France wants Russia on war crimes charges

[Cerilis]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't say.

[NED funded]

Ok, let's say Russia is charged. What next? They will pay money? They will apologize? Lol more sanctions? Russia doesn't give a fuck.

Well for a nation that doesn't give a shit about sanctions they sure go out of their way to demand a removal of them.

[cFortyfive]

What is France going to do, throw a baggette at them?

Sure wrapped in a white flag.

Or can they?

We should ask the Libyans about it

[Deletedaccount1]

You don't say.

It just seems like a pretty strange reaction to something to point to another group that does something similar and call it hypocritical. Many French people probably don't like US interventionism but the fact that the US is a major defensive and trading partner is a big disincentive for critiquing US foreign policy in their position.

[Gref]

@MysticSnow Of course nobody wants sanctions. But it is two sided. They demand removal of sanctions. But then again "Do we give a fuck?"

[NED funded]

@MysticSnow Of course nobody wants sanctions. But it is two sided. They demand removal of sanctions. But then again "Do we give a fuck?"

Well yeah they should. More sanctions would only deepen the effects of Russia's troubled economy. And before someone mentions the wheat thing, I suggest them to look at the price of Russian wheat for exports.

[Varitok]

Wait, so France is NOT surrendering?

So Ivan, how's the weather in Ukraine? Enjoying your "vacation" in Crimea?

[Calfredd]

What is France going to do, throw a baggette at them?

Are you seriously not aware of the damage a stale baguette can do?

[May90]

There have they been in the last 99 years?!

[Gref]

@MysticSnow Sorry for the ambiguous answers. that "we" mean the good guy west/usa

[monkmastaeq]

warcrimes are a complete joke, its war do whatever you want, the goal is to crush your enemy in any way so they submit. sounds like france wants to rebuild again after getting raped by another actual superpower

[Wells]

warcrimes are a complete joke, its war do whatever you want, the goal is to crush your enemy in any way so they submit. sounds like france wants to rebuild again after getting raped by another actual superpower

France's GDP dwarfs Russias and has close alliances with almost the entire developed world. Russia is the inferior nation here.

[May90]

France's GDP dwarfs Russias and has close alliances with almost the entire developed world. Russia is the inferior nation here.

France also has WMDs as well!

[2about]

So when are we going to be charged with what we've done in Iraq and the countless people (civilians) that died because of the destabilized region, that we caused.

[Deletedaccount1]

So when are we going to be charged with what we've done in Iraq and the countless people (civilians) that died because of the destabilized region, that we caused.

If by "we", I hope you mean the highest upper echelons of the Bush administration, congress and the military/intelligence communities.

[2about]

If by "we", I hope you mean the highest upper echelons of the Bush administration, congress and the military/intelligence communities.

And how ins't that representative of the whole country (elected) + the countries that also participated with us?

[Deletedaccount1]

And how ins't that representative of the whole country (elected) + the countries that also participated with us?

For a few reasons. Firstly, I'd consider myself a consequentialist. On that basis, I won't hold voters responsible for unforeseen actions of who they voted for, especially in a culture that on some level stigmatizes non-voters. I am not saying that voters are guilt free but their ignorance makes it hard to hold them responsible in this situation at least.

Second, Bush lost the popular vote so saying "the whole country" is simply wrong. It would still be wrong even if he did win the majority of the popular vote but the fact that he didn't makes you even more wrong.

Thirdly, there was no way of voters being able to predict 9/11, the primary precursor for the War on Terror. Other countries are less at fault because they entered the Iraq War based off of at best, bad intelligence and at worst, a lie. Even if you could hold other countries responsible, you would have to only hold the leaders themselves responsible. Especially since the Iraq War was hugely unpopular in Britain and France for instance. Furthermore, Hollande is not being a hypocrite in this case because he had nothing to do with the US's foreign policy actions during that period and continues to have little influence over it now.

[2about]

For a few reasons. Firstly, I'd consider myself a consequentialist. On that basis, I won't hold voters responsible for unforeseen actions of who they voted for, especially in a culture that on some level stigmatizes non-voters. I am not saying that voters are guilt free but their ignorance makes it hard to hold them responsible in this situation at least.

Second, Bush lost the popular vote so saying "the whole country" is simply wrong. It would still be wrong even if he did win the majority of the popular vote but the fact that he didn't makes you even more wrong.

Thirdly, there was no way of voters being able to predict 9/11, the primary precursor for the War on Terror. Other countries are less at fault because they entered the Iraq War based off of at best, bad intelligence and at worst, a lie. Even if you could hold other countries responsible, you would have to only hold the leaders themselves responsible. Especially since the Iraq War was hugely unpopular in Britain and France for instance. Furthermore, Hollande is not being a hypocrite in this case because he had nothing to do with the US's foreign policy actions during that period and continues to have little influence over it now.

Will he hold the US and those who participated in destabilizing the ME accountable though, ask for them to be taken to court? I think not. I do agree with you and the blame isn't on the voters, but the country as a whole. On the flip side, those elected into government are representing those who voted for them, and many who wanted to go to Iraq are still in power and being elected to this day.

[Deletedaccount1]

Will he hold the US and those who participated in destabilizing the ME accountable though, ask for them to be taken to court? I think not. I do agree with you and the blame isn't on the voters, but the country as a whole. On the flip side, those elected into government are representing those who voted for them, and many who wanted to go to Iraq are still in power and being elected to this day.

