Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[Zachowon]

How did they break the conventions? They have to do it in a way that is more than the west did.

Also you already agreed what they did to Russians does not count as a war crime. The soviets did not sign the conventions thus they were not protected by it.


Finally a real war crime. The Nazis did some war crimes, no one has a "clean war" But their conduct towards the western allies were not any worse than the allies own actions.

Allied war crimes during World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Category:World War II prisoner of war massacres by Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Collective omniscient? What the Germans aren't God.

Yes you do, then all you can do is condemn and sanction it. But it wouldn't be a crime.


Because if they do it to yours you do it to them. The whole point of the laws of war is to make it easier on both sides.

I doubt it. Resistance forces don't have any "rear areas" where they can send their prisoners to be held in camps or whatever. So if they catch soldiers they can either let them go or kill them. While regular soldiers can either kill the enemy, decide to let it go, or capture them and send them back to the rear.

The Russian empire did sign it.
So they were bound by it, unless you mean the Soviet Union then you would be c9rrect.

And the Germans broke it in many more ways.
They broke every part of article two of the Hague conventions.
The west didn't force the nations they occupied to fight for them.
The west did not mass punish German or French citizens for helping the Germans if there were any.
The west did not loot in the way the Germans did, and took mostly small things.
You could argue strategic bombing, but very fee cities or towns were not defended by AA....which means it is not undefended.

You could argue the Soviets did this ans you would not be wrong.
I am not defending the soviets.

And I am not defending what the allies themselves did.
Because the winner wins and charges the loses obviously.
But majority of the killings of POWs by Western Allies were done because of revenge, orders given, or were guards for concentration camps.
Few were not.
And yes, rapes happen in all wars this is widely known.
No country is innocent of that.

But the first country to break the Hague was infact Germany.

 

[Marduk]

Yes you do, then all you can do is condemn and sanction it. But it wouldn't be a crime.

But that already in many cases fall under the elephant in the room problem - what is a law that is not enforced?
Who judges and enforces this stuff?
The sanctions and condemnations to many leaders are a bigger threat than the theoretical breach of international law.

Because if they do it to yours you do it to them. The whole point of the laws of war is to make it easier on both sides.

No, the whole point is that even if ISIL, Iran, North Korea or whatever decides to torture your POWs to death, you can't even waterboard or execute their people because that would be illegal.
If they were mutual you would have had a point (at most they would be unapplicable to such conflicts), but as things start, that's their most notable effect.

I doubt it. Resistance forces don't have any "rear areas" where they can send their prisoners to be held in camps or whatever. So if they catch soldiers they can either let them go or kill them. While regular soldiers can either kill the enemy, decide to let it go, or capture them and send them back to the rear.

Sometimes they absolutely do, even use them as hostages, like the FARC commies.
Also during Warsaw Uprising Polish resistance did take some prisoners, Wehrmacht and support personnel generally though, SS and Gestapo members were not given such favors.

 

[mrttao]

The Russian empire did sign it.
So they were bound by it, unless you mean the Soviet Union then you would be c9rrect.

And the Germans broke it in many more ways.
They broke every part of article two of the Hague conventions.
The west didn't force the nations they occupied to fight for them.
The west did not mass punish German or French citizens for helping the Germans if there were any.
The west did not loot in the way the Germans did, and took mostly small things.
You could argue strategic bombing, but very fee cities or towns were not defended by AA....which means it is not undefended.

You could argue the Soviets did this ans you would not be wrong.
I am not defending the soviets.

And I am not defending what the allies themselves did.
Because the winner wins and charges the loses obviously.
But majority of the killings of POWs by Western Allies were done because of revenge, orders given, or were guards for concentration camps.
Few were not.
And yes, rapes happen in all wars this is widely known.
No country is innocent of that.

But the first country to break the Hague was infact Germany.

> The west didn't do X
> Well ok they did, but they were just following orders or taking revenge
> But even when they did they didn't

I laughed. well, you are certainly very... patriotic.

