I don't quite understand why you worry so much about these legal questions. In international relations, might makes right, and law is just a fig leaf. Yes, this conflict may well spill out of Ukraine and escalate into WW3. But if that happens, it won't be because of "international law." It'll be because at some point, bombs and missiles start falling on Russian and Polish cities, and then it spreads from there.
You correctly state that, in IR, 'might makes right', and that's true enough.
So, who worries about legal implications? One the one hand, it's Russia that claims foul play since at least 2014; on the other hand, that would be many of the US's vassals, here exemplified by Germany.
Obviously, both--and, yes, I've said that just now--Germany *and* Russia are comparatively weaker than the US, hence their referral to these legalities. It's certainly not the US who's doing so, and neither is their pawn, Mr. Zelensky.
Hence, the only relevant question is how big that power differential actually is, which, to me at least, explains the current quagmire to certain degrees: Russia worries perhaps less about its own strengths but about the power differential, as is Germany (and the EU, for that matter) about the pain the US through the multiple domains its controlling--or at least able to push others around--is capable of rendering.
The outcome, which you so eloquently state, will quite likely be the same, though.
I greatly appreciate epimetheus' elucidation of the legal technicalities and do think it important to understand the rules of engagement (so to speak). I am put in mind of the technical complexities of the financial instruments and their associated legal implications which were a triggering mechanism of the Great Financial Crisis. The nature of cascading consequences within complex systems can be unpredictable to the point of chaotic.
What I am trying to say is that sometimes situations can get wildly out of hand despite no party wishing it to escalate to such levels of (self) destruction. Never forget that bad things can happen by 'accident', especially in societies drowning in layers of bureuacratic laws and rules and protocols.
Case in point, and an excellent primer in how cultural (mis)understandings can aggravate a situation: The Winter War.
When the USSR asked/demanded promises and treaties and even territorial access from Finland, it was done from the perspective that Leningrad and the Russian heartland was within short reach of Finland should she ally with Germany. That was the soviet reasoning, that it was logical for Finland to do so in order to take revenge and regain lost territory.
Meanwhile, the finnish governement having no such plans at all, at first refrained from refurbishing and mobilising their military until just a few months before the Soviet buil-up and invasion. The reason being "If we don't modernise and mobilise, the russians will realise we have no plans for aggression or for giving an aggressor access".
But the soviets interpreted this as proof of Finland having already allied and made plans with Germany - why else would someone with them as a neighbour not arm up, unless they were allied to an equal or greater power?
Which made the russians even more desperate and caused them to modifiy their initial plan, establishing a buffer front in advance in Finland, to occupying Finland and if possible Sweden and Norway too.
And since the finns got lots and lots of promises from Britain and the US, promises of military aid and support including boots on the ground in the front line, they decided to, despite not being reay for war, to take a hard line towards the soviets, further confirming the russians suspicions.
That's very kind of you to say--I'm glad you value my writings! Thanks for reading!
As to the self-destruction, well, it's one thing to end entire industries, but ending up on the receiving end of Russian arms is, I'd argue, something else entirely.
The internet is surely full of MÖP*s who can argue back and forth which ammunition is or can be made compatible with which system of delivery, but the gist is that adapting ammunition/systems to each-other is neither new nor strange, so it is definitely within the realm of posibility that one beligerent uses systems and ammo from different origins.
As for when support becomes de facto co-beligerence, well that is when the offended party attacks the supporter directly. Really, ay and all support to a warring nation is military since it frees resources to be used militarily: it is akin to paying welfare to substance abusers, all you are doing is helping to finance organised crime via welfare. Quite a fitting metaphore (or is it a simile?) given both Ukraine's and Russia's legendarily corrupt regimes.
As for collapse, well yes. Any culture, race or nation which puts itself on the defensive against the world and adopts ideologies which does not encourages competition and conquest is helping to make itself extinct. When colonialism changed from replacing native peoples with europeans to "civilising the savages" to post-WW2 peaceful interaction and integration (without the equivalent process taking place among the former colonial states' peoples) the end of the West was a given. "Der Untergang Des Abendlandes" wasn't published yesterday (and Spengler lated stated that he should have used "Vollendung" instead of "Untergang" to avoid the drama of confusion).
If the old cannot be revivified, then what new way can be forged? It is a right terror to consider that an authoritarian technocracy ruled from Brussels may be the only option for Europe and its indigenous peoples to survive at all. Though the "fall of Rome" certainly has its charms and I'm far from abstaining to use that one, the curent fall of Europe is more akin to when the Byzantine Empire crumbled due to internal corruption, complacency, hubris and the external threat of invading turks and sundry.
A lot of Europe's history from the end of Byzantium is characterised by an unwillingness or a lack of ability or both of proper follow-thorugh of decisions:
Hypothetical example: during the uprisings, disturbances and riots in Tunisia, Liby and Algeria, the EU states could have rounded up their tens of millions of illegal and otherwise criminal migrants (I do count fake asylum seekers as illegal migrants, hence tens of millions), put them on boats and dumped then with only the clothes off their backs on the North African shore. Could have. The logistics and resources exists. Also, the ocean could easily have been cordoned off and any attempt to reach Europe apart from approved routes could have been effortlessly thwarted. Could have.
Yes, it violates "holy principles". So what?
If the UN complains, withdraw funding until they apologises. If the moslem states object, make clear that it will cost them to upset the apple cart of business. If the US objects, offer to ship them over there instead.
You'd have had maybe two-three weeks of headline news on this, then sporadic mentions, then maybe monthly or focusing on a major protst and then silence.
This hypothetical serves to illustrate then same inability to follow-through re: Russia/Ukraine. If the goal is to destabilise Russia (for whatever stupid reason), real sanctions would have been necessary. The sanctions-narrative was dreamed up by planners thinking "it will be a short war, when the sancions hit Russia will back off". And what if it's not a short war? Sadly, people who ask things like that are weeded out of veryt organisation at the grunt level.
Also, real follow-through would have seen EU deciding to order the member states to mobilise and position troops along the Russian border, to force Russia to re-deploy troops and resources, calling their nuclear threat.
Instead we have idiots thinking that threats without real follow-through matters. They do not understand this: when you rob someone, you start with hitting and kicking and maybe cutting them first, before making any demands. Then you continue hurting them even when they comply. This makes the terror they feel comple them to try to anticipate your demands and orders and prevents the victim from having any notion of self-defence. The victim is then publicly humiliated to drive home that they live on the suffering of the robber.
Look, Jan, I do 'remember' this event, but it's not the subject of this posting.
I might find the time to write this up, I perhaps I'll be able to sometime later this week or next week, but as a direct response, I'd point you to the legacy media outlet The Star, which, in May 2019, cited the Malaysian prime minister as follows:
***BEGIN QUOTE***
The Malaysian government wants strong evidence to show that Russia is responsible for the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 tragedy in 2014, says Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
"They are accusing Russia, but where is the evidence?
"We know the missile that brought down the plane is a Russian-type missile, but it could also be made in Ukraine.
"You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians.
"It could be by the rebels in Ukraine, it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile,” he said during a dialogue and media conference with the Japanese Foreign Correspondent Club (FCCJ) here on Thursday (May 30).
Dr Mahathir said Malaysia accepted the investigation report by Holland but only up the point where the plane was brought down by a missile made by Russia.
He said while the government agreed that the plane was brought down by a Russian missile, it could not be ascertained that the missile was launched by Russia.
There are some "strange" things in relation to this event. The first being that the accident followed another Malaysian Airlines plane crash in South China Sea just three months prior. And the second is someone (cannot now recall, will try to find) found evidence the airport in Ukraine on its flight path was visited by a US delegation just earlier that day. And "investigative" Bellingcat covering the event was started just 2 days prior. All coincidences? People also forget that it was not a first passenger plane shot down by Ukraine, another one being Siberia Airlines flying from Israel to Russia and "accidentally" shot down by a Ukrainian missile over the Black Sea in 2001. And another one - a plane full of children from Russia collided with a cargo plane over Switzerland in 2002. No war crime trials over those.
The way I see it, that plane was either shot down accidentally (either by the Russian separatists, or by the Ukrainians), or it was deliberately shot down by Ukrainians in order to blame Russia. Russian separatists in Ukraine (let alone Russia itself) had nothing to gain by shooting down a passenger airplane (after all, it's not like they could blame Ukraine and expect to suddenly become the "good guys" in the eyes of Westerners), but it is, of course, perfectly possible that they effed up and shot it down accidentally.
