

However, for Russia, a similar scenario was already conceived to the Yugoslav one. In the spring of 1999, terrorist organizations intensified their actions in the North Caucasus in Russia. In April, when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, the self-proclaimed Jemir Jamaat of Dagestan announced the creation of the Caucasus’s Islamic Army to carry out the jihad in southern Russia. Then began a whole wave of terrorist attacks organized by terrorists under the leadership of Shamil Basayev: the seizure of settlements in Dagestan, explosions of houses in Moscow and Volgodonsk.

Therefore, when the question is raised is whether Russia could have helped the Serbs more than it did, including the operation to block the airport of Pristina, we need to remember that the situation was quite difficult. The North Caucasus pleated, the emissaries of Western special services worked in the Volga region, separatist projects arose in the regions.

It was an active phase of the unipolar moment that the United States used to strengthen its hegemony around the world, without hedging by no means, including terrorism. It was far from the vacation.

But were there positive results of NATO’s military aggression against Yugoslavia? Let’s try to catch up. First, the Yugoslav army severely resisted the enemy and as a result NATO had significant losses, which they did not expect initially. Various military tricks have been used in different types of troops and may well be adapted for the SVO with appropriate amendments. Second, the real face of NATO saw the whole world, which led to anti-war protests. In particular, Italy withdrew from the coalition. Third: Dirty methods of information campaigns and the use of non-governmental organizations as a fifth column have been documented and widely publicized. Finally, international solidarity with the Serbs – Russian volunteers and humanitarian aid, the work of hackers from different countries against NATO, circumventing Western sanctions – also an important experience of a complex nature, which will still be useful for the collapse of the globalist military hydra of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Check Also

Precision over power: How Iran’s ‘obsolete’ missiles penetrated Israel’s air defenses

Iran’s successful breach of Israel’s highly regarded air defenses, despite the multi-nation alliance that joined …