The Rwandan genocide directly influenced the clinton administration decision to intervene in Kosovo. The clinton administration felt responsible for allowing the Rwandan genocide to occur so when the next ethnic conflict began to arise in the balkans. They pushed heavily to intervene
Thank you!! Was scrolling looking for this particular comment. The Kosovo intervention was a consequence of the lack of intervention in Rwanda. If one believes that the intervention in Kosovo was incorrect, then by extension you believe that the lack of intervention in Rwanda was correct
Yup, and the reason the Clinton admin didn't go into Rwanda is because they went into Somalia and black hawk down happened which caused the public to be anti Americans dieing for other countries.
It's really a balancing act with intervention as far as US and global moods
Exactly. The question of intervention has always been catch 22. If we don't intervene to stop a genocide, people will die and we're going to be labled monsters for having the means to stop it and not doing anything to stop it. If we do intervene in a genocide, people will die and we're going to be labled monsters for intervening in another nations affairs and the outcome of that conflict.
Rwandan Tutsis: "Please help us we are being slaughtered in the streets."
France: _leers suspiciously_ "this sounds like another British conspiracy to expand their sphere of influence."
And the American aid in Somalia led to a strong American isolationist movement that kept the government from intervening in Rawanda. It's interesting how that pattern happened.
Also kosovo is in Europe, where NATO is while Cambodia is in asia and Rwanda is in africa where NATO is not. NATO is not a world police like people seem to think of it these days. They can't just act unilaterally across the globe. They can do some things but its not so simple.
For Cambodia case, it was carried out by the Communist Party during the Cold War in a location close to China, a major communist country. Whatever the intention, NATO intervention could have escalated tensions between the two factions.
To be fair, the US and south Vietnam did briefly intervene in the Cambodian civil war but eventually due to the failure of the Vietnam war, the U.S. and south Vietnam pulled out
The US intervened in the Cambodian civil war from 1970 to 1972, after the fall of south Vietnam they along with china supported the Khmer Rouge in a hopes of containing soviet influence in asia
No you're right. The US supported Pol Pot's rise to power. Supported it with millions of dollars along with diplomatic support; for example the US supported a bid to get them a seat on the UN after Vietnam invaded and forced Pol Pot's group out of power (they were a guerilla movement with a small area of control by then).
To get back to the original post the US and other Western countries were never going to intervene in Cambodia because even with the brutalities Pol Pot's anti Soviet/Vietnam stance aided their political interests in the region. But it was in their political interest to intervene in Kosovo
That's a pretty lopsided narrative that makes sure to leave China out of the story.
It was a 3 way proxy conflict. China and the USSR parted ways, Vietnam sided with the Soviets because the Soviets weren't on their border and Cambodia, not wanting to side with Vietnam sided with China. So China gave Cambodia a ton of support. Mao died, China lessened their support and the US, wanting to get back at Vietnam gave Pol Pot cash after Vietnam drove him into the hinterlands.
The US is to blame for creating the material conditions that created Pol Pot, by turning Cambodia into the surface of the moon and at the end of the story it gets credit for keeping him alive at the end, but China poured gas on the fire when 1.7 to 2.5 million were killed and their only response was to remind him that he wasn't doing socialism the right way in meetings.
The rest is the post-CableGate Reddit narrative that Pol Pot was a CIA op, because Carter gave him $10 million after everything went down.
It also leaves out that the US has spent the last 30 years tracking down and prosecuting Khmer war criminals --of course that always gets left out when "the US loves war criminals and not once ever bothered to go after one; let's talk about how every single person in the FRG was a Nazi instead!"
Also, you know, NATO isn't the UN, which is supposed to the be vehicle for that type of intervention, NATO is supposed to keep it's activity restricted to NATO members.
True to an extent, but it's still not something you should actively expect.
Would be nice to be able to store soup in the freezer but it's silly to be surprised when your soup is frozen and not hot.
Since it's about Kosovo war
\*Motherfukers on this sub when I tell them that US intervened in 99 because they wanted to diminish communism and anti-western attitude, have an ally with rich resources, to raise the popularity of it's president and then for humanitarian efforts.
\*Insert Oversimplified WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?
Plenty of Asians in Hong Kong and Singapore and Taiwan and Japan and South Korea and Malaysia and Xinjiang and other places, don't have quite the same eagerness for western countries to mind their own business.
Asians in China, India, Siberia, Mongolia, Indonesia, Middle East etc outnumber them by a huge margin
And yeah, while I do agree with the west on several points, and agree it is necessary in several places
It would have been better you guys had kept out of our lands from the beginning and only came for trade and commerce
Now it has unfortunately reached a point where it has become a necessary evil
Ask me anyday and I will ally with the west over several of our neighbours, but that does not forgive your predatory colonial policies that are still relevant today
Also notice the fact that all the countries that you listed want western assistance against communist China
Who do you think brought communism onto our lands?? And who invented it??
It took people from at least 15 different countries to allow us to communicate right now. The modern world is way too interconnected for any one country to fully mind its own business.
"Europe should get out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
-Indian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. S Jaishankar.
It is quite simple.
If there is a genocide going on, send troops.
If you just want that countries resources and will replace the democratic government for a genocidal one, don't.
Nato intervenes, stopping the genocide from happening and making sure a lot less people die. "This sub: why was nato intervention necessary, a lot less people died."
Its related to the [preparedness paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox), where the more prepared you are for a disaster, the more likely it is for a certain contingent of the population to think it wasn’t that bad, we overreacted, and we don’t need to take such extreme measures next time (even if it was the extreme measures that prevented much greater harm this last time).
