[lui8906]

> Either violation of a nation's sovereignty is a crime or it isn't. If being an authoritariann dictatorship is the criteria when is Saudi Arabia getting invaded?

Ah but here you are changing the goalposts, the OP never said it was a crime, they said it was different. And it IS different. I marched against the Iraq war and was against those wars from the beginning, and I still would argue that they are being fought for a very different reason, a reason that is a big cause for concern. Afghanistan and Iraq, for all the folly, were not attacked with a clear goal of expanding territory and maintaining long term control of each country. US and allies were only too eager to get out if they could get some stability and not have it look like a big L. They were attempting to allow the locals to vote in a self determined government, however miserably those attempts ended up.

Russia is very clearly expanding its territory at the cost of a peoples right to self determination.

Now you can say, well in terms of the consequences, what's worse? If many more civilians die in the first case, maybe it's worse?

My counter would be, we don't know where this ends, and I don't think we can measure impact only in civilian deaths.

Additionally, I would recommend the R2P (responsibility to protect) doctrine as a good rule of thumb for when we may consider it necessary to overthrow a totalitarian dictator.