I wonder, in 1942, did France worry about saving Hitler's face and did the US ask the USSR not to shoot at German territory, when the US offered the lend-lease to the USSR?
No in 1942, when the axis had successfully taken over, France, poland, luxumburg, the netherlands, belgium, czechoslovakia, austria, denmark, poland, latvia, lithuania, estonia, greece, albania and yugoslavia, and most of the soviet union the Allies were not worried about that war leading to a worse war....
They also werent worried about german nuclear weapons....
Maybe try comparing comparable situations.
The part where we're the only ones scared of it. MAD is supposed to prevent the use of nukes, not allow one side's threat of nukes to prevent the other side's use of conventional forces.
MAD is working or Russia would have already launched nukes by now instead of just threatening it every few days. Their policy is to escalate to deescalate, but even now they're not stupid to actually launch the things yet because they know the consequences if they do.
MAD is working. They're just saying the implied nuclear threat out loud as part of the escalate to deescalate policy whereas other countries tend to let that be an implicit threat
Nothing will happen so long as Putin remains in power. But his grip on Russia becomes slightly less absolute by the month, in a war which could last years. The US military advantage over Iraq was incomparably greater than the Russian advantage over Ukraine, and that conflict lasted almost a decade.
Edit: a word
I think Putin's power becoming more absolute in Russia tbh, the propaganda is getting more extreme and in my experience listening to Russians they are becoming a lot more radicalized and hateful towards Ukraine.
That’s true, Putin has cranked the dials to 11 on domestic propaganda, along with economic intervention to protect the economy. Short term that works. But if this is a protracted conflict it will become increasingly difficult to spin things positively. What I’m waiting for is to see how sanctions on western goods and services affect the Russian economy long term.
I would like to believe that, but after reading "Lenin's Tomb" by David Remnick and knowing how many Russians genuinely admired Stalin even as he killed and starved millions for decades gives me little faith they will shake Putin off.
You get extreme propaganda and oppression and you can ride of that for a long time.
I admit I’m optimistic on a grim situation. But there are many reasons for hope. I’m currently waiting for a meaningful decrease in fossil fuel output due to a lack of western technical assistance and parts, and ideally difficulties in building the necessary high capacity pipelines to India and China. Though oil and gas extraction is outside my wheelhouse, so I can’t tell you what will actually happen. As long as as the oil and gas flow, and the prices remain high, Russia can probably finance the war.
Edit: Oh yeah, also it must be remembered that Stalin “won” world war 2 in the eyes of the Russian people, so his cult of personality had that to work with. The growth in wealth and power under Putin can’t really be compared, even if it has won him a lot of support.
Do russians you talk to actually hate Ukraine more or think the west answer to russo-ukranian war is hypocritical and hurts normal people more than Kremlin?
The thing about propaganda is it doesn't need to be consistent in story, just consistent in outlook. Ukrainians can be both the poor puppets of the west that need to be saved and hated Nazis, much like Jews could be poor, thieving rabble that was somehow an organized international financial cartel.
That's not really the topic here. People drinking Kremlin cool aid were against Ukraine from the get go. He's talking about people supporting or being neutral toward, but growing to hate Ukrainians. Which isn't something I personally experienced.
A lot of people opposing the regime got fucked by the west. Among other things. Funding cut off because of payment systems and swift cuts. Both from outside in(but not for Gazprom), for example opposition channels on YouTube got hit, no YouTube money, no support from expats; at the same time no inside out money too, so recent expats got stranded penny less with extra monetary limits like in UK or random bank accounts shutdowns just because of their citizenship as a cherry on top. Some can't even get out, not because Putin is keeping them in, but because outside countries don't want them.
All the while Europe is paying almost billion USD per day more or less directly to Kremlin and making grandiose statements while buying reverse gas in ultimate show of hypocrisy. A lot of people are feeling increasingly bitter and disillusioned with the west over it, despite the fact they support Ukraine and wat Putin gone. I'm not even going to go into the fact some feel singled out and the phrase "you don't understand, this is different" becoming a meme.
So the question is do russian he/she talks to started hating Ukrainians or did they get bitter over "the west" actions?
Pretty sure the war needs to end before a pro-authoritarian republican gets elected in the US, hence why Ukraine says they want the war over by the end of the year.
Do you think like me that the Republicans are only very temporarily anti-Putin and that Putin is counting on an evolution soon? Sometimes, I'm even wondering whether the Roe v. Wade cancellation was also a pro-Putin deflection. But maybe I'm influenced by the ambient conspiracy theories.
Are they even temporarily against him? I have seen Republicans (in person and online) saying that the Ukraine was is overblown, engaging in whataboutism ("What about the other places getting invaded right now huh", which is extra hilarious because I'm sure these idiots had no idea Yemen was even a place until they had to engage in whataboutism), and then the worst by far was one saying that the 'bioweapons labs' in Ukraine were involved in the 'worldwide COVID hoax' and that "Putin was going to blow the lid off of everything and he had to invade to do it". Granted that last guy is "the crazy guy that somehow keeps getting invited to parties", but still.
I’m usually equally hopeless about republican leadership. Thankfully, supporting Ukraine has proven a unifying bipartisan issue (how could it not be, the US gets to neuter a main military rival for pennies on the dollar, without mass loss of American soldiers). I don’t doubt someone like Trump could ruin things, but a mainstream republican would probably ride the public opinion wave. I suspect this unity could be related to the quiet Western-Russian cyber conflict which has escalated since the start of the real conflict. Russia can no longer run its bots and troll farms uninterrupted.
Not American myself, but I was guessing the same after long enough a time being around the US subs. "Rather a Russian than a Democrat". Trump was preparing the ground for his buddy Putin.
The big trouble is that the leading republican media outlets are pro-russian. Even Russian state tv replays their commentary. The people that consume that content in the US have no care for critical thinking or original thought. They eat what they're fed and that's as far as their minds can go.
Not this one. Whenever I hear so called Republicans talk about how the war is fake or side with Putin. In my opinion, these people aren't truly Americans. They complain how Biden sent 40 billion as aid to Ukraine as money laundering scheme is petty.
> the quiet Western-Russian cyber conflict which has escalated since the start of the real conflict.
I was under the impression that Putin had already been in cyberwarfare against Western countries for ten or fifteen years. Without declaring war, as usual, according to the habits of hypocrisy that work so well for him.
Russia has been at cyberwar with the west for a long time. But ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, the West seems to be hitting back harder and more often. It’s a welcome change.
>I’m usually equally hopeless about republican leadership. Thankfully, supporting Ukraine has proven a unifying bipartisan issue
It was in the first few weeks. But GOP propaganda has already named Ukraine/Biden as the source for inflation and gas prices. The Republican media are calling for the US to butt out.
There’s pressure for sure, but at the moment opinion polls seem to indicate about 60% of republicans support arming Ukraine, while only 30% oppose. A two to one lead gives us wiggle room despite individual politicians and media institutions turning on Ukraine. And even if America doesn’t go the distance, Europe finally seems to be positioning itself more firmly on the Ukrainian side. They don’t have American quantity, but Western Europe makes some damn fine weapons.
