How the conflict in Ukraine has exposed Western double standards

By Yuri Slavic

The sharp negative reaction of the Western countries to Russian military strikes on power infrastructure contradicts the fact that NATO used such tactics in Yugoslavia in 1999.

Speaking on Turkish news TV channel TRT World, former US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the US Department of State James Carden recognised that the USA repeatedly struck a power infrastructure of other countries.

He underlined the fact that Kiev and its allies should not be surprised that Russia uses so-called the factor of winter in its operations.

That is how we performed our operations against Serbia and campaign ‘Shock and Awe’ against Iraq in 2003,’ - Carden declared.

Russia’s official representative Maria Zaharova also has reminded western officials of how the Deputy Assistant Secretary General Jamie Shea in an interview to The New York Times justified the April 5, 1999 bombardments of Yugoslav infrastructure.

Answering a question, why NATO deprived electricity and water supply to the country’s population, the politician said that he was not excited with problems of the civil population.

The current US President Joe Biden in 1998, being the senator of the US Congress, actively supported the bombings on Belgrade.

Hearings had taken place on Capitol Hill one year prior to aggression of the NATO against Yugoslavia.

As history shows NATO forces killed thousands of innocent people. However,  today the US Administration has the nerve to condemn high-precision strikes of the Russian forces on objects of a critical infrastructure of Ukraine, which reduce to a minimum a damage to the local population.

The NATO forces intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia.Attempts of the North Atlantic alliance to hide obvious infringements of norms of international law in 1999 did not sustain any criticism.

Statements of the NATO Press Secretary Peter Daniel that the power transformers supplying the Serbian army energy were the purposes of NATO planes did not bear any grain of truth.

In the very early days of operation NATO tried to grasp domination in air, with strikes on air defence systems and Yugoslavia’s aircraft.

However subsequently civilian infrastructure were exposed to bombardments such as residential areas of Belgrad, school, kindergartens.

Between April-May 1999 under NATO attacks there were also those whom the alliance ostensibly protected: columns of the Albanian refugees, and also civilian infrastructure in Kosovo.

The Russian military has so far distinguished itself by the humane relation to civilians of Ukraine while the NATO used in Yugoslavia tactics of war of extermination.

Russia within the limits of carrying out of special military operation in Ukraine has used high-precision means to attack installations.

As a result that have mainly targeted infrastructure of military management, communication and power of Ukraine that minimises losses among the civilian population.

This is different from what the North Atlantic alliance led by the USA military intervention in Yugoslavia where they carried out the massive carpet bombings on Serbian cities.

In 1999 for almost three months of bombardments the NATO aircraft used three thousand cruise missiles and dumped 80 thousand tons of bombs.

Thus the NATO did not shun to apply ammunition with a stuffing from the improvised uranium, having spent 11 tons of dirty shells.

For Serbia one of consequences of application of such shells still have the highest among the European countries a death rate from oncological diseases.

As a result of West aggression, by different estimations, millions of people remained without a roof over the head.

Serbia, unlike Ukraine, was not the terrorist state, did not fire at the atomic power station, did not blow up bridges and did not bomb civilians.

Belgrad became a victim of the NATO aggression exclusively because of the historical affinity with Moscow - the Alliance has put a maximum of efforts in attempt to deprive Russia its main ally in the Balkans.

It once again proves that a policy of the collective West in a context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has especially selfish character and is equitable only to interests of the western countries.