FM
people writing to this thread appear to endorse the actions of a dictator of a country
That would be the democratically elected dictator, of course.
there are some Western leaders who are not totally impressive
Totally agree, but there is one leader who seems to be doing the job of leading rather than posturing.
London and Washington have and no doubt will make mistakes
Egypt? Libya? Iraq? Syria??
It said the signatories would not use force
And one might play Devil's Advocate and say that none of them have used force. We have no real idea, apart from some guesses/speculation in the press whether "Russia" has even breached its treaty limits on numbers of personnel based in Crimea.
That document on its own gives London and Washington not just a right but an obligation to get involved
Does it? That's a genuine question, I have not read the text of the treaty, but does it really obligate the UK or US to get involved any more than we actually have?
the West has steadily disarmed itself, both in terms of weapons and troops
And therein lies the main problem. Western nations have gambled on the illusory post-Cold War "peace dividend" and yet most Western politicians will admit that the world is a more dangerous place since the Wall came down; but the cuts to the Armed Forces keep coming.