Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Shalcker]

Russia is unwanted on Ukranian soil, the US is not, learn the difference.

Anyone can be "unwanted" if you sanction and imprison opposition - as US and Ukraine does.

- - - Updated - - -

Russia stole part of an independent nation and now tries to play the victim.

Return Crimea, you assholes.

Fold NATO back to Western Europe and maybe we'll talk about it.

[Mekh]

Fold NATO back to Western Europe and maybe we'll talk about it.

Why should we? Russia invades sovereign countries on a whim as we have seen with Ukraine and runs massive informational warfare to destabilize western democracy. Why should we give you an inch? You started it. You want it to stop, you can make it stop.

Russia can leave Crimea.
You can leave these forums.

[Crispin]

Anyone can be "unwanted" if you sanction and imprison opposition - as US and Ukraine does.

- - - Updated - - -

Fold NATO back to Western Europe and maybe we'll talk about it.

lol please be consistent.

Same page

We can move our troops anywhere we want within our alliance, Belarus included, for scheduled exercises.

Fold NATO back to Western Europe and maybe we'll talk about it.

1) NATO, not Russia sets who are to be members of NATO

2) NATO can just as Russia, move troops within allied countries as it see's fit.

3) That oil joke is getting old, obviously war on the border of EU and NATO countries weigh far more.


In the end, Russia will learn that they're on the path of pushing Sweden and Finland into NATO, NATO moving tons of troops and gear into Eastern Europe, and all Russia can do is whine about it.

[Yadryonych]

Fold NATO back to Western Europe and maybe we'll talk about it.

Nah we won't but they can crimea river about it

[Kante]

Or US could f*** off from Ukraine. It isn't hard either.

Or Ukraine could just "invite" American troops onto it's soil, just like the Russians were "invited" to Syria etc.

I mean Russia wouldn't be able to oppose it, it's their textbook move.

[Crispin]

In the end, hopefully the Minsk protocol will be implemented asap, and this "crisis" will come to and end.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Aah. A pandemic, racial injustice across the world, supply chain problems, divided countries, and now we're on the verge of WWIII. Hmm... Where have I heard or seen this before?

[Shalcker]

They’re not going to. The military is already making plans for a rapid deployment.

We'll see soon enough.

Rapid deployment where exactly?

I would expect Poland at most.

[XDurionX]

We'll see soon enough.

Rapid deployment where exactly?

I would expect Poland at most.

It's almost as if NATO doesn't deploy troops outside its borders (unless under un mandate).

[Shalcker]

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

We had decades without hostilities and NATO didn't stop expansion, so that is clearly false.

- - - Updated - - -

It's almost as if NATO doesn't deploy troops outside its borders (unless under un mandate).

Are you joking or seriously that uninformed?

When UN mandate happened on Iraq? Syria? Afghanistan?

[Crispin]

Aah. A pandemic, racial injustice across the world, supply chain problems, divided countries, and now we're on the verge of WWIII. Hmm... Where have I heard or seen this before?

Roman empire?

- - - Updated - - -

We had decades without hostilities and NATO didn't stop expansion, so that is clearly false.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you joking or seriously that uninformed?

When UN mandate happened on Iraq? Syria? Afghanistan?

Did NATO attack Iraq and Syria?

[Belize]

We had decades without hostilities and NATO didn't stop expansion, so that is clearly false.

Probably because Russia can't be trusted to not invade its neighbors.

I don't blame eastern european countries for wanting to join NATO after living through half a century of the hellscape that was the USSR. I doubt they're too too keen on returning to a shit economy run by a dictatorial oligarchy that has to kill off its political opponents to retain power because they know the majority of the population wants Putin and his cronies gone.

[XDurionX]

Are you joking or seriously that uninformed?

When UN mandate happened on Iraq? Syria? Afghanistan?

Well that information is easily attainable, you should try that sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...esolution_1386

[Shalcker]

Well that information is easily attainable, you should try that sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...esolution_1386

I only need one counter-example, so what about Iraq and Syria?

[Crispin]

I only need one counter-example, so what about Iraq and Syria?

Not invaded by NATO anyhow.

[XDurionX]

I only need one counter-example, so what about Iraq and Syria?

Do i really have to do all the work for you now?

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2249.pdf

[Crispin]

Do i really have to do all the work for you now?

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2249.pdf

Back to the drawing board, to figure out why NATO is the aggressor.

[Orange Joe]

Or US could f*** off from Ukraine. It isn't hard either.

Or Russia could f*** off from Ukraine. It isn't hard either.

Goes both ways.

[AntiFascistVoter]

Putin keep's proving NATO's point ... Germany just fired their Navy Chief for saying we need Russia on the West's side to counter China.

[Shalcker]

Do i really have to do all the work for you now?

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2249.pdf

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.