Ukraine creating international territorial defense legion – Zelensky(ukrinform.net)
ukrinform.net
Ukraine creating international territorial defense legion – Zelensky
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3414438-ukraine-creating-international-territorial-defense-legion-zelensky.html
153 comments
Not directly related to the call for an international IT army, but one thing I can’t wrap my head around with Ukraine’s call for hackers is how can they coordinate anything? Presumably Russian state aligned hackers are out there, pretending to be white hats available to help, “oh yea, let us help setup your firewall.”
What’s the game plan? To clarify, not saying it’s a bad idea, just that I don’t understand how it is supposed to work
What’s the game plan? To clarify, not saying it’s a bad idea, just that I don’t understand how it is supposed to work
One thing about inviting the whole world to help is that they massively outnumber the target (and make no mistake, the whole world is responding). The west has enough hacking and DDOS capability to take out all of the Russian targets. At this scale, and with this much redundancy, coordination becomes unnecessary - it's more of a contest about who does most damage.
As for the those who travel it would be very different and perhaps more clear cut. For the cyber, what they could do is provide a rough guide about where to focus their energy on, how to pick targets, some opsec lessons, some legal disclaimers.
I doubt they will give them a detailed list of targets and say hit Sberbank & Rosneft please, but more of a guide to fighters to assess their own capabilities and risks. Then based on that self-assessment which targets to self-identify and select, and also where to report to on a regular basis. I doubt it would be a collaborative environment where people who've never met share communication with other operatives. But it might become one if the war drags on (it probably does and in any case there is strong incentive to keep building on this afterwards)
This is just speculation. In reality they might all be thrown into a couple of telegram channels and hope for the best. In fact maybe this could also be a great idea, because if you compartmentalize 1000 people with potential 20 Russian-friendly lurkers into 5-person chat channels you might get some sabotage but the benefits of team-work might outweigh the sabotage. Also your chances of people staying on because they're part of a team is bigger.
I doubt they will give them a detailed list of targets and say hit Sberbank & Rosneft please, but more of a guide to fighters to assess their own capabilities and risks. Then based on that self-assessment which targets to self-identify and select, and also where to report to on a regular basis. I doubt it would be a collaborative environment where people who've never met share communication with other operatives. But it might become one if the war drags on (it probably does and in any case there is strong incentive to keep building on this afterwards)
This is just speculation. In reality they might all be thrown into a couple of telegram channels and hope for the best. In fact maybe this could also be a great idea, because if you compartmentalize 1000 people with potential 20 Russian-friendly lurkers into 5-person chat channels you might get some sabotage but the benefits of team-work might outweigh the sabotage. Also your chances of people staying on because they're part of a team is bigger.
Telegram channel: https://t.me/itarmyofukraine2022
Commenters don't seem to understand, but it is the actual telegram channel created by Ukrainian forces to coordinate actions.
please don't use telegram especially now that Russia is at war with the West it's terrible opsec. It's cryptographc snake-oil and the Tech is literally controlled by Russians. There is also a reason all the IS fighters organizing themselves there got pwned ;)
The Ukrainian govt is officially using it.
Spreading FUD in this time does no one any good.
Spreading FUD in this time does no one any good.
just because X is using it doesn't mean it's good opsec. But hey, I'm not the boss of you!
Agreed to cryptographic snake oil, but in regard to Russian-controlled would encourage to read on the biography of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov and him opposing Putin and how Telegram has tried to just outrun any state control.
In that sense, I believe Telegram is much more independent than fully undermined FB/Whatsapp... but for what does it matter? Any public group will have leakers And can potentially be undermined by any big enough actor... either you are in a small fully trusted and encrypted circle, or you are in a big and always public group with potentially enemy actors?
In that sense, I believe Telegram is much more independent than fully undermined FB/Whatsapp... but for what does it matter? Any public group will have leakers And can potentially be undermined by any big enough actor... either you are in a small fully trusted and encrypted circle, or you are in a big and always public group with potentially enemy actors?
I have nothing against Pavel Durov, but in a situation where it's likely that they can't make Pavel what they want, they absolutely will lean on his family. I'm not throwing a dice no matter what I think of him personally. Everyone cracks so unless he doesn't have a single person in RU (or even abroad) that he cares about I'm skeptic.
Telegram is used because it's popular and everyone else uses it I get that. In case this is crucial somehow and this reason prevents me from using Signal, Wire, etc I'd still use WhatsApp/FB over TG in time like this. I'd rather chose the platform from a place that has a history of being an adversary of (in this case) RU.
> either you are in a small fully trusted and encrypted circle
Good advise to never say anything even with a fully trusted circle, because it's not only who gets your phone but who gets your recipients phone. Also peoples allegiances change. Today's friends will 100% flip on you tomorrow.
Maybe this old linked piece of excellent advise is relevant? ...: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8950875
Telegram is used because it's popular and everyone else uses it I get that. In case this is crucial somehow and this reason prevents me from using Signal, Wire, etc I'd still use WhatsApp/FB over TG in time like this. I'd rather chose the platform from a place that has a history of being an adversary of (in this case) RU.
> either you are in a small fully trusted and encrypted circle
Good advise to never say anything even with a fully trusted circle, because it's not only who gets your phone but who gets your recipients phone. Also peoples allegiances change. Today's friends will 100% flip on you tomorrow.
Maybe this old linked piece of excellent advise is relevant? ...: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8950875
Telegram is not end to end encrypted and requires you to use a phone number for ID. The only worse IM app I can think of is iMessage.
amcoastal(3)
Ukraine foreign minister, invited minutes ago on BBC, all interested to contact the Ukrainian embassy in their respective Country.
These kinds of laws are applied selectively in terms of attention, populism, etc..
My bet, is that if nobody is really aware that you're messing with the Russian Postal Service during 'this time' there isn't really going to be a concern.
The UK Government, I believe, just this morning indicated that they would support people who wanted to go and fight.
People have fought with the Kurds from various countries, though their actions were on foreign soil.
My hunch is that this is political. If you're doing it for ISIS, and authorities become aware, you're somehow going to be in trouble. They will find a law that you are breaking.
If you are fighting against Russian in a moment of crisis, and not completely publicly flaunting some very obvious law, then maybe the authorities won't care.
In the US however, it's tricky, because if someone, somewhere doesn't like what you're up to, they can put the DA on someone and find a way to book them for '100 years in jail' (i.e. Aaron Swartz).
My bet, is that if nobody is really aware that you're messing with the Russian Postal Service during 'this time' there isn't really going to be a concern.
The UK Government, I believe, just this morning indicated that they would support people who wanted to go and fight.
People have fought with the Kurds from various countries, though their actions were on foreign soil.
