|
fdr - Correct me if I am wrong, I am under the impression that the UN charter actually requires that members of the UN come to the aid of a member who is attacked and that this would not require a vote in the security council, as any country rendering assistance in such circumstances, would be simply fulfilling its obligations under the UN charter?
Nutty - Why wood the Ukrainian's let them withdraw, only to reform and attack again? Surrender or die is the only sensible response to that request. |
Sergei Karaganov says that he is 99% sure that the U.S. will not retaliate if Russia launched a nuclear strike on a NATO country that supports Ukraine. Karaganov's scenario appears to be in relation to Poland, as he says it would take a "madman" in the White House who "hates America" to sacrifice Boston for Poznan Karaganov has made similar claims in the past about Article 5 of NATO having little practical value…. |
Originally Posted by WB627
(Post 11305775)
fdr - Correct me if I am wrong, I am under the impression that the UN charter actually requires that members of the UN come to the aid of a member who is attacked and that this would not require a vote in the security council, as any country rendering assistance in such circumstances, would be simply fulfilling its obligations under the UN charter?
Nutty - Why wood the Ukrainian's let them withdraw, only to reform and attack again? Surrender or die is the only sensible response to that request. |
Originally Posted by WB627
(Post 11305775)
fdr - Correct me if I am wrong, I am under the impression that the UN charter actually requires that members of the UN come to the aid of a member who is attacked and that this would not require a vote in the security council, as any country rendering assistance in such circumstances, would be simply fulfilling its obligations under the UN charter?
Nutty - Why wood the Ukrainian's let them withdraw, only to reform and attack again? Surrender or die is the only sensible response to that request. |
Aviation Content
It looks like Vlads about to have another go with his mysterious nuclear powered cruise missile aka Skyfall, again. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/se...-novaya-zemlya Is the timing of this a coincidence? It’s thought the last three launch attempts went to visit the fishes before the nuke bit began to spread the Russian love, but maybe the physics will go this time. |
Originally Posted by dead_pan
(Post 11305708)
Reports that Stoltenberg will make some form of announcement in the next few hours...
|
Originally Posted by WB627
(Post 11305775)
fdr - Correct me if I am wrong, I am under the impression that the UN charter actually requires that members of the UN come to the aid of a member who is attacked and that this would not require a vote in the security council, as any country rendering assistance in such circumstances, would be simply fulfilling its obligations under the UN charter?
Nutty - Why wood the Ukrainian's let them withdraw, only to reform and attack again? Surrender or die is the only sensible response to that request. So, in answer, United Nations Charter, Chapter I: Purposes and Principles article 2, (4 different gross breaches...)
Spoiler
United Nations Charter, Chapter II: Membership. Contrary to Article 4. May be suspended under Article 5, may be expelled under Article 6, (RUSSIA DOES NOT HAVE VETO IN THE UNSC, THEY DON'T GET A VOTE)Article 3 balances Article 4...
Spoiler
Sorry, Vlad just made me puke on colonialism... Vlad "its their right enshrined in the UN Charter... Golly he needs glasses. United Nations Charter, Chapter VI: Pacific Settlement of Disputes. Article 37 should have been invoked by some member of the UN, Ukraine abides with their obligations under Article 33. Russia ignored theirs., no one else did. That should have invoked Art 34.
