Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't seem to be able to dig up the source - was it Stratfor? or Foreign Policy? - but there's an opinion that the ground invasion was bound to split NATO. It gained credibility only because former prime minister of Russia went to Serbia and persuaded Milo that the threat was real.

In this way, Eltsin's Russia provided its last (but priceless, if you are looking from certain quarters) service to the West (again, suitably defined). The mighty irony is, of course, that the current groundswell of patriotism in Russia started from anti-American and anti-Western sentiments born during the Kosovo campaign.

And yes, "planes over Belgrade" was a figure of speech. They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade (yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs). Still, they were providing military services. There isn't even the weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing". The USA included it in their coalition list anyway).

by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't seem to be able to dig up the source - was it Stratfor? or Foreign Policy? - but there's an opinion that the ground invasion was bound to split NATO. It gained credibility only because former prime minister of Russia went to Serbia and persuaded Milo that the threat was real.

Indeed I even remember articles from the time that the ground invasion threat was a successful smoke and mirrors, with NATO leaders not really daring to risk it.

They were part of the military operation which, among other goals, included bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade

I recognised that, that's why I put that information as a final (side)note. Being party in a military operation is why Germany was a subject in that lawsuit for a specific operation done by American planes.

yes, I know, propaganda TV tower and Chinese embassy which presumably collected intelligence and passed it on to the Serbs

Personally I don't see those points as suitable excuse.

weakest of excuses the Czech Republic used (CR sent a field hospital plus military police to Kuwait and later to Iraqi south; as a result, local politicians claimed that CR isn't part of the "coalition of the willing".

Hehehe. During the Kosovo War, the then right-wing government of Hungary lent support by opening airspace, but was in denial about it. One thing the then opposition made noise about was whether AWACS planes circulate in Hungarian airspace. It was denied. Having been an astronomer student at the time, astronomers working at a mountain observatory told me about having observed AWACS planes with a binocular at sunset.

(Then for reasons I detailed here, Bush and PM Orbán got at loggerheads, and the sides switched: the right-wing became anti-Bush and anti-NATO, and the Socialists marched into Iraq, sending truck drivers, until Parliament forced them to recall.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 04:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Propaganda TV tower"?

I don't suppose you think it would be ok for the US to bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar?

BBC: Al-Jazeera seeks 'US bomb' talks (25 November 2005)

A senior al-Jazeera executive is in the UK to demand publication of a memo in which George Bush allegedly discusses bombing the TV station's HQ.

Wadah Khanfar, al-Jazeera's director general, is hoping to meet UK government officials to press its case.

A spokesman for al-Jazeera told the BBC News website that the channel only wanted the record set straight.

The Guardian: How smart was this bomb? (November 19, 2001)
Did the US mean to hit the Kabul offices of Al-Jazeera TV? Some journalists are convinced it was targeted for being on the 'wrong side'. Matt Wells reports

When World Service correspondent William Reeve dived under his desk in Kabul to avoid shrapnel from the US missile that had landed next door, some think it marked a turning point in war reporting.

The US had scored a direct hit on the offices of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera, leading to speculation that the channel had been targeted deliberately because of its contacts with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. If true, it opens up a worrying development for news organisations covering wars and conflicts: now they could be targeted simply for reporting a side of the story that one party wants suppressed.

I don't care what the military say, a TV station is not a legitimate military target.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 05:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure you realise Sargon was only sarcastic.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is an important point, though, sarcasm or not. If TV stations can be bombed because they are propaganda outlets, what to make of "embedded journalists"?

The designers of airial bombing campaigns like to bomb anything and everything on the flimsiest excuses.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 06:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was just reminding some of the arguments made at the time or later to justify the bombing, definitely not endorsing them. I'm too opposed to this bombing campaign in general to even start distinguishing between legitimate and not targets.
by Sargon on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 07:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series