My hunch is that this is political. If you're doing it for ISIS, and authorities become aware, you're somehow going to be in trouble. They will find a law that you are breaking.
If you are fighting against Russian in a moment of crisis, and not completely publicly flaunting some very obvious law, then maybe the authorities won't care.
In the US however, it's tricky, because if someone, somewhere doesn't like what you're up to, they can put the DA on someone and find a way to book them for '100 years in jail' (i.e. Aaron Swartz).
>While I can't picture myself taking up (cyber) arms against a foreign nation, aren't EU / US law quite explicit about the legality of meddling as a civilian?
To actually take a shot at your question, for the US at least in general it appears to be perfectly legal purely as a matter of current US law for a private citizen to go and fight for another country, so long as it's not against the US. I could have sworn this had come up fairly recently in the midst of all the middle east battles and indeed Foreign Policy had a whole article devoted to it in 2011: "Is It Legal for Americans to Fight in Another Country’s Army?" [0]. Caveats don't seem to apply here, obviously the UA is not an American "designated terrorist organization", Russia is not an ally (to put it mildly), etc. So just in terms of "could an American go volunteer for this?" answer seems to be yes.
Of course in practice it's a lot more complicated. Being legal to go fight in another army has nothing to do with actually getting there, what you can bring, and coverage for your actions. Unless you have a direct private US<>Ukraine flight or boat, have to check on transit laws for all the countries one is going through. Laws about transport of weapons or equipment (ITAR) still apply, though things you bring purely for your own use may be allowed but it's not clear at a glance. Bringing extras would definitely require licensing. Regulations for commercial air/sea travel, customs and so on still apply. If an officially sanctioned uniformed part of the UA volunteers should be protected by the GC and POW treaties and so on same as any other soldier, but of course Russia's adherence to that isn't a given, and they won't actually have the US military backing them directly like a US soldier would. Any crimes committed could be prosecuted, and there are requirements for GC coverage (like being in uniform, chain of command) that over enthusiastic volunteers might ignore at their peril. Russia could well be expected to flat out invent supposed crimes they "saw" volunteers committing and that wouldn't be trivial to avoid if captured. And much more.
It's a heroic cause and if somebody or some group was serious about navigating all that and accepting the risk even beyond that to their lives I'd honor them for it, and if all went well and they made it home there doesn't appear to be any legal risk back here so there is that. But it'd be an even more serious business than going to fight as part of the regular US forces.
----
0: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/02/is-it-legal-for-america...
To actually take a shot at your question, for the US at least in general it appears to be perfectly legal purely as a matter of current US law for a private citizen to go and fight for another country, so long as it's not against the US. I could have sworn this had come up fairly recently in the midst of all the middle east battles and indeed Foreign Policy had a whole article devoted to it in 2011: "Is It Legal for Americans to Fight in Another Country’s Army?" [0]. Caveats don't seem to apply here, obviously the UA is not an American "designated terrorist organization", Russia is not an ally (to put it mildly), etc. So just in terms of "could an American go volunteer for this?" answer seems to be yes.
Of course in practice it's a lot more complicated. Being legal to go fight in another army has nothing to do with actually getting there, what you can bring, and coverage for your actions. Unless you have a direct private US<>Ukraine flight or boat, have to check on transit laws for all the countries one is going through. Laws about transport of weapons or equipment (ITAR) still apply, though things you bring purely for your own use may be allowed but it's not clear at a glance. Bringing extras would definitely require licensing. Regulations for commercial air/sea travel, customs and so on still apply. If an officially sanctioned uniformed part of the UA volunteers should be protected by the GC and POW treaties and so on same as any other soldier, but of course Russia's adherence to that isn't a given, and they won't actually have the US military backing them directly like a US soldier would. Any crimes committed could be prosecuted, and there are requirements for GC coverage (like being in uniform, chain of command) that over enthusiastic volunteers might ignore at their peril. Russia could well be expected to flat out invent supposed crimes they "saw" volunteers committing and that wouldn't be trivial to avoid if captured. And much more.
It's a heroic cause and if somebody or some group was serious about navigating all that and accepting the risk even beyond that to their lives I'd honor them for it, and if all went well and they made it home there doesn't appear to be any legal risk back here so there is that. But it'd be an even more serious business than going to fight as part of the regular US forces.
----
0: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/02/is-it-legal-for-america...
Some British politicians have indicated they will support citizens fighting for Ukraine.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-russi...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-russi...
This statement is so counter to what I'd normally expect a defence minister to say that I wonder if it's being setup as a cover for British troops to be in Ukraine without bringing forth all the issues around Brits and Russians killing each other.
I wouldn't be surprised if special operations groups were already in country but this would let them be a lot more liberal with showing themselves.
I wouldn't be surprised if special operations groups were already in country but this would let them be a lot more liberal with showing themselves.
This is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. Tell SAS guys they have a 3 month expenses paid holiday as civilians in Eastern Europe. Job done.
”don’t get yourselves into trouble. Wink wink”
”don’t get yourselves into trouble. Wink wink”
PUTIN: These guys were on a holiday there
THE WORLD: gasps
UK: These guys were on a holiday there
THE WORLD: claps
I guess in a three months I would have more than enough of these gasps/claps jokes.
THE WORLD: gasps
UK: These guys were on a holiday there
THE WORLD: claps
I guess in a three months I would have more than enough of these gasps/claps jokes.
I wonder how large you could take this strategy before it turns into a NATO intervention. Could you have 3 full battalions of British troops all take time off and decide to go fight for Ukraine on their own?
Could you have a full armoured regiment take 1 month PTO and go fight for Ukraine and then suddenly have some British armour dropped off for the Ukrainian army to use?
Could you say a drone command group is taking a month off then lend and lease a fleet of drones to the Ukrainian air force?
This feels like a very Putinesque salami tactic, maybe we should be hitting back the say way he's hitting Ukraine.
Could you have a full armoured regiment take 1 month PTO and go fight for Ukraine and then suddenly have some British armour dropped off for the Ukrainian army to use?
Could you say a drone command group is taking a month off then lend and lease a fleet of drones to the Ukrainian air force?
This feels like a very Putinesque salami tactic, maybe we should be hitting back the say way he's hitting Ukraine.
This feels like the way the world ends.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/vladimir-putin...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/vladimir-putin...
I guess it depends on how much you can get away with.
For guys with guns, those are guys with guns. For drones, it is hard to prove it's not Ukrainians flying those TB2s or how many they have or anything.
Getting away with Patriot or few A-10's being on vacation might be hard.
For guys with guns, those are guys with guns. For drones, it is hard to prove it's not Ukrainians flying those TB2s or how many they have or anything.
Getting away with Patriot or few A-10's being on vacation might be hard.
