How the West tempted Putin.

[BeBMan]

I only referred to it in the OP to dismiss it as a flimsy defence (and I should have said strawman instead of red herring, sorry).

Are there other parts of the OP which you don't want us to dicuss?

[Geronimo]

Are there other parts of the OP which you don't want us to dicuss?

Feel free to discuss all of it. Just don't expect more than an echo chamber when tearing apart the notion that NATO expansion helped tempt Putin to invade Ukraine when I already dismissed that in the OP as a flimsy defence.

Unless Serb tries to prop that up that flimsy defence
next weekend.

[BeBMan]

Feel free to discuss all of it. Just don't expect more than an echo chamber when tearing apart the notion that NATO expansion helped tempt Putin to invade Ukraine when I already dismissed that in the OP as a flimsy defence.

You did not dismiss anything.

This is the relevant quote:

Putin has also repeatedly invoked the increased danger and threat of NATO aggression resulting from NATO expansion as justification for his actions. NATO members attempt to refute this by pointing out that NATO is a purely defensive bloc. How much less credible is that claim now that NATO has waged large scale offensive operations in Serbia *and* multiple countries of the southern Mediterranean coast without so much of a token invocation of article 5?

Posing the question is usually a way to start a debate, not to declare it over (in this key part).

[Geronimo]

You did not dismiss anything.

This is the relevant quote:



Posing the question is usually a way to start a debate, not to declare it over (in this key part).

my bad I transposed expansion and aggression in the OP. It does merit an edit.

[PLATO]

Thanks for the detailed well thought out response Plato. I disagree, however, that the international law could work effectively if we accepted those excuses. The UN security council is supposed to be the forum to judge such matters and if it cannot do so due to vetoes, then proceeding without it's blessing will invite the same cynical behavior by any other state who can secure such a veto.

Ultimately, who got to decide that the genocide campaigns of the Serbian state were real and what the appropriate response would be?

Who decided that the original UN resolution allowed for another war?

For credibility sake it can't be the would-be aggressor surely?

I see what you are thinking here, but I believe it disregards the UN Charter allowing both self defense and collective self defense. In the case of crimes against humanity, and accepting that is a de facto attack on humanity, then NATO was allowed to act in defense of those being attacked (i.e. NATO being part of the larger group "humanity"). This would undoubtedly been the case anywhere in the world where there was similar capability to act in defense. Simply because NATO was capable, and in many parts of the world similar capability does not exist, does not negate the legitimacy to act under international law.

As far as who gets to decide if it is really genocide, it is a harder question. States obviously are taking some risk in launching an attack under this type situation. In this case, the acts were confirmed as legitimate by the convictions in the world court. Had this not been the case, then it would have been a more ambiguous situation. However, I believe that the States that acted had compelling evidence and in fact incurred little risk due to the obvious nature of the situation.

WRT to Iraq, there were existing Security Council resolutions that were used as the justification for the invasion. This is a real gray area as to if those resolutions actually granted that power. However, it can be argued equally that they did as they did not. The fact is that the Security council was involved and they bear some responsibility for the unclear nature of the resolutions (and this could even be considered as tacit approval).

In the case of Ukraine. No compelling evidence of genocide exists at all. NONE. The issue of invading Ukraine was not addressed by UNSC in any form (i.e. no ambiguity at all was created and thus zero legitimacy to act).

Let me also further say this. Russia says that it acted, in part, due to the threat of NATO being on its boarders (We must accept that to be a threat that there is some possibility of an offensive attack). If this was truly the case, that NATO was positioning to attack Russia, then what better opportunity has NATO ever had than right now. The fact that the alliance is acting with great restraint to become engaged with Russian troops dispels any notion of any reality of the desire of NATO to attack Russia.

Once again, Russia is totally in the wrong and no comparison under international law to the Serbia intervention or the Iraq invasion can or should be drawn.

[PLATO]

I think international law is a fiction. It's all about what a state can achieve through might or diplomacy. The rest is just window dressing for domestic politics.

