5 ms·

Allegedly, Ukrainian firefighters were shot at by Russian troops. If true, then that’s another war crime to add to the growing list.

21723 5y ago
Indeed, which is fucking terrifying. You don't do war crimes unless you expect to get away with it, which means either you're fighting a war that more powerful nations don't care about, or you expect to win it. Putin can't win against NATO but he can make both sides lose. I used to think he was rational and only minorly evil, but now I'm not so sure of the rationality... and clearly he's more than minorly evil.
- veganhouseDJ 5y ago
  IMO you have to consider there is an information war going on so to me the only rational thing to do is take everything you think you know with a grain of salt. There probably is a tactical advantage from the Russian side to putting out the idea that Putin has gone crazy. Or he really has gone crazy. We can't really know but the fog of war spreading to social media does not seem like a great development.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    There probably is a tactical advantage from the Russian side to putting out the idea that Putin has gone crazy. What other explanation is there for invading a European country with close ties to the USA and NATO -- one claim for the invasion is that Putin was worried that Ukraine would join NATO, if they are that friendly to NATO, then he must have known that NATO would help fight.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      There are quite a few loyal or sympathetic to Russia in Ukraine, due to propaganda and history, how many is hard to say and colored by your opinions. Hard to think not significantly fewer now than in the recent past. Putin thought he would win quickly, get troops to lay down arms and overthrow the government. For whatever reason he was wrong, it seems clear this is what was expected but pushback has been more effective. Probably in no small way because organizing the logistics of such a large operation is hard and has not gone smoothly.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > What other explanation is there for invading a European country with close ties to the USA and NATO This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZLhRP01jz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZLhRP01jz8 seems like a possibility. > one claim for the invasion is that Putin was worried that Ukraine would join NATO, if they are that friendly to NATO, then he must have known that NATO would help fight. Well, look at what's happened. Look at what has happened previously in Crimea, look what happened in the Ukraine separatist regions before. Look at what is happening now. He would not necessarily have to be totally irrational to believe objectives could be achieved there.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  You don't do war crimes unless you expect to get away with it, which means either you're fighting a war that more powerful nations don't care about, or you expect to win it. I think it's the later - Putin is not going to lose this war since he's racking up hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of damage and compensation for injury/death that Russia would have a hard time paying for if he admits defeat.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Or some powerful group with slightly more sense or at least ambition in Russia will stage a coup.
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      Right now, I think that's the best the world could hope for. But seems decreasingly likely the longer this goes on, they already have ample incentive to do so now.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  He is likely “rational” but so out of touch after so many years with the actual world that he can only reason about the distortion bubble that gets built up around people with so much power, wealth, and political influence.
- tenpies 5y ago
  Two thoughts come to mind: 1) The West has already weaponized the law. It is currently operating on the Latin American dictator model of "for my friends, anything; for my enemies: the law!". 2) The United States strongly opposes the ICC treaty and does not accept its jurisdiction overs its nationals and is even willing to use military force to free any of its nationals should the ICC ever try to enforce jurisdiction over an American[1]. In similar, but less violent terms, Russia withdrew from the ICC back in 2016. So my point is, why would Russia care what some court with no jurisdiction says? It's already obvious it won't matter. The West is already going full Treaty of Versailles on them - so what difference does it make? There is little credibility left for the West, either in terms of rule of law or moral authority to be telling anyone what is right or wrong. This is something that most of the world sees by now, but the West is comically unable to look in the mirror and see this and I'm afraid they will only notice when it's too late. It's absurdly self-destructive but the West consider it "winning", yet the history books will almost certainly mark this as the most obvious inflection point where the West lost the plot. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Criticism_by_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#C...
  - gordian-mind 5y ago
    Thank you very much. This is how citizens and governments in nations outside of the Western world perceive the West and its mad war propaganda. And they're correct. Westerners, that are scrutinizing every single move of Russia today, ignored every time it was pointed out that the U.S. was waging a proxy war in Ukraine for 8 years. The Minsk agreements, mediated by NATO members, were NEVER applied, and there have been 14000 deaths in the Donbass war since 2014. All the while, U.S. politicians have been publicly gloating that they "are fighting Russia in Ukraine". Their involvement in this is clearly documented -- except Westerners do not even care to look. The current act of freezing the assets of the Russian state -- completely arbitrary thievery -- just sends the following message to outside governments that have seen this unfold: the West is not to be trusted.
cmurf 5y ago
USSR was a Protocol 1 signatory, but Putin withdrew from Protocol 1 in 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-warcrimes-convention/russias-putin-revokes-geneva-convention-protocol-on-war-crimes-victims-idUSKBN1WW2IN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-warcrimes-conventi... This is either a plan for malice or it's incompetency, either way it's not good.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Whether or not Russia is a Protocol I party doesn't particularly matter here as the war crime at issue is viewed now as a matter of customary international law and is explicitly within the jurisdiction of the ICC; Rome Statute Article 8, 2.(b)(iv)
  - User23 5y ago
    The same ICC the USA has a law on the books to invade the Netherlands if it charges US troops? Russia isn’t a signatory either. It’s edifying to observe that only the losers ever get tried for war crimes. A major nuclear power may fail to win a war, but it can’t lose one except if everyone loses.
  - cmurf 5y ago
    OK, but Russia withdrew from the ICC. And Ukraine has signed but not ratified. And as Russia can veto a U.N. Security Council resolution referring a crime to the ICC, I'm not sure how this happens? And it seems Russia is not a party to the Rome Statutes either.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > OK, but Russia withdrew from the ICC. Doesn't matter for ICC jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Ukraine, because Ukraine, while not a state party, has acceded to voluntary ICC jurisdiction for war crimes and crimes against humanity on its territory from 21 November 2013 forward. (If you are relying on Wikipedia, it seems to systematically omit mention of voluntary jurisdiction.) > And as Russia can veto a U.N. Security Council resolution referring a crime to the ICC A UNSC resolution is not required; for cases where the ICC would have jurisdiction, it can begin investigations on the initiative of the prosecutor with permission of the ICC judiciary, or on referral of a state party (which need not be directly involved.) After the ICC prosecutor announced the intention to seek permission for an investigation, based on both a completed preliminary examination which found sufficient indication of ICC-covered war crimes and crimes against humanity before the recent escalation, as well as additional concerns arising from the recent escalation on his own initiative, but noted that a state-party referral would streamline the process, 39 state parties to the Rome Statute submitted referrals relating to the situation in Ukraine to the ICC.
hans_castorp 5y ago
> If true, then that’s another war crime to add to the growing list. So what? Russia (like the USA btw) does not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the ICC. The dictator in Moscow (and his minions) will just laugh at any conviction from there.
- xdrosenheim 5y ago
  Doesn't matter what they think or acknowledge. If they set foot in a country that supports those convictions, they can be arrested.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    If who exactly sets foot in a country that recognizes the convictions? No country is going to try to start a war with Russia by detaining their President.
    - singularity2001 5y ago
      Once Putin is detained the war will end. At the very least a condemnation/conviction in absence will be another prestige blow, if that's possible. Germany started an independent proceeding btw: Once you violate the sovereignty of other countries and or human rights, you lose your own formal indefeasibility. It's called "Weltrecht".
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        The war with Ukraine is not just due to Putin. This idea that everyone is just following the orders of one man is absurd. It isn't going to be like a movie where once they take out the leader everyone puts down their weapons. Detaining him would not end the conflict and would be seen as an attack on Russia that could provoke the use of nukes.
        singularity2001 5y ago
        Other than praying that China won't send arms to Russia or people getting tired of war quickly, what else can be done?

