Talk:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Adding 3 photos - NATO expired weapons

I added 3 photos from Belgrade Aviation museum. 2 of them are showing technical information that NATO weapons are expired. There was some talking that NATO is always solving this in many wars. So here are some shots and conclusion is up to a reader. Also 3rd shot (MiG-29 decoy) was hit by a dysfunctional rocket. I wish some would add some word of using expired weapons in the article, it is not so minor issue, especially concerning depleted Uranium bombs/rockets. --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Petar Milošević, the readable info does not say that these are 'expired', it says that they are no longer covered by warranty (guarantee). I've no idea in what circumstances guarantees are given on military hardware, nor what is normally done with gear when the warranty expires - but doubt vey much if any state - or individual - could afford to throw away gear on the guarantee expiry date. Your car, computer, washing machine, TV etc are all still under guarantee are they? Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Those weapons are much more sophisticated than my TV. That's is why so many malfunctions. How would you address that weapons, if not expired (out of warranty ?). That's is actually issue here, NATO is using old weapons to get rid of them, they don't throw weapons at home depots. It would be costly and dangerous too. They do that in wars - America especially. When next years budget they make new bombs, of course, Arms Industry must work. So they use target county as a garbage too. No harm if they kill civilians due to malfunction, just a collateral damage. --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I also don't like removing "important infos" from photos, like in MiG-29 decoy in this case. To remove part "...hit by dysfunctional rocket and latter rebuilt" is very spoiling, and just left "Belgrade Aviation Museum". We are solving accuracy, weapon tech on few photos. Many are still under "impression" in "Iraq War" "Through the window Tomahawk". We get more clear with about this here. Location of subject is less important here. --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I've no idea what normal practice is when weaponry is "out of guarantee". I do know however that you cannot describe them as 'expired' or reach other conclusions about them without reliable sources arguing for this - not simply labels on the weapon. The assertion is plain silly, NATO would knowingly send out planes worth billions, with pilots whose training costs millions, equipped with weapons that they know are defective? The Belgrade Museum would not IMO be a reliable source for the backstory, nor incidentally would be USAF if the backstory were contentious - as here.Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete: Could you explain why are you deleting "good information" on MiG decoy photo ?! Is there any doubt to you ? --Petar Milošević (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

And yes, they don't know if it will be defective, they just throw them and let it be what will be !? Or you got any info they have facility to disarm them and throw it to dump in USA ? --Petar Milošević (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Illustrations, and their captions are meant to illustrate/support the main text. There is text about decoys, there isn't text about dysfunctional weaponry, so what's the point? It is trying to make a point that is nowhere supported or explored (dud weaponry) as being either true, or significant. Was anything that hit the decoy any more dysfunctional than a random selection of weapons (some of which will always fail to achieve their goal by missing or failing to fully explode), I've no idea and nor have you. But, Belgrade Museum caption cards (nor USAF museum caption cards) are not a WP:RS for anything. Find RS info that says what you want to imply about NATO needing to dump its junk somewhere, and then your caption might support that text. Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sometime picture tell more than 1000 words, and if you have 2 or 3 of then... and we talk about photo of NATO bombs/rockets, not "Museum caption cards". They don't even need to explain nor is written anywhere, all can be seen. For MiG-29 decoy see statement of person who was responsible for decoys:

Here is Official video of MiG-29 decoy producer and fate of last MiG-29 decoy. However i can't put it as reference since Youtube. Here is photo of decoy before restoration. Good to know Serbian or Russian for video. So erasing "dysunctional" might have some wider meaning in this case. I think i don't even need supporting text for this - all is written there on photo. MiG-29 decoy could have external link - despite WP:NOTYOUTUBE --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I will add Decoy in text to solve this question. --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The photos prove nothing, the decoy would look like that if it were left out in the rain as it is mainly made of wood and some kind of painted 'skin', that could very easily be canvas or similar. It wouldn't look like that if had been hit by a hard metallic object flying at 100s of KpH out of the sky! 'Dysfunctional' is a word not usually used of objects, machines etc - it means something much stronger than 'malfunctioning', which just means 'didn't work properly'. Dysfunctional means "completely incapable of working at all, let alone correctly", which makes one wonder why anyone would think of going to the enormous expense, effort and risk of firing something from 1000s of metres up that they knew was utterly incapable of working, wouldn't it be simpler to just throw any heavy junk simce that might do more damage? These claims are not only unsupported by sources - which is what counts on WP - they don't even make any sense. The video just proves what everyone already knowa - that decoys were used. How effective they were or were not would need a source 1000 times more independent/impartial than this one. Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think reader will understand no matter is it written dysfunctional or malfunctional. Weapon(s) didn't work. I gave you link above (at t=6:08). On video Lieutenant colonel is saying rockets (plural) didn't explode. That's why was just damaged, while 5 other decoys were destroyed. Probably plane was in hangar. Heavy junk is what made whole on right side, explosion would cut that wires and be more like piercing on left side of hangar. All clear, all supported, nothing much to add. --Petar Milošević (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Thank you for the images. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

