106
UK and European peacekeepers in Ukraine would be allowed to fire back at Russians (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They are always defensive in nature.

The idea that the UN hasn't kept peace is pretty laughable. I'm not sure what you expect it to do - membership is voluntary, and it is 100% better to have a belligerent, antagonist, bad faith enemy sitting at a table with you than not.

As a citizen and resident of a small nation living beside an antagonist, militant, imperial nation on the security council, the UN is not there to make sure they don't do anything bad. It's there so that when they do, they and their citizens hear the consequences.

None of which has anything to do with Peacekeepers who once deployed do not have to have "approval" to defend themselves or civilians, per the scary long document you didn't read. Do you want me to find it in a convenient YouTube format for you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    if you had bothered to look up even the couple of examples moth provided, you would know they do need approval, and that approval has been denied on more than one occasion. in the case of Rwanda, the commanding officer pleaded to be given the resources to defend the civilians. he was denied for political reasons.

    but if your smug ignorance feels more comfortable to you, then by all means, continue. but moth isn't going to waste time arguing with someone simping for a powerless bureaucratic PR agency just because it's controlled by western liberal nations and that makes it above reproach to you. moth supposes your time would be better spent cracking open a history book.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •