And you do realize that nobody gives a shit about Russian bullshit claims in comparison to actual international law? Which is indeed the reason nobody sends NATO soldiers to to fight in Ukraine as it wouldn’t be some none-sensical claim then but reality.
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Which law are we talking about, that forbids NATO to stop a genocide in Ukraine happening? I mean actively by sending troops? Which law is that?
Are you seriously asking me to cite the law saying that attacking Russian troops as a non-involved party is an attack? I guess someone should start poking you with pan until you can show us the law that clearly defines being poked by pan as an attack.
But jokes aside… international law (especially in regards to armed conflicts) is customary law going back hundreds of years. And even back then they weren’t stupid enough to need a defintion of attacking and defending. Because some people believe in humans to have a brain.
An uninvolved country attacking Russian troops is an illegal act of war by definition, declaring the attack beforehand is still an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it’s in Ukraine, in Russia in free international waters or anywhere else. The actual only exception is when doing it by madate of the UN to restore peace.
Are you really so dense to think NATO countries can attack other countries, then claim to be attacked when that country shoots back by pretending their attack was actually defense? Sorry, but back to above’s pan it is…
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Ok let’s start at the end of this chaos. I Wonder with how many excuses somebody can come up with. If Ukrainians would be ⚽️-less like that, russia would already be in charge there. First thing: where is the UN mandate? Is the situation not severe enough? Is the organization useless, corrupted, can’t act even in life-threatening situations? Second: Budapest memorandum. Do the security guarantees for Ukraine only mean the delivery of weapons and no troops? /1
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Third: There is a criminal offense called: denial of assistance of help to a person in danger. It means prosecution in case of proven violation of that law. Does that law lose its significance on the international scale, when it comes to the relation of nations? Forth: What Does This War Mean for the Future of Mankind and Today’s Civilization?
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix #5: Since when, since when, is the help to protect a nation from a unjustifiable attack on its sovereignty and survival, interpreted as an attack on the aggressor-country? I can only wonder about the mental state of such an interpreter. Ukraine is, as terrifying and sad as that is, close to collapse and extinction, because of the scale of that attack. It isn’t even sure if Ukraine can shoulder that situation, with our help. Do you understand that? /3
Sorry, but you are just completely lost. Denial of assistence on state-level instead of indivuduals? What are you dreaming? And Security guarantees in the Budapest memorandums? There were none! Just read them, they are openly available. And some confused ramblings of how countries might have hinted at help in exchange for signing those are worthless. Just as worthless as for example Russias claims that NATO countries have hinted on gunaranteeing to not enlarge NATO after the German reunification and soon after creation of again independent eastern European countries after the desolution of the Soviet Union. Oh… and even if there were actual security guanrantees… how are people constantly managing to claim these from countries not even signatories?
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix And another thing: If you really insist, not to understand why you HAVE to do EVERYTHING to save Ukraine, even with foreign troops, then good for you. The whole world is watching a bully being treated like fine porcelain, while the victim needs to beg for help? The impact on every citizen in the free world, who learns that lesson, can not be overestimated. With such actions you undermine your authority in your own countries. You don’t get this?
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I (and the whole world) do not get your bullshit.
Should Ukaine lose, then Russia will totally attack ANTO countries. So you need to give them all your weapons because being defenseless makes it much better and wqill keep you safe!
How brain-damaged do you need to be to believe in that bullshit? Are you really that brain-washed to believe in all those helpless and weak idiots in NATO that don’t know how to use their own weapons and will just lay down to die if they are not defended by all the Ukrainian geniuses that magically can operate everything much better by just taking a look at it wihtout proper training? C’mon…
Oh, and do you want to know how to actually destabilize if not outright destroy democractic countries? By having democratic leaders say “Yeah, I have sworn an oath to not harm my country. But fuck it, go die in Ukraine. We are all sending our weapons there anyway so you will not be able to defend yourself anyway. What? This is a democracy and you are against that? Again: Fuck you. I am right! And if not I don’t care that you died. You might be dead but you were morally right.” Hmm… I might understand how guys like you (and rediculous as it is Ukraine officials) are constantly pushing narratives against democratically elected governments.
And that’s basically at the core of all your “You need to send anything, because fuck you and only someone else is important”. Oh, and have you looked at polls and elections in Europe recently? I guess you also believe that this is the result of us degenerated and insane Westerners living out our inherent stupidity and totally not the result of people not wanting to hear your fucking propaganda of how demilitarizing ourselves is magically making us safer and how those mighty fairy tale heroes in Ukraine can totally use our equipment so much better while actually losing stuff because of their very limited training and capabilties.
Hmm… were have I seen this type of propaganda before where multiple contradictory things are all true att the same sime… Oh, yeah. In the Soviet Union, then in Russia and nowadays also by right-wing populists. Guess I know where that brain-damage is coming from.
Also: Yes, I know you hate reality. But you can in fact just google the Budapest Memorandum if you are interested. There is probably even something on Wikipedia nowadays telling you in easy to understadn words what’s actually in there… Oh, look what I found investing valuable 5 seconds of my time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content
There you have your security guarantees: All signatories are called to consult about issues. And once Russia throws nuclear bombs at Ukraine the others are even obligated to tell the UN Security Council immidiately.
And you do realize that nobody gives a shit about Russian bullshit claims in comparison to actual international law? Which is indeed the reason nobody sends NATO soldiers to to fight in Ukraine as it wouldn’t be some none-sensical claim then but reality.
