Broomstick wrote: ↑2022-06-02 04:48am
Oh, yeah - that's going to work as well as the notion in 1941 that smashing US ships in Pearl Harbor would get the Americans to back down and stay out of WWII.
Will it? If Putin nukes a single NATO base or some part of the Ukranian army and doesn't follow it up with further attacks do you think Biden is going to commit America to winning a nuclear war with Russia knowing that it will bare minimum lead to entire US cities being destroyed? How do you see that decision process going? Is Biden just so adamant in his principled refusal to allow nuclear weapons to be used without nation-ending consequences that he'll accept that as the price of doing business?
Retaliate, sure. I can see him ordering reprisals against Russian bases or troops or something. But that would be something Putin has calculated is a price he's willing to pay in this scenario, and the end result is that we've established countries can nuke other countries a little without being destroyed.
The point being that some types of actions taken to "discourage" another nation against attacking/retaliating/whatever often does not have the intended effect.
The problem here is that there's a notion that if one missile flies they all fly. Not being privy to the upper echelons of any national military I can't say what actually would happen, but uncorking the nuclear genie might launch WWIII in less time than it takes to eat lunch.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
MAD is based on one fly all fly. But once a nuke has gone, say as Ralin suggests a tac nuke then everyone has to decide if MAD is failled bluff or if they follow through.
Obvuously before the bluff (if it is that) is called you'd not want to hint it was a bluff at all.
Both Ralin's and Broomstick's scenarios, that limited nuke will end up acceptable or that it will rapidly escalate into global nuclear war are frightening plausible.
And of course there's always the fog of war like we've seen with chemical weapons so far. Some claims a tac nuke is used but no one can verify it? Then what do you do? Nuking is allowed if you are sneaky enough?
Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2022-06-02 06:24pm
MAD is based on one fly all fly. But once a nuke has gone, say as Ralin suggests a tac nuke then everyone has to decide if MAD is failled bluff or if they follow through.
And as Shep has pointed out in the past, MAD has never actually been US military policy. Frankly I'm not convinced the genie has ever been in the bottle.
If I recall correctly the US policy has been to NOT say what would happen and keep things ambiguous.
Also, we have systems in place to detect nukes and radiation. It would be hard to conceal a nuke.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote: ↑2022-06-02 08:04pm
If I recall correctly the US policy has been to NOT say what would happen and keep things ambiguous.
The US has never ruled out a first strike, yes, but that's a bit separate from 'the plan has always been to win a nuclear war if it comes to that,' which is what I was getting at.
Anyway, bigger point here is I don't see any reason to assume either side here is operating on MAD as a principle. There are good reasons to think the exact opposite, such as the fact that Biden (and the rest of NATO) doesn't consider the invasion of Ukraine sufficiently outrageous to send actual troops to help in its defense. If a country isn't willing to engage in conventional warfare directly against Russia when they don't have it seems like they'd be similarly reluctant to engage in nuclear war when, again, they don't really have to.
I mean sympathy to the Ukranians and all, but if the entire country fell into a giant hole in the earth tomorrow and vanished it wouldn't have a huge impact on most Americans.
Some Russian troops are refusing to return to fight in Ukraine because of their experiences on the front line at the start of the invasion, according to Russian human rights lawyers and activists. The BBC has been speaking to one such soldier.
"I don't want to go [back to Ukraine] to kill and be killed," says Sergey - not his real name - who spent five weeks fighting in Ukraine earlier this year.
He is now home in Russia, having taken legal advice to avoid being sent back to the front line. Sergey is just one of hundreds of Russian soldiers understood to have been seeking such advice.
Sergey says he is traumatised by his experience in Ukraine.
"I had thought that we were the Russian army, the most super-duper in the world," says the young man bitterly. Instead they were expected to operate without even basic equipment, such as night vision devices, he says.
"We were like blind kittens. I'm shocked by our army. It wouldn't cost much to equip us. Why wasn't it done?"
Sergey joined the army as a conscript - most Russian men between the ages of 18-27 must complete one year of compulsory military service. But, after a few months, he made the decision to sign a two-year professional contract which would also give him a salary.
In January, Sergey was sent near the border with Ukraine for what he was told would be military drills. A month later - 24 February, the day Russia launched its invasion - he was told to cross the border. Almost immediately his unit found itself under attack.
As they stopped for the evening in an abandoned farm, their commander said: "Well, as you will have worked out by now, this is not a joke."
Sergey says he was completely shocked.
"My first thoughts were 'Is this really happening to me?'"
They were continually shelled, he says, both when moving and when parked overnight. In his unit of 50 people, 10 were killed and 10 others wounded. Almost all his comrades were under the age of 25.
He heard of Russian servicemen so inexperienced that they "did not know how to shoot and couldn't tell one end of a mortar from another".
He says his convoy - travelling through northern Ukraine - broke up after just four days when a bridge they were about to cross exploded, killing comrades ahead of them.
In another incident, Sergey says he had to overtake comrades trapped inside a burning vehicle in front of him.
"It was blown up from a grenade launcher or something else. It caught fire and there were [Russian] soldiers inside. We drove around it and on, firing as we went. I didn't look back."
His unit moved on through the Ukrainian countryside, but there was a clear lack of strategy, he says. Reinforcements failed to arrive and soldiers were poorly equipped for the task of taking a large city.
"We went without helicopters - just in a column, as though we were heading to a parade."
He believes his commanders had planned to capture strongholds and key cities very quickly - and had calculated that the Ukrainians would simply surrender.
"We rushed forward with short overnight stays, without trenches, without reconnaissance. We didn't leave anyone in the rear, so if someone decided to come in from behind and hit us there was no protection.
"I think that [so many of] our guys died largely because of this. If we had moved gradually, if we had checked the roads for mines many losses could have been avoided."
Sergey's complaints about lack of equipment have also emerged in phone conversations alleged to be between Russian soldiers and their families, intercepted and posted online by the Ukrainian security services.
At the beginning of April, Sergey was sent back over the border to a camp on the Russian side. Troops had been withdrawn from northern Ukraine and appeared to be regrouping for an assault in the east. Later that month he received an order to return to Ukraine - but told his commander that he was not prepared to go.
"He said it was my choice. They didn't even [try to] dissuade us, because we weren't the first," Sergey told the BBC. But, he had been sufficiently worried about his unit's reaction to his refusal that he decided to seek legal advice.
A lawyer told Sergey and two like-minded colleagues to return their arms and go back to their unit's headquarters - where they should file a letter explaining that they were "morally and psychologically exhausted" and could not continue fighting in Ukraine.
Sergey was told that returning to the unit was important because simply leaving could be interpreted as desertion, which can result in a two-year sentence in a disciplinary battalion.
Army commanders try to intimidate contract soldiers into staying with their units, according to Russian human rights lawyer Alexei Tabalov. But he stresses that Russian military law does include clauses which allow soldiers to refuse to fight if they don't want to.
Human rights activist Sergei Krivenko says he is not aware of any prosecutions of those refusing to return to the front.
That is not to say that prosecutions are not being attempted.
One commander in northern Russia requested a criminal case be brought against his subordinate who would not return to Ukraine, but a military prosecutor refused to proceed, according to documents seen by the BBC. Such an action would be "premature" without having assessed the harm to the military service he was involved in, the prosecutor said.
And there is no guarantee that more prosecutions might not emerge in the future.
Soldiers like Sergey - reluctant to return to the front line - are not unusual, according to Ruslan Leviev, the editor of Conflict Intelligence Team, a media project investigating the experiences of the Russian military in Ukraine through confidential interviews and open source material.
Leviev says his team estimates a sizeable minority of the Russian contract soldiers sent to Ukraine to fight in the initial invasion refused to go back again.
Independent Russian media have also been reporting hundreds of cases of soldiers refusing repeat deployments to Ukraine since the beginning of April.
Several lawyers and human rights activists the BBC spoke to said they had been regularly offering advice to men trying to avoid returning to Ukraine. Each of our interviewees had dealt with dozens of cases and believed those soldiers were also sharing advice with their colleagues.
