We support Ukraine

[Djmixxx]

Do you have the US military medal to compare ?

I can draw as much as you like.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/pentago ... raine.html

Marvelous. Russian soldiers in Ukraine "this is an attack." US soldiers in Ukraine, "they teach us about democracy."

Quote from article:

In November, 160 members of the Florida National Guard, assigned to the 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, deployed to Ukraine to train with local forces.

They were there to train with the government's forces, not oppose them. That's not an invasion.

I want some of what youre sniffing.

It is to weak for you. The effect of Ukrainian propaganda hits the brain much better.

Well obviously you're a lightweight, then, if whatever you're sniffing makes you think that linked article compares in some way to Russia sending soldiers to instigate uprisings.

I would only be glad if they taught them how to fight. But it looks like they shared their achievements in Afghanistan in 2021 and the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are now showing how they learned their lesson.

History is written by the winners.

Classic topic switch.

Do you want to hear if there were Russian soldiers in the LNR and DNR? Of course they were. Is this something strange? Not one country in the world does not secretly send its soldiers to foreign countries?

[mmmPI]

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.

"The international practice of recognizing new states involves the use of two concepts that contradict each other. According to the first, constitutional, state becomes a full-fledged subject of international law only if it is recognized by a number of independent states. At the same time, there is no data on exactly how many countries should recognize the new entity.

The second concept, declarative, provides for the formation of a new state as a result of a statement about its creation. Recognition by other states in this case is not important, the fact of recognition is used as a statement of the formation of a new subject.

Experts assure that the lack of a clear mechanism for the recognition of new states often complicates the process. Following history, most often in such cases, attention was paid to the position of the UN as an interstate organization."

lol "experts" that you can't even name ? I guess russian expert that are going 15 years in jail if they do not say this ? which one is it ?

Legality of Russia's use of force against Ukraine

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Along similar lines, Article 2(3) of the Charter requires all member states to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."[32]

Many experts on international law and foreign affairs have opined that the Russian invasion of Ukraine violated these principles, namely Article 2(4)'s prohibition on the "use of force" against other states.[33] As detailed below, they have also generally rejected the Russian government's official legal justifications for the invasion of Ukraine.
Self-defense justification

Russia has argued that its use of force against Ukraine is lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the rights of UN member states to defend themselves against "an armed attack" and to engage in "collective self-defense." Specifically, Russia has claimed that it may use force against Ukraine in order to defend the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, which Russia recognizes as independent states. International law and foreign policy experts such as John B. Bellinger III, Gabriella Blum, Naz Modirzadeh, and Anthony Dworkin have criticized this argument.[2][4][6]

Bellinger and Dworkin argued that Russia cannot rely on a self-defense justification because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation.[2][6] All four scholars also suggested that even if Ukraine had been planning an attack against Donetsk or Luhansk, Russia could not invoke Article 51's collective self-defense provision because these regions are not recognized as separate states under international law.[2][4][6] Allen Weiner of Stanford Law School made a similar argument, likening Russia's collective self-defense arguments to a hypothetical situation where a modern entity calling itself the independent "Republic of Texas" invited a foreign government to send troops to fight against the United States.[5][34]
Genocide/humanitarian intervention justification
See also: Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022)

Likewise, experts have rejected Russia's argument that its invasion is justified on humanitarian grounds to protect Russian-speakers in the Donbass. Some commentators have questioned whether international law (including the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention) even allows nations to use force against another country to remedy genocide or human rights violations, as the legality of humanitarian intervention is heavily disputed.[2][5] In any event, Russia's humanitarian justifications for the invasion are widely perceived as a pretext, and are unsubstantiated by any evidence that Ukraine has committed, or is committing any acts against Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk that could amount to genocide.[37]
Comparisons to Western interventions in other countries

Russia has also tried to justify its invasion of Ukraine by comparing its actions to interventions by the United States and its allies during the Kosovo War, the Iraq War, the Libyan Crisis, and the Syrian civil war.

