There are signs and rumors that a 3rd party (here: China) is already involved, at least in the sense of "Go ahead, we will not do anything".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Myanmar_relation...

Libya and Syria: Same here, some 3rd parties are involved anyway. The question is if "the West" (I guess this is what you refer to) should/must/must not get involved as well.

China was opposed to the military junta and preferred the previous government.

Their recent diplomatic stance isn't about involvement, it's them calculating that involvement isn't worth it and signaling to the junta that they shouldn't be afraid of involvement.

This is a huge lie. The CN government did not prefer the previous "american puppet" government at all. I don't know where this stupid meme keeps coming from but it has ZERO basis in reality...

The previous government was far from an American puppet and signed billions in deals with China.

The Junta government opposed them at every turn and doesn't like foreign investment.

The business apparatus understands cooperation between US-China where it makes sense during the transition.

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?

In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.

To sibling: why does anyone have to get involved until it hits their borders/supply chains?

Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid.

I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.

> After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

What 3rd party involvement?

There are only 2 third parties doing anything.

Russia helping Assad to flatten his own country to the ground

And Turkey trying to at least deny them a complete victory by enforcing the Idlib pocket with its troops, and firepower on the ground.

Are you implicitly assuming that the civil wars in Libya and Syria started without active involvement by the U.S. and other governments and they got involved afterwards?

Of course. Ever heard of CIA getting involved in something ?