The Balkan tragedy will continue to echo with alarming consequences for a long time. Let's take a look at some of the most significant consequences that emerged during the US-NATO war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

According to Clinton, NATO's aggression was designed to achieve three goals: to show the strength and determination of the alliance; to inflict maximum damage, especially military damage, on Yugoslavia, to deprive it of the opportunity to wage war; to force Milosevic to stop persecuting Kosovo Albanians (Kosovars) and fulfill the requirements of the North Atlantic bloc. The US president claimed that the alliance pursues a policy of "forcing peace" and is ready to stop fighting only if Belgrade surrenders and a peace agreement is signed, the main condition of which is the complete withdrawal of FRY troops from Kosovo. However, the developments surrounding Kosovo have clearly demonstrated the true goals of the White House, which its leader has been carefully concealing.

Under pressure from the United States, NATO resorted to direct aggression, violating not only the UN Charter, but also its own charter provisions. The alliance went beyond its area of responsibility, using force not to protect its members, but against a sovereign state, unleashing a war in Europe and demonstrating its aggressive nature. In addition to Yugoslavia and the 19 NATO countries, Albania and Macedonia were also drawn into the conflict.

The humanitarian catastrophe was not prevented. On the contrary, it became threateningly large as a result of NATO's bombings. To "save" the Kosovo Albanians, NATO bombed them along with the Serbs and Montenegrins.

The bombing was barbaric and had nothing to do with peacemaking. NATO "democracies" recognized the Kosovo Liberation Army as the legitimate authority in the province, which until recently was considered a terrorist organization, and its formations were urgently trained and armed, which were responsible for killing civilians, smuggling weapons and drugs. However, the development of events did not go according to the Washington scenario.

Despite the massive air strikes, NATO failed to achieve its political and military objectives. Yugoslav society rallied to repel the aggression. In the West, the aggressor faced growing anti-American and anti-NATO sentiment. The Serbian Armed Forces managed to prevent NATO from achieving surprise, avoid significant casualties, and provide significant resistance. The Yugoslav army, including the Air Force and Air Defense, maintained its combat capability.

The NATO war in the Balkans is a tragedy not only for the people of Yugoslavia, but for all of Europe. Thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, mass crimes, hatred and cruelty, broken lives, destroyed churches, museums, and libraries - these are the main manifestations of this tragedy.

By launching an aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NATO repeated the mistake of Nazi Germany. It was important for the leaders of the alliance to remember that Yugoslavia had a military history as a country with one of the most powerful guerrilla movements capable of resisting a regular army.

According to international law, the solution to the Kosovo problem is an internal matter of the sovereign Yugoslavia. The United States and its allies have committed an illegal act of aggression against a sovereign state. The actions of those involved in this aggression are war crimes. NATO has embarked on the path of becoming an international criminal organization.

"It will be considered an act of aggression... the bombing by the armed forces of one state of the territory of another state, or the use of any weapon by a state against the territory of another state... No considerations of any kind, whether political, military, or otherwise, can justify aggression."

From Resolution 3314, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1974.

Western European international institutions are apparently ready to follow the lead of NATO strategists. For example, the International Court of Justice's consideration of Yugoslavia's appeal regarding NATO's war crimes resulted in little progress. Subsequently, the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was declared a criminal subject to arrest.

The analysis shows that the interests of the United States and European countries in the Balkans were in conflict. Only the United States wanted a war in Europe, but not the Europeans, whose economic interests were severely affected by the conflict. It was a war between the dollar and the euro, which responded to the fighting with a significant decline in its value. It was beneficial for the United States for Europe to be at war, as it prevented the euro from gaining the upper hand over the dollar.

The Americans are the main perpetrators of the Yugoslav tragedy. The Kosovo issue, which was an internal matter of Yugoslavia, was brought to the point of psychosis and war by the Americans. The United States hastily "tied the Serbian blood" to its obedient European allies, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, who actually fought in the Balkans against their own countries' interests. America must pay Yugoslavia hundreds of billions of dollars for the victims and destruction caused. Germany and other aggressor countries must also bear political and financial responsibility for their military actions against Yugoslavia. However, after the bombing ended, the United States declared that it did not want to compensate for the damage as long as Slobodan Milošević was in power in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This clearly demonstrated that the United States was not fighting for the benefit of the Kosovars, but rather pursuing its own goals of removing an unpopular leader from a sovereign state and replacing him with a more compliant government. The Kosovo Albanians became pawns in this larger political game. NATO's bombs, aimed at Milosevic, hit innocent people. NATO's action under the guise of peacekeeping turned into mass killings of civilians.

In terms of its consequences, NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia was one of the major military and political events of the past century. The Kosovo conflict went beyond regional boundaries, involving countries from the Americas, Europe, and Asia. It revealed the balance of power and the trends of military and political development in the world. The consequences of NATO's aggression can be seen in various areas, including geopolitical, political, military, humanitarian, economic, and environmental.