Spoiler
Pretty shabby. United Nations Charter, Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression. Majority of this Chapter is what should have been done and was not, Article 51 is the right of self defense, and the right for any UN state to come to the aid of a UN member being attached or threatened by another country. Russia maintains a discredited fantasy that they are the victim of... Hitler, the depredations of... Ukraine... ? and apparently some revisionist history lessons, and some incoherent rambling about protecting non-french, non-spanish etc speaking people as being a basis for annexation. Watch out Chelsea, watch out Little Russia, NY... The first sentence of 51 gives the rights. The rest stands as a testament to the failure of the UN. Article 51Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Spoiler
Gotta go, Vlads speech is leaving an aftertaste, something is rancid in it... As far as conducting a criminal invasion in 2014 and 2022, murdering civilians in MI -17, supplying soldiers to foment civil discontent in a sovereign nation, conducting sham elections with no such authority and under gun point, murder, rape, theft, torture, failure to return library books, genocide, not replacing divots, littering, abandoning vehicles.... threatening Armageddon... how today he thinks that anyone is going to believe any undertaking Russia makes ever let alone for a ceasefire is incomprehensible. Perhaps he actually believes what he vomits up. Whoops, off I go again,... bletch! Where do the carrots and tomato skins come from??? P.S.: Jens Stoltenberg NATO-SG, made a specific use of the statement "not a party to..." which would appear to indicate that UN Charter Article 27(3) may be about to be invoked to permit the UNSC to try a vote. There is only a wildcard with China, whether they want to be on Russia's side or not. If they did, expect secondary sanctions pretty promptly which would destabilize China. Interesting times, but there is no way that Putin may be permitted to win if such behavior is not to spread. His comment on nuclear blackmail is on point. :ok: NATO supports the ongoing investigation on the sabotage of Nordstream... guess the Spetznaz frogmen are going to have some 6th floor window incident, flippers causing mass tripping over sill I guess, and the planting of passes for a pregnant lady in their pockets. The hole in the back of their heads will be purely coincidental. Time for bets on whodunnit.... My bet is still Russia, and the evidence will be on the ground about the breaks, and in the sonograms. |
fdr - Thank you for that.
Too much dependant on the security council, however....... I think Article 51 covers it... Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. |
Weren't the Ruskies supposed to abstain from voting in the UNSC meeting today?
|
Originally Posted by WB627
(Post 11305830)
Too much dependant on the security council, however....... I think Article 51 covers it... As I read it, anyone can invoke Article 51 and come to the aid of Ukraine (collective self-defence) without a directive from the security council. I think the Poles will get there first, they have a lot of scores to settle with Russia.
As a clarification on Nordstream, and NATO Article 5; Article 5 is very broad in it's scope, and would include any armed attack against a NATO state, which could be considered to be their energy supplies as well. Article 6 of NATO gives further criteria, that is assumed to constrain the criteria of Article 5, but does not do so. It specifically states what would be unquestionably trigger events for Article 5, it does not exclude an action such as an armed attack against Nordstream or, against the Danish oil production platforms. There is a simple action that would remove any question in respect to response, and would head off Vlads increasingly psychotic episodes... : NATO could place a minimum of 1 NATO troop on every production platform, vessel and other item of interest that they wish to deny Vlad an opportunity to wreak local environmental damage, and terrorist attack.... With a notified presence and notification to Vlad assuming that he hasn't thrown his phone out the 6th floor window already... well Article 6 removes any question that may linger in Vlads imagination as to the response of NATO. He can always refer to the NATO SG's speech of yesterday on the matter, there seems to be little doubt that Jan S. takes the more expansive and inclusive view that sabotage of infrastructure within and without of the territory of NATO members is considered an Article 5 matter. 1 sailor, soldier (or even tailor for Vlads spy background) removes any future doubt. The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. NATO Article 6For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
The statement "an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack" does NOT state "is limited to..." , or "excludes armed attacks outside of territory, interests, oil production platforms, etc..", hence the position that it both expands, and restricts. [1] Grady, B.C.; 2002, ARTICLE 5 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: PAST, PRESENT, AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE, in GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. Vol. 31:167 see: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/c...&context=gjicl |
Originally Posted by WB627
(Post 11305846)
Weren't the Ruskies supposed to abstain from voting in the UNSC meeting today?
