>when you fuck up so bad archenemies team up against you

>>79013039
I'd say that's a sign you're doing things right

File: nato_lost.jpg (125KB, 1367x690px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1367x690px

>>79013039

File: crni.jpg (67KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1280x720px

>>79014857

>>79014857
we never sent in ground troops because Russia threatened to send ground troops in support of Serbia if we did.

The only reason you won is because the U.S. didn't see it as being worth nuclear war, or the extension of the Cold War

>>79015258

>France and Germany vigorously opposed a ground offensive, and had done so for some weeks, since April 1999. French estimates suggested that an invasion would need an army of 500,000 to achieve success. This left NATO, particularly the United States, with a clear view that a land operation had no support. With this in mind, the Americans reaffirmed their faith in the air campaign.

Implying you could even if you wanted it ;)

>>79015583
America's military has a army that is significantly larger than 500,000

Not to mention Canada/U.K. would've supported us. As well as plenty of other vassals

>>79015680
And as you said, if you did that, others too would get involved ;)

>>79015733
yeah, and if there was a full scale war in Serbia between the U.S. and Rusisa, Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, others would've sided with us.

Best case scenario it'd have turned into World War 3, worst case nuclear holocaust.

>>79015583
>French estimates suggested that an invasion would need an army of 500,000 to achieve success.

So it was really not worth it

>>79015779

And lets put it in perspective

your "air campaign" destroyed 14 of our tanks.

We had 1500.

>Newsweek piece published around a year later stated that only 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery systems had actually been obliterated,[112] not that far from the Serbs’ own estimates of 13 tanks, 6 APCs, and 6 artillery pieces.

Your army is shit. The only thing they could hit are bridges lel, because they couldn't move.

>>79015906
No lets put it into actual perspective

Yugoslavia lost 121 aircraft along with those other pieces of field equipment and roughly 1,200 soldiers from NATO bombing.
Whilst all of NATO combined lost 2 soldiers from non-combat deaths.
4 Aircraft (2 from non-combat)
and 47 worthless UAV's

You lost far more than us.

>>79016302

Not when you take into account how much ammunition and missiles you used.

Our planes were useless, so no big deal losing those.

More civilians died than soldiers, that's all I'm going to say about that.

We won in war, you won in diplomacy

>>79016457
>you won in diplomacy
And in the end that matters more wouldn't you say considering your "heart" is gone

>>79016457
Boo hoo. Civilians die in every war

And ammunition is literally nothing to the U.S.

Also this >>79016519

>>79016519
>>79016698

we still won faggots against many times a superiror force

And we actually KEPT Kosovo, per UN agreement it's a part of Serbia

You won in diplomacy only in 2008

>>79016519
>>79016698
Is this how burgers accept defeat? SAD

File: Screenshot (89).png (22KB, 314x256px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 314x256px

>>79016848
>many times a superior force
What did he mean by this?