NathanBenMoshe

You can't just invade another country even if the majority is russian at that region ...

This is a 100% legitimate question - Why not?

You obviously can, Russia just did.

Are you saying morally you can't? Legally? Logistically?

Morally wrong (assuming anything can be morally wrong)... probably not.

Russia just invaded a country with no casualties and is about to annex part of that country with probably no resistance and most likely significant public support.

Legally wrong... perhaps but the framework isn't there for that to actually have any real world meaning.

You might say that international law is against it, but international law isn't really a thing. It's more like a guideline of how every state wants every other country to act.

Logistically it makes sense along the lines of the nation state, seeing as Chrimeans belong to the Russian nation.

I'm not saying it was right, I'm just asking why exactly do you say that one 'can't' do it?

!!וכמובן עופר ניסים ,Gesaffelstein ,Brodinski שכחת

Noah Klieger is still very much alive. He was around 20ish when he was taken to Auschwitz, and he still gives talks around the world, and is Israel's oldest full time employed journalist.

I went to a talk of his in London, and having done a lot of academic research on memory, the Holocaust, trauma, and particularly Primo Levi, I am always some what aware that what they remember may not be the exact truth (not that it matters anyway), however his story is absolutely amazing.

The reason I said 'guideline', although I should have been clearer, was not to undercut the importance of individual treaties, but to emphasise the point that laws without a legal body and judicial structure behind them, through which to enforce them, lose much of their meaning.

Although international law is, on paper, legitimate, the fact that no entity has the right to enforce them through a monopoly of violence (as the state does in a society), renders them much less powerful. If a great power state (China, Russia, Europe, US) wishes to ignore and break an international law as ratified by a treaty the only feasible options for punishment are sanctions and war by other states, both of which are so devastating to the enforcing sides, usually, that they are no longer worth while.

Therefore, international laws, in the form of treaties and resolutions etc, in my opinion, do more to enforce the power of the Great Powers, upon the smaller nations than they do to actually create any meaningful supranational legal structure. Due to the fact that only Great Powers have the resources to enforce laws downwards upon smaller states, rather than the other way around.

I'm not saying this is bad, or good, or that it should be changed or not, I'm just saying these are the realities of the anarchical structure of IR.

I definitely think trying to find moral laws through regularities of the way states act is non-sensical.

That point I'm making is that saying Russia or Hungary 'can' do something implies that there is someone who says they may or may not do as they please. I am just questioning the validity of this argument. It is true that in some cases other states will step in and react and in some cases they won't. (I think in the case of Hungary the EU and NATO definitely would.)

These past events have shown that Russia can do as they please within certain parameters, so long as they can bear the consequences.

As for this comment:

i just hope russians will be punished for this and not try to their shady things in the future

Punished by who? On what grounds? Through what institution?

The international system is basically an anarchical structure whereby those states with the most power dictate the system of justice. Russia has just proven that they can rival the US and Europe in terms of power. This therefore leads to a necessary reevaluating of the way international justice is conceived.