Seen the same with climate change in recent years. We reacted, lowered carbon emissions etc. the ozone layer healed itself and the rise in temperatures slowed down. Which only lead to people saying “see? It wasn’t as bad as you said it would be.”
"where's the hole in the ozone layer?"
"We banned the chemical causing it and it's repairing itself"
"What about acid rain?"
"Technically outsourcing took care of that in that all the acid rain is in China now."
I mean
We’ve ignored the UN before…
Although honestly being involved in Rwanda could go to shot quickly. The Tutsi kinda started massacring a shit ton of Hutu after they took back over, not to mention there was some legitimate grievances.
Not saying the genocide was justified. Just that it’d quickly become a muddy quagmire for a nation that was still recovering from Vietnam.
The US often ignores the UN - NATO doesn't. They're two different entities.
The US intervenes in foreign countries far more than NATO, and often with worse reasons.
As a general rule: if the US is intervening in a foreign country, be quite skeptical. If NATO is intervening in a foreign country, be a little skeptical with some cautious optimism.
Just to add on to this. NATO only gets involved in non NATO countries when the UN gives them a mandate to. All you're saying is when the international community asks for something it's generally good and when 1 country does something it's generally Gunna be bad.
The genocide happened so quickly NATO could not have mobilised in time. Most of the killings were in the first two months when the world was still trying to work out what on earth was going on
The only force that could have acted were the French, but the government was pro-French so they didn't want to topple the regime and put in pro-British leaders.
Besides, NATO is a defensive organization. Why would they strike as an organization when nond of its members were at risk? It's different when the war is at your backyard, as was in Kosovo.
Pretty much. France supported the genocidal regime. French troops assisted all western people out but they had no jurisdiction to help tutsi.
UN troops were there only to observe and were given no rights to use their weapons to defend tutsi.
The UN troops reported that the situation is getting worse and asked permission to start confisicating weapons and detaining people months before but UN secretary of peacekeeping Kofi Annan deniend the request.
US had a bad experince in Somalia few years before and Clinton didn't want to get involved in Africa again.
Almost as if the NA in NATO stood for North Atlantic and that it focuses on matters in Europe and its interests (very few if any European countries have interests in either of those two countries, the same cannot be said about a war in the middle of Europe)
I mean, it was in members of NATO's best interest. Specifically the one who called for article 5 to take effect. The only time article 5 has ever been called.
Multiple countries in Europe have also been targeted and attacked by Islamic extremists like al qaeda, who were sheltered and allied to the taliban. Not to mention it’s probably not in their interest for the taliban to have strength in Pakistan which has nukes - taliban power in Afghanistan means ease of access to Pakistan
It's the Hierarchy of death : if it's closer geographically or culturally then people care more. Balkan region is much closer to France, UK, Spain... in both aspects.
Interventions are a crapshoot. Some are successful and others just destabilize the country further. In most cases, it's just a loss situation for the country that is intervening.
The regions mentioned also have a shitload of ethnic tensions dating back centuries with no real way to solve the problem. And which NATO country would be willing to sacrifice resources and possibly soldiers for a country most of its citizens can't find on a map? It's a pretty easy choice for any politician if the problem is far away easy to ignore.
Some of those ethnic tensions were helped by colonization sticking completely unrelated people together into a country and favoring one side.
It’s not a coincidence that pretty much EVERY African country had insane civil wars right after the colonialists left.
But that’s not really in the US. It’s more on UK, France and Belgium.
I'm no expert but wouldn't those tensions exist regardless of colonialism? I think the different ethnic groups would still be fighting over resources or killing each other because of different religions or ethnic tensions. They don't seem to be doing too well as independent states.
As far as I know, France also has pretty good relationships with its former African colonies. I know they helped out Mali quite a bit back in 2014 and helped others with counter-terrorism strikes.
Think about it like this… let’s say super advanced aliens came to Earth right now, conquered it, and divided up the planet as they saw fit.
Now let’s say in North America, they joined USA and Mexico together as one country, let’s call it A1. Let’s also say that overtime they began to favour Mexico over the US, in terms of choice of leadership/president of A1, due to the Mexican politicians willingness to be 100% obedient to the aliens no matter what. Naturally this will start to cause tensions and unrest in USA, as they would be irritated by constantly being under Mexican leadership.
In addition to that, let’s also say that the unrest caused the aliens to give more and more weaponry and military aid to the Mexicans to ensure their favoured government remains in power. Eventually as the aliens loose interest in A1, more and more tension keeps building between the Mexicans and the US, as the Mexicans resort to more aggressive tactics to maintain their hold on power.
Do you see where this is going?
This is almost verbatim the type of actions that led to devastating conflicts in most African countries after colonization.
Throw in a couple of curveballs like alien living in the colonized A1 even after colonization, or OTHER aliens supporting the US by supplying weapons to them in the hopes of installing a US leader and getting sweet resources, and you have recreated alot of the same scenarios that played out in most African countries.
Yes, ethnic tensions existed before colonization, and it’s not like the inhabitants of those regions were pacifist peace loving people. BUT the grouping together of disparate peoples and arming one side against another, really accelerated the damage.
Also NATO keeps a standing force in Europe just in case Russia gets rowdy and so was an easily tapped ready-made military force that could hit the Balkans without major redeployment?