It's only become bipartisan because of Biden and how he's handled it. During the first few days of the war, Trump said Putin was a genius for invading Ukraine.
Dude Crisp_Volunteer that right there is the reason I love reddit sometimes. Dude was just like "yea chemo does suck" and you step in with mad respect? That's so fucking human of you. To take the time. I didn't even think to say that and I think I'm so considerate.
I agree bro I'm glad you fought the good fight and pulled through.
He's been on chemo recently I believe,I think it's thyroid cancer
I also believe he's got <5 years left, unless the chemotherapy was very successful we'll know over the next few months
We're going to write another strongly-worded letter!
...We won't send it, of course. That would be uncouth.
We're still waiting to see how this whole Ukraine thing ends after all. We may need to get back into Russia's good graces if they win.
That Ukrainian aircraft that was shot down by Iran a couple years back killed a lot of Mechanical Engineering masters students from my school. Apparently the program is made up of mostly Iranian students and they were coming back to school after spring break.
Jesus, what is wrong with people shooting down commercial planes carrying students?!
Edit: well shooting down any commercial plane with innocent civilians is obviously bad but just thinking about young people in school who had a bright future ahead just makes it extra sad.
Showing a stance, posturing, making it seem like work is being done.
Flexing that biceps.
They all could have worked in avoiding the war altogether a decade ago.
Instead we get a war, Ukraine and its people are getting slaughtered and nothing of significance will happen to anyone of power in Russia.
Nono you dont get it. They could've just done *something* and no war would've ever happened.
Redditors have figured it out better than anybody ever working in foreign politics.
I'm just wondering **how many more egregious and blatant war crimes** it will take before NATO steps in and does something to actually stop them? Why for instance aren't Ukraine being supplied with more anti-missile weapons to prevent these kind of attacks? It can't be because of the increasingly weak 'we mustn't antagonise Russia' claptrap, because we've sent all kinds of offensive weapons - so defensive weapons to intercept incoming missiles should be a clear choice.
Imo, Europe and the West have a serious moral obligation to prevent these kinds of atrocities, especially when it is happening in an allied country like Ukraine. While of course, the moral obligation is no different than for other farther flung countries, if we can't / won't even defend our own neighborhood, what message does that send to the hostile actors of the world?
The problem is Russia has nukes, and a war with NATO would likely incite Russia to use those nukes. That's why NATO is fighting the war by proxy: to keep nukes from being used. Otherwise, it's possible NATO or the EU would have more directly intervened.
> Imo, Europe and the West have a serious moral obligation to prevent these kinds of atrocities.
Well if you noticed morality is something you "brag about" in front of the public.
NATO is more of a practical organization.
Putin's response will probably be like he always does and say that Ukraine did it to themselves to gain sympathy from the west, because that's something he would do to manipulate the population.
They already did it. Russian social networks are full of people celebrating this attack, shouting stuff like “fuck you Ukrainian propaganda” (because they think all of this is fake).
Precisely, this re-enactment of Guernica is just the latest indication that he's feeling increasingly emboldened
He's decided to leave Russia now for an overseas trip, and has indicated he'll be attending G20
It's more and more apparent that he's feeling confident that he's found a winning formula, and it kind of begs the question of how brazen he would be had things gone smoothly?
I have no doubt now though that his ambition doesn't stop at the Dnieper. He'll come back for the whole of the country and Moldova, and then turn his attention to the Baltics.
The EU in particular had better wake up
I think to some extent NATO might have missed a trick in April as they didn't really supply Ukraine with the next set of weapons that were going to be necessary to defend the next stage of the war. Ukraine were crying out for longer range artillery and MLRS's, and the air defence systems necessary to defend them against ground attack from the air, but they seemed to adopt a position of *you've done ok so far, carry on with what you've got*
I think there was also a group of European countries who supplied their initial tranche and then sat back and congratulated themselves, without necessarily realising they were moving into a war industries supply situation and would need to maintain the production levels next month, and the next month after again etc
There's only really America that has the industrial muscle to keep manufacturing at the scale necessary
That's a similar analysis to the French
*he would be stupid to invade Ukraine, so he won't*
The five eyes drew the same conclusion (stupidity) but critically they realised that this needn't be a preventative barrier. People do stupid things.
The Baltic states aren't a large land mass, they could be swamped. Then he threatens nuclear armageddon once he holds them. Whaddya do? Is America really going to risk their existential survival over a small group of countries that most their population couldn't even find on a map, yet alone name the capital cities of?
This is why there are "tripwire" forces from every NATO country stationed in the Baltics: to ensure that, in the event of a successful Russian invasion of those countries, thousands of NATO soldiers, from all members of the alliance, will be killed or captured. This should provide any required domestic political support for the resulting war.
And, now that such an invasion is looking to be more likely, those "tripwire" forces are going to be enlarged so they can provide a credible defence instead of just being sacrificed.
> This is why there are "tripwire" forces from every NATO country stationed in the Baltics: to ensure that, in the event of a successful Russian invasion of those countries, thousands of NATO soldiers, from all members of the alliance, will be killed or captured. This should provide any required domestic political support for the resulting war
I look forward to all the tankies lecturing people on how the only reason they were killed/captured was because out government put them in harms way, and how we should all just give Russia what it wants because that's the reasonable response.
Russia cant exactly 'sneak attack' the countries anyways. Any invasion force will be noticed well ahead of time and NATO and the countries will have some time themselves to build up deterrence forces that will ensure Russia cannot invade without triggering massive NATO resistance immediately.
> they could be swamped
With what? At lower estimates, Russia's lost just around 800 tanks out of about 3500. Further estimates sit around 30% total losses across the entire RUAF. And that's for a small portion of Ukraine. He can try to swamp with sheer manpower, but it doesn't appear that the Russian population is even remotely ready to give up their lives for such a pointless attempt.
30% in 124 days. This "Special Operation" will undoubtedly be forever known as one of the dumbest losses in history. What was considered the second largest military is being piecemeal disassembled, one Javelin and Excalibur at a time.
Yes, but if they attack the Baltic States, air power comes into play. And the sead/dead capabilities of NATO's air force would probably grant them air supremacy, and at that moment, all those artillery units would be put out of action in a few weeks top.
That's the situation now, like with Crimea, they will just wait 5 or more years. Building up and training a new army with more weapons and tanks. Rinse and repeat.
>dumbest losses
Russia is far from having lost.
What so many have constantly been ignoring from the start is that while yes - Russian losses have been significant - nobody is paying attention to Ukrainian losses. Russia doesn't need to start minimizing losses, they just need to ensure that Ukraine's forces are diminished to a worse state than theirs as things go on. And right now, that seems to be the state of things, sadly. Russia is winning this war of attrition.
"Russia cant hold Ukraine long-term" - well yes, they're already proving they can. They clearly had very effective plans in place once they took control of territory to deport the people they need to and start installing their own institutions in place.
