Because india and china didnt want money from un as they have a large number of troops they send them to un mission and india also want a permanent sit in un but bangladesh have very small army compared to india army and china as they have one of the largest army in the world but now india also reducing troops like china
The definition of peacekeeping has changed over the years. Nowadays, peacekeeping is not about keeping peace but about actively intervening into conflicts and using violent means to achieve certain goals. You can see this in Mali. The peacekeeping mission is not about trying to keep peace between the Malian government and the various terrorist/rebel forces. The UN peacekeepers are actively fighting the terrorists. Hence, there have been so many casualties (170) amongst the peacekeeping troops already.
So many Indians getting butthurt about India finding no mention in this video. Relax fellas, they enumerated the poorest countries that send peacekeepers and while India does send the most peacekeepers it is not the poorest of countries. That is the main reason they didn't mention India here.
This is true, and yet I doubt that’s the reason. Why would they just say oh, we can’t be bothered with the work involved in oppressing these countries we exploit. They must be less capable of controlling poor nations as easily as they formerly did. That’s hopeful. Soon maybe everyone will have to stop bossing around resource rich, cash poor countries and let their people rule themselves as they may.
I feel obligated to say that Britain, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, has around 1000 peacekeepers active as I speak. However, they’re only deployed in Cyprus, where there is mostly relative peace. Only occasionally do they have to stop and order people back to their territory, but all they really do is walk around a deserted town.
These mission have valuable training and experience to be gained by emerging nations and their military command that can only be gotten through combat.
@@imfrommars9134 where ever u r from u ask a soldier from ur country to go to the Siachen glacier and live there for years let's see then who deserves and who doesn't
Times have changed indeed. Peacekeeping may not be an option nor applicable anymore in certain places at certain times. Reality bites & if a govt of a country can't do anything about it then no foreign intervention can bring about peace.
@@slownix-6917 lol yes l know it's the United Nations I should have been more specific I meant was what is the relevance of this un mission to Canada's agenda in the world
@@Mikesmith-uv8xm the problem is we don't really have an agenda now. Under Harper our agenda was whatever the Americans told us it was. Reducing violence on the ground in that region will make a big difference in the number of mass migrations from that area and that alone will reduce chaos. But we literally have no stand on anything like human rights or peacekeeping now. Our government makes decisions to please their donors...and the vast majority of them are not soldiers. I can think of a few places where peacekeepers are needed but those missions will never happen. But if you're going to have troops they do have to train and that was one of the benefits of being involved in so many missions in the past. The missions changed dramatically when the UN became on offensive force in the former Yugoslavia. But properly designed missions where we can actually make an impact are still worth doing.
@@oworcestershire7331 A loss they shouldn't afford. Why would you send your troops, troops that your taxpayers have paid for, to places that cant give them any leverage.
@@MG-tg8zm many of the wealthy nations have a direct causal relationship with the turmoil within nations that are to be receiving said peacekeeping missions and should by moral reasoning alone be bound to "keep the peace" in these nations
Maybe because these missions have nothing to do with peace, but rather backup for U.S. military interventions. But peacekeeping is easier to sell to populations.
But india has contributed to more than 250,000 soldiers for peacekeeping missions who will count that Captain Gurbachan singh salaria was awarded the param vir chakra the highest gallantry award in the indian army who the hell will count that.
Because wealthy nations know their is power, where they are soldiers and they rather spend their money on their own armies and its selfish, maybe we need united nations peace keeper force ?
Veterans cost money. Look at the number of disability awards from veterans affairs. I know from experience the numbers from Afghanistan pale to the casualties from peacekeepers. It’s why after service support should be included in military spending data. You plan for the decommissioning of a ship or plane, but not a soldier. It’s why the government has said they can’t afford it before, veterans ask for too much.
It’s tragic that something like peace should be monetized? It’s tragic that peace should result in 170 killed as well. I suppose we don’t expect them to work as slaves as well as sacrifice their lives.
"Migration is a powerful driver of economic growth, dynamism and understanding. It allows millions of people to seek new opportunities, benefiting communities of origin and destination alike.”" - UN Secretary-General António Guterres.... Ruzindana•
@1:25 Can't even find China on a map, ur geography teacher must be proud.
Right
Like excuse me WFT?!
Also put France in Spain
It wasn't a map that they made. Its a risk map (a popular board game)
Bruh it a game u stewpid
It's almost like it's a fake map for a board game...
last i checked it was India that has the largest troop contribution to UN peacekeepers.
No, It was Bangladesh
Because india and china didnt want money from un as they have a large number of troops they send them to un mission and india also want a permanent sit in un but bangladesh have very small army compared to india army and china as they have one of the largest army in the world but now india also reducing troops like china
@@al-hannasi5745 overall it's india on yearly basis it's Bangladesh.
@@alexchlomandar3805 fact is every civil war and unrest was caused by UN permanent seat holders..
Club of killers.
@Mr.K /Smart Info name any five of them
You can't keep peace where there has never been peace
The definition of peacekeeping has changed over the years. Nowadays, peacekeeping is not about keeping peace but about actively intervening into conflicts and using violent means to achieve certain goals. You can see this in Mali. The peacekeeping mission is not about trying to keep peace between the Malian government and the various terrorist/rebel forces. The UN peacekeepers are actively fighting the terrorists. Hence, there have been so many casualties (170) amongst the peacekeeping troops already.
Right
@@sedrikpocuch9046 they tried that in the 90s didn't work out very well
@@sedrikpocuch9046 so that’s a good thing. Fighting terrorises helps the world
mali was one of the richest and most orderly kingdoms in human history at one point
So many Indians getting butthurt about India finding no mention in this video. Relax fellas, they enumerated the poorest countries that send peacekeepers and while India does send the most peacekeepers it is not the poorest of countries. That is the main reason they didn't mention India here.
