Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

i am not american lol, i simply despise these internationalist virtue signalers and their cuck courts.
you want russian generals tried and punished, have ukraine capture and execute them, i don't mind at all. just be honest about what it is (victor's justice) instead of grandstanding about muh international law and pretenses of neutrality and all that annoying propaganda shit these institutions are built around.
International Law is an attempt to avoid wars which are incredibly destructive.
It's reasonable to desire that. It's psychotic to want more war and destruction as means to "fix things".
Wars never fix shit, they just create a cycle of resentment and violence. Trials are a much better way to deal with the abhorrent, egotistical individuals who sent thousands of young males to die for NOTHING.
This is especially true for wars of conquest, as defensive wars are sadly unavoidable.
My last on this, last time I dared have an opinion that could've been interpreted as "anti-NATO" I was threadbanned for a week, with some unknown janny cutting that short.
Incredibly obnoxious crap to be unable to have some nuance.
 
Then you will forever be hated by the people you bombed the same way we in East Europe hate Russia. You will never be a benevolent hegemon or loved by your allies. Everyone will know all is fake and will wait for your downfall and destruction.
People that order crap like leveling Mariupol must be punished. Some people fight because they think their cause is just, some just for more power.
To paraphrase Tonto, what do you mean everyone, yerp man?

Why should we care about the opinions of people who won't spend their own blood and treasure to protect themselves, and show such ungratitude for us spending ours to protect them? Your love? Your hate? Who cares? What are you gonna do about it? The sheer presumption of it all. You hide behind our skirts. Then you try to dictate to us? Nah fam

Be sure to send your wishes for muh downfall in writing, on nice soft paper please. Then we can use them as asswipes, only way they'll have any worth
 
Prighozhin is apparently cut off from official channels as part of inter Kremlin chimpanzee rivalry.

 
We absolutely should be able to prosecute the winner of a war. Saying that a country should be allowed to commit atrocities just because they're powerful, that's vatnik logic.

Of course, this ignores the practical realities like you can't enforce laws effectively in an active conflict. Nor can we expect the courts to be free from corruption and political meddling. And to an extent, a country owes it to their own soldiers not to sell them out.

But I think this is besides the point. Looking at the article:
American military leaders oppose helping the court investigate Russians because they fear setting a precedent that might help pave the way for it to prosecute Americans. The rest of the administration, including intelligence agencies and the State and Justice Departments, favors giving the evidence to the court, the officials said.

Or in other words, this isn't a case of America saying "Hague Bad". They just don't want to make rules that would get themselves in trouble.

Now, this is a pretty dirty thing to do, but as far as I can tell it's a purely legal manoeuvre. So @AgendaPoster I think the concern is a bit overblown, or at least it's a minor issue compared to something like the Hague Invasion Act, which is absolutely intended as a way to get away with war crimes.
 
Prighozhin is apparently cut off from official channels as part of inter Kremlin chimpanzee rivalry.

I can foresee accident in future after his unit is depleted against Bakhmut
 
We absolutely should be able to prosecute the winner of a war.
who is this "We" you are talking about, and what gives them any right to impose their laws and jurisdiction on sovereign nations? by doing such a thing you would declare yourself superior over the nations of the world, claiming for yourself a supreme position of worldwide authority that supersedes all national borders and laws.

to actually carry out such a blatant violation of national sovereignty you would need extraordinary power, power which the international cuck court thankfully does not have, because no nation with real power supports it.

for reference:
icc.png
only the countries in green accept the ICC. note how all the major players on the world stage (america russia china india) reject this institution, only the weak willingly submit to it.
 
who is this "We" you are talking about, and what gives them any right to impose their laws and jurisdiction on sovereign nations? by doing such a thing you would declare yourself superior over the nations of the world, claiming for yourself a supreme position of worldwide authority that supersedes all national borders and laws.

to actually carry out such a blatant violation of national sovereignty you would need extraordinary power, power which the international cuck court thankfully does not have, because no nation with real power supports it.

for reference:
View attachment 4741132
only the countries in green accept the ICC. note how all the major players on the world stage (america russia china india) reject this institution, only the weak willingly submit to it.
...like I said, a country owes it to their own soldiers not to fuck them over. And in practice, their ability to do anything is limited.

What I said is that we should have ways to prosecute combatants, even if they win. E.g Russia did some fucked up shit in Chechnya. In an ideal world, somebody would be held accountable. Preferably without having to invade Russia and capture generals.

Of course, in real life nothing happens and General Corruptovich walks free, because of all the highlighted reasons. And of course in real life the judgements are politically motivated too. I do not disagree with you at all that the ICC is rather impotent and silly.

