25 years after NATO intervention to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, General Wesley Clark said he is proud of the operation he led and that the sequence of events culminating in Kosovo’s independence was dictated by the brutality of Serbian forces. General Clark said in an interview with journalist Keida Kostreci for Voice of America on the occasion of this anniversary that it is unjust to put more pressure on Kosovo than on Serbia, but he emphasized that the two countries need to find a way to coexist. He said that many Western stances are shaped by what is happening thousands of kilometers away, in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Voice of America: General Clark, it’s been a quarter of a century since NATO intervened in Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. You were NATO’s senior commander at that time (leading NATO’s bombing campaign against Serbian forces in 1999). What are your reflections now, 25 years later?

General Wesley Clark: I am proud of the actions NATO took at that time to halt the ethnic cleansing campaign against the Albanians of Kosovo. NATO acted using the minimum force, taking every precaution to avoid harming innocent civilians and yet fulfilling its aim to end ethnic cleansing.

Voice of America: General Clark, there was much debate internationally at that time, as humanitarian interventions were not something that happened often. In a retrospective view, how do you see such interventions today in general, as a matter of international relations?

General Wesley Clark: I would say it was a necessary intervention conducted rigorously, particularly for humanitarian purposes, and it fulfilled its mission.

Voice of America: When you look at Kosovo today, is it as you imagined it would be 25 years ago?

General Wesley Clark: What we knew at the start of the campaign was that we would engage NATO forces. At that time, we did not know that the Serbs would be completely ousted. It was never our aim to partition Kosovo in any way, or to influence it to become independent.

But the actions of the Serbian military and police during the campaign, the merciless killing of civilians, the attempts to destroy the properties of Kosovo Albanians, the brutal behavior of neighbor against neighbor in this campaign, made it practically impossible for Serbs to stay.

That’s why NATO made it one of its objectives that Serbian forces had to withdraw. Kosovo was then overseen by the international community, under the direction of the UN, and then decided it should be independent.

But to be honest, the situation in the region remains unacceptable, because Serbia continues not to recognize Kosovo’s independence, continues to interfere within it, and the political pressure on Kosovo, as a smaller country, is very heavy and difficult.

Voice of America: General Clark, let’s talk about the current situation you referred to, especially the relationship between the United States and Kosovo. Kosovo has been one of the most pro-American countries, largely also due to the intervention you led back then. But now, relations between the United States and Kosovo, or at least between the two governments, are at their lowest point. What is your opinion on this? Why have they reached this point and what can be done to overcome this situation?

General Wesley Clark: I see things from the outside; I am not on the inside of them, so it’s a bit difficult to comment on this. But it’s important to understand that two states that are side by side, Kosovo and Serbia, cannot move their relations forward if they continue to engage in conflict between them. Serbia has extended its long arm into Kosovo for a long time, in the north of the Ibar River. Even when I was NATO commander, there was an ethnic cleansing campaign by Serbs against Albanians in the north of the Ibar River. It was wrong. But it continued. It’s clear that Serbian intervention continues still.

But when the United States asks the parties to cooperate, I think the higher pressure should be exerted on Mr. Vučić in Serbia. The reason for this is that Serbia is the largest, most powerful country, and has the greatest potential for flexibility in this case, the greatest opportunities for compromise. It’s clear that Serbia still hasn’t accepted that Kosovo is independent today. And peace must be made with this idea. It’s a historical consequence of all the tensions and a long enmity.

I will never forget when I was with President Milošević in November 1998, and we were signing the final November ’98 agreement which foresaw the withdrawal of excessive Serbian forces from Kosovo, which the UN Security Council Resolution demanded they withdraw from Kosovo.

President Milošević said bluntly: “I know how to deal with these Albanians. We have done it before,” he said. I asked, how did you act? He told me, “We kill them all”.

In this sense, the only result for these historical tensions with deep roots was the division into two states. And now, the two states must find a way to coexist, to progress, to cooperate to improve the economic situation of their citizens. This is a challenge, it’s a very difficult challenge to overcome. Memories are still fresh for both parties, and I think this is something that cannot be forced, it must come naturally.

The problem is that Russia’s actions towards Ukraine have further complicated the situation, because everyone understands that Serbia has a historical connection with Russia and Russia is using Serbia to prepare the ground so that if it succeeds in Ukraine, it will cause even greater chaos again in the Western Balkans. This is known.

Mr. Vučić seems torn between two alternatives: to align with the West or to maintain the historical fraternal relationship with Russia. It appears he’s trying to have both. At least that’s how it seems from the outside. But looking from the outside, it seems that the people of Kosovo, a smaller country, depend on foreign support, from the United States and others, to survive and improve their economic situation. In a way, we need to be patient. We need to continue efforts on this situation. We need to understand that the solution to the border issue between Kosovo and Serbia is not independent of the outcome of the war between Ukraine and Russia.

Voice of America: General Clark, you mentioned the new geopolitical context after the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Considering there are critics who say that this is precisely the reason why there is increasing pressure on Kosovo, so as not to escalate challenges, what is your opinion? Do you agree with these views?

