If they landed (in a non-emergency) in NATO countries and more importantly took off from there, then that country would obviously be an active participant in the war. Also voiding NATO Article 5 protection because you can’t claim to be attacked when you voluntarily joined the fight.
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix The decision about who is actively taking part in this war, is done by russia every other week. How many times did they already claim, that some country is involved enough, to attack it? Or was it only their media doing that?
And you do realize that nobody gives a shit about Russian bullshit claims in comparison to actual international law? Which is indeed the reason nobody sends NATO soldiers to to fight in Ukraine as it wouldn’t be some none-sensical claim then but reality.
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Which law are we talking about, that forbids NATO to stop a genocide in Ukraine happening? I mean actively by sending troops? Which law is that?
Are you seriously asking me to cite the law saying that attacking Russian troops as a non-involved party is an attack? I guess someone should start poking you with pan until you can show us the law that clearly defines being poked by pan as an attack.
But jokes aside… international law (especially in regards to armed conflicts) is customary law going back hundreds of years. And even back then they weren’t stupid enough to need a defintion of attacking and defending. Because some people believe in humans to have a brain.
An uninvolved country attacking Russian troops is an illegal act of war by definition, declaring the attack beforehand is still an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it’s in Ukraine, in Russia in free international waters or anywhere else. The actual only exception is when doing it by madate of the UN to restore peace.
Are you really so dense to think NATO countries can attack other countries, then claim to be attacked when that country shoots back by pretending their attack was actually defense? Sorry, but back to above’s pan it is…
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Ok let’s start at the end of this chaos. I Wonder with how many excuses somebody can come up with. If Ukrainians would be ⚽️-less like that, russia would already be in charge there. First thing: where is the UN mandate? Is the situation not severe enough? Is the organization useless, corrupted, can’t act even in life-threatening situations? Second: Budapest memorandum. Do the security guarantees for Ukraine only mean the delivery of weapons and no troops? /1
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Third: There is a criminal offense called: denial of assistance of help to a person in danger. It means prosecution in case of proven violation of that law. Does that law lose its significance on the international scale, when it comes to the relation of nations? Forth: What Does This War Mean for the Future of Mankind and Today’s Civilization?
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix #5: Since when, since when, is the help to protect a nation from a unjustifiable attack on its sovereignty and survival, interpreted as an attack on the aggressor-country? I can only wonder about the mental state of such an interpreter. Ukraine is, as terrifying and sad as that is, close to collapse and extinction, because of the scale of that attack. It isn’t even sure if Ukraine can shoulder that situation, with our help. Do you understand that? /3
Sorry, but you are just completely lost. Denial of assistence on state-level instead of indivuduals? What are you dreaming? And Security guarantees in the Budapest memorandums? There were none! Just read them, they are openly available. And some confused ramblings of how countries might have hinted at help in exchange for signing those are worthless. Just as worthless as for example Russias claims that NATO countries have hinted on gunaranteeing to not enlarge NATO after the German reunification and soon after creation of again independent eastern European countries after the desolution of the Soviet Union. Oh… and even if there were actual security guanrantees… how are people constantly managing to claim these from countries not even signatories?
If they landed (in a non-emergency) in NATO countries and more importantly took off from there, then that country would obviously be an active participant in the war. Also voiding NATO Article 5 protection because you can’t claim to be attacked when you voluntarily joined the fight.
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix The decision about who is actively taking part in this war, is done by russia every other week. How many times did they already claim, that some country is involved enough, to attack it? Or was it only their media doing that?
And you do realize that nobody gives a shit about Russian bullshit claims in comparison to actual international law? Which is indeed the reason nobody sends NATO soldiers to to fight in Ukraine as it wouldn’t be some none-sensical claim then but reality.
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Which law are we talking about, that forbids NATO to stop a genocide in Ukraine happening? I mean actively by sending troops? Which law is that?
Are you seriously asking me to cite the law saying that attacking Russian troops as a non-involved party is an attack? I guess someone should start poking you with pan until you can show us the law that clearly defines being poked by pan as an attack.
But jokes aside… international law (especially in regards to armed conflicts) is customary law going back hundreds of years. And even back then they weren’t stupid enough to need a defintion of attacking and defending. Because some people believe in humans to have a brain.
An uninvolved country attacking Russian troops is an illegal act of war by definition, declaring the attack beforehand is still an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it’s in Ukraine, in Russia in free international waters or anywhere else. The actual only exception is when doing it by madate of the UN to restore peace.
Are you really so dense to think NATO countries can attack other countries, then claim to be attacked when that country shoots back by pretending their attack was actually defense? Sorry, but back to above’s pan it is…
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Ok let’s start at the end of this chaos. I Wonder with how many excuses somebody can come up with. If Ukrainians would be ⚽️-less like that, russia would already be in charge there. First thing: where is the UN mandate? Is the situation not severe enough? Is the organization useless, corrupted, can’t act even in life-threatening situations? Second: Budapest memorandum. Do the security guarantees for Ukraine only mean the delivery of weapons and no troops? /1
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Third: There is a criminal offense called: denial of assistance of help to a person in danger. It means prosecution in case of proven violation of that law. Does that law lose its significance on the international scale, when it comes to the relation of nations? Forth: What Does This War Mean for the Future of Mankind and Today’s Civilization?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9BWMFFqNc&pp=ygUZdmljdG9yIHBpbmNodWsgZm91bmRhdGlvbg%3D%3D
A brief explanation of what is at stake here, and why Ukraine can’t lose the war. /2
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix #5: Since when, since when, is the help to protect a nation from a unjustifiable attack on its sovereignty and survival, interpreted as an attack on the aggressor-country? I can only wonder about the mental state of such an interpreter. Ukraine is, as terrifying and sad as that is, close to collapse and extinction, because of the scale of that attack. It isn’t even sure if Ukraine can shoulder that situation, with our help. Do you understand that? /3
Sorry, but you are just completely lost. Denial of assistence on state-level instead of indivuduals? What are you dreaming? And Security guarantees in the Budapest memorandums? There were none! Just read them, they are openly available. And some confused ramblings of how countries might have hinted at help in exchange for signing those are worthless. Just as worthless as for example Russias claims that NATO countries have hinted on gunaranteeing to not enlarge NATO after the German reunification and soon after creation of again independent eastern European countries after the desolution of the Soviet Union. Oh… and even if there were actual security guanrantees… how are people constantly managing to claim these from countries not even signatories?