We support Ukraine

[Djmixxx]

Separatists

I'm confused.

According to an expert on Middle East policy, Professor J. Landis, the long-term political goal of the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) supported by USA and some countries from Europe, the core of which is formed by Kurdish detachments, is the creation of Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria.

A group of people who have taken over part of Syria and are declaring independence are the freedom fighters.

A group of people who have taken over part of Ukraina and are declaring independence are the Separatists.



We are all talking about international politics, but it is not. There is a policy of protecting the international interests of the United States. If something is in the interests of the United States, then this is the right democracy, if it does not correspond to the interests of the United States, then these are terrorists.

If suddenly the main part of Ukraine was now pro-Russian, then the separatists of Donbass ,fighting the pro-Russian regime, according to the Western media, would now be the most correct and outcast fighters for democracy.

it's all sad

[Djmixxx]

you posted a lot of posts about djmixxx users in this thread. How does this relate to the situation in Ukraine.

[mmmPI]

Let's focus on something simple :

What not to do :

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.

What expert are you talking about ?

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

Inside the article :

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.

By the way, you still only provided 1 name of a person that is not saying the same thing as you did, why did you say MANY EXPERTS ?

Let's get done with this topic shall we, you said it was legally right and morally wrong, but you only linked to an article of someone that says it's legally wrong.

Why say "many" expert ?

that makes it 0 for now !

Why link one expert that says at least 2 times that the invasion is illegal ?

still 0 ? you prefer talking about USA and syria this time ?

[mmmPI]

you posted a lot of posts about djmixxx users in this thread. How does this relate to the situation in Ukraine.

about 100% related look :

100%related.png (14.87 KiB) Viewed 2464 times

[enterisys]

It clearly explains that if you have 100% posts in this thread you are an expert on situation in Ukraine and know nothing about your own mother russia.

[FuryoftheStars]

Nice. Realizes Afghanistan was a dead end, so now switches to Syria. Absolutely love the topic jumping. (By the way, freedom fighters are technically separatists. The difference is in what they are fighting for/against.)

Djmixxx, you do realize that by constantly shifting topics and ignoring questions that have been asked of you multiple times actually hurts your credibility to anyone unconvinced yet, right? Not to mention how much of what you’ve posted that gets proven as absolute BS, mischaracterizations, and not at all related.

[Djmixxx]

Nice. Realizes Afghanistan was a dead end, so now switches to Syria. Absolutely love the topic jumping. (By the way, freedom fighters are technically separatists. The difference is in what they are fighting for/against.)

Are you talking about the fact that, due to the actions of one group, they bombed the whole country? I understood correctly, if "Azov" commits a terrorist attack in Russia, then Russia has every right to drive Ukraine into the Stone Age with carpet bombing?

Oh this wonderful double morality.

About your question. Any state or republic may invite to its territory any troops of any country for any purpose.

[Djmixxx]

It clearly explains that if you have 100% posts in this thread you are an expert on situation in Ukraine and know nothing about your own mother russia.

Well, I definitely can’t compare with you in terms of knowledge about Russia.

[enterisys]

It clearly explains that if you have 100% posts in this thread you are an expert on situation in Ukraine and know nothing about your own mother russia.

Well, I definitely can’t compare with you in terms of knowledge about Russia.

The only thing I know actually is that it's 2nd army in Ukraine.

[FuryoftheStars]

Nice. Realizes Afghanistan was a dead end, so now switches to Syria. Absolutely love the topic jumping. (By the way, freedom fighters are technically separatists. The difference is in what they are fighting for/against.)

Are you talking about the fact that, due to the actions of one group, they bombed the whole country? I understood correctly, if "Azov" commits a terrorist attack in Russia, then Russia has every right to drive Ukraine into the Stone Age with carpet bombing?

Oh this wonderful double morality.

Ugh. Do some research on the Taliban first (how they came to power, the fact that they were still in the process of disposing the former government at the time (so they weren’t 100% established as being the ruling power), and their own crimes against humanity) before you start spouting more unrelated BS like that.

About your question. Any state or republic may invite to its territory any troops of any country for any purpose.

Right, except the groups causing trouble in eastern Ukraine back in 2014 when Russia sent in troops were not a state or republic. Simply calling yourself an independent state or republic does not make you one. Nor does the recognition of that from only one other party.