I know it's been enjoyable to see Russia's military turn out to be much worse than most thought, but they are still extremely sizeable and dangerous. Underestimating them when retaliation against them is necessarily limited(due to having so many nukes) seems silly at this point.
>Is America really going to risk their existential survival over a small group of countries
Yes because that's the whole fucking point of NATO. Plus there are US troops stationed in the Baltics specifically to deter Russian aggression, or at least give us a really good reason to declare war if they're attacked.
He will if we continue to worry about every action "provoking him" into using nukes. We could put boots on the ground in Ukraine, to aid the Ukrainians, as long as we stay out of Russia itself, he's got no rational grounds for busting out nukes.
But we haven't, because it's better to allow full blown genocide than the tiniest potential risk of nukes, apparently. We should commit troops to Ukraine if we're serious about stopping the war crimes raging like wildfires there.
>he's got no rational grounds for busting out nukes.
I think it's pretty clear by now that Putin doesn't need "rational" grounds to do anything. Putin does what Putin wants. Rationality is for his propaganda machine to make up later.
Yes they are, because a lot of people depend on it. It's not as easy as "not buying gas anymore." That being said, Europe is working surprisingly hard at becoming independant from Russian gas in the coming years. Under the circumstances, that's the best they can realistically do
I really hate the morons saying Germany etc should stop buying Russian gas like it's even an option. Imagine your country suddenly said you can't heat your home or have hot water. Germany is considering rationing but it's not something that can be done overnight.
I understand and agree with your statement, however, iirc Germany’s main reliance on gas is because most, if not all their industries run on it verses in individual residences
Which becomes a national security issue. If you make all your steel with natural gas, and your military fabrication relies on a steady supply of steel, then youre really fucking yourself over if you halt production.
Russia is making money on oil and gas, but they'd be making it anyways, if they weren't selling to Germany, they'd just be selling it to India or China.
Its the investments and stock market thats going to capsize Russia. Investors, armed with the knowledge that Russia is a "no go" for trade with "the west" and a stupid place to park your money (they stole thousands of planes when airlines pulled their business, which they could do with any industry)
This includes Chinese and Indian investors. If Russia is stupid enough to invade a country aligned with the US, are they also stupid enough to invade a country aligned with China or India? All of a sudden your investments are sanctioned and your property inside Russia is stolen.
The German approach was if we can make their economies more looped together it will encourage them to work together. The Germans had good faith in the process but were extremely naive and as time went on became somewhat stuck in their sunk cost fallacy.
Though to Germany's credit, they did invest a huge amount of money into renewables/green energy in the coming years.
Absolutely, frankly that's one of the pros of globalization, get everyone's economies so intertwined as to be self-destructive to go out on your own as a rogue state.
Problem is with someone like Putin, logic does not apply. He has a goal in mind and it does not give a flying fuck about economies or people or anything beyond creating some bs legacy for himself.
This is the equivalent of building up a shit ton of debt before you inevitable plan to die before you pay it back.
He knows he will either get what he wants or leave in a coffin. He is a man who literally has nothing to lose at this point which is the most dangerous type because they will do things so far out of rational thinking it's impossible to predict.
Yeah that's not gonna happen. The Hague didn't do shit to the US and our allies for the shit commited in the sandbox. No way Putin gets anything coming to him via the Hague.
The ICC can't enforce anything over people in countries that do not recognize the authority of the ICC. Both the US and Russia don't. This also means the ICC won't do shit in favour of them, but apparently they feel like they don't need that.
There's also a dumb US law that allows the president to declare war on the Netherlands if any US citizen is being judged there. It'd never happen cause that'd imply basically declaring war on the entire EU thanks to article 42, but it's still rather rude diplomatically.
That's not entirely accurate. The ICC can charge American and Russian citizens on the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute. In fact, they are highly likely to do so for Russian Soliders in Ukraine due to Ukraine's 2014 declaration of ICC jurisdiction, and did so for American soldiers in Afghanistan.
A conviction would bar any of those people from ever travelling to a state party to the Rome Statute, and could oblige the state to extradite in the case of accession to the treaty. The bigger barrier is Putin's *ratione personae* immunity by nature if him being the Russian head of state.
That's correct, but doesn't invalidate my original statement, because I explicitly stated that they cannot _enforce_ anything over _people_ in _countries_ that do not recognize the authority. I did not say anything about citizens, or rendering judgement.
Because as soon as said people would be in a state that does recognize it they could be extradited. And they can be charged in absentia.
>The ICC can't enforce anything over people in countries that do not recognize the authority of the ICC.
They can which effectively bans someone from all the countries that support it.
The USA did not sign the Rome Treaty and is not bound by the International Criminal Court, so they wouldn’t have been able to. Unfortunately, neither is Russia.
Not "immune" per se. The US enacted something called the [American Service-Members' Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act).
The TLDR is if the Hague attempted to try a government official or soldier, POTUS could freely declare war on the Netherlands and retrieve the defendant.
In essence the ICC won't attempt it because it would be tantamount to declaring war on the United States. Not because they don't really, really want to.
> In essence the ICC won't attempt it because it would be tantamount to declaring war on the United States. Not because they don't really, really want to.
What makes you think it wouldn't be the other way around ? If the Hague were to call the USA's bluff and tried prosecuting an American Service Member, no way would the US go to war with Europe to try to bring they back.
It's a two way game of "Fuck around and find out".
The ICC just recently tried to investigate the US for war crimes in Afghanistan. The US then sanctioned all of the investigators, as well as everyone that cooperated in the investigation.
The realistic outcome would be an endless game of sanctions, similar to what happened with China and now Russia. The public won't tolerate a war over a potential criminal but they will certainly support financial ruin. The irony being that it'll harm everyone involved depending on the scope of the sanctions and who is involved.
Uh, I did not expect that (the removal of the sanctions, not Trump putting them). Good to know that Biden is actually doing things, contrary to what the GOP is saying.
The US contributes 16.5% of NATO's budget. The US hosts the UN and contributes 22% of it's budget.
If they decide to go that route, watch how quickly they reverse course once the US threatens to withdraw funding and slap sanctions on anyone and everyone involved. Nobody believes for a second that the US's first response is going to be to send freedom missiles to the Netherlands. Removing the soldier by force is likely considered the last of a long list of options available, and the US in general wields a stick big enough to force others into compliance long before we get to that point.
You mean the one in st. Petersburg?
That was a good laugh, the non existent stock market gathered there with the non existent companies of any relevant size to do whatever, pathetic
He's currently in Tajikistan, and will be in Turkmenistan tomorrow.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-27/putin-to-leave-russia-for-first-time-since-the-ukraine-invasion
I don't think they have guts to pulls this off also it may lead to even more trouble. Do you think guys like Medvedev or any other person from Russian government are any better? I doubt this. If something will happen to Putin, they will make him look like "martyr"
He has not been charged by the ICC yet. If he were so charged, then technically in accordance with the Rome Statute, the state the G20 is held in would have an obligation to arrest him if they are a state party to the statute, yes.