KLA as belligerents

Why are the KLA listed as belligerents in the bombing campaign? That they were participants in the ground war is of course indisputable, but how exactly were they involved in the air campaign? It doesn't make sense. Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, as the KLA's symbol is used the flag of Albania. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

military operation

It wasn't a military operation, it targeted civilians. --85.148.244.121 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A military operation is any operation involving armed forces, army, navy, air force etc. It has nothing to do with whether civilians were hit, but even so, there is of course ample evidence that civilians were hit, but none that civilians were targetted. If civilians had been consciously targetted, death tolls would have been many times what they actually were. Pincrete (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If civilians hadn't been targeted, more military would have been killed. 85.148.244.121 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, no NATO military were killed in this "battle". It wasn't a military operation, it was a terror bombing. Arguably against a nation which itself supported terrorism. --85.148.244.121 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

"After Milošević died in prison, two separate UN War Crimes Tribunals in the Hague found Milošević not guilty of the war crimes charges against him, in 2016 and 2017.[170]"

This is a false claim, perpetrated by information sources deemed untrustworthy such as the "Strategic Culture Foundation" cited in source 170 — a fake Russian propaganda machine posing as a "Western think-tank."

As per this source — https://www.rferl.org/a/milosevic-war-crime-deniers-feed-receptive-audience/27910664.html — Gordana Knezevic reached our to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to clarify the rumor of "exoneration" and received the following response: "The Trial Chamber of the Karadzic case found, at paragraph 3460, page 1303, of the Trial Judgement, that 'there was no sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan' [to create territories ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs]. The Trial Chamber found earlier in the same paragraph that 'Milosevic provided assistance in the form of personnel, provisions and arms to Bosnian Serbs during the conflict'."

Milosevic was not exonerated by the ICTY and Source 170 of this article is dubious and unsubstantiated. CBesart (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

CBesart, The text was added HERE. As your source says "The Trial Chamber did not in fact make any determination of guilt with respect to Milosevic in its verdict against Karadzic. Indeed, Milosevic was not charged or accused in the Karadzic case". Also of his own trial:"Milosevic's death in custody means that his trial will never resume, and the facts of the case against him will never be established in a court of law".

I don't know how that slipped in without anyone noticing, but thanks to you for doing so. I have removed the sentence.Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Destroyed or damaged civilian objects table

Sadko. re this content, which you re-instated. One other editor 'thanked' me and therefore presumably agrees with me that the table takes up an immense area, with little real info. I am not going to comment one way or another on the source, so accept it as reliable. But what on earth does X wood production units damaged actually mean? The roof at X timber yards was damaged slightly ? Or extensive damage was done to expensive, machinery at X factories? What does 'number of actions' mean? Presumably not bombing 'sorties' so presumably multiple individual pieces of damage (actions?) were done on each bombing mission. At times the vagueness is the result of clunky translation - but even if that were fixed - why is knowing how many food production units, or footwear units were damaged (without knowing how 'damaged') even remotely important? Damage expressed in money or some tangible measure, or damage done to important infrastructure, are both comprehensible and informative, but this info seems simply random and takes up a substantial area. I am going to remove, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion. BTW, the 'Totals' appear to be mis-calculated quite often. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kosovo uranium NATO bombing1999.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

