Interesting references to propaganda. I probably won’t be able to explain to you the difference between propaganda and official diplomatic papers.
It's like listening to the contents of a mortgage agreement from a manager or reading all 196 pages yourself.
So in other words, you're saying that an official statement from the President of Russia, stating that (in part) one of their reasons for invading Ukraine is to stop the genocide of the Donbass region... what? Doesn't count?
I think he is trying to say that it's too complicated to read the 20 page report made by the ICJ to explain the case :
I read the thing, there was 15 judge, including 1 from Russia, yet the verdict was to condemn Russia.
Why do you say it's not illegal ?
Re: We support Ukraine
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2022 11:05 am
by mmmPI
86. For these reasons,THE COURT, Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) By thirteen votes to two,The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine;IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; JudgesTomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Daudet;AGAINST: Vice-President Gevorgian; Judge Xue;
(2) By thirteen votes to two,The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to in point (1) above;IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; JudgesTomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Daudet;AGAINST: Vice-President Gevorgian; Judge Xue;
(3) Unanimously,Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this sixteenth day of March, two thousand and twenty-two, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation, respectively.
This is pretty clear even from someone that is not a lawyier right ?
[...] how [do] you think an article about US soldiers in Ukraine, working with the legally established government in training their military, has any correlation to Russia secretly sending troops into Ukraine to destabilize eastern regions of the country?
Any interference in the affairs of an independent state is illegal.
-Starting a revolution is illegal.
-It is illegal to overthrow a substantial government.
-It is illegal to influence on the government financially.
-Media censorship is illegal.
-It is illegal to use armed forces on the territory of a foreign country.
-It is illegal to use a dominant position in the world to promote "democracy" at will.
I can fantasize a lot here, but nothing has changed in the world since the appearance of man. The one who is stronger is right.
Explain to me how the US troops, invited and welcomed in by the legally established government to give training to their military forces, qualifies for any of that.
Re: We support Ukraine
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2022 9:19 pm
by enterisys
Re: We support Ukraine
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2022 9:23 pm
by enterisys
Donbas miners with russian passports and middle-east accent upgrading accuracy for upcoming naZi tanks.
86. For these reasons,THE COURT, Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) By thirteen votes to two,The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine;IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; JudgesTomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Daudet;AGAINST: Vice-President Gevorgian; Judge Xue;
(2) By thirteen votes to two,The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to in point (1) above;IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; JudgesTomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth; Judge ad hoc Daudet;AGAINST: Vice-President Gevorgian; Judge Xue;
(3) Unanimously,Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this sixteenth day of March, two thousand and twenty-two, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation, respectively.
This is pretty clear even from someone that is not a lawyier right ?
I don't understand why you post links to a court whose decision is purely informative. You might as well write a judgment in Zimbabwe.
How can an international court enforce its decisions? I like the USA, they immediately said that in relation to America, this court can shove its decisions into one dark place. and at the same time wrote sanctions to the judges, so that they would not be clever.
Donbas miners with russian passports and middle-east accent upgrading accuracy for upcoming naZi tanks.
And these drunken miners are destroying a NATO standard army into which billions of money have been poured. I'm afraid to imagine what they can when not drunk.
I don't understand why you post links to a court whose decision is purely informative. You might as well write a judgment in Zimbabwe.
How can an international court enforce its decisions? I like the USA, they immediately said that in relation to America, this court can shove its decisions into one dark place. and at the same time wrote sanctions to the judges, so that they would not be clever.
That's because you said the law where written by the strong, and yet USA didn't wrote those otherwise they didn't acted like you describe, Russia is part of that court, which is funny because they take part of it and then when the court disagree with them, they don't apply it, similar to what the USA does yet low IQ troll think it's a valid argument to justify the war ongoing. Plus you said many experts said something and you couldn't name any, not just 1, you tried to link an article in Russian you didn't understood where the only expert predicted correctly that the ICJ would not consider valid Russia's argument. Not counting the 141 countries that voted against Russia's invasion.
Edit : Oh and since you seem so ignorant, for the USA it happened in 2005 and it was Georges W Bush in power, since there was Obama, twice, Trump and Biden, and the stance has evolved positively. Wanna compare with Russia ?
4) there is a difference between giving financial help and putting pressure
Well, tell me what's the difference. At the same time, tell us how this differs from lobbying, legalized in the United States.
Giving help is when the person ask for it, puting pressure is when you threaten them to cut the gas for example.
lobbyist don't give help to people when they ask for it, you must be pretty ignorant to think they are good person
Glad to see you didn't find anything to say to the 3 other point, just didn't understood point 4) and seriously if you don't know the difference when you help someone and when you put pressure on the person, i think it's because you have limited capacity and it's a bit scary for the people you could try to help.
