We support Ukraine

[Djmixxx]

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.

https://meduza.io/feature/2022/02/24/pu ... ochemu-net

[mmmPI]

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)

Still this point is not addressed by your anonymous but undoutedly very serious and reliable source.

And none of those are either :

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]

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

Everytime you have the little number you can check for the source, it's different than when you djmixxx say "many expert" and then you link one article with 1 anonymous expert when asked who.

If you had a serious source it would be possible to include it there, but you haven't mentionned anyone, yet you said "many experts", i wonder why. Did you just made this up ? or exagerated one non-sourced information you read once ?

[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.

https://meduza.io/feature/2022/02/24/pu ... ochemu-net

In my opinion, legally, this is a very unambiguous case - Russia absolutely clearly violated international law, so the General Assembly will adopt an appropriate resolution.

Original :

По моему мнению, юридически это очень однозначный случай — Россия абсолютно четко нарушила международное право, так что Генассамблея примет соответствующую резолюцию.

Nico Krisch is not amongst the person that consider the invasion "legal" he is just explaining the reasonning of the Russian side but not sharing it.

- In the case of Iraq, the United States applied a not very clear legal strategy - on the one hand, they used the right to self-defense, on the other hand, they tried to rely on the decisions of the UN Security Council, to which they presented evidence of threats from Iraq. Both of these lines were legally flawed, so the invasion of Iraq was not justified. 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.

original :

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.

Why do you post article that contradict yourself ?

I was asking you for names of experts that consider the invasion "legal" as you said "many experts" .

Can't even find 1 ?

Or maybe it's the translation that is not correct ?

[Djmixxx]

Or maybe it's the translation that is not correct ?

or difficulty in understanding my text. Where I am write that expert told what it is legal?

[mmmPI]

Or maybe it's the translation that is not correct ?

or difficulty in understanding my text. Where I am write that expert told what it is legal?

Here you lied :

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.

[Djmixxx]

"

When you heard that Putin invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter as a justification for the invasion, were you surprised?

— No, this is a very typical move. This could be expected after the recognition of the independence of the republics in the east of Ukraine. Many said that this step should legitimize the use of armed force against "big" Ukraine. This is what happened. After all, the [Kremlin's] argument was that the DPR and LPR turned to Russia with a request for help against the aggression of Ukraine and Russia allegedly came to the rescue in the framework of collective self-defense. 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. The thing is that the right to self-defence is the only acceptable justification for the use of force against another state. And therefore, every state that faces the question of the use of force inevitably runs into it. This is a commonly used rhetorical device."

Wikipedia and you told me : using 51 UN article is illegal in this situation. Where I can read about this in the text?

Law is sheat and it is possible to legally do anything you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with their own interests.

[Djmixxx]

Or maybe it's the translation that is not correct ?

or difficulty in understanding my text. Where I am write that expert told what it is legal?

Here you lied :

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.

I lied that Russia recognized 2 republics, concluded a collective defense treaty with them, and then used this collective defense treaty for Article 51 of the UN against Ukraine?

What of these lies?

Nowhere in the law is it written what is considered a threat. It's all too subjective.

[FuryoftheStars]

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.

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?

No, what I want to hear is how 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?

[mmmPI]

"

When you heard that Putin invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter as a justification for the invasion, were you surprised?

— No, this is a very typical move. This could be expected after the recognition of the independence of the republics in the east of Ukraine. Many said that this step should legitimize the use of armed force against "big" Ukraine. This is what happened. After all, the [Kremlin's] argument was that the DPR and LPR turned to Russia with a request for help against the aggression of Ukraine and Russia allegedly came to the rescue in the framework of collective self-defense. 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. The thing is that the right to self-defence is the only acceptable justification for the use of force against another state. And therefore, every state that faces the question of the use of force inevitably runs into it. This is a commonly used rhetorical device."

Wikipedia and you told me : using 51 UN article is illegal in this situation. Where I can read about this in the text?

Law is sheat and it is possible to legally do anything you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with their own interests.

You don't understand what you read ? The person Nico Kirsch is clearly stating that this is a lie, he is rephrasing the Kremlin argument and explaining that it not valid as it is used WITHOUT ANY REASON.

This is confirmed all throughout the article that this expert from switerland consider the invasion ILLEGAL contrary to what you said.

[FuryoftheStars]

Or maybe it's the translation that is not correct ?

or difficulty in understanding my text. Where I am write that expert told what it is legal?

Here you lied :

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.

I lied that Russia recognized 2 republics, concluded a collective defense treaty with them, and then used this collective defense treaty for Article 51 of the UN against Ukraine?

What of these lies?

Nowhere in the law is it written what is considered a threat. It's all too subjective.

Are you that dense? mmmPi is citing this statement:

Many experts write about this trick

as a lie.

[mmmPI]

Here you lied :

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 only ever trial that occured saw Russia condemned for its invasion, and every expert i could heard of said it was obvious.

