I find this type of thinking thinking repulsive. Individuals and cultures are not allowed to decide their own fate? I can only assume you're not from a country threatened by a more powerful neighbour.
If you were would you be happy to sacrifice your freedoms, your democratic voice, the future of your children just in case it might annoy a bigger neighbour?
The West largely got over these urges after Vietnam. Invading and bombing the shit out of countries because they voluntarily decide to align themselves with others that we don't like is no longer considered acceptable. This is a hugely positive development and has meant the end of world wars but it clearly irks those who long for a world run along the lines of the 19th great game where a small number of great powers get to decide the form of government or alliances of weaker countries.
To attempt to draw parallels between NATO and the EU and Russia is disingenuous. NATO and the EU are voluntary associations - countries can join or can decide to leave. Countries don't align themselves with NATO or the EU because NATO or the EU threatens them - they do so because others threaten them.
> The West largely got over these urges after Vietnam. Invading and bombing the shit out of countries because they voluntarily decide to align themselves with others that we don't like is no longer considered acceptable.
I don't see the relevance. Military intervention in Libya was not motivated because the Libyans decided to align with Russia or China or another anti-Western power?
I'm not claiming the West became pacifist after Vietnam, as such a claim would be clearly nonsense. My claim is that the west no longer sees a country's political difference as a justification for military intervention - unlike Russia. Nearly all wars involving western powers since then have either been to intervene in an existing civil war (often misguided) or in response to military aggression.
In the Libyan, case it was the former - a civil war.
If you were would you be happy to sacrifice your freedoms, your democratic voice, the future of your children just in case it might annoy a bigger neighbour?
The West largely got over these urges after Vietnam. Invading and bombing the shit out of countries because they voluntarily decide to align themselves with others that we don't like is no longer considered acceptable. This is a hugely positive development and has meant the end of world wars but it clearly irks those who long for a world run along the lines of the 19th great game where a small number of great powers get to decide the form of government or alliances of weaker countries.
To attempt to draw parallels between NATO and the EU and Russia is disingenuous. NATO and the EU are voluntary associations - countries can join or can decide to leave. Countries don't align themselves with NATO or the EU because NATO or the EU threatens them - they do so because others threaten them.