- Thread starter
- #61
Before the war started I didn't know there was such a thing as "Peace Keeping Troops", sounds like an oxymoron. Now I know you can have Peace Keeping Tanks, Nukes, Missiles, Atomic Bombs. Putin taught me something new I never knew before until now.
Just like the President had up to 10,000 troops for "peacekeeping" missions that can be deployed without the consent of Congress and an official declaration of war. Vietnam started as such a deployment, and war was never officially declared. Congress just kept extending the President's peacekeeping authority.
The UN and NATO both have their own peacekeeping divisions, which are used to do things like defending civilians, protect humanitarian workers, etc. They don't get directly involved in military operations on either side, but if Russia were to start attacking civilians who are fleeing, the UN and NATO troops, who are typically better trained and better armed than Russian soldiers, would have the legal authority to use lethal force. They are also used to stop things like genocide, The last time the UN did anything major with their troops was 1994 in Rwanda. They sent troops in to defend the victims of the genocide and escort refugees to safety. They did have to actively fight the Rwandan militias at some points.
if the UN decides they need to intervene to protect refugees or prevent civilian deaths, the Russians don't really stand a chance. The UN troops are very well trained and very well armed. They are one of the most effective paramilitary organizations in the world.
and if NATO brings Ukraine in, then you can bet NATO forces will be sent in at some point, and they are just as effective as the UN forces, but without the limitation of not specifically being involved in offensive combat. NATO forces are specifically intended to give direct military aid as party of the treaty.