In any case, the responsibility for what happened is largely on the Ukrainian side. If you cannot control a part of your territory, then it is your responsibility to close it down to international air traffic. Serious states do not risk the lives of crew and passengers in civilian airplanes in order to prove how mean their enemy is. Well, I suppose part of the responsibility is also with the airline, which could have taken a different (safer) route. But cost cutting is cost cutting, even if it means that people wind up dead. Do you know if passenger airplanes at least stopped flying over that territory after the incident...?
I am of the same mindset. It's often who benefits the most from the event that is the one who is behind it (unless it's an act of stupidity). I am not sure if planes stopped flying over that territory after that. I very vaguely remember reading at that time that many airlines changed their routes once the conflict started, but for some reason not the Malaysian Airlines. I fail to see what would be Russia's motivation to deliberately shoot down the plane. They had plenty of planes using Russian airspace and flying safely, why all of a sudden here?
Buk was apparently used by the Ukrainian side. But in general, how would you know? They use the same weapons, speak the same language, look the same, most are of mixed Russian-Ukrainian heritage and in some cases are even relatives fighting on opposite sides!
Because Russia is evil, you see. So, if something can conceivably be blamed on Russia, then it must be blamed on Russia, no questions asked. If you ask questions, that makes you a Russian troll/bot/you-name-it. Anyway, quite a lot of people in the modern West think that way, and jan van ruth is one of them.
I don't quite understand why you worry so much about these legal questions. In international relations, might makes right, and law is just a fig leaf. Yes, this conflict may well spill out of Ukraine and escalate into WW3. But if that happens, it won't be because of "international law." It'll be because at some point, bombs and missiles start falling on Russian and Polish cities, and then it spreads from there.
So, why would I do this?
You correctly state that, in IR, 'might makes right', and that's true enough.
So, who worries about legal implications? One the one hand, it's Russia that claims foul play since at least 2014; on the other hand, that would be many of the US's vassals, here exemplified by Germany.
Obviously, both--and, yes, I've said that just now--Germany *and* Russia are comparatively weaker than the US, hence their referral to these legalities. It's certainly not the US who's doing so, and neither is their pawn, Mr. Zelensky.
Hence, the only relevant question is how big that power differential actually is, which, to me at least, explains the current quagmire to certain degrees: Russia worries perhaps less about its own strengths but about the power differential, as is Germany (and the EU, for that matter) about the pain the US through the multiple domains its controlling--or at least able to push others around--is capable of rendering.
The outcome, which you so eloquently state, will quite likely be the same, though.
I greatly appreciate epimetheus' elucidation of the legal technicalities and do think it important to understand the rules of engagement (so to speak). I am put in mind of the technical complexities of the financial instruments and their associated legal implications which were a triggering mechanism of the Great Financial Crisis. The nature of cascading consequences within complex systems can be unpredictable to the point of chaotic.
What I am trying to say is that sometimes situations can get wildly out of hand despite no party wishing it to escalate to such levels of (self) destruction. Never forget that bad things can happen by 'accident', especially in societies drowning in layers of bureuacratic laws and rules and protocols.
Case in point, and an excellent primer in how cultural (mis)understandings can aggravate a situation: The Winter War.
When the USSR asked/demanded promises and treaties and even territorial access from Finland, it was done from the perspective that Leningrad and the Russian heartland was within short reach of Finland should she ally with Germany. That was the soviet reasoning, that it was logical for Finland to do so in order to take revenge and regain lost territory.
Meanwhile, the finnish governement having no such plans at all, at first refrained from refurbishing and mobilising their military until just a few months before the Soviet buil-up and invasion. The reason being "If we don't modernise and mobilise, the russians will realise we have no plans for aggression or for giving an aggressor access".
But the soviets interpreted this as proof of Finland having already allied and made plans with Germany - why else would someone with them as a neighbour not arm up, unless they were allied to an equal or greater power?
Which made the russians even more desperate and caused them to modifiy their initial plan, establishing a buffer front in advance in Finland, to occupying Finland and if possible Sweden and Norway too.
