This is a genuine question because your comment got me thinking: does Russia even have just-cause to attack Europe (jus ad bellum)? I’m worried that if they attacked now that there wouldn’t be enough reason to do so and then it would escalate even further.
Under the rules of war, Russia has a right to strike targets where weapons are being manufactured for use against them, and where recruits are trained for use against them. There are also facilities that are operated by Western military personel, in Poland and in Western Ukraine, which relay satellite reconaissance information to the Ukrainians so they can make strikes with drones and Western missiles. Those facilities and satellites are also legitimate targets.
These are the same justifications that the US was using for drone striking Pakistan, Iran and other neighbouring countries while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that the Russians have been so patient and reluctant to strike at these targets shows how serious they take the danger of nuclear war. But the West keeps doing what it's doing because they like to pretend that this way, they don't seem to be at war with Russia, and they don't stop, because they think Russia is bluffing when.
Thank you for the explanation, this makes sense. So under international law Russia does have just cause to attack countries who are supplying Ukraine with weapons and intelligence, thats interesting because I have a feeling that if Russia did do that then the international judicial system would throw a fit…
Yeah. They just called a meeting at the UN to discuss Western countries helping Ukraine to strike Russia's territory. I suspect they'll start taking action after that.
The Europeans have played party to overthrowing the neighboring neutral government to install and arm a bunch of Nazis on their doorstep- and to make matters worse, alongside the asset seizures and constant provocative language (as an understatement) by various Euro officials, there's incredibly good reason to believe that various European states have:
played a role in the targeting and guidance of missile/drone attacks, including on Russian soil- not only in regards to providing intelligence and training at that, but in their mercenaries, ""mercenaries,"" foreign legions, and various other agents directly targeting Russian troops and territory
supported, if not potentially outright engaged in facilitating a deadly terror attack on Russian civilians (as well as a campaign of assassinations)
the Nordics are likely implicated in the Nordstream bombing (working alongside the US, of course) if Seymour Hersh's report is to be believed- which it should be
Frankly, if Russia or any other country had done any of the above to the west, they would have gone in guns blazing and baying for blood indiscriminately. The Afghans didn't even aid in 9/11 and offered up al-Qaeda (who were a pain in their ass anyways) and we all know what happened.
If you ask me, Russia has more reasonable, justifiable casus belli than the west has ever had throughout all of their constant warmongering in almost 100 years- since the last world war, in fact.
Every time I see your comments they are always so detailed, it’s great.
With all of this, Russia has more than enough reason to strike back, but they’re very clearly holding back and I do not fault that decision. I can’t begin to understand their motives for staying within Ukraine, but for me I would hesitate striking anyone else because, even though international law gives them that right, I don’t believe the global judicial system will let that slide. Russia is public enemy number one and any attack they do is already seen as unjustified, so if they went after let’s say France, people would go fucking insane because everything Russia does is inherently bad, no matter how much legal justification they have.
Thanks! I've enjoyed your comments and seeing you around the 'grad as well :)
I agree also, if I were Russia, I wouldn't be taking the fight outside Ukraine (yet), save for what they are already doing (aiding the various west African states breaking free from France, low-key assistance with the MENA resistance, etc..
It wouldn't be out of any care for the western public opinion, though, FWIW. The so-called "global judicial system" (ie. western-dominated institutions that are increasingly being called into question by the majority of the world as the western double standards are being exposed in front of genocide for what they are) and "international community" doesn't matter one bit in this regard.
Russia's real audience, the ones whose opinions are actually worth a damn- the actual international community, the global majority- would be the real concern. That, and managing the situation in such a way that both avoids unnecessary escalation while ensuring Russia's interests are preserved (and letting the west dig its own grave and then some), of course.
For what it's worth, on the former- I think the rest of the world outside of the west (and even many in the west at this point) see the western farce, and constant fascist antagonisms for what they are. I'd even question if anyone (whose opinion matters) would cry overly much if at all, if Russia decided to give France a proper spanking and humbling. The Russian approach this far has already made it clear without a doubt, for anyone capable of seeing it (anyone who doesn't frankly may as well be considered a lost cause, a terminal kind of colonized/colonial mindset) that Russia has done everything possible, save for commiting the equivalent of national suicide, to avoid and de-escalate this conflict.
A country has a casus belli to attack anywhere where weapons used against them are produced or shipped from, where intel and surveillance used in the war against them are conducted from, and where soldiers who fight against them are trained. Thus according to the laws of war Russia has every right to strike not only Europe but the US too.
Whether a country also has the means to do this in practice is another matter. In Russia's case they most certainly do, but so far they have chosen not to.
