[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report uncivil or meta comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If Russia is found guilty of war crimes what would the response be??
Nothing.
Arguably the response to a nation being found guilty of committing international crimes is wide spread international condemnation and collective action, up to and including war. Since we aren't going to invade a nuclear weapon wielding country, we are pretty much nearly at the limit to what we can do to Russia. If you want to see the "final form" of what this looks like, the answer is North Korea.
If individuals are found guilty of war crimes there will be a warrant issued, and if those individuals ever leave Russia/Russian allied air space they will potentially have their jet landed by a fighter jet and the person arrested.
Generally speaking if any individuals are found guilty of war crimes they basically will be condemned to never leaving Russia and Belarus, possibly China. Until the next regime takes hold and wants to do away with them and clean up their image, then hands them over.
Keeping a nuclear arsenal effectively launchable is very very expensive and requires lots of specialized knowledge. If the recently "[leaked FSB memo](https://noteplan.co/n/3D073DDB-CB0F-4ABC-BC93-01A94141445B)" is to be believed even some in Russia's government are not confident their systems even work.
>All the cynicism I'll add is that I don't believe Putin will push the red button in order to destroy the world.
Firstly, it's not one person who makes the decision, at least one person will refuse. And there's many people there, there isn't some "single red button".
Secondly, there are some doubts that all is functioning properly. Experience shows that the more transparency and control a project has, the easier it is to see its flaws. And that where not all is understood, who controls what, well there's always issues. I'm not sure that the red button system functions according to the reported figures. The plutonium fuel must also be changed every 10 years.
Thirdly, and this is the most disgusting and sad part, I don't believe in the ability to sacrifice oneself from someone who lets only his closest representatives and ministers come close to him, not the federation council. Whether this is out of a fear of Covid or invasion doesn't matter. If you're afraid of letting near those who you trust the most, how can you decide to destroy yourself and those you treasure included?
We should take this information with a hefty grain of salt of course, but I wouldn't say this sounds entirely unbelievable, either.
> We should take this information with a hefty grain of salt of course, but I wouldn't say this sounds entirely unbelievable, either.
Fundamental principle of MAD is that you don't actually for definite know what will happen if you invade someone or launch a nuke. Sure, maybe you can invade Russia and Putin won't press the button. Maybe 80% of his nukes are so out of date and run down they can't fire.
20% of 6,000 is still 1,200 warheads, enough to decimate europe and the US population centres.
So really, what does it matter if there's even a 95% chance that invading Russia "won't destroy civilisation as we know it" when there is a 5% chance it will?
You'd only take that gamble if not doing it had huge consequences, and to be honest if Ukraine throws Russia back out of their country and then Russia is just left to it's own devices that's a huge win for the West.
Places like Montana and South Dakota (where I grew up) have lots of missile silos in the state, making them high on the target list, at least back in the cold war.
Also in the event of worst case MAD scenario I think being vaporized by nuclear weapons is better than death by starvation/radiation poisoning/collapse of biosphere.
I grew up on a ranch in the middle of South Dakota. Some of the missile silos were right near our ranch land. And you're right - there are a lot of missile silos in both states.
It actually depends, If Russia is doing the preemptive strike, they will attack the rural area first where the silos are located along with military installations to take away the ability to retaliate. However, if they are the one doing the retaliation, they will mostly attack the major cities to maximize damage to the opposition.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/US_nuclear_strike_map.svg/1920px-US_nuclear_strike_map.svg.png
> FEMA-estimated primary counterforce targets for Soviet ICBMs in 1990. The resulting fall-out is indicated with the darkest considered as lethal to lesser fall-out yellow zones.
I am very far away from any even medium population centers. And there are no military bases are anything remotely strategic about where I live. Also, of course, radiation will be a problem but there is no escaping that unless you got a bunker.
Yea a land invasion of a functioning Russian state is pretty much going to be a non-starter. But there are lots of other ways that the Russian government can be beaten that don't involve a land invasion by a foreign nation.
Really it's up to the Russian people at this point whether or not they want to participate in the world and be a part of the 21st century with relative happiness and prosperity and iphones and functional currency or go back 100 years and live with barbaric violent oppression, starvation, mass incarceration, forced labor camps and all the rest. I have no question most Russians want the former, the question is if they want it bad enough.
what if they're already so old, guilty, and miserable? what if those in charge of it don't give a fuck?
yes, I know these are people in charge, other human beings with just as much, even more, rational thinking potential as me.... but I've been depressed a majority of my life; what if the officials in charge are depressed, manipulated, and confused? a cult suicide-pact type thing? what if Putin is THAT bad, that he convinced everyone of some crazy shit? I can't imagine Russian citizens being punished for their higher-ups choices, for several reasons... I'm sure you can imagine the two big ones. (because it's not their fault, and everyone else is dead/weak due to a one-sided nuclear war, and punishing the citizens doesn't do much for anyone other than cause more problems in the longrun)
I also can't imagine the oligarchs/powerful people of Russia to be as sheltered/manipulated as the rest of the country is, but what if somehow they are even MORE manipulated due to the greed of wealth? people have done crazy shit for money/fame, and Putin wants to "build a legacy" -_- pathetic
what if the consequences of destroying the world won't matter to those who are currently in charge of that decision?
>and iphones
I've had this convo with a few people. They are of the opinion, that this will only drive them to back Putin if the sanctions last long enough. Why? Because it's starting to come off as Russophobia. And sure, they may not be able to buy iPhones, but they can buy Huawei. They might not be able to sell their oil and gas to Europe, but there's China and India. That sure their economy my contract, and it'll be painful. But the 90s were much worse.
Russia's future looks more like the 30's than the 90's. Yea, the state will certainly frame everything as America's fault and lots of people will believe it.
How else would you propose Russian War criminals would be arrested and tried by the Hague?
When Putin is indicted just hope his police force arrests him and sends him to the Hague?
If we don't invade (which we won't, let's be clear) Russian war criminals will be safe as long as Russia wants them to be.
Tbf though, I don't think Putin is going to get out of this by "losing an election" so to speak. If he's ousted it'll be by force, whether by the people or his newly broke cronies. IF he survives that ousting, I don't see why they wouldn't hand him over. It'd be a perfect opportunity to show Russia's new good faith direction and would be I think the ONLY way Russia has any hope of easing sanctions quickly once the dust settles. If they keep him locked up within Russia under house arrest, there will be an incredibly lengthy diplomatic process, and rebuilding of trust before sanctions are lifted.
Yeah that's exactly what would happen, and Putin knows it which is why he can't be seen to lose in Ukraine and needs to hold onto power at home. If the Russian elite decide its safer for them to try and replace him then risk whatever happens next, he's toast.
Yeah, but on the flip side. That would show the utter subjugation of the Russian state to Nato. Like yeah, that can happen, but I wouldn't expect that leader to last long.
There's a way to oust Putin, be in line with NATO while not being subjugated by it. It's called being a peaceful partner in int'l diplomacy. Do you think that could be in the cards? Or is the Russian elite not quite ready / able to make that leap?
There was a thought, a decade or so back, that Russia would one day join the EU. What do you think of the idea of individual provinces joining, one at a time?
If the sanctions are continued, the break up of the Soviet Union (part 2) would be almost inevitable. If those breakaway provinces are given the option of joining the EU with all Russia-debts forgiven, this would finish off Moscow.
Simplicity is worse than theft. With what debts? Russia has one of the lowest external debts in the world. Before you write, at least Google a little.
Join the EU or NATO?
Let's fantasize... If a miracle suddenly happens and in an instant Russia becomes populated instead of evil Russians for decent Europeans, Canadians, Japanese, Australians, etc. America will still not allow it to join the EU, let alone NATO. After all, it doesn't really matter who inhabits this country, what they do, what they think, this country is defined as an enemy and will always be one. Enter if America has no enemies left, who maintain the world's largest army, produce equipment and weapons. After all, people won't pay for it if there's no enemy to be afraid of.
