Formally, NATO is a defensive alliance. The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was outside of the NATO articles, something they did voluntarily beyond their duties as NATO members. Anyway, did really NATO bomb Yugoslavia? I thought it was primarily US forces.

Related to the 1999 campaign: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

BTW, he also claimed the Tomahawk cannot be equipped with a nuclear warhead, which is also false.

Statement is correct. NATO as an alliance won't attack first. Every single NATO member can attack at own will and when retaliation come - invoke Article 5.

@user13964273 In 1999, NATO as an alliance did attack Yugoslavia. Those were bombings under NATO command, not bombings by individual NATO member states. It was the first time since 1939 that Germany attacked another country.

@264champagnebottlesonice He might be obscure, but is the only person quoted in the official Bundeswehr statement to a politically controversial decision to station those missiles in Germany.

@264champagnebottlesonice Moreover, considering this is posted on bundeswehr.org, we can interpret it as an official statement from the German armed forces. An official statement from the German armed forces on the nature of NATO should be in-topic on Politics.

I have edited the question to focus more on the substance and less on the person saying it.

Yugoslavia, wasn't a random attack by NATO it was in response to actions that Yugoslavia took in a conflict that NATO was involved with in an effort to attempt to resolve it. A quote from the wiki "NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighboring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region."

@JoeW True, but not relevant. NATO intervened in a war to which NATO was previously not a party, nor was any NATO member state. There are many atrocities around the world where self-declared police officers could morally justify intervention without a UN mandate. That doesn't make such intervention legal according to UN or NATO rules.

There is still a difference between intervening and making it sound like they just attacked them out of the blue for no reason. And it can be argued that they intervened because not doing so would cause them issues.

@JoeW The implication by the Bundeswehr statement would seem to be that those missiles cannot be used to attack Russia unless Russia attacks NATO first — or could NATO attack Russia as an intervention in the Russia-Ukraine war, like how they attacked Yugoslavia as an intervention in the Yugoslavia/Serbia-Kosovo war? Not talking about the political likelihood, but the Bundeswehr claim that doing so would be impossible due to how NATO is structured.

@JoeW Actually it is a matter of coverage. Putin attacked Ukraine out of the blue, right?.. ;-)

@user13964273 The history leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is beyond the scope of this question. (Personally, I do think the 1999 illegal NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is a major contributing factor to worsening relations that ultimately led to Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, but that is not what this question is about.)

@gerrit Yugoslavia certainly worsened relations as Russia has once again gone for confrontation with "the west". Not going to discuss whether or not they had a point. Though none of that excuses or justifies the invasion of Ukraine so no "it ultimately led" ... is not anywhere near an inevitable progression. What it certainly does is give the Russian narrative some fuel in terms of "if NATO doesn't care about international laws, it's also ok if we don't care (either)". Apples and oranges, still fruit unfortunately

I am not stating anything about the statement you are asking about, just your statement that makes it seem that NATO attacked Yugoslavia as an act of aggression rather the as a result of Yugoslavia attacking another country. That being said there is a big difference between attacking Yugoslavia and Russia which is a nuclear power that NATO was designed to defend against, the escalation possibilities is much different between the two.

@user13964273 Who exactly was Ukraine attacking that demanded a full scale invasion to stop?

"...Those were bombings under NATO command,..." States may not have two militaries, one for defensive actions and one for offensive ones. Anyway this question seems to me to be primarily about Yugoslavia 1999. One could have asked it already then.

@gerrit "the first time since 1939 that Germany attacked another country": Germany attacked several countries in 1940 and 1941.

@phoog Sorry, yes, it certainly did. Should have been "first time since WW II".

@haxor789 Perhaps "ultimately led" is the wrong phrasing, but the worsening relations are an important contributing factor, in the same way that no history of the prelude to World War II is complete without covering the Versailles Treaty. Provoking a bully does not excuse bullying, but depending on circumstances, it might still be wise to not provoke the bully.

@gerrit And let another bully get away? Wouldn't it be nice if there were only UN missions in the world. But that's not the case. My impression is that Russia was on the path to imperialism with or without that bombing that only lasted a few days. It gave them a few excuses but they wanted to go there anyway. I don't know what would have stopped them, but I think not this.

