1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia , the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the cities that bore the brunt of the bombing . According to NATO press releases , the bombing targeted oil refineries , roads , bridges , and telecommunications relay stations , facilities which had military uses . The bombing of the city caused great damage to local civilians , including severe pollution and widespread ecological damage , consequences for the physical health of the people which will remain for years as well as permanent consequences for psychological health caused by almost 3 months of trauma and fear . Consequences . Impact on civilians . The civilians of Novi Sad were greatly affected by the bombing of their city . Residential areas were cluster bombed several times while the city ' s oil refinery was bombarded daily , causing severe pollution and widespread ecological damage . Direct impact . The bombing caused civilian deaths and injuries . Those who were not directly physically harmed suffer from consequences for their physical health caused by ecological damage as well as permanent consequences for psychological health caused by almost 3 months of trauma and fear . Due to the NATO attacks , many in Novi Sad were left jobless . Notably , NATO failed to give " effective advance warning " of attacks which may affect civilians , as required by Protocol I . One such attack was the bombing of the Ministry of Education in Novi Sad , premises which administered social welfare programmes . Impact on infrastructure . The NATO bombing left the city without all of its three Danube bridges , communications , water , and electricity , which severely impaired the day to day living of the residents of Novi Sad . All bridges were not rebuilt before 2005 and one of the rebuilt bridges is only a temporary solution . Some residential areas were damaged by cluster bombs . Water supplies ( including drinking water ) for parts of the city were cut off as a result of the bombing . One attack cut off water supplies to 40 , 000 people in Petrovaradin , and severely disrupted water supplies to 300 , 000 people in Novi Sad . Services were restored only after two years , partially due to funding from Britain , one of the countries which sent planes to bomb the city in 1999 . Impact on environment . The bombing of Novi Sad had implications for the environment . A United Nations study ( the BTF ‘ Industrial Sites ’ and ‘ Danube ’ missions ) found that there were serious environmental issues , " requiring immediate action " , some of which resulted from the bombing . The bombing of Novi Sad ' s refinery caused fires which burned 50 , 000 tons of crude oil , sending toxins and carcinogen s into the air and contaminating groundwater . The BTF study was complicated by the heavy pollution that existed before the bombing , with the group noting that " the enforced shutdown of the refinery may even have led to local improvements in the aquatic environment , due to a possible reduction in chronic pollution " . Once all the samples for Novi Sad ( Danube Mission ) were collated , " " based on field observation and results from sample analysis , the BTF concluded that there was no evidence of significant adverse impacts on the Danube aquatic environment as a result of air strikes on Novi Sad refinery . It is thought that most of the oils and oil products released were burned and that no significant volume entered the river " " . The BTF study also found that prior to the air strikes , local technicians helped minimise the potential harmful effects of air strikes by " removing oil products that could be harmful to human health if spilt or burnt , such as transformer oil containing PCBs . Production was also accelerated to use up as much as possible of the crude oil , intermediate products and additives , and the final products were shipped to other locations . The remaining oil was mixed with gasoline , so that the tanks would ignite if hit , rather than leak into the soil and groundwater " . Local scientists also studied the impact of the bombing . “ NATO didn ’ t use chemical weapons during the bombing ” , said Dr . Zorka Vukmirović , a leading environmental physicist , “ But indirectly it caused the effects of chemical weapons use . If you release so many hazardous substances , major air pollutants and carcinogens in the vicinity of big cities like Belgrade and Niš , it is obviously a deliberate action against the civilian population ” . Not until 2003 , the Danube river was declared clear again . It took four years of work by the Danube Commission to remove the debris of bombed bridges and ordnance . The clearing of the debris was not only important for Novi Sad , but for European states ( Hungary & Romania ) who were economically impacted by the blockade of river traffic to the Black sea caused by the bombing . The views of the respective parties . The bombing is viewed by many as being a war crime ( See : Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia ) . Novi Sad residents point out that the irony that Novi Sad was so heavily targeted by NATO also lies in the fact that during the time of the bombing , the city was ruled by the local Democratic Opposition , which was against the regime in Belgrade . Therefore , the citizens of Novi Sad were not able to understand why they had to pay so large price for the events in Kosovo , which were not caused by them . A press release one year on from the bombing by then NATO Secretary General Robertson , claims that NATO encountered complications from Yugoslav military use of civilian buildings and human shields . Nato officials have " expressed deep regret at any civilian casualties it caused " , . NATO claims that the bombing of targets such as bridges was aimed at impairing the Yugoslav army ' s command and control structure . However , the efficacy of the campaign and choice of targets was brought into question by human rights groups , after bridges of no conceivable strategic relevance to the military situation in Kosovo were bombed , including a bridge which led to Hungary , a NATO country . MAICL argued that the civilian deaths caused were clearly disproportionate to the military benefits in response to NATO ' s justification of actions .