And since the finns got lots and lots of promises from Britain and the US, promises of military aid and support including boots on the ground in the front line, they decided to, despite not being reay for war, to take a hard line towards the soviets, further confirming the russians suspicions.
And then the Winter War started.
Very true analysis, thank you. EU follows US directives towards its self-destruction... sad story.
That's very kind of you to say--I'm glad you value my writings! Thanks for reading!
As to the self-destruction, well, it's one thing to end entire industries, but ending up on the receiving end of Russian arms is, I'd argue, something else entirely.
The internet is surely full of MÖP*s who can argue back and forth which ammunition is or can be made compatible with which system of delivery, but the gist is that adapting ammunition/systems to each-other is neither new nor strange, so it is definitely within the realm of posibility that one beligerent uses systems and ammo from different origins.
As for when support becomes de facto co-beligerence, well that is when the offended party attacks the supporter directly. Really, ay and all support to a warring nation is military since it frees resources to be used militarily: it is akin to paying welfare to substance abusers, all you are doing is helping to finance organised crime via welfare. Quite a fitting metaphore (or is it a simile?) given both Ukraine's and Russia's legendarily corrupt regimes.
As for collapse, well yes. Any culture, race or nation which puts itself on the defensive against the world and adopts ideologies which does not encourages competition and conquest is helping to make itself extinct. When colonialism changed from replacing native peoples with europeans to "civilising the savages" to post-WW2 peaceful interaction and integration (without the equivalent process taking place among the former colonial states' peoples) the end of the West was a given. "Der Untergang Des Abendlandes" wasn't published yesterday (and Spengler lated stated that he should have used "Vollendung" instead of "Untergang" to avoid the drama of confusion).
If the old cannot be revivified, then what new way can be forged? It is a right terror to consider that an authoritarian technocracy ruled from Brussels may be the only option for Europe and its indigenous peoples to survive at all. Though the "fall of Rome" certainly has its charms and I'm far from abstaining to use that one, the curent fall of Europe is more akin to when the Byzantine Empire crumbled due to internal corruption, complacency, hubris and the external threat of invading turks and sundry.
A lot of Europe's history from the end of Byzantium is characterised by an unwillingness or a lack of ability or both of proper follow-thorugh of decisions:
Hypothetical example: during the uprisings, disturbances and riots in Tunisia, Liby and Algeria, the EU states could have rounded up their tens of millions of illegal and otherwise criminal migrants (I do count fake asylum seekers as illegal migrants, hence tens of millions), put them on boats and dumped then with only the clothes off their backs on the North African shore. Could have. The logistics and resources exists. Also, the ocean could easily have been cordoned off and any attempt to reach Europe apart from approved routes could have been effortlessly thwarted. Could have.
Yes, it violates "holy principles". So what?
If the UN complains, withdraw funding until they apologises. If the moslem states object, make clear that it will cost them to upset the apple cart of business. If the US objects, offer to ship them over there instead.
You'd have had maybe two-three weeks of headline news on this, then sporadic mentions, then maybe monthly or focusing on a major protst and then silence.
This hypothetical serves to illustrate then same inability to follow-through re: Russia/Ukraine. If the goal is to destabilise Russia (for whatever stupid reason), real sanctions would have been necessary. The sanctions-narrative was dreamed up by planners thinking "it will be a short war, when the sancions hit Russia will back off". And what if it's not a short war? Sadly, people who ask things like that are weeded out of veryt organisation at the grunt level.
Also, real follow-through would have seen EU deciding to order the member states to mobilise and position troops along the Russian border, to force Russia to re-deploy troops and resources, calling their nuclear threat.
Instead we have idiots thinking that threats without real follow-through matters. They do not understand this: when you rob someone, you start with hitting and kicking and maybe cutting them first, before making any demands. Then you continue hurting them even when they comply. This makes the terror they feel comple them to try to anticipate your demands and orders and prevents the victim from having any notion of self-defence. The victim is then publicly humiliated to drive home that they live on the suffering of the robber.
Putin, being a criminal, understands this.
legally speaking?
remember mh 17?
july 17th 2014, when russian regular troops shot down a passenger plane over ukraine from ukrainian territory?
but hey, that was not a war crime as there was no war.....
Look, Jan, I do 'remember' this event, but it's not the subject of this posting.
I might find the time to write this up, I perhaps I'll be able to sometime later this week or next week, but as a direct response, I'd point you to the legacy media outlet The Star, which, in May 2019, cited the Malaysian prime minister as follows:
***BEGIN QUOTE***
The Malaysian government wants strong evidence to show that Russia is responsible for the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 tragedy in 2014, says Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
"They are accusing Russia, but where is the evidence?
"We know the missile that brought down the plane is a Russian-type missile, but it could also be made in Ukraine.
"You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians.
"It could be by the rebels in Ukraine, it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile,” he said during a dialogue and media conference with the Japanese Foreign Correspondent Club (FCCJ) here on Thursday (May 30).
Dr Mahathir said Malaysia accepted the investigation report by Holland but only up the point where the plane was brought down by a missile made by Russia.
He said while the government agreed that the plane was brought down by a Russian missile, it could not be ascertained that the missile was launched by Russia.
***END QUOTE***
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190531080724/https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/05/31/mh17-where-is-the-evidence-russia-is-responsible-asks-dr-m/
(The original link is currently behind a paywall.)
If there is evidence that this is no longer an eminently reasonable stance has surfaced since then, please share it!
the indictments : file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/dagvaarding+verdachten+MH17.pdf
in december 2022 the court's verdict will be given.
Ha, excellent--could you provide a working link?
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/documenten/publicaties/mh17/alle-jaren/map/tenlastelegging-verdachten-neerhalen-mh17
download: 'download dagvaarding verdachten mh17'
Thanks, I'll take a look!
There are some "strange" things in relation to this event. The first being that the accident followed another Malaysian Airlines plane crash in South China Sea just three months prior. And the second is someone (cannot now recall, will try to find) found evidence the airport in Ukraine on its flight path was visited by a US delegation just earlier that day. And "investigative" Bellingcat covering the event was started just 2 days prior. All coincidences? People also forget that it was not a first passenger plane shot down by Ukraine, another one being Siberia Airlines flying from Israel to Russia and "accidentally" shot down by a Ukrainian missile over the Black Sea in 2001. And another one - a plane full of children from Russia collided with a cargo plane over Switzerland in 2002. No war crime trials over those.
The way I see it, that plane was either shot down accidentally (either by the Russian separatists, or by the Ukrainians), or it was deliberately shot down by Ukrainians in order to blame Russia. Russian separatists in Ukraine (let alone Russia itself) had nothing to gain by shooting down a passenger airplane (after all, it's not like they could blame Ukraine and expect to suddenly become the "good guys" in the eyes of Westerners), but it is, of course, perfectly possible that they effed up and shot it down accidentally.
In any case, the responsibility for what happened is largely on the Ukrainian side. If you cannot control a part of your territory, then it is your responsibility to close it down to international air traffic. Serious states do not risk the lives of crew and passengers in civilian airplanes in order to prove how mean their enemy is. Well, I suppose part of the responsibility is also with the airline, which could have taken a different (safer) route. But cost cutting is cost cutting, even if it means that people wind up dead. Do you know if passenger airplanes at least stopped flying over that territory after the incident...?
I am of the same mindset. It's often who benefits the most from the event that is the one who is behind it (unless it's an act of stupidity). I am not sure if planes stopped flying over that territory after that. I very vaguely remember reading at that time that many airlines changed their routes once the conflict started, but for some reason not the Malaysian Airlines. I fail to see what would be Russia's motivation to deliberately shoot down the plane. They had plenty of planes using Russian airspace and flying safely, why all of a sudden here?
russian missile, russian launch vehicle, russian crew.
Buk was apparently used by the Ukrainian side. But in general, how would you know? They use the same weapons, speak the same language, look the same, most are of mixed Russian-Ukrainian heritage and in some cases are even relatives fighting on opposite sides!
Because Russia is evil, you see. So, if something can conceivably be blamed on Russia, then it must be blamed on Russia, no questions asked. If you ask questions, that makes you a Russian troll/bot/you-name-it. Anyway, quite a lot of people in the modern West think that way, and jan van ruth is one of them.
how is the weather in saint petersburg?
You're repeating yourself.
so?
Fair enough. Low IQ people have a right to exist, too, I suppose.
failed attempt...