War in Ukraine — Megathread

International criminal lawyer, Christopher Black, wrote an interesting article a couple of days ago where he addresses the following question: So, how does the Russian claim of legality in its Ukraine operations stand up to the international law and how does it compare with the military operations of the United States?

https://journal-neo.org/2022/03/08/the-legality-of-war/

 

Was the US any better when they dropped atomic bombs on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The US is the only country that has used the atomic bomb on the civil population.

 

You’re getting way ahead of yourself. Now you want to go back to the 20th century... it was total war. A fight for the future of humanity. Millions were being ruthlessly slaughtered by the Axis powers too. They are the ones responsible for every single death that occurred... because they started the war.

Reality is, they learned from it and haven’t done anything of that nature since then. You keep digging up past events to create a whataboutism critique of Ukraine and NATO/US while Russia makes the same mistakes - nearly a century later. Lets stop the derail, and focus on the topic at hand please.

 

Weapons of the War in Ukraine.

Article sums up what has happened so far in terms of military action. There is also an overview of the weapons/vehicles currently being used by both sides. There are images shown in the article that showcase some of the damages in Ukraine so far. (Nothing graphic).

 

Let me remind you that the Russians saved Europe. They defeated Hitler and the Red Army won the Second World War for the Europeans. Or better put in another way: Hitler lost the war when he decided to invade Russia.

I do not take sides. I despise the Russian aggression on Ukraine, but I do not take moral lessons either from the Americans, who dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Is Jastreboff Russian? All audiologists ban TRT to cut off his royalties

And while at it wave the white flag.

 

Ya and Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Gulags we're the same as concentration camps.

 

With the help of the Lend-Lease program, US basically set up and paid for their entire supply train. The US labor force was a crucial component in winning the war for the allies.

Possible new plans for Russia:



(Marco Rubio is a US Senator and serves the Select Committee of Intelligence as Vice Chairmen. So he’s getting his info from US intelligence).

 

The Russians are trembling after this threat by the European Union, which refers to Russian oligarchs:

 

Yep. I started to watch the Oliver Stone documentary on Ukraine this afternoon but gave up after he failed to explicitly mention The Holodomor.

 

Two Feasible Explanations for Putin:

"Man would fain be great and sees that he is little; would fain be happy and sees that he is miserable; would fain be perfect and sees that he is full of imperfections; would fain be the object of the love and esteem of men, and sees that his faults merit only their aversion and contempt. The embarrassment wherein he finds himself produces in him the most unjust and criminal passions imaginable, for he conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults."

— Pascal, "Pensees", 1623 - 1662


"And slime they had for mortar."

— Genesis II

Quotes that prefaced Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer", about the character of the Fascist Personality.

 

Putin never would have done this, if the United States had a strong leader. Biden is weak, and Putin decided to take advantage of a good opportunity.

 

Now Russia wants to hire mercenaries from the Middle East.

 

Where is your proof of this? From my reading there is no such assurances.

In fact the Budapest Memorandums, as the agreements were called states:

2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.

Ukraine's interest in NATO began around 2002, with an official plan to join in 2008, which was later pulled because pro-Russian president in Ukraine, who was overthrown. Then Zelensky was elected.

This is Putin's argument.

Soviet Union broke up for obvious reasons. Naturally, its former republics want protection AND they are free to do so as all countries should be free to determine their alliances.

Ukraine never joined NATO. Perhaps if it had, Russia would have at least been able to make the case that it did this for that reason. To destroy it before it had joined is illegal.

Russia wants to control Ukraine. Most of the Western part of Ukraine, including its capital, want ties to Europe and the West. You could argue the U.S. influenced Ukraine to align itself with the West. The U.S. has something to gain from a Ukraine not beholden to Russia, including money. But that doesn't justify a war, the U.S. doesn't benefit from a destroyed nation, with it's population scattered, people murdered, and so on.

If there is any benefit to realize it could be the destruction of Putin. But if in fact they do lose something from this, and that is a big if, he was the one that fell into a trap. Authoritarian leaders tend to make military blunders.

 

Joe Biden is the worst president in U.S. history. And Kamala Harris, the worst VP in U.S. history!

 

The US benefits from selling its oil and gas more expensive, selling it in dollars, against a weak euro.

The more I read about Ukraine, the most obvious it seems the US has instigated and provoked the conflict. Now the US is attacking China, a sovereign country that has absolutely nothing to do with the war, for no reason.