These comparisons have been dismissed as irrelevant because one illegal act does not make a different act legal.[1][4][7] For example, Professors Blum and Modirzadeh have remarked that "these arguments would carry little weight in any court of law" because "even if [they were] true, one illegal use of force does not justify another."[4] Professor Ingrid Wuerth likewise said that Russia's arguments go "nowhere in terms of a legal or moral justification for Russia's own actions," although she agrees with Russia "that other powerful countries have undermined international law's prohibition on the use of force and protections of territorial integrity."[1]

Most experts agree that the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal,[38] and there have also been debates about the legality of NATO's actions in Kosovo[39] and Libya.[40]

Many also pointed out that such comparisons are false equivalences. Iraq was an authoritarian and brutal dictatorship at time of the invasion, with the U.S.-allied forces successfully toppling the dictator and trying to introduce democracy to the region.[41][42] The intervention in Serbia stopped the genocide that happened the bloody Kosovo War (with Serbian leaders, like Slobodan Milošević, put on trial for war crimes),[43] and Libya and Syria interventions were also done to remove bad actors such as Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, as well as fighting ISIS terrorists.[44][45] Meanwhile, Russia's invasion has imperialistic goals of annexing foreign nation's territory, subjugating its people, and exterminating the population.[46][47][48]
UN responses to Russian invasion
See also: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Intergovernmental and international organizations, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2623, and United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1

On 26 February 2022, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for Russia to immediately cease its attack on Ukraine. China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained from the vote; the 11 remaining members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.[49][50] Days later, a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion was passed with an overwhelming 141–5 vote majority, with 35 nations abstaining.[51]

Among other statements, the General Assembly resolution called upon Russia to abide by the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations.[51] The Declaration on Friendly Relations says that assisting a rebel group in another nation would threaten the target country's "territorial integrity," and that states have a duty to refrain from engaging in such actions.[52]

See here the experts are named. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... of_Ukraine

[enterisys]

So stop calling them like that.
If russia unilaterally withdrawn from Minsk agreements it means such names do not exist.
russia occupied territories means so much more sense.

You are correct.

Just ROT haha

[enterisys]

There is still no explanation on your side as to why it suddenly all occur the February 24, why not 1 month before or after ? since it was during 8 years , why Putin not do something before ? why build up many troop and make everyone well aware of the invasion and prepare themselves, and then invade at a point where the resistance is going to be ready ?

This act of aggression against a peaceful country has no justification or explanation.

And my thoughts that Ukraine was going to regain control over the DPR and LPR in March 2022 by military force and civilian casualties in order to resolve the military conflict on its territory, which prevented it from joining NATO, are fantasies.

DPR and LPR where Russian occupied province of Ukraine after the 2014 conflict. And in February 2022 Russia decided to recognize them as independant state, which only Russia in the world did, and no other countries. Then used the pretext that maybe the DPR and LPR would be in danger as a pretext to launch a full scale invasion attempt on Ukraine which de facto lead to the destruction of many buildings and killings of many humans in those 2 areas. Yes you are once again posting fantasies like all your other posts on that topic.

So stop calling them like that.
If russia unilaterally withdrawn from Minsk agreements it means such names do not exist.
russia occupied territories means so much more sense.

I agree, legally only residents of Russia can call them that.

russians can call russians whatever they like, no one gives shit about them.

[mmmPI]

Do you want to hear if there were Russian soldiers in the LNR and DNR? Of course they were. Is this something strange? Not one country in the world does not secretly send its soldiers to foreign countries?

And then they pretend to recognize them as independant state, and only Russia in the whole world recognize as independant state a territory that they also militarily occupy, and they use this as pretext to launch a war on the rest of the territory of Ukraine ?


And you are supporting this ?

[Djmixxx]

You really are bad at chronology, your article which you probably didn't even read is from 2022, this is because there is a treaty called Budapest memorandum signed in 1994 during which Ukraine agreed to give back its nuclear weapon for a promise of security guarantee from USA UK and RUSSIA.

And where did Ukraine get nuclear weapons from? Maybe it was not Ukrainian nuclear weapons? maybe it was a nuclear weapon of the USSR? Ukraine wanted to steal it? As far as I heard, only Russia became the legal successor of the USSR. So I don't really understand what kind of "Ukrainian" nuclear weapon you are talking about. Especially considering that all the control codes for these weapons were in Moscow.

See how you switch topic to avoid recognizing that your denegation of Russian presence in Ukraine in 2014 are stupid since there is official recognition of Russia that they participate in the conflict ? Now you ask stupid question whose answer is obvious to everyone but is just avoiding recognizing that you where trying to compare 2 things that are utterly different and you did it with a random article you barely read

There are good people in Ukraine - Ukrainians. And there are "hohols". And every time when someone write how Ukraine by volitional decision refused from its own nuclear weapons, I fall under the table laughing, imagining how "hohols" decided whether to steal or not steal this weapon from Russia, and after realizing they can use it only for hammering nails, they generously refused from it, doing what they love, trading terms.