"The trick" doesn't exist, there is no trick, Russia lost its cases.

[Djmixxx]

"

When you heard that Putin invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter as a justification for the invasion, were you surprised?

— No, this is a very typical move. This could be expected after the recognition of the independence of the republics in the east of Ukraine. Many said that this step should legitimize the use of armed force against "big" Ukraine. This is what happened. After all, the [Kremlin's] argument was that the DPR and LPR turned to Russia with a request for help against the aggression of Ukraine and Russia allegedly came to the rescue in the framework of collective self-defense. 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. The thing is that the right to self-defence is the only acceptable justification for the use of force against another state. And therefore, every state that faces the question of the use of force inevitably runs into it. This is a commonly used rhetorical device."

Wikipedia and you told me : using 51 UN article is illegal in this situation. Where I can read about this in the text?

Law is sheat and it is possible to legally do anything you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with their own interests.

You don't understand what you read ? The person Nico Kirsch is clearly stating that this is a lie, he is rephrasing the Kremlin argument and explaining that it not valid as it is used WITHOUT ANY REASON.

This is confirmed all throughout the article that this expert from switerland consider the invasion ILLEGAL contrary to what you said.

He writes that the law is full of holes, and any country can use it to justify an attack. he writes that nowhere in the law is there a definition of the reality of the threat. The United States took advantage of this and Russia took advantage of it.

[Djmixxx]

Here you lied :

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 only ever trial that occured saw Russia condemned for its invasion, and every expert i could heard of said it was obvious.

"The trick" doesn't exist, there is no trick, Russia lost its cases.

a lawsuit where Ukraine rejected Russia's accusation of genocide?

[Djmixxx]

Many experts write about this trick

as a lie.

do i have to post them all here? I posted one. he very clearly explained how you can twist the law and do illegal things.

[mmmPI]

Here you lied :

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 only ever trial that occured saw Russia condemned for its invasion, and every expert i could heard of said it was obvious.

"The trick" doesn't exist, there is no trick, Russia lost its cases.

a lawsuit where Ukraine rejected Russia's accusation of genocide?

exactly Russia claim it was a justified aggression to protect people from genocide to which the court answered there was no genocide and Russia should stop the invasion , and then Russia decided to leave the court => https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1170060

That's a lost case by Russia

[mmmPI]

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]

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

- In the case of Iraq, the United States applied a not very clear legal strategy - on the one hand, they used the right to self-defense, on the other hand, they tried to rely on the decisions of the UN Security Council, to which they presented evidence of threats from Iraq. Both of these lines were legally flawed, so the invasion of Iraq was not justified. 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.

Expert cited by djmixxx

[mmmPI]

do i have to post them all here? I posted one. he very clearly explained how you can twist the law and do illegal things.

You post 0, the only person you post on the article contradict your statement that Russia's invasion was somewhat in a legal loophole

He say that what has been done is illegal, and the ICJ condemn Russia, as expected by the expert you cited yourself.

[FuryoftheStars]

Gah... you're all's quotes are broken (you're missing an end quote starting with one of mmmPi's posts). It's driving me nuts at the moment.

Edit:
I think they should look like this, yes? Needed a double end quote where the first end quote was written (if that makes sense!).

Here you lied :

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 only ever trial that occured saw Russia condemned for its invasion, and every expert i could heard of said it was obvious.

"The trick" doesn't exist, there is no trick, Russia lost its cases.

Here you lied :

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 only ever trial that occured saw Russia condemned for its invasion, and every expert i could heard of said it was obvious.

"The trick" doesn't exist, there is no trick, Russia lost its cases.

a lawsuit where Ukraine rejected Russia's accusation of genocide?

Here you lied :

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 only ever trial that occured saw Russia condemned for its invasion, and every expert i could heard of said it was obvious.

"The trick" doesn't exist, there is no trick, Russia lost its cases.

a lawsuit where Ukraine rejected Russia's accusation of genocide?

exactly Russia claim it was a justified aggression to protect people from genocide to which the court answered there was no genocide and Russia should stop the invasion , and then Russia decided to leave the court => https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1170060

That's a lost case by Russia

[mmmPI]

Gah... you're all's quotes are broken (you're missing an end quote starting with one of mmmPi's posts). It's driving me nuts at the moment.

I corrected 1 that was causing a misattribution, there is one still wrong but it has been quoted later so i won't change it, it's just one time the whole text is in a quote but some part shouldn't, but at least it's not a mis-attribution.

[Djmixxx]

That's a lost case by Russia

it looks like you don't like reading my links either. I'll tell you briefly. Ukraine accused Russia of starting a war with Ukraine because of the genocide of Ukraine in Dombas. But there are no official accusations. Old grandfather Putin thought something and he said it on TV. Old already. So Russia did not recognize the claim, since there is no official confirmation of the accusation of Ukraine in genocide.