The War in the Ukraine

I don't understand the need to bring laws into this. Laws are simply used by the powers that be as a excuse for their actions. They are free to be ignored when it becomes an inconvinience as long as the other side is unwilling to enforce the law in question.

Whether Russia responds kinetically to NATO ISR has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with balance of power. They don't want to give NATO an excuse to escalate so they leave their ISR alone, there's not much more to it.

plawolf said:

Has the UN Security Council ruled the Russian invasion illegal? If not then it’s in a legal grey area the same as the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As per Russian law, Crimea and the other former Ukrainian regions legally joined the Russian Federation.

Click to expand...

Forget the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't take them as an example. I'm asking you on what basis Russia can invade and attack military assets of other countries under international law.

Again, what is the basis for this?

Russia invaded Crimea. It violated international law. Russia held a referendum after the invasion, in which the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was approved. Another international law violated.

Then Russia invaded Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. He practically did the same thing as he did with Crimea. Violated international laws.

Therefore, I question, on what international legal basis does Russia have the right to self-defense based on Article 51 of the UN in the event that American drones are flying over international airspace, actively participating with Ukraine in targets within the sovereign territory of Ukraine recognized including by Russia?

The Security Council did not condemn it, because Russia has the power to veto. But the resolution at the UN General Assembly on Russia was condemned by a large majority:

The UN Charter only allows wars in self-defense against an attack or with authorization from the organization's Security Council.

Sinnavuuty said:

Forget the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't take them as an example. I'm asking you on what basis Russia can invade and attack military assets of other countries under international law.

Again, what is the basis for this?

Russia invaded Crimea. It violated international law. Russia held a referendum after the invasion, in which the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was approved. Another international law violated.

Click to expand...

This is not true from a legal perspective. Ukraine and Russia did not create internationally defined borders after the breakup of the USSR, instead they just took administrative lines because it was convinient, but these administrative lines are not recognised by international law, because their origin is from USSR national law.

Sinnavuuty said:

Then Russia invaded Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. He practically did the same thing as he did with Crimea. Violated international laws.

Therefore, I question, on what international legal basis does Russia have the right to self-defense based on Article 51 of the UN in the event that American drones are flying over international airspace, actively participating with Ukraine in targets within the sovereign territory of Ukraine recognized including by Russia?

The Security Council did not condemn it, because Russia has the power to veto. But the resolution at the UN General Assembly on Russia was condemned by a large majority:
View attachment 131204
The UN Charter only allows wars in self-defense against an attack or with authorization from the organization's Security Council.

Click to expand...

So therefore morally speaking, Russia did invade Ukraine, but legally speaking, without a new UN resolution, it is not an invasion because the status of Ukraine is undetermined. It is roughly the same argument used by Israel in their attack on Palestine, which legally cannot be defined invasion either.

Hence, Russia does have the right to "defend" itself and also doesn't answer to any international sanctions that would follow a real invasion by UN rules.

@plawolf @Sinnavuuty @Index
While I understand that the discussion about the action of shooting down NATO ISR aircraft involves legal language and interpretation along with historical citations, such a discussion will derail this thread. So, please discontinue this discussion. Any more posts about this will be deleted.

Mig-29 at high-ish altitude dropping GBUs

Does VKS know they are at war? Russia AWACS have look down capability that can easily spot a mig29 and vector su-35's or mig-31's flying CAP carrying R37Ms hypersonic with extreme ranges... I mean if Russia actually had CAP fighters near the front.

Honestly, the sooner Ukraine capitulates to Russia the less suffering the POOR Ukrainian people will have to endure

Counterdrone warfare or drone vs. drone.

Russian FPV drone rams a Baba Yaga.


Mavic 3T with thermal imager rams a Baba Yaga.


Heavily modded T-62M with antidrone protection to the gills.


Another new batch of BMP-3 delivered by Rostec to the Russian Army.


Another Mavic chases down a Baba Yaga and rams it in the Ugledar sector.


Two Humvees destroyed in Chasiv Yar.