[mmmPI]

Let's focus on something simple :

What not to do :

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.

What expert are you talking about ?

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

Inside the article :

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.

By the way, you still only provided 1 name of a person that is not saying the same thing as you did, why did you say MANY EXPERTS ?

Let's get done with this topic shall we, you said it was legally right and morally wrong, but you only linked to an article of someone that says it's legally wrong.

Why say "many" expert ?

that makes it 0 for now !

Why link one expert that says at least 2 times that the invasion is illegal ?

still 0 ? you prefer talking about USA and syria this time ?

Why does djmixxx keeep talking about other situation in other countries while at the same time linking to an article whose expert says literally :

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.

Why did you post this article and then decided to use an argument that your own article explain is stupid ?

[mmmPI]

By the way, you still only provided 1 name of a person that is not saying the same thing as you did, why did you say MANY EXPERTS ?

I don't have to find them all for you. use google

Why do you try to avoid the topic ?


I did look onto google, i found those :

International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter?

Both international law and the United Nations Charter say that countries should not invade each other. But who has the ability to enforce those rules?

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres put them to the test on Feb. 24, 2022, when he called on Russia to stop its fast-moving ground invasion of Ukraine.

“The use of force by one country against another is the repudiation of the principles that every country committed to uphold. This applies to the present military offensive. It is wrong. It is against the (United Nations) Charter. It is unacceptable. But it is not irreversible,” Guterres told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York.

“Stop the military operation. Bring the troops back to Russia. We know the toll of war.”

As a professor of international law, I believe it is important to remember that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal. But enforcing the law is challenging, as armed conflicts around the world demonstrate all too clearly.

https://theconversation.com/internation ... ter-177438

How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Violates International Law

An Illegal Invasion

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a central tenet of the charter that requires UN member states to refrain from the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

The suggestion by President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials that Russia’s use of force is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter has no support in fact or law. Article 51 provides that “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.” However, Ukraine did not commit or threaten to commit an armed attack against Russia or any other UN member state. Even if Russia could show that Ukraine had committed or planned to commit attacks on Russians in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, Article 51 would not permit an action in collective self-defense, because Donetsk and Luhansk are not UN member states. Indeed, they do not even qualify as states under international law, despite their purported secession from Ukraine and Russia’s recognition of them as independent.


Putin’s statements that Ukraine was committing “genocide” against Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk, although a thinly veiled effort to justify Russia’s use of force in the language of international law, are also not supported by the facts and would not, in any case, give Russia a right to launch an invasion of Ukraine. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as certain, specified actions intended to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is no evidence that Ukraine engaged in any of the defined actions and certainly no evidence of an intent to destroy in whole or in part any group in eastern Ukraine. Even if the Ukrainian government had committed human rights abuses against Russians in eastern Ukraine, neither the Genocide Convention nor the UN Charter authorizes convention parties or UN member states to use force to remedy acts of genocide or serious human rights abuses.

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-russias ... tional-law

International Law and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. Russian President Vladimir Putin cloaked Russia’s military action in legal justifications during his speech on Feb. 24. While the justifications were absurd, his speech highlights that international law retains some rhetorical significance while it simultaneously underscores how weak the legal restraints are in practice. An examination of Russia’s legal justifications shows that well-meaning (or apparently well-meaning) actions by the United States (and others) purportedly designed to promote humanitarian and human rights objectives have eroded international legal norms. The point is not to draw moral equivalents nor to justify Russia’s horrific actions against Ukraine. The point is that the international legal rules on territorial integrity are weakening—a dangerous development. In response, the international community should condemn the Russian invasion as a violation of international law in no uncertain terms. But also, the international community should promote a clear-eyed, restrained version of international law designed to generate interstate peace through territorial settlement, one that holds even in an increasingly dangerous world.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/internation ... on-ukraine

What about the law of the Russian federation from 1996 ?

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]

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


"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.

souce : The Criminal Code Of The Russian Federation No. 63-Fz Of June 13, 1996
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws ... u080en.pdf


" muuu there is no war muuuu muuuu "
"also the war will end one day"
"also everything is legal using this trick"

I still can't understand why you refuse to mention the name of the expert you were refering to when you said :

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.

Still 0 person to represent the "many expert" ?????????????