That doesn't mean the concept of an international governing body is inherently bad. Nor is it a "supreme position of worldwide authority" even if it had actual power, because it's limited in scope. Likewise NATO is not some supreme military entity even though all its members are obligated to follow it, including the USA (Otherwise Article 5 would have no bite).

All this is moot because the USA isn't even breaking the rules in this case, they're just lawyering.
 
Its US MIC its most likly already developed and they developing for the stuff to replace that stuff like with NGAW program and ofc the whole *checks notes* um lets see:
Abrams X (autoloader with unmanned turret, prob next gen thermals, hard kill APS, next gen armor system that is classified and so on)
View attachment 4737964
Then Bradley replacement is either griffin III or redback (hard kill APS, 50mm autocannon, with ability to mount a 105mm turret on on the platform, and more classified shit.)
View attachment 4737996 View attachment 4738004
Griffin III by general dynamics / Hanwha Defense/Oshkosh redback

plus more there are talks about replacing Stryker or updating to Striker x standards
View attachment 4738016

Like if you think about it US gets multiple MIG-25 incidents where they get scared then develop shit that is lightyears away form the stuff that China or Russia has and all of the second you have a literal most technological advanced military in the world where even talks about in NGSW program with smart optics and I quote to be overpowering and unmatched in the field everywhere anytime anyplace. Ok sorry for the rant but if russia is getting their shit pushed in by stocks left form cold war like HIMARS MLRS and now recently used GLSBD ammo and ofc now with JDAMS making their way in there as well. What chance does Russia has if US gets boots on the ground with their toys and trained equipment.
It's kind of funny how since the 50s every time Russia over-exaggerates its new military tech the US take another leap ahead that probably wasn't strictly necessary. The US has and is working on expanding real-time tracking of its troops in-field, while Russia can't even figure out how to integrate satnav in its tanks or aircraft. Russia pretends its going to make advanced body armor standard, so the US creates the NGSW program. Russia makes designs the only 5th generation fighter with absolutely no stealth capability and a shitload of design and operational problems, so the US starts preparations to design a 6th generation fighter. The only militarily relevant tech I'm aware of the US is behind on is air-to-air missiles, which might be corrected with AIM-260s (plus the pk of the PL-15 isn't necessarily known, and can seemingly only be carried by generation 3.5 fighters).
 
One little error there - TNT is not dynamite; that misnomer came from cartoons because TNT is a much shorter word to put on the sticks. The proper definition of dynamite is nitroglycerin soaked into diatomaceous earth. Sawdust and wood pulp is used to make Gelignite which is used as an alternative to dynamite, but it is not as powerful and has a shorter shelf life as noted.

TNT was discovered in 1863, but its explosive properties weren't actually discovered until 30 years later (it was so much less shock sensitive to the point it was first assumed to be inert and used as a dye). Soon after its explosive discovery which meant it was far safer to handle, European militaries started using it in artillery shells.
Aside from its late discovery it was also initially very expensive compared to the much cheaper guncotton that was in use at the time. Mixing dye in batches isn't quite as cheap as letting cotton dissolve into nitric acid, even if it does have to be carefully washed to ensure you're left with nitrated cellulose as opposed to various impurities. Due to the cost TNT was initially a 50/50 mix with black powder in shells when used as a bursting charge. As to nitroglycerin, it stuck around because as something far more powerful than TNT it had its uses, even if it was too unstable even in diluted form to withstand the kick in the pants being fired out of a gun barrel gives something. Of course, it really wasn't all that stable even with mixed with guncotton and a stabilizer and squeezed into cords and dried for use as high-potency smokeless powder, as the British battlecruisers at Jutland will attest to.

(There's an entire rabbit hole of unsafe everything that lead up to that whole debacle, but the nitroglycerin certainly didn't help matters. If USS Boise had been using any sort of nitroglycerin powder for her guns the ship would have been blown to bits after taking that hit to the ammo magazines.)

