Upvoted :)

So yeah i totally agree with your angle here. So my reasoning to strictly adhering to international law is because, in a perfect world, a country which violates it is punished. And because the US commits the overwhelming majority of the war crimes, it would face the most sanctions under such a system. Feel free to let me know if you disagree, I am far from an expert on this conflict so I’m not gonna pretend to be :)

Upvoted :)

I get what you’re saying! My approach to this is to carefully craft the narrative so that it can not be used to excuse the war crimes committed by the West. So for example I think BRICS should unilaterally impose sanctions on the US for its war crimes, and I don’t think that should be illegal for this to happen. Even if it means once in a while the US can sanction and isolate itself more on the world stage, whatever.

So the reasoning is, if we say the sanctions on Russia are unilateral and therefore illegal, then wouldn’t we also have to concede that the US can commit a crime and not be subject to unilateral sanctions from China / Russia because the UNSC does not vote in favor of it (bc of US veto)? Adhering to this narrative also benefits in the long term, because the US commits many more crimes than Russia / China and therefore would be subject to the most sanctions under this reasoning.

What are your thoughts on this? Also a disclaimer but I do admit ignorance on the Russo Ukraine conflict so I’m not going to pretend to be an authority here.

(And yeah, sounds like the UN is compromised. I totally agree there.)

How sure are we that Russia’s SMO isn’t violating international law? This caught my eye, because this would be an chef’s kiss talking point against the Russophobic liberals if it were true, but unfortunately all the evidence I could find didn’t point in that direction.

A UN general assembly voted 141-5 (35 abstentions) to demand Russia withdraw all military forces. As well as the ICJ ordering Russia to “immediately suspend” military operations in Ukraine.

The lack of UN sanctions on Russia is because Russia has veto power in the UNSC and has exercised it, so theoretically any of the 5 permanent members can commit crimes without being sanctioned as long as they use their veto power. Note that while the general assembly has condemned it, their actions are generally not legally binding. A better example is the general assembly of US ongoing blockade of Cuba, but nothing happens because US veto power on the UNSC.

As for the unilateral sanctions, there is ongoing debate over whether those are illegal, with some bodies like the Hague claiming they are illegal, as they bypass the UNSC, but there’s obviously the issue of one of the UNSC members themselves committing the initial crime unilaterally and vetoing resulting sanctions.

All of this to say that NATO of course is the ultimate evil in this tragic scenario, but I don’t think you could objectively say that the Russian SMO is within international law, even if it’s hand was illegally forced by NATO. If the point can be argued, however, then I’d be very curious to learn! Because that would be an excellent talking point against Russophobic liberals. ___

Welp. That’s my cue to delete reddit once and for all.

Can someone share that anonymizing tool that people use to scramble all their old reddit comments before deletion?