There is no caveat that gives one of the permanent members a right to not automatically abstain from a vote on a matter that they are a party to the dispute. Pays to have friends.... Article 5
Spoiler
Article 6
Spoiler
Article 18
Spoiler
The vote was 5 abstaining, not including Russia! every other vote was against Russia's annexation. If you want to make a difference, contact your govt direct. I have just formally objected in writing to the UN. Rude letter follows.... 30 September 2022 Peace and SecurityRussia on Friday vetoed a Security Council resolution which described its attempts to unlawfully annex four regions of Ukraine earlier in the day with a formal ceremony in Moscow, as “a threat to international peace and security”, demanding that the decision be immediately and unconditionally reversed. The draft resolution, circulated by the United States and Albania, was supported by ten of the fifteen members of the Council, with Russia voting against it. Four members abstained, Brazil, China, Gabon and India. The draft described the so-called referendums held by Russia in the four regions of Ukraine which Moscow now regards as sovereign territory – Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya – as illegal and an attempt to modify Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. Withdraw nowIt called on all States, international organisations, and agencies not to recognize the Russian annexation declaration, and called on Russia to “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces” from Ukrainian territory.Due to Russia’s veto, following a new procedure adopted in the UN General Assembly in April, the Assembly must now meet automatically within ten days for the 193-member body to scrutinize and comment on the vote. Any use of the veto by any of the Council's five permanent members triggers a meeting. On Thursday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the annexation plan as a violation of international law, warning that it marked a “dangerous escalation” in the seven-month war that began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February. “The Charter is clear”, said the UN chief. “Any annexation of a State’s territory by another State resulting from the threat or use of force is a violation of the Principles of the UN Charter”. Speaking before the vote, United States Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said that the referendums were a “sham”, predetermined in Moscow, “held behind the barrel of Russian guns.” |
Interesting description of a successful joint operation in Kharkiv.
Especially the bit of tank commander leading from outside at 2min into the video. Ukrainians really seem to be on top of their game. Meanwhile in Russia it appears that for the first time since 1950's Russia is establishing light infantry units en masse (you know, WW2 style). Considering they haven"t had much success in joint operations with their professional mech army and eg air force, what are they going to achive with mobiks without IFV's and experience such the Ukraine Armed Forces have? It's time to press on and provide more and better everything to Ukraine, starting from proper winter clothing. |
The UN
Reviewing todays actions at the UN Security Council, I contend that the UN continues to permit Russia to veto an issue that is at their unclean hands.
Article 27 covers procedural matters, and those are associated with agendas etc, which could conceivably be impacted by Russia, as they are precluded on voting on "all other matters" that they may be a party to. The procedural vote side requires only 9 affirmative votes to be carried, and there is no requirement for any permanent member to vote affirmatively for procedural matters, e.g., there is no veto to procedural matters.
Russia has no legitimate right to vote in the UNSC on any matter pertaining to non-procedural matters, and has no veto. For procedural matters under the amended interim rules of procedure there is no other veto that exists, and procedural matters other than Article 108 & 109 amendments require only 9 affirmative votes of any security council members. WTF am I missing? |
Been seeing reports that lyman will be a bloodbath, russians asked for a ceasefire to withdraw. Rejected by UA, they were trying to escape in the drains
Its looking really really bad for russian forces starting to sound like a blood bath for UA forces. Hearing it from different sources this is just one https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wo...s-a-slaughter/ |
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 11306007)
Been seeing reports that lyman will be a bloodbath, russians asked for a ceasefire to withdraw. Rejected by UA, they were trying to escape in the drains
Its looking really really bad for russian forces starting to sound like a blood bath for UA forces. Hearing it from different sources this is just one https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wo...s-a-slaughter/ Good riddance to a bad regime. |
Originally Posted by uxb99
(Post 11306028)
The enemy can always lay down their arms and surrender. If they don't then kill them all. That's war, isn't it? I'm sure they would do the same if the tables were reversed and from some of the images we see with greater relish and cruelty.
Perhaps the Russians are now mindful of that and think UKR will do the same, which I trust they won't. |
Horrific. Putin needs to be invited to the front lines to experience this for himself.
Or is he too afraid? |
|
Or maybe just sabre rattling for the satellites. |
The war is going terribly for Russia. I think they should admit the failure of the special military operation. As a form of consolation, their propagandists could use NATOs utter failure in Afghanistan as an example of how even Great Powers are capable of getting it wrong.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:59. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.