Putin has no limits, but doesn't he don't understand that nuclear disaster would hit not Ukraine only, but also big part of Russia. Especially now when wind is going towards Rostov and Krasnodar.
Well, clearly he doesn't care about a few million casualties, that much is clear by now. An incident like that might be beneficial for his delusional "plan" - look, Ukrainians launched a nuclear attack against us!!!
However if the wind starts blowing towards NATO, that raises some interesting questions. Is that an attack?
Nah, NATO will be waiting until Putin starts dropping nuclear warheads on Paris and Berlin, lol.
NATO prevented Poland from giving Ukraine 70 fighter jets today. They are 'monitoring' the situation.
They will be monitoring like the West was monitoring the invasion of Poland in 1939.
Putin was so right about the West. Weak men, arguing until it is too late.
Poland should enter this war, fuck NATO, the Russian army will blow up the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
That was always blatantly obvious to any outside observer, NATO will not and
legally cannot engage Russia over Ukraine, can't claim defense if you attack first outside of NATO. Once you start thinking of the events in terms of the big game of geopolitics they become quiet logical.
Did Russia invade Ukraine
legally? Yes or no?
I guess the short answer is NO, just like all other invasions and operations in the world. As paxmao pointed out the justifications are usually silly, made of 14 words or less for consumption of general public that has an average attention span for 15 words (made up stats).
But concept of legality comes from laws of the nation. Your haircut maybe illegal in North Korea, your bible is a threat to national security in Kuwait, adultery will get you stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, chewing gum is illegal in Singapore etc etc etc.... Then there's also the consequence for breaking those laws, is something really illegal if theres no consequence (marijuana in illegal in US on federal level). Speeding is illegal but if benefits outweigh consequence+risk it might still be logical to do it. US set the terrible precedence of being able to send army to a country without calling it invasions, there are no more wars but just "operations", and now we're just seeing other nations using the same playbook. If you're powerful enough and don't want to be sued just
withdraw if they still try to sue you can
freeze their assets ban them and their families and target others who assist ICC investigations.If you stay quiet when one nation decides to give out cookies where it suits them and where they bare no direct consequences, then you cannot complain when/if China decides to give free food to every protestor of
mouvement des gilets jaunes, or Russia decides to give out free vodka to BLM protestors. Sure its
whataboutism and two wrongs don't make a right, thus why I agree that its not "legal". ‘For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law’
Edit: and for a total whataboutism just to hammer in the point, Did US blockade Cuba
legally? Rhetorical question