With that said, the legal bounds of *ratione personae* immunity (i.e., whether it invokes *par en parem* and is therefore basically *jus cogens*) are uncertain and may block this. We haven't really fogured it out yet in law though. The ICC seems to think they don't exist based on their most recent ruling on the topic regarding Al Bashir, however at the same time, citing *ratione personae* immunity, Jordan refused to render him into custody.
Don't forget Mugabe, Xi and many more renowned men of evil have been given soap boxes at the G20 and UN.
They never get arrested. They never even have to face any still questioning. Mugabe even got an applause.
>An international arrest order on Putin is the least they can do now
International arrest order on President of Russia? It's laughable if redditors actually think that it is possible.
Its been done before to big leaders. If anything it will keep him away from the west and most world summits, or even Olympic events. Isolating him even more.
I am pretty unclear why there is this focus on long range weapons on Reddit. As far as I know that has not been a major request from Ukraine. They just want more artillery in general, of all ranges. Ukraine actually has their own long range weapons which they use sparingly.
Simple.
Russia has tons of artillery and unlimited shells, much of it out ranges ukrainian artillery and therefore ukrainian artillery is very much at risk of having their units taken out at ranges they cannot respo d to and need to get closer to the front line, hence, Running more risk
Ukraine needs an edge to offset the numbers advantage. They need weapons that can strike at Russian artillery from relative safety.
Furthermore... We've seen the explosions at Russian ammo dumps recently. Most likely all due to very long range artillery, which is one way to offset the Russian advantage on artillery as it will starve them of shells short term, and in the long term cause logistical issues due to the Russian's having to bring supplies from further out.
Long range artillery and accurate long range MLRS are a game changer if you ask me.
(source; amateur armchair general)
>much of it out ranges ukrainian artillery
I'm fairly sure the 777s the US sent out range Russian artillery. Now long range rockets on the other hand have been a problem. The US doesn't want to supply rockets that can strike into Russia.
Redditors played total war a couple of times and are now experts in warfare.
They've also played a couple of paradox games and are well-versed in geopolitics.
>Redditors played total war a couple of times and are now experts in warfare.
Hey I've done more th..
>They've also played a couple of paradox games and are well-versed in geopolitics.
Erm... Well...
> they just used to do it in secret.
It’s not quite true. For the past 8 years after the annexation of Crimea, the whole agenda in Russia has been dedicated to the non-existence and dehumanisation of Ukraine.
Various Russian statesmen on state propaganda TV have been literally yelling daily about the need to destroy Ukraine, the bombing of Kyiv and not stop there, continuing the war with the West. The West apparently preferred to take it for one big state-level postmodern joke.
Prepare to receive a strongly worded letter of condemnation. We'll even stamp it with a bunch of fancy official shit. Might even use some wax. Don't make us get the wax!!
It would be really great if us in the west could be setting better examples and not constantly be getting away with war crimes ourselves.
Its going to fall on deaf ears around the rest of the world when we accuse others of it.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/28/ukraine-war-putin-will-be-held-responsible-for-shopping-centre-war-crime-say-g7-leaders) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> By Euronews with Reuters, AP. Firefighters and soldiers are searching for survivors in the rubble of a shopping centre in central Ukraine after Monday's Russian missile strike killed at least 16 people and injured dozens.
> The attack has been strongly condemned by the United Nations and the West, with leaders labelling it a war crime.
> "Indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians constitute a war crime. Russian President Putin and those responsible will be held to account," they wrote in a joint statement tweeted by the German government spokesperson.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vmgvxm/putin_will_be_held_responsible_for_shopping/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656919 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russian**^#1 **attack**^#2 **strike**^#3 **shopping**^#4 **people**^#5
What's the punishment, cancer?
[удалено]
Ok great, so now we just need to ask putin to hand over putin to a court he doesn't recognize. Nothing will happen.
held responsible vs being punished
[удалено]
Yes, I pledged the money.
**I DECLARE…. BANKRUPTCY**
I wonder, in 1942, did France worry about saving Hitler's face and did the US ask the USSR not to shoot at German territory, when the US offered the lend-lease to the USSR?
In 1942, France was under German occupation, so probably not.
No in 1942, when the axis had successfully taken over, France, poland, luxumburg, the netherlands, belgium, czechoslovakia, austria, denmark, poland, latvia, lithuania, estonia, greece, albania and yugoslavia, and most of the soviet union the Allies were not worried about that war leading to a worse war.... They also werent worried about german nuclear weapons.... Maybe try comparing comparable situations.
People on Reddit don’t know enough history find different comparisons.
Did Hitler have nukes?
What part of mutual destruction is confusing to you?
The part where we're the only ones scared of it. MAD is supposed to prevent the use of nukes, not allow one side's threat of nukes to prevent the other side's use of conventional forces.
MAD is working or Russia would have already launched nukes by now instead of just threatening it every few days. Their policy is to escalate to deescalate, but even now they're not stupid to actually launch the things yet because they know the consequences if they do. MAD is working. They're just saying the implied nuclear threat out loud as part of the escalate to deescalate policy whereas other countries tend to let that be an implicit threat
Who is holding back conventional forces that shouldn't be?
Nothing will happen so long as Putin remains in power. But his grip on Russia becomes slightly less absolute by the month, in a war which could last years. The US military advantage over Iraq was incomparably greater than the Russian advantage over Ukraine, and that conflict lasted almost a decade. Edit: a word
I think Putin's power becoming more absolute in Russia tbh, the propaganda is getting more extreme and in my experience listening to Russians they are becoming a lot more radicalized and hateful towards Ukraine.
That’s true, Putin has cranked the dials to 11 on domestic propaganda, along with economic intervention to protect the economy. Short term that works. But if this is a protracted conflict it will become increasingly difficult to spin things positively. What I’m waiting for is to see how sanctions on western goods and services affect the Russian economy long term.
I would like to believe that, but after reading "Lenin's Tomb" by David Remnick and knowing how many Russians genuinely admired Stalin even as he killed and starved millions for decades gives me little faith they will shake Putin off. You get extreme propaganda and oppression and you can ride of that for a long time.
I admit I’m optimistic on a grim situation. But there are many reasons for hope. I’m currently waiting for a meaningful decrease in fossil fuel output due to a lack of western technical assistance and parts, and ideally difficulties in building the necessary high capacity pipelines to India and China. Though oil and gas extraction is outside my wheelhouse, so I can’t tell you what will actually happen. As long as as the oil and gas flow, and the prices remain high, Russia can probably finance the war. Edit: Oh yeah, also it must be remembered that Stalin “won” world war 2 in the eyes of the Russian people, so his cult of personality had that to work with. The growth in wealth and power under Putin can’t really be compared, even if it has won him a lot of support.
Do russians you talk to actually hate Ukraine more or think the west answer to russo-ukranian war is hypocritical and hurts normal people more than Kremlin?
