Fact check: How did the Yugoslav government respond to the US-led bombing campaign in 1999?

1. Key claims the Yugoslav authorities advanced and how they framed the conflict

The government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia described NATO’s air campaign as a "crime against peace" and a blatant violation of the UN Charter, asserting NATO acted unilaterally and effectively as an ally of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Officials framed Belgrade’s actions as sovereign measures to fight terrorism and prevent secession, arguing that the bombing transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into an aggressor undermining international order ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This rhetorical line was repeated in press conferences and diplomatic representations intended to shift international opinion and obtain formal condemnation of NATO’s use of force ^[2].

2. Domestic emergency measures, mobilization, and military posture

Yugoslav authorities responded by proclaiming a state of immediate danger of war, mobilizing the armed forces, and preparing civil-defence measures to cope with air strikes and infrastructure damage. The government’s immediate priority was military readiness and public order while presenting mobilization as necessary defense of sovereignty. This posture combined active military command measures with political messaging designed to rally domestic support and portray the state as the victim of external aggression ^[2]. The mobilization underpinned both defensive operations and a narrative used to contest NATO’s justifications for the campaign.

3. Media controls, censorship, and restrictions on independent reporting

The government imposed censorship measures and fines on independent media, expelled journalists from NATO countries, and targeted outlets critical of its positions, aiming to control wartime information flows and portray NATO reporting as biased or part of a hostile campaign. Independent observers documented these restrictions and punitive actions against journalists, which the authorities justified as necessary to prevent panic and counter “propaganda” tied to the military campaign ^[4]. These measures had the dual effect of limiting domestic dissent and providing Belgrade with an instrument to shape national perceptions of the conflict.

4. Diplomatic protests and appeals to international law and institutions

Belgrade lodged continuous diplomatic protests, framing the bombing as illegal under international law and calling for UN action. Yugoslav representatives urged the international community to condemn NATO’s unilateral use of force and sought to reassert the primacy of the UN Charter as the legal benchmark for interstate military action ^{[1] [2]}. These diplomatic efforts were explicit attempts to delegitimize the bombing internationally and to place pressure on NATO’s members by appealing to legal norms and the political weight of multilateral institutions, even as NATO defended its operations on humanitarian grounds ^[5].

5. NATO’s stated rationale and the competing narrative on humanitarian necessity

NATO justified air operations as necessary to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and to disrupt violent attacks by Serb forces, presenting the campaign as the last resort after failed diplomacy and as a means to secure a political settlement in Kosovo ^[5]. This rationale directly conflicted with Belgrade’s legalistic framing. The coexistence of these two starkly different narratives—humanitarian intervention versus illegal aggression—became the central international debate and shaped subsequent legal and political analyses of the campaign ^{[5] [1]}.

6. Post-conflict legal scrutiny and the committee review’s findings

A post-conflict committee established by the Prosecutor examined allegations of war crimes and found incidents of civilian casualties and environmental harm but concluded the available information did not establish a sufficient basis to open an investigation into NATO for war crimes or crimes against humanity, citing evidentiary complexities ^[6]. Other reports and advocates continued to question the legality of the campaign, noting the lack of UN authorization and raising normative debates about the legality-versus-legitimacy of humanitarian-driven interventions ^[6].

7. Long-term political effects and evolving relations with NATO

The bombing left a strong imprint on Serbian public memory and policy: while deep opposition to NATO membership persisted for years, later developments, including Serbia hosting a NATO-led exercise in 2018, signaled nuanced shifts in practical relations without erasing public mistrust rooted in 1999. The campaign’s legacy influenced domestic politics, foreign policy calculation, and how successive Serbian governments balanced cooperation with Western structures against nationalist sentiments and memory politics ^[7]. This illustrates the enduring political consequences beyond immediate military and legal disputes.

8. Where facts converge and where narratives remain contested

Facts converge on key actions: NATO conducted an air campaign beginning in March 1999; Yugoslav authorities mobilized, declared emergency measures, censored media, and lodged diplomatic protests; and post-conflict reviews documented civilian harm. Disagreement persists over legality and moral justification—NATO’s stated humanitarian rationale versus Belgrade’s claims of illegal aggression—and over whether evidence warranted criminal investigations of NATO leaders ^{[5] [1] [6]}. Both sides advanced narratives with clear political agendas: NATO emphasized prevention of atrocities while Yugoslavia stressed violation of international law and sovereignty ^{[5] [1]}.