4 ms·

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decad

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why? It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other factors like who is dominating, who is controlling the media, religious issues, etc. A big mess. The UN mission was a total failure. An then, after NATO bombings, the war stopped. Yes, it was wrong. Yes, they were afraid of flying low and killed civilians. But they never said it was good, everybody knew it was bad and immediately they set up a fund and help program for the victims. Was there any other way to end this war? If so, please tell me.

xdennis 4y ago
There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used by Russia to steal Crimea. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo
- VincentEvans 4y ago
  There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.
  - 0dayz 4y ago
    You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?
    - VincentEvans 4y ago
      I don’t mean to say that UN is not capable of ANY action, but rather increasingly not capable of the scope of action that is meaningful in my view. Also, I think the impotence of the UN is a recent and progressing phenomenon. That is to say that its possible it was more capable and willing to act in the 90ies and progressively became less so since.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  If Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.
hulitu 4y ago
> Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.
- tyingq 4y ago
  >And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London. I'd agree with "one of the reasons", but there are also base reasons for unrest there that are unrelated to anything outside the Middle East.
yucky 4y ago
NATO Pretends it is a defensive alliance, and yet Russia can point to shit like this as proof positive that is a lie and use it as justification to take offensive action to prevent them encroaching closer and closer, encircling them[1], as NATO has continued to do since then. So yes, there were unintended consequences from this non-defensive NATO war. [1] https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/160303-D-BD182-037.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/1...
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  Yes, Putin loves to use the example of Yugoslavia because on the surface it's similar and it also resonates well with the Serbs. However, there are several important differences: * NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing * Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO finally decided to intervene. * And of course NATO didn't do any of the atrocities Russians are doing now like massacre in Bucha etc.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. What precipitated that, what exactly was going on in the Ukraine at the time? Or was it just a random decision one day to invade? Also, is it true that Crimeans didn't fight back and in fact voted to be annexed into Russia afterwards? On the surface that seems like a strange way to handle a foreign invasion, curious as to your thoughts on this.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
      Actually this is very clear to me as I was there a few times and talked to my friends on both "sides" - that is, from both Eastern and Western Ukraine. They had very different views. The people from Donbas were very poor. Actually Ukrainiansin general were poor but e.g. in Donyetsk there were whole districts where people stopped paying for electricity etc. They had the idea it would be better to live under the Russian rule. Same in Crimea: there were mostly Russians or people speaking Russian everywhere. They thought that if Crimea was Russian they would be better off as more rich Russians would come there. Western Ukraine was very different. I asked someone on the street in Russian and he kindly answered this is not Russia, they have another language etc. I was surprised as I didn't mean to start a debate, I just wanted to know my way to the train station. Back to your question. It's very clear why the war started and Putin explained it in very simple terms in the victory piece that was published by RIA and quickly retracted[0]. In short, he felt like Peter the Great and wanted to take over the whole Ukraine to be remembered in history books as someone who gathered both Belorussians and Ukrainians under single Moscovian rule. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240

xdennis 4y ago

There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used by Russia to steal Crimea. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo

VincentEvans 4y ago
There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.
- 0dayz 4y ago
  You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?
  - VincentEvans 4y ago
    I don’t mean to say that UN is not capable of ANY action, but rather increasingly not capable of the scope of action that is meaningful in my view. Also, I think the impotence of the UN is a recent and progressing phenomenon. That is to say that its possible it was more capable and willing to act in the 90ies and progressively became less so since.
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
If Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.

hulitu 4y ago

> Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.

tyingq 4y ago
>And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London. I'd agree with "one of the reasons", but there are also base reasons for unrest there that are unrelated to anything outside the Middle East.

yucky 4y ago

NATO Pretends it is a defensive alliance, and yet Russia can point to shit like this as proof positive that is a lie and use it as justification to take offensive action to prevent them encroaching closer and closer, encircling them[1], as NATO has continued to do since then. So yes, there were unintended consequences from this non-defensive NATO war. [1] https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/160303-D-BD182-037.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/1...

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
Yes, Putin loves to use the example of Yugoslavia because on the surface it's similar and it also resonates well with the Serbs. However, there are several important differences: * NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing * Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO finally decided to intervene. * And of course NATO didn't do any of the atrocities Russians are doing now like massacre in Bucha etc.
- yucky 4y ago
  > Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. What precipitated that, what exactly was going on in the Ukraine at the time? Or was it just a random decision one day to invade? Also, is it true that Crimeans didn't fight back and in fact voted to be annexed into Russia afterwards? On the surface that seems like a strange way to handle a foreign invasion, curious as to your thoughts on this.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    Actually this is very clear to me as I was there a few times and talked to my friends on both "sides" - that is, from both Eastern and Western Ukraine. They had very different views. The people from Donbas were very poor. Actually Ukrainiansin general were poor but e.g. in Donyetsk there were whole districts where people stopped paying for electricity etc. They had the idea it would be better to live under the Russian rule. Same in Crimea: there were mostly Russians or people speaking Russian everywhere. They thought that if Crimea was Russian they would be better off as more rich Russians would come there. Western Ukraine was very different. I asked someone on the street in Russian and he kindly answered this is not Russia, they have another language etc. I was surprised as I didn't mean to start a debate, I just wanted to know my way to the train station. Back to your question. It's very clear why the war started and Putin explained it in very simple terms in the victory piece that was published by RIA and quickly retracted[0]. In short, he felt like Peter the Great and wanted to take over the whole Ukraine to be remembered in history books as someone who gathered both Belorussians and Ukrainians under single Moscovian rule. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240