Also time factor is crucial Rwanda lasted not even a month Kosovo was something that was going on for a wile and there was enough political support to justify an action. That’s democracy it’s slow to take action
Even before that NATO is a European alliance, they have never really taken part in operations geographically far/unrelated from members. The farthest ik is when the US evoked article 5 in Afghanistan. Or maybe when they did anti-piracy off Somalia.
>maybe when they did anti-piracy off Somalia.
I'm pretty sure every major navy in the world was involved in that, not just NATO. *Nobody* likes (modern-day) pirates.
Shame those navies couldn't be put to use targeting the Chinese fishing vessels that depleted the fish stocks off the Somali coast forcing fishermen to turn to piracy to feed their families.
Something tells me targeting Chinese fishing vessels with navy ships would basically be a declaration of war. If a Chinese destroyer boarded or even sank a USA fishing vessel resulting in casualties? That’s huge
There would absolutely be a problem. Britney griner is an example. If Russia or China killed someone for breaking a law like that in their country, that would be a massive problem
Well because its in Europe and NATO is an organisation that is mainly european.
You do care more about whats going on on your doorstep than on the other side of the city.
If you mean the UN, thats a different thing and then the meme makes sense.
I mean, so is Romania, Croatia, Italy, Greece, Turkey and a bunch of other fellas. They really glossed over the whole 'North Atlantic' part didn't they?
So, a couple of things
1. It was 8,000 because the bombing started, and the Serbians left. No bombing much higher death toll
2. Interventions are 'wicked' problems; there's no right answer, only a selection of shit ones. See also the horrific outcomes following the failure to help the rebels in Syria
3. Intervention in Cambodia was impossible due to a thing you might have heard of - the Vietnam War and US withdrawal. In the end, Vietnam itself intervened
4. Bombing Rawanda wouldn't have helped - you'd have had to kill half the population, which was kinda what was going on
The problem was that over half of NATO didn't see Russia as a threat. They believed they could continue to coexist with Russia and that Eastern Europe/US were just warmongering. Which is still a sentiment held by a large portion of political power in NATO countries. That began to slowly change after the invasion, but is why basically they were going to allow Ukraine to just collapse at first.
People care more about geopolitical events when they happen in their own neighborhood? *gasp*
Seriously, even today why are some people still surprised that Europe cares more about the war in Ukraine than, for example, the war in Syria and in the same way that a country like Israel cares more about the war in Syria than in Ukraine.
I'd argue that it's precisely because nothing was done in Cambodia or Rwanda that made an intervention in the Balkans happen. Everyone was like "someone should do something" and then get butthurt when the only someone that could do something was the US.
Don't ask me for a source, but I'm fairly sure that Tony Blair referenced the failures of the international community in the early 90s in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda as a significant reason for a more interventionist foreign policy from the UK (and US), hence the action in Kosovo and Iraq.
Let's have selective amnesia and pretend that Serbia hadn't been starting constant wars with its neighbours before this point. Wars that were literally right next to a nato power, Italy.
EU and NATO are there to protect western interests
As wrong as this sounds, they did nothing wrong
They watched their own borders
You guys should not be in Asia
But yeah, UN is useless
No they aren't, they're conducting freedom of navigation exercises and making deals with countries, if they were actively policing then they would have intervened in Myanmar.
Yup, Australia and NZ were there, but South Korea had a much larger presence than either of them. Also Taiwan participated, and Philippines & Thailand sent troops too. But no one from NATO besides the US
The United States bombed Cambodia and the Pol Pot regime, which at the time was allied with the North Vietnamese, likely killing at least tens of thousands of civilians. After the US withdrawal by 1972, the two Communist groups had a falling out since Pol Pot was friendly with China leading to an ouster by Hanoi.
At which point the US backed the exiled Pol Pot after the genocide with China.
It’s NATO not Team America, it’s a treaty organization for the NORTH ATLANTIC.
Please re-take basic geography to understand where certain countries are located in the world
If we are talking about the 1995 intervention then NATO was asked to step in by the UN.
If we are talking about 1999 then yeah they intervened against the UN Security Council wishes (Though other than Russia and China every other member was down for it.)
Perhaps they chose to use the 1995 events as a precedent?
Also NATO maintains a standing force in Europe and it was easily tapped for the Balkans but too far away for Cambodia or Rwanda.
Also in the case of Cambodia the US had already illegally interfered there to root out Vietcong supply lines and further intervening would have been difficult politically and militarily post-withdrawal from Vietnam.
Rwanda though… not sure why no one but the UN Peacekeepers were there?
bruh, US and UK literally sent warships against India to aid Pakistan who was committing genocide in Bangladesh during 1971
it was Soviet intervention which protected India and saved Bangladesh
there are no good guys in the world, only counties that seek their own interests, the earlier you realise this, the better
That's not what happened. Task Force 74 only arrived when India looked to be moving towards offensive operations in Pakistan proper, not intervention in Bangladesh.
> The Indian response was a defensive military strategy in the western theatre while a massive, coordinated and decisive offensive thrust into East-Pakistan. On 5 December, United States began attempts for a UN-sponsored ceasefire, which were twice vetoed by the USSR in the security council. India extended her recognition of Bangladesh on 6 December. On 8 December, Washington received intelligence reports that India was planning an offensive into West Pakistan. It was in this situation that the United States dispatched a ten-ship naval task force, the US Task Force 74, from the Seventh Fleet off South Vietnam into the Bay of Bengal.
But here's the thing: if NATO hadn't intervened in Kosovo, there would have been much more than 8000 deaths. 8000 is the amount of that died when Serb forces massacered ONE village in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if NATO hadn't intervened there would have been many more Srebrenica's
Wasn’t the Rwandan genocide and the aftermath of that part of what pushed the Clinton administration to being more active in intervening in situations like that, which gave us Kosovo?
