Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Berzerker]

but they backed that threat up

[BeBMan]

Dmitry Medvedev threatens to launch missile strike on ICC in response to war crimes warrant against Putin

https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/03/20/dmitry-medvedev-threatens-to-launch-missile-strike-on-icc-in-response-to-war-crimes-warrant-against-putin

Kremlin threats are sooo 2022....

[PLATO]

Dauphin's right that the lack of interest in offering a narrow constitutional amendment to facilitate the court means that there must be more motive to dodging the court than just constitutional adherence. Claiming that dodging the court is purely about respecting the constitution would be like Russia claiming its refusal to negotiate the status of any part of the oblasts annexed from Ukraine is purely about respecting the Russian constitution's prohibitions against negotiating the status of any Russian territory with any foreign state.

In both cases the conversation shouldn't end with using the constitution as an excuse. Rather, if the constitution is really the barrier, the conversation would be how to fix that in a way that preserves the intended goal of the constitutional obstruction.

I think the main reason was the possibility of prosecution related to various "peacekeeping" roles. The U.S. just felt that they would be singled out for one and that unjust actors would try to create situations that might be no-win situations.

[Berzerker]

So do you claim that the Separatists were unarmed?

Where did I claim that?

Did uncle Sam round up and arm a bunch of Nazis christen them "Azov" and give them secret order to start a proxy war with Russia by attacking the unarmed Separatists? When did the Separatists get armed? Who armed them? You've said that the Separatists declared independence because they wanted peace. Historically not really the ideal way to obtain peace, especially in a state that is not at war IMHO, but whatever. If they wanted peace so bad why do we have no attempts to surrender? That seems like a legitimate pacifist response when attacked by a force that is not otherwise at war from a state you just declared independence from. Can you find a single instance of such a surrender?

I said the separatists didn't want to be ruled by the coup backers

They wanted to conquer the entire Donbas from Ukraine and make it part of Russia.

Then why did they agree to Minsk? About a 1/3rd voted for independence and a small majority voted for a Minsk-like deal

Azov was a brand new militia limited to Mariupol

'April 2014: The Azov Battalion’s first violent attack was in April 2014 when it clashed with Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk'

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion

In August 2014 however, before Azov did much of anything besides fight those Mariupol street fights with Separatist Neo-nazi militias, the Ukrainian government Anti-terrorist operation had almost reached the Russian borders. The neo-nazi street fighting was overrun by Ukrainian government forces. Peace was about to break out. The Ukrainian government forces weren't ethnic cleansing or genociding. They were literally taking the streets back from the gangs. Separatist "Minister of Defence" Igor Girkin (Muscovite employed by FSB) publicly warned that without Russian military involvement the Donbas republics would collapse. He said recruitment from the locals was failing.

So a half year after the war started the Donbas told Moscow they needed help because local recruitment couldn't stop Azov. I thought the separatists were little green men.

[Berzerker]

unapproved

[Geronimo]

You should look into what is required to amend the Constitution in this country. (We reversed the Prohibition amendment roughly nine years after it was clear it was a mistake that caused us a LOT of damage)

It is a lot of process but it doesn't have to cost much. Amendments can be handled without special elections. The main obstacle to a clearly benign amendment is dysfunctional partisan politics making even broadly acceptable proposals into a partisan issue that the less motivated party will turn into a bargaining chip for concessions elsewhere and the low obstruction threshold of the amendment process making it an easy political hostage.

[BeBMan]

Interesting

Not much travel options for Vlad anymore, but then he's mostly sitting behind the table anyway these days....

[Berzerker]

unapproved

[The Mad Monk]

I appreciate you are an an asshat and can't read. I said you can make an amendment. You choose not to, means it's not the constitution, but rather a desire to not offer up US citizens for prosecution

You should look into what is required to amend the Constitution in this country. (We reversed the Prohibition amendment roughly nine years after it was clear it was a mistake that caused us a LOT of damage)

[Geronimo]

Dauphin's right that the lack of interest in offering a narrow constitutional amendment to facilitate the court means that there must be more motive to dodging the court than just constitutional adherence. Claiming that dodging the court is purely about respecting the constitution would be like Russia claiming its refusal to negotiate the status of any part of the oblasts annexed from Ukraine is purely about respecting the Russian constitution's prohibitions against negotiating the status of any Russian territory with any foreign state.

In both cases the conversation shouldn't end with using the constitution as an excuse. Rather, if the constitution is really the barrier, the conversation would be how to fix that in a way that preserves the intended goal of the constitutional obstruction.

[Dinner]

No Americans were subject to that court so it didn't violate the constitution. Any agreement which set a foreign court above the U.S. Supreme Court wrt to I.S. citizens in the I.S. would absolutely violated the constitution. Period.

The constitution clearly lays out which court is Supreme in this country and no other court can be put above it.

[Dauphin]

No Americans were on trial in Nuremberg.

Who set up the Court? And were Americans involved? And was the SC the ultimate arbiter of appeal?

[Dauphin]

I appreciate you are an an asshat and can't read. I said you can make an amendment. You choose not to, means it's not the constitution, but rather a desire to not offer up US citizens for prosecution

[Dinner]

No Americans were on trial in Nuremberg so, no, it is not unconstitutional while extradition treaties, if properly written, do not interfere with the constitution. Making a separate international court contrary to the court system specifically spelled out in the constitution is unconstitutional. Especially if it violates the clause which makes the Supreme Court the highest court in the land capable of over turning any and all courts.

So, I appreciate you are ignorant on the topic being a foreigner but our constitution does not allow any government or official to violate the constitution for any reason. We will stick to that.

[Dauphin]

Were the Nuremburg Trials also unconstitutional? What about extradition treaties?

In reality the objection is 'we don't want any of our people being tried'. Which i think is more than fair as an explanation. The Constitutional argument strikes me as a bit weak - it's either not true, or you pass an amendment for specific narrow purpose to allow membership.