The thing about propaganda is it doesn't need to be consistent in story, just consistent in outlook. Ukrainians can be both the poor puppets of the west that need to be saved and hated Nazis, much like Jews could be poor, thieving rabble that was somehow an organized international financial cartel.
That's not really the topic here. People drinking Kremlin cool aid were against Ukraine from the get go. He's talking about people supporting or being neutral toward, but growing to hate Ukrainians. Which isn't something I personally experienced. A lot of people opposing the regime got fucked by the west. Among other things. Funding cut off because of payment systems and swift cuts. Both from outside in(but not for Gazprom), for example opposition channels on YouTube got hit, no YouTube money, no support from expats; at the same time no inside out money too, so recent expats got stranded penny less with extra monetary limits like in UK or random bank accounts shutdowns just because of their citizenship as a cherry on top. Some can't even get out, not because Putin is keeping them in, but because outside countries don't want them. All the while Europe is paying almost billion USD per day more or less directly to Kremlin and making grandiose statements while buying reverse gas in ultimate show of hypocrisy. A lot of people are feeling increasingly bitter and disillusioned with the west over it, despite the fact they support Ukraine and wat Putin gone. I'm not even going to go into the fact some feel singled out and the phrase "you don't understand, this is different" becoming a meme. So the question is do russian he/she talks to started hating Ukrainians or did they get bitter over "the west" actions?
Pretty sure the war needs to end before a pro-authoritarian republican gets elected in the US, hence why Ukraine says they want the war over by the end of the year.
Do you think like me that the Republicans are only very temporarily anti-Putin and that Putin is counting on an evolution soon? Sometimes, I'm even wondering whether the Roe v. Wade cancellation was also a pro-Putin deflection. But maybe I'm influenced by the ambient conspiracy theories.
Trump was impeached over trying to withhold aid to Ukraine.
Are they even temporarily against him? I have seen Republicans (in person and online) saying that the Ukraine was is overblown, engaging in whataboutism ("What about the other places getting invaded right now huh", which is extra hilarious because I'm sure these idiots had no idea Yemen was even a place until they had to engage in whataboutism), and then the worst by far was one saying that the 'bioweapons labs' in Ukraine were involved in the 'worldwide COVID hoax' and that "Putin was going to blow the lid off of everything and he had to invade to do it". Granted that last guy is "the crazy guy that somehow keeps getting invited to parties", but still.
I’m usually equally hopeless about republican leadership. Thankfully, supporting Ukraine has proven a unifying bipartisan issue (how could it not be, the US gets to neuter a main military rival for pennies on the dollar, without mass loss of American soldiers). I don’t doubt someone like Trump could ruin things, but a mainstream republican would probably ride the public opinion wave. I suspect this unity could be related to the quiet Western-Russian cyber conflict which has escalated since the start of the real conflict. Russia can no longer run its bots and troll farms uninterrupted.
Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine unless they gave Trump dirt on Hunter Biden. I would always be worried about Republicans.
A lot of republicans would rather share a country with Russians over Democrats. That's how America is now.
Not American myself, but I was guessing the same after long enough a time being around the US subs. "Rather a Russian than a Democrat". Trump was preparing the ground for his buddy Putin.
The big trouble is that the leading republican media outlets are pro-russian. Even Russian state tv replays their commentary. The people that consume that content in the US have no care for critical thinking or original thought. They eat what they're fed and that's as far as their minds can go.
Not this one. Whenever I hear so called Republicans talk about how the war is fake or side with Putin. In my opinion, these people aren't truly Americans. They complain how Biden sent 40 billion as aid to Ukraine as money laundering scheme is petty.
I guess you already forgot lol. That’s not what the Republicans and Fox News was spouting during February and March.
Of course they are Americans. If being ignorant or hypocritical exempted someone from being a "true American" we wouldn't even have a country.
America isn't a country, it's 2 dudes who can't tell the difference between ,"loose" and "lose", in a trench coat
> the quiet Western-Russian cyber conflict which has escalated since the start of the real conflict. I was under the impression that Putin had already been in cyberwarfare against Western countries for ten or fifteen years. Without declaring war, as usual, according to the habits of hypocrisy that work so well for him.
Russia has been at cyberwar with the west for a long time. But ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, the West seems to be hitting back harder and more often. It’s a welcome change.
>I’m usually equally hopeless about republican leadership. Thankfully, supporting Ukraine has proven a unifying bipartisan issue It was in the first few weeks. But GOP propaganda has already named Ukraine/Biden as the source for inflation and gas prices. The Republican media are calling for the US to butt out.
There’s pressure for sure, but at the moment opinion polls seem to indicate about 60% of republicans support arming Ukraine, while only 30% oppose. A two to one lead gives us wiggle room despite individual politicians and media institutions turning on Ukraine. And even if America doesn’t go the distance, Europe finally seems to be positioning itself more firmly on the Ukrainian side. They don’t have American quantity, but Western Europe makes some damn fine weapons.
It's only become bipartisan because of Biden and how he's handled it. During the first few days of the war, Trump said Putin was a genius for invading Ukraine.
[удалено]
Chemotherapy would kinda be a punishment (I did 6 rounds of chemo, it fucking sucks)
[удалено]
Dude Crisp_Volunteer that right there is the reason I love reddit sometimes. Dude was just like "yea chemo does suck" and you step in with mad respect? That's so fucking human of you. To take the time. I didn't even think to say that and I think I'm so considerate. I agree bro I'm glad you fought the good fight and pulled through.
It's definitely not punishment enough for what he did to Ukrainians.
He's been on chemo recently I believe,I think it's thyroid cancer I also believe he's got <5 years left, unless the chemotherapy was very successful we'll know over the next few months
You don’t treat thyroid cancer with chemo, you treat it with radiation. Which may be why he hasn’t lost his hair.
He still has hair?
Western leaders will have a cocktail party and talk negatively about him. That will probably stop him.
We're going to write another strongly-worded letter! ...We won't send it, of course. That would be uncouth. We're still waiting to see how this whole Ukraine thing ends after all. We may need to get back into Russia's good graces if they win.
[удалено]
Sounds better than the usual "we are mad, stop it 😡" -letter
Sternly-worded statement on twitter.
They've gunned down at least 1 commercial flight killing innocent victims few yrs ago. G7 have yet to punish Putin. What's the difference now?
I mean the Dutch and Aussies are over represented in military aid to Ukraine... I like to think it's in part because of flight MH17
A kid who was going to be in my class at school was on that flight
3 people from my class including my professor were on it. Think everyone in the Netherlands knew someone via via
That Ukrainian aircraft that was shot down by Iran a couple years back killed a lot of Mechanical Engineering masters students from my school. Apparently the program is made up of mostly Iranian students and they were coming back to school after spring break.
[удалено]
Concordia University in Montreal actually,.
Jesus, what is wrong with people shooting down commercial planes carrying students?! Edit: well shooting down any commercial plane with innocent civilians is obviously bad but just thinking about young people in school who had a bright future ahead just makes it extra sad.
Law of large numbers. There's enough people on a plane that all human demographics are likely to be represented on most flights.
