Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

British men captured by Moscow's forces appear on state TV and ask to be exchanged for pro-Russian oligarch...

In international law the distinction is that one activates R2P in the wider community of nations and the other doesn't.

Now that we've dispensed with that, can you explain how your But Russia doesn't also allow other nations to hand wave away their own abuses on the basis, "But you said that was OK!"
Could you translate that question into English or refer me to where I have stated that?
 
Could you translate that question into English or refer me to where I have stated that?
Ukrainians - according to your repeated arguments - have less responsibility towards their own citizens than the invading Russians do. They can bombard civilian areas, arbitrarily arrest, seize property and do every one of the things they've been doing since the Maidan revolution and it can all be forgiven because Russia invaded.

I'm not sure about your government, but mine's ploughing a huge amount of military, financial and diplomatic support into Ukraine - not into Russia, that's a huge distinction right there - on the basis that they're the good guys, when there's damn all evidence they're anything but a smaller bunch of bad guys who picked the wrong fight.

It's the civvies who're paying the price for Kyiv's thuggery, particularly those of the Donbass region whose original sin was to want to self-determine. The bastards.
 
Ukrainians - according to your repeated arguments - have less responsibility towards their own citizens than the invading Russians do. They can bombard civilian areas, arbitrarily arrest, seize property and do every one of the things they've been doing since the Maidan revolution and it can all be forgiven because Russia invaded.
.
Wrong

According to my arguments I’ve repeatedly asked you what justifies Russias actions
 
It's the civvies who're paying the price for Kyiv's thuggery, particularly those of the Donbass region whose original sin was to want to self-determine. The bastards.
Who has been paying for Putins thuggery in Russia for the last 3 decades and general Russian thuggery for the last century or so?
 
According to my arguments I’ve repeatedly asked you what justifies Russias actions
I have never said Russian actions were justified. Not once.

I've challenged the assertion that their actions absolve all blame and responsibility for the prior crimes of the Ukrainian government against it's Russian speaking minority in Donbass.
 
Do you have any evidence of that in the last 5 or so years?
Far further than the last 5 years.

2014 indiscriminate bombardment of civilian area.

2022 use of cluster munitions in built up areas.

Any more But Russias you care to deploy or are you content with trying to filter the search results until they exclude the inconvenient ones?
 
Far further than the last 5 years.

2014 indiscriminate bombardment of civilian area.

2022 use of cluster munitions in built up areas.

Any more But Russias you care to deploy or are you content with trying to filter the search results until they exclude the inconvenient ones?

2014 is more than 5 years ago. It is in fact back from the time when the Ukrainian AF were using the same tactics and training as the Russians still are. Which is why I asked if you had anything more recent ie after the Ukrainians started re-training their forces.

Your second link is behind a paywall so I have no idea what it was supposed to tell me.

Haven't used any 'but Russias'. All I have done is provide links to the OSCE Monitoring Mission reports, which have all been pretty clear in which direction indiscriminate artillery fire has been going in recent years.
 
2014 is more than 5 years ago.
Gone for the carefully selected filter option I see.
It is in fact back from the time when the Ukrainian AF were using the same tactics and training as the Russians still are.
Then you agree that the Ukrainians have committed war crimes.

Your second link is behind a paywall so I have no idea what it was supposed to tell me.
It was supposed to tell you that Ukrainians have this year used cluster munitions against residential areas where civilians were living.

This flatly contradicts your position above that we can absolve the Ukrainians because they're not doing what they did a few years back. They're still doing it and it's still a war crime.


All I have done is provide links to the OSCE Monitoring Mission reports, which have all been pretty clear in which direction indiscriminate artillery fire has been going in recent years.
The OSCE have repeatedly reported Ukrainian shelling of civilian areas in the Donbass, contrary to your selective filtering.
 
Gone for the carefully selected filter option I see.

Then you agree that the Ukrainians have committed war crimes.

I have never denied it happened in 2014. The whole world knows that. The reason the last five years are important is part of Russia's excuse for invading was that it was still happening now.

