• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Europe under extreme duress

Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
I think the missing ingredient in this discussion is the understanding that when we use the term “rules based order” we are doing it in the context of nation-state to nation-state actors, not internal actions. Thus, when a nation does something terrible within their borders are reaction is limited to diplomatic and economic sanctions only (a “weaker” way to enforce “rules based order”), however when a nation acts eying their border the potential reactions include soft and hard military options. Russia is far beyond the pale of common order, so NATO has casus foederis (a case for an alliance) in defense of order and peace. So, to put it simply, Russia had no “right” to attack the Ukraine but NATO has every “right” to help prevent the Ukraine from falling into Russian hands.
 
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
Griz882 said:
I think the missing ingredient in this discussion is the understanding that when we use the term “rules based order” we are doing it in the context of nation-state to nation-state actors, not internal actions. Thus, when a nation does something terrible within their borders are reaction is limited to diplomatic and economic sanctions only (a “weaker” way to enforce “rules based order”), however when a nation acts eying their border the potential reactions include soft and hard military options. Russia is far beyond the pale of common order, so NATO has casus foederis (a case for an alliance) in defense of order and peace. So, to put it simply, Russia had no “right” to attack the Ukraine but NATO has every “right” to help prevent the Ukraine from falling into Russian hands.
Click to expand...
Except, you are incorrect, according to the UN itself. The international community agreed that the international community has a responsibility to take action, including military action if necessary, to prevent such things as genocide. A responsibility it has repeatedly neglected, because... it is all a show and, in reality, there is international anarchy and states do what they want.

Furthermore, NATO provides no protections to non-Allies, and Ukraine is not an Ally. Aside from that, there is no "rights", because, as previously mentioned, there is no true internationally enforced laws. We could fly a group of helicopters with SEALs onboard into Pakistan tomorrow, without telling them, and kill a bunch of people there we don't like, and they won't do anything but complain... like happened with UBL. Because they are weak, and we are strong. Even their sovereignty is not guaranteed by any actual international enforcement actions.
 
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Mirage said:
Except, you are incorrect, according to the UN itself. The international community agreed that the international community has a responsibility to take action, including military action if necessary, to prevent such things as genocide. A responsibility it has repeatedly neglected, because... it is all a show and, in reality, there is international anarchy and states do what they want.

Furthermore, NATO provides no protections to non-Allies, and Ukraine is not an Ally. Aside from that, there is no "rights", because, as previously mentioned, there is no true internationally enforced laws. We could fly a group of helicopters with SEALs onboard into Pakistan tomorrow, without telling them, and kill a bunch of people there we don't like, and they won't do anything but complain... like happened with UBL. Because they are weak, and we are strong. Even their sovereignty is not guaranteed by any actual international enforcement actions.
Click to expand...
Now define “the international community” as reflected through the UN.

Also, I used the term NATO to consolidate a bunch of nations…if you prefer, and as happened, each individual nation has a moral and legal right to form an alliance when one nation assaults the border of another. Most are lending a hand, others are not.

You are taking a surprisingly simplistic view of this. Yes, the US can fly SEALs to anywhere in the world (in violation of their national sovereignty) to kill and destroy and any other nation is welcome to come to the defense of that nation. Since you like things simple, the difference is that the US did not try to destroy the government of Pakistan or force them back to Indian control…they killed a “non-state actor” and said “sorry” to Pakistan afterwards.
 
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
Griz882 said:
Now define “the international community” as reflected through the UN.

Also, I used the term NATO to consolidate a bunch of nations…if you prefer, and as happened, each individual nation has a moral and legal right to form an alliance when one nation assaults the border of another. Most are lending a hand, others are not.

You are taking a surprisingly simplistic view of this. Yes, the US can fly SEALs to anywhere in the world (in violation of their national sovereignty) to kill and destroy and any other nation is welcome to come to the defense of that nation. Since you like things simple, the difference is that the US did not try to destroy the government of Pakistan or force them back to Indian control…they killed a “non-state actor” and said “sorry” to Pakistan afterwards.
Click to expand...
Yes, define international community... that would shine light on who upholds the supposed "rules based order". Once again, y'all are proving my point. The UN would define it as the signatories of the agreements it sponsors... which is to say, most every country. But none of them seem interested in actually doing what they said they would do, most of the time. Like, for example, not violating the sovereignty of other states (like we did in Pakistan).
 
JTS11

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Mirage said:
Yes, define international community... that would shine light on who upholds the supposed "rules based order". Once again, y'all are proving my point. The UN would define it as the signatories of the agreements it sponsors... which is to say, most every country. But none of them seem interested in actually doing what they said they would do, most of the time. Like, for example, not violating the sovereignty of other states (like we did in Pakistan).
Click to expand...
Do you identify as a sovereign citizen?
 
