Yes, several countries were implicated in supplying weapons or support, either directly or indirectly. France, for instance, is frequently criticised for its role. The French government had long-standing ties with the Hutu-led government and provided military assistance, training, and arms. Though they argued their intention was to support a sovereign government and maintain stability, critics contend that this support indirectly facilitated the genocide. On the RPF side, Uganda played a role in their initial formation and provided some support. The role of foreign nations in the Rwandan crisis is a topic of intense debate and investigation.

Foreign media coverage of the Rwandan Genocide was initially scant and inconsistent. Many Western outlets initially portrayed it as just another African tribal conflict, undermining the severity and scale of the genocide. The sheer speed and brutality of the genocide made real-time reporting challenging. Moreover, the international community was distracted by other concurrent events, notably the Yugoslav Wars in Europe. While some journalists did risk their lives to document the atrocities, it wasn't until the genocide was nearing its end that a more accurate picture emerged in international media. Sadly, this delayed coverage contributed to a delayed international response.

The Rwandan Genocide had profound regional consequences. Massive refugee movements, especially into neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Tanzania, and Uganda, led to humanitarian crises in these countries. The refugee camps in the DRC, in particular, became militarised zones as exiled Hutu militias regrouped. This sowed seeds for future conflicts in the DRC. These exiled militias launched attacks both within the DRC and across the border into Rwanda, leading to further destabilisation. The Rwandan Genocide, therefore, not only devastated Rwanda but also had long-lasting repercussions on the stability and security of the entire Great Lakes region of Africa.

Psychological manipulation played a significant role. The systematic dehumanisation of Tutsis, often labelled as 'cockroaches', enabled Hutus to view them as less than human, thus justifying violence. Fear was another tactic; many Hutus were threatened with violence or death if they did not participate in the killing. Peer pressure and a sense of community responsibility were exploited, with propaganda painting the extermination as a communal duty. Lastly, rewards, be it in the form of looted goods or promises of land, were used to entice participation. This cocktail of fear, peer pressure, and incentives made it challenging for many to resist participating.

Absolutely. Amidst the widespread violence and hatred, there were instances of remarkable bravery and compassion. Some moderate Hutus, despite the risks to their own lives, sheltered Tutsis. Churches and mosques became havens for many, though not always reliably, as some sanctuaries were violated. There were also Hutu officials who used their authority to protect Tutsis, refusing to partake in the massacre. Additionally, some radio stations, in stark contrast to the incendiary RTLM, called for peace and unity. However, these efforts were sporadic and lacked a cohesive structure, making them susceptible to threats from the larger, more organised extremist groups.