There’s certainly a long history of Soviet Russian and Chinese personnel embedded with and “helping” US adversaries in Korea, Vietnam, etc. quite egregiously in fact. So there is definitely historical precedent.
[deleted]
Little green men.
It is a bit weird to state it so outright but there is a long history of governments giving more or less official support to volunteer soldiers.
During the Finish Winter War (1940) the Soviet Union attacked Finland, a neutral country, after a false flag operation which they used as an excuse to attack. My grandfather, together with 8000 other Swedes went to help the Finns with the explicit support by the Swedish government. [1]
He was part of the Swedish Voluntary Air Force F19 [2], as an airplane mechanic. I still have some of his winter war gear and the medal he got.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_intervention_in_the_Wi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Regiment_19,_Finnish_Ai...
He was part of the Swedish Voluntary Air Force F19 [2], as an airplane mechanic. I still have some of his winter war gear and the medal he got.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_intervention_in_the_Wi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Regiment_19,_Finnish_Ai...
My grandfather was a truck driver from northern Sweden. Just before the war he had just bought a new Volvo truck with about 70 hp (a monster in those days) and had loans to pay, but during the war suddenly there was no jobs. In the newspaper he read about a job in the port of Holmsund near Umeå and when he went it became clear that this was no ordinary job.
As you said Sweden allowed and encouraged Swedish volunteers to Finland, but the military also sent a lot of firearms, artillery and other equipment. But the railways in Sweden and Finland were of different widths meaning all cargo would have to be unloaded and re-loaded by hand at the border. They still tried but the system was quickly overrun.
The winter in 39/40 was one of the coldest ever here, meaning the Bothnian Bay was frozen solid. The solution was to drive civilian truck convoys loaded with armaments over the ice over "Kvarken", the strait from Holmsund to Vasa. There they unloaded the trucks and loaded Finnish pulp for paper production, which was the only thing they had a surplus of.
They had to drive at night and cover their headlamps so Soviet planes wouldn't spot them. They had to drive with their door open so they could get out and run if they were attacked or if the ice started caving, meaning many of them got frostbitten (especially those from southern Sweden )
My grandfather drove many times and "advanced" to plowtruck in the front part of the convoy, a safer position. One time there was a blizzard and the tracks got covered with snow in seconds. Since the drivers couldn't see more than a meter or two, the convoy quickly clogged up. Even if the ice was thick, it couldn't handle it. One driver died. He was the only casualty of the "Kvarken traffic" although 6 trucks went through the ice in total.
My grandfather proposed to my grandmother in the beginning of the war, but she already had a boyfriend. The morning after the blizzard my grandmother heard that the convoy hadn't yet arrived in Vasa. She was worried and devastated, and realized she loved him.
So, I guess the moral of the story is I exist because Sweden and Finland had incompatible train tracks..
As you said Sweden allowed and encouraged Swedish volunteers to Finland, but the military also sent a lot of firearms, artillery and other equipment. But the railways in Sweden and Finland were of different widths meaning all cargo would have to be unloaded and re-loaded by hand at the border. They still tried but the system was quickly overrun.
The winter in 39/40 was one of the coldest ever here, meaning the Bothnian Bay was frozen solid. The solution was to drive civilian truck convoys loaded with armaments over the ice over "Kvarken", the strait from Holmsund to Vasa. There they unloaded the trucks and loaded Finnish pulp for paper production, which was the only thing they had a surplus of.
They had to drive at night and cover their headlamps so Soviet planes wouldn't spot them. They had to drive with their door open so they could get out and run if they were attacked or if the ice started caving, meaning many of them got frostbitten (especially those from southern Sweden )
My grandfather drove many times and "advanced" to plowtruck in the front part of the convoy, a safer position. One time there was a blizzard and the tracks got covered with snow in seconds. Since the drivers couldn't see more than a meter or two, the convoy quickly clogged up. Even if the ice was thick, it couldn't handle it. One driver died. He was the only casualty of the "Kvarken traffic" although 6 trucks went through the ice in total.
My grandfather proposed to my grandmother in the beginning of the war, but she already had a boyfriend. The morning after the blizzard my grandmother heard that the convoy hadn't yet arrived in Vasa. She was worried and devastated, and realized she loved him.
So, I guess the moral of the story is I exist because Sweden and Finland had incompatible train tracks..
It's also funny how truckloads of arms are sometimes dropped off in the night with no apparent owners. /shrug
Liz Truss is not exactly known for her intelligence.
But US and UK with their increased deployment on NATO borders might use it as a cover to put special forces in, but since the fighting is far from the NATO borders right now, I don't know how much it will help Ukraine.
But US and UK with their increased deployment on NATO borders might use it as a cover to put special forces in, but since the fighting is far from the NATO borders right now, I don't know how much it will help Ukraine.
Same. I was thinking about all those movies in the 80s and 90s that show US spec ops taking off their US patches before being dropped into some random South American country. Would NATO powers take that risk though? There's some game theory going now. If RUS found a NATO soldier in theater, would they attack outside UKR? I would think RUS definitely doesn't want to provoke a full on NATO response under any pretense.
Nukes are always the wildcard, but if Putin is willing to use them first at all, we already have much bigger problems.
Nukes are always the wildcard, but if Putin is willing to use them first at all, we already have much bigger problems.
I'd think it's fair to assume that there's Americans in Ukraine now, scavenging electronics and interesting materials from downed Russian airplanes, for rapid analysis elsewhere.
This is such an awful idea. The origins of this war, and the annexation of Crimea following Euromaidan, lie in the Russian perception that Ukraine's status as a neutral buffer against NATO will change. Any European involvement of this kind would only serve to pour fuel onto this fire. I know this is not an official endorsement, however this is a patently irresponsible thing for a British politician to say.
That ship has kinda sailed now that Russia invaded Ukraine. What would be the point in trying to make Russia feel less threatened by Ukraine now? And how would that even be possible to do?
It's not the 1950s. Stalin is dead. Russia is not fighting this war to annihilate Ukraine. They want to restore a supplicant government loyal to Russia, and keep funding them to that effect. Same playbook they're using in the rest of their satellite republics. If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya? Look at those countries. Russia pours money on them to keep them neutral. That's the alternative.
> Russia is not fighting this war to annihilate Ukraine
https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-not-a-real-country-h...
> If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/belarusalert/soft-anne...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya
https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-not-a-real-country-h...
> If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/belarusalert/soft-anne...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya
> If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war
> They want to restore a supplicant government loyal to Russia,
What exactly do you think imperialism is?
> They want to restore a supplicant government loyal to Russia,
What exactly do you think imperialism is?
Russia is pretty much turning Belarus into a puppet state, not a neutral buffer.
>"If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya? Look at those countries"
Chechnya is not a country and is a part of Russia. Before that it was part of the USSR.
