Europe under extreme duress

[JTS11]

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your assertions. But, IMO there's a major distinction between a military coup in Niger, and Russia rolling the majority of its military over the Ukranian border IOT try to reconstitute a portion of their old Soviet sphere of influence.

The Wesr needs to make a stand here by supplying UKR with means to push Russia out of its territory.

Just my 2 cents...I'm a nobody

 

[Hotdogs]

My point in my reply to you is that we do not consistently support a supposed "rules based world order" in the way one must for it to be sustained. You can't willy nilly choose when to uphold the rules or not and expect the bad actors to then always respect the rules. China knows full well they can do whatever they want to the Uyghurs, and we won't do shit. They know attacking Taiwan is different, not because of a "rules based world order", but because we have made it very clear.

Here's a fun exercise. Take a look at all the countries currently led by leaders of coup's. What do they have in common? They're countries our general public don't care much about, unlike, say, Ukraine. Imagine if there were a coup in a European country. You'd be on here saying how it's our duty to uphold the "rules based world order" to prevent a coup in a democratic country. Apparently, it's only a rule that you can't overthrow a democracy with force if it's a European country.

Expound on what conditions conducting a military operation against a coup is considered legal in the preamble or chapters of the UN Charter. (You know a foundational document of the current rules based order). Since you assert yourself so confidently and based off of your presumptions -Why didn’t the US intervene in 2016 in support of Turkey?

If you read more you’d might understand why the international community hasn’t don’t anything about the Uyghurs or West African coups more generally… or how current western militaries are limited when conducting counter-terror operations or foreign internal defense at the invitation of host nations. Unless you thought all the grandstanding at the UN was just for show?

 

[sevenhelmet]

Side issue here, speaking of “rules based order”: Why on Earth is Russia on the UN Security Council?

I think it might be time to update that charter to reflect modern world conditions.

 

[Mirage]

Expound on what conditions conducting a military operation against a coup is considered legal in the preamble or chapters of the UN Charter. (You know a foundational document of the current rules based order). Since you assert yourself so confidently and based off of your presumptions -Why didn’t the US intervene in 2016 in support of Turkey?

If you read more you’d might understand why the international community hasn’t don’t anything about the Uyghurs or West African coups more generally… or how current western militaries are limited when conducting counter-terror operations or foreign internal defense at the invitation of host nations. Unless you thought all the grandstanding at the UN was just for show?

First off, your assertion that the UN Charter is the end-all-be-all of the "rules based order" is greatly flawed. Putting that aside, though, my exact point is that the claim that we live in an international society governed by a rules based order is ridiculous. The UN is completely inept, due in no small part, as @sevenhelmet pointed out, because Russia is on the UNSC. Not to mention, as your article points out, that countries don't want to oppose China because of fear of reprisal. It has absolutely no teeth with which to uphold the supposed rules some claim we live under.

Putting even all of that aside, even the UN Charter you referenced gives ample reason to believe a military response to a military overthrowing its democratically elected government would be "legal" (that's your ignorant term, as there is no such thing as a country doing something "illegal"... which further reinforces my point that there are actually no hard and fast international rules). The US didn't intervene in Turkey in 2016 for exactly the reason I stated before... namely, that local politics in the US did not support it. If you're alluding to my comment about a coup in Europe, then you must be considering Turkey as European... which, culturally, they are not, in that they do not share a cultural identity with the majority of Americans that would get public opinion here immediately on their side.

I read plenty, and I do understand why we haven't done anything about the recent coups and genocides. Do you? Is your reference to the UN Rights Council rejecting that motion indicative of your opinion that we can only act if the UN says we can? Or that we can only act if Indonesia and Pakistan approve? GMAFB.

 

[Mirage]

Side issue here, speaking of “rules based order”: Why on Earth is Russia on the UN Security Council?

I think it might be time to update that charter to reflect modern world conditions.

It's because the UN is broke and has no mechanism to remove them.

 

[Hotdogs]

First off, your assertion that the UN Charter is the end-all-be-all of the "rules based order" is greatly flawed. Putting that aside, though, my exact point is that the claim that we live in an international society governed by a rules based order is ridiculous. The UN is completely inept, due in no small part, as @sevenhelmet pointed out, because Russia is on the UNSC. It has absolutely no teeth with which to uphold the supposed rules some claim we live under.

Putting even all of that aside, even the UN Charter you referenced gives ample reason to believe a military response to a military overthrowing its democratically elected government would be "legal" (that's your ignorant term, as there is no such thing as a country doing something "illegal"... which further reinforces my point that there are actually no hard and fast international rules). The US didn't intervene in Turkey in 2016 for exactly the reason I stated before... namely, that local politics in the US did not support it. If you're alluding to my comment about a coup in Europe, then you must be considering Turkey as European... which, culturally, they are not, in that they do not share a cultural identity with the majority of Americans that would get public opinion here immediately on their side.

I read plenty, and I do understand why we haven't done anything about the recent coups and genocides. Do you? Is your reference to the UN Rights Council rejecting that motion indicative of your opinion that we can only act if the UN says we can? Or that we can only act if Indonesia and Pakistan approve? GMAFB.

My dude. Amateur hour take on the point I was attempting to make… The U.N. charter and its amendments are some of the only documents that has signatories and ratifications from nearly every country on the planet. It is often cited in international affairs for legal justification, utilized as a venue to arbitrate, and widely accepted as the starting point for the rules based order. I mean fuck even your own profession is regulated by a UN Agency, ICAO.

I’m just going to ignore everything you stated about U.N. enforcement, Turkey, and coups… The point went right over your head. Indicating you didn’t read a thing I referenced. If you were smart you would’ve listed the conditions and a very particular reason why we would’ve intervened in some form… but that’s probably a stretch with you at this point.

It's because the UN is broke and has no mechanism to remove them.

False.

Trying to figure out out if you’re suffering from cognitive dissonance or are a great example of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[taxi1]

On paper, he has very impressive credentials (graduate of West Point...

I met a West Point grad at my wife's father's upmteen-millionth USMA class reunion that I got dragged to. He swore up and down that 9-11 was an inside job.

 

[Mirage]

My dude. Amateur hour take on the point I was attempting to make… The U.N. charter and its amendments are some of the only documents that has signatories and ratifications from nearly every country on the planet. It is often cited in international affairs for legal justification, utilized as a venue to arbitrate, and widely accepted as the starting point for the rules based order. I mean fuck even your own profession is regulated by a UN Agency, ICAO.

I’m just going to ignore everything you stated about U.N. enforcement, Turkey, and coups… The point went right over your head. Indicating you didn’t read a thing I referenced. If you were smart you would’ve listed the conditions and a very particular reason why we would’ve intervened in some form… but that’s probably a stretch with you at this point.



False.

Trying to figure out out if you’re suffering from cognitive dissonance or are a great example of Dunning-Kruger.

You just can't help but just drop insult after insult and attack me instead of my argument, can you? How about use some logic instead of weak minded insults?

You don't seem to grasp that my point is that the international order is weak, ineffective, and mostly irrelevant. You telling me how the UN is the foundation of the rules based order, without demonstrating the efficacy of the UN, does nothing to counter my argument. You're only making it for me.

Every time I interact with you it is a shit show. Just do us both a favor and ignore my posts if you can't keep it civil and leave out the ad hominem BS.

 

[Hotdogs]

You just can't help but just drop insult after insult and attack me instead of my argument, can you? How about use some logic instead of weak minded insults?

You don't seem to grasp that my point is that the international order is weak, ineffective, and mostly irrelevant. You telling me how the UN is the foundation of the rules based order, without demonstrating the efficacy of the UN, does nothing to counter my argument. You're only making it for me.

Every time I interact with you it is a shit show. Just do us both a favor and ignore my posts if you can't keep it civil and leave out the ad hominem BS.

Why? Because I hit you right in the feels and made you feel ignorant or uneducated? Did that make you feel sad? Good. The punishment will continue.

