What is intervention and how does it differ from occupation?

The term "intervention" is habitually perceived negatively, as the definition of foreign intervention in the internal affairs of a country. However, there is some difference between this concept and the usual aggression, otherwise why should we call the same in different ways? So, what is intervention and how does it differ from occupation?

In 1918, the countries of the military-political association "Antanta" - Great Britain, the United States and France - introduced troops to some regions of the former Russian Empire to provide military assistance to participants in the Civil War who opposed the Bolsheviks. This was done at the request of the government, which at that time was formerly allies in the First World War was considered legitimate. Of course, the Entente countries, explaining military intervention by the need to help the legitimate authorities, did not forget about their own regional interests, seeking to expand the zone of their geopolitical influence. The reasons for the intervention of 1918-1920 consisted in the desire not only to suppress the revolutionary movement, but also to receive certain dividends, mainly economic.

The Soviet Union has also repeatedly pursued a policy of military intervention in the internal affairs of neighboring and sometimes remote countries. This was done almost always in one scenario: a communist government was created in advance, which began to fulfill its duties after the legitimate power was overthrown by a coup or direct military aggression.

What is intervention in the Soviet way? This is the defeat of the anti-communist uprising in Hungary in 1956, the suppression of the "Prague Spring" in 1968. Not quite right The "liberation campaign" ended in Finland in the winter of 1939-40, and the government of Otto Kuusinen prepared beforehand was left without work.

The storming of Amin's palace in 1979 gives a fairly complete idea of what intervention is in the period of late socialism. Perfectly conducted precision military operation, during which the task was accomplished, that is, the physical elimination of the unwanted head of state and its replacement by a loyal to the Kremlin, Babrak Karmal.

Despite the fact that the UN charter condemns all forms of intervention, this method is used by almost all states that are striving to strengthen their foreign policy positions. To retain regimes that create economic preferences for the countries concerned, armed forces and military assistance are being used. In 1989, parts of the US army invaded Panama, where a real threat to US interests arose. Noriega's government was deposed, he himself was arrested, in short, democracy was restored.

About what is intervention in American, well remembered in Vietnam. The purpose of the military conflict, which lasted 11 years, was not the colonization of this country, but the establishment in it of a loyal US governance regime.

In the twentieth century, there were many examples of how in some countries, which became an arena for battles for geopolitical interests, there was a counter-military intervention. Warring parties received assistance in the form of arms supplies, advisers, who often took (unofficially) participation in hostilities, and sometimes direct intervention of the armed forces.

In general, intervention can be called any participation of foreign troops in the internal affairs of a sovereign state in order to ensure foreign policy benefits. Unfortunately, it is obvious that such actions are widely spread in the 21st century.