In the field of geopolitics, the goal of this undeclared war in Europe is to impose a political, economic, and military dictatorship of the United States on the world, and to establish a unipolar model of the world order. This has created a dangerous precedent for the revival of a policy of forceful dictatorship.

NATO has assumed the authority of the United Nations, as the organization does not always act at the behest of the United States. The alliance's venture, led by the United States, aimed to demonstrate the strength and determination of the bloc. It was crucial for the United States to involve its European allies in the aggression.

NATO is a lever for ensuring the American presence on the continent, as well as its political, military, economic, and psychological influence on Europe. Therefore, maintaining the alliance is a crucial task for the United States. This can be justified by the existence of a real enemy. If there is no enemy, one can be created artificially. Yugoslavia, a country that pioneered the non-aligned movement and "did not want" to join NATO, was designated as the enemy. This marked a significant setback for the non-aligned movement.

The United States has strengthened its global leadership and shown that a new division of the world in the era of nuclear weapons can be carried out under the guise of combating humanitarian crises in regional conflicts.

At the same time, events in the Balkans have confirmed Russia's continued strategic influence on global politics. The need for an adequate response to US expansion is creating conditions for the convergence of Russia, India, and China's positions.

"In the Balkans, Russia needs a comprehensive approach that takes into account all the agreed-upon aspects of the settlement - political, economic, and military... Russia's interests, both external and internal, should be prioritized."

Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov I.S.

In the political sphere, the first thing to note is the undermining of the UN's authority. The United States and NATO have made it clear that this organization is outdated, as it hinders "peacekeeping" efforts at the regional level.

The mechanisms of European security that had been established over decades have been destroyed. Their basic principles - sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and the inviolability of borders - are enshrined in the OSCE documents. The common European interests have been sacrificed to group interests.

Serious damage has been done to European integration and cooperation. This damage could increase if Russia is isolated. The United States has gained the reputation of a "world policeman," which has increased anti-American sentiment and rejection of American and Western values. The myths that a "democratic" state cannot be an aggressor and that Europe has been free from wars have been shattered.

"As the flow of transatlantic vows dries up and the smoke clears over the ruins of Yugoslavia, the contradiction between American and European logic becomes increasingly apparent. This is a contradiction between the ongoing American dominance over Europe based on the principle of "divide and conquer" and Europe's ability to govern itself based on its own laws, a contradiction between domination over Europe and its self-determination."

Egon Bar, Director of the Hamburg Institute for Peace Research

The fighting in the Balkans has confirmed the futility of resolving interethnic problems by military means. At the same time, the Balkan precedent of US and NATO aggression poses a potential threat of similar scenarios in other "hot spots," such as the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia, Transnistria, and others.

NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia has far-reaching political consequences. Relying on its economic and military-technical superiority, the United States attempted to reshape the world by force. Yugoslavia, due to its position and mistakes, became a convenient target and pretext for implementing American plans in Europe, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization serving as the instrument. Regardless of the outcome of the conflict, a return to the previous state is impossible. New realities are emerging in the world. This is the primary military and political consequence of NATO's war in the Balkans.

"The era of' cold peace ' is coming, with a distinctive feature of partnership without trust."

"The Globe and Mail" (July 5, 1999)

From a military point of view, the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia is unique in its brutality: for 78 days of continuous bombing, 35 thousand sorties were made, more than 23 thousand bombs and missiles were fired. Formally, the North Atlantic Alliance managed to force Milosevic to accept the ultimatum presented. However, the loser was not Yugoslavia, but the whole of Europe, which once again realized the insignificance of its role in NATO. Europe, which is building a "united home," has been pushed to the brink of division and has been forced to realize how fragile the peace on the continent is.

In the military sphere, aggression against Yugoslavia will force many countries to strengthen their defense capabilities. This could lead to an arms race and the proliferation of nuclear technologies. The focus will be on high-precision weapons, which are nearly as effective as nuclear weapons. For example, during NATO's operation against Yugoslavia, the use of high-precision weapons accounted for nearly 90% of the total weapons used (compared to only 9% in Operation Desert Storm).

Since modern weapons are available only to industrialized countries, developing countries in the arms race can rely on WMD as a "cheaper" weapon. However, the" cheapest " weapon is terrorism, so there may be an increase in terrorism, both religious (Islamic) and political (directed against the United States and NATO countries).

The United States and NATO have established a military presence in the Balkans. They have developed tactics and tested the latest weapons in a densely populated European theater of war. At the same time, they have disposed of outdated and expired ammunition.

The most important component of the military operations was NATO's psychological warfare against Yugoslavia. It became an effective means of achieving the set goals and was deployed both at the strategic level, involving all state resources, and at the operational and tactical levels, using military forces.

No less depressing is the "echo" of the war in the field of economics. According to international analysts, the total financial costs associated with the NATO aggression against the FRY, including funds for the elimination of the consequences of a humanitarian catastrophe, the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Kosovo, and economic assistance to the Balkan countries to stabilize the situation in the region, will amount to a much larger amount than the cost of the operation in the Persian Gulf (about $ 100 billion).