Chechnya is not a country and is a part of Russia. Before that it was part of the USSR.
And what if Ukrainians disagree? Maybe because they prefer freedom and choosing their own destiny?
But that is not what will happen. From all indications of Russia wins this war and installs a puppet regime that regime will meet heavy popular resistance and be overthrown as soon as Russia leaves the country. So I do not see much option here other than trying to defend Ukraine and to isolate and/or topple Putin. Your ideas about not provoking Russia are not relevant in the current climate where Putin is hated in Ukraine and where the Ukrainians do not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. Your strategy might have worked in 2010 but now it is too late.
It doesn't seem like "Russia" is fighting the war at all as a society; Putin personally is, but people up to federal legislators are publicly objecting, and if you follow the battle reports it seems the soldiers so far have barely been given orders, don't want to do their jobs, not to mention keep running out of gas and abandoning their vehicles.
Somewhere between the cabinet and the rest of the military there is quite the lack of motivation.
Somewhere between the cabinet and the rest of the military there is quite the lack of motivation.
Belarus and Chechnya have been annexed in all but name.
Ukraine wasn’t anywhere close to joining NATO and Russia invaded anyway.
Now they’re definitely gonna push their hardest to join NATO after the war is over, and who could blame them?
Now they’re definitely gonna push their hardest to join NATO after the war is over, and who could blame them?
Why would an “one for all, all for one” alliance bring in a member that’s had a very recent history of armed invasion (by a super power, no less)? It seems to invite a world war.
To prevent exactly what’s happening now.
Does it? There is exactly 0% chance if UKraine joined NATO back in 2008 Russia puts 200,000 troops on its border and has its psychopathic president give a speech that Ukraine is full of Nazis and has no right to exist.
Joining NATO means "the member" doesn't have a history of armed invasion; NATO does.
Joining NATO means "the member" doesn't have a history of armed invasion; NATO does.
The question isn’t what it does for Ukraine (I imagine that’s clear enough); it’s what NATO risks vs what it gains.
I'm so happy we have all decided to put our capes on the moment a white majority nation is invaded despite the huge potential price to pay for it while we left people in the middle east get terrorised.
By that logic, Russia would be the one receiving nominal Western support since it carries out ethnic cleansings (with relative impunity) against Georgians and possibly now Ukrainians, who must be "less white" than Russians on most scales. Also, Ukraine was already gradually descending into chaos because superpowers were playing ridiculous games like they do in the Middle East despite lacking the usual justifications used for the War on Terror.
> Ukrainians, who must be "less white" than Russians
They are not less white. White as all encompassing the most important racial/ethnic category is an American invention. It does not make sense to import it outside of America and assume it will work.
Also, Putin line is that Ukraine is fake nation. It should not exist as independent entity, basically.
They are not less white. White as all encompassing the most important racial/ethnic category is an American invention. It does not make sense to import it outside of America and assume it will work.
Also, Putin line is that Ukraine is fake nation. It should not exist as independent entity, basically.
White is a skin tone, but it also seems to be a catch-all for anyone that can be assigned historical guilt for benefitting in some way from imperialism. From there, the possibilities are endless. So, the present-day Russia has transgressed greatly and should be punished, according to this perspective. However, apparently, Ukrainians are benefitting as well as Caucasians, and that's why they would receive sympathy. If I could just forget about having heard of this ideology, I would.
You are really twisting yourself into pretzels.
Shit take.
Many western nations have strong ties to Ukraine through historical waves of immigration, and in the case of Poland, they are neighbours with a similar way of life and language.
Plus Ukrainians are taking a stand to defend their democracy, whereas Afghanistan made no such effort.
Also, the west went above and beyond wrt Syria, but Putin obviously won that one.
Many western nations have strong ties to Ukraine through historical waves of immigration, and in the case of Poland, they are neighbours with a similar way of life and language.
Plus Ukrainians are taking a stand to defend their democracy, whereas Afghanistan made no such effort.
Also, the west went above and beyond wrt Syria, but Putin obviously won that one.
Russia has already attacked people on British soil, and then lied about it. A bystander got killed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-59332227
Russia-UK relations are extremely bad right now.
Russia-UK relations are extremely bad right now.
Not only did they lie about it - that's par for the course for that vile regime - but they put the perpetrators on national tv so that they and the hosts could smirk about the murder. That was my personal damascene moment realising the sort of people were in charge there.
> Russia-UK relations are extremely bad right now.
no wonder with Bellingcat ready to diminish every effort by Russia ... from the time RU shot down MH17, to when Brits harassed those Russian tourists who wanted to marvel at the spire, and most recently the whole Navalny poisoning where they stalked the assassins. This sort of attitude by UK isn't exactly helping relations :) /s
no wonder with Bellingcat ready to diminish every effort by Russia ... from the time RU shot down MH17, to when Brits harassed those Russian tourists who wanted to marvel at the spire, and most recently the whole Navalny poisoning where they stalked the assassins. This sort of attitude by UK isn't exactly helping relations :) /s
This is how you get to DEFCON 1.
Ukraine is fighting our war right now, as an united nation. Huge respect.
This is it. Ironic considering that EU/US is unwilling to fight a war that will benefit them the most. Ukraine is fighting this war for their country but they are also fighting to save the world from a very possible WWIII.
Nuclear weapons are really a horrible curse, in every single ways possible. You can see the bully coming after your neighbors and you know, they know, everybody knows you won’t do anything to defend yourself to avoid a nuclear conflict. If we wouldn’t have nukes we would join our neighbors and fight but the real risk of a complete nuclear annihilation freezes all our moves.
Ukrainians and Georgians are indeed fighting our war, defending the European cause, while we are bystanders. The entire situation makes me feel sick.
Ukrainians and Georgians are indeed fighting our war, defending the European cause, while we are bystanders. The entire situation makes me feel sick.
I agree 100%.
Ukraine deserves all the money that will go toward building back their economy when they finally win this war.
Ukraine deserves all the money that will go toward building back their economy when they finally win this war.
I’m still wondering at which point diplomacy started to fail so spectacularly?
When Ukrainians overthrew Putin’s puppet Yanukovych back in 2014?
My personal opinion is that Putin was never negotiating in good faith. He was negotiating as a stalling tactic while prepared and/or waited for the most opportune time to invade.
My personal opinion is that Putin was never negotiating in good faith. He was negotiating as a stalling tactic while prepared and/or waited for the most opportune time to invade.
Yes, I agree, it has never been in good faith. Putin is a fascist, in the true sense of the world. His ideology is based on a "natural order" in which the strong dominate the weak and a past dream of lost glory. When he's using the "blood and soil" argument or he's talking about fighting against degeneracy it's not by mistake. If you look a bit at the ideology popular among high-ranked Russian, their behavior for the past 15-20 years make more sense.