Case in point: Demands proof efficacy of the UN, but works in a technical trade regulated by a UN agency, and employed by a service that abides by UN maritime laws.

 

[Mirage]

Why? Because I hit you right in the feels and made you feel ignorant or uneducated? Did that make you feel sad? Good. The punishment will continue.

Case in point: Demands proof efficacy of the UN, but works in a technical trade regulated by a UN agency, and employed by a service that abides by UN maritime laws.

Jesus. You're embarrassing yourself. We are talking about the international order, and you bring up ICAO as proof? The body that can't even demand everyone use the same transition altitude? Are you even a real pilot?

The UN is powerless to actually, say, prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. Prevent warlords or the CCP from committing genocide. Prove me wrong. Try to keep your argument focused on logic, rather than constant logical fallacies. Best of luck, as you seem powerless to your emotions, while projecting your feelings of ignorance onto me.

 

[JTS11]

The UN is powerless to actually, say, prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. Prevent warlords or the CCP from committing genocide. Prove me wrong.

Nobody is fucking arguing this point. The US and its allies swing the big dick in trying to maintain the 'rules based order' to varying degrees of success. Do you want to revert to a time when this wasn't the case?

Not sure what US policy you're arguing for. The dissolution of the UN?

 

[Mirage]

Nobody is fucking arguing this point. The US and its allies swing the big dick in trying to maintain the 'rules based order' to varying degrees of success. Do you want to revert to a time when this wasn't the case?

Not sure what US policy you're arguing for. The dissolution of the UN?

@hotdog is arguing against my point that there is no real "rules based order", and he has chosen the UN as his champion of that order. So yes, he is arguing just that. I know... It doesn't make sense.

I also am arguing against your assertion that we are trying to maintain a rules based order. If we were, then like the police do with criminals, we'd be obligated to pursue every infraction, which we clearly do not. We just do what our politicians think is in their best interest to do as politicians, and sometimes it's convenient to justify it with something like maintaining a rules based order.

 

[Mos]

My point in my reply to you is that we do not consistently support a supposed "rules based world order" in the way one must for it to be sustained. You can't willy nilly choose when to uphold the rules or not and expect the bad actors to then always respect the rules.

Except that is actually the way international relations work. The rules based order is real, but it works in tension with the underlying motivation and nature of states (even democratic ones), which is: "The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must."

 

[JTS11]

@hotdog is arguing against my point that there is no real "rules based order", and he has chosen the UN as his champion of that order. So yes, he is arguing just that. I know... It doesn't make sense.

I also am arguing against your assertion that we are trying to maintain a rules based order. If we were, then like the police do with criminals, we'd be obligated to pursue every infraction, which we clearly do not. We just do what our politicians think is in their best interest to do as politicians, and sometimes it's convenient to justify it with something like maintaining a rules based order.

Presumably, US politicians are acting in accordance with our national interests, and not their's. Of course we're not going to intervene militarily in every situation.

I still don't know what you're arguing about TBH. I'm sure there are other examples, but post-USSR, Iraq's invasion of a weak neighbor was internationally condemned and quickly rebuffed. It takes politicians being leaders, and explaining why this shit is important. Sadly, IMO neither party has been up to snuff. It's easier to pander to an isolationist and populist sentiment.

 

[Mirage]

Except that is actually the way international relations work. The rules based order is real, but it works in tension with the underlying motivation and nature of states (even democratic ones), which is: "The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must."

Imagine you live in a city where the police force is unarmed and not empowered to do anything unless both the criminals and the government agree that something should be done, and 99% of the time, they just let the criminals do what they want. All the individuals in the city also have their own weapons, and act as vigilantes if they choose, but most the time they don't do anything unless it's particularly important to that person. Would that feel like you lived in a rules based society, or an anarchy?

I can't believe we're even having to have this debate. Internationally, it is anarchy out there. As you said, the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must. If that is in tension with something else (like a rules based order), then that something else never even showed up to the game.