One of the original justifications for NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia was to prevent the spread of the Kosovo war to other Balkan countries. Yet, in pursuit of the war, it is now the Alliance itself which is drawing in neighbouring states.
NATO has already taken over control of most transport facilities in Albania. And this week the Alliance obtained permission to use the national air space of both Bulgaria and Romania. A regional war is still unlikely. But the campaign against Slobodan Milosevic has already sucked in all the region's states, and the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria, even indirectly, imposes new and long-term obligations on NATO.
Neither Bulgaria nor Romania has a particularly intimate historical association with Serbia. The Bulgarians fought against the Serbs in four different wars this century, and even the Romanians, who have traditionally enjoyed correct relations with their southern neighbour, never felt close to the Serbs.
True, the Bulgarians and Romanians share the same Orthodox Christian faith with the Serbs. But this is not as meaningful as historic and ethnic divisions, which are more important in the Balkans. The Bulgarians had a historic claim to the territory of the current Macedonia, which was part of Yugoslavia. And the Romanians are of ancient Latin stock, while the Serbs are Slavs.
More importantly, Bulgaria and Romania are nation-states, while Yugoslavia was always an amalgam of various nationalities, none of which enjoyed supremacy. The Romanians do have a large ethnic Hungarian minority, and a Muslim minority exists in Bulgaria as well. Relations with these minorities have often been difficult, but they have never spilled into the appalling violence of Yugoslavia.
Indeed, members of the minorities are part of the ruling coalition governments in both Romania and Bulgaria. And, finally, Romania and Bulgaria are run by anti-communist regimes, determined to transform local economies and integrate into European structures, while Serbia is still ruled by a closely-knit communist mafia centred on Slobodan Milosevic and his extended family.
In short, the distinction between Yugoslavia's disaster and the stability of its two immediate neighbours can hardly be greater. Nevertheless, the population in both these countries is increasingly opposed to NATO's military actions against Yugoslavia.
The immediate reason for this is the perception in both Romania and Bulgaria that the Alliance has never considered their interests in the Balkans. When the Bosnian war started earlier this decade the West imposed economic sanctions on Yugoslavia. The sanctions did not hurt Western economic interests, which were always minute in the region. But they had a major impact on Bulgaria and Romania; both countries relied on trade and transport routes through Yugoslavia. Western governments made some helpful noises, but ultimately turned down these countries' requests for financial assistance.
The result was billions of dollars' worth of economic damage and lost trade opportunities this decade. Romania's gross domestic product this year is 25 per cent lower than it was when communism collapsed in 1989, while Bulgaria's wealth dropped by a full third over the same period. Much of this is due to local bad administration, to reforms poorly applied and often abandoned. But some of the damage is also attributable to the war which raged in their region.
However, it pales into insignificance in comparison with the neglect Western governments displayed towards the region. Romania has desperately tried to become a NATO member. The country claimed, with some justification, that after Poland it was the most important state in the former communist half of Europe, and that it could contribute to the continent's security. Romania's application was supported by more than half of NATO's existing members, but it was ultimately rejected by the US two years ago.
The result was that NATO included relatively stable countries in central Europe, while ignoring the most unstable region of Europe. The Romanians were fobbed off with promises of "strategic partnerships", but both they and the Bulgarians have remained in a strategic limbo. Nor was this the only rejection, for the countries have no hope, due to their current economic condition, of becoming members of the EU either.
And to complete the picture of neglect, some of the first targets which NATO aircraft destroyed in Yugoslavia were the bridges over the Danube, the lifeline to trade in the Balkans. Romania and Bulgaria are incurring a loss of some €4 million a week from the blockage of trade on the Danube yet again, figures which nobody is prepared to cover.
The two countries know that they must be supportive of NATO's actions since this is the only way of persuading the Alliance that they are responsible European states. But they also know that their good behaviour will not, by itself, guarantee membership in NATO. Mr Ivan Kostov, the Bulgarian Prime Minister, travelled to Brussels earlier this week to ask for security guarantees for his country. He got the usual reassuring noises, as did the Romanians.
Earlier in this conflict, NATO's Secretary-General, Mr Javier Solana, dispatched a letter to the governments of the two countries reassuring them that the Alliance would not "remain indifferent" to threats to their security. The letter was welcome, but it hardly amounts to a security guarantee.
NATO wants to use the air space of Romania and Bulgaria in order to conduct round-the-clock operations against Yugoslavia, but also as part of its contingency preparations for a ground offensive. The Bulgarians have given approval, and the Romanian parliament did the same yesterday. But the population in both countries is angry at an alliance which knows how to demand military facilities when it needs them, while ignoring these countries' wider strategic interests immediately thereafter.
Western leaders have an opportunity to re-establish their credibility in the region when they meet for NATO's summit this weekend in Washington. A clear indication that Romania and Bulgaria will become members of NATO, and that they will be compensated for their economic losses, is urgently needed. Yet the chances still are that no such guarantees will be issued; the Bulgarian and Romanian leaders are attending the summit, but only for its last day, and more in a ceremonial capacity.
So, while NATO is now engaged in the biggest military operation in its history, the fate of the wider Balkans region continues to be ignored. At least on that score, little has changed in Europe.