[mmmPI]

You really are bad at chronology, your article which you probably didn't even read is from 2022, this is because there is a treaty called Budapest memorandum signed in 1994 during which Ukraine agreed to give back its nuclear weapon for a promise of security guarantee from USA UK and RUSSIA.

And where did Ukraine get nuclear weapons from? Maybe it was not Ukrainian nuclear weapons? maybe it was a nuclear weapon of the USSR? Ukraine wanted to steal it? As far as I heard, only Russia became the legal successor of the USSR. So I don't really understand what kind of "Ukrainian" nuclear weapon you are talking about. Especially considering that all the control codes for these weapons were in Moscow.

See how you switch topic to avoid recognizing that your denegation of Russian presence in Ukraine in 2014 are stupid since there is official recognition of Russia that they participate in the conflict ? Now you ask stupid question whose answer is obvious to everyone but is just avoiding recognizing that you where trying to compare 2 things that are utterly different and you did it with a random article you barely read

Look i highlighted the word you used to continue switching topic about your stance that you started to take few hours earlier that Russia didn't sent soldier to Ukraine after finally saying they did so and it was secret lol

[enterisys]

And every time when someone write how Ukraine by volitional decision refused from its own nuclear weapons, I fall under the table laughing.

That makes 2 of us - only I laugh at russia as a reliable partner whose signature means nothing.

[mmmPI]

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.

"The international practice of recognizing new states involves the use of two concepts that contradict each other. According to the first, constitutional, state becomes a full-fledged subject of international law only if it is recognized by a number of independent states. At the same time, there is no data on exactly how many countries should recognize the new entity.

The second concept, declarative, provides for the formation of a new state as a result of a statement about its creation. Recognition by other states in this case is not important, the fact of recognition is used as a statement of the formation of a new subject.

Experts assure that the lack of a clear mechanism for the recognition of new states often complicates the process. Following history, most often in such cases, attention was paid to the position of the UN as an interstate organization."

lol "experts" that you can't even name ? I guess russian expert that are going 15 years in jail if they do not say this ? which one is it ?

Legality of Russia's use of force against Ukraine

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Along similar lines, Article 2(3) of the Charter requires all member states to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."[32]

Many experts on international law and foreign affairs have opined that the Russian invasion of Ukraine violated these principles, namely Article 2(4)'s prohibition on the "use of force" against other states.[33] As detailed below, they have also generally rejected the Russian government's official legal justifications for the invasion of Ukraine.
Self-defense justification

Russia has argued that its use of force against Ukraine is lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the rights of UN member states to defend themselves against "an armed attack" and to engage in "collective self-defense." Specifically, Russia has claimed that it may use force against Ukraine in order to defend the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, which Russia recognizes as independent states. International law and foreign policy experts such as John B. Bellinger III, Gabriella Blum, Naz Modirzadeh, and Anthony Dworkin have criticized this argument.[2][4][6]

Bellinger and Dworkin argued that Russia cannot rely on a self-defense justification because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation.[2][6] All four scholars also suggested that even if Ukraine had been planning an attack against Donetsk or Luhansk, Russia could not invoke Article 51's collective self-defense provision because these regions are not recognized as separate states under international law.[2][4][6] Allen Weiner of Stanford Law School made a similar argument, likening Russia's collective self-defense arguments to a hypothetical situation where a modern entity calling itself the independent "Republic of Texas" invited a foreign government to send troops to fight against the United States.[5][34]
Genocide/humanitarian intervention justification
See also: Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022)

Likewise, experts have rejected Russia's argument that its invasion is justified on humanitarian grounds to protect Russian-speakers in the Donbass. Some commentators have questioned whether international law (including the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention) even allows nations to use force against another country to remedy genocide or human rights violations, as the legality of humanitarian intervention is heavily disputed.[2][5] In any event, Russia's humanitarian justifications for the invasion are widely perceived as a pretext, and are unsubstantiated by any evidence that Ukraine has committed, or is committing any acts against Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk that could amount to genocide.[37]
Comparisons to Western interventions in other countries

Russia has also tried to justify its invasion of Ukraine by comparing its actions to interventions by the United States and its allies during the Kosovo War, the Iraq War, the Libyan Crisis, and the Syrian civil war.

