Compare and Contrast

Apologists for Russia like to say, what do we expect after what we've done around the world? From Kosovo to Libya, we intervene. We're reaping what we sow. Hogwash.

Since the Soviet empire collapsed in 1991, Russia has pounded Chechnya, invaded Georgia, and now captured Crimea. The fate of eastern and southern Ukraine remains in doubt.

So what? That's what some apologists say. We bombed the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, followed by occupations; invaded Iraq; invaded Afghanistan; and overthrew the government of Libya with an air campaign in support of rebels.

So who are we to complain. What's the difference?

There are two main differences. We did not fight to conquer. We left when we could or when asked, and never annexed any territory. Every intervention resulted in independence of those the subject of our intervention.

Russia, by contrast, ended their interventions with territory in their formal possession.

Also, in every intervention, we led an array of nations into battle. Anti-war activists may have belittled these "coalitions of the willing," but many countries stood with us.

Who stood with Russia's invasions?

Nobody.

Russia invaded each region alone. Not one single country was willing to be in a coalition with Russia. Not one member of the international community saw fit to stand with Russia.

So, yeah, other than being the difference between helping people with broad international support and subjugating people for Russia's imperial ambitions, what the Hell is the difference, eh?