[unfocussed_mike]

> They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war.

This elides so many significant differences I am not surprised you created a throwaway account.

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

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.

One of these actions was a failed multi-state peacekeeping effort. The other is plainly imperial ambition dressed up with lies even told to the Russian people, who are not free to disagree with it.

[mardifoufs]

yes multi party from within nato. It was not justa peace keeping mission, they literally provided air support for the rebels (who I supported, but let's not lie to ourselves). Btw, "good intentions" is a laughable concept in international relations and it's always always the excuse for invasions. You will obviously find good intentions in the side you support, and bad intentions from the side you are against. Especially when you consider the extremely shady relationship between Sarkozy and Gaddafi at the time, which could've been the reason why France actually pushed for intervening in Libya against the dictator. It was a major scandal in france and got Sarkozy sentenced to jail just a couple of years ago

The reality is that on the ground, Libya is now doing a lot worse than a decade ago and no matter how you twist it and justify it, it was due to a European led and American supported aggression. Europe has an extremely neocolonial attitude towards Africa, and it's just seen like their rightful little backyard that they can do whatever with, too bad if what they did led to slave markets or whatever. Just like russia sees ukraine. It's okay to focus on the current invasion, but that does not mean it's okay to turn into neocolonial apologia just to try and discredit the russians even more.

[porker]

Are you Libyan? I have never heard the views of someone who is inside the country about the "Arab spring" (as we called it) and the UN's intervention.

I understand that Gaddafi was a bad dictator unless you were in his chosen group. Is life for the average Libyan now better and less fearful than when he was dictator?

[mardifoufs]

I'm moroccan but I'm very active in the Muslim community so I have a few Libyan friends. From what I gathered, their opinion is usually a mix of yearning for the "good old days" when the Libyan state was somewhat functional and the standards of of living were actually pretty high for the region... but also a deep hatred for ghaddafi too. They don't miss him or think he was a good leader, they just miss a functional state that wasn't ruled by warlords. That nostalgic feeling is pretty universal too. The corruption was centralized so much easier to deal with and much more predictable. Those I know who still live in Libya are not doing too badly, but their quality of life has taken a nosedive and everything is more uncertain.

They don't (usually) blame nato or have a deep resentment towards the intervention, but there's the impression that they have been played and used like pawns. So the very cynical view is that getting rid of ghaddafi was the goal, not helping the Libyan people at all. A cynical outlook at geopolitics is almost universal in the middle east though. But it's very far from the total hatred some felt towards America after the iraqi invasion.

I guess the insane politics around the current libyan civil war that's happening there right now doesn't exactly disprove that impression.

[porker]

Thank you, that was a really helpful insight into how Libyans feel and I appreciate you taking the time to share it.

If you can find a copy of "Hard Choices: The Making and Unmaking of Global Britain" by Peter Ricketts (ISBN-10: 1838951830, ISBN-13: 978-1838951832) you may find the contents relating to Libya of interest. Peter Ricketts was the UK's National Security Advisor at the time and is not complementary about the decisions the UK made and how the UK and other nations treated Libya. I finished reading it shortly before I read your comment, and it prompted my question.

[unfocussed_mike]

This was useful and informative.

I will say for sure that almost nobody in the UK understands how badly we screwed up, unless they are from a military background, particularly anti-Boris-Johnson, or, weirdly, fans of the band, Fat White Family, who got into a kind of "de-platforming" trouble for daring to point out Boris's callous indifference to our failures.

> So the very cynical view is that getting rid of ghaddafi was the goal, not helping the Libyan people at all.

I don't know how cynical that is, to be fair. I think there was some adventurism from NATO for sure -- a well-intentioned belief that NATO was helping Libyans to get rid of Gaddafi, to mutual self-defence benefit. (Which they ultimately did; his death being the form of departure Putin apparently most fears.)

Like I say -- it was disastrous and I don't think we talk enough about how disastrous.

[unfocussed_mike]

I disagree with you almost completely, but you don't deserve downvoting, not least because you're not the throwaway account in this discussion.

[mardifoufs]

I really don't mind it no worries. I realized that it could come off as pro russian or whatever as I was writing the comment. But just to clarify: what I said does not justify in any way the russian invasion. You can be both against what's happening now and what happened in 2011, and I get that what's happening now is more relevant. My comment was just on the merits of the Libyan war specifically.

I appreciate your comment though and I totally get that it's not as simple as the evil American imperialists doing bad things first. If anything, I'm looking into moving south, to the US! But me being middle eastern makes it hard to not have strong opinion on the politics of the region haha.

[throwaway_434]

> 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/1...

[2]: 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.

[watwut]

I like how you simultaneously blame NATO for ot attacking every single dictator and for attacking some.

All those countries wanted to be in NATO. Some of them explicitly to be protected from Russia. They are proven right now in Ukraine, non NATO states are sitting ducks for Russian aggression.

[unfocussed_mike]

> Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit.

If you're this sure, why not use your main account?

Or are you using that for the downvotes? :-)

[unmole]

> If you're this sure, why not use your main account?

Maybe they don't want to get cancelled i.e. sanctioned?

[krapp]

For what? Calling the West hypocritical? That's not even controversial on Hacker News.

[trasz]

It’s the quickest way to get downvoted on Hacker News.

[unfocussed_mike]

It's not the quickest way.

The quickest way is to make a joke and not provide references for the punchline in advance.

[toast0]

> 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.

I don't think that's a good summary of the rules.

