The UN peacekeepers have existed since 1948. In that time...

with way more members and a focus beyond containing russia.

>NATO + SEATO + ANZUS + anyone else who isn't a filthy commie
>not awesome

If I could be a bit more serious, the way the Security Council is set up, it's almost guaranteed that a mid tier power can get at least one member to use their veto power to support their bullshit.

This leads to the UN not being effective.

That and peace hawks in the west have made military deployments much more expensive politically.

This is a general pattern for predicting if the UN will be effective.

>is the country sending the UN troops good at warfare

If the answer is no, blue helmets won't change anything.

When "UN" means the US Army or the South Africans or something, somebody is getting the shit kicked out of them.

a lot of rapes, seriously UN missions in Southern Africa have a lot of rapes, read the reports

there are many successes however, maintaining peace in Cyprus, working well in the DRC, the Macedonia Crisis

The Macedonia Crisis is actually arguably the definition of the perfect UN peacekeeping mission, everything was done right

see: the Congo over the past 50 years

I just don't see the point of the peacekeeping forces in general. It guarantees neutrality, but that's not a good thing necessarily, it means that the "peacekeeping" forces have to watch war crimes happen without any power to do anything about it. They might as well not be there.

Those little kids are about to get BRAZIL'D

If peacekeepers have the means and the authority to wet niggas, they'll generally be more effective.

There was one US colonel who was known as "mean Mike" or some shit like that because he went around Bosnia with a handheld GPS and a map of the ceasefire lines, and threatened to have Apaches come blow up any roadblock or military base that was on the wrong side of the line.

This.

Based

oh and French Peacekeepers did a great job in Mali

However you could question if they count as 'UN' peacekeepers

they also changed the ROE for Peacekeepers by actively hunting down insurgents and neutralizing them

Pussy whipped Dutch fags

The peacekeepers are literally just the military part of the UN. That is to say, completely fucking useless and so caught up in bureaucracy and political hand wringing that they never achieve anything other than a "strong condemnation".

They'd really be better off just asking countries to send their actual military so that they can genuinely sort shit out. It's why I find the idea of an "EU army" so daft. Just imagine it. They'd be about two years late to a war just getting the paperwork sorted out to be able to start an engagement.

i disagree in that Peacekeepers are actually really under-bureaucratic (is that a word)

perfect example is in the DRC where a simple lack of management and bureaucracy meant that local militias and UN forces worked on different goals and as a result the operation is a clusterfuck

then the started to send in lots of bureaucrats who were Peacekeepers, but these guys arent just armed, their roles were to help local governments and set up stately institutions. They start to get commanders to work on local state issues rather than with a nation-wide approach and the mission starts to make in-roads

other missions though, yeah you are right on a lot of awful, awful missions

PROTIP: UN Peacekeepers are national militaries wearing blue helmets.

When the War in Ukraine started, some of the helicopters attacking the rebels were still in UN paint jobs because the Ukrainians sent so many of them to various war zones for them delicious UNbux

Most of the time the people who commit genocide is allied with a permanent member of the security council. So unless a permanent member is boycotting the UN they cant do shit.

Honestly I think Sub Saharan Africa is the only place where the peacekeepers can actually make a difference, mostly because they're so politically unstable that anyone can jump in and say what to do. As says, when it comes to anything involving politics it's just a disaster and might as well not be there.

Well yes, they're clearly the forces from a country, but they're controlled by UN orders. You could have the best military force in the world, but if it's managed by incompetents it's going to be incompetent.

I think a huge problem with the whole peacekeeping issue is that the system is set up in a way where nations provide troops for financial gain

look at the top 5 contributors in terms of numbers to the Peacekeeping forces, you'll be amazed

its the only incentive for sending your soldiers into harms way with a blue hat and orders that you can't actually engage in combat even if you're being raped

>UN Peacekeepers are useless.
>*If UN decides to keep an actual army.*
>WAAAAAH GLOBALIST SHILLS! GLOBALIST SHILLS! MOMMY!!! MUH SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE NATION!!!!!!!
There's no winning with you guys, isn't there?

That's not what anyone is saying. People are saying it should just be the case that countries provide their own army, not in a weird middle man way.

>top 5 contributors in terms of numbers to the Peacekeeping forces
>Mongolia
>Guinea
>Malawi
>France
>Malaysia

What do they get out of it?

Free military training?

money

oh thats odd, it used to be Pakistan and Bangladesh in the top 2 last time i checked a few months ago

basically a UN soldier earns the country a wage, and you can actually make some profit off sending soldiers

heres the catch, if your able to make a profit, chances are your already offering a low shitty wage, and from that well you get soldiers interested in self gain, not pride

really interesting article i read ages ago linking these kinds of soldiers (Uruguayan peacekeepers) and soldiers fighting for the rebels in Sierra Leone, the rebel soldiers were attracted to the movement not because of a grand political movement or sentiment, but for pure gain. People who fight for pure gain are far more likely to be the kinds of people to murder civilians and hire child prostitutes in their own UN marked vehicles outside of schools (see the mission in Mozambique)

>Yugoslavia
>Somalia
>Rwanda
They gotta be the most retarded non-army ever witnessed by mankind. IIRC in Rwanda a bunch of them got slaughtered by a machete-wielding mob because their ROA didn't allow them to use guns. What a collection of faggots

Yes, Russia and China, incredibly old countries/nations that were almost wiped out of existence through industrial genocide shortly before the UN was created, should be kicked out of the UN.

The war in Korea was for sure very well-managed, with no supply and logistics issues that would have been simply embarrassing for western powers to have at the time and the young men sent there most certainly "pushed shit in", especially Task Force Faith.

Serbia. Iraq. Libya. Paradises on earth. If only more random countries could get the sweet dicking that only a disregarded or NATO-guided UN can give.

>ctrl + f : concern
>0 results found
Damn Veeky Forums you suck

They have achieved the deepest, most dire expression of grave concern

Honestly the fact Veeky Forums doesn't just parrot tired memes is what I like about it.

>Do nothing
more like
>sell sex slaves
>get money
>peacefully

I dunno who youre arguing with itt

>That and peace hawks in the west have made military deployments much more expensive politically.
What rot, I see you were still in primary school during the Iraq war. That proved just how cheap politically a military intervention was.

Weren't they supposed to be like MP?

>bunch of countries "organized" in a mighty military force that never achieves anything due to lack of actual organization and conflicting interests of members

Hmm, hasn't Europe already done something like that before? What was it called again?

In the short term maybe.

We didn't even know what the fuck was going on. Asked for support multiple times but no answer.

They helped serve as a tripwire on the Syrian-Israel and Egypt-Israel fronts.

Well there's been no genocide in the last twenty years

UN does not truly have their own military forces and an agenda that is all their own.

...

retard.

Name one

Not him, but--
>The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, calling itself Islamic State) is recognized by the UN as the perpetrator of a genocide of Yazidis in Iraq.
>The genocide has led to the expulsion, flight and effective exile of the Yazidis from their ancestral lands in Northern Iraq.
>The genocide led to the abduction of Yazidi women and massacres that killed at least 5,000 Yazidi civilians during what has been called a "forced conversion campaign" being carried out in Northern Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), starting in 2014.

I'd also like to point out that their mission isn't just "genocide prevention", and that a (supposed) lack of genocide does not make the UN peacekeeping forces obsolete-- it's the bureaucracy/red tape/middle-man shenanigans/lack of action.

i'll recall it for you, they where doing a great job of keeping a huge mob at bay, but they were outnumbered and didn't have any resources, so they got orders to surrender themselves before they had killed dozens of militant, while there was still a chance they'd make it out alive. The militants agreed to let them go, but slaughtered them once they gave up their weapons.
When those 10 Belgian paratroopers were prisoners and saw the situation going south, other Belgian intervention teams went in, but faced heavy resistance and the Bengal force which was actually responsible for interventions locked itself up in it's quarters.
None of them got a bullet, they were all beaten to death.
Still the biggest Belgian military loss since that day (in 1994)

UN peacekeepers from Africa helped spread AIDS across the world.
Thanks UN

What would've happened if they broken their ROA? Its kinda hard to believe they were willing to lay down their weapons in front of a hostile Rwandan mob.

