107
UK and European peacekeepers in Ukraine would be allowed to fire back at Russians
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2026
107 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2584 readers
1212 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great News Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
moth has always thought it was really weird that UN peacekeepers never actually kept the peace because they couldn't even defend themselves, let alone innocent civilians around them.
They are essentially voluntary human shields, but yes they are allowed to defend themselves and even civilians:
https://opiniojuris.org/2019/05/01/soldier-self-defense-symposium-the-evolution-of-the-un-doctrine-of-self-defence-in-un-peacekeeping/?hl=en-IE#%3A%7E%3Atext=At+least+from+1993%2C+the+UN+has%2Crights+law+and%2C+in+some+cases+IHL%3F
tell that to the people of Rwanda and Srebrenica, and that's just to start. they can protect civilians if it doesn't jeopardize the mandate they have. the problem with that is the UN security council has five members with veto power and a global interest in maintaining many conflicts for the purposes of imperialism. historically, there have been a lot of times when protecting civilians from being brutally murdered wasn't politically convenient.
having the legal authority to intervene or even protect yourself doesn't mean shit if you don't have the ability or political power to do so. russia is a member of the security council with veto power. the security council oversees UN peacekeepers. the very people the peacekeepers would be protecting civilians from are the people who can veto their ability to protect civilians. which is why, if you carefully read that article, the official never once says they would be allowed to protect civilians, and specifically mentions that any engagements would be “defensive in nature”.
the UN is a absolutely worthless organization when it comes to stopping powerful countries from doing terrible things. it has absolutely zero ability to protect the civilians in Ukraine from further russian imperialism or ethnic cleansing.
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?
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.