[xdennis]

There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used by Russia to steal Crimea.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo

[VincentEvans]

There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.

[0dayz]

You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?

[VincentEvans]

I don’t mean to say that UN is not capable of ANY action, but rather increasingly not capable of the scope of action that is meaningful in my view.

Also, I think the impotence of the UN is a recent and progressing phenomenon. That is to say that its possible it was more capable and willing to act in the 90ies and progressively became less so since.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

If Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.