Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 368. (Read 79122 times)

Remember when you were fooled into believing the pope got arrested for being a pedophile because you read it on some trash website?  Or when you were convinced Biden would be arrested on the day of his inauguration and Trump would remain in power?

Believing Putin makes you even more of an incredibly gullible idiot.

Meanwhile in Serbia - the only country in Europe with relevant pro-Russia rallies.

https://twitter.com/herzogg96/status/1499810804945801218

Here is answer why is Serbia still out of EU ... 

You're conflicting your own writing, you clearly not completely ignore him.
Are you pro Azov or pro BCУ (VSU )?
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Azov_Battalion

So what? This bullshit did not reduce the number of bombs flying into Ukrainian cities.

Ukraine more needs to be in NATO and EU than NATO and EU need to have Ukraine. Offcourse that Russia don't want that such thing would happen, but Ukraine is independent country and they have right to decide themselves where they want to go. Poland and Baltic states is NATO members for about 20 years. It supposed to be direct threat for Russia but nothing didn't happened in all these years. And look what this war just caused. Georgia and even Moldova applied to become EU members. Finland and Sweden considering to join NATO. This is what Russia wanted? Nobody don't want to have ''Russkiy mir'' in their country. Ukraine don't want it too. Maybe only Belarus want, but basically, it's province of Russia.

Thousands of dead civilians later and now Putin wants to use diplomacy. I guess he needed evidence that he was not bluffing. And who pays for it? Ukrainian civilians and the Russian people.

Also seems baffling how Putin is able to rationalize himself for the invasion of Ukraine. I suppose the juxtaposition of the Nazi regime of Volodymyr Zelenskyy is avoidable as long as Putin is able to produce a false reality for himself. Either Zelenskyy is a terrible Nazi, or he's a terrible Jew. Perhaps Putin believes he is both.

Agreed, although you are a bit outdated on Saudi Arabia, there are some signs of opening.

I would encourage any population to organise themselves and seek all the help possible to free themselves in the most effective manner possible. but without giving in.

To be honest, being under Putin's rule does not guarantee that the population will not suffer or die.

If you know that women leaving the house without a man will most likely have severe consequences in Saudi Arabia, but you still encourage a Saudi girl to protest and come outside without a man, when she gets arrested and tortured to death, would you bear any responsibility, or should you just move on to encouraging the rights of the next Saudi girl?

What do you say when a Geneva convention violation, where a medical facility of doctors without borders which was on the no-strike list is attacked with 211 shells causing 42 deaths, and then a tank rolled in which "forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear". Is not qualify as a war crime by the laws? sorry to burst your bubble but world is unfair, war is hell, and selective enforcement of laws only makes a mockery of said laws

Edit: And there are many more examples of violations of human rights which were never prosecuted, now question why are you being activated for this even vs others with many more civilian casualties.

Putin denies Russia bombing Ukrainian cities
https://insiderpaper.com/putin-denies-russia-bombing-ukrainian-cities/

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

So the West is the cause of this war because the people of Ukraine would rather look west than be part of Putin's dominions? Cannot you not understand that Putin's Russia is simply unattractive as as partner?  Would you not say that his doings in Chechenia, the government actions in Russia and Belorussia are not fundamental reasons why other kids do not wanna play with him? Would you say that the empire of the oligarchs he promoted is a feature many would rather not have in their countries?

There is a old German saying: "be my friend or I'll crush your skull". Did Putin not learn to make friend when he was six?

Again, either this is about legality or it is about force. If it is about legality, Ukraine is a free country and is free to choose their partners. If it is about force, then we should reckon that diplomacy has failed and neutral countries are free to sell weapons to any of the contenders as per the rules of war. My personal take is for the West to help Ukraine reach a full stalemate on this war until it is no longer economically viable or someone decides to, instead of changing Ukraine government, reconsider who should be their own leader.

Russia would not want to rule or better say wreck Ukraine if the West were not constantly pushing their interest in Ukraine. West should have consider not expanding NATO to the east.

Poland don't need to do it alone. The west, EU and NATO are already trying to do it for them.

Why do you think all these nuclear power all around? To produce energy?

My point was not justifying the war but to point out the problems behind it. The West and Russia are having their egoistic showdown and in between Ukrainians are losing everything even at this very moment.

Sorry to jump in, but since it is a forum I guess it is fine.

Wait, I am afraid we are just loosing a bit here. The fact that a country is strategically important for you does not mean you automatically get the right to rule it!

Example: Russia is strategically important for the safety of Poland. Putin is aggressive, thus Poland has the right to change Russia's regime. Sounds ridiculous does it not? Well, that is exactly Putin's argument.

If we talk Realpolitik's rather than law, then pretty much anything is justified from either side and makes no sense talking about legality. Then, the argument is "I have a bigger army and I will tell your citizens what they can and cannot do", to which the only answer is "sure, try to, we will do everything in our hand to stop you, and by the way watch your back, you may not be able to afford a stalemate".

What you cannot do is try to mix these two to justify a war of aggression.

Although you are in conversation with someone else but I could nor resist answering to your question.

This is a very good question that you have asked.  We can draw some timeline and answer the question.

Q. Did Russia invade Ukraine legally?  Yes or no?
- No
The invasion or military operation or whatever you call it, did it start from 9 days ago?

Do you agree or disagree with this?

If you agree then how US is doing this?
- To make Ukraine a Western military base on Russian border.

Do you think Russia was suppose to allow this act? Yes/No?
- My answer is NO! Of-course Russia will do everything they can.

US had a few elements to use.
1. Expand NATO towards east, towards Russian border.
2. Integrate Ukraine economy into the west or in other words EU expansion
3. Promote democracy in Ukraine. US runs around the world, give everything to put their choice of democratic regimes. We all love democracy, don't we? Moscow do not like it and Beijing too.

Let's go back way before Feb 22nd 2014.
In mid 1990s former Soviet Union made it clear that they oppose NATO expansion although they were too weak to do anything about it.

NATO's declaration in 2008:

Putin's response:

Ukraine is strategically very important for the security of Russia but the West were encouraging Ukraine to play tough against Russia. The West were encouraging the Ukrainians that they will ultimately become a part of the West because the West will ultimately defeat Putin.

Is West losing anything from this War? No! In fact, they are looking at making more money from selling weapons and since Russian will be disconnected from major part of the world, US will easily make deals with their energy resources to the EU nations. But what did Ukraine get from playing tough against a country which has huge nuclear power where they have none?

It does not matter who will win this WAR? Putin or West but one thing is very clear for sure that Ukraine is losing everything now, Ukraine is getting wrecked and will have nothing left when we will have an end of this WAR.

If we are talking "legal", all NATO countries are non-combatant / neutral countries. They are absolutely free to sell weapons to any of the sides. For example, Poland is absolutely in its right to sell tanks at 1$ per unit to Ukraine if they wish to do so.


Which actually started WWII as such, is that what you mean?

I think the EU should support Ukraine with all material means (particularly adequate weapons) necessary to stop Putin's invasion on its tracks. I am in favour of peace but as the old saying says "si vis pacem parabelum" - If you want peace, prepare for war.

There was a Roman general that met with Mitridates of Pontus, and oriental despot that was threating a province of Rome. Mitridates approached on a throne carried by 40 slaves covered in gold. Sila dismounted, took off his armour and wore a simple hay hat. Walking towards Mitridates, drew a line in the sand. From his inferior position, he said "if you cross this line, you are at war with Rome" and left giving his back to Mitridates.

Mitridates, with his all army at his back never crossed that line. The fact that right behind Sila were 4 roman legions in battle formation probably had a lot to do with it.

NATO must draw the line in the sand. In my view, better in Ukraine than in Finland, Sweden or Poland.

You're really twisting my words. This was clearly not in approval of shelling a nuclear power plant, but rather that the situation is "all clear" nuclear power plant is not in danger. Russia already secured Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, so if the plan was to get some radioactive particles in the air they already had a perfect option.

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.

In what universe shelling a nuclear power station is "all good"?

https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1499566442609614850
so all good, oh wait

US activates Nuclear Incident Response team, sees no elevated radiation readings at Zaporizhzhia plant

and

https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1499582507653681186
 

I am well aware of the purpose of the sanctions.

This war did not started 9 days ago, this dirty situation in Ukraine is a long time battle. Russia wants to keep their land safe from NATO aggression. USA wants to expand NATO towards east. This war is not what it seems. It's not top secret that this war is between USA and Russia. This war is to make money from selling weapons, it is for fuels and oil.



No one wants war, it's against humanity but yet we had 35 abstention including China and India, let's not mention those who were against it. You can politically justify anything that serves your interest especially when you have super power. Politician does not care who died in battle filed or who is losing everything to live a life. It's the innocent Ukrainians who are losing their lives and it's the Russian people who is going to suffer for the decisions their leaders are making. West and NATO is harvesting the honey from this attack/invasion/war/military operation.