so its always going to be beholden to the will of the states providing the troops. and if you're in that situation, we're back where we started. no state is going to provide troops that could be used against them. NATO can get away with it because its a boys club, the developed powers of europe and the US. designed to be used against the 'bad guys' - ie. anyone who isnt europe or the US.
Completely wrong assumptions.
The decision to intervene will always be made by countries, also in the UNSC. These countries will have to pay for the intervention one way or the other - either by supplying own troops or by paying the UN for "their" troops - so it doesn´t really matter who actually provides these troops.
You are debating technical matters of little importance here. What really matters is to intervene according to international law. If one superpower like the USA frequently intervenes without respect for international law, it will always be regarded as a bully, regardless of the real intentions. That´s my whole point.
You also imply that peacekeeping troups are "against" a country. They almost never are. In most cases, UN peacekeeping troups are deployed not "against" anyone, but because all conflict parties agreed on their deployment.
look at the recent broo-hah over the missile placements in eastern europe. imagine expanding those issues to include russia, china, india, brazil et al. collective security works wonders when the countries involved have similar goals and are in similar conditions.
But they do! The "similar goal" is not to get nuked. It is debatable if those missiles really work (I guess they don´t), but why doesn´t the US give it a try to include the Russians into a collective security. It´s little wonder the Russians take offense!
sorry i mispoke (mistyped?). i meant all nuclear powers are powerful on the world stage, often beyond their 'real' weight (notably france, israel and pakistan). nobody fucks with a nuclear power, hence iran and NK want in on the big boys table.
France is not more powerful on the world stage than Germany. Period.
invading costa rica would be like kicking puppies. sure, itd be easy but who'd actually do it? :P
Invading Iraq was like kicking puppies, remember? The trouble always starts when you face angry civilians. That´s why nobody invades Costa Rica.
Which proves my point that power does not necessarily come out of the barrel of a gun.