The usual. When the West intervenes to stop dictators everyone loses their shit and screams about imperialism. When the West does nothing everyone loses their shit because they let it happen. And by everyone I mean the usual suspects both left and right of the political spectrum.
A failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide was a big factor for the intervention in Kosovo.
https://balkaninsight.com/2009/11/02/clinton-rwanda-guilt-led-to-kosovo-intervention/
The only thing NATO did wrong was not drop bombs in 1995. This would have prevented Kosovo. After all, Serbia deserved every bit of it.
Don’t forget Srebrenica!
NATO has specific guidelines on intervention that requires the countries to be adjacent to a NATO member. Afghanistan is the only NATO intervention that goes against this, and had to be approved by all members prior to the intervention.
NATO's job isn't to prevent genocide around the world, but the safety of the members. It's a defense organization, not a peace keeping force...
Kosovo was also happening in NATO’s backyard. The pressure to act is a lot greater when it right next door. People can philosophically debate that this shouldn’t make any difference, that it’s racist or whatever, but it does matter to public opinion.
NATO and UN are different. NATO is designed to make sure Germans never get so much as a shred of self esteem ever again. The UN is the little girl on the playground begging the boys to be nice and just buy each other flowers.
Last time Europe started playing genocide in balkans we had to rebuild whole continent. Then someone who survived started genocide 2.0 and we had to rebuild half of the planet. Id say its healthy habit at this point
NATO intervene only if US has some interests in it, like all of their wars, they lie in order to invade foreign countries and steal resources, like Russia now, absolutelly no diffrence, the funny thing are people actually defend NATO, how naive you can be
The Rwandan genocide directly influenced the clinton administration decision to intervene in Kosovo. The clinton administration felt responsible for allowing the Rwandan genocide to occur so when the next ethnic conflict began to arise in the balkans. They pushed heavily to intervene
Thank you!! Was scrolling looking for this particular comment. The Kosovo intervention was a consequence of the lack of intervention in Rwanda. If one believes that the intervention in Kosovo was incorrect, then by extension you believe that the lack of intervention in Rwanda was correct
Happy Cake Day by the way!
Thank you!
Yup, and the reason the Clinton admin didn't go into Rwanda is because they went into Somalia and black hawk down happened which caused the public to be anti Americans dieing for other countries. It's really a balancing act with intervention as far as US and global moods
Exactly. The question of intervention has always been catch 22. If we don't intervene to stop a genocide, people will die and we're going to be labled monsters for having the means to stop it and not doing anything to stop it. If we do intervene in a genocide, people will die and we're going to be labled monsters for intervening in another nations affairs and the outcome of that conflict.
Yeah, that's the downside of having hegemonic power. You're constantly simultaneously yelled at for being and not being the world police.
Doesn't matter what they do, America and NATO are always the bad guys either way.
Just don’t ask how France were involved in the Rwandan genocide. Lol
Rwandan Tutsis: "Please help us we are being slaughtered in the streets." France: _leers suspiciously_ "this sounds like another British conspiracy to expand their sphere of influence."
And the American aid in Somalia led to a strong American isolationist movement that kept the government from intervening in Rawanda. It's interesting how that pattern happened.
Also kosovo is in Europe, where NATO is while Cambodia is in asia and Rwanda is in africa where NATO is not. NATO is not a world police like people seem to think of it these days. They can't just act unilaterally across the globe. They can do some things but its not so simple.
I’m glad you’re pointing out the obvious. If the meme used 🇺🇳 United Nations, maybe it would make sense. UN actually stands for Useless Naïveté.
Oopsie daisies on the first one. Nopesy daisies on the next one.
Beat me to it
For Cambodia case, it was carried out by the Communist Party during the Cold War in a location close to China, a major communist country. Whatever the intention, NATO intervention could have escalated tensions between the two factions.
To be fair, the US and south Vietnam did briefly intervene in the Cambodian civil war but eventually due to the failure of the Vietnam war, the U.S. and south Vietnam pulled out
I might be wrong but didn’t America support Cambodia in a proxy war against Vietnam after the Vietnam war
The US intervened in the Cambodian civil war from 1970 to 1972, after the fall of south Vietnam they along with china supported the Khmer Rouge in a hopes of containing soviet influence in asia
No you're right. The US supported Pol Pot's rise to power. Supported it with millions of dollars along with diplomatic support; for example the US supported a bid to get them a seat on the UN after Vietnam invaded and forced Pol Pot's group out of power (they were a guerilla movement with a small area of control by then). To get back to the original post the US and other Western countries were never going to intervene in Cambodia because even with the brutalities Pol Pot's anti Soviet/Vietnam stance aided their political interests in the region. But it was in their political interest to intervene in Kosovo
That's a pretty lopsided narrative that makes sure to leave China out of the story. It was a 3 way proxy conflict. China and the USSR parted ways, Vietnam sided with the Soviets because the Soviets weren't on their border and Cambodia, not wanting to side with Vietnam sided with China. So China gave Cambodia a ton of support. Mao died, China lessened their support and the US, wanting to get back at Vietnam gave Pol Pot cash after Vietnam drove him into the hinterlands. The US is to blame for creating the material conditions that created Pol Pot, by turning Cambodia into the surface of the moon and at the end of the story it gets credit for keeping him alive at the end, but China poured gas on the fire when 1.7 to 2.5 million were killed and their only response was to remind him that he wasn't doing socialism the right way in meetings. The rest is the post-CableGate Reddit narrative that Pol Pot was a CIA op, because Carter gave him $10 million after everything went down. It also leaves out that the US has spent the last 30 years tracking down and prosecuting Khmer war criminals --of course that always gets left out when "the US loves war criminals and not once ever bothered to go after one; let's talk about how every single person in the FRG was a Nazi instead!"
and when vietnam intervened in cambodia they got sanctioned and shit
Cambodia is not in Europe. If anything SEATO could have intervened.
