A Quick and Clear Summation of the Situation in Ukraine.

[Deadstick]

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. US acted based on those resolutions and the actions were based in international law.

There is NOTHING in international law to support Putin's lawless invasions and annexations of Urkanian territories, Russia violated multiple treaties in doing so and was declared an agressor by the UN assembly.

They didn't act on a specific resolution from the security council on Yugoslavia or Iraq, and as i said the Libyan case was for a no fly zone not regime change where the waest supported head hacking jihadi savages, the attacks on Yugoslavia and Iraq were in violation of the UN charter, but keep on spinning like a mad top.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

WHY THE NATO BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA WASN’T LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW - Legal Vidhiya

This article is written by Chitrankshi Joshi, an intern under Legal Vidhiya ABSTRACT: This article is regarding the bombing of Yugoslavia by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). It also consists the aftermath of it and ends to the point that why these bombings were illegal according to...

legalvidhiya.com

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What? What flying dutchmen?

Cost-Cutters Never Blamed for Manslaughter

2014. Malaysian Airlines, flying from Amsterdam, tried to save on fuel costs by flying over a combat zone, was shot down by troops in the Ukraine who, wisely, couldn't take any chances about being bombed to death.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of course no. Quite often its lesser evil.

Getting thousands of Banderlogs killed to protect millions of Russian people is good, not bad. Nobody have right to kill Russians. And no, it's not about territories and never have been. Territories with all resources are just a nice bonus.


There is a lot of things to criticise Putin, but, protecting Russian people (and elimination of anti-Russian scum) is good, not bad.

Every Bird of Prey Has Two Wings Working as Partners

One of our Parties, in collusion with cheap-labor businessmen from the other Party, preaches that the best thing for America is to be invaded by Third World savages.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Zavulon]

If Russians don't like being a minority in Ukraine, they can always emigrate to Russia.

Or they can fight for their rights. The right for rebellion is one of the basic human rights. And no, Russians are not a minority. Ukrainians are Russians too.

 

[Zavulon]

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. US acted based on those resolutions and the actions were based in international law.

Plain lie.

There is NOTHING in international law to support Putin's lawless invasions and annexations of Urkanian territories, Russia violated multiple treaties in doing so and was declared an agressor by the UN assembly.

Plain lie.

 

[AntonToo]

Plain lie.

Plain lie.

Thats it? Thats your reponse to plain facts?

Russhist parrot wants a cracker?

 

[Zavulon]

Thats it? Thats your reponse to plain facts?

Russhist parrot wants a cracker?

You know that American invasions in Serbia and Iraq were plain and open, illegal and unprovoked acts aggression.
And you do know, that Russian SMO is an act of pure collective self-defense, clean and morally legimate as much as it can be possible at all.

 

[AntonToo]

You know that American invasions in Serbia and Iraq were plain and open, illegal and unprovoked acts aggression.

How can I know that if I specifically gave you the UN resolutions they we based on?

Serbia did have an ethnic cleansing going on and there was UN resolution authorising millitary use.

Iraq war was certainly an intelligence failure for United States, but Sadam was playing with fire when he violated UN resolutitions and fucked around with nuclear inspections.


What UN resolution was Russian invasions based on? No resolution of course.

 

[Zavulon]

How can I know that if I specifically gave you the UN resolutions they we based on?

There is nothing about permission to use military force in those UN resolutions, and you know about that.

What UN resolution was Russian invasions based on? No resolution of course.

It is based on the right of self-defense, and UN do accept right of self-defense.

 

[AntonToo]

There is nothing about permission to use military force in those UN resolutions, and you know about that.

It is based on the right of self-defense, and UN do accept right of self-defense.

Do you just pull out of your ass whatever you feel like?


Examples of UN Security Council resolutions authorizing force

• Resolution 2699 (2023)
  Authorizes a multinational security mission to Haiti. The resolution also requires the mission to prevent, investigate, and report on human rights abuses.
  
  
• Resolution 1973 (2011)
  Authorizes member states to protect civilians in Libya from attack. This resolution was adopted after protests in Libya against the rule of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
  
  
• Resolution 678
  Authorizes member states to use force to restore international peace and security. This resolution was adopted in response to Iraq's breach of its agreement.

How the Security Council authorizes force
The Security Council can authorize force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The Council can use force if it believes non-military measures are inadequate.


UN General Assembly
The General Assembly can also consider the use of force if the Security Council is unable to act due to a lack of unanimity.