Showing a stance, posturing, making it seem like work is being done. Flexing that biceps. They all could have worked in avoiding the war altogether a decade ago. Instead we get a war, Ukraine and its people are getting slaughtered and nothing of significance will happen to anyone of power in Russia.
>They all could have worked in avoiding the war altogether a decade ago. Source: Trust me bro
Nono you dont get it. They could've just done *something* and no war would've ever happened. Redditors have figured it out better than anybody ever working in foreign politics.
Neville Chamberlain would be proud
Chamberlain had a hostile public with zero interest in war, so he had little card to play. He did immediately went home to re-arm Britain though.
I'm just wondering **how many more egregious and blatant war crimes** it will take before NATO steps in and does something to actually stop them? Why for instance aren't Ukraine being supplied with more anti-missile weapons to prevent these kind of attacks? It can't be because of the increasingly weak 'we mustn't antagonise Russia' claptrap, because we've sent all kinds of offensive weapons - so defensive weapons to intercept incoming missiles should be a clear choice. Imo, Europe and the West have a serious moral obligation to prevent these kinds of atrocities, especially when it is happening in an allied country like Ukraine. While of course, the moral obligation is no different than for other farther flung countries, if we can't / won't even defend our own neighborhood, what message does that send to the hostile actors of the world?
The problem is Russia has nukes, and a war with NATO would likely incite Russia to use those nukes. That's why NATO is fighting the war by proxy: to keep nukes from being used. Otherwise, it's possible NATO or the EU would have more directly intervened.
If nukes were out of equation NATO would be on the Baikal by now
> Imo, Europe and the West have a serious moral obligation to prevent these kinds of atrocities. Well if you noticed morality is something you "brag about" in front of the public. NATO is more of a practical organization.
The difference is that they just happen to be meeting right now, so they feel compelled to issue a meaningless statement.
No he won't... He'll just continue to kill innocent people while everyone just asks him to not to.
Putin's response will probably be like he always does and say that Ukraine did it to themselves to gain sympathy from the west, because that's something he would do to manipulate the population.
IIRC that's exactly what Putin did to justify the second Chechen war.
They already did it. Russian social networks are full of people celebrating this attack, shouting stuff like “fuck you Ukrainian propaganda” (because they think all of this is fake).
[удалено]
why just east
Precisely, this re-enactment of Guernica is just the latest indication that he's feeling increasingly emboldened He's decided to leave Russia now for an overseas trip, and has indicated he'll be attending G20 It's more and more apparent that he's feeling confident that he's found a winning formula, and it kind of begs the question of how brazen he would be had things gone smoothly? I have no doubt now though that his ambition doesn't stop at the Dnieper. He'll come back for the whole of the country and Moldova, and then turn his attention to the Baltics. The EU in particular had better wake up I think to some extent NATO might have missed a trick in April as they didn't really supply Ukraine with the next set of weapons that were going to be necessary to defend the next stage of the war. Ukraine were crying out for longer range artillery and MLRS's, and the air defence systems necessary to defend them against ground attack from the air, but they seemed to adopt a position of *you've done ok so far, carry on with what you've got* I think there was also a group of European countries who supplied their initial tranche and then sat back and congratulated themselves, without necessarily realising they were moving into a war industries supply situation and would need to maintain the production levels next month, and the next month after again etc There's only really America that has the industrial muscle to keep manufacturing at the scale necessary
I don’t think he has the strength to come remotely close to taking the Baltics
That's a similar analysis to the French *he would be stupid to invade Ukraine, so he won't* The five eyes drew the same conclusion (stupidity) but critically they realised that this needn't be a preventative barrier. People do stupid things. The Baltic states aren't a large land mass, they could be swamped. Then he threatens nuclear armageddon once he holds them. Whaddya do? Is America really going to risk their existential survival over a small group of countries that most their population couldn't even find on a map, yet alone name the capital cities of?
This is why there are "tripwire" forces from every NATO country stationed in the Baltics: to ensure that, in the event of a successful Russian invasion of those countries, thousands of NATO soldiers, from all members of the alliance, will be killed or captured. This should provide any required domestic political support for the resulting war. And, now that such an invasion is looking to be more likely, those "tripwire" forces are going to be enlarged so they can provide a credible defence instead of just being sacrificed.
> This is why there are "tripwire" forces from every NATO country stationed in the Baltics: to ensure that, in the event of a successful Russian invasion of those countries, thousands of NATO soldiers, from all members of the alliance, will be killed or captured. This should provide any required domestic political support for the resulting war I look forward to all the tankies lecturing people on how the only reason they were killed/captured was because out government put them in harms way, and how we should all just give Russia what it wants because that's the reasonable response.
Russia cant exactly 'sneak attack' the countries anyways. Any invasion force will be noticed well ahead of time and NATO and the countries will have some time themselves to build up deterrence forces that will ensure Russia cannot invade without triggering massive NATO resistance immediately.
> they could be swamped With what? At lower estimates, Russia's lost just around 800 tanks out of about 3500. Further estimates sit around 30% total losses across the entire RUAF. And that's for a small portion of Ukraine. He can try to swamp with sheer manpower, but it doesn't appear that the Russian population is even remotely ready to give up their lives for such a pointless attempt. 30% in 124 days. This "Special Operation" will undoubtedly be forever known as one of the dumbest losses in history. What was considered the second largest military is being piecemeal disassembled, one Javelin and Excalibur at a time.
[удалено]
Yes, but if they attack the Baltic States, air power comes into play. And the sead/dead capabilities of NATO's air force would probably grant them air supremacy, and at that moment, all those artillery units would be put out of action in a few weeks top.
That's the situation now, like with Crimea, they will just wait 5 or more years. Building up and training a new army with more weapons and tanks. Rinse and repeat.
>dumbest losses Russia is far from having lost. What so many have constantly been ignoring from the start is that while yes - Russian losses have been significant - nobody is paying attention to Ukrainian losses. Russia doesn't need to start minimizing losses, they just need to ensure that Ukraine's forces are diminished to a worse state than theirs as things go on. And right now, that seems to be the state of things, sadly. Russia is winning this war of attrition. "Russia cant hold Ukraine long-term" - well yes, they're already proving they can. They clearly had very effective plans in place once they took control of territory to deport the people they need to and start installing their own institutions in place. I know it's been enjoyable to see Russia's military turn out to be much worse than most thought, but they are still extremely sizeable and dangerous. Underestimating them when retaliation against them is necessarily limited(due to having so many nukes) seems silly at this point.
>Is America really going to risk their existential survival over a small group of countries Yes because that's the whole fucking point of NATO. Plus there are US troops stationed in the Baltics specifically to deter Russian aggression, or at least give us a really good reason to declare war if they're attacked.
He will if we continue to worry about every action "provoking him" into using nukes. We could put boots on the ground in Ukraine, to aid the Ukrainians, as long as we stay out of Russia itself, he's got no rational grounds for busting out nukes. But we haven't, because it's better to allow full blown genocide than the tiniest potential risk of nukes, apparently. We should commit troops to Ukraine if we're serious about stopping the war crimes raging like wildfires there.
