Remind me what's preventing the UN to interview Russian soldiers after release and Ukrainians during captivity ?
[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
- Status
Nothing except unwilling to interview them. I can't imagine anyone in Russia would oppose Ukrainian crimes to be reported.
Edit: As for interviewing Ukrainians during captivity, it required access of US-based organization to Russian military and government facilities. That might be restricted for obvious reasons. Interviewing Russians after release could be done remotely.
Last edited:
indeedhewas
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
- Messages
- 11
I didn't say UN is a media.
You assumed Russia didn't report these cases in UN, most likely because your media doesn't tell you anything about it.
Klaus Hergersheimer
King
What point was that again?
Initially you honestly seemed pretty smug about Russians finding out that the streets in the USA aren't paved with gold or whatever. Maybe that's sort-of a point.
(Though as I said, this characteristic is not unique of Russian asylum-seekers. It's been an ongoing problem since asylum requests from the Mexican side surged in 2019 or so, as well as stories of mistreatment.)
This is the whole M.O. I've noticed. Russia says its fight is no one else's business as they pummel Ukraine in the ring, so to speak. As soon as Ukraine hits below the belt, Russia claims this is some threat to all humanity.
Two lanes. Pick one. Thank you.
You posted reports by OHCHR, US-based organization which can include or exclude in their reports whatever they prefer.
I don't know whether reports from Russian organizations are also published in UN site. If they aren't, there may be different reasons for that.
Obviously not because there were no Ukrainian crimes against Russian prisoners.
Georgia, in fact.
Klaus Hergersheimer
King
Ah. I probably should've paid more attention to Georgia at the time. My recollection was that some Georgians were poking fun at Abkazians or something and Russians "went in there" and "took care of business" or something. This was the excuse that Americans seemed to buy, as sold to them, which is why nothing substantive occurred, and president G.W. Bush exiting soon was not going to make a big fuss over it unfortunately. So he didn't help things much...
Just my recollection at least.
The thing with Ukraine though is that the Crimean annexation was so out of left field that it splat-landed on a lot of people's radars and they suspected the worst for a long time thereafter..
Just my recollection at least.
The thing with Ukraine though is that the Crimean annexation was so out of left field that it splat-landed on a lot of people's radars and they suspected the worst for a long time thereafter..
Yep, maybe it's still time for Europe to wake up, but even if it does, we will regret to not have done it sooner.
Europe is losing Georgia, and if Ukraine falls Moldavia is next, then the Baltic States.
NATO has shown to be politically weak, afraid of escalation in every step of the war, and over-dependent on the US, a small example being ITAR used as a pretext to prevent the use of UK and French Storm Shadow/SCALP for deep strike in Russia.
www.politico.eu
Here’s a tip from a lifelong Euro-American: Worry less about the U.S. presidency and more about how Europe can hack it alone on a dangerous global stage. The uncomfortable truth is that American interest in Europe has been dwindling for the past 30 years. And neither candidate is likely to bring back the transatlantic heyday of the early 1990s.
[...]
Biden is bound to be America’s last Cold War president. In his wake, le déluge — or more accurately a crop of policymakers who don’t feel Russia poses a core threat to U.S. interests, or have a vastly shrunken sense of Washington’s role in the world. Even Biden, when push came to shove, let Washington’s prioritization of the Indo-Pacific area shine through. Remember the AUKUS debacle, when the U.S. snatched a major submarine-building contract out from under France’s nose? French President Emmanuel Macron was furious. Washington’s muffled reply was reminiscent of the famous Don Draper line: “I don’t think of you at all.”
Behind the scenes, the French are typically clear-eyed about how Europe is seen by Washington. “It’s not hostility,” quipped one diplomat. “It’s indifference. Sometimes that’s worse.”
[...]
As the clock ticks down to Nov. 5, Europeans are grappling with the prospect of further U.S. disengagement. If Harris wins, the thinking goes, the White House will keep backing Ukraine but ultimately steer Kyiv toward a deal with Russia in the not-too-distant future. Investment in NATO would remain consistent, though the underlying trend would be further prioritization of the Indo-Pacific over Europe.
If Trump wins, there is a growing sense that all bets are off. Some believe his administration would behave rationally, or at least rationally by his standards, and not flip the table on NATO, and that he’d pursue a deal on the Ukraine war that would allow both sides to claim victory (for example, by giving more weapons to Kyiv and threatening to lift all restrictions on their use, in exchange for Putin ending offensive operations and getting territory).
[...]
France plays the role of Europe’s Cassandra, warning that the bloc needs to get its act together on defense no matter who is elected president. “We cannot leave the security of Europe in the hands of voters in Wisconsin every four years,” French Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad said on LCI television last week. “Let’s get out of collective denial. Europeans must take their destiny into their own hands, regardless of who is elected U.S. president.”
The tune has been taken up by the European Commission in Brussels, which wants Europe to be more independent on tech, defense and raw materials. But the truth is that when it comes to envisioning a future with less America, the bloc is deeply divided. As enthusiastic as the proponents of European “strategic autonomy” may be, there is no momentum behind the creation of a European army or a European nuclear umbrella.
Some countries — namely the Nordics and some Central and Eastern nations — see the push from Paris as a ploy to bolster France’s companies. They regard proposals for a stronger Europe with unified strategic and military goals as a Trojan horse that would only deliver submission to the larger states, i.e. France and Germany. For others, Putin’s Russia is simply an existential threat. Losing America’s protective umbrella is simply unimaginable. It would expose them to the brunt of Russia’s nuclear and conventional arsenal, with no credible counterweight.
Europe is losing Georgia, and if Ukraine falls Moldavia is next, then the Baltic States.
