> NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus. Sorry but I have to

> NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus. Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit. You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period. No "consensus" can justify the invasion. You just don't invade. If the Government calls for help, then and only then you have a right to go help. If it is a Civil War, you let the people decide. You do not interfere. This is the rules-based order that the West keeps thrusting on everyone else. But the West doesn't follow itself. Hypocritical. Which is what empowers deviants like Putin to do what he is doing. The West has set precedent for it through "consensus" and "justifications". Putin is also giving his "justifications". This nonsense has to stop. Respect territorial sovereignty. No matter how ugly the situation is in a country that is NOT YOURS, you plainly, simply, do not INVADE IT. Unless the Country itself has threatened you. > It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face. Even though I am against Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he also has a "justification" like the West does (for its invasions of 84 countries). NATO has expanded 5 times to the East and now borders Russia. Placed its nukes, ballistic missiles on all the member states. All pointing at Russia 24/7. Now you are telling me that Putin has "no good intent"? Is this not good enough intent? Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis? Isn't it hypocritical that the West did not want Soviet nukes in Cuba but is actively placing nukes in NATO member states and bringing NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders? Did the West not promise Russia that it won't expand NATO after fall of Soviet Union? Professor Trachtenberg unearthed declassified documents from British National Archives which reveals that such promises were indeed made [1]. The actual archived declassified document [2]. [1]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1990.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1... [2]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/19910307.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1... So many Western scholars, politicians, diplomats have, for the past 30 years, repeatedly warned the West of not expanding NATO. That it will antagonize Russia. The flashpoint will be in Ukraine. Not to risk poking the bear. Yet the West did not care for the viewpoints of these experts. All of them have now turned out to be right. Now you are telling me that the West follows "rules-based order" and is morally better than Putin. Yet the West unilaterally breaks treaties: Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty to Treaty on Open Skies and faces no repercussions or sanctions? When China conducted Nuclear tests in 1990s the West did not sanction China. But when India conducted reciprocal Nuclear tests as a response to Chinese Nuclear tests, India was sanctioned by the West. Do you still not see the hypocrisy here? I can keep giving umpteen examples of flagrant International Law violations by the West. Yet somehow it is morally superior compared to other countries that also break the same laws.