How is the Russian invasion of Ukraine different from what the USA has done multiple times in the past?

Question

I see almost everyone protesting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This includes the USA too.

But the USA has a history of invasions or wars which have also resulted in civilian deaths and violations of human rights.

And there's no guarantee what a country would do in future.

So I see a lot of people calling it hypocritical that Russia is doing something that the USA has done in the past and won't hesitate to do again in the future.

Of course, past actions by the USA don't justify the Russian invasion.

So I want to know is, is this current invasion significantly different from what the USA has done in the past?

What are the reasons that Russia is being protested and sanctioned this much while the USA wasn't?

If yes, how do the USA or NATO justify protesting the Russian invasion given that they also have a history of human rights violations and civilian deaths?

Answer 1

• Russia is questioning the statehood of Ukraine. Western invasions claimed to aim for the rebuilding of statehood in the Western model. This often failed, but Iraq, Bosnia, or Somalia have not become member states or territories of the United States, and nobody seriously believes that the US wants that. Russia has already annexed part of Ukraine.
• The West sees Russian explanations for the invasion as especially implausible. For instance, they are calling the Jewish President of Ukraine a Nazi. While Jewish Nazis are not completely impossible, this requires more evidence than they have been able to provide.

Answer 2

So I want to know, is this current invasion significantly different from what the USA has done in past?

There are some similarities. Of course there are also differences.

I'd say one close comparison is the 2004 invasion of Iraq. In that war the US (and others) invaded Iraq and overthrew the Iraqi government on the grounds that it had a WMD program.

Another one is the NATO intervention in the Kosovo war. That intervention in Kosovo was also based on an allegation of genocide which later turned out to be false. According to Wikipedia:

The NATO intervention has been seen as a political diversionary tactic, coming as it did on the heels of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, pointing to the fact that coverage of the bombing directly replaced coverage of the scandal in US news cycles. Herbert Foerstel points out that before the bombing, rather than there being an unusually bloody conflict, the KLA was not engaged in a widespread war against Yugoslav forces and the death toll among all concerned (including ethnic Albanians) skyrocketed following NATO intervention. In a post-war report released by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the organization also noted "the pattern of the expulsions and the vast increase in lootings, killings, rape, kidnappings and pillage once the NATO air war began on March 24".

US President Clinton, his administration and NATO governments were accused of inflating the number of Kosovo Albanians killed by state forces. The conservative media watchdog group Accuracy in Media charged the alliance with distorting the situation in Kosovo and lying about the number of civilian deaths in order to justify U.S. involvement in the conflict.

After the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Chinese President Jiang Zemin said that the US was using its economic and military superiority to aggressively expand its influence and interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Chinese leaders called the NATO campaign a dangerous precedent of naked aggression, a new form of colonialism, and an aggressive war groundless in morality or law. It was seen as part of a plot by the US to destroy Yugoslavia, expand eastward and control all of Europe.

However, estimates showed that prior to the bombing campaign on 24 March 1999, approximately 1,800 civilians had been killed in the Kosovo war, mostly Albanians but also Serbs and that there had been no evidence of genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Russia has invaded Ukraine (among other things) under the pretence of stopping a genocide which most other countries do not recognize is happening. See for example this question where I also wrote an answer: What exactly does Putin mean by 'genocide' in Ukraine?.

---

If yes, how do the USA or NATO justify protesting Russian invasion given that they also have a history of human rights violation and civilians deaths?

Last week's episode of Real Time with Bill Maher had an interview with Arizona Congressman Ruben Gallego. Though he doesn't speak on behalf of the US, I think it's relevant for understanding the position taken by most in the West. In the interview he basically answers your question. The Democratic Congressman said (10 minutes into the episode):

Look here's the thing, I get what you're saying, we have had our bad moments, we have not been a perfect country. But that does not excuse us from what is right, right now. And that is backing a democracy that wants to defend itself.

In other words, just because the US (and some allies) made bad decisions then doesn't mean that they aren't right on this issue. To argue that it does is sometimes called out as a logical fallacy known as whataboutism.