 

[Zachowon]

> The west didn't do X
> Well ok they did, but they were just following orders or taking revenge
> But even when they did they didn't

I laughed. well, you are certainly very... patriotic.

Oh I did not say the Allies didn't rape or massacre POWs.
I just made sure to mention that everything the Germans did were a war crime from day one

 

[King Arts]

The Russian empire did sign it.
So they were bound by it, unless you mean the Soviet Union then you would be c9rrect.

The Russian empire died when the Soviet Union was born. The soviets themselves repudiated past treaties INCLUDING the laws of war. (Some sources will claim that their objection was that officers who are POW's are given better treatment than enlisted POWs, but thats a bit of an eyeroll)

And the Germans broke it in many more ways.
They broke every part of article two of the Hague conventions.

Can you not link to what you are talking about exactly?

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899

Article 2

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Is this what you are talking about? Did Germany do this often? Remember it applies to civillians in a territory that is UNOCCUPIED. The Germans killed most of the population in occupied territory.

The west didn't force the nations they occupied to fight for them.

Can you give a source on this? I'm talking about Axis forcing the enemy to fight against their own nation? I know the SS took volunteers from other nations, but you need to be specific on what you are accusing the Germans of doing. Also the west did force the Germans to perform dangerous work look at Norway and the mine despersal units which had hundreds die.

The west did not mass punish German or French citizens for helping the Germans if there were any.

Yeah they did.

Ben Ferencz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Someone who was not there could never really grasp how unreal the situation was ... I once saw DPs [displaced persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?[14] You know how I got witness statements? I'd go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone one up against the wall. Then I'd say, "Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot." It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.
Here is an example of hypocrisy.

The west did not loot in the way the Germans did, and took mostly small things.

No the west looted ALL GERMAN PATENTS! They took TONS of wealth from the Germans to enrich themselves, not to mention favorable trade deals that American or British companies would receive.

You could argue strategic bombing, but very fee cities or towns were not defended by AA....which means it is not undefended.

No I don't consider strategic bombing or starvation/sieges as war crimes. Though I do think the Atomic bombs were and should be seen as such.

But majority of the killings of POWs by Western Allies were done because of revenge, orders given, or were guards for concentration camps.

LOL. The same for the Germans. Most of the time when the Germans killed Western POW's it was because of revenge, or superior orders.
"I was just following orders"

But the first country to break the Hague was infact Germany.

Maybe they were at the start of the war. But prove that Germany was the first to commit war crimes against America first.

But that already in many cases fall under the elephant in the room problem - what is a law that is not enforced?
Who judges and enforces this stuff?
The sanctions and condemnations to many leaders are a bigger threat than the theoretical breach of international law.

That applies to all treaties, and everything nations do. Should we stop having trade treaties because we can't go to civil court for a "breach"

No, the whole point is that even if ISIL, Iran, North Korea or whatever decides to torture your POWs to death, you can't even waterboard or execute their people because that would be illegal.
If they were mutual you would have had a point (at most they would be unapplicable to such conflicts), but as things start, that's their most notable effect.

False, the reason the west does not respond with massacres or torture to those guys is because the west chose to do that. The treaty DOES ALLOW REPRISALS

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899

rticle 2

The provisions contained in the Regulations mentioned in Article 1 are only binding on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of them.

These provisions shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between Contracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power joins one of the belligerents.

Sometimes they absolutely do, even use them as hostages, like the FARC commies.
Also during Warsaw Uprising Polish resistance did take some prisoners, Wehrmacht and support personnel generally though, SS and Gestapo members were not given such favors.

Hmm I did not know that the resistance in the Warsaw uprising took prisoners? Obviously I don't blame them for killing SS since those groups were doing genocide(well in the east the Wehrmacht was doing genocide also)
But yeah interesting.