The interest behind the US attacks on China lies on the US not wanting China to deploy its 5G network in Europe, and to become the dominant technological and economic power.

In Spain there is not a large Chinese community, but the ones who are here work, employ others and pay their taxes. For Spain COVID-19 and the Ukraine war mean a big economic setback, since Chinese and Russian tourists, although a small percentage of all the tourists we receive, spend a lot of money here.

I personally do not see what Russia can gain from the Ukraine war, as Russia will be isolated from the rest of the world no matter the outcome of the war. In that sense, Russia lost the war right after firing the first bullet.

The US has endangered Europe with their manouvering behind the scenes. Europe is now flooded with refugees. Also refugees from the Syrian war, and refugees from the US war on Afghanistan. I wish Biden had those refugees at the door of the White House instead of sending them to Spain.

 

Believe me, there were hundreds of thousands of military soldiers and personnel who were dam*ed happy about that decision. That was the estimate of the total that would be killed (not to mention injuries) as a result of invading Japan with conventional military assets. I personally knew a man and close acquaintance who was in that position.

Like this man, if I had been in the military at that time getting ready to be sent overseas to take part in that invasion, I would have been ecstatic that the war had ended so quickly. Yes, it cost of lives of many Japanese civilians, but it almost assuredly saved many more allied lives.

How do you do the decision-making calculus in such a complex situation? How do you say one choice was right or wrong; moral or immoral. I think it's beyond our "paycheck" to make definitive statements on this kind of cosmic question.

BTW, I wonder why you expound on the evils of the decision to bomb the Japanese into submission, but stay silent on Japanese atrocities. They are the ones who brutalized their neighbors for many years prior to WWII even starting. They started the war with the U.S. and the rest of the world. When going down that route, nations should be prepared to pay the consequences.

 

So you are saying we want to make money on oil, so we instigate Russia to invade a country, which they do so willingly. Seems farther than far-fetched to me. You might actually turn that around and say they invaded Ukraine to make our gas prices higher, destabilizing the U.S. That would make more sense to me, and that could be what happens. Or you could say that U.S. oil interests wanted a piece of the Ukraine pie, and Russia was worried about that and invaded.

I just think you are very anti-American. I get that since you live in Europe. "Attacking" by words isnt the same as attacking with guns.

That actually might be a better argument for you - the U.S. instigated this war to wreak havoc on the Chinese community in Spain, and also to ruin Spanish tourism. And btw, I may move to Spain in the coming year. So I find your arguments presented thus far to be worrisome. Again, I get the Euro dislike for the U.S. But some of your thoughts don't land.

The same thing they have gained from their other military campaigns around the time Putin took charge - Chechnya both times, Georgia, Syria, and Crimea. Power, control of gas and oil markets, control of territory, control of nuclear plants, security for their country (that was your previous argument, was it not?)

You don't seem to understand the mind of a tyrant. The more you give, the more they take.

The U.S. will take in refugees from Ukraine, just like we did all the other conflicts throughout history. Like I said, you seem hell bent on anti-US. I get that, I wish the U.S. acted differently, but in this case, I am not sure what could have been done. And in the end for all of its flaws, when we don't like our leaders, we can vote them out.

I don't defend what Trump did, he emboldened Russia. I guess maybe you might rather have him still around by what you say. That way there would have been no war, and no support from the U.S. Putin would have had an easier time of it. Then you Spaniards are at his mercy to pay what he demands for Gazprom.

 

This is total Russian propaganda. I would have expected the Kremlin to have trained the editors to use better English.

Christopher Black has defended Slobodan Milošević against charges of genocide, as well as Rwandan leaders of the same. He says Rwanda wasnt a genocide, based on the evidence presented.

 

No, you are getting it wrong. I am not anti US or anti any other country. I am just saying that it seems a very weird coincidence that after any war or crisis started or provoked by others, Europeans suffer the consequences and the US walks out pretty much unscathed.

So now I ask you directly: should Biden have taken all those Afghan refugees to the US? Why are they in Spain?

Afghanistan was never a Spanish war. Actually, Spain had its civil war in the 30s of the twentieth century, but we did not attack other countries.

We were not directly involved as a country in any other conflicts in the twentieth century. There were Spanish people fighting at the Second World War for this or that side, but those were not part of our army.

So please tell me why Spain or Europe should suffer the consequences of wars started by the US. What did we care about Irak or Afghanistan?

 

What I am saying precisely is that there is no country that can claim moral superiority over others, and patronise them, like the United States does routinely.

