The OP is not using it here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1954187.html?thread=149012363#t149012363), and it was the OP that you asked why it was being used.
Whether Russia itself might be able to refer to American behavior as the example it's following is, I think, a different kind of question
The question was what Russia uses as justification for its actions, not what Htpcl or anyone else in this forum believes is a justification. And it was answered as such. I'm at a loss why we should be talking-about-talking that much about it. Is it really that important for you to establish once and for all if it's been meant as a tu quoque or as a genuine attempt to analyse the rationale behind Russia's actions? Isn't that in fact quite an elaborate distraction from a topic that has already been derailed enough with tangential references?
Russia may, indeed, have legitimate cause to wonder why it shouldn't be permitted to do as it likes, given the American examples
Exactly the point I, and I believe the OP, are making.
The extent to which the above-listed actions had been objected to by the international community is irrelevant to the fact that these were quite unequivocally acts of open aggression against sovereign nations, perpetrated in pursuit of geopolitical interests. The extent of response from the international community is rather a consequence of the context of the particular epoch, the particular circumstances in terms of international diplomatic support for the perpetrator, and many other factors, which are tangential to the core principle - namely: is the direct or indirect intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign country justified, and if yes, under what circumstances? That's the main question here.
I'm not sure if Russia is looking to American history as a model, rather than a justification. Ultimately, they're embarking on those adventures because they've figured they can, and they might imagine these would have little to no long-term consequences for them. It's all about the weighing of pros and cons, and the assessment of risks. The latest developments in terms of Europe's apparent inability to affect the situation in Ukraine in any meaningful way, may've additionally fueled this assertiveness on Russia's part.
no subject
The question was what Russia uses as justification for its actions, not what Htpcl or anyone else in this forum believes is a justification. And it was answered as such. I'm at a loss why we should be talking-about-talking that much about it. Is it really that important for you to establish once and for all if it's been meant as a tu quoque or as a genuine attempt to analyse the rationale behind Russia's actions? Isn't that in fact quite an elaborate distraction from a topic that has already been derailed enough with tangential references?
Exactly the point I, and I believe the OP, are making.
The extent to which the above-listed actions had been objected to by the international community is irrelevant to the fact that these were quite unequivocally acts of open aggression against sovereign nations, perpetrated in pursuit of geopolitical interests. The extent of response from the international community is rather a consequence of the context of the particular epoch, the particular circumstances in terms of international diplomatic support for the perpetrator, and many other factors, which are tangential to the core principle - namely: is the direct or indirect intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign country justified, and if yes, under what circumstances? That's the main question here.
I'm not sure if Russia is looking to American history as a model, rather than a justification. Ultimately, they're embarking on those adventures because they've figured they can, and they might imagine these would have little to no long-term consequences for them. It's all about the weighing of pros and cons, and the assessment of risks. The latest developments in terms of Europe's apparent inability to affect the situation in Ukraine in any meaningful way, may've additionally fueled this assertiveness on Russia's part.