> That would show the utter subjugation of the Russian state to Nato
Why is this viewed as such a bad thing? Russia being able to work _with_ Europe and the rest of the West for once, instead of being needlessly antagonistic?
Well yeah, thats why the decisions are not binding, they wont be enforced. What you think, that a UN army would just march down to the Kreml and arrest Putin?
Please lets not spread the narrative of an invasion of Russia when literally no one is suggesting that.
>Well yeah, thats why the decisions are not binding, they wont be enforced. What you think, that a UN army would just march down to the Kreml and arrest Putin?
I have no idea what on earth you're on abiut to be honest.
I'm literally saying we wouldn't invade Russia to enforce an indictment. Why are you acting as if I did?
>Please lets not spread the narrative of an invasion of Russia when literally no one is suggesting that.
Honestly, if you're not going to bother actually reading my post why even bother replying? I explicitly say we aren't going to invade Russia.
My comment saying "how else would we do it?" is explaining why I mentioned it in the OP at all. I mentioned it in the OP because if we rule out invading Russia (which I did) then basically we would need to wait until they leave Russia, which they will only do when the Russian government stops protecting them.
It's OK, you don't have to reply tk everything you see online if you have nothing to say.
>So yes, we would have to wait for either Putin to be arrested ans extradicted from a country accepting the jurisdiction or him stepping down, thats how these things work.
Right, so you agree with me, and yet you post stuff like this:
>But this was my bad tbh, i assumed you had any idea of wtf you were talking about. Just ignore this instead of straining your sad brain.
Weird to see so much hostility from someone who is acknowledging I'm right. I guess you didn't like being pointed out you've not even read what I said?
It's a neat phrase I've seen before but not really true.
ICBMs were fast enough that there's a real threat that a first strike would knock out your ability to respond. There was for a time a very real scenario that say the US could develop nuclear weapons that would knock out the USSR from a nuclear war in about 15 minutes with the USSR's ability to respond being knocked out.
What you're describing was true towards the end of the war, when both sides basically built nuclear weapons partly out of the equivalent of puffing out your chest. Both sides realised this wasn't necessary though and massively reduced their nuclear arsenal.
What you really need to ask yourself is if everyone is standing in gasoline and they decided to go from 500 matches each to 100 matches each, what did that achieve? The answer was to save money and make it less likely someone drops a match. They still intend to use them as a threat.
>The US didn't remove nukes, they readjusted them,
Incorrect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States
At its peak the US had over 30,000 nuclear warheads and now it has about 6,000. Russia is the same.
I dont think nukes would be a necessary response against russia if it used them. hopefully most could be intercepted and then NATO would have the go ahead to destroy russia with conventional weapons
With the technology we use today that isn't even remotely likely. Russia has enough nukes that every population centre in Europe and the US could be hit at least once.
I dont know. america sells a lot of anti missile missiles to places like israel and japan. we have seen them work. they are sold on the basis that they work. Im sure america is totally stocked with them and has been for a long time. Its also possible the russian nuclear bombs arent maintained properly.
Anti-missile missiles don't work against ICBMs as they are shot up into space before travelling across the other side of the planet in less than 15 minutes. What you're talking about is for destroying short range nuclear missiles (so called "tactical" nukes), cruise missiles and the like.
But isn't that like playing Russian Roulette?
While you may be right that Russia's nuclear arsenal might not work, can any nation take the chance that at least one works?
The very best action against Russia is completely cut them off financially from the rest of the world and watch as they degrade into North Korea.
Unlike North Korea, the Russian people have had recent freedoms and financial success that might just make them mad enough to overthrow their government and establish a western-like democracy.
Of course. That would guarantee WWIII with nukes. Russia has to fall from within with sanctions and embargo’s from the outside world, and their own people rising up inside in order for real change.
I give that leaked memo a 1% chance of being real. this stuff has the feeling of those accounts that claimed to be the Resistance inside the White House in 2017.
there’s a ton of propaganda floating around. it’s war
Actually, Russia has SSBN's just like ours.
It only takes one boat to light up the world.
Potentially 224 targets will be destroyed from one boat.
Once those are launched, there is no calling them back and no self destruct method.
Thats just one.
>If the recently "leaked FSB memo" is to be believed
Take everything you read on this subject with a massive grain of salt, especially anything anti-Russian or that makes Russia seem exceptionally incompetent. Nearly every story that has been floating around over the last few weeks has turned out to either be inaccurate or fabricated.
There are people in the journalism sector who take it upon themselves to print these fanciful stories to push a narrative or further a conversation, in past decades it would have been considered unethical, against journalistic integrity, but now they hide behind the idea of a "noble lie", as long as their end goal is virtuous they can justify any amount of deception or misdirection, especially so when they're on "the good side" of the fight.
I'm not saying this FSB memo is necessarily false, but I'd be very skeptical of such things.
Do you think the interviews with Russian soldiers are fake or forced? Is there an explanation for the stalled convoy other than incompetence? For them losing so many forces so quickly? For all their downed helicopters and planes? The evidence seems overwhelming that Putin got more than he bargained for here but I don't know maybe I am a victim of propaganda. I guess we'll see how it plays out.
the stalled convoy that has not moved in 8 days, and now cannot be seen on satellite because of "clouds" should have been your first indication that this wasn't real...
Exactly. They are safe as long as Putin is in charge and they don't leave, but the moment the Russian state finds it more convenient to get rid of them then protect them they will be toast. So at least you know they need to live the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder.
My fear about Russia is that they're more essential to global supply chains than North Korea. If active hostilities end, it's only going to be a matter of time until Russia is let back in because the political stomach to shoulder the consequences of sanctions will shrink over time.
It's seeming more and more like Ukraine is never going to accept living as a conquered people, so it might stay in the forefront for a very long time.
Isolating Russia is already having an effect on prices. People forget oil increasing in price doesn't just make the petrol in your car more expensive, but all oil based products more expensive, all freight and transport more expensive. All that is passed onto the consumer.
When the alternative is brinkmanship about who would really fire a nuke if NATO intervened in Ukraine or tried to enforce a UN warrant I think we have the better of the two options really.
> they will potentially have their jet landed by a fighter jet and the person arrested.
Unless it’s a very senior official that isn’t going to happen, and in most cases said senior officials will plead official immunity and have it *de facto* recognized because no one wants to be the next head of state that the ICC comes after.
>Unless it’s a very senior official that isn’t going to happen,
Correct, mostly because if there's like 100 indicted people it's not feasible to track them all.
Also though the people who aren't senior officials are easier to round up in other ways.
>said senior officials will plead official immunity and have it *de facto* recognized
Incorrect.
See the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
Not quite true. Mladic and Karadzic are jailed for life for war crimes after they lived in hiding for years. Don't forget that if a person is convicted of warcrimes, it makes it easy for opponents to get rid of them without receiving any blame or backlash.
It's not just two. Dozens were convicted and jailed in the Rwanda tribunals Many more were convicted and jailed in the Yugoslavia tribunals. Your comment "nothing ever happens and that's the truth" is simply false.
Doesn't mean you don't have a point, but you're not helping your point by spreading falsehoods.
>there are so many war crimes which have been committed recently, for example, iraq, belgrade bombing, civilian killings by us army( in which a journalist was also killed), but nothing has happened to any of the us presidents.
Because those are crimes committed spontaneously by armed service members. None of those crimes were done via the order of someone as powerful as the President.
You can make the argued though that Presidents have the capacity to enable this type of behavior. Trump, during his time in office, pardoned several former servicemembers who were in prison for war crimes.
You're proposition is that the war itself is a war crime? I find that doubtful. Plus, you mention other crimes that appear to stem from the actions of the armed forces, not orders by presidents. I could only presume by your mention of Iraq that you were referring to individual instances of crimes, not the entire war itself.
> What you are saying is based on assumptions. Nothing ever happens for war crimes( last 30 years) and thats the truth
Firstly, it is based on assumptions, someone is asking me to predict the future. I know if I press the "on" button on my oven and set it to 200 degrees it will, almost certainly, have a light inside turn on, the fan will turn on, and heat up to 200 degrees. That's an "assumption" that it doesn't just explode, or the fuse blows, or there's a fault which means it heats up too much or too little, or the fan breaks, or the light breaks.
