Forwarded from Ratfinks
Flynn timestamp 5:20 AM > Law of War page 520
Chapter 5.2
"OVERVIEW OF RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS"
The protection of civilians against the harmful effects of hostilities is one of the main purposes of the law of war. Many of the rules for the protection of civilians are derived from the principles of distinction and proportionality. Specific rules for the protection of civilians may be grouped into two categories: (1) essentially negative duties to respect civilians and to refrain from directing military operations against them; and (2) affirmative duties to take feasible precautions to protect civilians and other protected persons and objects.
Russia is not harming the civilians of Ukraine. Not an invasion. Military necessity, targeting military objectives.
Chapter 5.2
"OVERVIEW OF RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS"
The protection of civilians against the harmful effects of hostilities is one of the main purposes of the law of war. Many of the rules for the protection of civilians are derived from the principles of distinction and proportionality. Specific rules for the protection of civilians may be grouped into two categories: (1) essentially negative duties to respect civilians and to refrain from directing military operations against them; and (2) affirmative duties to take feasible precautions to protect civilians and other protected persons and objects.
Russia is not harming the civilians of Ukraine. Not an invasion. Military necessity, targeting military objectives.
Forwarded from Ratfinks
Forwarded from Ratfinks
Chapter 4.3
"Lawful Combatants and Unprivilaged Belligerents"
If civilians take up arms, as a deep state "trick" (since they have no honor [chapter 2.6 "Honor"]), and end up wounding or killing Russians, they forfeit civilian status and protection.
They become unprivilaged belligerents (or "unlawful combatants") and are not afforded POW status or rights. Furthermore, they can be tried for crimes and become military objectives/necessity.
Propaganda will unfairly claim Russia attacked civilians. In reality, their rights are forfeit and are NOT ennoscriptd to both armed forces AND civilian status.
"Lawful Combatants and Unprivilaged Belligerents"
If civilians take up arms, as a deep state "trick" (since they have no honor [chapter 2.6 "Honor"]), and end up wounding or killing Russians, they forfeit civilian status and protection.
They become unprivilaged belligerents (or "unlawful combatants") and are not afforded POW status or rights. Furthermore, they can be tried for crimes and become military objectives/necessity.
Propaganda will unfairly claim Russia attacked civilians. In reality, their rights are forfeit and are NOT ennoscriptd to both armed forces AND civilian status.
Ratfinks
Pompeo timestamp 9:53 AM > Law of War page 953 Chapter 15.2.3 and the Law of Neutrality Not an invasion. Self-defense. "a neutral State’s [NATO, US, UK, etc] acts of participation in a war of aggression [arming Ukraine, preparing for war, propaganda to…
Per the above "self-defense", see chapter 1.11.1 on Jus ad Bellum Criteria.
Jus ad Bellum is conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed force.
Note "all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted". 💥
"In exercising the right of self defense, diplomatic means must be exhausted or provide no reasonable prospect of stopping the armed attack or threat thereof."
The deep state played right into the trap. They ignored (while going against) Russia's safety agreement, denied them outright, refused to negotiate, removed all diplomats, and used propaganda to incite Law of War violations.
The charter of the UN allows this, per chapter 15.2.3 (linked above). 😁😁💥💥
Jus ad Bellum is conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed force.
Note "all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted". 💥
"In exercising the right of self defense, diplomatic means must be exhausted or provide no reasonable prospect of stopping the armed attack or threat thereof."
The deep state played right into the trap. They ignored (while going against) Russia's safety agreement, denied them outright, refused to negotiate, removed all diplomats, and used propaganda to incite Law of War violations.
The charter of the UN allows this, per chapter 15.2.3 (linked above). 😁😁💥💥
Forwarded from Insider Paper
UN Security Council voting on resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine’s invasion
Yes:
- US
- UK
- France
- Norway
- Ireland
- Albania
- Gabon
- Mexico
- Brazil
- Ghana
- Kenya
No:
- Russia
Abstained:
- China
- UAE
- India
Result: resolution failed due to Russian veto.
Follow @InsiderPaper
Yes:
- US
- UK
- France
- Norway
- Ireland
- Albania
- Gabon
- Mexico
- Brazil
- Ghana
- Kenya
No:
- Russia
Abstained:
- China
- UAE
- India
Result: resolution failed due to Russian veto.
Follow @InsiderPaper
Forwarded from Ratfinks
Here's why Russia hasn't taken Kiev yet. Civilians turned "unprivilaged belligerents" are not the target. If they wanted, Russia could take the lot of them out. They are avoiding civilian conflict, feasible measures to separate from military objectives.
Not taking the deep state bait.
Not taking the deep state bait.
Ratfinks
Photo
It's not that Putin didn't "invade" Ukraine when Trump was president. It's that he couldn't "invade". (*Special operation, not an invasion. See corresponding Law of War explanation on "peaceful alternatives")
Trump would not have pulled all diplomats from "tension-filled" countries, particularly when trying to "avoid a war".
Trump would not have armed non-NATO Ukraine with billions of dollars of weapons and ammo.
Trump would have responded quicker to Russia's safety agreement and attempted negotiation instead of outright denial and stonewalling.
Trump would not be announcing inciteful propaganda of impending war and doom.
Trump needed the deep state to violate the UN charter via NATO and neutrality. He knew they would deliberately avoid diplomacy, which led to Russian "self-defense" on foreign territory to take out "non-State actors", which is permissible in the Law of War.
Trump would not have pulled all diplomats from "tension-filled" countries, particularly when trying to "avoid a war".
Trump would not have armed non-NATO Ukraine with billions of dollars of weapons and ammo.
Trump would have responded quicker to Russia's safety agreement and attempted negotiation instead of outright denial and stonewalling.
Trump would not be announcing inciteful propaganda of impending war and doom.
Trump needed the deep state to violate the UN charter via NATO and neutrality. He knew they would deliberately avoid diplomacy, which led to Russian "self-defense" on foreign territory to take out "non-State actors", which is permissible in the Law of War.