Isn't all war defensive in some way? You defend yourself, your allies, your potential allies, your sphere of influence, your overseas interests, your economic system, your ideals, your global status.

@JoeW "Who exactly was Ukraine attacking that demanded a full scale invasion to stop?" - According to Russia, civilians in Donbass (and in fact there's more truth to this than most Western media wants to admit). Of course most of the world recognizes Donbass as being part of Ukraine, but then prior to the NATO intervention most of the world recognized Kosovo as part of Serbia. You can debate the factual basis and motivations behind each claim, but Russia uses literally the exact same arguments to justify its actions in Ukraine as NATO in Serbia.

@NoDataDumpNoContribution Russia did get away with annexing Crimea. Of course, it would be nice if everybody everywhere were nice to each other, but reality is different. What I'm saying is to consider the secondary Realpolitik effects of actions considering the world we live in. Would Russia have invaded Georgia and Ukraine if the USA and NATO had stayed out of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.? Impossible to know for sure, but asking the question does not excuse bullies. We cannot change the past and now is too late, what's done is done.

@user111403 But what Russia did was bit diff. They talked about genocide but also recognized those Donbas republics as independent countries and invaded/intervened for that specific purpose, claiming allied countries were asking for help. And more broadly Putin claimed Ukraine was not a real country. If his troops had performed better, I'd not all be surprised if he'd annexed it all, as he did with every Ukrainian region that he managed to occupy thus far.

@264champagnebottlesonice fair point in that Russia recognized DNR/LNR beforehand, but still Russia did refer to the Kosovo precedent both in 2014 and in 2022. Kind of off-topic, but I'm very doubtful that there was ever any intention of annexing all of Ukraine. Based on public statements at the time, the goal was to set up a friendly government. Annexation of some parts may in fact have been Plan B.

@haxor789 It is not formulated by them as "if NATO doesn't care about international laws, it's also ok if we don't care (either)", that would be a strawman. What they say is along the lines of "why do you pretend to have the moral high ground while you've done the same thing".

@vsz not just that, but "if you said it was OK when you did it, what right do you have to say it's not OK when we do it?", which is an argument with some validity - whether or not it applies to the bigger picture, there have been definite and indisputable double standards applied by NATO countries when it comes to what is a military target, for example.

@gerrit No, The Treaty of Versailles explains some support for WWII in Germany, but it doesn't explain the Nazis and their ideology which had equal if not more import in WWII. Also it kinda glosses over the fact that Versailles wasn't a coincidence either. France had ended the 1st German Empire (Holy Roman Empire), Germany had declared the 2nd in Versailles after dragging France into a war winning and plundering it had at least since 1905 plans for a war with France.

@user111403 That's somewhat an explanation AFTER the fact, given that Russia apparently had an integral part in recruiting and training separatists, which also makes he civilian claim kind of a tough one. Also while the NATO countries provably worked on diplomatic solutions, there's very little to be found by Russia doing so. Also Kosovo remained part of Serbia until 2008 way after the NATO bombings.

@gerrit Probably yes. Like after 1999 the NATO-Russia council was formed and things actually went closer for a while and with regards to Ukraine joining NATO he apparently said in 2002 ""our position on expansion of NATO is known, but Ukraine should not stand aside of the global processes to strengthen the world security and, as a sovereign country, it's able to make its own choices in ensuring its security". He also added he "doesn't see anything controversial or hostile" in Ukraine's plans"

@gerrit Also Georgia was not the first in line of wars that Russia has fought since the fall of the Soviet Union en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia . For the most part the Russian narratives that are presented sound more like excuses after the fact, so not entirely vacuous but actually if that had actually been the causes you'd need to ask why now, why that way and the answers don't line up.

@user111403 Also Russia was part of that peacekeeping force post the NATO mission. And the thing is it looks less like NATO is an aggressive threat to Russia, what it more looks like is that countries being in NATO makes Russia less able to bully them and that is a problem for Russia's foreign policy. But not likely to get them sympathetic responses.

