Martial law and a constitutional loophole, to be precise and no, there were plenty of chances

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_related_to_the_Cold_War

I think we are close to the moment where the proverbial bully looks at the boys pizza and says: "OK, well, im taking another slice now since your being difficult".

Okay, if it's a piece of pizza and not the boy himself. Today's bullies have rather singular tastes.

Today's fun fact: In Ancient Rus', cats and dogs cost nearly four times as much as a cow.

1. The NATO intervention during the Kosovo war happened after the wars in Croatio and Bosnia had already been over for multiple years.
2. It was a more clear-cut case of NATO getting involved after shit had already hit the fan, whereas you can at least argue about NATO encroachment of Russia or supporting the Maidan protesters in the run-up to 2014. I ultimately reject these arguments, but there at least is an argument to be made. In Kosovo, you had an ethnic minority breaking away from the motherland fully out of its own volition, Serbia cracking down on it with sheer violence and NATO deciding that it won't stand by idly while the Kosovars are getting slaughtered on Europe's doorstep.
3. NATO bombed Serbia as long as necessary to get its government to give in, and it were rather targetted strikes. NATO did not target apartment buildings, power plants and train stations across all of Serbia for years on end, nor did it try to "liberate" additional, ethnic Serbian territory and add it to its allied breakaway provinces.


So to sum it up, the Kosovo war didn't involve a blatant landgrab by NATO and didn't involve intentional warfare and terror against civilian targets for years on end, whereas Russia's war in Ukraine checks all these boxes.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 20 2025 02:07pm

I am not precious on Yugoslavia. The Ukrainian Civil war lasted, what, 8 years? 8 years of bombing its own people, and what, the Russia Ukraine war is...3 years? so 5 more to go?

You make it sound as if the aggression was coming exclusively from the Ukrainian government while the governments of DPR/LPR were saints and never attacked towns under Ukrainian control.

nope, i made a statement and you made an assumption. I get that all the time in the Israel thread. I say something and they hear something else. If you want me to pick apart your position on Yugoslavia I will, but CBA. The fact remains that Ukraine DID bomb its own people. There was even a UN report which was posted in this thread and magically was removed from the official Nato website years later. convenient.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 20 2025 05:09pm

Well the separatist regions were technically also bombing their own people since the party of regions used to run Ukraine and they were all Ukrainians then.

A defensive military alliance (NATO) picked a side, bombed the other side and literally forced them to cede territory, drawing new borders on the map which is what I claimed. You didn't refute those claims you're merely defending NATO which is funny because indeed this case is so clear-cut.

Tiny Serbia never stood a chance against NATO and they were just pounded from the air which is exactly how NATO likes it proven by all the other conflicts where their opponents were mercilessly obliterated from the air.

Go to Serbia and ask how they feel about the military alliance that you are defending here. Or Iraq. Or Libya.