 

[Marduk]

That applies to all treaties, and everything nations do. Should we stop having trade treaties because we can't go to civil court for a "breach"

There's arbitration, international bodies, counter-sanctions and so on.
But with the war related stuff, well, if it's relevant, that means a war is already going on.

False, the reason the west does not respond with massacres or torture to those guys is because the west chose to do that. The treaty DOES ALLOW REPRISALS

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899

rticle 2

The provisions contained in the Regulations mentioned in Article 1 are only binding on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of them.

That's 1899 one, i think one of the later bans it.
Also, if nothing banned it, there would not be all the last 2 decades worth of lawyering around Guantanamo and similar situations where USA barely touched the idea of reprisals.

These provisions shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between Contracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power joins one of the belligerents.

Hmm I did not know that the resistance in the Warsaw uprising took prisoners? Obviously I don't blame them for killing SS since those groups were doing genocide(well in the east the Wehrmacht was doing genocide also)
But yeah interesting.

Yup. With resistance groups it varies massively by war, faction, even specific units sometimes, but some do aspire to follow basic laws of war.

 

[AmosTrask]

soviet legacy systems and that their dud rate is many times worse.

They were as high as 40% failure rate out of the Soviet factories and required maintenance and replacement of both the explosive compound and detonators every few years. Russians are particularly infamous for their lack of both due to graft. Even their nuclear weapons were not maintained beyond minimum to pad the CO's bank accounts. Russia has gotten to using explosives from the mid 40s for artillery shells. The cluster bombs they are now using are Chinese and North Korean copies. They have a worse failure rate, especially the North Korean munitions.

It was an open secret in the 90s that if you wanted nukes you could buy tactical warheads from the Bratva for around 500k, American cash only of course. The CIA and MI6 were usually their best customers.

 

[DarthOne]

ADAPTING TO THE EU'S REACH DIRECTIVE

Adapting to the EU's REACH directive - FN HERSTAL

The European Union has introduced a set of very wide-ranging regulations that have had a profound effect on all sectors of the economy that use potentially harmful substances, either as components or in their manufacturing process. That includes almost everything from chemical industries to...

fnherstal.com

The European Union has introduced a set of very wide-ranging regulations that have had a profound effect on all sectors of the economy that use potentially harmful substances, either as components or in their manufacturing process. That includes almost everything from chemical industries to agriculture. REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) aims to eliminate substances that create a hazard for the health and safety of workers during production, for anyone handling or using products, and for the environment.

Firstly, select substances to be eliminated in products and processes, then find alternatives, and develop, test and certify the modifications

REACH affects many of FN Herstal's products, both ammunition (for example chemicals used to make the propellant) and weapons (chemicals such as chromium trioxide which is used for surface treatments). When manufacturers of small arms and ammunition propose both military and civilian products, they share many components and processes so they are equally affected.

For FN Herstal, and other manufacturers, this has created major challenges. Substances used in products or in production processes had to be evaluated based on potential hazards identified. If a substance needed to be eliminated and replaced with a more acceptable substance, development work was necessary, followed by complete testing and certification.

An example is the replacement of dibutyl phthalate (DBP) in propellant powder. This has been used to adjust the burning rate of powder. Modification of the powder can affect its burning rate, and therefore the pressures created, and the time/pressure curve. These are critical factors that influence the reliability and safety of the cartridge and the weapon. The effects on pressure of high and low temperature also have to be tested, as well as the effect of ageing. Such tests have been extensively performed by FN Herstal prior to introducing the new DBP-free propellant in the ammunition product range.

Finally, avoid negative impacts for the customer

FN Herstal is determined that any modifications will not have negative effects for the user. This is why our teams always work with the objective that reliability, safety and interoperability for weapons and ammunition must be as good as, or better than before. Part life of weapon components is also given great importance. The design work and thorough testing needed to achieve compliance with REACH, while also ensuring that customers have a reliable source of top-quality products, is a long process. It has been in progress for several years and will continue for some time into the future. REACH was introduced in 2007, and is being implemented step by step, substance by substance. The goal is to achieve compliance as soon as possible without making production in the EU impossible or uncompetitive.

