> There really needs to be international law completely forbidding Just to note, there's literally nothing of this form currently existing or possible - intern

> There really needs to be international law completely forbidding Just to note, there's literally nothing of this form currently existing or possible - international law consists of treaties to which the countries have agreed, so such a treaty forbidding something would be binding to Russia if and only if Russia agrees to sign the treaty. In international law, sovereignty is the ultimate power, authority and/or jurisdiction over a people and a territory. Like, there is treaty forbidding landmines, but it don't forbid landmines to those who haven't signed it e.g. Russia, USA and China; there's a treaty prohibiting proliferation of nuclear weapons, which does not prohibit it to those who haven't signed e.g. India, Pakistan and Israel, and so on. Countries are sovereign and have full rights of self-determination, there isn't any world government that would be somehow superior to the countries and there are no ways to pass some "international law" to forbid them something unless they choose to. Well, unless you can "motivate" that choice which credible threats of excessive violence, but that doesn't apply to countries who have the nuclear veto power.