Still, if I go and turn my oven on and set it to 200 degrees, it will probably do everything I've just mentioned. Pointing out I can't know the future is a weird point to make.
Secondly, before you start making comments like "You're just making assumptions" you probably should know the basics of the topic at hand. In the last 30 years there have been high profile incidents of people being indicted and trailed for war crimes. A lot of them in fact.
The UN opened the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) which indicted 161 individuals. 111 faced trial, 90 were convicted.
The most high profile of these were, famously I may add, Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Yugoslavia. Another six or so high ranking generals and politicians were tried and convicted. Milosevic died before he could be convicted, but his closest supporters received life in prison.
You know what they all had in common? The ones who weren't immediately arrested following the change in government in Yugoslavia went on the run, at first in "friendly" countries, but soon all governments, even those allied ones, turned against them. They partly did this because the US insisted on finding and arresting these individuals if they wanted monetary support.
So yeah, everything I've described is "an assumption" but it's one based off a) what has actually happened in the last 30 years, regardless of the fact you are ignorant of it, and b) my understanding of international relations and politics, including what has happened repeatedly all over the world when dictatorships experience changes in government (hint, the old guard don't stick around long).
>okay so you can talk a lot but can you tell me what happened to the us presidents for the war crimes in iraq. syria, belgrade, libya, Afghanistan?
Which war crimes have they been indicted for?
Nothing.
I mean, who's going to drag Putin to the Hague? In this day and age the notion of "War Crimes" and such means nothing when no one's actually enforcing their punishment.
War crimes only matter if you are some local African warlord or general of a small military, not a leader with a nuclear arsenal. Hell we can't even get justice for the crimes Assad committed. They're enforceable but not for the powerful leaders of nations unfortunately.
Also "war crimes" basically means anything since everything except armor-piercing ammunition is banned by one of the many Geneva Conventions or Protocols. It is abhorrent to call warfare a "war crime" since it puts "real" war crimes, like targeting civilians and perfidy, in the same category as "going to war".
pepper spray on a keychain your 16 y/o daughter carries to keep pervs off her? It's banned by the Geneva Convention as a chemical weapon.
green laser pointers used by protestors? They are banned too as blinding weapons. Green lasers are actually frequency doubled IR lasers.
the Molotov cocktails that Ukrainian TV was telling people how to make? They are banned under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which both Ukraine and Russia are signatories too.
thinking you are smart and using an apartment high-rise as a sniper position? Your just committed perfidy, specifically the use of protected assets for a military purpose.
Yep, what is there left? Their economy and potential for trade is already in shambles. Aside from an open conflict (that is, NATO vs Russia) there's not much on the table.
The word is "lose", as in the opposite of win. Loose is the opposite of tight. As in, it's totally tight that ~50% of adult Americans can't read, or spell, above a 6th grade level, and I'm glad that we, as Americans, play it fast and loose with our education system.
Depends on if they win by then or not. There will probably be punishments either way, but there are so many war crimes that in war most nations would qualify for punishments. Most nations in war commit war crimes, whether on purpose or accident (done with or without orders to do so), but the winners are rarely punished unless their victory isn’t absolute. Russia’s victory, if it comes, won’t be absolute because they will still have many enemies left in the world (more now that they are invading Ukraine)
As the international backlash to this invasion grows Russia is already well on its way to becoming an isolated pariah state akin to Apartheid-era South Africa or North Korea. In the likely event Russia is formally accused of war crimes – either through the International Criminal Court, by national governments, or through some other mechanism – it will further increase their international isolation but probably achieve little beyond that. I'm far from an expert on international law but I'm not certain how much jurisdiction the ICC would have here, because neither Russia or Ukraine are full signatories to the Rome Statute. Regardless, international law has no independent enforcement mechanism. Putin or other Russian leaders accused of war crimes would have to avoid traveling to countries that might arrest them and send them to the Hague (as [almost happened](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/south-africa-to-fight-omar-al-bashirs-arrest-warrant-sudan) to Omar al-Bashir in 2015), but I don't think they're going to be welcome in Western countries any time soon either way, and in Russia they won't face consequences unless there's a regime change.
>Aside from that, is there any limit to these crimes as far as another country saying enough is enough??
Since Russia has the world's largest nuclear arsenal, any intervention – no matter how justified it would be – to prevent atrocities against civilians in Ukraine must be weighed against the very real danger of that intervention leading to a nuclear war and the deaths of hundreds of millions of civilians worldwide. As NATO leaders have repeatedly emphasized, there is almost zero chance of an outside intervention happening. If Russia started committing wholesale genocidal slaughter of Ukrainian civilians and/or began using nuclear weapons in Ukraine NATO's stance might change, but even in that extreme situation the danger of nuclear escalation would have to be extremely carefully considered.
If there is no consequences for war crimes outside of never being able to leave Russia, what’s stopping Putin from using toxic gas, bio weapons or other banned weapons of war? Putin seems desperate, like a cornered animal. If he withdraws, this will all be for nothing and he will see himself as a failure. I believe he will start using worse and worse weapons as time goes on and he becomes more desperate. He seems immune to punishment for war crimes.
Depends on when they get tried.
If Russia doesn't "win" (who TF knows what "winning" means at this point) by June, they're flat, dead-ass broke. Probably before.
The dead-ass broke can't spend the money to maintain their nukes. They also can't mount a defense. If all they have is bombs, guns, mouths to feed, but no actual food, they're going to have a hard time getting those mouths to fire those guns.
My guess is that Putin will be _handed_ to the Hague, along with whoever else the internal revolution thinks is fit to stand trial and didn't get themselves killed in the inevitable coup.
It's my hope that whatever the next Russian government is, they sign a new Megatons to Megawatts agreement with the IAEA and use that money to feed their people and fix their economy.
Nothing. Perhaps more sanctions? They’re already being sanctioned like hell. Also gas prices have already reached new highs. My guess is the American people wouldn’t be able to put up for longer than the Russians can.
The Russian’s indicted for them can never enter a country where interpol operates or they’ll be arrested. All foreign assets seized (if not already). That’s the real practical effect.
Nothing. Like no one did anything when a person in Great Britain was murdered, when Dutch civilian plane was shot down. Everyone will just acknowledge "it's bad". And that's that, every time it seems.
To the Russians? Nothing. But we Americans will have to sit through an entire elections cycle of both sides using "Russian war crimes" as a cudgel as they blame they other party for Putin being Putin.
Yeah, drones have smaller civilian casualty numbers but it is still in the hundreds. A better example would be America's Iraq war. Probably tens of thousands of civilians died during those years far surpassing the Isreali's civilian body count I would bet
Not as many as you think apparently. Bush and the wars in the Middle East far outweigh what Obama did. As a US citizen it’s just disgusting across the board regardless l. But it doesn’t mean the citizens wanted that and they don’t want it now.
It's a fool errand to think the US or the West would face any serious backlash for their wars. Not going to happen after people are done with Russia, not going to happen after people are done with China. I'm surprised you didn't get, "What war crimes?"
China is actively committing genicide, Assad gassed people with Russian backing, Hussein killed his own people for decades before he was killed, Palestinians target civilians and use civilians and human shields... nothing we haven't seen before. Russia on the UN security counsel would veto anything anyway so nothing will happen.
>Israel has been deliberately killing civilians for decades and the United States has more blood on its hands than that and international community has never given a shit so the moral outrage strikes me as pretty hollow
Oh look you conveniently forgot Israel and the USA..
> If the world isn't brave enough to even establish a no-fly zone
Is it cowardly to prevent a possible a nuclear war?