---

I mean what are some main reasons that Russia is being protested and sanctioned this much while the USA wasn't.

This is probably the more interesting part of your question. So you ask about protesting and sanctions. Those are two different things. The 2004 invasion of Iraq was protested also, see the 'opposition to invasion' heading on that war's Wikipedia page.

Sanctions are a different matter entirely. The reason the US and its allies can implement sanctions is because of their political and economic capital. The West has the power to implement meaningful sanctions; that's why they get attention. The Iraq war also saw sanctions, but they were aimed at Saddam Hussain's Iraq.

Some in the US are also sanctioned by other countries, but it's a lot less meaningful. For example, China and Russia have both imposed sanctions on some US politicians in the past.

So why didn't the US get sanctioned for invading Iraq? It's because its allies either went along with it or opposed the move diplomatically rather than punitively. US adversaries didn't have the political capital to impose meaningful sanctions.

What do I mean by political capital? It's that the sanctions should hurt their target more than it hurts yourself. This requires some existing relationship where you have control. For example, the West has control over the SWIFT banking system. Politicians in the West aren't that reliant on US adversaries in any way. The West's reliance on US adversaries is either niche (e.g. Russian gas) or part of a much broader relationship (e.g. trade with China). Sanctions on those relationships would hurt both countries, making them less useful for punishing the other.

Answer 3

Very Simple,

The invasion of another foreign sovereign country, when there is no "imminent" security threat, is considered taboo by the international community, especially since world war 2. No democratic country has done this in the past 80 years.

Russia's problem is, that no one in the free world understands how Ukraine is an imminent threat to Russia's security, or to the security of any human being on earth.

Answer 4

I would separate protests and sanctions. Protests are mostly triggered by the population and can only happen in relatively democratic liberal countries regardless of the reason because very autocratic countries tend to not allow huge protests. Sanctions on the other hand are imposed by governments.

Now if we compare the current war in Ukraine to the US led invasion of Iraq in 2004 there were protests against both in various countries. For example there were major demonstrations in Germany against the US when they started the invasion similar to the protests against Putin today. This happened in spite of the fact that Germany considers itself as a much closer ally to the US than to Russia. There were similar protests in other EU countries as well.

Sanctions only work if they are imposed from an economically more powerful country (or group of countries) against a weaker one. So if the US and EU agree to sanction Russia that is a very effective measure. If say Kenia tries to sanction the US (regardless of the reason) this would not work, the relative damage to Kenia would be much bigger than the damage to the US. Imposing sanctions against the US is very difficult simply because of the size of their economy, regardless of whether governments think it would be justified or not, so it doesn't happen.

Answer 5

One of the most obvious differences as of 2024 is that Russia has formally annexed 4 Ukrainian regions, which they don't fully occupy yet. And Putin now insists there can be no peace unless Ukrainian troops leave those regions entirely.

Despite all its post-WW2 military interventions abroad, the US had not done such an annexation by force, and then "put it into writing", in a long time. (IIRC there was a Qs when they'd last done that, but I can't find that one right now.)

Yes, one can quibble about all the regime-change (or regime-support) wars the US was involved in, but this [Russia-Ukraine] is a border-changing war now, although surely Russia also tried to do regime change in Ukraine in the early stages of the war (2022 drive on Kyiv, repulsed.) Putin still insists on Ukraine dropping their NATO bid though, so while not quite regime-change, it is still somewhat related on that angle too (but I'm not sure there's an established term for this kind of war, when a [foreign] policy change is a demand.) Anyhow, this is not the only demand of Putin, and whether it's overshadowed by the territorial one, it depends whom you ask. (E.g. Chinese state propaganda insists the war is all about this and not the territorial demands.)

Answer 6

The lack of effort to even pretend it's something else?

Like the U.S. lied about their reasons to go to war and create regime change, but they left a paper trail of going through the UN, establishing the problem and pretending to find diplomatic solutions, before saying "fuck it" and go in militarily with a whole bunch of allies.