Well like I said in my first post, no he will not ask for the US to be taken to court because that has obvious negative consequences for France. I am not arguing that there is not a hypocrisy in there somewhere, but watching country "x" do something bad and then saying well what about country "y" is not my first reaction when I hear international condemnations.

I would agree that many of them people who wanted to go to Iraq are still in power and because of that, as a citizen, I will not vote for them.

At the end of the day though, I will not blame Hollande because there might be an apparent double standard in how he treats Russian and the US. There is to it than just "cozy feelings to one but not the other".

[Skroe]

warcrimes are a complete joke, its war do whatever you want, the goal is to crush your enemy in any way so they submit. sounds like france wants to rebuild again after getting raped by another actual superpower

Russia isn't within a metric light year of being a superpower.

It's a nuclear armed gas station in terminal decline.

The danger from Russia comes from it's ability to spread chaos as it tumbles down Mount Olympus. Russia's future looks a lot like the former Yugoslavia, and not remotely a restoration of Russia superpowerhood.


I mean really... to the West of is the massive, rich and powerful EU. To the East of it is the massive, rich and increasingly powerful China. And then above and around all of them is the United States. It's a global squeeze play. Russia has no room to grow in power.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, let's say Russia is charged. What next? They will pay money? They will apologize? Lol more sanctions? Russia doesn't give a fuck.

Nominally the goal will be that the War Criminal Vladmir Putin sees the inside of a prison cell sometime before the end of his crap life.

More realistically, it's to label Russia a lawbreaker rogue state and increase it's isolation.

I'm surprised nobody here has pointed out that it was France that wants this. It was also a Franco-Spanish UNSC resolution that Russia veto's last week. In the UN Security Council, when the Permanent 5 (P5) want something passed, they all work together to produce a resolution that is acceptable to all their interests and will get an abstention at the very least, and whatever the case, avoid a veto. When Resolutions are put forward for a vote without this kind of discussion between the powers (so that the vote is known ahead of time), it is purely for the sake of baiting one of the countries in question veto (or vote against if not a Permanent member) in order to defend it's interests, but go on record as doing so.

The Spanish-French resolution had barely any Russian consulation. The Russians knew it was coming, but the Spanish and French, who wrote it and put it forward on behalf of the US, UK , Germany and others, put it up for a vote knowing that it would force Russia to veto it, thus put it on record as having voted against stopping the slaughter in Syria.

Basically, the West laid a trap for Russia, and Russia walked right into it. More than that actually... it was rail roaded right into it. It couldn't vote in the affirmative or abstain. It had to veto, and in doing so, came to look like a defender of war crimes.

This should serve as as reminder (but won't) to the Putinstas and the Useful Idiots in Europe and the American Alt-Right about where France, Germany, Spain and all of Europe's allegiances lie. Sure, some of these countries would like to go back to the status quo ante with sanctions, but all are, at this point, years past putting security and human rights concerns ahead of economic concerns. A couple of months ago the French Senate says Russian sanctions should be rolled back, and then the French government does two things in three days that only serve to worsen relations with Russia. This is not an isolated case. Germany, the UK and the EU itself has illustrated this similar kind of "disconnect".

But it really isn't. It's a carrot-stick approach that is carefully calibrated. It opens the door to reducing sanctions on Russia if it plays ball, but it also points the way to things getting worse... way worse... for Russia.

It should be a reminder to Russia and Russians that they are hopelessly overmatched. They can't win. Any "froward" movement exists because greater powers allow it.

- - - Updated - - -

Well like I said in my first post, no he will not ask for the US to be taken to court because that has obvious negative consequences for France. I am not arguing that there is not a hypocrisy in there somewhere, but watching country "x" do something bad and then saying well what about country "y" is not my first reaction when I hear international condemnations.

I would agree that many of them people who wanted to go to Iraq are still in power and because of that, as a citizen, I will not vote for them.

At the end of the day though, I will not blame Hollande because there might be an apparent double standard in how he treats Russian and the US. There is to it than just "cozy feelings to one but not the other".

International Relations is rife with double standards. They're usually not particular bad either.

Threads like this and opinion pages in Newspapers are about the upper limit of them mattering.

I mean we can discuss dozens of issues that are double standards. Farm subsidies. European vs American technology firms. The Airbus/Boeing duopoly. How the West let China into the WTO but made Russia 'work for it' for over twice as long.

Double standards exist because they're convenient and being "consistent" truly does not matter. Countries are principally motivated by interest and power. Principle is a very distant third and extremely flexible. When principle is evoked, it is usually to gain advantage.

Consider Iraq, discussed somewhat in this thread. Yes, at some level Germany and France were morally apposed to the Bush Administrations' war effort. But consider that early in the push, both Schroder and Chirac were highly receptive to action against Iraq. What changed? Schroder's Chancellorship was in danger, and he latched onto the anti-war movement in Germany in a bid to politically survive. Chirac used the opportunity, after some cajoling, to make a Gaullist push to an alternative to the American-run unipolar world (this was happening at the same time the Euro as an every day currency was new and the promise of the EU was limitless).

France and Germany certainly had elements in them, and elements of their government opposed to action on moral grounds, but like most places, they really didn't give a rats ass about Saddam Hussein, or Iraq. They were motivated by more parochial, important interests.

Fast forwarda decade later what what happens in Libya? The UK and France lead the political side of the regime change effort (the US was the muscle) against another despot, and Germany offered significant backend support. Their interests had changed.

So long as the world is guided chiefly by interests - which is to say, forever - double standards will remain.