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.
Russia 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.
It’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.
> 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.
You 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.
No the organisation they belonged to, Al Qaeda, was supported trained and sponsored by the Taliban. In reality personnel, resources and information flowed freely between the two groups.
I am aware that the Taliban provided safe harbor for al-Qaeda in the late 90's early 00's, but they are very different groups with different ideologies. For instance, the Taliban did not finance, nor carry out 9/11.
I 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.
