Sweden can easily claim to be a "humanitarian superpower", because they don't have the option to be imperial and as a small state none of the responsability that comes with capability to influence the world with hard power. By the way, Carl the 12th would have found the concept laughable.
What is relatively unique for the USA is the occasional ethical dimension of their foreign policy or wars. Some of it resulting from experience in the two world wars, some of it from their Puritan roots. They could have gone imperial, but didn't.
That is a load of nonsense. There has always been war, and in war people die. In general the USA has been a stabilizing factor in the world the last 100 years. Policy has always multiple goals. National interest, risk reduction, self defence.
Turkey is a NATO member, and important ally against Ruzzia. That is why USA sells weapons to them. That doesn't mean the USA supports their attacks on the Kurds or us responsible for them. In fact the USA has shielded the Kurds in Syria from Turkish attacks on several occasions.
No, the Albanians wasn't bombed. It was Serbia who did not sign the agreement who got hit. But NATO was very good at only hitting military and infrastructure targets, so few Serbian civilians was killed. Of course the Serbias wanted to keep the OSCE monitors. They would be their hotages and shields.
It would have happened anyway. The Serbs would have waited until the world was distracted and gone at the Albanian majority. The Albanians would continue to provoke a reaction by continuing their path to independence. And Serbia had no credibility nor points left after the Bosnian atrocities.
More nonsense. The intervention in Ex-Yugoslavia was not about democracy or regime change. It was to stop genocide and ethic cleansing. And your anology is just plain stupid.
That is nonsense. And you know it. When the Serbs rejected the demands, they reinforced their troops in Kosovo and the monitors were withdrawn to safeguard them, the Albanian kosovars rightly feared thatva genocide was going to start. They welcomed the bombings of the Serb forces.
Sorry, you are comming with the false serb post facto rationalizations. The annex B, which provided for the safe and free passage of NATO forces and resupply was not the major point of disagreement. It was the path to independence of Kosovo, that was the problem.
The NATO forces no longer had the patience for Serb ethnic cleansing. We saw what would happen in Bosnia with genocide and all, and would no longer have any of it. That is why Serbia was presented with an ultimatum, and when they said no, they were bombed. Which got the Serbs to sign the agreement.
Nonsense. There was a genocide under way, and that was stopped. Such an operation is multi stage and takes time. You don't start by bombing. You start with reason and diplomacy. Then progress to UN forces, safe zones and then bombing and full intervention. The US had the capability to win the air.
They certainly helped the Kosovar Albanians. They were being attacked by the serbs. And no the attack certainly didn't help Milosevic stay in power. It fact it was a contributing factor if his fall. Curious un-factual views on history that you have.
Kurds are persecuted in Turkey and attacked abroad by Turkey. But genocide it isn't. Don't abuse the word. And there is no factual basis on thousands of villagers destroyed. But all that is irrelevant. NATO is a defensive alliance by sovereigns. Not a global police force obligated to uphold justice
Nonsense. What I argue is that USA has an outsize influence on world events since ww1. Sometimes for good sometimes for bad. But as a non imperial power more interested in order, mostly for good when it doesn't isolate.
The sanctions are quite irrelevant to the Venezuelan economy. Already collapsed before they were made, and China is anyway the mayor trading partner. The economic collapse is entirely of the regimes own making.
