Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 6

[Major Boredom]

Looks like russia wants to repeat history

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/yamqrh

 

[Dave]

Russia looking on in envy.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583800966754684928

"A Lada is better" say the Russkies

 

[sefeddt]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583864440910319617

 

[Dave]

I remember lots of people dying and civilians being shot at in the street by snipers just for fun.

Were you taking LSD or some other hallucinogenic at the time, Paul?

 

[tetrasect]

The troops that were supposed to take Kyiv were only issued with enough rations and fuel for three days. The rest of their luggage consisted of parade uniforms.

This was corroborated by CCTV footage of widespread looting of supermarkets and convenience stores (and even chicken coops) as well as the statements by RU POW's that were intervieved.

Statements by Russian officials are pointless because when Russia speaks, Russia lies.

Funny, this actually reminds me, there was a guy on here who fancied himself some kind of military strategist. Full of it, repeatedly proclaimed Ukraine's Kherson offensive was over less than a week after it started.

Got laughed off this forum, what a complete dolt!

Russian propagandists have been saying they will "Take Kiev in 3 days" since 2014 already.

Olga Skabeeva even said it would take 1-2 days.

Konstantin Sivkov, who was Captain of Russian reservists at the time said it would take a "maximum" of 3 days to take Kyiv in April 2014.

It's a common theme in Russia, like their stupid "Return to Berlin" fantasy.

In fact I'm pretty sure there was a guy on Russian TV just the other day that said they can take the whole of Ukraine in a day or two right now if they really wanted to!

 

[Dave]

Very funny.

"Ra Ra Rasputin, lover of the Russian Queen"

 

[Cosmik Debris]

What was Russia doing there

Take it up with him:

Last I checked, Syria literally asked Russia to be there. Who is denying Russia was in Syria lmao

 

[Blu82]

Did we forget Ukraine shelled a nuclear power station because Russia took it from them.


Last I checked, Syria literally asked Russia to be there. Who is denying Russia was in Syria lmao

I had a blast watching the Russians trying to explain the craters being the wrong round to the nuclear inspectors.

 

[Blu82]

No dude. Don't be absurd. Apart from the losses due to flooding, which will most likely include human lives. That dam represents billions of dollars worth of Ukraine's infrastructure. Why would any country do that to themselves? Blowing it puts their nuclear power station at risk too.

I should also note the paperwork signed by Putin regarding the plants new Russian owners so in my mind it becomes Russias problem if there is no water.

 

[Paulsie]

The USA see it differently, UNCLOS 82 succeeded 58 in their view. US courts held that to be true in US vs Postal.

On the Legality and Policy Ramifications of High Seas Seizures of Foreign Merchant Vessels for Violating U.S. Sanctions

In its efforts to enforce economic sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, the United States is straining the boundaries of traditionally accepted state behavior in some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. It is walking a tightrope.

www.lawfareblog.com

Globally, UNCLOS has subsumed the 1958 Convention as the international law of the sea, though it is unratified by the United States. In law of the sea disputes, the Supreme Court and multiple circuits hold that U.S. law incorporates UNCLOS only to the extent that it reflects customary international law. This leaves the 1958 Convention as controlling in U.S. courts. However, despite the U.S’s ratification of the 1958 Convention, courts considering it must still confront whether the relevant treaty provisions are “self-executing.” This distinction, which has perennially fuzzy edges, is instrumental to determining whether courts have jurisdiction to hear treaty law claims. Self-executing treaty provisions are those that can operate without implementing legislation. U.S. courts generally regard such provisions as equivalent to federal statutes when the treaty clearly authorizes executive action in “pursuance of its provisions” and where existing legislation is adequate to enforce the treaty provision. Provisions that are not self-executing may create international commitments but are not binding federal law absent associated implementing legislation. The vast majority of treaty provisions are non-self-executing.

