Out of the three major nuclear powers, I’d say only Russia would ever get sanctions for invading and occupying land. When was the last time US got sanctions?
Iraq had a “coalition of the willing” but that was mostly a joke.
One million excess deaths in Iraq as a result. We removed the Baathists and put Shiites in charge instead. Baathists joined up with ISIS and gave them American tanks and humvees, which then spilled violence over into Syria, and other regions.
Invading and occupying was actually better than invading and leaving a failed state like Libya. There, ISIS and Boko Haram were able to establish strongholds and millions still live under violent gangs. At least we stabilized Iraq somewhat — until we also left abruptly.
The last time we occupied land with our army was 2 months ago, when we withdrew from Afghanistan (also extremely abruptly).
Hawaii? Philippines / Guam / etc? Guantanamo? Panama canal?
But I see Russia invading and occupying, not annexing (unless you mean stationing troops in the “independent” regions). They specifically disavow annexing unless the government refuses to negotiate and sign a peace agreement. They already did this exact playbook in the Russo-Georgian war, down to defending the two breakaway republics, the provocations, the “peacekeeping mission”, the invasion, and demilitarization (through defeating their army). And that war was also immediately after a NATO related escalation.
1) NATO countries didn’t send endless amounts of fighter jets and drones to Georgia
2) France helped broker a peace agreement
A few months later, Russia’s troops withdrew and Georgia is an independent country.
On the other hand, a lot of lessons were learned by USSR in Afghanistan — a quagmire for 10 years where USA trained Mujahideen against the Soviets. Russia+China+Pakistan returned the favor in Afghanistan with arming the Taliban when USA occupied it for 20 years and spent trillions. Afghanistan has never been defeated, but has become a war-ravaged country with a shitty economy.
As Ukrainians say: the West is ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian!
> I see Russia invading and occupying, not annexing
Crimea was unambiguously annexed in 2014 [1]. The U.S. hasn’t annexed territory since WWII (the Marshall Islands) or WWI (the Virgin Islands and Kingman Reef).
Grenada- response to a coup d'e´tat with a multinational force
Panama- technically Noriega declared a state of war first (not the brightest move)
Desert Storm - response to Iraqi invasion/aggression
Haiti - restore democratically elected president
Bosnia- UN sanctioned response to Serbian aggression
Afghanistan- response to Twin Towers - 9/11 aggression. The worst thing we did was actually trying to be 'virtuous' and nation build when we weren't wanted. Get in, decapitate government, make it clear we will rinse and repeat as necessary as long as they host terrorists, leave them alone, with maybe one air base to carry through on the threat if necessary.
Iraq take 2- this is the most questionable one and definitely the most unwise one. Iraq/Saddam had continuously been aggressive post Deseret Storm and hadn't abided by peace terms, so in a legalistic sense, this was justifiable, from pretty much every other sense, moronic.
Libya- National Transition Council was the recognized government at the time of Gaddafi's killing. Supporting any particular faction in the civil war before it played out though, was worse than useless.
Killing of OBL in Pakistan - considering we started an invasion of Afghanistan over him, going after him on Pakistani soil seems rather mild.
Generally it is a pattern of being the world's police and/or avenging attacks, not wars of aggression to capture territory.
Now if you're talking Cold War CIA, then the list of nasty manipulations justified by fear of what the 'bad guys' were doing is a long and not defendable list...
Gonna have to point out that both Korea and Vietnam were western installed dictatorships.
In the case of Korea at least, they were fighting off the Soviet installed dictator, but in Vietnam they were fighting off the longstanding indigenous anti colonial movement.
Wasn’t Hawaii given statehood in 1959? Is that not considered annexing?
Puerto Rico has referendums to join the US pretty often. Crimea had one and voted to join Russia. The international community could have placed more observers there, they just didnt do it in protest of the legitimacy of the very referendum itself. The international community just doesn’t recognize the principle of self-determination for any regions other than countries. That’s also why they accept Hong Kong being gifted top down by one empire to another.