Ukrainian hanger with vehicles gets hit by an FPV drone.


Two Maxxpro found destroyed.


Ukrainian forces near Ugledar now in a half cauldron.


Russian forces broken through and in the outskirts of Pershanka.


Conscription squads send Ukrainian men into hiding --- BBC.


Russians successfully stormed the center of Krasnogorovka, or to be more precisely the DPR's 5th and 110th. The 114th also of the DPR has joined in.


FABs hit Ukrainian positions in Karlivka.


Forgot to add that the new Perun attack and transport drone were developed with and by ex-Wagnerians.


Ukrainian positions in Urozhayne getting bombarded. The Russians have also stormed the center of Urozhayne.


Akasya at work. Russian Akasya hits a Ukrainian command and observation post.


T-90M firing at a position of Ukrainian UAV operators at 5km.


Su-34 drops 4 FAB-500 with UMPK.


British AS-90 taken out.

New Su-34 batch delivered. Number unknown.


41 men attempting to flee recruitment detained after being found hiding in a grain truck en route to Romania.


More episodes of forced recruitment.


The sanctions have failed and the Russian economy is not in tatters and the Europeans are more dependent on Russian energy now than before the Ukrainian conflict.


Tourism is still booming and Russia is not isolated.

tankphobia said:

I don't understand the need to bring laws into this. Laws are simply used by the powers that be as a excuse for their actions. They are free to be ignored when it becomes an inconvinience as long as the other side is unwilling to enforce the law in question.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that. Just because the hegemon behaves that way does not mean it should be that way.

tankphobia said:

Whether Russia responds kinetically to NATO ISR has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with balance of power. They don't want to give NATO an excuse to escalate so they leave their ISR alone, there's not much more to it.

Click to expand...

Except NATO is already escalating. The Russians should have shot those drones down.

Sinnavuuty said:

Forget the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't take them as an example. I'm asking you on what basis Russia can invade and attack military assets of other countries under international law.

Again, what is the basis for this?

Russia invaded Crimea. It violated international law. Russia held a referendum after the invasion, in which the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was approved. Another international law violated.

Click to expand...

Russia invoked the same argument that NATO used for its campaign in Yugoslavia. That the people of Crimea were being oppressed by their malign government and they went there to help.

The autonomous region of Crimea had already tried to become independent after the Soviet Union collapsed as well. But this was squashed by force by the Ukrainian government.

You could argue about the annexation itself. But in practice the US forces countries it invades into its sphere of control using several economic, political, and other coercive mechanisms as well.

Sinnavuuty said:

Therefore, I question, on what international legal basis does Russia have the right to self-defense based on Article 51 of the UN in the event that American drones are flying over international airspace, actively participating with Ukraine in targets within the sovereign territory of Ukraine recognized including by Russia?

Click to expand...

Except Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place claiming its right of self-defence and the concept of indivisible security. That they invaded Ukraine to ensure its neutrality in perpetuity. This is nothing new. The Soviets did the same in WW2 to the Baltics and Finland to establish a buffer zone vs Germany.

Sinnavuuty said:

The UN Charter only allows wars in self-defense against an attack or with authorization from the organization's Security Council.

Click to expand...

So you think Russia would just let Ukraine join NATO and station forces in Crimea which could then close down the Sea of Azov and their grain shipping routes? That they would let NATO possibly station missiles right next to its population cores? Right.
That Volga river region is basically the Russian equivalent of the Mississippi in the US.

It is NATO which substantively changed the security situation in the region. And the Russians have been complaining since the Baltics joined NATO in 1997. When Putin wasn't even in power yet. Yeltsin was President. It is just that back then they couldn't do much about it because of the Soviet collapse.

Sinnavuuty said:

I believe that Russia does not have the right to shoot down any type of object over international maritime waters. Even more so when Russia has not even declared war against Ukraine. The interception would occur without any legal basis from the Russians, this would be a very big escalation, but there are methods to make this more diplomatically comfortable.

Click to expand...

Without a legal basis? They are providing targeting data actively assisting the Ukrainian war effort.