This is a list of all the UN resolutions that got adopted prior to the invasion of Crimea, feel free to also look for the periods before the 2022 invasion and before the U.S. wars as well (just providing one link): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolutions_2101_to_2200

And I can't really find any attempts by Russia to make the claim that Ukraine commits genocide and needs to be stopped internationally and that if no one else does they will do it. Maybe it's a me problem (of not finding them), but from what I can see that just didn't happen.

Also in case they would have been vetoed (which is very possible), there doesn't seem to be any of those either: https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick

Also the invasion of Iraq had a lead up, an ultimatum and whatnot. Like Saddam couldn't have given up WMDs that he didn't posses and being asked to leave the country is also not something I'd expect any leader of any country would have taken seriously, but as much as these things were a sham, none of that had happened prior to 2022, did it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Escalation_and_invasion_(February_2022_%E2%80%93_present)

Like Russia obviously prepared for an invasion, but told others they aren't preparing for an invasion.

Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, accused the West of "hysterics" and of "whipping up tensions" over Ukraine. He accused the U.S. of "stoking the conflict" and said the UNSC meeting was "an attempt to drive a wedge between Russia and Ukraine". 31 January 2022

Diplomatic channels were closed. Demands that were made were about NATO rather than anything Ukraine itself has done. And while in hindsight it's hard to call the invasion surprising after a smothering conflict since 2014 and with hundreds of thousands of troops gathering around the border for months, it's still kinda felt like that, given that there was no flashpoint incident, no ultimatum, no clear explanation given.

Russia just recognized the separatists and invaded on their behalf. Apparently days prior they already intensified the shelling presumable to trigger a response which could be used as an excuse, but that apparently didn't work.

Now before and since then there have been explanations given including:

• Ukrainians are Nazi
• The Ukrainian government is illegitimate due to the protests
• Putin's history fiction of Ukraine not being a state but an anti-Russian project
• Discrimination/genocide of "Russians" in Ukraine
• Feeling threatened by NATO
• ...

Did I miss any? Like seriously there's been a lot but none has, afaik, been given as a conclusive answer as to why or is consistent with the facts and the narrative. Like before the invasion it was NATO, afterwards it was historic fiction, when it suits it's the illegitimate government, to rally people it's against the literal Nazis. But none of that actually adds up. Like if it is about NATO why attack, invade and annex Ukraine?

Presenting yourself as a rogue aggressor, that doesn't give a shit about diplomacy, treaties (Budapest Memorandum) and kills people just to send a message, is a pretty solid strategy if you want the smaller NATO states around you to ask for MORE NATO presence and to get the attacked state to want to join alliances that can protect them if treaties mean nothing to you and for the U.S. to consider Russia a serious threat to global security and their own interests (not sure they ever stopped entirely, but relaxed somewhat since the end of the cold war, didn't it?.

Now in that regard it might even make sense to annex the country because it's quite challenging to make a countries population like you if you're fighting an aggressive war against them, including all the war crimes and civilian casualties that come with that, as the U.S. can probably affirm, being apparently less popular in Afghanistan than the Taliban...

Though that bites itself with the "it's to prevent a genocide" narrative, if you end up effectively doing genocide, whether it's by killing the people defending their country, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, stealing children etc. Now the narrative of "We have to kill lots of people to make the wrong sort of people stop killing the right sort of people", has unfortunately also been used before. But again you'd expect that if that was your casus belli you'd be way more vocal about it (at least upfront). Though: Silence.

Same for accusations of regime change prior to 2014, how does invading the country and claiming parts of it for yourself fit into that? Like the golden rule of regime change is not to make yourself synonymous with the new regime... Like the point of a puppet regime is that you don't see the master, but pretend that it's acting out of it's own volition. While having a place declare it's autonomy just to give up said autonomy to you, is even more sketchy than regular regime change. Now having a referendum to fulfill the form is some effort, though not really all that much either.