One of the most visible results of this change to FN Herstal's products is introduction of the FN AZURON® label for ammunition. Cartridges are labelled based on compliance of each of the three components that traditionally may contain hazardous substances: projectile (lead), propellant (DPB) and primer (lead styphnate and other heavy metals). Currently 90 percent of the ammunition range contains at least one component that has achieved some FN AZURON® level, and 17 percent of the ammunition range has progressed to a higher FN AZURON® level over the past three years. Some have all three components that meet the FN AZURON® requirements.

Compliance with REACH will be a long and complex process that requires considerable investment in time and money for FN Herstal in particular – and all firearms and ammunition manufacturers in general. However, for the user, it will be almost completely transparent, and will not require any compromises on the safety and reliability of the products. Each change will bring a considerable advantage for the health and safety of workers and/or users. The reduced impact on the environment will be beneficial for everyone, not only for the present generation, but also for generations to come.

The EU handicapping ammunition and firearms manufacturers while a war rages on their periphery with Russia is WILD.

Reminds me of how Brussels is trying to shut down farms "for climate charnge" on the cusp of a global food shortage with the war in Ukraine disrupting global wheat and fertilizer supply.

UNCTAD, the UN trade & development body
@UNCTAD
The war in Ukraine's impact on wheat supplies is particularly worrying for many developing countries.

For example, an @UNCTAD assessment shows 25 African nations import more than 1/3 of their wheat from Russia and Ukraine. For 15, the share is over half. http://bit.ly/3qd9N90


9:07 AM · Mar 17, 2022

Given the sudden upsurge in food processing plans going up in flames, farmland being bought up by Bill Gates, the Chinese and the World Economic forum, and how all of those have either an ax to grind with the Western world or think that the world has 'too many people', I lay even odds to them wanting a famine.

Both to help reduce the population and to crate a state of emergency where governments will be 'forced' to step in and be granted 'temporary emergency powers' (which will not be temporary), and people will get locked down and the goverment get even more power.

Though all this is probably better suited to being discussed elsewhere.

Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum

Short form? Made in the image of God. Long form, or form for people who refuse to believe in that, is the grounds for a doctoral dissertation in Philosophy and/or Theology. As a christian: you're speaking bullshit. Angels lack souls and yet are self aware to an extent. You want logic from...

www.the-sietch.com

 

[DarthOne]

FBI worked with Ukraine intelligence agency to remove social media accounts: House Judiciary report

FBI worked with Ukraine intelligence agency to remove social media accounts: House Judiciary report

The FBI and a Ukrainian intelligence agency flagged social media accounts in a plot to disrupt Russian disinformation, a House committee report said.

www.foxnews.com

The FBI colluded with a Ukrainian intelligence agency in an effort to disrupt Russian disinformation campaigns by flagging social media accounts in a failed effort that ensnared a verified Russian-language U.S. State Department account and others, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report released Monday.

The report said the FBI partnered with the SBU, one of Ukraine's intelligence agencies, to flag the accounts believed to have spread Russian disinformation. Both agencies flagged American accounts for removal, as well as those belonging to American journalists, the report said.

The FBI and SBU requested the removal or suspension of the accounts expressing pro-Ukrainian views or criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the report said.

Fox News Digital reached out to the FBI regarding the report but has not yet heard back.

"Regardless of its intended purpose in endorsing the SBU's requests, the FBI had no legal justification for facilitating the censorship of Americans' protected speech on social media," the report said. "In contrast to the Biden Administration's stated support for Ukraine, the FBI, on behalf of the SBU, flagged Americans' accounts and posts that were critical of Vladimir Putin and Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

The SBU was previously infiltrated by a network of Russian collaborators, sympathizers, and double agents, according to the report. Furthermore, the FBI appeared to not vet the American social media accounts or did so and carried out the requests anyway, the panel said.