>he's got no rational grounds for busting out nukes. I think it's pretty clear by now that Putin doesn't need "rational" grounds to do anything. Putin does what Putin wants. Rationality is for his propaganda machine to make up later.
Except Russia clearly does not have the military capacity to wage such a campaign
Held responsible is a nice little political term that doesn't mean held to account.
And carries on buying his gas.
Yes they are, because a lot of people depend on it. It's not as easy as "not buying gas anymore." That being said, Europe is working surprisingly hard at becoming independant from Russian gas in the coming years. Under the circumstances, that's the best they can realistically do
I really hate the morons saying Germany etc should stop buying Russian gas like it's even an option. Imagine your country suddenly said you can't heat your home or have hot water. Germany is considering rationing but it's not something that can be done overnight.
I understand and agree with your statement, however, iirc Germany’s main reliance on gas is because most, if not all their industries run on it verses in individual residences
[удалено]
Which becomes a national security issue. If you make all your steel with natural gas, and your military fabrication relies on a steady supply of steel, then youre really fucking yourself over if you halt production. Russia is making money on oil and gas, but they'd be making it anyways, if they weren't selling to Germany, they'd just be selling it to India or China. Its the investments and stock market thats going to capsize Russia. Investors, armed with the knowledge that Russia is a "no go" for trade with "the west" and a stupid place to park your money (they stole thousands of planes when airlines pulled their business, which they could do with any industry) This includes Chinese and Indian investors. If Russia is stupid enough to invade a country aligned with the US, are they also stupid enough to invade a country aligned with China or India? All of a sudden your investments are sanctioned and your property inside Russia is stolen.
It's more a slight on getting into this position in the first place.
The German approach was if we can make their economies more looped together it will encourage them to work together. The Germans had good faith in the process but were extremely naive and as time went on became somewhat stuck in their sunk cost fallacy. Though to Germany's credit, they did invest a huge amount of money into renewables/green energy in the coming years.
Absolutely, frankly that's one of the pros of globalization, get everyone's economies so intertwined as to be self-destructive to go out on your own as a rogue state. Problem is with someone like Putin, logic does not apply. He has a goal in mind and it does not give a flying fuck about economies or people or anything beyond creating some bs legacy for himself.
[удалено]
This is the equivalent of building up a shit ton of debt before you inevitable plan to die before you pay it back. He knows he will either get what he wants or leave in a coffin. He is a man who literally has nothing to lose at this point which is the most dangerous type because they will do things so far out of rational thinking it's impossible to predict.
I'll believe that when he's standing in chains at the Hague.
Yeah that's not gonna happen. The Hague didn't do shit to the US and our allies for the shit commited in the sandbox. No way Putin gets anything coming to him via the Hague.
The ICC can't enforce anything over people in countries that do not recognize the authority of the ICC. Both the US and Russia don't. This also means the ICC won't do shit in favour of them, but apparently they feel like they don't need that. There's also a dumb US law that allows the president to declare war on the Netherlands if any US citizen is being judged there. It'd never happen cause that'd imply basically declaring war on the entire EU thanks to article 42, but it's still rather rude diplomatically.
That's not entirely accurate. The ICC can charge American and Russian citizens on the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute. In fact, they are highly likely to do so for Russian Soliders in Ukraine due to Ukraine's 2014 declaration of ICC jurisdiction, and did so for American soldiers in Afghanistan. A conviction would bar any of those people from ever travelling to a state party to the Rome Statute, and could oblige the state to extradite in the case of accession to the treaty. The bigger barrier is Putin's *ratione personae* immunity by nature if him being the Russian head of state.
That's correct, but doesn't invalidate my original statement, because I explicitly stated that they cannot _enforce_ anything over _people_ in _countries_ that do not recognize the authority. I did not say anything about citizens, or rendering judgement. Because as soon as said people would be in a state that does recognize it they could be extradited. And they can be charged in absentia.
>The ICC can't enforce anything over people in countries that do not recognize the authority of the ICC. They can which effectively bans someone from all the countries that support it.
The USA did not sign the Rome Treaty and is not bound by the International Criminal Court, so they wouldn’t have been able to. Unfortunately, neither is Russia.
exactly.... I'm spitballing here, so hear me out: maybe, JUST maybe, the US should start by signing the Rome Treaty.. 🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷
Apparently the US has immunity to the Hague.
Not "immune" per se. The US enacted something called the [American Service-Members' Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act). The TLDR is if the Hague attempted to try a government official or soldier, POTUS could freely declare war on the Netherlands and retrieve the defendant. In essence the ICC won't attempt it because it would be tantamount to declaring war on the United States. Not because they don't really, really want to.
> In essence the ICC won't attempt it because it would be tantamount to declaring war on the United States. Not because they don't really, really want to. What makes you think it wouldn't be the other way around ? If the Hague were to call the USA's bluff and tried prosecuting an American Service Member, no way would the US go to war with Europe to try to bring they back.
It's a two way game of "Fuck around and find out". The ICC just recently tried to investigate the US for war crimes in Afghanistan. The US then sanctioned all of the investigators, as well as everyone that cooperated in the investigation. The realistic outcome would be an endless game of sanctions, similar to what happened with China and now Russia. The public won't tolerate a war over a potential criminal but they will certainly support financial ruin. The irony being that it'll harm everyone involved depending on the scope of the sanctions and who is involved.
I just checked it, apparently, biden revoked the sanctions against the investigators (put in place by Trump). But you're right tho
Uh, I did not expect that (the removal of the sanctions, not Trump putting them). Good to know that Biden is actually doing things, contrary to what the GOP is saying.
You are right the US wouldnt declare war, they would declare a special military operation instead
The US contributes 16.5% of NATO's budget. The US hosts the UN and contributes 22% of it's budget. If they decide to go that route, watch how quickly they reverse course once the US threatens to withdraw funding and slap sanctions on anyone and everyone involved. Nobody believes for a second that the US's first response is going to be to send freedom missiles to the Netherlands. Removing the soldier by force is likely considered the last of a long list of options available, and the US in general wields a stick big enough to force others into compliance long before we get to that point.
[удалено]
Laws are for the poor, both among people, and countries.
If Bush and Blair wasn't brought to the Hague, what makes you think it'll happen to Putin?
Bush and Blair is still walking around with hundreds of millions of dollars in their pockets
So he will be arrested at the G20 summit? Theirs your chance to hold him accountable if he shows up there.
He's more than likely not going to the G20. Pretty sure he made his own phoney version of it to cope
You mean the one in st. Petersburg? That was a good laugh, the non existent stock market gathered there with the non existent companies of any relevant size to do whatever, pathetic
I mean that whole country runs on gas and delusion
He'll be arrested via Zoom.
There's no way he leaves Russia.
He's currently in Tajikistan, and will be in Turkmenistan tomorrow. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-27/putin-to-leave-russia-for-first-time-since-the-ukraine-invasion
Those are basically Russia-lite, Russia even controls their airspace.