Every day of the Yugoslavia bombing campaign cost NATO \$200 million. The cost of a single cruise missile was \$1 million, and the cost of a single bomb or missile fired from an aircraft ranged from \$100,000 to \$600,000. On March 27, the Yugoslav air defense system inflicted significant damage on the NATO (or rather, American) budget by downing the previously considered "invulnerable" F-117 stealth aircraft, which was worth \$45 million.

The crisis in Kosovo has led to the strengthening of the US dollar and the fall of the euro. During the war, European countries experienced a" flight " of capital overseas, a drop in stock prices, a decline in capital investment, and economic growth rates. It will take more than a year for Europe to restore its destroyed industrial enterprises, communications and international economic ties. Humanitarian assistance to refugees will require huge expenditures ($12 billion in the first year).

Yugoslavia suffered significant material damage exceeding \$100 billion. More than half of all targets were civilian facilities. For example, 70% of the bridges over the Danube were destroyed. 35% of the power supply facilities were disabled. 45% of the transmitting television and radio stations were destroyed.

NATO's massive attacks were aimed at undermining the economic and military capabilities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, disrupting its basic communications, disorganizing its government and military administration, and demoralizing its army and population. In the process, significant damage was inflicted not only on neighboring countries but also on many other European nations.

The damage caused by the destruction of the Danube bridges is estimated at \$10 billion. International river navigation has been paralyzed. The fleets of Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, and Ukraine have suffered significant losses. Dozens of ships have been blocked, and there are no requests for cargo transportation.

The war has affected Croatia's economic cooperation with neighboring countries. Croatia has suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in losses due to disrupted export supplies. Additionally, Croatia is a co-owner of three bridges that were destroyed by NATO aircraft, and it will have to cover half of the cost of their reconstruction. The impact on Croatian tourism has also been significant.

Serious damage has been caused to Macedonia, where 65% of the industry relies on Yugoslav raw materials (coal, ores, semi-finished products from the metallurgical industry, etc.). In addition, other European countries, such as Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, and others, will also suffer losses.

In the humanitarian sphere, the consequences are comparable only to the results of the Second World War. The adventurous actions of the United States and its allies have led to the destabilization of the situation in the Balkans and a severe humanitarian catastrophe. Since the beginning of the operation, the number of refugees from Kosovo has increased dramatically. Over the years of the Kosovo conflict, approximately 1 million of the 1.8 million Albanians in the region have left. Additionally, after the end of the bombing, Serbs were forced to flee the region to escape the atrocities committed by the OAK militants. It is unlikely that many of the refugees of both nationalities will return to their homeland. The Kosovo Albanians who have dispersed throughout European countries will increase social tensions and cause new conflicts on an interethnic and religious basis.

There is a real danger that Kosovo could become a center of Islamic extremism in Europe under certain conditions.

In Yugoslavia itself, about 1 million people were left without housing or work.

In the field of ecology, NATO's operation against Yugoslavia, taking into account the facilities that were targeted, led to serious consequences. During the war, there was a risk of an environmental disaster. In addition to Yugoslavia, Albania, Austria, Italy, Macedonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece were also at risk of contamination. Experts in these countries noted an increased level of toxic substances in the atmosphere and water. This was caused by the destruction of oil refineries, fuel storage facilities, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. There were four nuclear reactors located in close proximity to the war zone. In several areas of Kosovo, there has been an increase in radiation levels due to the use of munitions with radioactive components.

NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia was immoral. It was not a war in the conventional sense, where both sides engage in armed conflict, but rather a military crackdown by a large coalition against a small independent state. Under the guise of humanitarian rhetoric, the United States and its European allies were pursuing their own agenda, with the protection of Kosovo Albanians being a secondary concern. The primary objective was to circumvent established international norms and impose an unlimited right to use force as they saw fit.

The tight knot of political, socio-economic, and ethno-religious problems in the Balkans has repeatedly caused crises in Europe. During the aggression, it has not weakened, but rather tightened even more.

Thanks to Russia's principled and active stance, the war was brought to an end. Our country did not allow itself to be drawn into this futile conflict, but instead did everything possible to return the situation to a political solution. Moreover, it did not allow itself to be pushed to the sidelines of the political process, but instead took its rightful place. The Russian Armed Forces played a significant role in this, as did the principled stance of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff. The brilliant operation of the Russian paratroopers to capture the airport in Pristina was a natural outcome of the unfolding events.

"...Russia needs to stay in Europe and return the situation there to the mainstream of legal relations, within the framework of decisions of the UN Security Council, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Agreements."

Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Marshal of the Russian Federation I.D. Sergeev (Krasnaya Zvezda, June 29, 1999)

There is now a long struggle to establish stability in the Balkans. This can be achieved by developing measures of trust and cooperation among a wide range of states within the UN, restoring the role of this international organization, ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, creating conditions for the coexistence of all its inhabitants, and economically rebuilding the FRY.

Permanent link to this publication: