Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Specialka]

US was already operating in Syria in 2014; this resolution is from 2015.

Try again? Or does that already breaks your assertion?

Plus, it doesn't necessarily authorize use of force:
here, they note that this provision is unprecedented. Most UNSCRs that authorize force have several features: (1) they contain a preambular paragraph that specifically invokes Chapter VII; (2) they use the word “decides” as the active verb in the paragraph that authorizes force; and (3) they use the term “all necessary means” or “all necessary measures” as the code for force authorization. OP5 is a hybrid, because it lacks the first two features but contains the third – “all necessary measures.” As a result, Akande and Milanovic conclude—correctly, I believe—that OP5 likely is not intended to serve as a stand-alone authorization for using force against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

What, then, is OP5 doing, and what does it signal about the international legal theories of states using or seeking to use force in Syria and Iraq? Akande and Milanovic argue that the paragraph is crafted to create constructive ambiguity. The paragraph would seem to forge a compromise between Russia and all other states currently using force in Syria. Russia is acting against ISIS in Syria with Assad’s consent, and asserts that other bases for using force in Syria are inconsistent with international law. The United States, France, Canada, Australia, Turkey, and other states are using force in Syria on a theory of collective self-defense of Iraq or of national self-defense or both. OP5 neither rejects nor accepts the legitimacy of any particular legal theory. Instead, it indicates approval for states to use force in Syria and Iraq as long as that force is consistent with the UN Charter. That allows states to continue to rely on their existing theories for using force—which each state asserts is consistent with the Charter—without having to resolve the legal dispute between Russia and the other states using force.

Note one potential twist here: If OP5 effectively acknowledges the legitimacy of both the consent and self-defense theories against ISIS in Syria, it also could be read to acknowledge the potential legitimacy of both theories as applied to Iraq. Thus, if Russia decided that ISIS in Iraq posed an imminent threat to Russia or that it had been behind the bombing of the Russian airliner last month, it arguably could use force in Iraq under a self-defense or unwilling or unable theory. However, given that Russia and Iraq appear to be working quite closely now, it seems unlikely that Russia would use force in Iraq without Iraq’s consent.

If UNSCR 2249 does not authorize force, then why did the French pursue it? The answer is politics. In particular, the UNSCR, which reflects clear multilateral concern about ISIS and commitment to fighting the group, may empower states such as the United Kingdom and Germany to begin to participate in military activity against ISIS. For example, news reports suggest that the UNSCR may sway UK parliamentarians who previously have been undecided about whether to vote in support of a UK military campaign.

In short, UNSCR 2249 may illustrate the soft power of Security Council Resolutions, even where those Resolutions do not formally authorize force. But OP5 might also portend a new blurring of the long-standing bright line between Chapter VII resolutions that authorize force and those that do not. So long as there is international consensus about the threat that ISIS poses, that blurring seems mostly salutary. But it could pose significant questions down the line, either about Resolution 2249 or about future resolutions that adopt this new approach.


Certainly no UN authorization was ever made for bases US uses to defend Deir Ez-zor oilfields.

For the last time, US =/= NATO.

[Shalcker]

For the last time, US =/= NATO.

If we look at NATO deployments his claim is even more ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b..._of_Yugoslavia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) carried out an aerial bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The air strikes lasted from 24 March 1999 to 10 June 1999. The bombings continued until an agreement was reached that led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo, and the establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, a UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force whereas the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil
...

NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia's actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs. Yugoslavia refused to sign the Rambouillet Accords which was offered as an initial justification for NATO's use of force. NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.

[Easo]

Shalcker doesn't fucking get it that USA does not command NATO members.

And shut the hell up about Yugoslavia. Russia's participiation in stopping a fucking genocide was... driving to an airfield and having a standoff with Western forces. Wow much work. Ah yes, and spreading conspiracy theories that Serbs totally did not do genocide aka Srebrenica was made up/overblown.

The irony of this statement is through the roof so high that you don't even see the other end of it. You really shouldn't throw rants like this while sitting on the very bottom of your own top one's pocket. Ah, yes, I remember... it's "allies"

Imperialist thinking keeps haunting you.

I guess it was intended to refer to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Heh, in that case he is doing a good job.

Right, and Baltics are equal partners and top ones in NATO relationship?

Alliances don't have to be perfectly equal.

In the meantime i can keep looking at European energy and electricity prices; your precious Euro is "stable" yet electricity prices already increased fivefold over the year and still on upward trajectory.

Do you benefit from it? Russians do because it pays for GazProm investment program to bring gas to small cities and villages.