General Wesley Clark: I think the pressure on Kosovo started during the Trump administration, where US envoys in the Balkans wanted to mark a diplomatic success. And that’s where the pressure began. Now, with the war (in Ukraine), it’s certainly normal and natural for the West to want to resolve this issue, to see Serbia fully in the Western camp and connected to the European Union in the most positive way possible. But precisely because of the tensions between Russia and Ukraine, this is unlikely to happen. The problems between Kosovo and Serbia are linked to what is happening between Russia and Ukraine. And these problems reflect the larger geopolitical tensions in the region.

Voice of America: General Clark, you have known the American ambassador to Serbia, Chris Hill, for a long time, since the time of the NATO intervention. Two days ago, he said, “Serbia is now closer to NATO than Kosovo. We have had joint exercises and a lot more with the Serbian army. Now we work much more together (with Serbia) than with the Kosovo Liberation Army or anything that has emerged from it.” What is your opinion on this statement?

General Wesley Clark: I think Ambassador Hill is an excellent diplomat. I take what he says as he says it.

Voice of America: Can you be more specific?

General Wesley Clark: I think what he says is absolutely true.

Voice of America: That the United States has better relations with the Serbian army than with Kosovo?

General Wesley Clark: I can’t speak in detail because I’m not part of that relationship. I see things from the outside. But Ambassador Hill seems to have done a good job of strengthening this relationship and moving forward with relations between the United States and Serbia. And that’s his job as ambassador. Whether this relationship is stronger or weaker than Kosovo’s relationship with the United States and NATO, I can’t say because I see things from the outside.

Voice of America: But this actually contradicts Belgrade’s position, which has not expressed willingness to join NATO or to be closer to the alliance, right?

General Wesley Clark: I think this is an effort to steer Belgrade in the right direction. I hope the ambassador succeeds in what he’s doing because it’s very important, it would be an extraordinary achievement.

Voice of America: Let’s go back to the position of the Kosovar government. You said that there is more pressure on Kosovo, but could Kosovo, and especially its leaders, be more constructive in efforts to cooperate towards normalizing relations between the two countries?

General Wesley Clark: As someone who sees these issues from the outside, I can’t give a detailed opinion. I appreciate and it’s an honor that you ask me for a comment on this, but I can’t. I can’t give any useful comment on this because I’m not part of these discussions, and it would be wrong for me to dare to give an opinion.

Voice of America: In the latest report from the American intelligence community on global threats, for the Balkans, the situation between Kosovo and Serbia is mentioned as well as Bosnia-Herzegovina as points where conflicts could erupt. This among the tensions that escalated last year, after the attack in northern Kosovo. How do you view these security concerns considering what has happened in recent months?

General Wesley Clark: I think it’s a situation that needs to be carefully monitored. I’m sure Ambassador Hill is doing everything he can to see the situation from the American perspective. I hope NATO is doing everything it can to be prepared and to take measures to prevent any escalation on Kosovo’s side. As I said, these tensions are fueled by Russian efforts. Russia wants to ignite disagreements and chaos in the region, and all the work we’ve done in the Balkans won’t have fruitful results if we don’t address the issue between Ukraine and Russia.

Voice of America: Do you think in this case, it’s necessary to change tactics and strategy regarding how the United States and the West in general approach Kosovo and Serbia?

General Wesley Clark: I think I can’t comment on the current strategy now. It’s not possible because I’m not as close to provide a useful comment. I think whatever strategy we implement; it’s still hindered by what’s happening 1,600 or 1,300 kilometers east of Ukraine, in the Donbas region, or in the conflict zone and what Russia’s aims are. This is what determines Europe’s stance, on one hand pushing Europe to want to resolve the crisis between Serbia and Kosovo and on the other hand making it more difficult to achieve such a thing.

Voice of America: Do you think this is right for the future of the process between the two countries?

General Wesley Clark: I think the process will continue for some time, and I think it’s important that this process is kept alive and continued through dialogue. If we were to have significant progress, it would be wonderful, but I don’t anticipate such a thing. So, as I said, this is a secondary issue in Europe and in many aspects depends on what will happen between Russia and Ukraine.

Voice of America: Earlier you mentioned history. There is usually a tendency among diplomats and politicians to forget history, or to leave it behind, when they want to solve a current issue.

It seems that this is also happening with Kosovo and Serbia and with diplomats who are more involved in efforts to solve the issue they have on the table, not by forgetting it, but in a way ignoring or neglecting the historical context. Is it possible to have solutions to issues without addressing past problems?

General Wesley Clark: I’m sure there are particular perspectives on what you’re asking. If I were to give a general answer, I would say specific aspects of specific agreements on the table should be addressed. But of course, I don’t want to give a general answer to this. History matters. Certainly, people’s sensitivities matter. The loss of loved ones, the sufferings they have endured, fear, everything matters. But it’s the duty of a diplomat, as much as possible, to find common ground and to look towards the future, to push forward these interests. And I’m sure no one, in the American diplomatic service, can do this better than Ambassador Chris Hill.