These comparisons have been dismissed as irrelevant because one illegal act does not make a different act legal.[1][4][7] For example, Professors Blum and Modirzadeh have remarked that "these arguments would carry little weight in any court of law" because "even if [they were] true, one illegal use of force does not justify another."[4] Professor Ingrid Wuerth likewise said that Russia's arguments go "nowhere in terms of a legal or moral justification for Russia's own actions," although she agrees with Russia "that other powerful countries have undermined international law's prohibition on the use of force and protections of territorial integrity."[1]

Most experts agree that the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal,[38] and there have also been debates about the legality of NATO's actions in Kosovo[39] and Libya.[40]

Many also pointed out that such comparisons are false equivalences. Iraq was an authoritarian and brutal dictatorship at time of the invasion, with the U.S.-allied forces successfully toppling the dictator and trying to introduce democracy to the region.[41][42] The intervention in Serbia stopped the genocide that happened the bloody Kosovo War (with Serbian leaders, like Slobodan Milošević, put on trial for war crimes),[43] and Libya and Syria interventions were also done to remove bad actors such as Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, as well as fighting ISIS terrorists.[44][45] Meanwhile, Russia's invasion has imperialistic goals of annexing foreign nation's territory, subjugating its people, and exterminating the population.[46][47][48]
UN responses to Russian invasion
See also: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Intergovernmental and international organizations, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2623, and United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1

On 26 February 2022, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for Russia to immediately cease its attack on Ukraine. China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained from the vote; the 11 remaining members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.[49][50] Days later, a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion was passed with an overwhelming 141–5 vote majority, with 35 nations abstaining.[51]

Among other statements, the General Assembly resolution called upon Russia to abide by the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations.[51] The Declaration on Friendly Relations says that assisting a rebel group in another nation would threaten the target country's "territorial integrity," and that states have a duty to refrain from engaging in such actions.[52]

See here the experts are named. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... of_Ukraine

What expert are you talking about you care to mention them so that they could be added to the wikipedia page ?

[Djmixxx]

Bellinger and Dworkin argued that Russia cannot rely on a self-defense justification because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation.[2][6] All four scholars also suggested that even if Ukraine had been planning an attack against Donetsk or Luhansk

Of all the text, only this matters. Even I think the absurdity of this statement. It's like asking a rapist if he committed an act of violence or if it was love. The answer is 99% predictable.

Watch my hands. Some part of the country's territory declared its independence. This is an empty sound. Until someone recognizes this statement.
If this recognition was from one of the countries of Africa, they would quickly have been given democratic missiles. But the problem began when this territory was supported by a local jock, whom everyone is a little afraid of. And these self-proclaimed and recognized countries said: "Ukraine is attacking us"
Nobody asked Ukraine itself. Therefore, it is not clear why the words of Ukraine are quoted.

Russia could not invoke Article 51's collective self-defense provision because these regions are not recognized as separate states under international law.[2][4][6]

And here is the problem of international law. There is no mechanism and requirements for the recognition of new countries. There was no such need.
The situation with Kosovo was decided as it was convenient. You can discuss for a long time how it is accepted or not accepted, it is important how it is written in the law. And there's a giant hole in the law. Russia said that it has recognized these countries and is acting in accordance with international law. And from the point of view of Russia, everything is correct. but from the point of view of other countries it is not correct.

[Djmixxx]

Do you want to hear if there were Russian soldiers in the LNR and DNR? Of course they were. Is this something strange? Not one country in the world does not secretly send its soldiers to foreign countries?

And then they pretend to recognize them as independant state, and only Russia in the whole world recognize as independant state a territory that they also militarily occupy, and they use this as pretext to launch a war on the rest of the territory of Ukraine ?
And you are supporting this ?

No, I do not support. I also do not support corruption and harassment based on language. Does this affect anything?

[Djmixxx]

I agree, legally only residents of Russia can call them that.

russians can call russians whatever they like, no one gives shit about them.
[/quote]

Judging by what is happening in Kherson, Donetsk and Lugansk, they heard you.

[mmmPI]

Why don't you just tell me the names of the experts you quote instead of giving me your own personnal interpretation copy pasted from i don't know where which has 0 credibility after you showed your ignorance multiple times on this particular topic ?

Or give me the source of the earlier post you made on this forum that seem to me just a lie and you make it so that i cannot be verified who are the expert you mentionned.

[Djmixxx]

And every time when someone write how Ukraine by volitional decision refused from its own nuclear weapons, I fall under the table laughing.