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Which law are we talking about, that forbids NATO to stop a genocide in Ukraine happening? I mean actively by sending troops? Which law is that?
Are you seriously asking me to cite the law saying that attacking Russian troops as a non-involved party is an attack? I guess someone should start poking you with pan until you can show us the law that clearly defines being poked by pan as an attack.
But jokes aside… international law (especially in regards to armed conflicts) is customary law going back hundreds of years. And even back then they weren’t stupid enough to need a defintion of attacking and defending. Because some people believe in humans to have a brain.
An uninvolved country attacking Russian troops is an illegal act of war by definition, declaring the attack beforehand is still an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it’s in Ukraine, in Russia in free international waters or anywhere else. The actual only exception is when doing it by madate of the UN to restore peace.
Are you really so dense to think NATO countries can attack other countries, then claim to be attacked when that country shoots back by pretending their attack was actually defense? Sorry, but back to above’s pan it is…
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Ok let’s start at the end of this chaos. I Wonder with how many excuses somebody can come up with. If Ukrainians would be ⚽️-less like that, russia would already be in charge there. First thing: where is the UN mandate? Is the situation not severe enough? Is the organization useless, corrupted, can’t act even in life-threatening situations? Second: Budapest memorandum. Do the security guarantees for Ukraine only mean the delivery of weapons and no troops? /1
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Third: There is a criminal offense called: denial of assistance of help to a person in danger. It means prosecution in case of proven violation of that law. Does that law lose its significance on the international scale, when it comes to the relation of nations? Forth: What Does This War Mean for the Future of Mankind and Today’s Civilization?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9BWMFFqNc&pp=ygUZdmljdG9yIHBpbmNodWsgZm91bmRhdGlvbg%3D%3D
A brief explanation of what is at stake here, and why Ukraine can’t lose the war. /2
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix #5: Since when, since when, is the help to protect a nation from a unjustifiable attack on its sovereignty and survival, interpreted as an attack on the aggressor-country? I can only wonder about the mental state of such an interpreter. Ukraine is, as terrifying and sad as that is, close to collapse and extinction, because of the scale of that attack. It isn’t even sure if Ukraine can shoulder that situation, with our help. Do you understand that? /3
Sorry, but you are just completely lost. Denial of assistence on state-level instead of indivuduals? What are you dreaming? And Security guarantees in the Budapest memorandums? There were none! Just read them, they are openly available. And some confused ramblings of how countries might have hinted at help in exchange for signing those are worthless. Just as worthless as for example Russias claims that NATO countries have hinted on gunaranteeing to not enlarge NATO after the German reunification and soon after creation of again independent eastern European countries after the desolution of the Soviet Union. Oh… and even if there were actual security guanrantees… how are people constantly managing to claim these from countries not even signatories?
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix And another thing: If you really insist, not to understand why you HAVE to do EVERYTHING to save Ukraine, even with foreign troops, then good for you. The whole world is watching a bully being treated like fine porcelain, while the victim needs to beg for help? The impact on every citizen in the free world, who learns that lesson, can not be overestimated. With such actions you undermine your authority in your own countries. You don’t get this?
Removed by mod
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I (and the whole world) do not get your bullshit.
Should Ukaine lose, then Russia will totally attack ANTO countries. So you need to give them all your weapons because being defenseless makes it much better and wqill keep you safe!
How brain-damaged do you need to be to believe in that bullshit? Are you really that brain-washed to believe in all those helpless and weak idiots in NATO that don’t know how to use their own weapons and will just lay down to die if they are not defended by all the Ukrainian geniuses that magically can operate everything much better by just taking a look at it wihtout proper training? C’mon…
Oh, and do you want to know how to actually destabilize if not outright destroy democractic countries? By having democratic leaders say “Yeah, I have sworn an oath to not harm my country. But fuck it, go die in Ukraine. We are all sending our weapons there anyway so you will not be able to defend yourself anyway. What? This is a democracy and you are against that? Again: Fuck you. I am right! And if not I don’t care that you died. You might be dead but you were morally right.” Hmm… I might understand how guys like you (and rediculous as it is Ukraine officials) are constantly pushing narratives against democratically elected governments.
And that’s basically at the core of all your “You need to send anything, because fuck you and only someone else is important”. Oh, and have you looked at polls and elections in Europe recently? I guess you also believe that this is the result of us degenerated and insane Westerners living out our inherent stupidity and totally not the result of people not wanting to hear your fucking propaganda of how demilitarizing ourselves is magically making us safer and how those mighty fairy tale heroes in Ukraine can totally use our equipment so much better while actually losing stuff because of their very limited training and capabilties.
Hmm… were have I seen this type of propaganda before where multiple contradictory things are all true att the same sime… Oh, yeah. In the Soviet Union, then in Russia and nowadays also by right-wing populists. Guess I know where that brain-damage is coming from.
Also: Yes, I know you hate reality. But you can in fact just google the Budapest Memorandum if you are interested. There is probably even something on Wikipedia nowadays telling you in easy to understadn words what’s actually in there… Oh, look what I found investing valuable 5 seconds of my time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content
There you have your security guarantees: All signatories are called to consult about issues. And once Russia throws nuclear bombs at Ukraine the others are even obligated to tell the UN Security Council immidiately.
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Ok then explain to me, what the signing parties agreed on in the Budapest Memorandum! What is the Paper about?