I mean if the standard is that your ordered to invade means you have signed away Geneva Convention rights then I don’t know why we’re even bothering talking about war crimes because you’ve created the standard that there is no such thing
I'm not attempting to glorify any the extremes which happen in war, I'm just stating what should be the obvious, and that there never are any wars/battles which are neat and tidy.
I like Putzin better.
Sure! Don't you remember watching scenes from the Civil War on CNN? Wolf Blitzer reporting live on the battlefield...man he was good.
I think he'll either blow his brains out when the end is nigh or he hightails to China to live in exile.
You might be thinking of Dan Rather.
If I were a general close to him, I'd have putin in a bunker and be the only input for him and just tell him "We are winning" and keep him happy and away from nuke buttons until it's time to arrest him.
If Putin chooses to relocate in China, hope Xi makes him his personal bitch.
I suspect that the Hague will determine the war criminals from either country from such which applies.
There was long a rumor that the Lusitania was carrying munitions, making it a legitimate target. A few years back a British diving expedition found and robot explored the wreck. Four million rounds of British .303 ammo. That's about a quarter million pounds, probably around 20 truckloads, given the size of trucks in 1916. Is it possible that Woodrow Wilson was unaware of this leaving NYC? Or was this oversight an excuse for the war he had promised Americans not to get into?
There will never be a war crimes trial for Putin. Only losers are brought to trial for war crimes and Putin will not lose even if it means using Nukes.
Incidental collateral losses in the fog of war do indeed happen despite best laid plans and intentions. But there isn't anything even remotely incidental about Russia's attacks on hospitals and schools, dropping butterfly mines into ceasefire corridors, using cluster bombs in urban residential areas, agreeing to meaningless ceasefires and opening civilian refugee evacuation corridors to nowhere and firing upon the defenseless civilians within them. These are clear violations of the laws of war as well as human decency. And how dare you cast blame for the monstrosity of Russia's actions upon the Ukrainian people for wanting defend their homeland against a lawless invader. With that you have gone from Putin apologist to Putin total suck-up
Indeed they are not gentlemen. They're terrorists.
Definitely not keen strategy by Russia. It's a strategy based mostly on emotion, the emotions of one man really, Putin. I think Putin does intend to reduce Kyiv into rubble, as he did to Aleppo. But the lessons of Stalingrad should probably inform him that this may not be a smart strategy if the goal is to take Kyiv by ground forces. Rubble lends to the defender much greater advantages than it does to the attacker. And don't kid yourself. Russia cannot win so long as Ukraine keeps fighting. Russia simply doesn't have the troops and resources to take and hold Ukraine and control the populace. It would require massive callups and recruitment to even begin to approach the numbers needed. And if they start doing that the Russian people will then be going; 'What the hey!' Time is on Ukraine's side. Not Russia's. And it will run out sooner for them then it will Ukraine.
Indeed it had been going for years. Russian state forces fired upon Ukrainian state forces and seized Ukrainian naval vessels and sailors. They flooded the breakaway regions with bogus Russian passports to set up the pretext of having to defend Russian 'citizens' that are not really Russian citizens. They watched a US President refuse to render even symbolic support to Ukraine's President and then slow walk the Congressionally appropriated aid and even use it to strongarm Zelensky in granting that US President personal political favors and concessions while simultaneously disparaging the relative worth of remaining in the NATO alliance and sowing political and cultural division here at home including publicly questioning validity of our elections . All that was Trump's doings. Why would Putin go through the trouble of mounting a costly military offensive when he has Trump doing his bidding? As Napoleon said; "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake." When Trump lost the election Putin lost his best friend.
But course they aren't right. Kyiv was a city and cultural center before Moscow was even being contemplated as a village. That's pure revisionist history poppycock.
LOL! It's much more than just a part of the Ukrainian people. Zelensky ran on reform that would break the oligarchs grip on Ukraine, negotiating an end to the Donbass conflict, and a pro-western trajectory foreign policy. And he was overwhelmingly elected by the Ukrainian people. The reasons for why the Ukrainian people desire to seek closer economic and political ties with the West is a question for Putin and Russia to be asking themselves. Maybe that question that makes Putin and the oligarchs feel insecure but highly doubt that it and NATO is a source of concern for the Russian people who just want to be left alone and a chance to live and thrive with reasonable modicum of comfort.
Clearly Russia would not stand a chance in a conventional war with the US, much less NATO. And if that were all then indeed they would not be that big a threat. But whoops! Wait a minute! They happen to have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a few times over, Kinda forgot that for a minute, didn't you? So yeah, they are a global threat.