3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere 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 agoYou the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?
- VincentEvans 4y agoI 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 agoIf Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.