Talk:Kosovo War

Sweden participiated

Sweden participiated and lost 14 men. Please add them in to the wiki-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.212.74 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Source for the deaths? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2025

On the Yugoslav casualties, I request that there should be added “2 prada aircraft vehicles eliminated„ since in defense of somolica the Yugoslav suffered 2 prada aircraft veichles to be eliminated by the KLA. 185.173.207.148 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Result

@Griboski

I'll go source by source (in the order you mention it).

1. Yes, pyrrhic isn't great (although I'm pretty sure pyrrhic was more referring to something outside of the war such as media), although it still definitely counts as a victory nonetheless.
2. Quite honestly, I misread. Yes, I agree, this source shouldn't be included as ambiguous isn't exaclty a fair result to provide for a full-on victory.
3. Yes, it implies NATO won on its own, although it links NATO's efforts to securing a victory in this war. Furthermore, when the bombing ended this war practically did too. I think this definitley asserts a victory to NATO within specifically the Kosovo War, just by attributing it to the bombing.

I just personally dislike leaving results as treaties. I feel that if someone did try and do a deep dive into sources, the result I provided could be supported by more sources. However, I must admit, this is an incredibly tedious process due to how sources speak about modern wars. I agree, what I provided definitely wasn't perfect, but I think it tends to be the best idea to straight-up provide a result if it is supported by sources. Looking forward to hearing from you back! Setergh (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that the most neutral result would be to leave it as is, due to the contentious nature of the topic and the fact that there's constant edit warring over infobox results. I don't have an issue changing it if an abundance of sources make it clear, but a lot of the sources say different things with some sort of caveat. As for example, two of the sources you added which seem to actually denigrate the level of NATO success, without mentioning the KLA. From what I've read most of the sources follow the pattern of, the war ended with the signing of the Kumanovo agreement, Yugoslav forces pull out, Kosovo is placed under UN administration, NATO peacekeeping forces come in. Griboski (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right, I should probably look for more sources. If I get at least 5 or so (which at least support my result enough), I think I might come back to this. Setergh (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, I've come back with more sources. I'll show them, state what quote says so and explain my reasoning on why it's valid.

Just wanted to quickly address however, "two of the sources you added which seem to actually denigrate the level of NATO success, without mentioning the KLA.". Yes, you are right, though I'd be guessing this is likely due to NATO being the main belligerent in this war. One of the sources I used even mentions how NATO practically did all the work. Therefore, I'm going based off of if it's quite clear to see that the result refers to the Kosovo War/Crisis in particular.

1. [1] p. 84 "Kosovo victory" [...] "Pyrrhic one (still implies victory)" [...] "first-ever fulfillment of the long-sought dream of victory through air power alone" [...] "The war was the first case of a completely bloodless victory" I'd say this source does try and clearly state a NATO-sided victory.
2. [2] p. 75 "it was able to have NATO win its war for it" I'd say "its war" definitely refers to this war. This is the source I was referring to earlier, NATO practically did all the work, however it still did win this war in particular.
3. [3] p. 367 "military interventions against Libya and Bosnia-Kosovo produced strategic victories" Personally refers to this war being a strategic victory, and I think it simply just groups Bosnia and Kosovo together due to being similar conflicts. You can also refer to p. 275-276 "What remains unanswered is how to interpret this victory in the 1992-9 Bosnia-Kosovo intervention" [...] "Part of the calculus of victory in Bosnia and Kosovo"
4. [4] p. 177 "Ironically, even after this unambiguous victory" I'd say this clearly shows that the author thinks this war was most definitely a NATO success and victory.
5. [5] p. 16 "To be sure, enough problems remain in Kosovo that NATO's victory cannot yet be called permanent." Even though it says the victory's not permanent, it still states an immediate result of a victory within this war.
6. [6] p. 244 Straight up states a victory for Anti-Yugoslav forces.
7. [7] p. 257 "The terms for the agreement were now worse than at the beginning, for this time Allies dealt with a defeated state. Hence, the agreement meant surrender, a capitulation." States the defeat of Yugoslavia.