Back during USSR days one guy (Khruschtchev) unilaterally gifted Crimea to Ukraine. Why is that more legitimate than an entire referendum? It’s not surprising how Crimea voted. It’s far more Russian than Ukrainian ethnically. If you want to blame anyone, blame Stalin who deported the vast majority of Crimean Tatars, otherwise they might have voted differently.
A territory becoming a state is not annexation. The US annexed Hawaii in 1898.
Puerto Rico is already part of the US.
The referendum in Crimea was run by Russia as a pretext after it had already invaded. It is extremely doubtful that it represents the actual views of the people living there.
The referendum was run while the region was being held at gunpoint by an invading force. There is no possible way to hold a legitimate referendum in those circumstances.
Either way regions are "held at gunpoint" by your definition. It's either going to be from one government or another. For example just a few years ago:
The key is whether the referendum actually got held and there was a large enough turnout that it was meaningful. No one was stopping more observers from coming and overseeing it, including whether coersion was happening. And anyway, what difference would guns make in how people voted? Because I don't see how the soldiers could possibly know the way people voted in a closed booth. So even if there were people with guns out there, that by itself wouldn't affect how people vote. The most they could do is try to force people to the voting booth, as they do in Australia for example, or try to keep them from showing up, as they do in Southern US states.
And besides, when it comes to Russia or Belarus, it doesn't matter that the legitimate government is dominant in the region instead of "an invading force", you don't trust the outcome of the referendums anyway. For example, Belarus just had one a week ago, do you trust the results?
Finally, a technical point: Russia had 25,000 troops in the Crimean peninsula, which it was allowed to have according to the Partition Treaty about the Black Sea Fleet, so it wasn't an "invasion" there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status....
That treaty bound Russia to "respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, honor its legislation and preclude interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine" and, furthermore, Russian military personnel had to show their "military identification cards" when crossing the Ukrainian-Russian border; Russian forces could operate "beyond their deployment sites" only after "coordination with the competent agencies of Ukraine."
Sending in masked troops without insignia to overthrow Crimea's Supreme Council, install a Russian puppet government and run a farcical independence referendum is as far as you can get from following the terms of that treaty.
There is a huge difference between having your troops stationed in military bases and hitting beaches and pubs in free time, and having them guns out on the streets.
So, the last time the US annexed land by force was the 1800s and the Spanish American war. That's probably why the US isn't getting sanctioned, but Russia is and China would.
Meanwhile, I look at Crimea and say Russia isn't shy about annexing. And this particular thread was trying to talk about if China could invade Taiwan without sanctions, using examples of Russia and the US as similar powers. My point is that wars of annexation are met with sanctions.
By your logic PRC "reunifying" with TW wouldn't be met with sanctions because it's a civil war where TW is de jure
recognized as part of Chinese territory, at least by parties who can do meaningful sanctions. After all PRC can't annex what's already legally hers.
Except sanctions will be driven by political decisions in democracies. I feel like most of the EU and US citizens would consider it an invasion - so sanctions.
It's not an international law driven by unflinching rules. It's a democratic choice, or a series of them.
I think people are viscerally responding to the invasion and bombings, less so the political status of a region. Annexation isn't the distinctive feature here. Lots of people protested the Iraq war, around the world, and it didn't have anything to do with annexation. Civilian lives is what matters.
> And that war was also immediately after a NATO related escalation.
What 'NATO related escalation' immediately preceded Russia's invasion of the Ukraine? I don't believe that there was one. As far as I can tell, Putin's casus belli is 'the Ukraine exists.'
This is obviously just speculation, but it doesn’t seem like the current invasion of Ukraine is about annexation. It’s rather similar to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in that respect. They’re widely speculated to be targeting regime change, installing a pro Russian puppet government.
by everyone else. if the US would be politically isolated, they might think over their preferred political form of fascism.
or they would just start bombing everyone.
From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan: https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/overvi...