21723 5y ago

Indeed, which is fucking terrifying. You don't do war crimes unless you expect to get away with it, which means either you're fighting a war that more powerful nations don't care about, or you expect to win it. Putin can't win against NATO but he can make both sides lose. I used to think he was rational and only minorly evil, but now I'm not so sure of the rationality... and clearly he's more than minorly evil.

veganhouseDJ 5y ago
IMO you have to consider there is an information war going on so to me the only rational thing to do is take everything you think you know with a grain of salt. There probably is a tactical advantage from the Russian side to putting out the idea that Putin has gone crazy. Or he really has gone crazy. We can't really know but the fog of war spreading to social media does not seem like a great development.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  There probably is a tactical advantage from the Russian side to putting out the idea that Putin has gone crazy. What other explanation is there for invading a European country with close ties to the USA and NATO -- one claim for the invasion is that Putin was worried that Ukraine would join NATO, if they are that friendly to NATO, then he must have known that NATO would help fight.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    There are quite a few loyal or sympathetic to Russia in Ukraine, due to propaganda and history, how many is hard to say and colored by your opinions. Hard to think not significantly fewer now than in the recent past. Putin thought he would win quickly, get troops to lay down arms and overthrow the government. For whatever reason he was wrong, it seems clear this is what was expected but pushback has been more effective. Probably in no small way because organizing the logistics of such a large operation is hard and has not gone smoothly.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > What other explanation is there for invading a European country with close ties to the USA and NATO This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZLhRP01jz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZLhRP01jz8 seems like a possibility. > one claim for the invasion is that Putin was worried that Ukraine would join NATO, if they are that friendly to NATO, then he must have known that NATO would help fight. Well, look at what's happened. Look at what has happened previously in Crimea, look what happened in the Ukraine separatist regions before. Look at what is happening now. He would not necessarily have to be totally irrational to believe objectives could be achieved there.
Johnny555 5y ago
You don't do war crimes unless you expect to get away with it, which means either you're fighting a war that more powerful nations don't care about, or you expect to win it. I think it's the later - Putin is not going to lose this war since he's racking up hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of damage and compensation for injury/death that Russia would have a hard time paying for if he admits defeat.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Or some powerful group with slightly more sense or at least ambition in Russia will stage a coup.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    Right now, I think that's the best the world could hope for. But seems decreasingly likely the longer this goes on, they already have ample incentive to do so now.
colechristensen 5y ago
He is likely “rational” but so out of touch after so many years with the actual world that he can only reason about the distortion bubble that gets built up around people with so much power, wealth, and political influence.
tenpies 5y ago
Two thoughts come to mind: 1) The West has already weaponized the law. It is currently operating on the Latin American dictator model of "for my friends, anything; for my enemies: the law!". 2) The United States strongly opposes the ICC treaty and does not accept its jurisdiction overs its nationals and is even willing to use military force to free any of its nationals should the ICC ever try to enforce jurisdiction over an American[1]. In similar, but less violent terms, Russia withdrew from the ICC back in 2016. So my point is, why would Russia care what some court with no jurisdiction says? It's already obvious it won't matter. The West is already going full Treaty of Versailles on them - so what difference does it make? There is little credibility left for the West, either in terms of rule of law or moral authority to be telling anyone what is right or wrong. This is something that most of the world sees by now, but the West is comically unable to look in the mirror and see this and I'm afraid they will only notice when it's too late. It's absurdly self-destructive but the West consider it "winning", yet the history books will almost certainly mark this as the most obvious inflection point where the West lost the plot. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Criticism_by_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#C...
- gordian-mind 5y ago
  Thank you very much. This is how citizens and governments in nations outside of the Western world perceive the West and its mad war propaganda. And they're correct. Westerners, that are scrutinizing every single move of Russia today, ignored every time it was pointed out that the U.S. was waging a proxy war in Ukraine for 8 years. The Minsk agreements, mediated by NATO members, were NEVER applied, and there have been 14000 deaths in the Donbass war since 2014. All the while, U.S. politicians have been publicly gloating that they "are fighting Russia in Ukraine". Their involvement in this is clearly documented -- except Westerners do not even care to look. The current act of freezing the assets of the Russian state -- completely arbitrary thievery -- just sends the following message to outside governments that have seen this unfold: the West is not to be trusted.

