WI: NATO Ground Invasion of Serbia, 1999

In 1999, in the midst of the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of that nation’s refusal to end it’s violent actions against Kosovar Albanians and accept the deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force to ensure that end, there was much speculation and debate over a potential ground invasion should the Serbs persist. While some NATO nations were receptive, France and Germany were opposed to such ideas, and US President Clinton publicly ruled out the use of American ground troops in Serbia (though he apparently changed his mind, as the US military was apparently preparing to take part in a ground invasion of Kosovo before Milosevic ultimately caved). In the end, Belgrade chose to back down, withdraw it’s troops from Kosovo, and allow a UN-led peacekeeping force to be deployed. According to some accounts, this decision was heavily influenced by NATO preparations for invasion.

As stated above, before Milosevic gave in to NATO’s demands the alliance was preparing to launch a ground intervention to expel Serbian forces from Kosovo. This Guardian article from July 1999 alleges to contain details from the actual NATO plans for a ground invasion of Kosovo, with a 170,000-strong, British-led force attacking in early September.

What if the invasion had occurred? Let’s say that for whatever reason, Milosevic continues to refuse NATO demands, and as a result NATO crosses into Kosovo. What would the casualties be? This 1999 analysis by the Heritage Foundation which considered six potential scenarios for a NATO intervention in Serbia, (ranging from the full-on invasion and occupation of the FRY to the similar to OTL negotiated deployment of peacekeepers) predicted that a NATO invasion to secure Kosovo would take four to six weeks and result in 500 - 2000 US casualties (it does not take into account foreign troops and assumes a 50K-70K strong force, while actual NATO planning called for 170K, as stated above).

Is there any chance that a NATO-FRY ground war in Kosovo could escalate into a full-on invasion of Serbia proper? The aforementioned Heritage Foundation analysis predicted that 500,000 troops would be needed to invade and occupy the whole of Serbia, while roughly 250,000 would be needed if NATO chose to only occupy Belgrade. It predicted that in either scenario US casualties could reach the tens of thousands. It may be worth mentioning that at the time, NATO believed there was a significant threat that Serbia could use chemical weapons against their troops, though in recent years it appears that threat was greatly overstated.

What effects would this conflict have on European stability? While I doubt Russia would seriously be willing to go to war over Serbia, they will certainly not be happy. The OTL bombings are often cited as a reason the post-Cold War relationship between NATO and Russia went to pot, and there is some evidence Russian defense officials worried that NATO might launch a similar “humanitarian intervention” in Chechnya. Perhaps we see a Russian military modernization and buildup sooner, and it is possible that they could aid the Serbians through intelligence and arms sales.

What effects might this have on US domestic politics? The lines for the 2000 election were already being drawn, and a large-scale conflict in Europe with US troops directly committed would definitely have some effects on the election. While there might be some support for a humanitarian intervention, a war that could cause thousands of American casualties might cause voters to go for whichever candidate would end the war. Ironically, it seems like this might favor Bush, who supported the withdrawal of US troops from the Balkans in October 2000, while Gore supported continuing American participation in NATO peacekeeping operations.

Any thoughts?
 
McCain would be a happy man. He'd likely run on increasing the troops, if not deploying American troops on the ground and removing Milosevic from power by force.
 
It would result in a shitshow,just like any other poorly thought out invasion. Lacking real strategic interest,NATO would either leave very quickly and loose face or stay and get stuck in a quagmire. Its massive prestige loss starts a bit earlier than OTL.

also,a lot of canadians die and embarass themselve.
 
Hungary was a nato member since march 1999. It seems more likely that nato would use the strategy used in the gulf war: make a big noise about a frontal assault on heavily defended difficult terrain (amphib in gulf, mountains in kosovo), but then send the armour in from an unexpected direction (left hook gulf, hungary in this case).
 
Problem with Serbia's position is that they can end up losing not just Kosovo but parts of Vojvodina and its union with Montenegro if they fight. There are areas of Northern Vojvodina that are more Hungarian than Serb ( North Bačka and North Banat ). There is no need to occupy Serbia proper, just break its military. At that point the breakup could be more than Kosovo.
Serbia knows this and is likely to fold rather than risk it.
 
The initial stage of the fight probably goes poorly. NATO grossly overestimated the amount of damage the air campaign had done to the Serb military: NATO BDA claims during the air cover were 450 artillery pieces, 120 tanks and self-propelled artillery, and 220 armored personnel carriers destroyed. After the campaign was over and NATO had the opportunity to observe the Serb forces as they pulled out, it was found that number of destroyed equipment actually was 20 artillery pieces, 14 tanks, and 18 armored personnel carriers. Numerous logistical targets that had previously been marked as destroyed were found to still be perfectly intact (although in an ironic twist, this proved to be convenient for NATO who could now use those networks to support their peacekeeping ops). Put bluntly, the Serbs had done excellent camouflage and maskirovka work which rendered NATO rather blind to their remaining resources and deployments despite considerable intelligence gathering assets being devoted to the task.

I remember talking to one NATO officer who recounted when he was planning the never-executed ground invasion into Serbian-controlled Kosovo, he would constantly study the ground his battalion was to cross in the initial assault. On the day the Serbians withdrew, he was out studying that ground... and was astonished to see a Serbian battalion seemingly sprout up out of nowhere and withdrew from the hills that overlooked that ground. Upon going up into those hills during the subsequent peacekeeping operations, he found the Serbian positions were sited perfectly to cover the approaches his battalion had planned to take. He noted that had the invasion ever gone off, his battalion probably would have been mauled and he might have been killed since nobody would have known they were walking into a killzone until it was too late. Of course, even with those initial setbacks the Serbs don't have the resources to actually win the fight and successive NATO forces will grind down and destroy them... just make it a bloody fight.

Alternatively the bloody nose could, as SunilTanna mentions above, inspire NATO to switch strategies, run around Serb forces via Hungary, and just push straight for Belgrade. Something Milosevic was very afraid of.
 
Last edited:
Top