…unless they also condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Most European territories serve the USA’s geopolitical goals. Sanctions against Russia right now are part of that. There’s nothing moral about it. It’s simply a service to the USA for being in its sphere of influence. There is nothing, not a single shred of integrity in that.

If you find a territory which sanctions Russia for its crime, and also the USA for its crimes, you can recognise it as a real principled act.

    • roastpotatothief@lemmy.mlOPM
      2·
      3 years ago

      I don’t really distinguish between annexation and occupation. But yes maybe there is some legal difference. Which chapter deals with this?

        • roastpotatothief@lemmy.mlOPM
          11·
          3 years ago

          This one? Or this one? I don’t understand why there are (at least) two different version. Maybe one is an amendment. But anyway neither makes a legal distinction between occupation and annexation.

          If you’re saying that annexation (like in the Crimea) is “specifically forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations” but occupation (like in Iraq) is not, that doesn’t seem to be true, and I don’t see why the UN (or anyone) would make a big distinction between the two.