NATO has shown to be politically weak, afraid of escalation in every step of the war, and over-dependent on the US, a small example being ITAR used as a pretext to prevent the use of UK and French Storm Shadow/SCALP for deep strike in Russia.
It doesn’t matter if Trump or Harris win. Europe has already lost.
U.S. interest in the continent has been in decline since the end of the Cold War.
www.politico.eu
Here’s a tip from a lifelong Euro-American: Worry less about the U.S. presidency and more about how Europe can hack it alone on a dangerous global stage. The uncomfortable truth is that American interest in Europe has been dwindling for the past 30 years. And neither candidate is likely to bring back the transatlantic heyday of the early 1990s.
[...]
Biden is bound to be America’s last Cold War president. In his wake, le déluge — or more accurately a crop of policymakers who don’t feel Russia poses a core threat to U.S. interests, or have a vastly shrunken sense of Washington’s role in the world. Even Biden, when push came to shove, let Washington’s prioritization of the Indo-Pacific area shine through. Remember the AUKUS debacle, when the U.S. snatched a major submarine-building contract out from under France’s nose? French President Emmanuel Macron was furious. Washington’s muffled reply was reminiscent of the famous Don Draper line: “I don’t think of you at all.”
Behind the scenes, the French are typically clear-eyed about how Europe is seen by Washington. “It’s not hostility,” quipped one diplomat. “It’s indifference. Sometimes that’s worse.”
[...]
As the clock ticks down to Nov. 5, Europeans are grappling with the prospect of further U.S. disengagement. If Harris wins, the thinking goes, the White House will keep backing Ukraine but ultimately steer Kyiv toward a deal with Russia in the not-too-distant future. Investment in NATO would remain consistent, though the underlying trend would be further prioritization of the Indo-Pacific over Europe.
If Trump wins, there is a growing sense that all bets are off. Some believe his administration would behave rationally, or at least rationally by his standards, and not flip the table on NATO, and that he’d pursue a deal on the Ukraine war that would allow both sides to claim victory (for example, by giving more weapons to Kyiv and threatening to lift all restrictions on their use, in exchange for Putin ending offensive operations and getting territory).
[...]
France plays the role of Europe’s Cassandra, warning that the bloc needs to get its act together on defense no matter who is elected president. “We cannot leave the security of Europe in the hands of voters in Wisconsin every four years,” French Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad said on LCI television last week. “Let’s get out of collective denial. Europeans must take their destiny into their own hands, regardless of who is elected U.S. president.”
The tune has been taken up by the European Commission in Brussels, which wants Europe to be more independent on tech, defense and raw materials. But the truth is that when it comes to envisioning a future with less America, the bloc is deeply divided. As enthusiastic as the proponents of European “strategic autonomy” may be, there is no momentum behind the creation of a European army or a European nuclear umbrella.
Some countries — namely the Nordics and some Central and Eastern nations — see the push from Paris as a ploy to bolster France’s companies. They regard proposals for a stronger Europe with unified strategic and military goals as a Trojan horse that would only deliver submission to the larger states, i.e. France and Germany. For others, Putin’s Russia is simply an existential threat. Losing America’s protective umbrella is simply unimaginable. It would expose them to the brunt of Russia’s nuclear and conventional arsenal, with no credible counterweight.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
As always echoing Putin's pathetic deceiving declarations trying to support Trump, the only chance he has of getting out of Ukrainian mess alive.
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,842
Why would Trump want to give any aid to Ukraine? There's a dozen other things that he would prefer to spend that money on. He's also easy to bribe.
The only thing is, once Russia gains whatever territory out of a peace treaty, Russia will have to wait until Trump steps down to attack again. Don't make Trump look bad or he'll go nuts.
The only thing is, once Russia gains whatever territory out of a peace treaty, Russia will have to wait until Trump steps down to attack again. Don't make Trump look bad or he'll go nuts.
Snowygerry
Deity
From what I heard Trump is remarkably different in private encounters from his public image , when he was first elected he visited Belgium and protocol demands the king went to greet him.
This caused some anxiety, the queen had to take taekwondo lessons for fear he would try to grab her by the youknow.
Nothing of the kind, he was modest, silent even restrained himself to private conversations with the king, leaving the political to his advisors, who were intellectual leightweights too, so absolutely nothing changed.
Ofcourse as soon he left the room he started talking trash to the first camera he saw, I don’t think he can help himself to be honest.
Having an idiot for president will certainly hurt whatever goal the US might want pursue, whether it will help the Russian war effort remains to be seen.
This caused some anxiety, the queen had to take taekwondo lessons for fear he would try to grab her by the youknow.
Nothing of the kind, he was modest, silent even restrained himself to private conversations with the king, leaving the political to his advisors, who were intellectual leightweights too, so absolutely nothing changed.
Ofcourse as soon he left the room he started talking trash to the first camera he saw, I don’t think he can help himself to be honest.
Having an idiot for president will certainly hurt whatever goal the US might want pursue, whether it will help the Russian war effort remains to be seen.
Last edited:
Trump is just another face of the same US establishment, a bit more erratic.
Last term clearly shown it - military and financial aid to Ukraine continued, sanctions against Russia, attacks against Iran and Syria, etc.
Nothing prevents idiots from echoing same old "Russian puppet" BS though.
Last term clearly shown it - military and financial aid to Ukraine continued, sanctions against Russia, attacks against Iran and Syria, etc.
Nothing prevents idiots from echoing same old "Russian puppet" BS though.
Verbose
Deity
This might need its own thread – or maybe it goes in the future of the EU?
Any extra info on these dastardly Nordics? – because I can only say that from a Swedish, and Finnish, perspective, so far France is not even a blip on the radar as far as discussions about implications of NATO membership and the challenge posed by Russia is concerned. It's just not part of any political discussion currently.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