U.S. courts maintain that their jurisdictional bounds are exclusively constitutional or statutory and that customary international law is insufficient to restrict their authority on the high seas absent Congress explicitly abdicating jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tackled self-execution of 1958 Convention Article 6—curtailing jurisdiction over foreign vessels in international waters—in United States v. Postal, which involved a drug-runner seized in the southern Caribbean. The Postal court found Article 6 not to be self-executing and therefore that it could not restrict the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. More broadly, international law defenses to U.S. jurisdiction generally fail unless the court holds the treaty provision to be truly self-executing or the claimant can prove the court is statutorily precluded from exercising jurisdiction in their specific scenario. While courts tend to uphold the principle of restricting the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, they are willing to distinguish applications of the protective principle, granting U.S. courts high seas jurisdiction over offenses committed in violation of United States criminal law. That Postal and its progeny give the U.S. government remarkable latitude to justify extraterritorial jurisdiction on the high seas creates enormous friction with both the 1958 Convention and UNCLOS.

So basically, US courts decide when US law takes precedence over international law in international waters. They can then go and prosecute someone for breaking international laws based on US laws.

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

'Take it up with him:

I quoted you

 

[Vorastra]

Keeping Covid distancing.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583238219566415872

I would fckin LOVE to see where that donation money is really going.

Literally just a PayPal account. Zero oversight. Ya bro, send me cash. I feed the dogs.

Would that be the one where the missile does a U Turn.

Video shows Russian official trying to convince nuclear inspectors a rocket turned 180 degrees before landing near Ukraine's nuclear plant

IAEA inspectors visited Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia plant, saying they wanted to "prevent a nuclear accident" after repeated shelling nearby.

news.yahoo.com

Maybe I'm blind. Where's the video of him doing this? I see a lot of still images and text telling me what to think though.
Is there a reason the original Business Insider article doesn't exist anymore, and that the only major outlet that seems to still have an article up is The Telegraph.

Weird.

I'd love to read the actual IAEA report detailing this.

I saw this video. Is he trying to say the missile didn't come from the angle ahead? No one will actually tell me what's happening the vid, just that HE LIED.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1565681855243980807/pu/vid/480x256/lxkL3-YV1cka8C3m.mp4?tag=12

He's pointing in the direction. Is he saying it didn't or did come from that direction?

 

[Vorastra]

"Ra Ra Rasputin, lover of the Russian Queen"

View attachment 1406939

Nice

 

[Vorastra]

I had a blast watching the Russians trying to explain the craters being the wrong round to the nuclear inspectors.

Craters or 1 crater.

 

[tetrasect]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/yaeyj3

 

[Vorastra]

Take it up with him:

Not sure why you quoting that comment. I said the opposite of what you said Russian simps were saying.

I like how that Reddit thread has been deleted though.

 

[Wut]

US bringing in mercenaries Titsup?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Maybe I'm blind. Where's the video of him doing this? I see a lot of still images and text telling me what to think though.
Is there a reason the original Business Insider article doesn't exist anymore, and that the only major outlet that seems to still have an article up is The Telegraph.

Weird.

I'd love to read the actual IAEA report detailing this.

I saw this video. Is he trying to say the missile didn't come from the angle ahead? No one will actually tell me what's happening the vid, just that HE LIED.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1565681855243980807/pu/vid/480x256/lxkL3-YV1cka8C3m.mp4?tag=12

He's pointing in the direction. Is he saying it didn't or did come from that direction?

Video footage shows a man speaking to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors at Zaporizhzhia plant with remains of a shell in front of them.

According to a translation by The Telegraph, he said while gesturing to the missile: "It fled from here and this is the direction of Nikopol. It did a U-turn. In principle, it landed and spun around." Nikopol is a city in southern Ukraine.

The video shows him gesturing at the missile and turning his hands to demonstrate a 180-degree rotation.

Video shows Russian official trying to convince nuclear inspectors a rocket turned 180 degrees before landing near Ukraine's nuclear plant

www.msn.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565667101058027521

 

[Matata]

Maybe ATACMS was never never necessary. The question is can these drones be produced fast enough in large enough quantalities?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583874160434241536

 

[Paulsie]

No dude. Don't be absurd. Apart from the losses due to flooding, which will most likely include human lives. That dam represents billions of dollars worth of Ukraine's infrastructure. Why would any country do that to themselves? Blowing it puts their nuclear power station at risk too.

No dude. Don't be absurd. You slipped up there. Just stick with the narrative.