That makes 2 of us - only I laugh at russia as a reliable partner whose signature means nothing.

You wrote correctly, there is too much in common between Ukraine and Russia.

[mmmPI]

Of all the text, only this matters.

Yeah you are very qualified to pick which sentence you like and which one you prefer not to read because it contradict your saying :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... roceedings

Ongoing legal proceedings
See also: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Intergovernmental and international organizations
International Court of Justice
Main article: Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022)

In late February 2022, Ukraine sued Russia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The lawsuit rejected Russia's claims that Ukraine was engaging in a genocide in Donbass and requested a court order requiring Russia to immediately halt its military operations in Ukraine.[71][72] It also accuses Russia of "engag[ing] in a military invasion of Ukraine involving grave and widespread violations of the human rights of the Ukrainian people."[71] Ukraine is represented by the law firm Covington & Burling in the lawsuit.[73]

Russia boycotted an initial hearing held in the case on 7 March 2022,[74] and later said it did not send anyone to attend because of the "absurdity" of Ukraine's lawsuit.[75] The ICJ indicated that it would decide Ukraine's application for an emergency order calling for a halt to hostilities "as soon as possible."[76]

On 16 March 2022, the court ruled that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine."[77] The court split 13–2 in the decision, with Judges Kirill Gevorgian of Russia and Xue Hanqin of China dissenting.[78] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hailed the ruling as a complete victory for his country,[78] saying that ignoring the order would further isolate Russia.[79]

Do you still argue that everything is legal ?

[enterisys]

I agree, legally only residents of Russia can call them that.

russians can call russians whatever they like, no one gives shit about them.

Judging by what is happening in Kherson, Donetsk and Lugansk, they heard you.

Even I dont know what is happening there, yet russian bot is more entitled to judge what is happening in Donetsk.
What a turnaround.

[enterisys]

And every time when someone write how Ukraine by volitional decision refused from its own nuclear weapons, I fall under the table laughing.

That makes 2 of us - only I laugh at russia as a reliable partner whose signature means nothing.

You wrote correctly, there is too much in common between Ukraine and Russia.

Too much in common is on russian TV, in reality everything is according to plan.

[mmmPI]

There are still no names of expert of internationnal law that would consider the invasion something "legal", i would be interested to know who where those mentionned earlier in the discussion.

[Djmixxx]

Of all the text, only this matters.

Yeah you are very qualified to pick which sentence you like and which one you prefer not to read because it contradict your saying :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... roceedings

Ongoing legal proceedings
See also: Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Intergovernmental and international organizations
International Court of Justice
Main article: Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022)

In late February 2022, Ukraine sued Russia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The lawsuit rejected Russia's claims that Ukraine was engaging in a genocide in Donbass and requested a court order requiring Russia to immediately halt its military operations in Ukraine.[71][72] It also accuses Russia of "engag[ing] in a military invasion of Ukraine involving grave and widespread violations of the human rights of the Ukrainian people."[71] Ukraine is represented by the law firm Covington & Burling in the lawsuit.[73]

Russia boycotted an initial hearing held in the case on 7 March 2022,[74] and later said it did not send anyone to attend because of the "absurdity" of Ukraine's lawsuit.[75] The ICJ indicated that it would decide Ukraine's application for an emergency order calling for a halt to hostilities "as soon as possible."[76]

On 16 March 2022, the court ruled that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine."[77] The court split 13–2 in the decision, with Judges Kirill Gevorgian of Russia and Xue Hanqin of China dissenting.[78] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hailed the ruling as a complete victory for his country,[78] saying that ignoring the order would further isolate Russia.[79]

Do you still argue that everything is legal ?

https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-60731848

"In his opinion, the question of the court's jurisdiction is indeed ambiguous, since official Russian documents do not really mention the genocide. Russia's statements about the genocide were a "propaganda veil", but formally Russia refers to the help of the LPR and DPR in self-defense, the expert explains."

[mmmPI]

Early djmixxx :

Many experts write about this trick like this:

After being asked several times who, late djmixxx :

"In his opinion, the question of the court's jurisdiction is indeed ambiguous, since official Russian documents do not really mention the genocide. Russia's statements about the genocide were a "propaganda veil", but formally Russia refers to the help of the LPR and DPR in self-defense, the expert explains."

Couldn't even find 1, has to quote an article that quote an "expert" that wished to remain anonymous, which is very useful to estimate the biais of the person. So only 1 and an anonymous one ? is the actual answer ?