As the ICC statement makes clear, the bombing of power plants and other energy infrastructure in and of itself is not a crime. It only reaches that level if the strikes are committed with the intent to cause civilian harm and suffering and are not justified by a military advantage.

The NATO bombing of power infrastructure in Serbia was investigated by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The ICTY prosecutors were satisfied with the evidence presented by NATO that the targeting was narrowly aimed only at infrastructure which specifically fed into key parts of the military air defence and command and control network, and that it had hit transformers and other easily replaceable elements rather than the main plants. [0]

So it was proportional, fulfilled a military purpose, and wasn't aimed at causing undue suffering of the civilian population.

[0] https://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-commit...

“I’m afraid electricity also drives command and control systems. If President Milošević really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO’s five conditions and we will stop this campaign. But as long as he doesn’t do so we will continue to attack those targets which provide the electricity for his armed forces. If that has civilian consequences, it’s for him to deal with … [so] that water, that electricity is turned back on for the people of Serbia.” -- NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea during NATO aggression against the SRY. (He's also the person who coined the propaganda term "collateral damage" against civilian casualties.)

It can be said that pretty much everything NATO did in 1999. in SRY, Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

> It can be said that pretty much everything NATO did in 1999. in SRY, Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

That doesn't say much, everything I did in 1999 (as an uninteresting secondary school student) is also being done by people under Putin's control in Ukraine.

Well, almost anything. Can believe none are reading up on Wicca.

(Similarly, I didn't care much for the claim that Iraq had chemical weapons that could reach Iran, what with them sharing a border and thus a water rocket filled with chlorine gas would have filled this description).

> (Similarly, I didn't care much for the claim that Iraq had chemical weapons that could reach Iran, what with them sharing a border and thus a water rocket filled with chlorine gas would have filled this description).

The evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons and used them against Iranian forces is extensively documented. The Wikipedia page has a list of good resources. [0]

However, that programme was dismantled as a result of international inspections and pressure after the 1991 Gulf War, and it was not restarted by 2003 as claimed by the US government as part of their justification for the invasion that year. US troops did find a number of chemical weapons elements, but all it seemed dated from the previous programme.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq's_u...

How is that remotely interesting to note? Surely you recognize that there’s a difference in culpability between the actions of an illegal invading force and an international peacekeeping mission aiming to stop a genocide?