Now with regards to Nazis that apparently seems to be a play on Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis who hoped for an independent state and which may be evoked for that intention not really for collaborating with Nazis (also the Nazis didn't support that plan anyway), as well as apparently the Azov brigade. Making use of Nazi imagery other far right stuff and people. Though they only formed AFTER the invasion of Crimea and the smoldering conflict, so not really suitable as as argument for the aggression. Also with regards to independence that's hardly it's origin myth, there had been wars of independence prior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_War_of_Independence

And Ukraine has a much longer history as a country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine

So none of that makes much sense, now fair enough if you compare it to lying about causes that's not terribly new, though none of that is even consistent in and off itself, but the reason for why things happen changes constantly and the actions don't match the narrative.

Like if it is to support people in eastern Ukraine, about crimes and Nazis why not at least attempt to gather the international spotlight? If it's about issues not annexation, why do the annexation? If it's about NATO being too close why give them a reason to come even closer WITHOUT even appearing to be aggressive.

Like there isn't even an honest attempt to make that look like anything other than a war for conquest. The invasion of Ukraine came so out of the blue it even blindsided people in the West arguing in favor of Putin's position. Like it might have looked like legit hysteria of the CIA if Putin had withdrawn the troops from the border. But after the invasion, it doesn't look like an aggressive NATO pushed Russia towards that step, but rather like Russia planned that to begin with and grasps for every straw in order to make it seem less like what it obviously was, the start of an aggressive war for conquest, a signal to smaller countries and some proxy war to show strength by crushing a 3rd party.

And these wars for conquest have actually become rare since WWII and aggressive wars and wars for conquest are no longer internationally seen as "neutral", but more and more as international crimes. Now that the U.S. has seen little consequences for it's war crimes and wars of aggression apart from local and international protests, doesn't mean we're not talking about crimes here. International justice is long and complicated and sanctions against global super powers are difficult, as can be seen with Russia. Though there was at least some effort to uphold the rule of international law even if it was ultimately undermined.

But Russia's "fuck that, the U.S. did it so we are also allowed to do crime", is a whole other level of not giving a shit. Like it not just violates laws, this lack of effort to even pretend not to kinda aims at invalidating the entire concept of it, that's a lot more problematic than a local regime change.

Answer 7

It was much longer ago. I think it was about 1887 when this mostly ended, and the world is much different today.

USA was, indeed, taking the lands of Native Americans forcefully, making fake peace agreements they violated later just to make further expansion, and obviously incorporating the taken lands into their territory. One significant event marking the end of large-scale land seizures was the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) of 1887. These expansions do not differ much from that Russia is doing now in Ukraine. Native Americans were obviously less successful with the help from outside.

I do not think USA have done everything recently to expand its direct territory by military force.

Answer 8

But the USA has a history of invasions or wars which have also resulted in civilian deaths and violations of human rights.

It's pretty much impossible to prevent civilian deaths in any major war. Violations of human rights are theoretically possible to prevent, but in a large enough army, there are going to be some soldiers that do bad things. The accusations against Russia are not merely that some civilians have died and there have been violations of civil rights. Russia is accused of widespread, institutional disregard for civil rights in pursuit of an unjust goal.

So I see a lot of people calling it hypocritical that Russia is doing something that the USA has done in the past and won't hesitate to do again in the future.

I really can't see the USA doing what Russia is doing, without a massive shift in politics.

So I want to know is, is this current invasion significantly different from what the USA has done in the past?

I can't think of anything in the US' past that is similar to this, other than the Mexican-American war and maybe the Spanish American war. AFAIK, the Spanish American war was the last time the US annexed land through violence.

What are the reasons that Russia is being protested and sanctioned this much while the USA wasn't?

We had a period of three quarters of a century with virtually no European wars, other than the violence of the breakup of Yugoslavia. There are totally different social norms now compared to during the Spanish American war (and Spain didn't have much moral ground to stand on, as the territory we took from them, Spain had colonized and taken from the native population to begin with).