The term "intervention" is usually perceived negatively, as a definition of the intervention of foreign states in the internal affairs of any country. However, there is some difference between this concept and ordinary aggression, otherwise why should the same thing be called differently? So what is intervention and how does it differ from occupation?
In 1918, the countries of the Entente military-political association — Great Britain, the United States, and France — introduced troops into some regions of the former Russian Empire to provide military assistance to the participants in the Civil War, who opposed the Bolsheviks. This was done at the request of the government, which at that time was considered legitimate by former allies in the First World War. Of course, the Entente countries, explaining military intervention by the need for help from the legitimate authorities, did not forget about their own regional interests, trying to expand the zone of their geopolitical influence. The reasons for the intervention of 1918-1920 were the desire not only to suppress the revolutionary movement, but also to receive certain dividends, mainly economic ones.
The Soviet Union has also repeatedly pursued a policy of military intervention in the internal affairs of neighboring, and sometimes remote countries. This was almost always done according to one scenario: a communist government was created in advance, which began to fulfill its duties as a rhinestone after the legitimate authority was overthrown by a coup or direct military aggression.
What is Soviet intervention? This is the defeat of the anti-communist uprising in Hungary in 1956, the suppression of the "Prague Spring" in 1968. Not quite successful
The “liberation campaign” against Finland ended in the winter of 1939–40, and the government of Otto Kuusinen prepared in advance was left without work.
The assault on Amin’s palace in 1979 gives a fairly complete picture of what intervention is during the period of late socialism. An impeccably carried out high-precision military operation, during which the task was completed, that is, the physical elimination of the objectionable head of state and replacing it with Babrak Karmal, loyal to the Kremlin.
Despite the fact that the UN Charter condemns all forms of intervention, this technique is used by almost all states seeking to strengthen their foreign policy positions. Armed forces and military assistance are used to keep in power the regimes that create economic preferences for the countries concerned. In 1989, parts of the American army invaded Panama, where a real threat to US interests arose. The Noriega government was deposed, he himself was arrested, in a word, democracy was restored.
The American intervention is well remembered in Vietnam. The aim of the military conflict, which lasted 11 years, was not the colonization of this country, but the establishment of a US-loyal governance regime.
In the twentieth century there were many examples of how in some countries that became the arena of battle for geopolitical interests, counter-military intervention took place. The warring parties received assistance in the form of arms supplies, advisers who often took part (unofficially) in hostilities, and sometimes direct intervention by 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 widespread in the 21st century.