It's permissable to invade soverign states for lots of reasons.

a) if the UN Security Council says it's ok, it's ok

b) if there's a real civil war or genocide going on, it's usually fine to invade to 'keep the peace', and the occupiers often get to choose who gets to control after. You're supposed to ask the UN Security Council, and it's nice to wear the UN uniforms, but whatevs.

c) if the soverign nation is invading others without Security Council approval, it's fair game to be invaded; but caution is advised, because it could trigger a larger conflict. Again, it's best to get Security Council approval, but not really needed. Regular border skirmishes don't count; has to be a real invasion to trigger a responsive invasion, not just planting a flag on an island or fifty feet from the consensus border.

d) It's always permissable to provide advice and training to armed guerrilas (or the current government); and to arm them if necessary. If neccesarry, you can do d, until it triggers the conditions for b, and it's permissable.

[throwaway_434]

None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

The only time it is "permissible" is when you have been directly attacked by a Country or you have actionable intelligence that your Country will be threatened.

Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

I really feel we need to respect the territorial boundaries of all countries. Doesn't matter if it is Russia, China, India, USA or any European country. Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.

But as you pointed out, every major power, including the UNSC, has violated territorial integrity of various countries on frivolous grounds. I guess it ultimately boils down to human nature: to break and twist rules and definitions to justify invasions/genocide/terrorism etc. The hypocrisy is only when one side is whitewashed while other side is castigated. Depending on which camp you are, you are either declared a Hero or a Villain. But at the end of the day, both sides are doing the same thing: Killing human beings, destroying the environment and causing untold suffering of millions of living creatures.

[toast0]

> None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

Article 1, section 1 is

> To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

Which to me seems to suggest consensus measures to 'remove threats to the peace' and 'suppression of acts of aggression', or in other words, if the UN Security Council says it's cool, it's cool.

If you read further, article 42 explicitly authorizes use of force as may be necessary:

> Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

> Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

Yeah, but good luck codifying anything of that nature. You can take an absolutist stance and say even in such times, the territorial integrity is paramount. Or you could say, you can only violate territorial integrity if you're invited in --- but then it becomes a question of who is qualified to invite. Should a genocide be permitted because it's done by the lawful government of the territory? (I mean, sometimes they are; I'm not arguing that past history of intervention or non-intervention was perfect or even good, just that it followed something like rules)

That's why it's best if you can get UNSC sign off on invasions, because then it's clear it was permissible. But, if you go in, claiming it's justified and the world community disagrees with you, they can go to the UNSC to repremand you (unless you're one of the permanent members, in which case you're beyond reproof, whoops).

[mcphage]

> 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.

Maybe Putin should have formed a defensive organization like NATO to give it some padding, instead of trying to take over.

> Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis?

Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis looked anything like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now?

[throwaway_434]

> Maybe Putin should have formed a defensive organization like NATO to give it some padding, instead of trying to take over.

Like Soviet Union all over again? Not again. Why not just stay in your own borders and not try to place nukes in other countries for starters? That is far more easier right? Just respect each others sovereignty and not threaten a country by pointing nukes at it 24/7? That would be a good place to start!

> Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis looked anything like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now?

We almost faced Nuclear Armageddon. So it was far worse. Right now, the situation is lopsided with Russia having clear dominance over Ukraine when it comes to nukes. Cuban Missile Crisis was even worse as it was two nuclear powers facing off. Check out "Black Saturday". US Navy dropped "signaling" depth charges on Soviet B-59 (which was a nuclear submarine). The captain of the submarine thought the War started and wanted to launch a nuke. It was averted thanks to a Commander who was onboard. If not for the Commander, it would have lead to end of the World as both countries would have launched counter nukes.

[mcphage]

> Why not just stay in your own borders and not try to place nukes in other countries for starters?

I think that's a really great question that a lot of people want to ask Putin.

[throwaway_434]

> I think that's a really great question that a lot of people want to ask Putin.

But not ask NATO? You don't see the hypocrisy here? Both Putin and NATO are wrong.

Why is it so hard to just admit faults?

[mcphage]

They’re both wrong, absolutely, but only one of them is actively invading another country and killing civilians. So only one of those questions is particular relevant right now.

[ericmay]

> Yet somehow it is morally superior compared to other countries that also break the same laws.

That's because it actually is.

> 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?

They're sovereign countries aren't they? Should NATO have invaded Belarus for signing on with Russia in an alliance?

"You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period."

Why do you think those missiles are aimed at Russia? I'll give you a hint: it's because it's a country run by mobsters and thieves who are pillaging their people and holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons. Nobody would be pointing anything at them if, ya know, they at least tried to be a democracy and respect human rights. All of this is self-inflicted.

> 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?

How many years ago was the Cuban Missile Crisis? Are the same people in power? Are they even alive? Does the Soviet Union even exist? People keep bringing that up like it's somehow relevant to anything. It's not. Whatsoever.

> 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.

You want your rules-based order, but then you want might-makes-right too? In an international rules-based order, Ukraine is a sovereign territory that is free to choose how it conducts its international affairs which includes potentially joining organizations like the European Union and/or NATO. What "risk" is there in "provoking the bear - more like a teddy bear"? Oh that's right, because you use rules-based order when it fits your narrative, and might-makes-right when it fits your narrative. So which is it? Does little ole' Russia respect the rules-based order or not? Notice how all of these former Soviet Union countries are rejecting Russia? I wonder why that is. If Russia is so nice and peaceful why don't they ally with Russia? Build strong relations? That's a rhetorical question.