JTS11

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
It seems the Russians do changes of command without a band differently than we do. No talk of "loss of confidence". They just get to the point.
 
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Mirage said:
Yes, define international community... that would shine light on who upholds the supposed "rules based order". Once again, y'all are proving my point. The UN would define it as the signatories of the agreements it sponsors... which is to say, most every country. But none of them seem interested in actually doing what they said they would do, most of the time. Like, for example, not violating the sovereignty of other states (like we did in Pakistan).
Click to expand...
No, I am not proving your point! I’ll ask again…define the “international community” as reflected through the UN. Who “runs” the UN? Who recommends to take action (the General Assembly-by vote), who then decides what action to take (the Security Council based on WWII power balance) and who implements that action (the Secretary General)? The UN has only worked once…just once since its creation and that appears to be intentional. In truth the UN is expressed through a set of aid programs like UNDP, UNICEF, UNEP, and UNHCR. These are the “international community” players running about the traditional state-vs-state battle space - and that is exactly what they should do. The U.S. is sovereign, Russia is sovereign, and the Ukraine is sovereign thus each nation must take decisions based on internal need and external norms.

Did the US “violate” the international sovereignty of Pakistan? Yes. Diid the US have casus belli? Yes. Both the United Nations Security Council and international law traditionally requires the state that suffered the armed attack (the U.S. post 9/11) from a non-state actor living in a territorial state assess whether that territorial state is unwilling or unable to unilaterally suppress the threat. Only if the territorial state is unwilling or unable to eliminate the threat may the victim state lawfully use force. The raid was launched after due discourse ending with the assumption that Pakistan was substantially “unable” to to suppress the threat. More importantly, the US action was immediate, quick, and followed by no continued threat to Pakistan’s sovereignty.

In short there really are rules to the international practice of order. I won’t call the US perfect, but I will stand by the fact that they do at least follow the rules.
 
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
JTS11 said:
It seems the Russians do changes of command without a band differently than we do. No talk of "loss of confidence". They just get to the point.
Click to expand...
Imagine what Navy Times would look like if we “relieved” every “loss of confidence” commander in that way! ?
 
M

Mirage

Well-Known Member
pilot
Griz882 said:
No, I am not proving your point! I’ll ask again…define the “international community” as reflected through the UN. Who “runs” the UN? Who recommends to take action (the General Assembly-by vote), who then decides what action to take (the Security Council based on WWII power balance) and who implements that action (the Secretary General)? The UN has only worked once…just once since its creation and that appears to be intentional. In truth the UN is expressed through a set of aid programs like UNDP, UNICEF, UNEP, and UNHCR. These are the “international community” players running about the traditional state-vs-state battle space - and that is exactly what they should do. The U.S. is sovereign, Russia is sovereign, and the Ukraine is sovereign thus each nation must take decisions based on internal need and external norms.

Did the US “violate” the international sovereignty of Pakistan? Yes. Diid the US have casus belli? Yes. Both the United Nations Security Council and international law traditionally requires the state that suffered the armed attack (the U.S. post 9/11) from a non-state actor living in a territorial state assess whether that territorial state is unwilling or unable to unilaterally suppress the threat. Only if the territorial state is unwilling or unable to eliminate the threat may the victim state lawfully use force. The raid was launched after due discourse ending with the assumption that Pakistan was substantially “unable” to to suppress the threat. More importantly, the US action was immediate, quick, and followed by no continued threat to Pakistan’s sovereignty.

In short there really are rules to the international practice of order. I won’t call the US perfect, but I will stand by the fact that they do at least follow the rules.
Click to expand...
I'll answer you again:
Mirage said:
The UN would define it as the signatories of the agreements it sponsors... which is to say, most every country.
Click to expand...
Every one of them agreed to not accept genocide. Every one of them has since repeatedly accepted genocide. Am I wrong? You say that "the UN has only worked once". That is exactly my point. Those who want to think we live in a rules based international community point to things such as the UN, which you admitted, only worked once. And in that case, it only worked because the USSR didn't show up that day to render the UNSC impotent (Korean War). How can you then say there are international rules? Rules are enforced, which the UN essentially cannot do. There are international guidelines that countries agreed to and then follow if it happens to be convenient. Or they don't.

We don't always, either. We violate the sovereignty of African countries regularly. We didn't respond to genocides in Africa or China. We aren't sponsoring a UN push to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine that involves UN peacekeepers, which the UN charter would have us do (thank god). We've overthrown multiple legitimate foreign governments when it suited us. We invaded Iraq because we might have thought they had nukes. We do what we want. I am not criticizing that.. I agree with most of those actions, actually. But let's not pretend like we follow all the supposed "rules".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top