I've been wondering that the the total absence of NATO losses looks highly suspicious - even a blind squirrel gets an acorn once in a while, so by sheer law of probablity, some NATO planes must have been hit. Unless the Yugoslavs are saving their SAMs for NATO ground invasion - which makes perfect sense, because wasting them on air raids that cost a fortune to launch but inflict relatively little damage does not appear to be the most efficient use of that scarce resource.
But what I do not understand is why the Yugoslav gov't would want to conceal the NATO losses, if they occur. Not only it defies common sense, but it is counterproductive, given th elow troop morale reported elsewhere in this posting. Nothing boosts morale better than a victory in sight, so one would think that the Yugoslav gov't propaganda would want to popularize any NATO losses the same way they treated NATO hits of civilian targets.
Any explanations?
As to:
>information, but be sure that it is true. [...] The supposed
>"humanitary aid" from Russia actually consists of
>airplane-parts to be assembled here and ammo. I've also heard
That does not make much sense either - sending airplane parts appears like a complete waste of resources, since Yugoslav airforce can have little effect on the conduct of that war. A much more effective and cheaper weapon would be a Stinger-type missile (a hand-held anti-aircraft launcher), and one would expect to see that.
If the above cited information is coming from defectors (a conclusion hinted by the author's claimed connections with deserters and draft resisters) it might suggest that the army is using hearsay propaganda to boost troop morale (the "we've scored some hits, but can't reveal them," or "Russian help is under way" variety).
Again, any explanations?
Wojtek