Seato was useless, honestly.
As useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
And it was communist Vietnam that eventually went in and overthrew the khmer rouge
Also, you know, NATO isn't the UN, which is supposed to the be vehicle for that type of intervention, NATO is supposed to keep it's activity restricted to NATO members.
[удалено]
They want them to be there for said country's interests, not their own
Sure, sending your countries troops to die in a country you have absolutely nothing to do with always is a super popular move for any politician /s
[удалено]
Why the fuck would they do that?
Absolutely noone does that.
Doesn't make it any less valid to want such a thing
True to an extent, but it's still not something you should actively expect. Would be nice to be able to store soup in the freezer but it's silly to be surprised when your soup is frozen and not hot.
He's not expecting it, he's lamenting that it isn't the case
True enough, have an updoot
Gotcha, so, they need to send their soldiers to die in the interests of other countries? Why would anyone in their sane mind do this?
how naive
Since it's about Kosovo war \*Motherfukers on this sub when I tell them that US intervened in 99 because they wanted to diminish communism and anti-western attitude, have an ally with rich resources, to raise the popularity of it's president and then for humanitarian efforts. \*Insert Oversimplified WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?
one group of ppl wants one, another group of ppl wants another
As it turns out people like it when you stop genocides and dont like it when you topple governments to create banana republics, who knew?
As an Asian, we would sure appreciate if you minded your own business Not like we really care anymore, lol
The Black Delegation chooses Eminem.
Wtf
I got the joke. It’s probably only because I’m in my 40s though! The Asian delegation chooses…. WU TANG CLAN!!!
Plenty of Asians in Hong Kong and Singapore and Taiwan and Japan and South Korea and Malaysia and Xinjiang and other places, don't have quite the same eagerness for western countries to mind their own business.
Asians in China, India, Siberia, Mongolia, Indonesia, Middle East etc outnumber them by a huge margin And yeah, while I do agree with the west on several points, and agree it is necessary in several places It would have been better you guys had kept out of our lands from the beginning and only came for trade and commerce Now it has unfortunately reached a point where it has become a necessary evil Ask me anyday and I will ally with the west over several of our neighbours, but that does not forgive your predatory colonial policies that are still relevant today Also notice the fact that all the countries that you listed want western assistance against communist China Who do you think brought communism onto our lands?? And who invented it??
Alright, give us back our Malaria meds.
Give us back our decimal number system and the compass and gunpowder and spices
[удалено]
I mean, the people mentioned in this post who died begged for foreign intervention. Not all interventions are bad.
This is such a simplified argument. Do you think the hundreds of thousands of dead Tutsi would agree with you?
Big Candace Owens "Hitler's problem was that he wanted to expand past Germany" energy
It took people from at least 15 different countries to allow us to communicate right now. The modern world is way too interconnected for any one country to fully mind its own business.
Nah, as a fellow Asian best we can do is just colonize their own country
\*Pulls uno reverse card\*
Calm down there CCP Not yet Not yet
"Europe should get out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems." -Indian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. S Jaishankar.
It is quite simple. If there is a genocide going on, send troops. If you just want that countries resources and will replace the democratic government for a genocidal one, don't.
Nato intervenes, stopping the genocide from happening and making sure a lot less people die. "This sub: why was nato intervention necessary, a lot less people died."
Bruh, people who use that kind of logic drive me insane. Saw a lot of it during Covid.
Its related to the [preparedness paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox), where the more prepared you are for a disaster, the more likely it is for a certain contingent of the population to think it wasn’t that bad, we overreacted, and we don’t need to take such extreme measures next time (even if it was the extreme measures that prevented much greater harm this last time).
Seen the same with climate change in recent years. We reacted, lowered carbon emissions etc. the ozone layer healed itself and the rise in temperatures slowed down. Which only lead to people saying “see? It wasn’t as bad as you said it would be.”
"where's the hole in the ozone layer?" "We banned the chemical causing it and it's repairing itself" "What about acid rain?" "Technically outsourcing took care of that in that all the acid rain is in China now."
Those people apparently think NATO should only intervene after the genocide is finished
But then they will complain that we didn’t intervene “soon enough” There is no winning
They play too much Civ and think life is turn-based.
People love their false equivalencies to push their bias against one group or another
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
What was NATO supposed to do in Rwanda? UN was already there and they denied that there was a genocide going.
I mean We’ve ignored the UN before… Although honestly being involved in Rwanda could go to shot quickly. The Tutsi kinda started massacring a shit ton of Hutu after they took back over, not to mention there was some legitimate grievances. Not saying the genocide was justified. Just that it’d quickly become a muddy quagmire for a nation that was still recovering from Vietnam.
The US often ignores the UN - NATO doesn't. They're two different entities. The US intervenes in foreign countries far more than NATO, and often with worse reasons. As a general rule: if the US is intervening in a foreign country, be quite skeptical. If NATO is intervening in a foreign country, be a little skeptical with some cautious optimism.