 

[JoeB131]

Or they can fight for their rights. The right for rebellion is one of the basic human rights. And no, Russians are not a minority. Ukrainians are Russians too.

No, they aren't. They hate Russians for good reasons.

This is what you don't seem to get. Most of Europe truly hates the Russians, because of Russia's long history of bad behavior going back to the Tsars.

 

[Zavulon]

Do you just pull out of your ass whatever you feel like?


Examples of UN Security Council resolutions authorizing force

• Resolution 2699 (2023)
  Authorizes a multinational security mission to Haiti. The resolution also requires the mission to prevent, investigate, and report on human rights abuses.
  
  
• Resolution 1973 (2011)
  Authorizes member states to protect civilians in Libya from attack. This resolution was adopted after protests in Libya against the rule of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
  
  
• Resolution 678
  Authorizes member states to use force to restore international peace and security. This resolution was adopted in response to Iraq's breach of its agreement.

How the Security Council authorizes force
The Security Council can authorize force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The Council can use force if it believes non-military measures are inadequate.


UN General Assembly
The General Assembly can also consider the use of force if the Security Council is unable to act due to a lack of unanimity.

One doesn't need resolutions of UN SC or anyone else to defend yourself and/or his allies, being attacked.

United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations

www.un.org

Article 51.

And, of course, there were no resolutions of UN SC to allow usage of force against Serbia in 1999 or against Iraq in 2003, neither USA were attacked by Serbia nor Iraq.

 

[Zavulon]

No, they aren't. They hate Russians for good reasons.

Ukrainians mostly "hate" Russians for European (and American) money. Thats all. You simply hired some freaks to kill Russians.

This is what you don't seem to get. Most of Europe truly hates the Russians, because of Russia's long history of bad behavior going back to the Tsars.

Actually, going back to the Princes, long before the first Tzars. And our "bad behaviour" is that we don't allow Europeans kill us. They invade Russia at least twice a century and then they got their armies eliminated, cities burned down, women raped and children orphaned. "Those dirty bestial Muzhicks dared to kill our valiant knights in the shining armors!" Of course they hate us. But, there is a good chance, that this invasion will be the last one. You know, "the final solution of the European problem". No more Europeans - no more hatred. World will be better (at least cleaner) without them.

 

[AntonToo]

One doesn't need resolutions of UN SC or anyone else to defend yourself

No one attacked Russia bullshit peddler.

It was Russia who annexed Crimea and de-facto took control of Eastern Ukraine. Them then proclaiming terrioties they occupied as "allies" is just half-baked propaganda excuses for know nothing dupes like you.

 

[Dekster]

Russian aggression in Ukraine happened under Obama and Biden. They are Putin's puppets, not Trump. Zelenskky wants Nato and the US to fight his war for him. Nato and the US entering the war in Ukraine directly would be seen as an existential threat by Russia and put the World on the precipice of WW III. Trump will not allow that to happen.

Zelenskky had a deal that would ensure he still had a Nation to govern. Now his only play is to hope the pussies in Europe will somehow bail him out. Europe is too cowardly and cheap to do what is necessary, so Zelenskky and Ukraine are fucked without US help.

That is it. Understand? Zelenskky overplayed his hand and he and Ukraine are likely toast. Buh-Bye.

I have said from the beginning that the only two possible outcomes of this was Zelenskky dies and the government collapses or Zelenskky flees in exile. That still appears to be the case. Ukraine was never going to win this. It is just a matter of how the loss gets framed. Hopefully, however, all the delays costing Russian treasure and troops will make Putin think twice about doing this again elsewhere.

 

[AntonToo]

I have said from the beginning that the only two possible outcomes of this was Zelenskky dies and the government collapses or Zelenskky flees in exile. That still appears to be the case.

Cool story, here is reality:

Zelensky is alive,
Ukrainian government is intact,
50% of terrioties occupied by Russia's full scale invasion was reclaimed,
and you are still full of shit 3 years later.

 

[Ringo]

 

[AntonToo]

What do you think you are doing here by posting blatant Russian propaganda here?

Honestly. What goes in your head?

Do you really not know that it's one sided propaganda you are watching or maybe you think people here don't know it?

 

[Ringo]

What do you think you are doing here by posting blatant Russian propaganda here?

Honestly. What goes in your head?

Do you really not know that it's one sided propaganda you are watching or maybe you think people here don't know it?

Мерзкий пассивный пидорас, who's stopping you from providing videos of the opposing, nazi side here?