So in international law, Russia has every right to strike a good chunk of European countries + the US and Canada, but a problem I have with that is would they even be allowed to? Considering how much international law is catered to the West, even though Russia has just cause to strike outside of Ukraine, would the Judicial system really let it slide? Russia has been labeled the villain and I don’t know if any amount of legal justifications will let them do what they can, if that makes sense.
I don't know what this means. Allowed by who? A sovereign country can do anything it wants and is practically capable of doing. Nobody can forbid them from doing anything. All that others can do is impose consequences. The question to ask is what would the consequences be of Russia taking such an action?
The "judicial system" is also irrelevant here as well because how are you going to enforce their ruling? The ICC charged Putin and it meant absolutely nothing. They charged Netanyahu and it meant absolutely nothing. International law only has power over countries that cannot defend themselves.
Another example is the DPRK. They were not "allowed" to have a nuclear program. And this wasn't just a farcical colonial institution under the control of the West like the ICC saying it, it was the UN, the only institution that formally has the legitimacy to pass and enforce international laws. But the DPRK did it anyway. They accepted the consequences and that was that. Short of an actual invasion what could anyone do to stop them?
It's not a question of legality or what you are "allowed" to do, but simply of what you can do and get away with and what others can and are willing to do to you in return.
In this case you have to consider potential military retaliation, nuclear escalation, diplomatic consequences with global south countries, etc. Some countries would react more strongly than others. Some would acknowledge Russia's legitimate cause to retaliate, others wouldn't. Some would just protest but do nothing. Just how some countries choose to recognize the legitimacy of the ICC verdicts and some don't, and even of those that do many do so in word only.
It's the same with NATO's "Article 5" by the way. A lot of people are under the impression that somehow these sorts of treaties just kick in automatically once conditions are met and every country has to obey them. But that's not how it works. Countries have to make a political decision whether to acknowledge that conditions have been met, whether to abide by the treaty or not, and if so how. There's a lot of bluster now but when it really comes down to it how many will chicken out?
International law, international treaties...sovereign countries are not really bound by any of that stuff. Sovereign countries are free to break or selectively obey any law or treaty they wish, depending on their overriding interests and political imperatives. They just have to calculate how others are likely to respond and whether that is acceptable to them. The only thing countries are really bound by is the limitations of their own power, their political, military and economic might to convince or coerce others.
At the moment Russia seems to have decided that hitting the West directly would cause more trouble than it's worth, because they are winning anyway so why rock the boat? But they can always change their minds.
This is a genuine question because your comment got me thinking: does Russia even have just-cause to attack Europe (jus ad bellum)? I’m worried that if they attacked now that there wouldn’t be enough reason to do so and then it would escalate even further.
Under the rules of war, Russia has a right to strike targets where weapons are being manufactured for use against them, and where recruits are trained for use against them. There are also facilities that are operated by Western military personel, in Poland and in Western Ukraine, which relay satellite reconaissance information to the Ukrainians so they can make strikes with drones and Western missiles. Those facilities and satellites are also legitimate targets.
These are the same justifications that the US was using for drone striking Pakistan, Iran and other neighbouring countries while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that the Russians have been so patient and reluctant to strike at these targets shows how serious they take the danger of nuclear war. But the West keeps doing what it's doing because they like to pretend that this way, they don't seem to be at war with Russia, and they don't stop, because they think Russia is bluffing when.
Thank you for the explanation, this makes sense. So under international law Russia does have just cause to attack countries who are supplying Ukraine with weapons and intelligence, thats interesting because I have a feeling that if Russia did do that then the international judicial system would throw a fit…
Yeah. They just called a meeting at the UN to discuss Western countries helping Ukraine to strike Russia's territory. I suspect they'll start taking action after that.
The Europeans have played party to overthrowing the neighboring neutral government to install and arm a bunch of Nazis on their doorstep- and to make matters worse, alongside the asset seizures and constant provocative language (as an understatement) by various Euro officials, there's incredibly good reason to believe that various European states have:
played a role in the targeting and guidance of missile/drone attacks, including on Russian soil- not only in regards to providing intelligence and training at that, but in their mercenaries, ""mercenaries,"" foreign legions, and various other agents directly targeting Russian troops and territory
supported, if not potentially outright engaged in facilitating a deadly terror attack on Russian civilians (as well as a campaign of assassinations)
the Nordics are likely implicated in the Nordstream bombing (working alongside the US, of course) if Seymour Hersh's report is to be believed- which it should be
Frankly, if Russia or any other country had done any of the above to the west, they would have gone in guns blazing and baying for blood indiscriminately. The Afghans didn't even aid in 9/11 and offered up al-Qaeda (who were a pain in their ass anyways) and we all know what happened.
If you ask me, Russia has more reasonable, justifiable casus belli than the west has ever had throughout all of their constant warmongering in almost 100 years- since the last world war, in fact.