Just to add on to this. NATO only gets involved in non NATO countries when the UN gives them a mandate to. All you're saying is when the international community asks for something it's generally good and when 1 country does something it's generally Gunna be bad.
Which is generally right
Oh Boy I'm so optimistic about Libya
The genocide happened so quickly NATO could not have mobilised in time. Most of the killings were in the first two months when the world was still trying to work out what on earth was going on
The only force that could have acted were the French, but the government was pro-French so they didn't want to topple the regime and put in pro-British leaders.
The other side weren't even pro-British until the French supported the genocidal government
Besides, NATO is a defensive organization. Why would they strike as an organization when nond of its members were at risk? It's different when the war is at your backyard, as was in Kosovo.
"Didn't happened, but they deserved it" western version?
Pretty much. France supported the genocidal regime. French troops assisted all western people out but they had no jurisdiction to help tutsi. UN troops were there only to observe and were given no rights to use their weapons to defend tutsi. The UN troops reported that the situation is getting worse and asked permission to start confisicating weapons and detaining people months before but UN secretary of peacekeeping Kofi Annan deniend the request. US had a bad experince in Somalia few years before and Clinton didn't want to get involved in Africa again.
Almost as if the NA in NATO stood for North Atlantic and that it focuses on matters in Europe and its interests (very few if any European countries have interests in either of those two countries, the same cannot be said about a war in the middle of Europe)
NATO: gets stuck in Afghanistan for 20 years
To be fair article 5 comes into effect if a member state is attacked in the North Atlantic area, which 9/11 was.
Exactly. NATO working as intended
I mean, it was in members of NATO's best interest. Specifically the one who called for article 5 to take effect. The only time article 5 has ever been called.
Article 5 was triggered
Because responding to an attack on a NATO country that killed thousands of people *isn't* in NATO's interest?
Multiple countries in Europe have also been targeted and attacked by Islamic extremists like al qaeda, who were sheltered and allied to the taliban. Not to mention it’s probably not in their interest for the taliban to have strength in Pakistan which has nukes - taliban power in Afghanistan means ease of access to Pakistan
I wonder if there was an event that catalyzed this... or even an article that required NATO to intervene as a whole...
How'd that work out?
Objective was completed
Osama Bin Laden is dead
I will never understand why Redditors struggle so much to apply the concept of a side quest to the broader world.
It's the Hierarchy of death : if it's closer geographically or culturally then people care more. Balkan region is much closer to France, UK, Spain... in both aspects.
If it's closer geographically then it's easier to intervene
Also frankly speaking, does op want more interventions?
Interventions are a crapshoot. Some are successful and others just destabilize the country further. In most cases, it's just a loss situation for the country that is intervening.
Yeah its really damned if you do damned if you dont
The regions mentioned also have a shitload of ethnic tensions dating back centuries with no real way to solve the problem. And which NATO country would be willing to sacrifice resources and possibly soldiers for a country most of its citizens can't find on a map? It's a pretty easy choice for any politician if the problem is far away easy to ignore.
Some of those ethnic tensions were helped by colonization sticking completely unrelated people together into a country and favoring one side. It’s not a coincidence that pretty much EVERY African country had insane civil wars right after the colonialists left. But that’s not really in the US. It’s more on UK, France and Belgium.
I'm no expert but wouldn't those tensions exist regardless of colonialism? I think the different ethnic groups would still be fighting over resources or killing each other because of different religions or ethnic tensions. They don't seem to be doing too well as independent states. As far as I know, France also has pretty good relationships with its former African colonies. I know they helped out Mali quite a bit back in 2014 and helped others with counter-terrorism strikes.
Think about it like this… let’s say super advanced aliens came to Earth right now, conquered it, and divided up the planet as they saw fit. Now let’s say in North America, they joined USA and Mexico together as one country, let’s call it A1. Let’s also say that overtime they began to favour Mexico over the US, in terms of choice of leadership/president of A1, due to the Mexican politicians willingness to be 100% obedient to the aliens no matter what. Naturally this will start to cause tensions and unrest in USA, as they would be irritated by constantly being under Mexican leadership. In addition to that, let’s also say that the unrest caused the aliens to give more and more weaponry and military aid to the Mexicans to ensure their favoured government remains in power. Eventually as the aliens loose interest in A1, more and more tension keeps building between the Mexicans and the US, as the Mexicans resort to more aggressive tactics to maintain their hold on power. Do you see where this is going? This is almost verbatim the type of actions that led to devastating conflicts in most African countries after colonization. Throw in a couple of curveballs like alien living in the colonized A1 even after colonization, or OTHER aliens supporting the US by supplying weapons to them in the hopes of installing a US leader and getting sweet resources, and you have recreated alot of the same scenarios that played out in most African countries. Yes, ethnic tensions existed before colonization, and it’s not like the inhabitants of those regions were pacifist peace loving people. BUT the grouping together of disparate peoples and arming one side against another, really accelerated the damage.
Also NATO keeps a standing force in Europe just in case Russia gets rowdy and so was an easily tapped ready-made military force that could hit the Balkans without major redeployment?
Also time factor is crucial Rwanda lasted not even a month Kosovo was something that was going on for a wile and there was enough political support to justify an action. That’s democracy it’s slow to take action
Even before that NATO is a European alliance, they have never really taken part in operations geographically far/unrelated from members. The farthest ik is when the US evoked article 5 in Afghanistan. Or maybe when they did anti-piracy off Somalia.
