It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other factors like who is dominating, who is controlling the media, religious issues, etc. A big mess. The UN mission was a total failure.
An then, after NATO bombings, the war stopped. Yes, it was wrong. Yes, they were afraid of flying low and killed civilians. But they never said it was good, everybody knew it was bad and immediately they set up a fund and help program for the victims.
Was there any other way to end this war? If so, please tell me.
And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.
I'd agree with "one of the reasons", but there are also base reasons for unrest there that are unrelated to anything outside the Middle East.
So yes, there were unintended consequences from this non-defensive NATO war.
[1] https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/1...
* NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing
* Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO finally decided to intervene.
* And of course NATO didn't do any of the atrocities Russians are doing now like massacre in Bucha etc.
I've to this day not heard a single good argument from the "anti-imperialists" of what the world should have done after multiple attempts with large peace treaties being violated.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8
Here's a much better video showing the time line.
That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of 6 Balkan countries, didn't exist anymore in 1999. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of Serbia and Montenegro, existed between 1992 and 2003. Colloquially, they're both referred to as Yugoslavia, and it's clear from the date and context which one is referenced.
> Here's a much better video showing the time line.
I haven't seen the video from the OP yet, but this one from Johnny Harris, while slick and well produced, refers to SFR Yugoslavia being communist. It was actually a more liberal form of socialism (the S in SFRY) than communist USSR countries ever enjoyed. Tito famously established the Non-Aligned Movement of countries that rejected both Western and Eastern influence.
Overall, it gets many things right, but my history knowledge in the period isn't great to fact-check what else it got wrong.
I'm sorry but you don't see the irony of saying my point is "pedantic" and then you go well ashctually.
And even if we skip past that I'm not wrong since I said de facto not de jure (which even then you are wrong, _socialist_ federal republic is not the same as federal republic, that's like saying USSR is the same as modern day Russia).
The video is about the war not the state, since the war didn't happen during titos reign.
Hence why I think you can gloss over the oversimplification.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritag...
As for religious artifacts, I find the whole concept of institutional Christianity a mockery of the Jesus from the bible. It is hard to imagine Jesus in a world where Rome remade it's coins with his picture accepting his new role and mocking the downtrodden while crying if they take revenge on the boots of the establishment.
