Additionally: Your comparison is odious also because neither NATO nor the U.S. ever grabbed territory in any of those conflicts.
Regards,
They attacked them. That is the law of war. Invasions are not “legal” as long as you do not annex territory. And in any case, Kosovo was annexed in the sense that it was wrested away from Serbia. We wrested away a chunk of Syria from Assad and gave it to our favorite separatists.
We have flouted international law since the mid 90s. The Russian operation is legal under UN rules. At least three of ours are not. That’s fine, I don’t like the UN anyway. But please don’t pretend we and our NATO, carefully follows the law and that Russia is some outlaw nation in that regard.
(Pro-tip: The reason DC keeps prattling about the “rules based order” is that they cannot plausibly discuss international law of war as put forth by treaty and the UN treaty... which we are party to.
Complete with logic statement, as if applicable. It was he who claimed “illegal invasion” debate framework, not “odious” you.
In doing so he sided stepped your direct questions: "Kindly point us to the UN authorization for America to be in Syria, or for NATO to have attacked Libya, or for NATO to attack Kosovo. Or kindly point out to us where the United Nations abdicated it's legal responsibility and gave it to NATO."
One sometimes wins debates by the framing of questions. His game was about “grabbing territory” but bounded off by his next phrase, “in any of those conflicts.” Ergo, if you accept his assumptions, you must agree with him. If you question the root assumptions, you are attacking with ad hominem. This is a lose-lose game set up by and played the "Randian Libertarian," as he calls himself, as rule maker.
To another, he quips "Suffice it to say: I am a human being with a soul. That ought to be enough to experience moral outrage..." One may then proceed to fill in the next phrase as one will.
So if you disagree with him, you "experience" no "moral outrage" as to his. Or perhaps you have no soul?
Of course, he claims he always states "the obvious."
The obvious is that, of the three stances ( 1-pro-Z, 2 - pro-P, and 3 - "not my circus and not my clowns" ), he allows only two. White hat and black hat. Super Hero versus Super Villain. And if one does not agree with him, one makes ad hominem attacks, can't experience "moral outrage," refuses the "obvious" and perhaps has no "soul." It's a fine game. But it is a game.
Why is it a game? Because none of us plays any part in the NATO decision making and actions, the Ukrainian decision making and actions, the Russian Federation's decision making and actions, and sure as heck not the idiot Biden administration's decisions and actions. Their playing the real game. We're actually not. Not me. Not you, and not the Randian Libertarian.
The very messy and murderous conflict between officially non-NATO Ukraine and officially non-NATO Russia is a NATO affair, you see? < sarc >
That made the additional question quite pointed: "When are invasions legal?"
Because if it isn't, then there must be a fallacy somewhere.... But never worry, moral outrage fills in the gaps. "That ought to be enough."
And if that's not enough, think of the Sunny Bunny Festival in democratic and currently election-free Ukraine.
"Ukraine to Hold its First Queer Film Festival" -- because Variety is the spice of something....
Soucre: https://variety.com/2023/film/global/ukraine-queer-film-festival-1235507805/