Although Sergey does not want to return to the front line, he does want to complete his outstanding military service in Russia to avoid any unforeseen consequences. But that means that - while his letter of refusal to fight was accepted - there are no guarantees he won't be sent back to Ukraine during his service period.
"I can see that the war continues, it is not going away," he told the BBC. "In these months [of compulsory military service] that I have left, anything - including the worst - could happen."
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
Ralin wrote: ↑2022-06-02 08:41pm
I mean sympathy to the Ukranians and all, but if the entire country fell into a giant hole in the earth tomorrow and vanished it wouldn't have a huge impact on most Americans.
Not directly no, but the fact that Ukraine is a major food producer its disappearance would have enormous impact on a good part of world, which can't help but have an impact.
We'll get a glimpse of that this fall, because Ukraine not only is going to have trouble producing food even for itself, much less export, the Russians are preventing export/stealing product. Food prices everywhere are going to soar. Wheat is already rising fast.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote: ↑2022-06-03 03:30am
Not directly no, but the fact that Ukraine is a major food producer its disappearance would have enormous impact on a good part of world, which can't help but have an impact.
We'll get a glimpse of that this fall, because Ukraine not only is going to have trouble producing food even for itself, much less export, the Russians are preventing export/stealing product. Food prices everywhere are going to soar. Wheat is already rising fast.
That was an exaggeration, yeah. Point was more that they are not directly America's business enough for the US government to be willing to fight anything resembling a war on their behalf.
"I had thought that we were the Russian army, the most super-duper in the world," says the young man bitterly. Instead they were expected to operate without even basic equipment, such as night vision devices, he says.
"We were like blind kittens. I'm shocked by our army. It wouldn't cost much to equip us. Why wasn't it done?"
I imagine it's a logical consequence when corruption is endemic in Russia, up to and including it's leadership.
Ralin wrote: ↑2022-06-02 10:31pm
I knew there were laws restricting the use of conscripts in combat, but the 'soldiers can legally refuse to fight' thing surprises me.
I'm guessing that's their way of preventing someone going crazy in the front and killing his unit (or men in his unit) in a berserk killing spree cause by mental exhaustion, I also suspect that you need a good justification for refusing and it's not just "I don't feel like doing it", I suspect "morally and psychologically exhausted" means "I'm mentally unfit to perform my duties at this point".
It wouldn't surprise me at all if these laws predated Putin and were there to tell the world and the Russian people that the Russian Federation was not gonna send Russian sons to die for the greed of a select few, while this turned out to be not true (as it's exactly what they're doing now) after the fall of the Soviet Union saying so would have been a good to smooth the transition.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
Sounds like these guys have PTSD- given the lack of equipment/training/logistics these guys are saddled with it wouldn't surprise me if there's actually far more suffering this fate than are being reported.
Two British men and a Moroccan man captured in Ukraine have been sentenced to death by pro-Moscow rebels, according to Russian-owned news agency RIA Novosti.
Aiden Aslin, 28, from Nottinghamshire and Shaun Pinner, 48, from Bedfordshire, were sentenced at the Supreme Court in the eastern pro-Russian breakaway state of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR).
The third man sentenced is reported to be Saaudun Brahim, a Moroccan national.
'God will be the one that will judge me,' Mr Aslin says after the sentencing
Mr Aslin told reporters after the sentencing: "I was hoping the sentence would be a lot fairer judging the circumstances in which I helped the investigation and also because I surrendered to the Donetsk People's Republic.
"I wish it could be different but God will be the one that will judge me when the time comes."
RIA Novosti reported on Thursday that the three men are set to face a firing squad. They have a month to appeal.
The court is understood to have found them guilty of taking action toward a violent overthrow of power, an offence punishable by death in the unrecognised republic held by Russian-backed rebels. The court is not internationally recognised.
They were also convicted of mercenary activities and terrorism.
Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has condemned the death sentences as a "sham judgment with absolutely no legitimacy".
