Ukraine - Russia Conflict

Because it was an imperial empire, like Russia still is, which was wrong by modern standards.
BS. From 1884 all Brits have right to vote.
My point was that whilst the king of J&K gave it to India, he was never elected as a representative of the people, whereas Ukraine's leadership is.
Neither the constituents of the Rest 500 princely states have say, when there king/ruler agreed to form union of India.
1951 was the first time whole of Constituents went to vote.
Analogy doesn't fit right here.
 
BS. From 1884 all Brits have right to vote.
1708 for men but only in the UK, outside the UK it was still an imperial empire.
Neither the constituents of the Rest 500 princely states have say, when there king/ruler agreed to form union of India.
1951 was the first time whole of Constituents went to vote.
Analogy doesn't fit right here.
And that wasn't right either but the fact is J&K was not a representative democracy when handed over to India. It was bound to sew chaos and Russia is now sewing chaos just as the British once did.
India isn't sitting on fence. We support democracy, no war, peace and if necessary peacekeeping operations under United Nations. People have tendency to look on the things from their different different perspectives & viewpoints.
That's pretty much fence sitting, since you haven't condemned the aggressor state.
 
That's a text book war crime , trying to kill an already wounded soldier , Making video out of it using cringe music , uploading it over the internet for Propaganda & money making purposes etc
You can't tell whether he's injured or sleeping from the video and injured soldiers can still be a threat. He should have been evac'd by Russia if too wounded to fight.
 



Ukraine War: Over 100,000 Putin Soldiers Killed in Ukraine, US Report Says
 

Ukraine War: Over 100,000 Putin Soldiers Killed in Ukraine, US Report Says
LOL! Do you even understand that language?
But hey, It suits your propoganda.
 
You can't tell whether he's injured or sleeping from the video and injured soldiers can still be a threat. He should have been evac'd by Russia if too wounded to fight.
are u blind ?
f60uspev-720.jpg
 
And Ukraine isn't a sovereign democracy. Not since 2014.
You can repeat that nonsense as much as you want, it will not stop nonsense.
Nostradamus?
Why should Ukraine in 1992 have Kharkiv, Donbass, and Crimea? Simple. These regions voted to be part of independent Ukraine back in 1991.
Look at that.
Kharkiv Oblast: 86.33% of voters, 65% of total electorate
Luhansk Oblast: 83.86% of voters, 68% of total electorate
Donetsk Oblast: 83.90% of voters, 64% of total electorate
Zaporizhzhia Oblast: 90.66% of voters, 73% of total electorate
Kherson Oblast: 90.13% of voters, 75% of total electorate
Mykolayiv Oblast: 89.45% of voters, 75% of total electorate
Odessa Oblast: 85.38% of voters, 64% of total electorate
Crimean ASSR: 54.19% of voters, 37% of total electorate
Sevastopol City: 57.07% of voters, 36% of total electorate

So it's only for Crimea that one could argue there wasn't an overwhelming majority in favor of Ukrainian independence. Still a majority of votes, though.

And your Nostradamus predicted jack. He thought Ukraine would implode like Yugoslavia, but that never happened. Instead, Russia created militias and invaded. Without Russian ingerence, Ukraine would be perfectly peaceful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
So why was he left in a trench? Of course it would be too much to expect Russia to have the respect to evacuate their wounded. And that's a blown-up image that the drone operator did not have the privilege of analysing over several hours. They saw a Russian soldier in a Russian trench and blew him up. It was a judgement call, maybe an incorrect one in hindsight, but it's not a war crime, and certainly not one that any lawyer could successfully prosecute in a court.

Here's another one for you, wounded soldier surrounded by non-wounded soldiers.

 
Last edited:
BMD thinks killing injured Russians is not a war crime, so it's all good here.
War crimes are:
attacks that cause disproportionate damage to civilians
attacking protected organizations such as the Red Cross and their personnel
executing or torturing POW or civilians
as well as abusing protected symbols (red cross, white flag, etc.) to commit attacks, fighting out of uniform to disguise as a civilian or as an enemy soldier, those are all called perfidy and absolutely banned by the laws of war.

It can also be a war crime if there's an agreement between both sides for a temporary truce and it is broken. For example, if you organize a prisoner exchange and then open fire on the enemy during the exchange, that's a war crime. Likewise, if retreating/evacuating troops are promised safe passage through a particular corridor and they get attacked there anyway, it's a war crime also. The crime however is not in attacking retreating or evacuating soldiers, it's only in not respecting the promise.

Enemy soldiers that are not out of combat are therefore perfectly fair game. The guy was still alert enough to toss the grenades away and flee, he was therefore alert enough to be a threat on the battlefield. I don't see a white flag, I don't see a red cross, he's got no legal protection.
 
Last edited:
Russians surrender Kherson. :LOL:
View attachment 25165

Russians got cut off from supply lines that is why they lost Der bettle of Kherson. The goal of Ukraine/US was not to confront head on Russia's best forces but to starve them and at the same time probe attacks and wait them out. Taking out of Crimean bridge was the knock-out when that happened no more heavy equipment of any kind was able to reach Russian forces in Kherson area including west bank.

Question now is Ukraine going to be soft and allow Russia to retreat or will they hit them? HiMARS is more than in range of retreating Russian forces since it is likely 1-2 points will be used for retreat. Perception for Ukraine is everything.

Ukraine is about to be gifted a ton of Russian equipment too. :)

The retreat from Kherson is bad news for Ukraine, the Russian troops were tied down there. Having to cross the river would mean less manpower for the Russians so they can contentrate their forces elsewhere instead of trying to hold the bridgehead on the right side. It also means heavy losses for Ukraine while setting up new defences on the right side and clearing all the booby traps the Russians would have prepared.
How does that determine whether it's right? Was the British Empire right to invade India by that definition?

The British Empire faced zero threat from India. It's not the same as a dangerous neighbour. For example, Bangladesh is a potentially far greater threat to India than Britain. Your arguments are a waste of time.