For example, you can check:
- the book "Foundations of Geopolitics ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
- its author and "philosopher" Aleksandr Dugin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
Putin has a long-term vision and strategy to build a fascist empire, he has been working on this for decades.
For example, you can check:
- the book "Foundations of Geopolitics ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
- its author and "philosopher" Aleksandr Dugin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
Putin has a long-term vision and strategy to build a fascist empire, he has been working on this for decades.
Russia first strike on NATO will cause at most 40m dead in the most improbable scenario of NATO just standing doing nothing.
If NATO will disable the Russian nuclear C&C, they will no longer be able to launch a coordinated attack, and it will be for individual officers in bunkers to decide of fighting an unwinnable war.
If NATO will disable the Russian nuclear C&C, they will no longer be able to launch a coordinated attack, and it will be for individual officers in bunkers to decide of fighting an unwinnable war.
"first strike"? The moment America or Russian launches a single nuke on the other the other goes full on last strike by glassing half of earth, the rest of us dying in nuclear winter.
It is called mutual ASSURED destruction (MAD) for a reason.
It is called mutual ASSURED destruction (MAD) for a reason.
The EU/US joining would be what causes WWIII.
> The EU/US joining would be what causes WWIII.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.
Russia's military is weak, their economy is extremely weak, their manufacturing base is extremely weak, and their only defensive fall-back is nuclear weapons and masses of bodies to throw at an invading force (it would be very unwise for anybody to bother invading Russia, there's no point to that). The use of nuclear weapons doesn't equate to a world war.
Where would WW3 come from? Russia has very few allies and China isn't joining WW3 on their side (China would stay out of it unless attacked, they'd strategically position themselves to benefit from the damage to their peers).
Belarus is a joke (and that regime would be quickly broken in a conflict). Syria is destroyed. Iran is a non-threat. What else has Russia got on their side?
There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.
Russia's military is weak, their economy is extremely weak, their manufacturing base is extremely weak, and their only defensive fall-back is nuclear weapons and masses of bodies to throw at an invading force (it would be very unwise for anybody to bother invading Russia, there's no point to that). The use of nuclear weapons doesn't equate to a world war.
Where would WW3 come from? Russia has very few allies and China isn't joining WW3 on their side (China would stay out of it unless attacked, they'd strategically position themselves to benefit from the damage to their peers).
Belarus is a joke (and that regime would be quickly broken in a conflict). Syria is destroyed. Iran is a non-threat. What else has Russia got on their side?
The nukes are WWIII. That’s why a direct war is a massive risk.
> There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.
WWIII, in a literal sense (that is, between world-wide alliances), won't happen, since certainly China/India have not reason to enter it.
On the other hand though, Russia vs. the West is not so far fetched. Keep in mind that Putimir announced:
> Russian president Vladimir Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrence forces on high alert after aggressive statements by Nato countries, Reuters reports.
Whether this is a bluff or not, it shows a clearly deranged personality. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a matter of principle, he'd initiate a nuclear war rather than losing Ukraine. After all, invading Ukraine has been motivated entirely by principle.
WWIII, in a literal sense (that is, between world-wide alliances), won't happen, since certainly China/India have not reason to enter it.
On the other hand though, Russia vs. the West is not so far fetched. Keep in mind that Putimir announced:
> Russian president Vladimir Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrence forces on high alert after aggressive statements by Nato countries, Reuters reports.
Whether this is a bluff or not, it shows a clearly deranged personality. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a matter of principle, he'd initiate a nuclear war rather than losing Ukraine. After all, invading Ukraine has been motivated entirely by principle.
Europe is not sending a lot of weapons instead of soldiers for a single reason: nukes. Nobody wants to contribute to the end of this Earth and although Putin seems to be playing Nixon's "the president is crazy" card well, you can never be sure how far from reality he is.
Edit: well, that escalated quickly:
https://ria.ru/20220227/putin-1775389742.html
'As stated in the directory on the website of the Ministry of Defense, the strategic forces "are designed to deter aggression against Russia and its allies, as well as to defeat the aggressor (inflicting defeat on him), including in a war with the use of nuclear weapons."'
Edit: well, that escalated quickly:
https://ria.ru/20220227/putin-1775389742.html
'As stated in the directory on the website of the Ministry of Defense, the strategic forces "are designed to deter aggression against Russia and its allies, as well as to defeat the aggressor (inflicting defeat on him), including in a war with the use of nuclear weapons."'
We have a much more recent example of a crazy president that would threaten nuclear war than Nixon.
You mean the recent president that signed more peace deals in the Middle East in recent history and was the only president who also hasn’t started a war since probably I’ve been alive? That guy?
Yeah the one that would tweet fire and fury and randomly blow up generals on airstrips.
...by selling out the Palestinians? And dependent on a fantasy (a demilitarized Israel?!) They were an election-year stunt. Not a real effort at diplomacy.
An old senile man is occupying the office that could have stopped Putin.
Putin didn't even call any bluff. Biden admitted on TV that they aren't doing to do anything weeks ago. Putin did exactly what he said he would do, and Biden is doing exactly what he said he would do.
It's no wonder nothing happened when Trump was in office. How many times do we need to learn that appeasement does nothing. If the Allies stopped Germany when they remilitarized the Rhineland, Hitler would've been done without much of a war. Instead, the world appeased Hitler until it was too late.
The world appeased Putin with Crimea, and then the separatists. The world is appeasing this. What's the next escalation?
Putin didn't even call any bluff. Biden admitted on TV that they aren't doing to do anything weeks ago. Putin did exactly what he said he would do, and Biden is doing exactly what he said he would do.
It's no wonder nothing happened when Trump was in office. How many times do we need to learn that appeasement does nothing. If the Allies stopped Germany when they remilitarized the Rhineland, Hitler would've been done without much of a war. Instead, the world appeased Hitler until it was too late.
The world appeased Putin with Crimea, and then the separatists. The world is appeasing this. What's the next escalation?
There is no real fear of nuclear apocalypse when a nuclear power attacks a non-nuclear power (especially one that doesn’t have a binding defense agreement automatically activated upon attack/invasion w/ a nuclear power); we’ve seen the US do that with impunity and no repercussions. Risk of nuclear annihilation only comes when one nuclear power attacks another.
>fighting our war
Which group are they fighting for? It's a former Soviet state fighting Russia. Part of being an independent nation means being diplomatic and not pissing off your neighbor. The CSA attacked a US fort and now they don't exist either. That's just the way it goes.
If by "our" you mean free democracy, eh, Ukraine wasn't exactly the bastion of free democracy you think it is. There were plenty of coups and illegitimate governments in its short life. There's nuance here but a lot of people are ignoring it and just eating up propaganda.