In fact I believe this is correct to a point. In practice, however, most States seek some sort of legitimacy for their actions. The very gray nature of the UNSC resolutions on Iraq is a great example. The U.S. was going to invade Iraq I believe...regardless of what the UN did. It worked hard however to twist the wording of the resolutions to provide an arguable point of international acceptance. This practice of seeking arguable legitimacy provides diplomatic cover with States that are on the fence...allowing them to turn a blind eye to actions they would otherwise feel necessary to condemn.

[BeBMan]

Couple random thoughts

1. The Serbia air attacks (somehow I have to fight the urge to label it a special air ops) were formally a violation of intl law since done without UNSC mandate. However the one reason why it lacked that mandate was nothing else than a Russian veto - pure self interest, not some superior regard for intl law on the Russian side.

2. Listing these or whatever other "Western" things being done against intl institutions/law is all good and well, if often rather one-sided and boring, as everyone can dig out similar done by other countries.

It just does not follow from there at all that these drove or "tempted" Putin in any way. That would assume strongmen like him are always reacting to outside developments, and never acting on their own agenda. Doubtful, certainly not an irrefutable fact. Stuff like Putin's Peter the Great comments indicates the opposite.

3. Indeed, while countries, esp. as they get bigger, tend to put their nat interests over intl law when they think it's cool (and can afford it), I would not go so far to say intl law is "dead" or "meaningless".

There'd be a huge difference between still having the intl regime of today - with intl law being regarded as the norm (at least in theory), and occasional violations of that norm, compared to falling back to an intl system like that mentioned of the 18th century, with regular wars all over the place being the intl norm.

[Dauphin]

Well yes, the cassus belli is part of the diplomacy. From sublime to ridiculous. Wars start over any and every pretext. El Salvador and Honduras started a war following rioting at a football match. War of Jenkin's ear started ostensibly because a captain had his ear cut off eight years earlier.

[PLATO]

Couple random thoughts

1. The Serbia air attacks (somehow I have to fight the urge to label it a special air ops) were formally a violation of intl law since done without UNSC mandate.

UN Charter-Article 52

1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

I believe that stopping Genocide is consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. If you agree, then how can you say that the Serbia intervention was a violation of international law?

[BeBMan]

Well, the Russian POV is that any offensive mil action is a violation of intl law if it lacks a UNSC mandate. In a purely formal way ppl can make that point. Not that they'd make it today in regard to Ukraine, hehe.

However, the Russian POV completely ignores the whole idea and purpose of the UN (indeed: originally to prevent wars/warcrimes/genocide), so after years of the war in Bosnia just having the same playing out in Kosovo was unimaginable.

[Geronimo]

Well, the Russian POV is that any offensive mil action is a violation of intl law if it lacks a UNSC mandate. In a purely formal way ppl can make that point. Not that they'd make it today in regard to Ukraine, hehe.

However, the Russian POV completely ignores the whole idea and purpose of the UN (indeed: originally to prevent wars/warcrimes/genocide), so after years of the war in Bosnia just having the same playing out in Kosovo was unimaginable.

Estimates of civilian casualties on all sides of the Yugoslavia wars are north of 130,000. This definitely included some ethnic cleansing directed at Serbians as well. How does that compare to the scale of deaths in kosovo related to an insurrection movement against Serbia that led to a huge NATO as air offensive against military and civilian infrastructure in Serbia? The air offensive was followed by unilateral NATO recognition of Kosovo independence.

What makes the Kosovo intervention so much more legal per international law than the Russian intervention in Donbas?

[BeBMan]

What makes the Kosovo intervention so much more legal per international law than the Russian intervention in Donbas?

Woosh.

[Geronimo]

Woosh.

Swish

[My Wife Hates CIV]

[Geronimo]

"NATO charter and a US domestic law setting a higher bar in line with international norms to reign in war-monger presidents?" talk about giving the wrong message. that would be a green light for more of what we're seeing with Putin today.

Putin obviously sees a green light regardless.