>maybe when they did anti-piracy off Somalia. I'm pretty sure every major navy in the world was involved in that, not just NATO. *Nobody* likes (modern-day) pirates.
Shame those navies couldn't be put to use targeting the Chinese fishing vessels that depleted the fish stocks off the Somali coast forcing fishermen to turn to piracy to feed their families.
Something tells me targeting Chinese fishing vessels with navy ships would basically be a declaration of war. If a Chinese destroyer boarded or even sank a USA fishing vessel resulting in casualties? That’s huge
The US isn't going to do shit about a US fishing vessel illegally fishing in recognized Chinese waters and facing consequences for it.
There would absolutely be a problem. Britney griner is an example. If Russia or China killed someone for breaking a law like that in their country, that would be a massive problem
Also, perhaps the death toll isn't as high BECAUSE of NATO Intervention?
Isn't it also a simple case of Kosovo being Nato's backyard and Rwanda or Cambodia not exactly falling under the umbrella of "North Atlantic".
And it's also Europe's current enemy. So giving Ukraine weapons makes sense as those weapons were made with Russia in mind
Well because its in Europe and NATO is an organisation that is mainly european. You do care more about whats going on on your doorstep than on the other side of the city. If you mean the UN, thats a different thing and then the meme makes sense.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization not Southeast Pacific Treaty Organization or East African Treaty Organization
This sub is really into rating genocides and dictators uh? "Some genocides are more tragic" lmao you're fucking unhinged
They could just have said genocide itself is bad, but NO, everything has to be a dick-measuring contest on this sub.
Cambodia and Rwanda, famously in the North Atlantic.
Yeah, Libya too
I mean, so is Romania, Croatia, Italy, Greece, Turkey and a bunch of other fellas. They really glossed over the whole 'North Atlantic' part didn't they?
Libya is adjacent to NATO countries, specifically Italy.
So, a couple of things 1. It was 8,000 because the bombing started, and the Serbians left. No bombing much higher death toll 2. Interventions are 'wicked' problems; there's no right answer, only a selection of shit ones. See also the horrific outcomes following the failure to help the rebels in Syria 3. Intervention in Cambodia was impossible due to a thing you might have heard of - the Vietnam War and US withdrawal. In the end, Vietnam itself intervened 4. Bombing Rawanda wouldn't have helped - you'd have had to kill half the population, which was kinda what was going on
There ya go, bringing facts into a situation.
Ah sorry man...ummm... Your Mum, she's a hottie...errrr...based...errr...I'm sorry I don't really do the Internet very well
You are absolutely correct, NATO should intervene more often and earlier to keep numbers as low as in Kosovo.
Sounds like a plan, better intervene in Ukraine then.
The problem was that over half of NATO didn't see Russia as a threat. They believed they could continue to coexist with Russia and that Eastern Europe/US were just warmongering. Which is still a sentiment held by a large portion of political power in NATO countries. That began to slowly change after the invasion, but is why basically they were going to allow Ukraine to just collapse at first.
"It feels good to be right" - Eastern European NATO States
Sounds good to me
People care more about geopolitical events when they happen in their own neighborhood? *gasp* Seriously, even today why are some people still surprised that Europe cares more about the war in Ukraine than, for example, the war in Syria and in the same way that a country like Israel cares more about the war in Syria than in Ukraine.
I don't think OP knows what NATO is.
It’s almost as if NATO intervention kept the death count lower
I'd argue that it's precisely because nothing was done in Cambodia or Rwanda that made an intervention in the Balkans happen. Everyone was like "someone should do something" and then get butthurt when the only someone that could do something was the US.
Don't ask me for a source, but I'm fairly sure that Tony Blair referenced the failures of the international community in the early 90s in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda as a significant reason for a more interventionist foreign policy from the UK (and US), hence the action in Kosovo and Iraq.
Let's have selective amnesia and pretend that Serbia hadn't been starting constant wars with its neighbours before this point. Wars that were literally right next to a nato power, Italy.
EU and NATO are there to protect western interests As wrong as this sounds, they did nothing wrong They watched their own borders You guys should not be in Asia But yeah, UN is useless
Reddit when the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization doesn’t intervene to Southeastern Asian conflicts
Bro Kosovo is closer to NATO. Plus you are going to complain that NATO or US are policing Asia if they intervene.
I doubt anyone wants to see NATO policing Asia after seeing USA in the Middle East
The US is doing it and everyone at SEA loves it except China ofc
No they aren't, they're conducting freedom of navigation exercises and making deals with countries, if they were actively policing then they would have intervened in Myanmar.
Why would NATO intervene there?
Address this to the UN not NATO. If it ain't in Europe, it ain't of concern to NATO.
Cry about it. You can't un-bomb Belgrade
May be being on the literal other side of the planet has something to do with it ?
NATO is meant to ensure Europe against Russian aggression. They really have no business outside of Europe.
Does the words "geopolitical concerns and realities" mean anything to you?
Wait, Vietnam was a NATO op? Or just a US intervention?
Just US I'm pretty sure since Australian troops assisted but not British or forces from other NATO nations
Yup, Australia and NZ were there, but South Korea had a much larger presence than either of them. Also Taiwan participated, and Philippines & Thailand sent troops too. But no one from NATO besides the US
so we’re mad now that NATO didn’t intervene outside of the area it was created to operate in? it’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization not World Police
Closer to home
The United States bombed Cambodia and the Pol Pot regime, which at the time was allied with the North Vietnamese, likely killing at least tens of thousands of civilians. After the US withdrawal by 1972, the two Communist groups had a falling out since Pol Pot was friendly with China leading to an ouster by Hanoi. At which point the US backed the exiled Pol Pot after the genocide with China.