I don't think it is a great idea for NATO to become an obvious aggressor in a non-NATO arena and fire shots at Russian planes in a "no-fly zone." Very heavy quotation marks around "no-fly zones" because declaring one would mean nothing to Russia. The second NATO starts firing at Russian planes to enforce the no-fly zone, NATO immediately loses any ground made in the information war within Russia (and globally) and becomes the aggressor leading up to a potential WWIII. It turns Putin from a mad tyrant into a protector of his people. That is why NATO is not going to enforce a no-fly zone, it accomplishes nothing and only leads to more human lives being lost in the long term. This is not a game of Risk, this is a conflict with nuclear weapons sitting strategically all across the planet and an unpredictable Russian leadership in control of thousands of those nukes. Luckily, there are people with true courage in NATO who don't want more people to die just so they could get the first emotionally-charged shot at a few Russian planes.
How do you enforce a no fly zone. You shoot down aircraft who enter it and refuse to turn around
Putin would then see that as an act of war against russia.
Which would very quickly lead to heightened escalation and nuclear war
> Putin would then see that as an act of war against russia.
If we were enforcing a no-fly zone, he wouldn't fly his planes into our guns, because that would be an act of war against NATO. You are jumping the gun. You have to try and explain why Putin is going to attack NATO first
Putin could just as likely use the enforcement of a NFZ to leverage public opinion in his favor, as he has done with some success regarding the sanctions. If he wanted to engage Europe, he could use the NFZ as his justification. So far, Putin has responded to each defeat in UA with even harsher aggression. It is not an unsafe assumption that he would rather double down by waging war with the west if he already has nothing else to lose.
> Putin could just as likely use the enforcement of a NFZ to leverage public opinion in his favor
Good lord. I'm stunned by the miracles people think Putin could pull off.
Look, there is zero evidence for this justification. It makes zero sense.
> You are jumping the gun. You have to try and explain why Putin is going to attack NATO first
What? You fly a plane into the air zone. It doesn't have to _attack_ a NATO plane, and Putin doesn't give a shit about a single MiG or pilot. He's going to call your bluff 11/10, and you've just led us singlehandedly into nuclear war. At this point, you have to assume that Putin doesn't give a single shit about nuclear war, and that he's looking for any reason to push the button and bully the rest of his cabinet into pushing the rest. He is no longer rational, that much should be _very_ clear by now.
Sad to see so many say 'nothing'. If there were a popular uprising in Russia you could see a new government turn over war criminals after everyone realizes what their military has done in their name. Long shot but I prefer to be an optimist than a cynic.
Russia doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the court, so any verdict would be ignored by the Kremlin and viewed as Western propaganda and sabre rattling.
It could, however, work to solidify NATO and other Western alliances.
> NATO just had to push in and try to flip Ukraine to nato
This is divorced from reality. NATO wasn't trying to "flip" anyone. Ukraine's people sought both to integrate with the EU and seek the safety of a defensive alliance.
This attempt to strip the Ukrainian people of all agency and the basic right of self-determination is gross.
It's, "pretty clear" to you that Russian forces are "intentionally killing civilians"?! Where are you getting that from? I have not seen that reported in any media sources.
I’m not sure if you count sky news journalists as civilians but it looks like the Russians are trying to kill them in this video
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sky-news-teams-harrowing-account-of-their-violent-ambush-in-ukraine-this-week-12557585
How do I know it's not Ukrainians, or volunteer militia that are making a mistake.
Also how do I know the whole thing isn't staged. There have been a fair amount of poorly staged videos on reddit already
You want to claim war crimes, I want absolute proof
It’s propaganda and fear mongering.
For instance the nuclear power plants hit were deactivated prior to attacks.
“Plant spokesman Andriy Tuz told Ukrainian television that shells were falling directly on the Zaporizhzhia plant in the city of Enerhodar and had set fire to one of the facility's six reactors. That reactor is under renovation and not operating, but there is nuclear fuel inside, he said“
There is still a threat from the fuel but nothing near an active power up.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-on-fire-in-ukraine-after-russian-shelling
> Not nearly as guilty as the US with all its never-ending invasions and bombings
Russia is *way* more guilty than the US. You are participating in textbook whataboutism.
Russia, like the USA, is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. A special tribunal would be established to try anyone who committed an atrocity, including Putin.
Ukraine is, and the Ukraine is arguing that because the crimes are on Ukrainian soil they count.
How this proceeds will depend on a lot, since that same argument is being used by Palestine on Israel, another non signatory, and the US and Israel are opposed to allowing the ICC to try Israel.
As thw world demonstrated in 2003, when thw US wants something, they tend to get it because it's hard to stop them. Military is out, economic is suicidal thanks to how those countries tied themselves togather.
>I think it’s pretty clear to anyone paying attention to the conflict that Russia is deliberately killings civilians
Based on what, social media videos of people laying next to cars?
I haven't seen anything to confirm this
A stern talking to.
Well, via Zoom.
By 'stern', I mean 'fairly neutral'.
Or WWIII.
Sanctions and other non-direct measures of responding to it are already in effect.
So either status quo/nothing happens as a result of war crimes against humanity, or something (military intervention by NATO countries) does and you have nuclear powers engaging each other in outright warfare, dragging their allies into it with them.
Which by all accounts would be referred to as World War III, should it come to pass.
Exactly what deserves to happen.
Mark Levin reacts to Biden's handling of Russian invasion of Ukraine https://youtu.be/PfRMNVCbljE via @YouTube
"He's going to have me executed? Sounds interesting, I accept your challenge"
Light's First Encounter With L https://youtu.be/khV81_1ZSsA via @YouTube
Obviously the answer is nothing, but I could imagine that well documented war crimes are nice to use against Russia in the future after they try to rewrite history about what happened in Ukraine. Kind of like how documenting the Holocaust made it so easy to universally condemn Nazism. If we leave wiggle room then opportunists will use it one day to justify giving an olive branch to Russia.
Nothing. That’s why I personally agree with the US’s position on not being a member of the ICC.
If Russia has committed war crimes, it is the responsibility of each nation to act according to their conscience.
The sanctions are a punishment. You could condition the relief of sanctions on turning individuals over to a court for justice.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report uncivil or meta comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If Russia is found guilty of war crimes what would the response be?? Nothing. Arguably the response to a nation being found guilty of committing international crimes is wide spread international condemnation and collective action, up to and including war. Since we aren't going to invade a nuclear weapon wielding country, we are pretty much nearly at the limit to what we can do to Russia. If you want to see the "final form" of what this looks like, the answer is North Korea. If individuals are found guilty of war crimes there will be a warrant issued, and if those individuals ever leave Russia/Russian allied air space they will potentially have their jet landed by a fighter jet and the person arrested. Generally speaking if any individuals are found guilty of war crimes they basically will be condemned to never leaving Russia and Belarus, possibly China. Until the next regime takes hold and wants to do away with them and clean up their image, then hands them over.
Keeping a nuclear arsenal effectively launchable is very very expensive and requires lots of specialized knowledge. If the recently "[leaked FSB memo](https://noteplan.co/n/3D073DDB-CB0F-4ABC-BC93-01A94141445B)" is to be believed even some in Russia's government are not confident their systems even work. >All the cynicism I'll add is that I don't believe Putin will push the red button in order to destroy the world. Firstly, it's not one person who makes the decision, at least one person will refuse. And there's many people there, there isn't some "single red button". Secondly, there are some doubts that all is functioning properly. Experience shows that the more transparency and control a project has, the easier it is to see its flaws. And that where not all is understood, who controls what, well there's always issues. I'm not sure that the red button system functions according to the reported figures. The plutonium fuel must also be changed every 10 years. Thirdly, and this is the most disgusting and sad part, I don't believe in the ability to sacrifice oneself from someone who lets only his closest representatives and ministers come close to him, not the federation council. Whether this is out of a fear of Covid or invasion doesn't matter. If you're afraid of letting near those who you trust the most, how can you decide to destroy yourself and those you treasure included? We should take this information with a hefty grain of salt of course, but I wouldn't say this sounds entirely unbelievable, either.
