he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded
Are you at all familiar with any history at all? How do you think such treaties usually go? Or did you think borders spent the last couple millenia shifting mysteriously without reason?
The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.
The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.
Are you so naive to think that Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and even the 2013 coup in Ukraine were not acts of conquest of the US empire? Perhaps you’re correct that the wider international community has rejected acts of conquest, but this certainly doesn’t include the USA, who is quite literally a rogue state.
Are you at all familiar with any history at all? How do you think such treaties usually go? Or did you think borders spent the last couple millenia shifting mysteriously without reason?
The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.
The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.
Are you so naive to think that Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and even the 2013 coup in Ukraine were not acts of conquest of the US empire? Perhaps you’re correct that the wider international community has rejected acts of conquest, but this certainly doesn’t include the USA, who is quite literally a rogue state.
The international community in question: