Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Comrade P.]

There was UN mandate (approved by Russia as well) for Libya, though. I think we've discussed it here before.

Our foreign affairs minister claimed that Russia abstained from signing that, and didn't put veto on it. But my memory might fail me, as well as my news sources.

[miljan]

Uhh so many things happened.

Generally as people already said, how it looks this is a big offensive, but this time from pro russians.

Different footage from shelled Mariupol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=DuGnhPxqLe4&x-yt-cl=84503534
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=trwMYeA92X0&x-yt-ts=1421914688#t=49
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etkAz_mR3NI&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688#t=48

Pro russian factory for repair in donetsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=bXUAQre2dIk&x-yt-ts=1421914688

Pictures of destroyed pro russian convoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4sHNwPESB4

[Erkki]

There was UN mandate (approved by Russia as well) for Libya, though. I think we've discussed it here before.

Our foreign affairs minister claimed that Russia abstained from signing that, and didn't put veto on it. But my memory might fail me, as well as my news sources.

Considering how Russia has used its veto right more often than any other nation and could have used it there too, abstaining/not vetoing/accepting are more or less the same thing.

[smjjames]

Not EVERY nation with nukes, Britain doesn't, France doesn't (intervening in their former colony doesn't count), India doesn't, Pakistan doesn't. Although India and Pakistan would rather invade each other.

Iraq? Afghanistan?

We dragged them into there though and probably not entirely willingly. I thought the statement was looking at the countries individually rather than as part of a coalition or under NATO, ie. the US and Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russia and Ukraine.

Uhh so many things happened.

Generally as people already said, how it looks this is a big offensive, but this time from pro russians.

Different footage from shelled Mariupol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=DuGnhPxqLe4&x-yt-cl=84503534
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=trwMYeA92X0&x-yt-ts=1421914688#t=49
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etkAz_mR3NI&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688#t=48

Pro russian factory for repair in donetsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=bXUAQre2dIk&x-yt-ts=1421914688

Pictures of destroyed pro russian colon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4sHNwPESB4

I half expected that last one to be someones destroyed intestines rather than a convoy, which is what I suspect you meant.

[smjjames]

doublepost, nvm

[Knit tie]

Pictures of destroyed pro russian colon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4sHNwPESB4

I half-expected that link to provide horrible pictures of Ukrainian homosexuals violently avenging their oppression by Putin on a captured rebel.

[Sergarr]

There was UN mandate (approved by Russia as well) for Libya, though. I think we've discussed it here before.

Our foreign affairs minister claimed that Russia abstained from signing that, and didn't put veto on it. But my memory might fail me, as well as my news sources.

Considering how Russia has used its veto right more often than any other nation and could have used it there too, abstaining/not vetoing/accepting are more or less the same thing.

Information: at the time of that, the president of Russia was Medvedev, who's noted for his liberal views, has an education of a lawyer, and in general is very West-leaning individual. Many people in Russia has not agreed with his decision, especially after the "no-fly" zone started to include ground operations.

[Owlbread]

We dragged them into there though and probably not entirely willingly. I thought the statement was looking at the countries individually rather than as part of a coalition or under NATO, ie. the US and Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russia and Ukraine.

No. Tony Blair was high on some kind of jesus juice, presumably secreted from an overactive messiah-complex gland. He, and the rest of New Labour, were just as pro-war as the Americans and enthusiastically established us as the USA's Number Two in the war on terror.

The British public were another story, but the British government was a very willing participant in the invasions. We didn't invade as part of NATO in the initial instance, did we? In Iraq, I mean. It was something else wasn't it?

[Sergarr]

jesus juice

[Erkki]

There was UN mandate (approved by Russia as well) for Libya, though. I think we've discussed it here before.

Our foreign affairs minister claimed that Russia abstained from signing that, and didn't put veto on it. But my memory might fail me, as well as my news sources.

Considering how Russia has used its veto right more often than any other nation and could have used it there too, abstaining/not vetoing/accepting are more or less the same thing.

Information: at the time of that, the president of Russia was Medvedev, who's noted for his liberal views, has an education of a lawyer, and in general is very West-leaning individual. Many people in Russia has not agreed with his decision, especially after the "no-fly" zone started to include ground operations.

It wasnt a "no-fly zone". The resolution has been linked here before and you must have read it. I suppose thats what the media tells in Russia, that they were fooled? Funny, with a veto and everything.

[smjjames]

I was under the impression that the US dragged Britian into it rather than them joining independently as a wingman of sorts.

[Comrade P.]

Ahem, Sheb runs Europolitics thread, here we discuss mostly that landmass that divides Finland and North Korea.

[Sergarr]

There was UN mandate (approved by Russia as well) for Libya, though. I think we've discussed it here before.

Our foreign affairs minister claimed that Russia abstained from signing that, and didn't put veto on it. But my memory might fail me, as well as my news sources.

Considering how Russia has used its veto right more often than any other nation and could have used it there too, abstaining/not vetoing/accepting are more or less the same thing.

Information: at the time of that, the president of Russia was Medvedev, who's noted for his liberal views, has an education of a lawyer, and in general is very West-leaning individual. Many people in Russia has not agreed with his decision, especially after the "no-fly" zone started to include ground operations.

It wasnt a "no-fly zone". The resolution has been linked here before and you must have read it. I suppose thats what the media tells in Russia, that they were fooled? Funny, with a veto and everything.

My mind just refuses to accept the other possibility. But I suppose that's Medvedev the "IPhone-chik" for you!

[Erkki]

There it is, I got 404 error on the official UN site so heres (supposedly) the same document from NATO:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110927_110311-UNSCR-1973.pdf

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General,
acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in
cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures,
notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and
civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any
part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the
Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the
authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council;

[Guardian G.I.]

Fun fact: NATO (Britain, at least) had troops on the ground in Libya.