It was supposed to tell you that Ukrainians have this year used cluster munitions against residential areas where civilians were living.

This flatly contradicts your position above that we can absolve the Ukrainians because they're not doing what they did a few years back. They're still doing it and it's still a war crime.

Then I am sure you can find some evidence that other people can see. Normally I would take your word for it, but I have seen how much you have twisted facts to justify your stance on this conflict recently.

The OSCE have repeatedly reported Ukrainian shelling of civilian areas in the Donbass, contrary to your selective filtering.

Not in any of the reports I have looked at. If you have seen different things then feel free to link a few.
 
Nope. The only thing that would is the Ukrainian military using civilians and civilian infrastructure for military purposes; or the civilians themselves engaging in military activity.

The Russians aren't the sovereign power there and those aren't their civvies. They don't have that extra layer of responsibility towards them that the Ukraine government does. We bombed quite a few countries for forgetting that responsibility, so obviously we recognise how bad it is.
We referred to the killing of innocent civilans in Afghanistan when and prior to when "courageous restraint" was introduced such as dropping airstrikes or stray rounds into peoples homes and people... regards to the Ukraine situation, most people with common sense wouldn't hang around waiting for bombs to start dropping around them if they are non-combatents and I would think they were already informed to evacuate as quickly as possible... unlike Afghanistan their are places t go and plenty of aid coming in.
 
I have never said Russian actions were justified. Not once.

I've challenged the assertion that their actions absolve all blame and responsibility for the prior crimes of the Ukrainian government against it's Russian speaking minority in Donbass.


How about basing Russias actions under the UNs Responsibilty to Protect, but as unilateral action with no period to the UN on RTP/R2P?

Or that it’s justified for a bigger bully to attack a bully?

You seem to have set the bar remarkably high and I'm again prompted to wonder if you'd let Russia off the hook so easily.

You also seem remarkably adept at setting up strawmen, such as rephrasing my "Ukraine's imposition of Ukrainian as the sole language in education" to "outlawing the Russian language." I never said it, so don't pretend I did.

Out of curiosity, why are you so determined to let a compulsive wife beater off the hook just because his bigger brother in law is a thug?

Like the "invading Russia" one you wrote about in your response?

If Russia are committing crimes against the civilian population they have control over, there's a R2P on any state with the means to intervene - that's what the rule said and what I quoted it as saying. It doesn't say anywhere, "except Russia", "except a participating party's patron", or even, "except a participating party."

If you would listen to the conversations as they happen outside of your own head, you may be a little less dazzled by your own brilliance but at least you'd be able to tell reality from imagination.
 
The reason the last five years are important is part of Russia's excuse for invading was that it was still happening now.
Again with the selective filtering. Russia's excuse now is that the international community did nothing about it then and nothing about it again now.

It's fundamental to their messaging - "You overseas Russians can't rely on anyone but Russia to protect you, look what happened to them!"

Lalaing it away simply plays into their hands.

Then I am sure you can find some evidence that other people can see.
It's been in the HRW and ICRC reports I've already posted, in the OSCE reports you've already posted. The Ukrainian government continues to be indiscriminate in its use of firepower when it's fighting in separatist areas.

You're setting an impossibly high bar if you're not even prepared to accept evidence from your own sources.

Not in any of the reports I have looked at.
I believe Nelson once said something very similar.
 
How about basing Russias actions under the UNs Responsibilty to Protect, but as unilateral action with no period to the UN on RTP/R2P?
They don't have to refer their actions to the UN and even if the UN were to pass a resolution against them they could add it to the long list of UNSCRs that were stiffly ignored by the invaders.

That's because they're the baddies!
Or that it’s justified for a bigger bully to attack a bully?
Not under any circumstances, even if the bigger bully is Ukraine and the bully the Donbass Republics.

Quite apart from anything else, that just gives an even bigger bully still (Russia, in case you had difficulty following it) the excuse it was looking for.
 

New posts

Top