[vladimir_putin]

Thanks to my good living friend lavrov for reminding us that russians are proud of our history, for Instance how we on this day in 1940 wished our best friends the nazis congratulations with invading france.

[ptx0]

Sorry i just realized meduza had to move away from Russia, it actually happened in 2014, i wonder why, you have any idea ?

Is it difficult to you easy accept your jambs? Learn. After graduation, you will need this skill.

haha you haven't admitted being wrong a single time in this thread. you have no ability to reflect or grow.

[enterisys]

Speaking of 8 years of smoking in dangerous central Donetsk.

[mmmPI]

Sorry i just realized meduza had to move away from Russia, it actually happened in 2014, i wonder why, you have any idea ?

Is it difficult to you easy accept your jambs? Learn. After graduation, you will need this skill.

haha you haven't admitted being wrong a single time in this thread. you have no ability to reflect or grow.

I am sorry but one need to add the article too : https://www-ukrinform-ru.translate.goog ... _tr_pto=sc

because i thought meduza was a Russian media, djmix quoted the RU version that have the mandadory mention "This message (material) was created and (or) distributed by a foreign media outlet acting as a foreign agent and (or) a Russian legal entity acting as a foreign agent."

Usually this is complete bullshit, for example google makes advertisment on your news website = you received money from foreign powers = you are a foreign agent.

You only read this on Russian media which meduza is not or media addressing Russian speaking audience which they are :

- Do you think you could work in Russia now?

- I think it would be difficult. Unfortunately, now most of the Russian media are replacing the real picture of the world with a fictional one - this has become the order of things. And I do not like to lie to myself or to people. Creating some kind of parallel fictional worlds is not at all my profession.

- When you made the decision to move to Latvia in 2014, what was decisive - the understanding that "the space is collapsing" or economic preferences?

- Together. But above all, it was a condition for receiving investments - that we would not be registered on the territory of the Russian Federation. So the economy dictated. We chose the cheapest at that time and the most understandable, transparent country in terms of doing business. With an environment we understand. And then, of course, we were aware that they would not let us work in Russia! There are a huge number of ways - even beyond direct pressure - to make it so that we cannot work normally. And I don’t understand why waste time and effort to fight the fire department, the tax inspectorate, the prosecutor’s office, the investigative committee and the garbage collection service, if you can make media instead! We want to do our job in the conditions that are most favorable for this.

- How many people work at Meduza?

- Here, in Riga, 22 employees. Some journalists work both in Moscow and in Riga. Others are here all the time. But even newsmen periodically leave for Moscow and work from there.

I was not given any answer as to why this happened by the person who cited the article so i did my research myself

[FuryoftheStars]

Yeah, “that person” isn’t too good at giving answers. Just contradictions, misunderstandings, what-about-ism, and avoidance.

[Djmixxx]

What an interesting law there is in Russia. And who invented it first? Wow, this is a stronghold of democracy.

The US also has a Foreign Agents Act (FARA) . FARA appeared back in 1938 to fight agents of influence from Nazi Germany. In 1966, amendments were made to it, which redirected the effect of the law, first of all, to political lobbyists acting on behalf of foreign states. In theory, those who received the status of "foreign agent" in the United States and did not register face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to 10 thousand dollars. Each of the two penalties can be applied separately from each other.

[Djmixxx]

Sorry i just realized meduza had to move away from Russia, it actually happened in 2014, i wonder why, you have any idea ?

Is it difficult to you easy accept your jambs? Learn. After graduation, you will need this skill.

haha you haven't admitted being wrong a single time in this thread. you have no ability to reflect or grow.

I was wrong and maybe even admitted it here.

I assumed that the Russians were going to capture Kyiv at the beginning of the invasion. This did not happen.

[ptx0]

What an interesting law there is in Russia. And who invented it first? Wow, this is a stronghold of democracy.

The US also has a Foreign Agents Act (FARA) . FARA appeared back in 1938 to fight agents of influence from Nazi Germany. In 1966, amendments were made to it, which redirected the effect of the law, first of all, to political lobbyists acting on behalf of foreign states. In theory, those who received the status of "foreign agent" in the United States and did not register face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to 10 thousand dollars. Each of the two penalties can be applied separately from each other.

the US government is uniquely fucked up and I wouldn't suggest using their actions to justify Russia's. it was Russia who started this war, not the US.