The trick is that legally Russia did everything right. But morally, no.
Many experts write about this trick like this:
Russia used this provision of international law, but it cannot be used like that. This is called the duality of the interpretation of the law.
Однако в том или ином случае тот факт, что какое-то государство в прошлом поступало неправомерно — что Запад точно делал — не дает права другим государствам тоже действовать неправомерно Особенно настолько неправомерно, как это делает сейчас Россия.
Translation :
However, in one case or another, the fact that a state has acted wrongly in the past—which the West certainly has done—does not entitle other states to act wrongfully as well. Especially as illegal as Russia is doing now.
( doesn't prevent djmix from using the very same argument that is considered not-valid by the person he cites himself )
По моему мнению, юридически это очень однозначный случай — Россия абсолютно четко нарушила международное право, так что Генассамблея примет соответствующую резолюцию.
Translation :
Russia absolutely clearly violated international law, so the General Assembly will adopt an appropriate resolution.
ICJ and UN general assembly both condemning the invasion as the expert quoted by djmixxx has predicted.
And these drunken miners are destroying a NATO standard army into which billions of money have been poured. I'm afraid to imagine what they can when not drunk.
I see AKs and soviet tanks are a NATO standard in russian military telegram.
Then russia would be also NATA standard if they could stop drinking and smoking near explosives.
ICJ and UN general assembly both condemning the invasion as the expert quoted by djmixxx has predicted.
Who should give a legal assessment of the actions of Russia - did it rightfully use the right to self-defense or not?
- Nobody. There is no centralized justice system in the world. Most likely, there will be no court that will give any final assessment, if only because Russia does not submit to the jurisdiction of such courts.
I still do not understand what you want to say showing the decision of this court. This court is created for the punishment of small countries and cannot influence the participants in this court.
Well, the right to self-defense, which Article 51 gives, is not the first time it has been turned on its head and applied without any reason - many states have done this before.
I do not support Russia's attack on Ukraine, no matter how much you would like it. But I am not going to support countries that used the same reason to attack other countries that Russia used to attack Ukraine
Russia Says International Court Of Justice Has No Jurisdictional Rights On Ukraine Matter
After skipping the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) hearing last week, Russia has now stated that the UN international court has no jurisdictional rights over the Ukraine matter. The Parliament of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada, informed that the ICJ in The Hague received a written objection from Russia against the application of precautionary measures on Ukraine’s complaint. It said that the Russian Federation has stated that the UN court has no jurisdiction to consider the case of the use of force in Ukraine.
It is to mention that last month, Ukraine instituted proceedings against Russia urging the court to call upon the Vladimir Putin regime to immediately halt all military actions in the territory of the former Soviet nation. It contended that Russia's rationale to commence a special military operation was based on a "lie" that genocide had been committed in Luhansk and Donetsk. However, amid its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, Russia refused to participate in the ICJ hearing on the application of the war-hit nation.
Re: We support Ukraine
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:01 pm
by enterisys
Hope the pilots are OK
Requesting that ruskibot with video editing skills to confirm if its fake or not.
Re: We support Ukraine
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:05 pm
by mmmPI
Legality of invasion under domestic criminal codes
See also: Universal jurisdiction
Some commentators noted that in addition to violating international law, the invasion of Ukraine violated some countries' domestic criminal codes, including those of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland.[13][14] For example, Article 353 of the Russian Criminal Code prohibits planning, preparing, unleashing, or waging an aggressive war.[66] The criminal codes of Ukraine (article 437), Belarus (article 122), and Poland (article 117) have similar prohibitions. Any country seeking to begin a prosecution under its national laws would need to either have territorial jurisdiction over crimes arising out of the invasion of Ukraine or allow for universal jurisdiction. State immunity doctrines would be another obstacle to prosecution.[13]
Under international criminal law's principle of universal jurisdiction,[67][68] investigations were opened in Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.[69][70]
"many expert believe Putin will win his trial in Russia because of that trick called "death threat to the judge""
" zero expert without rubble in the pocket think Putin could could win a trial anywhere else "
Chapter 34. Crimes Against the Peace and Security Mankind Article
353. Planning, Preparing, Unleashing, or Waging on Aggressive War
1. Planning, preparing, or unleashing an aggressive warShall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of seven to fifteen years.
2. Waging an aggressive war, Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years.
Well, the right to self-defense, which Article 51 gives, is not the first time it has been turned on its head and applied without any reason - many states have done this before.
I do not support Russia's attack on Ukraine, no matter how much you would like it. But I am not going to support countries that used the same reason to attack other countries that Russia used to attack Ukraine