Russian rouble didn't even drop in half; vs EUR in a year it has risen just from 70 to 87 (which is 24% increase).

Don't be a conspiracy nut; it's just a think tank, a cushy job for old diplomats where they can talk and muse about better ways to deal with modern challenges.

Their funding is just a fact about them, not claim to some kind of conspiracy.

WW2 "surrender to Germany" was in large part diplomatic; maybe you should learn your history better.

You can also look at latest UK arms delivery to Ukraine - going around France and Germany airspace on suspicion that it might be stopped there.

1. You don't understand the word "allies", still. Imperialist legacy keeps haunting you too.
2. You are not allied with China.

Whataboutism. We know about European price increase, yet it is not unique to only Europe.

It almost sounds like trickle down economics, but Russia style. Ironic. There is a reason for saying that Russia and America are actually very similar, just that one is poor.
Everything has become more expensive in Russia, stop pretending it's not. Your Gazprom cash is giving little to the average citizen, which is what I keep repeating.

Ah yes, the think tank you and others like you blame for basically everything. Since when are think tanks supposed to have such influence? Conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy theories. Especially when used to excuse own failings...

Pretty sure it simply was not allowed to go over Germany, not that they avoided it due to chance of it being stopped. Also, the difference between Russian subjects and NATO members - Germany can decide something different. It will not be liked, but it is their choice.

[Specialka]

If we look at NATO deployments his claim is even more ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b..._of_Yugoslavia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) carried out an aerial bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The air strikes lasted from 24 March 1999 to 10 June 1999. The bombings continued until an agreement was reached that led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo, and the establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, a UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force whereas the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil
...

NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia's actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs. Yugoslavia refused to sign the Rambouillet Accords which was offered as an initial justification for NATO's use of force. NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.

So NATO was vetoed by dictatorship who do not care about human life ? So what ?

[Shalcker]

1. You don't understand the word "allies", still. Imperialist legacy keeps haunting you too.
2. You are not allied with China.

You don't understand how China and Russia can be allies

Whataboutism. We know about European price increase, yet it is not unique to only Europe.

Exchange rate changes and inflation aren't unique to Russia either.

You seem to suffer particularly bad case of it though.

Everything has become more expensive in Russia, stop pretending it's not. Your Gazprom cash is giving little to the average citizen, which is what I keep repeating.

Everything becomes more expensive in EU as well, stop pretending it's not.

GazProm pays taxes into Russian budget (GazProm and RosNeft are highest tax contributors) thus paying for social safety nets, and runs their own territorial development programs too.

Ah yes, the think tank you and others like you blame for basically everything. Since when are think tanks supposed to have such influence? Conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy theories. Especially when used to excuse own failings...

Wtf are you talking about? Which influence??? Stop talking with voices in your head.

Also, the difference between Russian subjects and NATO members - Germany can decide something different. It will not be liked, but it is their choice.

So can Russian "subjects" - see Armenia.

[Crispin]

If we look at NATO deployments his claim is even more ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b..._of_Yugoslavia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) carried out an aerial bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The air strikes lasted from 24 March 1999 to 10 June 1999. The bombings continued until an agreement was reached that led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo, and the establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, a UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force whereas the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil
...

NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia's actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs. Yugoslavia refused to sign the Rambouillet Accords which was offered as an initial justification for NATO's use of force. NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.

What happened to your Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan whining?

Did Russia or CSTO invade Crimea? I’m sure you realise the difference, now apply it to the US and NATO

[Shalcker]

What happened to your Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan whining?

Did Russia or CSTO invade Crimea? I’m sure you realise the difference, now apply it to the US and NATO

Good that you agree that NATO does invade without UN authorization, thus supporting my objection to @XDurionX.

[Crispin]

Good that you agree that NATO does invade without UN authorization, thus supporting my objection to @XDurionX.

Your reading comprehension is terrible, no wonder you can’t read the answers to your silly question.

Or you’re just straight up trolling

Be glad that you’ve learned something new about NATO, the UN and Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Being wrong is not bad, unless ofcourse you double down on stupidity, which is the path you seem to have chosen.

Forums are for debating, not pushing some “NATO EVUL!” Propaganda narrative. NATO is not perfect, but it’s not the crazy invasion club as you try desperately to argue for.

[PC2]

Or you’re just straight up trolling

I don't think so. In my opinion @Shalcker is just presenting what he thinks is the best possible case for Russia. You may disagree with the morality of this situation in Ukraine but I don't see how you can argue that he's trolling and not serious.

[Crispin]

I don't think so. In my opinion @Shalcker is just presenting what he thinks is the best possible case for Russia. You may disagree with the morality of this situation in Ukraine but I don't see how you can argue that he's trolling and not serious.