Because wealthy countries are the reson of these unrest.
This is true, and yet I doubt that’s the reason. Why would they just say oh, we can’t be bothered with the work involved in oppressing these countries we exploit. They must be less capable of controlling poor nations as easily as they formerly did. That’s hopeful. Soon maybe everyone will have to stop bossing around resource rich, cash poor countries and let their people rule themselves as they may.
@@animula6908 and if you count Saudi Arabia it’s so much truther.
You just ruined India's role in UN force. India have provide most number of troops in 70 years about 200000.
Exactly. India is the top most provider of peace keeping troops.
@@thegreatgatsby8180 IS'NT INDIA MOSTLY HINDU??(IDIDNN'T_RIHT_THISSS???
@@64dougee yes but we have Christians and Muslims too
Remember the legend ???
@@monjir8707 DIDNT RIGT THIS OR SEEEN D'VID?????
India contributes to highest UN peacekeepers.
That's like going to the sun trying to cool it down 😂😂😂
I feel obligated to say that Britain, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, has around 1000 peacekeepers active as I speak. However, they’re only deployed in Cyprus, where there is mostly relative peace. Only occasionally do they have to stop and order people back to their territory, but all they really do is walk around a deserted town.
These mission have valuable training and experience to be gained by emerging nations and their military command that can only be gotten through combat.
Well again you guys ignored india
Ya bro
Yes because you did not deserve
@@imfrommars9134 Do you even know anything about it?😁
@@imfrommars9134 India is the biggest contributor to the UN.
@@imfrommars9134 where ever u r from u ask a soldier from ur country to go to the Siachen glacier and live there for years let's see then who deserves and who doesn't
Times have changed indeed. Peacekeeping may not be an option nor applicable anymore in certain places at certain times. Reality bites & if a govt of a country can't do anything about it then no foreign intervention can bring about peace.
It can help those who r innocent by giving a hope everyday they feel safe by presence of Forces ...I lived it
Wrong
Maybe we should take care of our Canadian wounded soldiers at home before we create more. I'm proud to stand behind my troops for a Canadian agenda.
Mike Smith United nations
@@slownix-6917 lol yes l know it's the United Nations I should have been more specific I meant was what is the relevance of this un mission to Canada's agenda in the world
@@Mikesmith-uv8xm the problem is we don't really have an agenda now. Under Harper our agenda was whatever the Americans told us it was. Reducing violence on the ground in that region will make a big difference in the number of mass migrations from that area and that alone will reduce chaos. But we literally have no stand on anything like human rights or peacekeeping now. Our government makes decisions to please their donors...and the vast majority of them are not soldiers. I can think of a few places where peacekeepers are needed but those missions will never happen.
But if you're going to have troops they do have to train and that was one of the benefits of being involved in so many missions in the past. The missions changed dramatically when the UN became on offensive force in the former Yugoslavia. But properly designed missions where we can actually make an impact are still worth doing.
At $1800 per month per person, the wealthy countries are losing money
A loss that they can certainly afford
@@oworcestershire7331 A loss they shouldn't afford. Why would you send your troops, troops that your taxpayers have paid for, to places that cant give them any leverage.
@@MG-tg8zm many of the wealthy nations have a direct causal relationship with the turmoil within nations that are to be receiving said peacekeeping missions and should by moral reasoning alone be bound to "keep the peace" in these nations
love for canada troops from michigan usa and bangladesh
Maybe because these missions have nothing to do with peace, but rather backup for U.S. military interventions. But peacekeeping is easier to sell to populations.
3:18 goddamn, this woman has a better beard than i do
Peace keeping missions cant bring peace to this world.
But india has contributed to more than 250,000 soldiers for peacekeeping missions who will count that Captain Gurbachan singh salaria was awarded the param vir chakra the highest gallantry award in the indian army who the hell will count that.
Because wealthy nations know their is power, where they are soldiers and they rather spend their money on their own armies and its selfish, maybe we need united nations peace keeper force ?
The larger countries don't want to contribute the funds to pay for it so it won't happen.
Fools
Veterans cost money. Look at the number of disability awards from veterans affairs. I know from experience the numbers from Afghanistan pale to the casualties from peacekeepers. It’s why after service support should be included in military spending data. You plan for the decommissioning of a ship or plane, but not a soldier. It’s why the government has said they can’t afford it before, veterans ask for too much.
3:25 "a lot of the money"
Yeah no. Not at all
Exactly what I was thinking
Done looting all the resources! Time to head home ☺️
It’s tragic that something like peace should be monetized? It’s tragic that peace should result in 170 killed as well. I suppose we don’t expect them to work as slaves as well as sacrifice their lives.
I don’t think it’s inappropriate that troops from African nations do the peacekeeping in Africa when possible.
"Migration is a powerful driver of economic growth, dynamism and understanding. It allows millions of people to seek new opportunities, benefiting communities of origin and destination alike.”" - UN Secretary-General António Guterres....
Ruzindana•
Helps the destination for sure, give our nation your talented!
Remember when the Quran calls these peace keepers as hypocrites.
Quran is itself a Hypocrite book
🇺🇳🤝🇺🇲
Viel ueben man weis nie wifuer man es benoetigt
Why is the global news missing out on 🇮🇳 India.
West bank done this
Every body knows y’all are lying so please stop 🛑
Why does this hit so hard on the UN stocks. !!!!!
No point in wasting well trained soldiers and equipment on unachievable goals and useless bureaucrats