She wrote on Twitter: "I utterly condemn the sentencing of Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner held by Russian proxies in eastern Ukraine.
"They are prisoners of war. This is a sham judgment with absolutely no legitimacy.
"My thoughts are with the families. We continue to do everything we can to support them."
Another British fighter captured by the pro-Russian forces, Andrew Hill, is awaiting trial.
Mr Aslin and Mr Pinner had been fighting with Ukrainian forces in the southern port city of Mariupol when they were taken prisoner in mid-April, while Mr Brahim was captured in mid-March in the eastern city of Volnovakha.
After being captured, Mr Aslin and Mr Pinner appeared in videos in April asking to be part of a prisoner swap in exchange for pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk, who was being held by Ukraine.
The Kremlin was reported to have suggested the exchange more than a week before the footage emerged.
Moscow-backed separatists had claimed the three fighters are “mercenaries” who are not entitled to the usual protections afforded to prisoners of war.
In response, Mr Aslin and Mr Pinner’s families said that the men, who are both thought to have lived in Ukraine since 2018, were “long-serving” members of the Ukrainian military.
The government has called for the men's rights as prisoners of war to be respected under the Geneva Convention, which states that they must be treated humanely and protected from humiliating or degrading treatment.
A No 10 spokesperson said: “We are obviously deeply concerned by this. We have said continually that prisoners of war shouldn’t be exploited for political purposes.
“Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are entitled to combatant immunity and they should not be prosecuted for participation in hostilities.
“So we will continue to work with the Ukrainian authorities to try to secure the release of any British nationals who were serving in the Ukrainian armed forces and who are being held as prisoners of war.”
Mr Aslin's family, who previously urged the government to "act now", issued an emotional statement calling for his release on Tuesday.
In a statement released through the Foreign Office, Mr Aslin's family asked for privacy and said: “This is a very sensitive and emotional time for our family, and we would like to say thank you to all that have supported us.
“We are currently working with the Ukrainian government and the Foreign Office to try and bring Aiden home.
"Aiden is a much-loved man and very much missed, and we hope that he will be released very soon.”
Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2022-06-02 06:24pm
MAD is based on one fly all fly. But once a nuke has gone, say as Ralin suggests a tac nuke then everyone has to decide if MAD is failled bluff or if they follow through.
Obvuously before the bluff (if it is that) is called you'd not want to hint it was a bluff at all.
Both Ralin's and Broomstick's scenarios, that limited nuke will end up acceptable or that it will rapidly escalate into global nuclear war are frightening plausible.
And of course there's always the fog of war like we've seen with chemical weapons so far. Some claims a tac nuke is used but no one can verify it? Then what do you do? Nuking is allowed if you are sneaky enough?
There been scenarios gamed for nuclear de escalation. Allowing the limited use of tac nukes in war.... I personally think it's a problem but the idea is if you threw a tac nukes and blew up the formation, you can then settle for peace because the immediate threat is gone but the leaders/land/etc is still there .
I'm not a games theorist so my opinion means shit of course.
The doctrine introduced the notion of de-escalation—a strategy envisioning the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would force an opponent to accept a return to the status quo ante. Such a threat is envisioned as deterring the United States and its allies from involvement in conflicts in which Russia has an important stake, and in this sense is essentially defensive. Yet, to be effective, such a threat also must be credible. To that end, all large-scale military exercises that Russia conducted beginning in 2000 featured simulations of limited nuclear strikes
I can't find a cite for the American equivalent though I been told they exist.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2022-06-02 06:24pm
MAD is based on one fly all fly. But once a nuke has gone, say as Ralin suggests a tac nuke then everyone has to decide if MAD is failled bluff or if they follow through.
Obvuously before the bluff (if it is that) is called you'd not want to hint it was a bluff at all.
Both Ralin's and Broomstick's scenarios, that limited nuke will end up acceptable or that it will rapidly escalate into global nuclear war are frightening plausible.
And of course there's always the fog of war like we've seen with chemical weapons so far. Some claims a tac nuke is used but no one can verify it? Then what do you do? Nuking is allowed if you are sneaky enough?