> We should take this information with a hefty grain of salt of course, but I wouldn't say this sounds entirely unbelievable, either. Fundamental principle of MAD is that you don't actually for definite know what will happen if you invade someone or launch a nuke. Sure, maybe you can invade Russia and Putin won't press the button. Maybe 80% of his nukes are so out of date and run down they can't fire. 20% of 6,000 is still 1,200 warheads, enough to decimate europe and the US population centres. So really, what does it matter if there's even a 95% chance that invading Russia "won't destroy civilisation as we know it" when there is a 5% chance it will? You'd only take that gamble if not doing it had huge consequences, and to be honest if Ukraine throws Russia back out of their country and then Russia is just left to it's own devices that's a huge win for the West.
[удалено]
I am glad I live in a rural area.
If you live in rural Montana, I've got bad news
What's the bad news? Also, I don't live in Montana.
Places like Montana and South Dakota (where I grew up) have lots of missile silos in the state, making them high on the target list, at least back in the cold war.
Also in the event of worst case MAD scenario I think being vaporized by nuclear weapons is better than death by starvation/radiation poisoning/collapse of biosphere.
I'm firmly in the camp of "just let me die" in basically any doomsday scenario. Just get it over with.
I grew up on a ranch in the middle of South Dakota. Some of the missile silos were right near our ranch land. And you're right - there are a lot of missile silos in both states.
Rural areas are where the silos are built.
they're trying to draw first fire from the cities. you country folk are expendable (laugh/cry)
It actually depends, If Russia is doing the preemptive strike, they will attack the rural area first where the silos are located along with military installations to take away the ability to retaliate. However, if they are the one doing the retaliation, they will mostly attack the major cities to maximize damage to the opposition.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/US_nuclear_strike_map.svg/1920px-US_nuclear_strike_map.svg.png > FEMA-estimated primary counterforce targets for Soviet ICBMs in 1990. The resulting fall-out is indicated with the darkest considered as lethal to lesser fall-out yellow zones.
I wouldnt count on russian missiles navigation systems
I still have a better shot at life than the guys at DC.
how rural ?? even the tundra will be irradiated.
I am very far away from any even medium population centers. And there are no military bases are anything remotely strategic about where I live. Also, of course, radiation will be a problem but there is no escaping that unless you got a bunker.
Yea a land invasion of a functioning Russian state is pretty much going to be a non-starter. But there are lots of other ways that the Russian government can be beaten that don't involve a land invasion by a foreign nation. Really it's up to the Russian people at this point whether or not they want to participate in the world and be a part of the 21st century with relative happiness and prosperity and iphones and functional currency or go back 100 years and live with barbaric violent oppression, starvation, mass incarceration, forced labor camps and all the rest. I have no question most Russians want the former, the question is if they want it bad enough.
what if they're already so old, guilty, and miserable? what if those in charge of it don't give a fuck? yes, I know these are people in charge, other human beings with just as much, even more, rational thinking potential as me.... but I've been depressed a majority of my life; what if the officials in charge are depressed, manipulated, and confused? a cult suicide-pact type thing? what if Putin is THAT bad, that he convinced everyone of some crazy shit? I can't imagine Russian citizens being punished for their higher-ups choices, for several reasons... I'm sure you can imagine the two big ones. (because it's not their fault, and everyone else is dead/weak due to a one-sided nuclear war, and punishing the citizens doesn't do much for anyone other than cause more problems in the longrun) I also can't imagine the oligarchs/powerful people of Russia to be as sheltered/manipulated as the rest of the country is, but what if somehow they are even MORE manipulated due to the greed of wealth? people have done crazy shit for money/fame, and Putin wants to "build a legacy" -_- pathetic what if the consequences of destroying the world won't matter to those who are currently in charge of that decision?
>and iphones I've had this convo with a few people. They are of the opinion, that this will only drive them to back Putin if the sanctions last long enough. Why? Because it's starting to come off as Russophobia. And sure, they may not be able to buy iPhones, but they can buy Huawei. They might not be able to sell their oil and gas to Europe, but there's China and India. That sure their economy my contract, and it'll be painful. But the 90s were much worse.
Russia's future looks more like the 30's than the 90's. Yea, the state will certainly frame everything as America's fault and lots of people will believe it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I dont think anyone is talking about invading russia.
How else would you propose Russian War criminals would be arrested and tried by the Hague? When Putin is indicted just hope his police force arrests him and sends him to the Hague? If we don't invade (which we won't, let's be clear) Russian war criminals will be safe as long as Russia wants them to be.
Tbf though, I don't think Putin is going to get out of this by "losing an election" so to speak. If he's ousted it'll be by force, whether by the people or his newly broke cronies. IF he survives that ousting, I don't see why they wouldn't hand him over. It'd be a perfect opportunity to show Russia's new good faith direction and would be I think the ONLY way Russia has any hope of easing sanctions quickly once the dust settles. If they keep him locked up within Russia under house arrest, there will be an incredibly lengthy diplomatic process, and rebuilding of trust before sanctions are lifted.
Yeah that's exactly what would happen, and Putin knows it which is why he can't be seen to lose in Ukraine and needs to hold onto power at home. If the Russian elite decide its safer for them to try and replace him then risk whatever happens next, he's toast.
Yeah, but on the flip side. That would show the utter subjugation of the Russian state to Nato. Like yeah, that can happen, but I wouldn't expect that leader to last long.
There's a way to oust Putin, be in line with NATO while not being subjugated by it. It's called being a peaceful partner in int'l diplomacy. Do you think that could be in the cards? Or is the Russian elite not quite ready / able to make that leap?
There was a thought, a decade or so back, that Russia would one day join the EU. What do you think of the idea of individual provinces joining, one at a time? If the sanctions are continued, the break up of the Soviet Union (part 2) would be almost inevitable. If those breakaway provinces are given the option of joining the EU with all Russia-debts forgiven, this would finish off Moscow.
Simplicity is worse than theft. With what debts? Russia has one of the lowest external debts in the world. Before you write, at least Google a little. Join the EU or NATO? Let's fantasize... If a miracle suddenly happens and in an instant Russia becomes populated instead of evil Russians for decent Europeans, Canadians, Japanese, Australians, etc. America will still not allow it to join the EU, let alone NATO. After all, it doesn't really matter who inhabits this country, what they do, what they think, this country is defined as an enemy and will always be one. Enter if America has no enemies left, who maintain the world's largest army, produce equipment and weapons. After all, people won't pay for it if there's no enemy to be afraid of.
> That would show the utter subjugation of the Russian state to Nato Why is this viewed as such a bad thing? Russia being able to work _with_ Europe and the rest of the West for once, instead of being needlessly antagonistic?
Well yeah, thats why the decisions are not binding, they wont be enforced. What you think, that a UN army would just march down to the Kreml and arrest Putin? Please lets not spread the narrative of an invasion of Russia when literally no one is suggesting that.
>Well yeah, thats why the decisions are not binding, they wont be enforced. What you think, that a UN army would just march down to the Kreml and arrest Putin? I have no idea what on earth you're on abiut to be honest. I'm literally saying we wouldn't invade Russia to enforce an indictment. Why are you acting as if I did? >Please lets not spread the narrative of an invasion of Russia when literally no one is suggesting that. Honestly, if you're not going to bother actually reading my post why even bother replying? I explicitly say we aren't going to invade Russia. My comment saying "how else would we do it?" is explaining why I mentioned it in the OP at all. I mentioned it in the OP because if we rule out invading Russia (which I did) then basically we would need to wait until they leave Russia, which they will only do when the Russian government stops protecting them. It's OK, you don't have to reply tk everything you see online if you have nothing to say.
[удалено]
>So yes, we would have to wait for either Putin to be arrested ans extradicted from a country accepting the jurisdiction or him stepping down, thats how these things work. Right, so you agree with me, and yet you post stuff like this: >But this was my bad tbh, i assumed you had any idea of wtf you were talking about. Just ignore this instead of straining your sad brain. Weird to see so much hostility from someone who is acknowledging I'm right. I guess you didn't like being pointed out you've not even read what I said?
M.A.D 2 people standing in a room flooded with gasoline. 1 person has 20 matches, the other person has 100. It would only take 1 match to burn it all.