Which group are they fighting for? It's a former Soviet state fighting Russia. Part of being an independent nation means being diplomatic and not pissing off your neighbor. The CSA attacked a US fort and now they don't exist either. That's just the way it goes.
If by "our" you mean free democracy, eh, Ukraine wasn't exactly the bastion of free democracy you think it is. There were plenty of coups and illegitimate governments in its short life. There's nuance here but a lot of people are ignoring it and just eating up propaganda.
It's a formerly occupied state that is fighting its former occupier.
Ok, that's not our war.
> It's a former Soviet state fighting Russia.
It's a former Soviet state defending itself from a Russian invasion.
It's a former Soviet state defending itself from a Russian invasion.
Beware, it's criminal to fight in a foreign army for most EU citizens.
Edit: There is no such thing as "willingness to prosecute" in EU, all crimes must and will be prosecuted here (the officials of many states even said so). This applies to French foreing legions too. People with dual citizenship are treated specially, each state has their own rules for that situation (sometimes approval of the other state is needed, sometimes not). Dual nationality without dual citizenship means nothing.
Edit: There is no such thing as "willingness to prosecute" in EU, all crimes must and will be prosecuted here (the officials of many states even said so). This applies to French foreing legions too. People with dual citizenship are treated specially, each state has their own rules for that situation (sometimes approval of the other state is needed, sometimes not). Dual nationality without dual citizenship means nothing.
> There is no such thing as "willingness to prosecute" in EU, all crimes must and will be prosecuted here.
This is flat out wrong.
> Beware, it's criminal to fight in a foreign army for most EU citizens.
We've got a law like that in my country too, and there's no exception for dual citizens. Except it's only ever been enforced in two cases where some individuals went to fight for ISIS. They don't care one bit if you're in the armed forces of a friendly nation.
This is flat out wrong.
> Beware, it's criminal to fight in a foreign army for most EU citizens.
We've got a law like that in my country too, and there's no exception for dual citizens. Except it's only ever been enforced in two cases where some individuals went to fight for ISIS. They don't care one bit if you're in the armed forces of a friendly nation.
This seems to be changing by the hour. It’s now legal for Danes to fight in Ukraine.
Ireland is the only EU state where it's wrong as far as I can see. All other states seem to have laws that state what I claimed (but I Google translated them so take that with some salt).
Czech citizens have been in prison over French foreign legion membership.
Czech citizens have been in prison over French foreign legion membership.
> Edit: There is no such thing as "willingness to prosecute" in EU, all crimes must and will be prosecuted here (the officials of many states even said so).
There is no single EU criminal law, each state has its own laws on both substantive criminal law and criminal procedure. What you’ve just said is a sweeping generalisation which might have some truth for some countries (it is true in principle for German law, although even German law has room for exceptions), but it is false for others (for example, Irish law is based on the English common law tradition, and so has prosecutorial discretion much as the England or the US do.)
There is no single EU criminal law, each state has its own laws on both substantive criminal law and criminal procedure. What you’ve just said is a sweeping generalisation which might have some truth for some countries (it is true in principle for German law, although even German law has room for exceptions), but it is false for others (for example, Irish law is based on the English common law tradition, and so has prosecutorial discretion much as the England or the US do.)
I can't find any EU state other than Ireland where it's not the case.
According to [0] prosecutors in France have broad discretion over when to prosecute. Prior to 2013, the French Minister of Justice (a politician) even had the power to give prosecutors directions regarding how to proceed in individual cases, whether to prosecute or not. There was great concern in France that this power might be abused in case of political corruption (to protect the Minister's political allies, or harm the Minister's political enemies), so in 2013 the law was changed to remove this power. However, the Minister of Justice retains the power to give French prosecutors legally binding guidelines on how to exercise their prosecutorial discretion – when to prosecute and when to not do so – so long as those guidelines are in general terms, and not directed at any individual case.
Unlike French law, German law does have a principle of compulsory prosecution – a prosecutor has a legal duty to prosecute every serious crime of which they become aware – but the principle has collided with the reality that German prosecutors simply don't have the funding or resources to carry out that principle in practice. It really functions as an ideal rather than a reality. And increasingly, German law is being reformed to acknowledge that reality of prosecutorial discretion – a good example is StPO § 153 [1], under which prosecutors can formally decline to prosecute a crime if doing so would not be in the public interest – although unlike the English or French system, German prosecutors must seek the approval of a judge to do so.
I think you are from a European country which has a German-derived legal system, and are falsely generalising from that to the entire EU, ignoring that France (and I would assume other European countries with French-derived legal systems) approach this issue rather differently. You also seem to be focusing on the theoretical principles underlying German-based legal systems, unaware that those principles are often more theory than practice.
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433732
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__153.html
Unlike French law, German law does have a principle of compulsory prosecution – a prosecutor has a legal duty to prosecute every serious crime of which they become aware – but the principle has collided with the reality that German prosecutors simply don't have the funding or resources to carry out that principle in practice. It really functions as an ideal rather than a reality. And increasingly, German law is being reformed to acknowledge that reality of prosecutorial discretion – a good example is StPO § 153 [1], under which prosecutors can formally decline to prosecute a crime if doing so would not be in the public interest – although unlike the English or French system, German prosecutors must seek the approval of a judge to do so.
I think you are from a European country which has a German-derived legal system, and are falsely generalising from that to the entire EU, ignoring that France (and I would assume other European countries with French-derived legal systems) approach this issue rather differently. You also seem to be focusing on the theoretical principles underlying German-based legal systems, unaware that those principles are often more theory than practice.
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433732
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__153.html
Thanks for this interesting information, I stand corrected
do what is right, not what is legal
I’m grateful to see you say this, Ukraine needs help.
We should have never messed with their country in the first place.
Explain?
Sitting US Senator (McCain) making speeches to protesters in Kiev. Sitting VP (Biden) threatening to withhold financial aid if prosecutor isnt fired ( who happens to be investigating firm son works for).
Let's not forget all the military spending money Biden has given to Ukraine during his time as president, prior to this conflict kicking off. This crisis was not sudden, or unanticipated. Russia has been warning the world for a long time to back off.
Russia can go fuck itself. United States is giving military spending money to a lot of countries, and in case of Ukraine, the US has supported Ukraine militarily since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Russia has no business whatsoever in the internal or foreign affairs of Ukraine that don't concern them.
Russia has no business whatsoever in the internal or foreign affairs of Ukraine that don't concern them.
That’s not how the world works. There are no “rights” for any countries, they all do what they think they can get away with (physically or in the public eye). If the US has a right to interfere (positively, by funding/supporting) then Russia has a right to warn them off. It’s geopolitics and no actions are free of consequences. There are no “rights.”
Yes, for this exact reason I didn't use the word "rights"
How does it not concern them? This is exactly the same scenario as the Cuban missile crisis playing out in reverse. Do you think the United States had no business in the foreign affairs of Cuba as the soviets placed ICBMs there?
Ukraine wasn't threatening anyone and it doesn't even have any nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union placing ICBMs 100 miles from Florida is very much a threat.
The Soviet Union placing ICBMs 100 miles from Florida is very much a threat.
(OK technically not EU anymore)
UK has stated you won’t be prosecuted https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877?ns_mchan...
Edit: as pointed out below, has stated they will “support” citizens taking up the fight, not explicitly that they will not be prosecuted.
UK has stated you won’t be prosecuted https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877?ns_mchan...
Edit: as pointed out below, has stated they will “support” citizens taking up the fight, not explicitly that they will not be prosecuted.
In the UK, section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes it an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace.
Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal. And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.
Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal. And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.
> Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal.
Depends on the position one takes in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. From a legal realist perspective, it is the same, because an unenforced law is not a law at all.
> And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.
The UK government has the power to overrule the CPS and discontinue any prosecution, through the Attorney-General’s power of nolle prosequi. That legal procedure is rarely used, because generally if the Attorney-General merely privately threatens the CPS with use of this power, that is enough for them to back down and discontinue a prosecution.
A real world example is when the government pressured the SFO to discontinue prosecution of bribery charges relating to defence industry deals with Saudi Arabia, on the grounds that the prosecution would harm the UK’s relationship with that country.
If the UK government clearly communicates a policy that UK citizens are allowed to fight for the Ukrainian government, there is zero chance of the CPS prosecuting any of them for doing so. The CPS would likely not even have to be threatened, their “public interest” determination is supposed to show deference to the government’s foreign policy, they’d drop the idea all on their own.
Depends on the position one takes in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. From a legal realist perspective, it is the same, because an unenforced law is not a law at all.
> And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.
The UK government has the power to overrule the CPS and discontinue any prosecution, through the Attorney-General’s power of nolle prosequi. That legal procedure is rarely used, because generally if the Attorney-General merely privately threatens the CPS with use of this power, that is enough for them to back down and discontinue a prosecution.
A real world example is when the government pressured the SFO to discontinue prosecution of bribery charges relating to defence industry deals with Saudi Arabia, on the grounds that the prosecution would harm the UK’s relationship with that country.
If the UK government clearly communicates a policy that UK citizens are allowed to fight for the Ukrainian government, there is zero chance of the CPS prosecuting any of them for doing so. The CPS would likely not even have to be threatened, their “public interest” determination is supposed to show deference to the government’s foreign policy, they’d drop the idea all on their own.
There are 2 loopholes in that one sentence alone.
"British subject" could be defined as "British subject", which is a special type of British nationality that's not even used anymore, and furthermore, strictly speaking Russia is not at war with Ukraine, because there never was a declaration of war.
Of course in 1870 when the law was written nation states still used to declare war on each other, but since the UN decided that war is wrong and laid very strict rules on when you can declare war, nobody has done that ever since. So no declaration of war.
"British subject" could be defined as "British subject", which is a special type of British nationality that's not even used anymore, and furthermore, strictly speaking Russia is not at war with Ukraine, because there never was a declaration of war.
Of course in 1870 when the law was written nation states still used to declare war on each other, but since the UN decided that war is wrong and laid very strict rules on when you can declare war, nobody has done that ever since. So no declaration of war.
These 2 loopholes will then relegate soldiers of fortune to a simple murderer status. UK can of course choose to look the other way.
> These 2 loopholes will then relegate soldiers of fortune to a simple murderer status.
Outside of British jurisdiction, and very difficult evidence wise.
Outside of British jurisdiction, and very difficult evidence wise.
>"Outside of British jurisdiction"
Are you saying that Brits can kill anyone outside of their country and not be prosecuted in Britain if found? That would make one nice supplier of murderers for hire to other countries. Come for a day, kill someone, get back and get paid.
Are you saying that Brits can kill anyone outside of their country and not be prosecuted in Britain if found? That would make one nice supplier of murderers for hire to other countries. Come for a day, kill someone, get back and get paid.
For the murder itself, generally speaking, yes. It would be difficult to prosecute them in Britain. But you would almost certainly be extradited to the country where the murder occurred.
And if there is no extradition agreement? And why is it difficult to prosecute (assuming the murder is proven)?
This was true for UK as well. But apparently UK's foreign secretary is saying it should be alright now
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says...
Really, even the in the French Foreign Legion ? What about dual-nationals who have military obligations in another country ?
Strictly speaking, yes. Practically - 0 citizens from my country have been prosecuted for joining the French Foreign Legion.
There's only ever been willingness to enforce that law if you joined a terrorist group or the Russian army.
There's only ever been willingness to enforce that law if you joined a terrorist group or the Russian army.
Like most illegal things it’s only a risk if there is willingness to prosecute.
> Edit: There is no such thing as "willingness to prosecute" in EU, all crimes must and will be prosecuted here (the officials of many states even said so).
What? This is nonsense. At least in Ireland, prosecutors have plenty of discretion not to push a case "because it is not in the public interest". And I'm quite sure other European countries don't all prosecute every alleged crime equally.
What? This is nonsense. At least in Ireland, prosecutors have plenty of discretion not to push a case "because it is not in the public interest". And I'm quite sure other European countries don't all prosecute every alleged crime equally.
You're right, I was wrong about Ireland. I checked the laws of all other states and it seems to apply to them all, though. Most EU states derive their legal systems from the German one.
There was a lot of good literature that came out of the international brigades of the Spanish civil war
I think more details would be helpful. There isn't enough in the announcement to hold a meaningful conversation.
There is a tiny number of people who can drop everything and hop on an plane to Ukraine to fight. There is a much larger number of people who can do so if it still allows them to, for example:
- pay their rent/mortgage back home; or
- to gain citizenship so they can stay in Ukraine once the fighting stops
On the other hand, I do think there is some number of millionaires / billionaires who would be willing to sponsor people too.
There is a tiny number of people who can drop everything and hop on an plane to Ukraine to fight. There is a much larger number of people who can do so if it still allows them to, for example:
- pay their rent/mortgage back home; or
- to gain citizenship so they can stay in Ukraine once the fighting stops
On the other hand, I do think there is some number of millionaires / billionaires who would be willing to sponsor people too.
This link is redirecting me to some scam congratulating me for winning and asking me to sign in with Google.
Meanwhile, national territorial defense forces (yesterday civilians who received AK-47s) work just great: https://t.me/voenkorKotenok/31303
In case this is not obvious to anyone reading, this is a terrible, terrible idea. Discounting the obvious risks of being killed, or injured, if you are captured as a member of a foreign paramilitary unit, you will not be afforded the same legal protections as a prisoner of war. Even after this war ends you may still find yourself imprisoned. You risk being tried as a war criminal, or even just a regular criminal being charged with murder, or another offense against the state.
