I don’t want to hijack, so the last I’ll say is:
UN Veto Power is a get out of jail free card for all of those Security Council members.
This is something that needs to be addressed ASAP if we ever hope to prosecute war crimes in a fair-end-even manner across the board.
I’m a veteran and I oppose war crimes - full stop.
It shows, if nothing else, that NATO is an anti-Russian alliance. Something that NATO vehemently denies, but is pretty obvious if you really look at it. I have stated in this thread that I do not blame the smaller countries bordering Russia for seeking protection. I do think this war will go on for some time and have some negative consequences, and the cheerleading from the “current events” thread is now bleeding into this one as well. Nobody can actually discuss anything critical of NATO without somebody swooping in and calling them a Putin apologist, it is ridiculous.
Does that include war crimes committed by the United States? How recent do war crimes have to be to qualify a nation for removal from the UN Security Council? And most importantly, who will remove the offender?
My statement above stands without changes.
I mean, I agree of course. But who would ever be able to enforce that
Russia pretending to want to join NATO shows that NATO is anti-Russian? How? If anything, surely that shows the opposite.
Council rules/laws need to be changed, but you knew that - right?
If you honestly do not think that NATO was founded as an anti Soviet alliance and, after the demise of the USSR has continued as an anti Russian alliance then we will have to agree to disagree. And this has nothing to do with condoning Russian aggression in Ukraine or Georgia in 2008 for that matter.
You must know why the permanent members of the UNSC are who they are. They are the victors of WW2, they are not removable. Russia inherited the seat of the USSR, it would take a war to remove them.
Check your history on the behavior of The USSR and Warsaw Pact from the end of WWII through and including the Cold War era.
The only reason Russia didn’t drive deep into Western Europe is because NATO was countering their every move.
When the Berlin Wall fell, newly free Warsaw Pact countries were fleeing west to escape Russian oppression.
In the end, Glasnost didn’t happen. Russia didn’t change.
Did NATO ever have an agenda to invade any country? Post-USSR, was there any agenda to do harm to Russia?
It’s anti-Russia only in the same sense that the justice system is anti-crime.
I take your point and it works. Russia is “crime”, and NATO had to expand to contain it. Exactly the thinking of the strategists that did that. This was prior to any aggressive actions by Russia, though. Also, joining NATO is not just a signature. Every NATO military uses compatible equipment, there was a lot of money made switching over Poland, for instance, to NATO equipment.
I guess this needs to be said:
NATO is a Defense alliance.
Well, no, that wasn’t the point. Russian actions may need to be contained - but that’s entirely up to the Russians.
So what? The prior existence of a police force does not make the police force responsible for criminal acts.
Your bothsidesism here is nonsense. You just seem to be regurgitating Russian propaganda that they need a “buffer” to NATO. Nobody since Hitler has wanted any part of their shitty country.
I have said before, my posts in this thread are meant to be critiques of US and NATO policy. The ignorance of Russian history by our leaders, and the willingness of people to believe a black and white narrative. I guess that is the craziest part; we all remember Iraq. And after Saddam Hussein came… ISIS. What comes after the destruction of Ukraine?
Tell that to Serbia, and Libya
Not since they were a global super power that nobody would dare invade?
If Ukraine does end up losing? Next would be Moldova. Maybe Georgia. And that would be it. It would be a Pyrrhic victory at best, with Russia being the proud owner of a pile of rubble. Long term they would end up as a vassal of China because they would have no other way of surviving.
But there would be an occupation of Ukraine. And that would be brutal, and it might break both countries.
As opposed to what, the narrative that the Special Military Operation is to get rid of evil Ukrainian Nazis?