There been scenarios gamed for nuclear de escalation. Allowing the limited use of tac nukes in war.... I personally think it's a problem but the idea is if you threw a tac nukes and blew up the formation, you can then settle for peace because the immediate threat is gone but the leaders/land/etc is still there .
I'm not a games theorist so my opinion means shit of course.
The doctrine introduced the notion of de-escalation—a strategy envisioning the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would force an opponent to accept a return to the status quo ante. Such a threat is envisioned as deterring the United States and its allies from involvement in conflicts in which Russia has an important stake, and in this sense is essentially defensive. Yet, to be effective, such a threat also must be credible. To that end, all large-scale military exercises that Russia conducted beginning in 2000 featured simulations of limited nuclear strikes
I can't find a cite for the American equivalent though I been told they exist.
That doctrine is fundamentally flawed. From Wikipedia:
The risk that use of tactical nuclear weapons could unexpectedly lead to a rapid escalation of a war to full use of strategic weapons has led to proposals being made within NATO and other organizations to place limitations on—and make more transparent—the stockpiling and use of tactical weapons. As the Cold War came to an end in 1991, the US and USSR withdrew most of their tactical nuclear weapons from deployment and disposed of them. The thousands of tactical warheads wielded by both sides in the late-1980s declined to the estimated 230 American and 1,000 to 2,000 Russian Federation warheads of 2021, although estimates for Russia vary widely.
Ralin wrote: ↑2022-06-10 09:17am
How exactly is it fundamentally flawed?
Essentially it shifts the impetus towards first strike , esp at your nuke forces , otherwise you can just use a nuke and win forever.
Russia attempted to use this doctrine to inhibit West from supplying Ukraine for example, by declaring threat of nuclear war, and this has affected willingness to shift arms.
In this case, the answer is simply sleigh of hand legalase tricks that ultimately nobody would escalate to nukes over.
But if say Russia used a nuke now on Ukraine, the question is what will the nuclear powers do? De escalate as per limited nuke doctrine? Or continue? Tit for tat? Escalate?
Interestingly, this includes China as she signed a security agreement with Ukraine.
So Ukraine is under China nuclear umbrella in theory.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
PainRack wrote: ↑2022-06-10 10:14am
Essentially it shifts the impetus towards first strike , esp at your nuke forces , otherwise you can just use a nuke and win forever.
I do not understand what 'shifts the impetus towards first strike' means here.
But if say Russia used a nuke now on Ukraine, the question is what will the nuclear powers do? De escalate as per limited nuke doctrine? Or continue? Tit for tat? Escalate?
Well, like I said before, how exactly do you see the decision making process for Biden or any other nuclear armed NATO head of state going on that? Winning a nuclear war with Russia can be expected to end in one or more American/NATO cities being destroyed. Does it make sense for Biden to accept that as the price of escalation? Over a country that no one in NATO values enough to send troops to defend?
Let me put it this way:
Interestingly, this includes China as she signed a security agreement with Ukraine.
So Ukraine is under China nuclear umbrella in theory.
Can you see Xi Jinping ordering a nuclear attack on Russia in retaliation for a Russian nuclear attack against the Ukrainian military or nearby NATO forces? Does this seem like a really unrealistic scenario? If so, ask yourself why you think it would be less unrealistic for Biden to do the same.
That's a whole lot of Bullshit coming from a group of rebels with no authority, who've welcomed Russian 'mercenaries' to work for them. If they go through with the executions, it's one more War Crime.
I'm wondering if the "they have a month to appeal" is the Rebel's attempt to get some prisoner exchange or concessions from either Ukraine or Nato.
The 'they're mercs, not covered by Geneva' attitude isn't surprising tho. I believe I posted several articles to this thread about how Russians are treating their captured Civilians -- forced into camps, little food, no medical attention, insufficient shelter, and harsh beatings. I fully believe all captured Ukraine/Nato fighters are being subjected to the same, or worse. The only reason these ones were "on trial" is because they are foreign citizens and can't just be shot in the head and buried in a mass grave.