These are the sources I found, with which I tried to make sure there's a justifiable reason to use them for the result I have provided earlier. If you think there's any problems with what I've sourced then I'll gladly look over it and respond. Waiting to hear from you soon! Setergh (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It's easy to google NATO victory in this case and provide random sources, it's more a matter of what is due, and whether we should force a result victory for the sake of it. They still don't explicitly call it a KLA victory, only NATO. Also, #6 seems to be a science book about digital media (with the table being taken from Wikipedia) and #7 is published by the Dorrance Group, a vanity press. --Griboski (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello again,

I did indeed just randomly pick out sources, though that was due to it being quite late for me so I was in a bit of a hurry. I solely picked them out just to have them without checking their reliability (as I was planning to do today), so I'm glad you've already picked out a few problems. I'll go source by source.

1. Written by an American historian who specialises in this ("international relations, security studies, American foreign policy, and American diplomatic and military history.") and a political scientist. Published by Columbia University. I'd say this is most definitely (at least I hope so) reliable enough.
2. Written by a political analyst who mainly focuses on relations between Serbia and Kosovo. Published by Oxford University. I'd say this is reliable.
3. Written by a person with a PhD in political science and seems to focus on policymaking and more. Published by Oxford University. Once again, I hope this may be deemed reliable.
4. I honestly can't find much information about the guy apart from the fact that he seems to have written quite a few books [1]. It is also written by an academic and published by a news agency. Honestly, if you want to deem this unreliable, I won't blame you.
5. Written by someone with a PhD in political science (having even studied in both Oxford and MiT) and is apparentally now the President of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Although he was also a member of the staff of United States National Security Council (NSC) during the administration of President Bill Clinton. The other person is a policy analyst who went to Princeton. Published by Brookings Institution, not one I know anything about (although it's supposedly some sort of non-profit organisation). I'd say that this is still reliable personally, though if you have any problems do say.
6. Yeah, you're right, it is straight up taken from Wikipedia.
7. You're also right again, it is a vanity press, therefore should also be excluded.

I'd argue that at least 4 of these sources (or minimum 3) could be deemed reliable for the result I'm trying to provide. However, I will address your points.

"It's easy to google NATO victory in this case and provide random sources"

I mean, yes, that is what I did for the reason I stated previously. It's really just the best way I've found of getting to the resutls I want. Cause either way, I don't think I'd ever exactly find any result which may state something like inconclusive.

"They still don't explicitly call it a KLA victory, only NATO."

Yes, I do agree here. Although as mentioned previously, this seems to just be due to the fact that the KLA did quite frankly nothing in the war. I don't think this should change anything however, as these are still meant to clearly be results for the war in question. Although I would say that if I were to put down a result, I'd likely to think of something different than what I originally put. Perhaps "Allied victory"?

That's everything addressed, looking forward to hearing back from you! Setergh (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

From what I've read most of the sources follow the pattern of, the war ended with the signing of the Kumanovo agreement, Yugoslav forces pull out, Kosovo is placed under UN administration, NATO peacekeeping forces come in. Personally I think a brief acoount of the significant political outcomes (of the kind that you have summarised here and in the current infobox) is much more informative than, what I would call the 'scorecard' outcome of who won/didn't win/drew. The outcomes of conflicts are rarely as simple as that.Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I do definitely get your point. However, when there's a result that I do think can clearly be defined I feel like it should be. I also don't think it exactly negates the idea of providing a brief account of political, military, and whatever else outcomes. I'd like to first point out that I don't exactly think this article does that whatsoever. Or well, if it does, it's all over the article and not in one summed up area.

I'm down to hear any exact solutions you or the other person may have, although I don't think direct results should exactly be ignored either based on complexity reasons. Setergh (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)