5 ms·
Russia currently occupies the USSR’s seat on the UN Security Council and concerns about Russian aggression have persisted have persisted since the collapse of t
by jolux 5y ago
Russia currently occupies the USSR’s seat on the UN Security Council and concerns about Russian aggression have persisted have persisted since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s not literally true that it’s a defense against the legal entity known as the Russian Federation but insofar as Russia has failed to shed its image as an aggressor it’s true.
- jacquesm 5y agoI think Russia just confirmed its image as an aggressor in a way that leaves no doubt.
- yucky 5y agoUsing that argument, would the US also be considered "an aggressor"?
- jacquesm 5y agoMore whataboutism.
- yucky 5y agoI don't think I was clear in my question. I'm not excusing it, and perfectly willing to call it aggression since that is how I see it. I'm just asking if the standard we apply to foreign aggression is consistent. In other words, I feel like some people have a consistent standard on what constitutes acceptable aggression depending on who the aggressor is.
- lern_too_spel 5y agoRussia did not even attempt to build a coalition for defending the separatist regions of Ukraine because, as this article clearly lays out, his justification is bullshit that no country has bought. (At best, China is looking the other way.) It's a clear case of invasion.
- simonh 5y agoIt’s a matter of the level of provocation. The first Iraq war was unambiguously a response to blatant Iraqi aggression. The second war is more arguable, depending on whether you see it as a continuation of the first. The invasion of Afghanistan was a response to its complicity in the 9/11 attacks. So in those cases there were clear direct assaults on the US or it’s allies it was responding to. There are examples, sure, but the US is rarely the side that starts the shooting.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago> The invasion of Afghanistan was a response to its complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This kinda borders on the radio station justification - a rogue terrorist attack does not justify an invasion, and most of the attackers were Saudi, so its not even consistent.
- simonh 5y agoYou seem to be under the misapprehension that because they were Saudi, that the operated from Saudi Arabia. If you look into it, you will find that their organisation, which planned and coordinated the attacks, was actually based in Afghanistan. It was supported, trained and sponsored by the Taliban in Afghanistan and their associates, and was a multi national group. It was this hosting, support and sponsorship in Afghanistan that lead to the invasion.