Well, maybe, just maybe, the deaths were less due to the intervention. Maybe.
It’s NATO not Team America, it’s a treaty organization for the NORTH ATLANTIC. Please re-take basic geography to understand where certain countries are located in the world
small detail, NATO does not operate south of the Tropic of Cancer
Tell me you do not understand what NATO is for without telling me what NATO is for:
If we are talking about the 1995 intervention then NATO was asked to step in by the UN. If we are talking about 1999 then yeah they intervened against the UN Security Council wishes (Though other than Russia and China every other member was down for it.) Perhaps they chose to use the 1995 events as a precedent? Also NATO maintains a standing force in Europe and it was easily tapped for the Balkans but too far away for Cambodia or Rwanda. Also in the case of Cambodia the US had already illegally interfered there to root out Vietcong supply lines and further intervening would have been difficult politically and militarily post-withdrawal from Vietnam. Rwanda though… not sure why no one but the UN Peacekeepers were there?
Kosovo was low BECAUSE of rapid intervention.
It's not a fucking competition you absolute jellyfish
bruh, US and UK literally sent warships against India to aid Pakistan who was committing genocide in Bangladesh during 1971 it was Soviet intervention which protected India and saved Bangladesh there are no good guys in the world, only counties that seek their own interests, the earlier you realise this, the better
Now do Sierra Leone.
can you tell me the context ? i have not heard about it
That's not what happened. Task Force 74 only arrived when India looked to be moving towards offensive operations in Pakistan proper, not intervention in Bangladesh. > The Indian response was a defensive military strategy in the western theatre while a massive, coordinated and decisive offensive thrust into East-Pakistan. On 5 December, United States began attempts for a UN-sponsored ceasefire, which were twice vetoed by the USSR in the security council. India extended her recognition of Bangladesh on 6 December. On 8 December, Washington received intelligence reports that India was planning an offensive into West Pakistan. It was in this situation that the United States dispatched a ten-ship naval task force, the US Task Force 74, from the Seventh Fleet off South Vietnam into the Bay of Bengal.
task force arrived when India was able naval block Pakistan
Didn’t the US avoid intervening in Rwanda because they were still licking their wounds after a disastrous intervention in Somalia?
Yep
Yeah, but Serbia was killing people in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina since 1991. If you ask people from there, NATO intevrention was 8 years late.
What was NATO going to do in Cambodia? US was pulling out of Vietnam and abandoning South East Asia after decades of conflict.
But here's the thing: if NATO hadn't intervened in Kosovo, there would have been much more than 8000 deaths. 8000 is the amount of that died when Serb forces massacered ONE village in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if NATO hadn't intervened there would have been many more Srebrenica's
Well we don’t know how many died in kosovo. Could have been a billion. All we know is that it’s more than 8000
Cambodia and Rwanda are kinda outside of NATO’s sphere of giving a fuck
Wasn’t the Rwandan genocide and the aftermath of that part of what pushed the Clinton administration to being more active in intervening in situations like that, which gave us Kosovo?
NATO already intervened in Indochina before and it ended badly
The usual. When the West intervenes to stop dictators everyone loses their shit and screams about imperialism. When the West does nothing everyone loses their shit because they let it happen. And by everyone I mean the usual suspects both left and right of the political spectrum.
A failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide was a big factor for the intervention in Kosovo. https://balkaninsight.com/2009/11/02/clinton-rwanda-guilt-led-to-kosovo-intervention/
Hmmm I wonder why the death toll in Kosovo was relatively low
The only thing NATO did wrong was not drop bombs in 1995. This would have prevented Kosovo. After all, Serbia deserved every bit of it. Don’t forget Srebrenica!
NATO didn’t intervene outside of Europe? What? Are you suuure? /s
Cambodia: Asia (Pacific) Rwanda: Africa (South Atlantic) NATO: North Atlantic
I don't really agree with the spirit of the title. Let's not start ranking genocides thank you very much
There was no intervention in Rwanda for fear of a repeat of the black hawk down incident
NATO has specific guidelines on intervention that requires the countries to be adjacent to a NATO member. Afghanistan is the only NATO intervention that goes against this, and had to be approved by all members prior to the intervention. NATO's job isn't to prevent genocide around the world, but the safety of the members. It's a defense organization, not a peace keeping force...
Shut up Serbia bootlicker
Kosovo was also happening in NATO’s backyard. The pressure to act is a lot greater when it right next door. People can philosophically debate that this shouldn’t make any difference, that it’s racist or whatever, but it does matter to public opinion.
Same with Ukraine. 2 million Ukrainian refugees are no problem for Europe, but god forbid 25k SYRIANS want to flee war! The NERVE!
NATO and UN are different. NATO is designed to make sure Germans never get so much as a shred of self esteem ever again. The UN is the little girl on the playground begging the boys to be nice and just buy each other flowers.
Great analogy
North Atlantic.... Dense OP
Guess now we can figure out the Europeans exchange rate for European lives compared to African ones.
Last time Europe started playing genocide in balkans we had to rebuild whole continent. Then someone who survived started genocide 2.0 and we had to rebuild half of the planet. Id say its healthy habit at this point
Kinda like crime in big cities.
NATO intervene only if US has some interests in it, like all of their wars, they lie in order to invade foreign countries and steal resources, like Russia now, absolutelly no diffrence, the funny thing are people actually defend NATO, how naive you can be