Every time I see your comments they are always so detailed, it’s great.
With all of this, Russia has more than enough reason to strike back, but they’re very clearly holding back and I do not fault that decision. I can’t begin to understand their motives for staying within Ukraine, but for me I would hesitate striking anyone else because, even though international law gives them that right, I don’t believe the global judicial system will let that slide. Russia is public enemy number one and any attack they do is already seen as unjustified, so if they went after let’s say France, people would go fucking insane because everything Russia does is inherently bad, no matter how much legal justification they have.
Thanks! I've enjoyed your comments and seeing you around the 'grad as well :)
I agree also, if I were Russia, I wouldn't be taking the fight outside Ukraine (yet), save for what they are already doing (aiding the various west African states breaking free from France, low-key assistance with the MENA resistance, etc..
It wouldn't be out of any care for the western public opinion, though, FWIW. The so-called "global judicial system" (ie. western-dominated institutions that are increasingly being called into question by the majority of the world as the western double standards are being exposed in front of genocide for what they are) and "international community" doesn't matter one bit in this regard.
Russia's real audience, the ones whose opinions are actually worth a damn- the actual international community, the global majority- would be the real concern. That, and managing the situation in such a way that both avoids unnecessary escalation while ensuring Russia's interests are preserved (and letting the west dig its own grave and then some), of course.
For what it's worth, on the former- I think the rest of the world outside of the west (and even many in the west at this point) see the western farce, and constant fascist antagonisms for what they are. I'd even question if anyone (whose opinion matters) would cry overly much if at all, if Russia decided to give France a proper spanking and humbling. The Russian approach this far has already made it clear without a doubt, for anyone capable of seeing it (anyone who doesn't frankly may as well be considered a lost cause, a terminal kind of colonized/colonial mindset) that Russia has done everything possible, save for commiting the equivalent of national suicide, to avoid and de-escalate this conflict.
A country has a casus belli to attack anywhere where weapons used against them are produced or shipped from, where intel and surveillance used in the war against them are conducted from, and where soldiers who fight against them are trained. Thus according to the laws of war Russia has every right to strike not only Europe but the US too.
Whether a country also has the means to do this in practice is another matter. In Russia's case they most certainly do, but so far they have chosen not to.
So in international law, Russia has every right to strike a good chunk of European countries + the US and Canada, but a problem I have with that is would they even be allowed to? Considering how much international law is catered to the West, even though Russia has just cause to strike outside of Ukraine, would the Judicial system really let it slide? Russia has been labeled the villain and I don’t know if any amount of legal justifications will let them do what they can, if that makes sense.
I don't know what this means. Allowed by who? A sovereign country can do anything it wants and is practically capable of doing. Nobody can forbid them from doing anything. All that others can do is impose consequences. The question to ask is what would the consequences be of Russia taking such an action?
The "judicial system" is also irrelevant here as well because how are you going to enforce their ruling? The ICC charged Putin and it meant absolutely nothing. They charged Netanyahu and it meant absolutely nothing. International law only has power over countries that cannot defend themselves.
Another example is the DPRK. They were not "allowed" to have a nuclear program. And this wasn't just a farcical colonial institution under the control of the West like the ICC saying it, it was the UN, the only institution that formally has the legitimacy to pass and enforce international laws. But the DPRK did it anyway. They accepted the consequences and that was that. Short of an actual invasion what could anyone do to stop them?
It's not a question of legality or what you are "allowed" to do, but simply of what you can do and get away with and what others can and are willing to do to you in return.
In this case you have to consider potential military retaliation, nuclear escalation, diplomatic consequences with global south countries, etc. Some countries would react more strongly than others. Some would acknowledge Russia's legitimate cause to retaliate, others wouldn't. Some would just protest but do nothing. Just how some countries choose to recognize the legitimacy of the ICC verdicts and some don't, and even of those that do many do so in word only.
It's the same with NATO's "Article 5" by the way. A lot of people are under the impression that somehow these sorts of treaties just kick in automatically once conditions are met and every country has to obey them. But that's not how it works. Countries have to make a political decision whether to acknowledge that conditions have been met, whether to abide by the treaty or not, and if so how. There's a lot of bluster now but when it really comes down to it how many will chicken out?
International law, international treaties...sovereign countries are not really bound by any of that stuff. Sovereign countries are free to break or selectively obey any law or treaty they wish, depending on their overriding interests and political imperatives. They just have to calculate how others are likely to respond and whether that is acceptable to them. The only thing countries are really bound by is the limitations of their own power, their political, military and economic might to convince or coerce others.
At the moment Russia seems to have decided that hitting the West directly would cause more trouble than it's worth, because they are winning anyway so why rock the boat? But they can always change their minds.
They have a decent reason to do so, but that doesn't preclude escalation.