On May 20th in 1999 the Serbian air defence over Belgrade, positioned in the village of Bečmen in the comand of Đorđe Aničić hit the american stealth bomber B-2 with the same system as F-117 was hit on 27th of March. Aničić and other witnesed something big coming over them after two blocks of Nato fighters crossed them. The B-2 was hit by two SAM missiles and was flying low altitude towards Croatian border where crashed in the woods near Drenovci ( B-2 Spirit 20.5.1999 44°55'08.3"N 18°51'57.0"E ) coordinates. After the crash the troops of foreign soldiers occupied and closed the zone to provide time and took out the pieces. Even the ground was excavated 1.5m in depth. Still today in the coordinates above you can see the place with missing trees. Many witneses and articles were wrtien about but the power of USA never confirmed nor denied the event. On 21th may the plane was put out of mission and the plane Spirit of Missouri was missing, laterreplaced on some photos in 2003 and also 2017 to disguide the information.

https://www.kurir.rs/vesti/drustvo/3254967/amerikanci-su-bili-zaslepljeni-svojom-moci-mislili-su-da-je-b-2-neunistiv-pukovnik-djordje-anicic-svedoci-o-obaranju-ponosa-avijacije-sad-koje-je-vasington-ostavilo-u-soku

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxqUVzTvZQU Furlanerik (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a WP:RS. Someone's testimony is not reliable to be used on Wikipedia. Please provide a better source to back up your claim. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No B-2 was ever hit in the NATO operation against Serbian aggression in Kosovo - that's just a myth.50.111.6.90 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Yugoslav estimates" high numbers not actually about NATO bombing raid deaths?

In the infobox "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia", section "Casualties and losses", one line reads "Yugoslav estimate: 1,200–5,700 civilians killed[footnote]". However, the linked site gives some different stories on the subject, e.g.: "Margit Savovic, president of Yugoslav Committee for Cooperation with UNICEF said that 'more than 1,200 civilians were killed and more than 5,000 [were] wounded.'" (Oh, so the second/higher number were NOT "killed"?) Another Yugoslav, "Milovan Zivkovic, director of the Federal Office of Statistics, ... said that the 1,200 number... pertained only to those killed during the two and a half months of the air campaign. 'But the 5,000 and 5,700 numbers are exact as well, only they cover a longer period of time and various ways of losing life,' he said." (Oh, so NOT due to the NATO bombing raids? OTHER war deaths?) It is misleading to post "5,700 civilians killed" under the heading "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" if that represents deaths from OTHER causes and indeed OTHER times. – _•Raven  ^.talk 12:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The source also continues " Ambassador Djorde Lopicic, chief of international law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), told Human Rights Watch on August 5, 1999, that 2,000 civilians had died and over 10,000 were injured from NATO bombing." So the Yugoslav civilians killed estimate would appear to be 1200-2000. We obviously can't use figures from a different time period. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To make matters worse, the 1200 soldiers/police claim attributed to NATO, is unreferenced (HRW says that NATO never gave any figures) while the most prominent figure for soldiers/police (1,008 killed (659 soldiers and 349 policemen) is from a 2013 RTS/RS govt figure which does not appear to mention wounded. Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

nato did a war crime nato's goal was to break serbian people , albania did not exist as a nation until 1900s 178.148.136.135 (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2021 (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. —Sirdog (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

Aftermath:

Infrastructure Damage/Destruction: Specifically, the bombing damaged or completely destroyed 470 kilometers of roads, 600 kilometers of railways, and 44 bridges. In addition to destroying transportation infrastructure, the bombing also destroyed communication technology centers in the FRY, including 118 radio/TV broadcast towers and 120 power supply facilities. Out of the 69 schools damaged or destroyed in the bombing, 18 were kindergartens. The bombing’s destruction also extended to 3,500 infrastructure facilities, 14 airports, 176 cultural monuments, 148 building construction, and 1,026 commercial/industrial facilities. Dimitrijevic, B., Dželetović, M. 2019. “Economic, Environmental and Health Effects of the 1999 Nato Bombing-Survey.” In David vs. Goliath: NATO war against Yugoslavia and its implications, edited by Nebojša Vuković, 440-459. Institute of International Politics and Economics.