The committee said the SBU's motives for flagging the accounts came after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's decision to fire the head of SBU in 2022 as the agency was "compromised by a network of Russian collaborators, sympathizers, and double agents."

The FBI relayed censorship requests from the SBU to Google and YouTube, the report said, with senior employee on Google's cybersecurity team saying they were "deluged with various requests" for the removal of content following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

"The employee testified that the primary sources of these requests for censorship were the Ukrainian government, other Eastern European governments, the European Union, and the European Commission," the report said. "The employee further testified that the U.S. 'Department of Justice would route [censorship] requests from foreign governments.'"

An employee for Meta, the parent of Facebook, spoke with the FBI about establishing "a 24/7 channel" for emergency requests.

"The censorship requests appear to have been driven, at least in part, by the SBU's quest for self-preservation," the report said.

The report came two days before FBI Director Christopher Wray is expected to testify before the GOP-controlled Judiciary Committee.

The hearing will put Wray face-to-face with several Republican lawmakers who have accused him of politically weaponizing the FBI against churches, parents and political opponents of the Biden administration.

Fox News' Lawrence Richard contributed to this report.

Interesting little thing I found:

 

[Bacle]

 

[Bacle]

No Olympics invite for Russia and Belarus for 2024.

 

[King Arts]

No Olympics invite for Russia and Belarus for 2024.

In the past I would have called this wokeism and opposed it. But that was before I learned that the Russians violated previous Olympic truces.

 

[Megadeath]

In the past I would have called this wokeism and opposed it. But that was before I learned that the Russians violated previous Olympic truces.

They also have quite likely the worst record for cheating at the Olympics, all politics aside.

 

[nemo1986]

They also have quite likely the worst record for cheating at the Olympics, all politics aside.

More than North Korea?

 

[Cherico]

More than North Korea?

North Korea is less blatant about it.

 

[Largo]

So I’m more worried about the aftermath and the cleanup of the cluster bombs and mines.

The Ukrainians aren't worried about it, and they're the ones who will have to eat any long-term costs. So why should we worry about it?

 

[mrttao]

The Ukrainians aren't worried about it, and they're the ones who will have to eat any long-term costs. So why should we worry about it?

The ukrainian oligarchs are not worried about it. That doesn't mean that nobody is worried about it.
Also "cost"? it isn't about money, it is about dead civilians

Heck, american oligarchs are probably really jealous. they wish they could toss cluster bombs into the american countryside where those filthy conservative peasants live.

 

[mrttao]

News today. Biden activates 3000 troops and deploys them to europe to prepare for war with russia

President Biden activates 3,000 military reserve troops for deployment to Europe to defend against Russia 😬

Man I miss that guy who started no new wars.

notthebee.com

Ordering the Selected Reserve and Certain Members of the Individual Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 121 and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct...

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Marduk]

So I’m more worried about the aftermath and the cleanup of the cluster bombs and mines.


Also, the attitude of ‘it’s okay when we do it!‘ hypocrisy with a side order of ‘ We can do it because we’re the Good Guys on the Right Side of History!’ that the American military and the West in general has just grinds my gears.

Wow, that must be very hard for you after nearly one and a half year of worrying about Russia dumping immense stockpiles of Soviet cluster bombs and mines all over Ukraine, which have significantly higher failure rates, and which despite us missing that, you must have certainly appropriately posted about all over the forum, because you of all people would never do anything hypocritical before calling "the West in general" out for its hypocrisy, right?
Right?
Right???

 

[mrttao]

Wow, that must be very hard for you after nearly one and a half year of worrying about Russia dumping immense stockpiles of Soviet cluster bombs and mines all over Ukraine, which have significantly higher failure rates, and which despite us missing that, you must have certainly appropriately posted about all over the forum, because you of all people would never do anything hypocritical before calling "the West in general" out for its hypocrisy, right?
Right?
Right???

Nice whataboutism.