@vsz What is the practical difference?

@user111403 No it doesn't. It gives them valid reason to criticize NATO and potentially make diplomatic demands for punitive measures or to ensure it won't happen again. But it doesn't give them a pass for an aggressive war. A double standard does not necessarily excuse crime and there are measures in place to deal with those things if there is a problem, but taking a beef with NATO on a 3rd party doesn't check out.

@haxor789 As I said, you can dispute the underlying facts. I don't think it's a secret for anyone that Russia armed separatists. At the same time, Ukraine was shelling civilians in Donetsk (I personally know people who lived there under Ukrainian shelling).

@haxor789 "It looks less like NATO is an aggressive threat to Russia" - this is a typical Western viewpoint. When you look at it from the other side and see 1) NATO rapidly expanding eastward 2) American troops on Russia's border barely 100km from St. Petersburg and 3) NATO forces overthrowing or supporting attempts to overthrow Russia's allies, it looks a bit different.

@haxor789 "No it doesn't" - what? This seems a response to something I didn't say. Anyway the argument stands. If western countries want to say "we were wrong" and indict some of their own war criminals, then they could claim a moral high ground. While they defend the legitimacy of their own actions while condemning Russia for exactly the same actions, there is no moral high ground.

Of course no moral high ground doesn't mean that all actions are moral, but who decides what is moral? Western nations want to be the judges, but their judgments are invalid due to their own hypocrisy, and Russia is not reasonably bound to accept them.

@haxor789 "there are measures in place to deal with those things if there is a problem" - such as? NATO can do just about whatever it wants in most countries of the world with very little consequences, and you know it as well as I do. "taking a beef with NATO on a 3rd party" - that's a pretty blatant strawman.

@user111403 There certainly was a lot of shelling but whether that's Ukraine, Separatists or Russia or all of the above is a lot harder to decipher: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelenopillia_rocket_attack , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Donetsk,_Rostov_Oblast , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Also again that's hardly a catalyst for the conflict if it happened AFTER Russian aggressions.

@user111403 Yeah that is a Western perspective, but from that perspective the support for military interventions is/was currently quite low actually, lots of countries stayed below the 2% goal of defense spending, the U.S. had questioning whether the huge military budget just fuels the military industrial complex and could be used for more useful things and whether that is all necessary at all.

@user111403 Or in other words, these might also be self-fulfilling prophecies. 1) Like for the most part it's not so much NATO expanding, it's countries JOINING NATO. So maybe, just maybe, Russia getting involved in the politics, economics and militarily attacking it's neighbors is just bad advertisement for staying neutral to Russia. 2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are also a response to Russian aggression and on invitation of these countries who feel legit scared. 3) What do you mean?

@haxor789 I'm not claiming that was in fact the catalyst. But attacks on civilians (which actually happened - no, Donetsk was not shelling itself for eight years) were claimed as a justification by Russia for its intervention - as they were by NATO in Kosovo. From Russia's official position, its intervention began in 2022, before that there was an independent separatist movement - as there was in Kosovo. Again, whether the underlying facts are equivalent is open to debate.

@user111403 Sorry but it's not "the same action". It's the same category of violating international law, but for example idk vandalism or even battery assault is not the same as mass murder.

FWIW, I believe the actual catalyst was the same its always been for Russia. A lack of defensible borders causes Russia to pursue strategic depth as the best alternative, after all it worked against Napoleon and Hitler. For that reason Russia is very concerned about having American tanks within relatively easy reach of the Caucasus and Volga. You can question if this concern is legitimate, but for Russia it's very real.

@user111403 I mean if there actually are war crimes happening, you could try to get the spotlight of the international community. You could get resolution and whatnot. I mean NATO didn't annex a country they just tried to stop the murder and implement a peacekeeping mission by the UN. So if that actually would have been the problem there would have been reasonable moves that could have been made.

However if it's merely meant as an excuse for an aggressive act, then that all makes sense.

@user111403 That's not a straw man argument, what does attacking and annexing Ukraine has to do with NATO? Like would NATO have forcibly annexed Ukraine?