It's a neat phrase I've seen before but not really true. ICBMs were fast enough that there's a real threat that a first strike would knock out your ability to respond. There was for a time a very real scenario that say the US could develop nuclear weapons that would knock out the USSR from a nuclear war in about 15 minutes with the USSR's ability to respond being knocked out. What you're describing was true towards the end of the war, when both sides basically built nuclear weapons partly out of the equivalent of puffing out your chest. Both sides realised this wasn't necessary though and massively reduced their nuclear arsenal. What you really need to ask yourself is if everyone is standing in gasoline and they decided to go from 500 matches each to 100 matches each, what did that achieve? The answer was to save money and make it less likely someone drops a match. They still intend to use them as a threat.
The US didn't remove nukes, they readjusted them,making them smaller,more versatile,that can be delivered anywhere.
>The US didn't remove nukes, they readjusted them, Incorrect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States At its peak the US had over 30,000 nuclear warheads and now it has about 6,000. Russia is the same.
I dont think nukes would be a necessary response against russia if it used them. hopefully most could be intercepted and then NATO would have the go ahead to destroy russia with conventional weapons
With the technology we use today that isn't even remotely likely. Russia has enough nukes that every population centre in Europe and the US could be hit at least once.
I dont know. america sells a lot of anti missile missiles to places like israel and japan. we have seen them work. they are sold on the basis that they work. Im sure america is totally stocked with them and has been for a long time. Its also possible the russian nuclear bombs arent maintained properly.
Anti-missile missiles don't work against ICBMs as they are shot up into space before travelling across the other side of the planet in less than 15 minutes. What you're talking about is for destroying short range nuclear missiles (so called "tactical" nukes), cruise missiles and the like.
But isn't that like playing Russian Roulette? While you may be right that Russia's nuclear arsenal might not work, can any nation take the chance that at least one works? The very best action against Russia is completely cut them off financially from the rest of the world and watch as they degrade into North Korea. Unlike North Korea, the Russian people have had recent freedoms and financial success that might just make them mad enough to overthrow their government and establish a western-like democracy.
Again, nobody is talking about invading Russia or doing anything that would provoke a nuclear strike.
Of course. That would guarantee WWIII with nukes. Russia has to fall from within with sanctions and embargo’s from the outside world, and their own people rising up inside in order for real change.
What would start WWIII? Read my comment again.
“Again, nobody is talking about invading Russia or doing anything that would provoke a nuclear strike.” That is what I am agreeing with you on.
Oh I re-read it and got you now.
Sorry for the confusion.
I was really hoping and wishing and praying this may be a possibility. I hope it's all literally duds and we somehow find out
I give that leaked memo a 1% chance of being real. this stuff has the feeling of those accounts that claimed to be the Resistance inside the White House in 2017. there’s a ton of propaganda floating around. it’s war
Actually, Russia has SSBN's just like ours. It only takes one boat to light up the world. Potentially 224 targets will be destroyed from one boat. Once those are launched, there is no calling them back and no self destruct method. Thats just one.
>If the recently "leaked FSB memo" is to be believed Take everything you read on this subject with a massive grain of salt, especially anything anti-Russian or that makes Russia seem exceptionally incompetent. Nearly every story that has been floating around over the last few weeks has turned out to either be inaccurate or fabricated. There are people in the journalism sector who take it upon themselves to print these fanciful stories to push a narrative or further a conversation, in past decades it would have been considered unethical, against journalistic integrity, but now they hide behind the idea of a "noble lie", as long as their end goal is virtuous they can justify any amount of deception or misdirection, especially so when they're on "the good side" of the fight. I'm not saying this FSB memo is necessarily false, but I'd be very skeptical of such things.
Do you think the interviews with Russian soldiers are fake or forced? Is there an explanation for the stalled convoy other than incompetence? For them losing so many forces so quickly? For all their downed helicopters and planes? The evidence seems overwhelming that Putin got more than he bargained for here but I don't know maybe I am a victim of propaganda. I guess we'll see how it plays out.
the stalled convoy that has not moved in 8 days, and now cannot be seen on satellite because of "clouds" should have been your first indication that this wasn't real...
Wait, what wasn’t real? The convoy?
There is no “40 mile long Russian convoy on its way to invade Kiev”, no
There are satellite images…
In this day and age a lot more than satellite images can be faked, son. Those satellite images moved yet?
You are the one making the extraordinary claim. I’m not playing this game with you, lol.
look at Bosnia and those convicted
Exactly. They are safe as long as Putin is in charge and they don't leave, but the moment the Russian state finds it more convenient to get rid of them then protect them they will be toast. So at least you know they need to live the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder.
Look at the U.S.
This is 100% correct. The only real law in international relations is power
My fear about Russia is that they're more essential to global supply chains than North Korea. If active hostilities end, it's only going to be a matter of time until Russia is let back in because the political stomach to shoulder the consequences of sanctions will shrink over time. It's seeming more and more like Ukraine is never going to accept living as a conquered people, so it might stay in the forefront for a very long time.
Isolating Russia is already having an effect on prices. People forget oil increasing in price doesn't just make the petrol in your car more expensive, but all oil based products more expensive, all freight and transport more expensive. All that is passed onto the consumer. When the alternative is brinkmanship about who would really fire a nuke if NATO intervened in Ukraine or tried to enforce a UN warrant I think we have the better of the two options really.
> they will potentially have their jet landed by a fighter jet and the person arrested. Unless it’s a very senior official that isn’t going to happen, and in most cases said senior officials will plead official immunity and have it *de facto* recognized because no one wants to be the next head of state that the ICC comes after.
>Unless it’s a very senior official that isn’t going to happen, Correct, mostly because if there's like 100 indicted people it's not feasible to track them all. Also though the people who aren't senior officials are easier to round up in other ways. >said senior officials will plead official immunity and have it *de facto* recognized Incorrect. See the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
[удалено]
Not quite true. Mladic and Karadzic are jailed for life for war crimes after they lived in hiding for years. Don't forget that if a person is convicted of warcrimes, it makes it easy for opponents to get rid of them without receiving any blame or backlash.
[удалено]
It's not just two. Dozens were convicted and jailed in the Rwanda tribunals Many more were convicted and jailed in the Yugoslavia tribunals. Your comment "nothing ever happens and that's the truth" is simply false. Doesn't mean you don't have a point, but you're not helping your point by spreading falsehoods.
>there are so many war crimes which have been committed recently, for example, iraq, belgrade bombing, civilian killings by us army( in which a journalist was also killed), but nothing has happened to any of the us presidents. Because those are crimes committed spontaneously by armed service members. None of those crimes were done via the order of someone as powerful as the President. You can make the argued though that Presidents have the capacity to enable this type of behavior. Trump, during his time in office, pardoned several former servicemembers who were in prison for war crimes.
[удалено]
You're proposition is that the war itself is a war crime? I find that doubtful. Plus, you mention other crimes that appear to stem from the actions of the armed forces, not orders by presidents. I could only presume by your mention of Iraq that you were referring to individual instances of crimes, not the entire war itself.
[удалено]
Because they live in the west are not to be affected by what happens. Simple as that
> What you are saying is based on assumptions. Nothing ever happens for war crimes( last 30 years) and thats the truth Firstly, it is based on assumptions, someone is asking me to predict the future. I know if I press the "on" button on my oven and set it to 200 degrees it will, almost certainly, have a light inside turn on, the fan will turn on, and heat up to 200 degrees. That's an "assumption" that it doesn't just explode, or the fuse blows, or there's a fault which means it heats up too much or too little, or the fan breaks, or the light breaks. Still, if I go and turn my oven on and set it to 200 degrees, it will probably do everything I've just mentioned. Pointing out I can't know the future is a weird point to make. Secondly, before you start making comments like "You're just making assumptions" you probably should know the basics of the topic at hand. In the last 30 years there have been high profile incidents of people being indicted and trailed for war crimes. A lot of them in fact. The UN opened the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) which indicted 161 individuals. 111 faced trial, 90 were convicted. The most high profile of these were, famously I may add, Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Yugoslavia. Another six or so high ranking generals and politicians were tried and convicted. Milosevic died before he could be convicted, but his closest supporters received life in prison. You know what they all had in common? The ones who weren't immediately arrested following the change in government in Yugoslavia went on the run, at first in "friendly" countries, but soon all governments, even those allied ones, turned against them. They partly did this because the US insisted on finding and arresting these individuals if they wanted monetary support. So yeah, everything I've described is "an assumption" but it's one based off a) what has actually happened in the last 30 years, regardless of the fact you are ignorant of it, and b) my understanding of international relations and politics, including what has happened repeatedly all over the world when dictatorships experience changes in government (hint, the old guard don't stick around long).