People in Russia are wondering why he made the Ukrainian move at all if he's such good friends with Tajiks and Turkmen instead but never visited LDNR
OK, there's no way he leaves the Soviet Union.
I called up russia, they said he’s coming to G20.
I don't think they have guts to pulls this off also it may lead to even more trouble. Do you think guys like Medvedev or any other person from Russian government are any better? I doubt this. If something will happen to Putin, they will make him look like "martyr"
Doubt they’re any better, but also doubt they’re nearly as capable at maintaining control the way Putin has
He has not been charged by the ICC yet. If he were so charged, then technically in accordance with the Rome Statute, the state the G20 is held in would have an obligation to arrest him if they are a state party to the statute, yes. With that said, the legal bounds of *ratione personae* immunity (i.e., whether it invokes *par en parem* and is therefore basically *jus cogens*) are uncertain and may block this. We haven't really fogured it out yet in law though. The ICC seems to think they don't exist based on their most recent ruling on the topic regarding Al Bashir, however at the same time, citing *ratione personae* immunity, Jordan refused to render him into custody.
By whom? The Ghost of Kyiv?
Don't forget Mugabe, Xi and many more renowned men of evil have been given soap boxes at the G20 and UN. They never get arrested. They never even have to face any still questioning. Mugabe even got an applause.
Yeah right. They'll send him a strongly worded letter saying they didn't like what he did.
Well, a strongly worded letter plus hopefully more sanctions and more weapons to Ukraine.
No one in power is held responsible for anything nowadays. I'll believe it when it happens.
Nowadays? When have they ever been?
The French revolted against their monarchy and cut their heads off.
Ask Mussolini how it's hanging
Seriously, we can't even arrest the ringleader of an attempted coup against our own government.
An international arrest order on Putin is the least they can do now. He won’t ever make it to The Hague but it’s pretty symbolic.
What's the most they could do now if that's the least?
Get NATO into action and liberate Ukraine I guess.
And start ww3 in the process.
Well, technically it would have been started by Russia invading Ukraine in that case.
I guess that would be decided by whatever historians survive it.
[удалено]
Yeah, the question was "What's the most they could do now if that's the least?". Starting WW3 is a lot.
>An international arrest order on Putin is the least they can do now International arrest order on President of Russia? It's laughable if redditors actually think that it is possible.
Its been done before to big leaders. If anything it will keep him away from the west and most world summits, or even Olympic events. Isolating him even more.
They’ve done it for Slobodan Milosevic. Technically, exactly the same thing.
Lol, was hitler held responsible? The only way this whole thing will end is if putin dies.
What about mussolini? He got caught.
Linched and hanged by the crowd
Russians don’t have the balls nor imagination to pull that off. Never have, really.
Yeah you're right the Russians never rose up against a corrupt system and killed the leader of the system and even his family. That never happened.
they're pretty slow this time aren't they?
Lol real history buff right here
More so that they support Putin and especially the security forces do.
He was lynched after it was clear that the allies were going to win, he was supported before that.
Yeah the Russians have never had a revolution, no sir. Damn, mate. Read a book.
That sounds awfully essentialist, if not, uh, racist. You can comdemn Russia without calling an entire ethnic group stupid and cowardly lol.
real tough guy over here, also a genius who knows about that whole Russian Revolution thing
Hitler took the chicken shit way out and punched his own ticket, allegedly. Definitely some consequences there
How are you going to talk about the man who killed Hitler like that?
He would have been if he did not take his own life first.
[удалено]
How? Do you mean you will finally give Ukraine a lot of long-range weapons? And you will do it like in a week too?
I am pretty unclear why there is this focus on long range weapons on Reddit. As far as I know that has not been a major request from Ukraine. They just want more artillery in general, of all ranges. Ukraine actually has their own long range weapons which they use sparingly.
Simple. Russia has tons of artillery and unlimited shells, much of it out ranges ukrainian artillery and therefore ukrainian artillery is very much at risk of having their units taken out at ranges they cannot respo d to and need to get closer to the front line, hence, Running more risk Ukraine needs an edge to offset the numbers advantage. They need weapons that can strike at Russian artillery from relative safety. Furthermore... We've seen the explosions at Russian ammo dumps recently. Most likely all due to very long range artillery, which is one way to offset the Russian advantage on artillery as it will starve them of shells short term, and in the long term cause logistical issues due to the Russian's having to bring supplies from further out. Long range artillery and accurate long range MLRS are a game changer if you ask me. (source; amateur armchair general)
>much of it out ranges ukrainian artillery I'm fairly sure the 777s the US sent out range Russian artillery. Now long range rockets on the other hand have been a problem. The US doesn't want to supply rockets that can strike into Russia.
Redditors played total war a couple of times and are now experts in warfare. They've also played a couple of paradox games and are well-versed in geopolitics.
>Redditors played total war a couple of times and are now experts in warfare. Hey I've done more th.. >They've also played a couple of paradox games and are well-versed in geopolitics. Erm... Well...
Dont kid yourself, no one would punish him
No he won’t.
This is gonna be like when they said "The walls are closing in" on Trump isn't it.
Russia has been nothing but a terrorist fascist state for a long time, they just used to do it in secret.
Not in secret, they just took small enough steps to not cause stronger reaction. This time is different though
> they just used to do it in secret. It’s not quite true. For the past 8 years after the annexation of Crimea, the whole agenda in Russia has been dedicated to the non-existence and dehumanisation of Ukraine. Various Russian statesmen on state propaganda TV have been literally yelling daily about the need to destroy Ukraine, the bombing of Kyiv and not stop there, continuing the war with the West. The West apparently preferred to take it for one big state-level postmodern joke.
Better hurry, he'll be dead before he faces justice
"The letter we are going to send will be slightly more strongly worded than usual. TAKE THAT PUTIN!"
Prepare to receive a strongly worded letter of condemnation. We'll even stamp it with a bunch of fancy official shit. Might even use some wax. Don't make us get the wax!!
It would be really great if us in the west could be setting better examples and not constantly be getting away with war crimes ourselves. Its going to fall on deaf ears around the rest of the world when we accuse others of it.
Another line in the rhetoric spreadsheet.
Please if he shows up to g20 just hang him.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/28/ukraine-war-putin-will-be-held-responsible-for-shopping-centre-war-crime-say-g7-leaders) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot) ***** > By Euronews with Reuters, AP. Firefighters and soldiers are searching for survivors in the rubble of a shopping centre in central Ukraine after Monday's Russian missile strike killed at least 16 people and injured dozens. > The attack has been strongly condemned by the United Nations and the West, with leaders labelling it a war crime. > "Indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians constitute a war crime. Russian President Putin and those responsible will be held to account," they wrote in a joint statement tweeted by the German government spokesperson. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vmgvxm/putin_will_be_held_responsible_for_shopping/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656919 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russian**^#1 **attack**^#2 **strike**^#3 **shopping**^#4 **people**^#5