![]() |
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
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.
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
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 |
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
I'm surprised no one has complained a strawman is sexist, and it should be a strawperson. :erm:
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
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 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
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. |
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
Unless your substitute argument is gender fluid of course. |
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
Meanwhile, here’s the Ukrainian approach to self-determination… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63573387 Quote:
|
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
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. |
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
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! |
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
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. |
Re: Russia has invaded Ukraine
Quote:
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… |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:59. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum