When your "de-nazification" involves bombing hospitals and daycares and killing thousands of innocent civilians, then you're no longer in the right no matter what you call it.The De= nazification of the ukraine- as stated by Russia, seems like a legitimate goal.
Restraint wasn't involved. They went all out - but their military wasn't trained properly and their equipment wasn't up to standard.From the speeches I watch, Mr Putin seems to view the Ukrainians as fellow Slavs, which explains the restraint and pace of their operations.
The americans call that "collateral damage" yes? Are you saying then the immense casualties inflicted on IraQ, including hospitals and civilian deaths, would also be war crimes? IM not saying thr Russians are "right" Im saying I understand the "why"When your "de-nazification" involves bombing hospitals and daycares and killing thousands of innocent civilians, then you're no longer in the right no matter what you call it.
Restraint wasn't involved. They went all out - but their military wasn't trained properly and their equipment wasn't up to standard.
No. Collateral damage is accidental. These civilian bombings were intentional.The americans call that "collateral damage" yes?
Yes, any intentional civilian killings by any military party are war crimes.Are you saying then the immense casualties inflicted on IraQ, including hospitals and civilian deaths, would also be war crimes?
Sure, you can say it's because of a style transition - but, the full-scale invasion from Russia should have been over fairly quickly, since Russia is supposed to have one of the world's largest military forces. Seems there's quite a bit of incompetency on their part."All Out" ? I suggest looking up Stalingrad, Kursk, and Operation Bagration. That is all out. They know how to do that. The transition from a defensive military to an offensive one takes time.
So it's okay to invade a country and kill civilians just because the president claimed they're "de-nazifying"? You can claim any invasion of any country is justified because of a small number of extremists - which will exist in any country. Also President Zelenskyy himself is Jewish.De Nazification seems like something the Soviets would be very keen on- given the fact they lost 22 million people in WW2- If im not mistaken, there was a Waffen SS unit formed out of Ukranian volunteers in WW2.
Again, doesn't justify an invasion and war crimes. Also, this simply isn't true. Kyiv was founded and populated significantly earlier in history than Moscow was, and Ukraine has always had language and customs separate from those of Russia.Mr Putin gave a speech where I think he claimed the Ukraine was a "Mistake of History" ? I can't say he is right on that, but there is a strong argument could be made that the Ukraine has been part of russia - for a very long time. A pro Moscow regime was toppled by the West, and replaced by one hostile to Moscow and who wanted NATO membership.
Not sure what you're talking about here? What hostile forces were placed by Ukraine close to Russia's capital?Why would Russia tolerate such weaponry and forces less than 300 km from Moscow? The USA or Canada would never tolerate a hostile organization to place such forces 300 km for our capitals.
Everyone who commits war crimes should be indicted for such. Regardless of who they are.The Geneva Convention specifically prohibits the waging of "aggressive war" If you want to indcit Putin? ok. Make sure that 2 President Bushes, infact almost every post war US president save Jimmy Carter joins him. ( and not just US politicians either lots others)
Amen to that.No. Collateral damage is accidental. These civilian bombings were intentional.
Yes, any intentional civilian killings by any military party are war crimes.
Sure, you can say it's because of a style transition - but, the full-scale invasion from Russia should have been over fairly quickly, since Russia is supposed to have one of the world's largest military forces. Seems there's quite a bit of incompetency on their part.
So it's okay to invade a country and kill civilians just because the president claimed they're "de-nazifying"? You can claim any invasion of any country is justified because of a small number of extremists - which will exist in any country. Also President Zelenskyy himself is Jewish.
Again, doesn't justify an invasion and war crimes. Also, this simply isn't true. Kyiv was founded and populated significantly earlier in history than Moscow was, and Ukraine has always had language and customs separate from those of Russia.
Not sure what you're talking about here? What hostile forces were placed by Ukraine close to Russia's capital?
Everyone who commits war crimes should be indicted for such. Regardless of who they are.
The Ukraine- including their leader has asked for NATO membership- and certain specific weapons. I think its 300km from the border to moscow but I could be wrong.No. Collateral damage is accidental. These civilian bombings were intentional.
Yes, any intentional civilian killings by any military party are war crimes.
Sure, you can say it's because of a style transition - but, the full-scale invasion from Russia should have been over fairly quickly, since Russia is supposed to have one of the world's largest military forces. Seems there's quite a bit of incompetency on their part.
So it's okay to invade a country and kill civilians just because the president claimed they're "de-nazifying"? You can claim any invasion of any country is justified because of a small number of extremists - which will exist in any country. Also President Zelenskyy himself is Jewish.
Again, doesn't justify an invasion and war crimes. Also, this simply isn't true. Kyiv was founded and populated significantly earlier in history than Moscow was, and Ukraine has always had language and customs separate from those of Russia.
Not sure what you're talking about here? What hostile forces were placed by Ukraine close to Russia's capital?
Everyone who commits war crimes should be indicted for such. Regardless of who they are.
It's 450 KM, and a different independent country.The Ukraine- including their leader has asked for NATO membership- and certain specific weapons. I think its 300km from the border to moscow but I could be wrong.
To be clear, I dont support the invasion of countries, or the waging of aggressive wars. And I am very skeptical of whats reported in mainstream news organizations. I can "understand" the Russian perspective, just as I can understand Ukraines (current postion) If the UN had any credibility- they would be working towards peacekeepers and some sort of negotiated solution.
But the UN has no credibility now, and neither does the security council.
And im concerned about the game of nuclear brinksmanship.
ok yes the 450 miles to kieve --so close. If I remember they also said any peace talks basically had russia leaving enirely to pre war borders- so thats not really a negotiation.It's 450 KM, and a different independent country.
The UN did call for a peace agreement, but Russia refused it. So they're doing the next best thing - defending the independent invaded country.
For the last thing you said I agree, any nuclear conflict would end very badly for everyone involved.
Doesn't matter though. It's a separate indepent country - a country doesn't have a say over what weapons other countries keep inside their borders.ok yes the 450 miles to kieve --so close.
Also, according to the Budapest Memorandum, which Russia signed - Russia agreed not to attack Ukraine and to respect its border boundaries. That's another of many agreements/treaties that Russia broke by invading Ukraine.If I remember they also said any peace talks basically had russia leaving enirely to pre war borders- so thats not really a negotiation.
Doesn't matter though. It's a separate indepent country - a country doesn't have a say over what weapons other countries keep inside their borders.