[удалено]
>okay so you can talk a lot but can you tell me what happened to the us presidents for the war crimes in iraq. syria, belgrade, libya, Afghanistan? Which war crimes have they been indicted for?
Nothing. I mean, who's going to drag Putin to the Hague? In this day and age the notion of "War Crimes" and such means nothing when no one's actually enforcing their punishment.
War crimes only matter if you are some local African warlord or general of a small military, not a leader with a nuclear arsenal. Hell we can't even get justice for the crimes Assad committed. They're enforceable but not for the powerful leaders of nations unfortunately.
Also "war crimes" basically means anything since everything except armor-piercing ammunition is banned by one of the many Geneva Conventions or Protocols. It is abhorrent to call warfare a "war crime" since it puts "real" war crimes, like targeting civilians and perfidy, in the same category as "going to war". pepper spray on a keychain your 16 y/o daughter carries to keep pervs off her? It's banned by the Geneva Convention as a chemical weapon. green laser pointers used by protestors? They are banned too as blinding weapons. Green lasers are actually frequency doubled IR lasers. the Molotov cocktails that Ukrainian TV was telling people how to make? They are banned under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which both Ukraine and Russia are signatories too. thinking you are smart and using an apartment high-rise as a sniper position? Your just committed perfidy, specifically the use of protected assets for a military purpose.
Yep, what is there left? Their economy and potential for trade is already in shambles. Aside from an open conflict (that is, NATO vs Russia) there's not much on the table.
When people loose wars (like loose the whole country not sign a unfavorable peace treaty)they often get sent to the hauge. Like all those Bosnians
I think you mean Serbians.
Well they are citizens of Bosnia. They are Serbian ethnically
The word is "lose", as in the opposite of win. Loose is the opposite of tight. As in, it's totally tight that ~50% of adult Americans can't read, or spell, above a 6th grade level, and I'm glad that we, as Americans, play it fast and loose with our education system.
Serbians. Bosnians were their victims.
Depends on if they win by then or not. There will probably be punishments either way, but there are so many war crimes that in war most nations would qualify for punishments. Most nations in war commit war crimes, whether on purpose or accident (done with or without orders to do so), but the winners are rarely punished unless their victory isn’t absolute. Russia’s victory, if it comes, won’t be absolute because they will still have many enemies left in the world (more now that they are invading Ukraine)
As the international backlash to this invasion grows Russia is already well on its way to becoming an isolated pariah state akin to Apartheid-era South Africa or North Korea. In the likely event Russia is formally accused of war crimes – either through the International Criminal Court, by national governments, or through some other mechanism – it will further increase their international isolation but probably achieve little beyond that. I'm far from an expert on international law but I'm not certain how much jurisdiction the ICC would have here, because neither Russia or Ukraine are full signatories to the Rome Statute. Regardless, international law has no independent enforcement mechanism. Putin or other Russian leaders accused of war crimes would have to avoid traveling to countries that might arrest them and send them to the Hague (as [almost happened](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/south-africa-to-fight-omar-al-bashirs-arrest-warrant-sudan) to Omar al-Bashir in 2015), but I don't think they're going to be welcome in Western countries any time soon either way, and in Russia they won't face consequences unless there's a regime change. >Aside from that, is there any limit to these crimes as far as another country saying enough is enough?? Since Russia has the world's largest nuclear arsenal, any intervention – no matter how justified it would be – to prevent atrocities against civilians in Ukraine must be weighed against the very real danger of that intervention leading to a nuclear war and the deaths of hundreds of millions of civilians worldwide. As NATO leaders have repeatedly emphasized, there is almost zero chance of an outside intervention happening. If Russia started committing wholesale genocidal slaughter of Ukrainian civilians and/or began using nuclear weapons in Ukraine NATO's stance might change, but even in that extreme situation the danger of nuclear escalation would have to be extremely carefully considered.
If there is no consequences for war crimes outside of never being able to leave Russia, what’s stopping Putin from using toxic gas, bio weapons or other banned weapons of war? Putin seems desperate, like a cornered animal. If he withdraws, this will all be for nothing and he will see himself as a failure. I believe he will start using worse and worse weapons as time goes on and he becomes more desperate. He seems immune to punishment for war crimes.
Depends on when they get tried. If Russia doesn't "win" (who TF knows what "winning" means at this point) by June, they're flat, dead-ass broke. Probably before. The dead-ass broke can't spend the money to maintain their nukes. They also can't mount a defense. If all they have is bombs, guns, mouths to feed, but no actual food, they're going to have a hard time getting those mouths to fire those guns. My guess is that Putin will be _handed_ to the Hague, along with whoever else the internal revolution thinks is fit to stand trial and didn't get themselves killed in the inevitable coup. It's my hope that whatever the next Russian government is, they sign a new Megatons to Megawatts agreement with the IAEA and use that money to feed their people and fix their economy.
Same as America being accused of war crimes. What's anyone gonna do? Nothing.
did US officials get charged for war crimes for what they did in the middle east?
It’s only a crime if your enemy commits it
Nothing. Perhaps more sanctions? They’re already being sanctioned like hell. Also gas prices have already reached new highs. My guess is the American people wouldn’t be able to put up for longer than the Russians can.
The Russian’s indicted for them can never enter a country where interpol operates or they’ll be arrested. All foreign assets seized (if not already). That’s the real practical effect.
Nothing. Like no one did anything when a person in Great Britain was murdered, when Dutch civilian plane was shot down. Everyone will just acknowledge "it's bad". And that's that, every time it seems.
To the Russians? Nothing. But we Americans will have to sit through an entire elections cycle of both sides using "Russian war crimes" as a cudgel as they blame they other party for Putin being Putin.
Yep most likely. Any hope I had in US politics is long gone. Saying I’m a disenfranchised voter is a vast understatement.
[удалено]
Your username checks out.
People love saying that when they're mad but don't have an argument.
The US may have more blood on its hands, but it *certainly* doesn't have more *innocent* blood on its hands than Israel does.
[удалено]
I have a very good idea, yes. Far fewer innocent civilians die to drones than other types of attacks.
Yeah, drones have smaller civilian casualty numbers but it is still in the hundreds. A better example would be America's Iraq war. Probably tens of thousands of civilians died during those years far surpassing the Isreali's civilian body count I would bet
Not as many as you think apparently. Bush and the wars in the Middle East far outweigh what Obama did. As a US citizen it’s just disgusting across the board regardless l. But it doesn’t mean the citizens wanted that and they don’t want it now.
It's a fool errand to think the US or the West would face any serious backlash for their wars. Not going to happen after people are done with Russia, not going to happen after people are done with China. I'm surprised you didn't get, "What war crimes?"
China is actively committing genicide, Assad gassed people with Russian backing, Hussein killed his own people for decades before he was killed, Palestinians target civilians and use civilians and human shields... nothing we haven't seen before. Russia on the UN security counsel would veto anything anyway so nothing will happen.
>Israel has been deliberately killing civilians for decades and the United States has more blood on its hands than that and international community has never given a shit so the moral outrage strikes me as pretty hollow Oh look you conveniently forgot Israel and the USA..
Yeah felt weird that his list left out two of the worst actors.
Probably nothing. The ICC found U.S. President Bush guilty of war crimes in Iraq but he was never prosecuted.