Finnish peacekeepers were in Sinai keeping Jews and Egyptians from each others' throats when Jews were occupying Sinai. One day it looked like a fight was going to break out between the two so the peacekeepers went between the groups and beat the shit out them.

They would have been severly outnumbered and probably fuck up any chance at a 'diplomatic' solution, at that point they had already completed their objective and saved a Rwandan goverment official, there was no reason to get into a fight with the militants at that point. Not like that other instance where Belgian troops were allowed to leave, abandoning a few hunderd Tutsi's who were then massacred. The orders to lay down their arms came from higher up, from people who weren't on the field and thought that if they surrender before they actually started shooting the mob, they might have a chance to get out. Which wasn't all stupid, because the Rwandan 'command' agreed to it. It was only after the surrender that Rwandan officers told their mob these paratroopers were responsible for the death of the president and then just let do mob do its mobbing.

That's false though.

>They would have been severely outnumbered
What was the mob armed with? I'm curiously if it was mostly machetes vs machine guns.

>diplomatic solution
What type of solution were they looking for at that point? You said they allowed a bunch of Tutsis to die before. Why did they send so few in the first place?

If you are going to blame Rwanda don't blame the peacekeepers, those small number of Beligians and Canadians wanted to do more but Kofi Annan and the secretariat literally postponed reports and actions

Seriously look it up, the only good thing Annan did for peacekeeping was R2P

People shit on the peacekeepers a lot but the problem is more to do with their orders a lot of the time

>People shit on the peacekeepers
What they do is more public in the sense you actually know what they are/are not doing. Reports about how the higher ups fucked things up usually come out later if at all when most people have stopped caring.

The UN needs to fuck off and let june apes kill eachother.

No idea what they where armed with, as far as i knew parts of it were 'Rwandan military' or at least parts of it. I do know that it was a Belgian Mortar platoon. I don't know if the instance of abandoning the Tutsi's was before or after that, it was in the same period of chaos, but i think the abandoning came afterwards and that in that instance they would have shot their way out if neccesary. If i'm not mistaken that was a company as well, instead of one platoon.

I think they were thinking 'we didn't shoot anyone and we're not Tutsi's, no reason for these Hutu's not to let us retreat to our base.'

>5,000+ deaths
>genocide

By the way, I didn't manage to find any evidence that at least 5,000 Yazidis have been killed. Could you provide it?

so it practically means the UN peacekeepers is basically formed by mercenaries

Probably bait but i'll bite
>nukes

I once read a report on a website about the UN peacekeepers where the countries sending their soldiers were compared to mercenaries of old.
The author said that the pakistanis acted in the same way as some german princedoms during the age of enlightenment by having a large army that fights for foreign powers in exchange for payment. And the Gurkhas were compared to the swiss because they are piss poor and serve as mercenaries in the armys of foreign nations.
In this case the UN takes the role of the foreign nation.

Nigga there's a ton of genocide. It's just broken into smaller scale/faction stuff. The north korean government is still executing people with flamethrowers.

UN troops bullied Katanga in 63 so it reunited with Kongo-Leopoldville, not sure if that counts a keeping peace but they achieved their objective.
Entente Cordiale?

>This leads to the UN not being effective.
This leads to the UN actually being effective. Because the ability to appeal to one of the higher powers interest and get their commitment encourages actors to remain in the UN and work through that framework. And it's not like Midtier powers can't secure a great powers support outside the UN framework.

You take away the Security Council, and you get the League Of Nations again. And absolute majority body stacked in favor of a western democracy. And what happened? America, the USSR, Japan, Germany and Italy left, leaving the vast bulk of the worlds economy and military power outside of it. Real effective.

Yeah, because when everyone just sent in their armies to straighten things out, the Congo worked out REAL great.

You're kinda stupid.

97% of all soldiers in history fought for food/money. Food/money is also 97% of politics.

Please don't say somebody fights for money like it's some sort of redpill.

white genocide