@haxor789 3) Syria and Libya, for example. Not that I'm a fan of either of those governments, but NATO intervention in both cases was clearly aimed at getting rid of a Russian ally rather than improving the situation there, as shown by Libya where they simply killed Qaddafi and left the country to burn.

@haxor789 For example, bombing broadcasting stations, power stations, government buildings - all of which have been labelled as war crimes by Western countries when done by Russia, all of which were explicitly identified as legitimate targets in Serbia and more recently in Libya. That is different treatment of the same action depending on who's doing it.

@user111403 I'd have to look it up, but as far as I know the conflict in Yugoslavia was already there for longer, there had been independent international reports and UN resolutions certifying and condemning the actions. It's not that this came out of nowhere. NATO had no mandate to deal with the problem but it wasn't really a secret or claimed by NATO alone that there was a problem.

@user111403 Unlike with what Russia did. The elections and protests in Ukraine were Ukraine's business and if they figured harm to Russian minorities, they could have recorded reported and submitted that. If the U.S. would have veto'ed it they would at least have a case. But that's not what happened.

@haxor789 Sure, you can try. It's been tried. NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia has been widely criticized by Serbia, Russia, and some politicians in the west. And the net result has been? The fact is that nobody at this point is willing and able to take on NATO and achieve anything meaningful.

@haxor789 The coup in Ukraine was openly welcomed by western leaders. Recording and reporting harm to Russian minorities would have done nothing to alter the West's position and you know that as well as I do. Pointing to the UN and international courts is just disingenuous.

@haxor789 I don't dispute that

@user111403 But Napoleon and Hitler actually ATTACKED Russia/Soviet Union. Though with Hitler Stalin had previously made a non-aggression-part where they got rid of the buffer that was Poland and split it among themselves. In terms of NATO there's none of that aggression and again Ukraine is not NATO and the increased NATO presence happened AFTER Russian aggression.

@haxor789 Russia has been invaded several times - by Hitler and Napoleon and others before then. Rightly or wrongly, Russia simply doesn't believe that it will never happen again. So Russia is unwilling to give up the only thing that saved it before.

@user111403 Again you have a paper trail of establishment of the problem and in those cases even a mandate en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Which makes it rather dubious that Russia supports an "ally" that can be linked to crimes against humanity with some level of evidence... and not just name calling.

"In terms of NATO there's none of that aggression" - given the examples of Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, that's very debatable, but in any case, there was no aggression with Germany after WWI - until suddenly there was. Even if there's no aggression now, it doesn't follow that there won't be 50 years from now - or even 5.

@haxor789 As I said, I'm not a fan of those guys (though there's a reasonable case that they're better than the alternatives). But NATO sure helped the people a lot by coming in and blowing up a civil war.

@user111403 One is getting a country to seize their hostilities, the other is trying to break a countries moral in a fight for self defense? Like if the Russian goal is just to make them stop their hostilities against the Russian minorities, why the annexations? These are excuses rather than reasons.

@haxor789 You're cherry-picking the parts you want to read. I told you what I believe the real motivation is. What I said in the original comment was that Russia uses the same justification as NATO did in Serbia - which is true.

@user111403 Same can be said about Russia, who annexed another country and what is the result? Diplomatic talk? Sanctions? Helping the other side? Like they're still not touched. Not a great model for international relations, but yeah.

@haxor789 I mean, that really proves the point, doesn't it? Even backed by NATO and the EU's diplomatic, economic and to some degree military power, the UN and international courts have proved to be fairly toothless. And you're seriously claiming that, with a significant power imbalance the other way, they're a legitimate path to resolution?

@user111403 The thing is the same is true for it's neighboring countries that often were Russia at the time and faced that problem far more directly and who were recently abused by Russia as a buffer zone, also not really a secret. Has anyone spared a thought about their interests? Because again it's largely countries joining NATO rather than NATO approaching countries.

@haxor789 Largely peaceful protests that left numbers of police dead (it was only after that the much-publicized snipers appeared). Barely a month, if I recall correctly, before scheduled elections. If they were so sure that the country was against Yanukovych, they could have voted him out. There's a way things are done in democracies and Maidan wasn't it.