For the Civil War, and really up until right before the turn of the century, it was all black powder. Black powder for gunpowder, black powder as a bursting charge in shells...
Or in other words, this isn't a case of America saying "Hague Bad". They just don't want to make rules that would get themselves in trouble.
To be fair, the Hague, like all those other internationalist groups, has a nasty tendency to go after people on the wrong side of history. Just look at everyone accusing Israel of war crimes for blowing up the ammo dumps Hamas puts beneath hospitals and schools.
It's kind of funny how since the 50s every time Russia over-exaggerates its new military tech the US take another leap ahead that probably wasn't strictly necessary. The US has and is working on expanding real-time tracking of its troops in-field, while Russia can't even figure out how to integrate satnav in its tanks or aircraft. Russia pretends its going to make advanced body armor standard, so the US creates the NGSW program. Russia makes designs the only 5th generation fighter with absolutely no stealth capability and a shitload of design and operational problems, so the US starts preparations to design a 6th generation fighter. The only militarily relevant tech I'm aware of the US is behind on is air-to-air missiles, which might be corrected with AIM-260s (plus the pk of the PL-15 isn't necessarily known, and can seemingly only be carried by generation 3.5 fighters).
Cold War Technological Development.png
The USA was absolutely convinced for most of the F-15's development cycle that the MiG-25 and its gigantic wings was a hyper-maneuverable superfighter, and the Russians of course were in no hurry to convince us otherwise. And then it turns out its made out of stainless steel to avoid corrosion thanks to its intended use as a dedicated super-fast bomber interceptor so once loaded up with fuel, lubricants, hydraulic fluid, etc, it weighs more than a T-34 and has a higher wing loading in flight than even the lawn dart called the F-104. The irony is that it was built to defeat a threat that never, ever materialized, the USA discarding the high-altitude super-bomber concept in favor of low-level penetration craft designed to hug the terrain and avoid radar in the first place, the strategic annihilation role being handed over to ICBM's, the B-52 itself increasingly relegated to the standoff role as our cruise missiles improved, and the B-1B also a high-speed low-level strike platform.
 
Just one Brigade in the city? Team Zigger told me the entire Ukrainian Army was there and getting slaughtered.

Well see its just one brigade left because Wagner has killed the rest. That's why they're out of ammo, naturally.
Remember Russia got access to all sorts of Nazi tech. Obviously they got the tech that made all the 6 million jews vanish without a trace and used it Bakhmut which is why only the russian side of the front is litered with corpses.

The US coast they are referring to here is Alaska.

Reminder that Russia's entire subfleet is about 70, that includes all hulls including DIE and those under refit, reserve and construction.
Their active nuke fleet is 11 boomers, 7 missile boats, and 5 attack

Compared to the US Navy (which only runs nukes) with 14 boomers, 4 missile boats, and 52 attack subs.


The ICC & the eurocuck bureaucrats can fuck straight off.
This is absolutely based.

We absolutely should be able to prosecute the winner of a war. Saying that a country should be allowed to commit atrocities just because they're powerful, that's vatnik logic.

Of course, this ignores the practical realities like you can't enforce laws effectively in an active conflict. Nor can we expect the courts to be free from corruption and political meddling. And to an extent, a country owes it to their own soldiers not to sell them out.

But I think this is besides the point. Looking at the article:


Or in other words, this isn't a case of America saying "Hague Bad". They just don't want to make rules that would get themselves in trouble.

Now, this is a pretty dirty thing to do, but as far as I can tell it's a purely legal manoeuvre. So @AgendaPoster I think the concern is a bit overblown, or at least it's a minor issue compared to something like the Hague Invasion Act, which is absolutely intended as a way to get away with war crimes.
And to an extent, a country owes it to their own soldiers not to sell them out.
Key point there.

Major issue with the ICC is you have a bunch of butt-hurt terrorists claiming that Uncle Achmed got ventilated and that's a war crime because he was only carrying a gun near where rounds had come from, and there's not clear video of him actively firing at anyone. Which is a whole different can of worms than literal mass graves of children, elderly & people with their hands bound behind their back

I'd back something like the ICC if the requirement was "all judges and any juries have to be comprised of individuals who have served in a uniformed service, taken direct fire, and lost at least one friend in active combat".
 
A liveblog from the Torygraph


This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.
 
View attachment 4744192


Why are people listening to this faggot, again? I thought he died of HIV years ago.
You could interpret it in two ways:
One is stating the obvious - the war IS technically fueled by American "empire" as they're supplying Ukraine so they could keep fighting, but that dismisses third parties such as Poland and Slovakia who doesn't belong to any "empire" and have also helped substantially, as well as the fact that it's the right fucking thing to do, all things considered.
Second would be shifting the blame for this war from Russia on others, purportedly to appease them and pave the way for "peace", even though it was Russia who outright invaded Ukraine and literally initiated the war.
So what was motherfucker actually saying?
 
View attachment 4744192



Ok yes only the Russian Empire actually sent troops across a recognized border, but really isn't it also the US's fault for giving Ukraine weapons to resist them?
 
Back