Russia has invaded Ukraine

[jfman]

International law is only worth giving a toss about if it’s not littered with double standards as dictated by the victors in any given conflict.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Difference is they aren't put in those graves with a bullet behind the ear, pithy comments like it doesn't matter to the dead only carry weight if you don't give a toss about international law

The thing about International Law is other nations have to agree to abide by them. You can not oppose the Laws on those who choose to reject them. Russia do not give a toss obviously and I am sure China do what suits them as does North Korea

I suspect some allies in the war on terrorism in both Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay prison and the various black sites the intelligence agencies have around the world break international law on a regular basis

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

International law is only worth giving a toss about if it’s not littered with double standards as dictated by the victors in any given conflict.

I'll tell my friend that, his dad was murdered by Charles Taylor's regime, I'll tell him the justice got isn't worth a toss, it might not be perfect but it's better than nothing isn't it?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'll tell my friend that, his dad was murdered by Charles Taylor's regime, I'll tell him the justice got isn't worth a toss, it might not be perfect but it's better than nothing isn't it?

I’m not sure if that’s the worlds smallest violin I hear being played in the distance by a straw man.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure if that’s the worlds smallest violin I hear being played in the distance by a straw man.

Everything is a straw man isn't it, change the record it's dull

I'm surprised no one has complained a strawman is sexist, and it should be a strawperson.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Everything is a straw man isn't it, change the record it's dull

If your point had been relevant to mine perhaps I’d have refrained from the reference.

Selective international law bringing some people to justice (but not others) can be disparaged without it being a slur on every instance it happened to be right.

---------- Post added at 15:33 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm surprised no one has complained a strawman is sexist, and it should be a strawperson.

Mine identify as men

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

As if to prove my point thanks for demonstrating your inability to view the dispute through anything other than a western lens. The straw man of a Russian invasion - something I offered no opinion on at all - used to excuse Ukraine from any responsibility to its own international obligations. Thus further entrenching both sides.

Isn't that the exact problem? If you offer no opinion about the Russian invasion, then any points you make about the conflict are moot. You either support the invasion or you don't, it really is that black & white. The Western military corporate machine will aim to profit from any conflict where they can and is orthogonal to the legitimacy of Ukraine to defend its internationally sanctioned borders.

The real problem here is not the West driving the conflict through arms & intelligence support, it is the apathy of the West to intervene when Crimea was occupied. A sort of Sudetenland analog.

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm surprised no one has complained a strawman is sexist, and it should be a strawperson.

It’s ok, the alternative name for a strawman is an “Aunt Sally”. So you can take your pick and everyone’s happy.

Unless your substitute argument is gender fluid of course.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

If your point had been relevant to mine perhaps I’d have refrained from the reference.

Selective international law bringing some people to justice (but not others) can be disparaged without it being a slur on every instance it happened to be right.

my point was more relevant to your original post than your latest effort, there was no mention of it being right in some instances for some people in that one, just the disparaging slur of International law is only worth giving a toss about if it’s not littered with double standards etc.

Originally Posted by jfman

Red herring alert. Nobody is claiming the Russian organised referendums are anything other than a sham which is why I referred to the principle of self-determination.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------



Unless of course it’s an American soldier committing the rape or murder.

Looking forward to your explanation of how they will carry out this "self-determination" when they have been invaded, been deported to Russia, had Russians move into the occupied areas, and ballots are held under armed intimidation?

Meanwhile, here’s the Ukrainian approach to self-determination…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63573387

Russia's military has been ordered to pull out of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, the only regional capital it captured after invading in February.

Russia's commander in Ukraine, Gen Sergei Surovikin, said it was no longer possible to keep supplying the city.

The withdrawal means Russian forces will pull out entirely from the western bank of the River Dnipro.

It is a significant blow as Russia faces a Ukrainian counter-offensive.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Looking forward to your explanation of how they will carry out this "self-determination" when they have been invaded, been deported to Russia, had Russians move into the occupied areas, and ballots are held under armed intimidation?

Meanwhile, here’s the Ukrainian approach to self-determination…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63573387

It’s possible to agree with the principle while recognising it’s not practical in the present climate, enshrining it in any proposed peace agreement.

Unless of course you disagree with the principle of self determination. In which case it’d be easier to just say that. My international law has never been the best, so I don’t know how that position reconciles.

[Pierre]

Still, there seems to be no answer to:

1. Only total victory is acceptable to Ukraine
2. Failure to achieve, some kind of, victory for Russia is essential for Putin.

Square that circle. Post answers below!

Originally Posted by Pierre

Still, there seems to be no answer to:

1. Only total victory is acceptable to Ukraine
2. Failure to achieve, some kind of, victory for Russia is essential for Putin.

Square that circle. Post answers below!

Not going to get into a long post this late, but, for starters:

1. “Total victory” implies a neutral starting point, like kick off in a football match. In such circumstances a score draw might be considered an honourable conclusion given the disparity between the opponents. However in this instance there is no neutral starting point. Ukraine has internationally agreed borders that have been compromised since 2014. “Total victory” is actually just restoration of what is legally recognised. It is not unreasonable, and they should not be pressured into compromise because there is plenty of evidence that Russia would eventually use whatever it continued to hold in Ukraine as the start line for future aggression.

2. Putin’s threats in the event of his red lines being crossed have proven hollow on more than one occasion. We are months on from the point where it was deemed essential to give him an “off ramp”; clearly he doesn’t want one and is no more willing to negotiate a settlement with Zelensky than Zelensky is willing to negotiate with Putin. It has ceased to matter what is essential to Putin. He has crashed the Russian economy, eviscerated its army and most likely set in train his own demise by breaking the unwritten covenant with the Russian people (let us run the country and we’ll leave you alone). He’s hiding from the G20 because he can’t control the narrative that would emerge there and doesn’t like what that narrative might be. The Russian army in Ukraine is a twitching corpse, albeit one still wearing an undetonated suicide vest. They are going to completely lose this war.

In short - there is no circle here to be squared.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s possible to agree with the principle while recognising it’s not practical in the present climate, enshrining it in any proposed peace agreement.

Unless of course you disagree with the principle of self determination. In which case it’d be easier to just say that. My international law has never been the best, so I don’t know how that position reconciles.

For clarity, no I don’t, so I don’t need to say that.

Unless, of course, you disagree with the principle that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine, in which case it’d be easier to just say that…