cmurf 5y ago

USSR was a Protocol 1 signatory, but Putin withdrew from Protocol 1 in 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-warcrimes-convention/russias-putin-revokes-geneva-convention-protocol-on-war-crimes-victims-idUSKBN1WW2IN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-warcrimes-conventi... This is either a plan for malice or it's incompetency, either way it's not good.

dragonwriter 5y ago
Whether or not Russia is a Protocol I party doesn't particularly matter here as the war crime at issue is viewed now as a matter of customary international law and is explicitly within the jurisdiction of the ICC; Rome Statute Article 8, 2.(b)(iv)
- User23 5y ago
  The same ICC the USA has a law on the books to invade the Netherlands if it charges US troops? Russia isn’t a signatory either. It’s edifying to observe that only the losers ever get tried for war crimes. A major nuclear power may fail to win a war, but it can’t lose one except if everyone loses.
- cmurf 5y ago
  OK, but Russia withdrew from the ICC. And Ukraine has signed but not ratified. And as Russia can veto a U.N. Security Council resolution referring a crime to the ICC, I'm not sure how this happens? And it seems Russia is not a party to the Rome Statutes either.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > OK, but Russia withdrew from the ICC. Doesn't matter for ICC jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Ukraine, because Ukraine, while not a state party, has acceded to voluntary ICC jurisdiction for war crimes and crimes against humanity on its territory from 21 November 2013 forward. (If you are relying on Wikipedia, it seems to systematically omit mention of voluntary jurisdiction.) > And as Russia can veto a U.N. Security Council resolution referring a crime to the ICC A UNSC resolution is not required; for cases where the ICC would have jurisdiction, it can begin investigations on the initiative of the prosecutor with permission of the ICC judiciary, or on referral of a state party (which need not be directly involved.) After the ICC prosecutor announced the intention to seek permission for an investigation, based on both a completed preliminary examination which found sufficient indication of ICC-covered war crimes and crimes against humanity before the recent escalation, as well as additional concerns arising from the recent escalation on his own initiative, but noted that a state-party referral would streamline the process, 39 state parties to the Rome Statute submitted referrals relating to the situation in Ukraine to the ICC.

hans_castorp 5y ago

> If true, then that’s another war crime to add to the growing list. So what? Russia (like the USA btw) does not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the ICC. The dictator in Moscow (and his minions) will just laugh at any conviction from there.

xdrosenheim 5y ago
Doesn't matter what they think or acknowledge. If they set foot in a country that supports those convictions, they can be arrested.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  If who exactly sets foot in a country that recognizes the convictions? No country is going to try to start a war with Russia by detaining their President.
  - singularity2001 5y ago
    Once Putin is detained the war will end. At the very least a condemnation/conviction in absence will be another prestige blow, if that's possible. Germany started an independent proceeding btw: Once you violate the sovereignty of other countries and or human rights, you lose your own formal indefeasibility. It's called "Weltrecht".
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      The war with Ukraine is not just due to Putin. This idea that everyone is just following the orders of one man is absurd. It isn't going to be like a movie where once they take out the leader everyone puts down their weapons. Detaining him would not end the conflict and would be seen as an attack on Russia that could provoke the use of nukes.
      - singularity2001 5y ago
        Other than praying that China won't send arms to Russia or people getting tired of war quickly, what else can be done?