If you think his reply was not shitposting, then I’m afraid it says more about you than him.

[PC2]

If you think his reply was not shitposting, then I’m afraid it says more about you than him.

If he's trolling and shitposting then why didn't you report him? Why is he not banned?

[Easo]

I am just gonna note here, for possible future reference, that in case something does go off in Ukraine Shalcker and possibly Yadronovich will be there to either say that Ukraine made a provocation/attacked (no matter how suicidal and illogical that sounds) or that Russia needed to "save civilians/Russians/Russian citizens/insert whatever sounds best".
Not sure if Shalcker was there back in 2014, but IIRC he was one of those who repeated that those are not Russian troops in Crimea (someone correct me if I am wrong) and changed his opinion each time the official Russian view changed.

If he's trolling and shitposting then why didn't you report him? Why is he not banned?

He gets banned from time to time. If you haven't noticed certain people have learned how to skirt the line + add the Western love for discussion, which gets abused.

[Yadryonych]

So what?

So that means the only source of legitimacy is a big stick. And boy, do ukros carry a tiny twig

[Crispin]

If he's trolling and shitposting then why didn't you report him? Why is he not banned?

Well I did, I can’t ban. Easy questions.

- - - Updated - - -

I am just gonna note here, for possible future reference, that in case something does go off in Ukraine Shalcker and possibly Yadronovich will be there to either say that Ukraine made a provocation/attacked (no matter how suicidal and illogical that sounds) or that Russia needed to "save civilians/Russians/Russian citizens/insert whatever sounds best".
Not sure if Shalcker was there back in 2014, but IIRC he was one of those who repeated that those are not Russian troops in Crimea (someone correct me if I am wrong) and changed his opinion each time the official Russian view changed.



He gets banned from time to time. If you haven't noticed certain people have learned how to skirt the line + add the Western love for discussion, which gets abused.

The Shalcker account was in that thread, basicly just repeating whatever excuse Kremlin was presenting. His English has gotten worse since then tho, and he were better at spinning arguments, and not just move goalposts + shitposting.

[Shalcker]

I am just gonna note here, for possible future reference, that in case something does go off in Ukraine Shalcker and possibly Yadronovich will be there to either say that Ukraine made a provocation/attacked (no matter how suicidal and illogical that sounds) or that Russia needed to "save civilians/Russians/Russian citizens/insert whatever sounds best".

That particular hedge have been already made ("no invasion unless Ukraine attacks Donbass"), there is no need to "predict" it.

"Russian invasion taking over Ukraine" is also quite suicidal and illogical, yet people somehow see it as inevitable.

Not sure if Shalcker was there back in 2014, but IIRC he was one of those who repeated that those are not Russian troops in Crimea (someone correct me if I am wrong) and changed his opinion each time the official Russian view changed.

At the time I said that those weren't necessarily Russian troops - there was potential for some alternative routes. Don't think i ever denied those were Russians however.

[Orange Joe]

If he's trolling and shitposting then why didn't you report him? Why is he not banned?

Cause it's very simple to do those while making it look like you aren't breaking rules. Anyone with half a brain cell can do it.

- - - Updated - - -

At the time I said that those weren't necessarily Russian troops - there was potential for some alternative routes. Don't think i ever denied those were Russians however.

No you were VERY ADAMANT that they were not Russian troops.

[Milchshake]

Russian markets appear to be approaching something like free-fall territory.

Stock market down 9% already today - value lost in last few weeks something like $150bn now.

Ruble also fallen another 1.5%, getting close to point where Central Bank could consider intervening.

[Crispin]

Cause it's very simple to do those while making it look like you aren't breaking rules. Anyone with half a brain cell can do it.

- - - Updated - - -



No you were VERY ADAMANT that they were not Russian troops.

Lol yeah, I clearly remember the “it’s locals that bought their clothes in local shops” argument. Same account, different poster.

[Shalcker]

Stop with the hostilities and NATO will stop deploying along their Eastern edge.

We just asked US to put that in writing; so far US didn't manage to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

No you were VERY ADAMANT that they were not Russian troops.

As in "could be not 'Russian army soldiers' but 'Russian PMC soldiers', we don't have enough info yet ".

Never denied "Russian" part.

[Yadryonych]

Russian markets appear to be approaching something like free-fall territory.

Stock market down 9% already today - value lost in last few weeks something like $150bn now.

Ruble also fallen another 1.5%, getting close to point where Central Bank could consider intervening.

Russian government must be buying like a madman, won't be surprised if they emerge from this grand sale owning ~80% of the market