I do not say the Japanese, or the Italians, or the British, the Russian, the French, the Japanese... are better or worse than the Americans.

I am just saying the US does not have the right to impose their views on others, or patronise them, or think they are better than others, and the obvious proof they are not better than the rest is that the US used an atomic bomb on the civil population of two Japanese cities.

 

My uncle served on Army planes against Japan, until the A-Bombs were dropped. They were warned and chose to ignore it.

From the University of Hawaii:

From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

 

Juan, you claimed there was an agreement Ukraine would not join NATO. I know this is what Putin thinks, but where is your source for this?

 

Right here:



What is happening today is terrible and I definitely do not support the Russian operations in Ukraine.

But I believe both parties (USA/NATO and Russia) have their share of responsibility.

 

I’m not seeing any signatures, these are just conversations that amount to nothing as far as I’m concern. Its not like NATO is coercing countries to join them, they’re doing it out of their own will. It’s an open door policy...

But regardless, what does Russia have to fear from NATO exactly? Oh yeah, having an actual democracy, instead of a dictatorship.

No reason Russia couldn't be just another powerful democratic country with friendly border relations like the rest of Europe 30 years after the cold war if it wasn't being run by bitter ex KGB soviets.

 

Poor, poor Biden always in trouble. If we had dummy donny the orange boy, you can damn well bet that moron would have pushed the button, we would not have had time to kiss our own asses goodbye.

 

"But I don't LIKE Trump - he's so nasty and stupid!" The cry of America in 2020, and look at those we now have running this country.

Virtually any former president or VP, and even those frontrunners who have lost their bids over the past few decades, would have been better than Biden. Biden was the choice for POTUS in 2010, of bin Laden. He told his followers to assassinate Obama, but spare Biden. His words were translated as, "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis." This information is available in the documents section of the West Point website. as well as the media.

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-letters-al-qaeda-leader-frustrated/story?id=16268578

 

Hi @Julien87 -- It appears that what you posted was an agreement between Secretary of State James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev, and not a treaty between two nations. It should be pointed out that Gorbachev was never president of Russia, but represented the old Soviet Union. So I can't see how this memorandum of understanding can be construed with the current situation between NATO and Russia, once just a single province of the former Soviet Union.

I think a FAR MORE IMPORTANT document (and point) is the Budapest Memorandum. As it says in the linked article, "Russia has grossly violated the commitments it made in that document." This included the security assurances respecting the boundaries of Ukraine as a separate nation. The U.S. provided their own security assurances, which I feel have not been fully honored.

The main point however, is every single nation that borders Russia knew in their bones that their security was always going to be in jeopardy from their much larger, territorial, domineering, and cruel neighbor Russia. Centuries of oppression tend to sear people's memories, and give important insights into what the future may hold. So when Putin came to power after Yeltsin, and began to show his autocratic tendencies, they knew they had to do whatever they could to protect themselves, and the only viable option was to join NATO.

I suspect they have not had any second thoughts on joining NATO since seeing what's transpired in Ukraine over the past decade or so. Essentially invaded three times. And they now see on a daily basis the Ukranian landscape that could be used on a movie set depicting Armageddon. -- I guess I just don't get it when people fail to make clear distinctions between the motives and behavior of NATO (defensive) and Russia (offensive). They are not somehow equally responsible for the wanton death and destruction that's now occurring in Ukraine.

 

Well, @Lane basically posted what I was going to say, which is these are not signed agreements. These are speeches, memos, etc. And purported to be accurate, on some document that you produced. You know the difference. Show me a document with the signatures of Putin, Whoever was the elected US President at the time, the signatures of the free countries' presidents at the time...

Cmon, you know better, don't you? Do you just play along with things...

EDIT: @ZFire also spotted it.

 

Spain sent 27,000 troops to Afghanistan over the last 20 years. They hired local guides and translators. Spain is responsible for them and their families. Spain joined NATO and has enjoyed that membership, whether you agree or not. NATO article 6 was activated after 9/11, just like the U.S. would come to Spain's defense. Just like it assisted Spain with the Madrid attacks. Spain needs oil too.

Spain also had military conflicts in Western Sahara while Franco was still alive until '75. After his death, yes, Spain become kinder but you still had a military, you still needed weapons and training, and the U.S. provided a lot of that.

Maybe you want Spain to become isolated or kick out the U.S. bases, like the one at Rota, or I believe there are more near Madrid. But until then Spain plays along and will probably take Ukrainian refugees too.