We're already seeing mass graves and mass killing of civilians. It's going to be much worse once the dust settles and the bodies are found. It's going to be the Nuremburg Trials all over again.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
LadyTevar wrote: ↑2022-06-10 11:27am
I'm wondering if the "they have a month to appeal" is the Rebel's attempt to get some prisoner exchange or concessions from either Ukraine or Nato.
The only reason these ones were "on trial" is because they are foreign citizens and can't just be shot in the head and buried in a mass grave.
More the former than the latter I think (they don't seem to have many qualms about shooting foreigners and it's not like they fear the UK's wrath).
I read elsewhere there's footage of them being sworn into the Ukranian army. Dunno if that's true.
We're already seeing mass graves and mass killing of civilians. It's going to be much worse once the dust settles and the bodies are found. It's going to be the Nuremburg Trials all over again.
That requires either invading Russia or some sort of internal power shift leading to people being handed over for trial.
LadyTevar wrote: ↑2022-06-10 11:27am
]We're already seeing mass graves and mass killing of civilians. It's going to be much worse once the dust settles and the bodies are found. It's going to be the Nuremburg Trials all over again.
That requires either invading Russia or some sort of internal power shift leading to people being handed over for trial.
I hate that you're right. There's going to be people missing for years to come, with no idea where they are buried (because chances are they're not alive), and no way to find them without Russian authorities stepping forward.
There's also the matter of the children who've been "deported" into Russia and Belarus.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
Ralin wrote: ↑2022-06-10 11:46am
That requires either invading Russia or some sort of internal power shift leading to people being handed over for trial.
Put most of the Russian Upper levels of government and military on trial 'in Absentia', and then put out international arrest warrants for them anyway.
That would include not inviting Russian officials to anything in the future. Hell, I'd even go so far as to state that Russian athletes are barred from sports events until the convicted turn themselves in.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
That's a whole lot of Bullshit coming from a group of rebels with no authority, who've welcomed Russian 'mercenaries' to work for them. If they go through with the executions, it's one more War Crime.
I'm wondering if the "they have a month to appeal" is the Rebel's attempt to get some prisoner exchange or concessions from either Ukraine or Nato.
The 'they're mercs, not covered by Geneva' attitude isn't surprising tho. I believe I posted several articles to this thread about how Russians are treating their captured Civilians -- forced into camps, little food, no medical attention, insufficient shelter, and harsh beatings. I fully believe all captured Ukraine/Nato fighters are being subjected to the same, or worse. The only reason these ones were "on trial" is because they are foreign citizens and can't just be shot in the head and buried in a mass grave.
Also IIRC mercenaries are covered by the Geneva conventions since they recognize officially only 3 categories "legal combatant, non-combatant and civilian" and the definition of "legal combatant" essentially only demands they're clearly organized and marked as such so mercs as long as they were clearly in uniform (or other obvious insignia) would be considered "legal combatants" under the Geneva conventions and thus afforded all the rights for that.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
Ralin wrote: ↑2022-06-10 11:46am
That requires either invading Russia or some sort of internal power shift leading to people being handed over for trial.
Put most of the Russian Upper levels of government and military on trial 'in Absentia', and then put out international arrest warrants for them anyway.
NATO nations that have such a mechanism are welcome to try that. The US cannot, because the concept of trial in absentia does not exist in US law and indeed would violate the constitution (sixth and fourteenth amendments). Not that the US government(s) haven't occasionally used the constitution as toilet paper but we're supposed to be the law-abiding good guys here.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote: ↑2022-06-11 04:51amNATO nations that have such a mechanism are welcome to try that. The US cannot, because the concept of trial in absentia does not exist in US law and indeed would violate the constitution (sixth and fourteenth amendments). Not that the US government(s) haven't occasionally used the constitution as toilet paper but we're supposed to be the law-abiding good guys here.
The easy solution to that is to do it the same way as last time - establish an international tribunal (including US participation, among others) with explicit authority to try individuals in absentia.