@user111403 Also Napoleon is 200 years ago, at some point you got to let go, you'd be hard pressed to even find grandchildren of the people that lived when that happened.

@haxor789 Hitler wasn't 200 years ago, and those are far from the only two to invade Russia (even in the last 200 years). The strategic principles still apply.

@user111403 Sorry but you might want to reread that section of history. Like Germany annexed several countries in full or in part before going for Poland and starting WWII and when they did they also violated neutral countries and whatnot, so Stalin probably had no illusions about Hitler claiming the Bolsheviks are inferior people, would hold his end of the deal, they pacted nonetheless.

@haxor789 I've read that part of history. Germany kept expanding its influence and moving its army eastward, all while promising it was never going to invade Russia - oh hey, I think I've heard this before

You're talking about an alliance lead by a country that over the last couple decades has elected in turn Obama, then Trump, then Biden, then Trump again - without even talking about what's going on in Britain and France

Even if we accept that NATO's intentions are perfectly peaceful, do you seriously think anyone should feel confident that this alliance's positions are not going to change for the foreseeable future?

@user111403 I mean there were already civil wars, it's just that in case of Syria, Russia took a side and so it's either getting rid of Russia or watch the slaughter and exodus commence, I guess.

@user111403 in 50 years? Like in the 90s Russia signed documents to respect the terroritorial, economic and political integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and look where we're now. It's not like 50 years is an argument for anything.

@user111403 The list of U.S. war crimes is long, not sure picking one of the lesser controversial ones is really where you want to go, but it happens to be the only one involving NATO and not just the U.S. who does what they want anyway.

@user111403 Resolutions require consent and no vetos, but even getting a resolution veto'ed is getting paper trail down and establishing a case. While sidestepping that completely and going for might makes right,can only lead to military confrontation, that's why there are these toothless institutions in the first place to get people talking rather than bombing in the first place.

@user111403 As said there were allegations of election fraud not just by the opposition for mass protests they were relatively peaceful. Either way no reason for any other country to get involved except for highlighting human rights violations and getting recognition and mandates.

@user111403 I specifically said Napoleon. Also usually the strategy is to led them in, let them get stuck and make them run out, not to pre-emptively strike first, right?

@user111403 Yeah but Hitler even before the war wasn't exactly shy on his opinions about the Russians and what they ought to do... Like both sides kept that pact mostly a secret, because neither side could defend that even towards their own population and within their own ideology. Yet that pact still existed and both parties violated it or planned to violate it sooner or later.

@user111403 I mean the irony is that it's these far right, almost fascist leaders that apparently get supported by Russia. And no I don't know what the foreseeable future will hold if Russia is going to test the waters with attacking a NATO country or using a small scale nuke given that a moron is running NATO and wants to keep out of conflict or whether said moron is going to pretend strength by going all in, Both is legit scary.

But again that's reasoning after the fact. The fact that we have these realities doesn't retro-justify Russia's actions it's rather the other way around. That being said no amount of Russian info war excuses Western countries from voting for fascists...

@haxor789 that's just a blatantly dishonest take on Syria.

@haxor789 everything can change in 50 years, that's what I keep saying. In the 90s Russia was still hoping to cooperate with Europe (I remember a time when Russian nationalists criticized Putin for being too friendly with the west)

@haxor789 now explain to me how there could be reasonable allegations of election fraud some time before the elections. If you have legitimate grounds for doubt after the election, then maybe it's time to protest.

@haxor789 rather more far left, in some cases. Qaddafi and Assad had both been around since the USSR

@haxor789 that's the strategy, but it only works if you have the strategic depth to begin with. That's why Russia has always tried to expand, ever since it got overrun by the Mongols.

It might not be moral, but geopolitics trump morals every time, for everyone.

@user111403 Ask Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Also not all election fraud allegations are concerned with fake ballots. So ridding the oppositions from the ballot before the election also casts doubt in the legitimacy.

@vsz The pick any of the other countries condemning the invasion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… ... It's not about whether the U.S. has any moral high ground (it doesn't), it's about whether Russia's actions are wrong.