Sovereign states can always 'unilaterally' decide to do whatever they want. It all boils down to strength, really: the US can get away with much more than anyone else (Ukraine 2022 is not so different from Iraq 2003, and yet...) because they are much stronger than anyone else.
In this case, the main limitation is that the US and Russia don't want a direct war so will refrain from direct attacks. Even this guy is not suggesting the Navy should do it. But if Russia was much smaller (and without nukes) I think the US could actually be OK with sending the Navy to seize any Russian vessel they could find.
Privateers, under a proper Letter of Marque, are considered to be legitimate mercenaries. No much difference if it is Privateer Babossa of Commodore Norrington who's doing the seizing at sea, as long as the former is operating a letter of marque. Both parties are, basically, part of the same Navy. The other option would be outright piracy.
EDIT: Sure, sovereign states can unilaterally decide whatever they want. in case they are not North Korea they risk to break multiple treaties so. As Russia showed us, one miscalculation in such a sovereign decision bears the risk of turning said country into an isolated country, just like North Korea.
Countries can withdraw from treaties first so as not to formally break them, or just indeed break them.
The point is that the consequences depend on who you are. Russia is up against the US/West so consequences are severe and, again, we can contrast this against the consequences for the US of invading Iraq, which were none.
Of course not, I'm not some authoritarian totalist. It was a small piece of land not critical to Ukraine as a whole. I don't think it was the right move for Ukraine to make.
That would be weird if it happened but from what I understand what you're saying isn't accurate. A lot of people were leaving the area rather than entering.
I absolutely would! But hen I'm one of the few people that never really considered Afghan or Iraqi resistance against US and / or NATO forces to be "evil".
Understanding, e.g., Putin's motivation doesn't mean defending him.
“The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with the militant Islamist group al-Qaeda. They hailed from four countries; fifteen of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one from Egypt.”
Iraq is not mentioned even once in the article.
Do not attempt to shift the goal posts. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was specifically tied to Saddam's possession of WMDs (demonstrably false) and his willingness to use them (therefore also false), and the constant linking of Iraq to 9/11 (fake news).
00:04 I got called in by an officer on the
00:07 Joint Staff who told me that he said you
00:09 know we're gonna invade Iraq. I said but
00:11 why? And he said I don't know he said I
00:15 guess because we don't know what else to
00:17 do. But in fact the why of it went back a
00:21 decade to the spring of 1991, it went
00:26 back to the argument inside the
00:28 Republican Party about whether or not
00:31 the Gulf War should have ended with the
00:35 capture of Baghdad and the overthrow of
00:37 Saddam Hussein. And in 1991 when I talked
00:40 to secretary Wolfowitz you know he said
00:42 we didn't get rid of Saddam Hussein and
00:44 and we should have, he said we've only
00:47 got five or 10 years to clean up the
00:51 Middle East these old Soviet surrogate
00:54 regimes like Syria and Iraq get rid of
00:56 them before the next superpower comes
00:59 along the challenges
This is the undisputed historical reality. These are not hidden truths, this is public knowledge. Anybody intimating otherwise is either deliberately misconstruing past events to suit their own version of how they want things to be or is a useful idiot[2] oblivious to the nonsense they are spouting.
1. It was relevant to the point being made further up :- that is to say, on the world stage, might unfortunately makes right
2. You don't get to police the boundaries of what I choose to respond to.
> Iraq '03 was wrong, and the current Russian invasion of a democratic country is wrong.
Which was my point. Whether the US does it in Iraq, or Russia does it in Ukraine, or Saudi Arabia does it in Yemen[1][2], or Israel does it in Syria[3]
Which is why I expect we'll see sanctions levied on Saudi Arabia and Israel any day now.
[2] Syria: Two civilians killed in Israeli attack near Damascus: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/7/syria-two-civilians-... “Since war broke out in Syria in 2011, Israel has carried out hundreds of air attacks inside the country, targeting government positions as well as allied Iran-backed forces and fighters of the Shia group Hezbollah.”
In this case, the main limitation is that the US and Russia don't want a direct war so will refrain from direct attacks. Even this guy is not suggesting the Navy should do it. But if Russia was much smaller (and without nukes) I think the US could actually be OK with sending the Navy to seize any Russian vessel they could find.