Russians kicking the table!

In many ways, if the U.S. were to help Israel attack Lebanon, it could be seen as similar to Russia taking unilateral military action, such as in Ukraine, because it involves using force in a situation where diplomatic efforts and international law would ideally come first. Here’s how the analogy works:

1. Undermining Diplomatic Solutions:

• U.S. Helping Israel Attack Lebanon: If the U.S. actively supported an Israeli attack on Lebanon, it could be perceived as abandoning diplomacy and negotiation in favor of military force, particularly if the situation could be resolved through international forums or negotiations. This would mirror how Russia was seen as bypassing diplomatic channels and negotiations when it annexed Crimea or intervened in Ukraine.
• Russia’s Actions: Russia has often been accused of kicking the negotiation table by taking military actions that override diplomatic solutions, as seen in Ukraine, where Russia framed its actions as protective but was widely condemned for violating international norms. The U.S. would face similar criticism if it helped escalate conflict in Lebanon, particularly when claims of defense or protection could be seen as pretexts for geopolitical interests.

2. Contradicting the U.S.’s Own Narrative:

• The U.S. often presents itself as a champion of international norms, sovereignty, and diplomatic resolutions. By helping Israel attack Lebanon, the U.S. could be acting against the very principles it claims to uphold in other global contexts, like in Ukraine, where it supports Ukrainian sovereignty against Russian aggression.
• This would create a parallel where the U.S. violates Lebanon’s sovereignty, much like Russia’s actions in Ukraine, even if the U.S. justifies it under the banner of self-defense or counterterrorism. It would look like the U.S. is applying one set of rules for itself and its allies, and another for adversaries like Russia.

3. Using “Protection” as a Pretext:

• U.S. Claiming to Protect Israel: The U.S. could argue that its intervention in Lebanon is necessary to protect Israel from Hezbollah or other threats. However, this could be seen as a pretext for broader geopolitical goals, similar to how Russia justified its actions in Ukraine as protecting ethnic Russians and countering NATO expansion.
• Russian Justifications: Russia has often justified its military interventions as necessary to protect Russian-speaking populations or to prevent NATO encroachment. The world saw this as a cover for more aggressive geopolitical ambitions. Similarly, the U.S. assisting Israel in an attack on Lebanon could be viewed as a cover for maintaining regional dominance or furthering its own strategic interests.

4. Hypocrisy and Double Standards:

• If the U.S. helps Israel attack Lebanon, it could expose the U.S. to accusations of double standards—condemning Russia for its actions in Ukraine while supporting or engaging in similarly aggressive actions in the Middle East.
• This could be seen as the U.S. putting itself in the same scenario it claims to fight against: undermining sovereignty, bypassing diplomacy, and using military force to achieve its objectives. Critics would argue that the U.S. is not applying consistent principles and is acting out of self-interest rather than upholding international norms.

5. Eroding U.S. Credibility:

• Just as Russia’s actions have eroded its credibility on the international stage, especially with regard to claims of protecting sovereignty and international law, the U.S. could face similar fallout if it engaged in or supported an attack on Lebanon. This would diminish its moral authority to criticize actions like Russia’s in Ukraine or elsewhere.

Conclusion:

In this scenario, the U.S. helping Israel to attack Lebanon would indeed mirror Russia’s behavior in conflicts like Ukraine. Both actions would involve violating another country’s sovereignty under the guise of defense or protection, potentially bypassing diplomatic efforts, and exposing hypocrisy in how each power applies the rules of international engagement. The key similarity is that both would be using force to achieve strategic goals, even if they present their actions as defensive or protective.