Long-term civilian consequences of the bombing: A reported 12-15 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on the FRY territory during the conflict. This radioactive element precipitates in the lungs and can cause malignant diseases, sterility, and genetic mutations. Vujić & Antić’s report that the number of cancer patients in Serbia increased three times in a period of 21 years after the bombing and the number of deceased people doubled. According to the data, incidences of cancer are two and a half times greater in Serbia compared to the world average. The President of the Serbian Society for Fighting against Cancer, Dr. Slobodan Čikarić reported that “the cancer mortality rate in Serbia is the highest in Europe, which is partly the consequence of the NATO airstrikes.” Dimitrijevic, B., Dželetović, M. 2019. “Economic, Environmental and Health Effects of the 1999 Nato Bombing-Survey.” In David vs. Goliath: NATO war against Yugoslavia and its implications, edited by Nebojša Vuković, 440-459. Institute of International Politics and Economics.

Long-term Environmental consequences: Bombs dropped on industrial locations had detrimental effects on the environment in Yugoslavia due to the release of hazardous chemical emissions. Specifically, the destruction of Oil Refineries in Novi Sad, Pancevo, and Prahovo exposed over 74,000 tons of oil and caused toxic effects on water, air, and land. The bombings also destroyed fertilizer and ammonia manufacturing plants which exposed the environment to ammonia, chlorine, polyvinyl chloride, vinyl chloride monomers which produced toxic environmental effects in Yugoslavia. Dimitrijevic, B., Dželetović, M. 2019. “Economic, Environmental and Health Effects of the 1999 Nato Bombing-Survey.” In David vs. Goliath: NATO war against Yugoslavia and its implications, edited by Nebojša Vuković, 440-459. Institute of International Politics and Economics. HudsonNCSU (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2021 (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. Melmann 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Bill Clinton in leaders?

Title 178.237.221.133 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why? He had no direct role in operations. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in 1999?

This is false, Yugoslavia didn’t exist after 1990s 51.37.190.122 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which often is referred to "Yugoslavia" and which claimed the name Yugoslavia "was founded on 27 April 1992 as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia … and … ended in 2003". The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to exist/broke up in 1992. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Review needed

This is not a correct summary of what happened in 1999 in Yugoslavia! 87.116.165.209 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Because? Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a accurate review of the invasion and bombing of Yugoslavia.

Please reflect. The sources are unrepresentative of the situation as they are unverified and unestablished, they only reflect the US-interest groups false and unverified accusations. Maybe when the world starts to challenge the big lies the world will be a better place. 109.245.32.217 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific change you want made, backed up by sources with a reputation for accuracy? Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I feel the bias in the fact that the article only cites Yugoslav atrocities during the Kosovo war. I would like to add information about what the Albanian side did in Kosovo war, because they have also been accused of carrying out ethnic cleansings. Unfortunately, I have no time right now... --Esmu Igors (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Esmu Igors, this article is about the bombing campaign, why would it include anything about KLA crimes? Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete, the reason is that NATO justified the bombing campaign citing Serbian/Yugoslav atrocities during the war, therefore it got involved in the Kosovo war on one particular side, citing only crimes of the opposite side. In its current form, the article gives the reader an impression that this was obviously justified. For example, the third paragraph of the Preamble. We could at least include the counter-arguments by the Yugoslav government, or citations of some political analysts. Esmu Igors (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an entire article about the legality of the intervention, there are innumerable articles covering the war and specific justifications for the deeds of either side.Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

Change the number of civilian casualties to at least 2,500 being killed and 12,500 injured. Here is a source for this: https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/22/78-days-of-fear-remembering-natos-bombing-of-yugoslavia/ 2001:8003:C12E:D601:C53C:16CA:ED21:2053 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That source actually says During the NATO military campaign, the Serbian government estimates that at least 2,500 people died and 12,500 were injured, but the exact death toll remains unclear. Even as a Govt estimate, better and more recent and better framed estimates are in the HRW cite we use. So no, I would not endorse these figures going into the article. Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevance to Ukraine: Echoes of the past

Suggestion to edit this article. This incident echoes through the ages and has relevance to modern day Ukraine. The USA likes to believe it can bomb and kill anyone around the world. But at the same time, it criticizes others when they try to defend themselves from NATO terrorism. It is completely ridiculous that NATO and the USA can get away with this kind of murder and still have the shamelessness to lambast other countries on Ukraine, even blackmailing the weak into aligning with their hegemonic interests. Article should reflect more on the USA's crimes and be more critical about American hegemony. Stalin Zhukov Ekko Kamisato 53 (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Stalin Zhukov Ekko Kamisato 53, talk pages are not a forum for discussing the subject in the way you suggest. Nor do we publish editors' own opinions about topics. Even if you could find good sources which supported the kind of argument you propose - they would be much more likely at present to belong on some "Russian justifications for invading Ukraine" article than here - unless fairly large numbers of academic sources claimed that an aftermath of the bombing of Yugoslavia was the invasion of Ukraine.Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The operation was "incorrectly" called Merciful Angel

No. It was just called Merciful Angel. If it was called Humpty Dumpty that was how it was called. There is nothing incorrect in the way it is called. That is simply a fact. It was totally normal that it would be called some other way locally, expressing the revolt over that action. No, it is Wikipedia that decides how it should be called. Lecturing. Real total blasphemous ignorance and arrogance. This article is the proof that Wikipedia is nothing more but the military tool of Western civilization, if there is such thing. And I hope the current conflict will escalate to the extent to close this and similar tools - forever. You are disgrace of any sort of freedom you claim to defend. Basically, there is NO proof whatsoever that it was called that way because of misunderstanding. And btw, if Merciful Angel has some connotations, so much NATO representative had to correct the article, Noble Anvil, sounds what? Normal? No association with Merciful Angel whatsoever, right? Noble Anvil is totally ok. If that name had connotation, it was not allowed anyone to attach any other to the action, right? That is what was wrong in all what was happening - to Wikipedia. Not dead people - but names. If I would call Wikipedia Shitipedia, you would say it is a spelling error. Oh, trust me, it is not. 158.248.66.155 (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that contradicts what the article says? John (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The Serbian source used (RTS - the Serbian national TV) says the reason for the name is very unclear, but may have been as a result of one of a range of possible misunderstandings. I've simply added the word "possibly" before the reason. The argument by the IP that this was simply a local name doesn't seem to be borne out, rather that this was presented as being the NATO name to the Serbian populace at the time. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Article is biased toward NATO

To my eye, this article (at the very least the lead) is unfairly biased towards NATO's interests and places undue weight on NATO's justifications. The lead is, intentionally or otherwise, written such that it implies the invasion is universally accepted as a successful peacekeeping operation and the controversy is over the technicality of whether or not it was legal, such as in the quote below

It was the first time that NATO had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council, which triggered debates over the legitimacy of the intervention.

The lead also neglects to mention the massive amount of academic literature and discussion exists that suggests that this operation was the tipping point that accelerated the ethnic cleansing, which is much more effectively documented on the Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia page, which in my opinion should be merged into this page to create one balanced article.

I'm not one to make blanket criticisms and disappear into the darkness, and I have no issue with proposing or directly implementing changes myself, but I wanted to gauge the opinion of the community before making any sweeping changes to an article as critical as this one, such as a merger of this article with the legitimacy article I mentioned earlier.

DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't recognise the bias you speak of either in the article nor in your quotes, nor the 'counterbalance' in the legitimacy article. It may be 'factual' that the NATO campaign "accelerated the ethnic cleansing", but is that because the bombing 'caused' or simply created a 'pretext for' the ethnic cleansing? I've seen both viewpoints claimed and to my mind the 'legitimacy' article covers both viewpoints.Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The main issue I take is that the anti-NATO viewpoint isn't mentioned in the lead at all, which I believe is poor representation of the situation (and violates WP:WEIGHT), given that very well-respected figures have publicly stated opposition to the NATO viewpoint. I'll write up a proposed change and put it here later, I'm quite busy today.

DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Just adding to the discussion, the bombing of the Chinese embassy was one by the USA with CIA approval, not NATO, which did not have the authority to use B-2 bombers.--121.44.4.216 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Source ??? Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Rename the article

The current title is biased and unnecessary highlights the bombing. All other interventions in wikipedia are named either by their operation name (like nato bombing of bosnian serbs) or simply named like “intervention”. The good title would be “NATO military intervention in Yugoslavia/Kosovo (1999)” This is how it is referred to in the majority of works. 91.230.41.206 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

concur Lolipopm1995 (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a rename discussion - but your proposed title sounds extremely euphemistic to me. The 'military intervention' took the form of an aerial bombing campaign, so why is it a problem to call it that? How is that biased? I ask that as someone who believed that the 'military intervention' was justified morally and relatively undestructive of life and property. You can't 'highlight the bombing', when the bombing campaign is all that happened at that time. Other roles, such as diplomacy and peacekeeping were earlier or later and are covered in other artioles. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)