This has been done before by Bosnia during their conflict with Serbia. They made a call to Mujahideen of the world to defend them. The prize for participation was a Bosnian passport. Hindsight may be 20/20, however I do not see any possible scenario where Ukraine joins the EU after the dust settles. Even if Ukraine grants you a passport, it won't be worth much. Especially if Russia considers you a war criminal for your efforts.
This has been done before by Bosnia during their conflict with Serbia. They made a call to Mujahideen of the world to defend them. The prize for participation was a Bosnian passport. Hindsight may be 20/20, however I do not see any possible scenario where Ukraine joins the EU after the dust settles. Even if Ukraine grants you a passport, it won't be worth much. Especially if Russia considers you a war criminal for your efforts.
Is Russia even taking prisoners in this conflict?
And I'm fairly sure that all of the volunteers would rather die than surrender themselves to Russians. So shoot a couple of more Russians and die with them, instead of surrendering.
And I'm fairly sure that all of the volunteers would rather die than surrender themselves to Russians. So shoot a couple of more Russians and die with them, instead of surrendering.
They have been told they are liberating a people from fascists.
Again!
Again!
The idea of this must be to allow foreigners to fight under the flag of the regular ukrainian armed forces instead of having to fight as foreign paramilitaries, exactly for this reason? If I go fight in ukrainian uniform or even with a Ukrainian passport, why I do it or where I was born doesn't matter?
This site is hacked and leads to a scam website (accessing from Singapore)
When you see all the athletes, politicians, and actors all taking one side then surely they must be right!
There is very little mention of the Russian perspective in Western sources. That, and the fact that all the major Western news sources show heartbreaking photographs of children, lead me to believe that an agenda is being pushed.
Do you really need the perspective of a country that started offensive war to overthrow democratically elected government and threatens to use nukes if anyone interferes?
Yes, because I am not convinced that the Russian motivation was just "to overthrow democratically elected government". I have seen years of lies about the operations my own country has been involved in, and do not trust "journalists" to not push an agenda. Is there no primary source in which the Russians state their motives?
Is it really enough for so many people to just think "Putin bad man" and not consider that his country might have a legitimate reason for invading another state?
Is it really enough for so many people to just think "Putin bad man" and not consider that his country might have a legitimate reason for invading another state?
To be honest, it's really hard to get Putin's perspective. No one knows where he gets his information, even the hardest Russian propaganda wasn't as hard as the claims he made during last week. He claimed that Ukraine is captured by "nazis and junkies", was talking about "genocide of millions of russians on donbass"(donbass is region where russian-based separatists have been fighting ukrainian army for almost a decade), he denied that Ukraine is "real" country. He claims to protect russian-speaking people(which is bullshit, I speak mostly russian, but I'm distinctly ukrainian, there are many people that speak russian and fight Putin in this war, it's not about language). He made many claims and there is more than an hour of his "dedications" in the last week. You might want to listen to them. But no one can really claim to understand him anymore, since all predictions went straight to garbage a week ago.
>Is it really enough for so many people to just think "Putin bad man" and not consider that his country might have a legitimate reason for invading another state?
He killed, poisoned and jailed opposition for more than 20 years. Now, when he dealt with opposition, he tries to jail everyone who is popular and independent(there were many examples in the recent years). His government is incredibly corrupt and positions are given based on loyalty, not competence. There are many proofs to that. You might want to see some of the Navalny's investigations, that were made before he got poisoned and jailed. It's pretty save to say that Putin is a bad man.
>Is it really enough for so many people to just think "Putin bad man" and not consider that his country might have a legitimate reason for invading another state?
He killed, poisoned and jailed opposition for more than 20 years. Now, when he dealt with opposition, he tries to jail everyone who is popular and independent(there were many examples in the recent years). His government is incredibly corrupt and positions are given based on loyalty, not competence. There are many proofs to that. You might want to see some of the Navalny's investigations, that were made before he got poisoned and jailed. It's pretty save to say that Putin is a bad man.
Yeah, I'm biased. I'm hearing an alarm right now and just heard two explosions. But he really threatens to use offensive nukes, I think he is past the point of any empathy.
Yes, I am familiar with Navalny. I'm not sure that one could say "Putin did J bad thing, so he is irrational about K, L, and M". That is the common tactic of character assassination which to me looks like a lack of real arguments about that character's position.
ospzfmbbzr(2)
War is its own kind of virus, has everyone gone insane?
Decades of conditioning on moral superiority, and dehumanizing the "enemy" and people are ready to jump on command. Yes they have gone insane, but then again there have been plenty of people here constantly defending using nuclear bombs as a device of peace.
MAD as per its namesake rested on the sanity of leadership. It was the accepted Sword of Democles and a guarantee that those entrusted with global power subscribed to a basic level of common sense: Give into aggressive instincts and die.
Suddenly this guarantee which has brought us if not peace then a little breathing room was torn like a thin veneer. We have had 70 years to get our act together, dealing with the consequences that drumfire and shellshock of two world wars had on the European subconscious mind.
Suddenly this guarantee which has brought us if not peace then a little breathing room was torn like a thin veneer. We have had 70 years to get our act together, dealing with the consequences that drumfire and shellshock of two world wars had on the European subconscious mind.
Time to strap up boys and girls! You too can defeat the evil Putin.
It's not like there isn't precedence in our time for this either. [0]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OWErhVyU0Y
It's not like there isn't precedence in our time for this either. [0]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OWErhVyU0Y
> Ukraine’s vice PM & minister for digital transformation says an “IT army” formed & now it’s recruiting IT specialists from other countries. ‘We translated tasks in English. Task # 1: use any vectors of cyber and DDoS attacks on sites and systems of Russian govt, biz, banks.’ -- https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1497813622793379842
> Zelensky announced the formation of a new unit - the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine. It will be made up of foreigners who want to take part in repelling Russian aggression. -- https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1497826690822594562
While I can't picture myself taking up (cyber) arms against a foreign nation, aren't EU / US law quite explicit about the legality of meddling as a civilian? Or does it mean registering with the UA office will make it legal?. There are plenty on the fringes in the West who don't have a job or are totally disillusioned by their prospects for a good future.
The idea that attacking Russian assets (banks, companies) from your home in say UK, France or US and with impunity could be tempting. I think calling for a "foreign cyber army" may set a dangerous precedent to vigilante hacktivism and lead to escalation. It could also get messy if not coordinated with ongoing activities. No idea how the law works in this case? Even if I would lot of the cyber is uncharted territory.
I do hope it works out for them and they can recruit some top cyber brass this way.