NATO intervention was sanctioned by resolution 1973 but it had very specific objectives and boundaries which it is argued NATO crossed. Russia was very vocal about that during the campaign as the resolution did not sanction regime change.
I agree with you r.e. Russia and Syrian intervention however the mission creep from the Libya campaign meant even resolutions Russia may have agreed on were impossible to sanction because Russia believed (rightly so) that they would have been used to install a more pro west government. Again, much like the Ukraine, Syria had little to do with the population, more to do with influence. Either way if we had entered a Syrian campaign we would probably still be there now trying to stop the jihadists installing an Islamic government there...
It's quite telling that in the last 20 years we very rarely go in to proper peace keeping/government backup missions such as Sierra Leone and Kosovo. There are many nations around the world where British and western help would really make a difference to people's lives by backing democratically elected governments against rebel factions. It's not in our interest so we don't do if...
With regards to the question about minorities and regions of the Crimea not wanting independence from Ukraine, there is the same problem in Scotland where answers will never be satisfactorily answered for many people. Many parts of Scotland are more pro independence while several parts of Scotland are heavily against the idea of an independent Scotland (such as the islands and north east). If Scotland gets independence those people's wishes are unlikely to be factored in, with parts of Scotland remaining with the UK.
While I understand the constitutional arrangement is different, with Westminster allowing the Scottish government to have a referendum on the matter, the idea that a constitution is legally unchallengeable and always correct is shown to be false even in the Ukraine where parts have been changed multiple times, most recently with the ammendments in the last couple of weeks.
I agree with you r.e. Russia and Syrian intervention however the mission creep from the Libya campaign meant even resolutions Russia may have agreed on were impossible to sanction because Russia believed (rightly so) that they would have been used to install a more pro west government. Again, much like the Ukraine, Syria had little to do with the population, more to do with influence. Either way if we had entered a Syrian campaign we would probably still be there now trying to stop the jihadists installing an Islamic government there...
It's quite telling that in the last 20 years we very rarely go in to proper peace keeping/government backup missions such as Sierra Leone and Kosovo. There are many nations around the world where British and western help would really make a difference to people's lives by backing democratically elected governments against rebel factions. It's not in our interest so we don't do if...
With regards to the question about minorities and regions of the Crimea not wanting independence from Ukraine, there is the same problem in Scotland where answers will never be satisfactorily answered for many people. Many parts of Scotland are more pro independence while several parts of Scotland are heavily against the idea of an independent Scotland (such as the islands and north east). If Scotland gets independence those people's wishes are unlikely to be factored in, with parts of Scotland remaining with the UK.
While I understand the constitutional arrangement is different, with Westminster allowing the Scottish government to have a referendum on the matter, the idea that a constitution is legally unchallengeable and always correct is shown to be false even in the Ukraine where parts have been changed multiple times, most recently with the ammendments in the last couple of weeks.
Last edited:
