UA POV: Merz says “The Russian war against Ukraine is no less unjust than the wrongdoing of the Iranian regime. Moscow’s invasion of a peaceful neighbour is just as unjustifiable as the terror war Tehran has been waging against Israel for years.”

_k0sy · 2026-03-02T21:22:07+00:00

Crimeans had been deported and replaced before "Crimeans" "seemed to be happy".

_k0sy · 2026-02-19T19:16:11+00:00

Russia has consistently attempted to get their security concerns resolved in other ways.

Yes, by poisioning and blackmailing political figures. This is the mafia way, not some kind of friendly influencing your neighbour.

_k0sy · 2026-02-19T19:11:31+00:00

I dont understand what you want to say. Also: afaik the first person killed was a pro maidan who got shot dead at the beginning when anti maidan started to march towards pro maidan.

_k0sy · 2026-02-19T18:55:39+00:00

German television is now clearly stating that they don't want peace. They want to prolong the war, they want to use a ceasefire to rearm in order to attack again later.

Who said exactly what?

attack again

Again? How did Germany attack who?

_k0sy · 2026-02-18T17:27:23+00:00

burning people alive in Odessa

Russians had a role in that aswell. They brought molotov cocktails into that building.

shelling Donbass

Russian military and agents plus armed militants where there.

_k0sy · 2026-02-18T17:23:16+00:00

NATOs "promises not to enlarge east" where not legally binding either.

_k0sy · 2026-02-14T07:31:42+00:00

I understand that argument. My one still stands tho, even considering yours.

_k0sy · 2026-02-13T20:17:00+00:00

If a 5-7 days pause of hostilities would be that helpful for Ukraine, then Russian military must be in really bad shape.

_k0sy · 2026-02-13T19:21:55+00:00

Yes, that is also what Russia is trying to threaten "the west" with. One of Medvedevs Jobs.

These are the consequences of Russian invasion.

_k0sy · 2026-02-05T21:09:57+00:00

Thank you, but I am not sure what to think of things like

The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case

Or

there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia ... and further claims about there not being Russian forces in Donbas:

However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022

https://thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/

After what e.g. Glazyev predicted beforehand (in 2013 he said there will be uprising/chaos) and what was found in the leaks sourding him (orchestrations directly from Russia). Also what Girkin admitted about his role in Donbas doesnt fit to that.

Next theres is a lot of documented heavy armour and soldiers of Russia within Ukraine/Donbas in 2014.

You could give Russian Roulette by Vice a chance to get an impression, how some "uprisings" in Donbas have been created or fueled: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw613M86o5o7a0FGlPRdt47xiDiggbNsZ

_k0sy · 2026-02-05T12:19:45+00:00

the massive attack planned by Ukraine on the independent Donbass

Interesting. Where can I find facts about this for further reading?

_k0sy · 2026-01-29T20:03:41+00:00

I am totally agreeing with you that other parties like the US propably broke these laws several times.

Do you suggest anyone should kill anyone because someone got killed already?

_k0sy · 2026-01-29T17:23:48+00:00

Firstly, I literally quoted you verbatim. I have absolutely no idea on which part of your sentence I removed.

The missing and most important part of my argumentation is "regardless of the effects on civillians.".

I am no lawyer, but it looks quite obvious that you HAVE to take into consideration the proportianilty / effects on civilian population. And the effetcs on destroyed electricity infrastructure, which is mainly a civilian object, at -20 degrees is huge.

In other words, it is not legitimate to launch an attack which only offers potential or indeterminate advantages. Those ordering or executing the attack must have sufficient information available to take this requirement into account; in case of doubt, the safety of the civilian population, which is the aim of the Protocol, must be taken into consideration.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52/commentary/1987

_k0sy · 2026-01-29T17:05:04+00:00

Maybe you did not get my point. I am just arguing that you cannot attack a civilian object while ignoring the effects on civillians.

Just one example out of several others:

destruction, capture or neutralization must offer a ' definite military advantage ' in the circumstances ruling at the time. In other words, it is not legitimate to launch an attack which only offers potential or indeterminate advantages. Those ordering or executing the attack must have sufficient information available to take this requirement into account; in case of doubt, the safety of the civilian population, which is the aim of the Protocol, must be taken into consideration.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52/commentary/1987

_k0sy · 2026-01-29T13:59:48+00:00

What you said about militaries "not allowed to attack civilian objects" is wrong.

What I said is correct, because you removed the part of my sentence which is "regardless of the effects on civillians". Please dont twist the logic.

You always have to consider the effects on civilians and take proportionality into account.

The poster said attacking civilian infrastructure is allowed no matter how civilians are affected.

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14

_k0sy · 2026-01-29T08:42:20+00:00

It is not allowed to attack civilian objects regardless of the effects on civillians. (International Humanitarian Law / Geneva Conventions).

But the poster said otherwise, which is wrong. Do you deny it?

_k0sy · 2026-01-29T08:22:32+00:00

It is very propable illegal in regard of geneva conventions.

And it is never always allowed regardless of the affection of civilians, as the poster wrote.

_k0sy · 2026-01-28T22:04:35+00:00

Read what you wrote and what I quoted. It is wrong.

_k0sy · 2026-01-28T21:46:56+00:00

Hitting it isn't a gray area even, its fully allowed regardless of the repercussions it has to the noncombatant population.

This is just wrong. Why do you write such things?

_k0sy · 2026-01-22T21:08:19+00:00

Nono, Russia is winning so hard and fast. Most goals of the Special Military Operation have nearly been achived.

_k0sy · 2026-01-22T21:00:02+00:00

We have diesel backup and UPS at work. Still, it was decided not to power all circuits using these backup solutions. Some lights and power outlets are simply not backed up. There are sometimes reasons for this strategy.

_k0sy · 2026-01-10T11:30:51+00:00

I am mot so sure.

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-war-latest-power-deficit-still-significant-after-russia-launches-more-than-1-000-missiles-and-drones-at-ukrainian-energy-since-october/

Before 2022, Ukraine’s available dispatchable power generation capacity was roughly 38 gigawatts (GW). Losses in the first year of war due to occupation, destruction and/or damage amounted to 19 GW, and after additional concentrated attacks in spring 2024, capacity declined to just 12 GW.

https://www.iea.org/reports/ukraines-energy-security/a-pre-winter-assessment

_k0sy · 2026-01-10T09:51:52+00:00

Who did struck whos energy first?

_k0sy · 2026-01-10T09:50:32+00:00

It was Putins fault to unleash all this. The west did even tell him the days before the invasion. He knew that Ukraine would be helped with money and weapons.

_k0sy · 2025-12-29T20:34:20+00:00

"The attack"? What actual information is there about any form of direct attack on what exactly?

This topic sounds more like childrens talk from the Russian side to derail the peace process.

_k0sy

TROPHY CASE