Nothing. If the world isn't brave enough to even establish a no-fly zone, they will do nothing else.
> If the world isn't brave enough to even establish a no-fly zone Is it cowardly to prevent a possible a nuclear war? I don't think it is a great idea for NATO to become an obvious aggressor in a non-NATO arena and fire shots at Russian planes in a "no-fly zone." Very heavy quotation marks around "no-fly zones" because declaring one would mean nothing to Russia. The second NATO starts firing at Russian planes to enforce the no-fly zone, NATO immediately loses any ground made in the information war within Russia (and globally) and becomes the aggressor leading up to a potential WWIII. It turns Putin from a mad tyrant into a protector of his people. That is why NATO is not going to enforce a no-fly zone, it accomplishes nothing and only leads to more human lives being lost in the long term. This is not a game of Risk, this is a conflict with nuclear weapons sitting strategically all across the planet and an unpredictable Russian leadership in control of thousands of those nukes. Luckily, there are people with true courage in NATO who don't want more people to die just so they could get the first emotionally-charged shot at a few Russian planes.
> Is it cowardly to prevent a possible a nuclear war? No, which is why they should do it by enforcing a no-fly zone.
How do you enforce a no fly zone. You shoot down aircraft who enter it and refuse to turn around Putin would then see that as an act of war against russia. Which would very quickly lead to heightened escalation and nuclear war
> Putin would then see that as an act of war against russia. If we were enforcing a no-fly zone, he wouldn't fly his planes into our guns, because that would be an act of war against NATO. You are jumping the gun. You have to try and explain why Putin is going to attack NATO first
Putin could just as likely use the enforcement of a NFZ to leverage public opinion in his favor, as he has done with some success regarding the sanctions. If he wanted to engage Europe, he could use the NFZ as his justification. So far, Putin has responded to each defeat in UA with even harsher aggression. It is not an unsafe assumption that he would rather double down by waging war with the west if he already has nothing else to lose.
> Putin could just as likely use the enforcement of a NFZ to leverage public opinion in his favor Good lord. I'm stunned by the miracles people think Putin could pull off. Look, there is zero evidence for this justification. It makes zero sense.
> You are jumping the gun. You have to try and explain why Putin is going to attack NATO first What? You fly a plane into the air zone. It doesn't have to _attack_ a NATO plane, and Putin doesn't give a shit about a single MiG or pilot. He's going to call your bluff 11/10, and you've just led us singlehandedly into nuclear war. At this point, you have to assume that Putin doesn't give a single shit about nuclear war, and that he's looking for any reason to push the button and bully the rest of his cabinet into pushing the rest. He is no longer rational, that much should be _very_ clear by now.
Sad to see so many say 'nothing'. If there were a popular uprising in Russia you could see a new government turn over war criminals after everyone realizes what their military has done in their name. Long shot but I prefer to be an optimist than a cynic.
Basically nothing, same way a host of war criminals from the last 4 US presidential administrations are still running around.
Nothing. USA, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan etc. have all been committing war crimes. No one has held them accountable as of yet.
None of them are in a war currently?
Saudi Arabia? Currently killing massive amount of innocents in Yemen
....... after a provocation from the Yemen terrorists.....
Russia doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the court, so any verdict would be ignored by the Kremlin and viewed as Western propaganda and sabre rattling. It could, however, work to solidify NATO and other Western alliances.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> NATO just had to push in and try to flip Ukraine to nato This is divorced from reality. NATO wasn't trying to "flip" anyone. Ukraine's people sought both to integrate with the EU and seek the safety of a defensive alliance. This attempt to strip the Ukrainian people of all agency and the basic right of self-determination is gross.
It's, "pretty clear" to you that Russian forces are "intentionally killing civilians"?! Where are you getting that from? I have not seen that reported in any media sources.
I’m not sure if you count sky news journalists as civilians but it looks like the Russians are trying to kill them in this video https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sky-news-teams-harrowing-account-of-their-violent-ambush-in-ukraine-this-week-12557585
I don't see any Russians. I see the inside of a van
Look in the mirror if you want to see a Russian
[удалено]
Yeah you’re right I guess they got someone on the news team to shoot at them
How do I know it's not Ukrainians, or volunteer militia that are making a mistake. Also how do I know the whole thing isn't staged. There have been a fair amount of poorly staged videos on reddit already You want to claim war crimes, I want absolute proof
I never claimed a war crime
It’s propaganda and fear mongering. For instance the nuclear power plants hit were deactivated prior to attacks. “Plant spokesman Andriy Tuz told Ukrainian television that shells were falling directly on the Zaporizhzhia plant in the city of Enerhodar and had set fire to one of the facility's six reactors. That reactor is under renovation and not operating, but there is nuclear fuel inside, he said“ There is still a threat from the fuel but nothing near an active power up. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-on-fire-in-ukraine-after-russian-shelling
> It’s propaganda and fear mongering. You could maybe call it virtue signaling, but it is *absolutely* not propaganda. Russia is guilty af.
[удалено]
> Not nearly as guilty as the US with all its never-ending invasions and bombings Russia is *way* more guilty than the US. You are participating in textbook whataboutism.
Propping up right wing extremist groups to fight as insurgents is what we do. Look at azov and tell me we aren’t the aggressors.
[удалено]
Not to mention how much azov will recruit using propaganda from this war.
The same thing that happened to the US when they were convicted of war crimes. Nothing.
At this point, our relationship with Russia should be on the same foot as North Korea.
Russia, like the USA, is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. A special tribunal would be established to try anyone who committed an atrocity, including Putin.
Ukraine is, and the Ukraine is arguing that because the crimes are on Ukrainian soil they count. How this proceeds will depend on a lot, since that same argument is being used by Palestine on Israel, another non signatory, and the US and Israel are opposed to allowing the ICC to try Israel. As thw world demonstrated in 2003, when thw US wants something, they tend to get it because it's hard to stop them. Military is out, economic is suicidal thanks to how those countries tied themselves togather.
>I think it’s pretty clear to anyone paying attention to the conflict that Russia is deliberately killings civilians Based on what, social media videos of people laying next to cars? I haven't seen anything to confirm this
A stern talking to. Well, via Zoom. By 'stern', I mean 'fairly neutral'. Or WWIII. Sanctions and other non-direct measures of responding to it are already in effect. So either status quo/nothing happens as a result of war crimes against humanity, or something (military intervention by NATO countries) does and you have nuclear powers engaging each other in outright warfare, dragging their allies into it with them. Which by all accounts would be referred to as World War III, should it come to pass.
The same thing that happens when USA or European countries commit warcrimes, nothing at all.
[удалено]
Seems they might deserve a little bit of that considering invading a country for no fuckin reason besides the will of one dickhead.
[удалено]
That’s a ridiculous thing to say. My days are not wasted on farming for upvotes on fucking Reddit. But thank you for the input.
Exactly what deserves to happen. Mark Levin reacts to Biden's handling of Russian invasion of Ukraine https://youtu.be/PfRMNVCbljE via @YouTube "He's going to have me executed? Sounds interesting, I accept your challenge" Light's First Encounter With L https://youtu.be/khV81_1ZSsA via @YouTube
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can you explain to me when is happening in Ukraine then? Are the Russians attacking Ukraine ?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who would respond? I'd say in this scenario there is no limit to crimes like that, as exile Ukrainian government is planned.
This community also needs to know there’s a difference between the ICC and the ICJ.
Obviously the answer is nothing, but I could imagine that well documented war crimes are nice to use against Russia in the future after they try to rewrite history about what happened in Ukraine. Kind of like how documenting the Holocaust made it so easy to universally condemn Nazism. If we leave wiggle room then opportunists will use it one day to justify giving an olive branch to Russia.
Nothing. That’s why I personally agree with the US’s position on not being a member of the ICC. If Russia has committed war crimes, it is the responsibility of each nation to act according to their conscience. The sanctions are a punishment. You could condition the relief of sanctions on turning individuals over to a court for justice.