Ukraine creating international territorial defense legion – Zelensky
ukrinform.net
ukrinform.net
> Ukraine’s vice PM & minister for digital transformation says an “IT army” formed & now it’s recruiting IT specialists from other countries. ‘We translated tasks in English. Task # 1: use any vectors of cyber and DDoS attacks on sites and systems of Russian govt, biz, banks.’ -- https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1497813622793379842
> Zelensky announced the formation of a new unit - the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine. It will be made up of foreigners who want to take part in repelling Russian aggression. -- https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1497826690822594562
While I can't picture myself taking up (cyber) arms against a foreign nation, aren't EU / US law quite explicit about the legality of meddling as a civilian? Or does it mean registering with the UA office will make it legal?. There are plenty on the fringes in the West who don't have a job or are totally disillusioned by their prospects for a good future.
The idea that attacking Russian assets (banks, companies) from your home in say UK, France or US and with impunity could be tempting. I think calling for a "foreign cyber army" may set a dangerous precedent to vigilante hacktivism and lead to escalation. It could also get messy if not coordinated with ongoing activities. No idea how the law works in this case? Even if I would lot of the cyber is uncharted territory.
I do hope it works out for them and they can recruit some top cyber brass this way.
In that sense, I believe Telegram is much more independent than fully undermined FB/Whatsapp... but for what does it matter? Any public group will have leakers And can potentially be undermined by any big enough actor... either you are in a small fully trusted and encrypted circle, or you are in a big and always public group with potentially enemy actors?
Telegram is used because it's popular and everyone else uses it I get that. In case this is crucial somehow and this reason prevents me from using Signal, Wire, etc I'd still use WhatsApp/FB over TG in time like this. I'd rather chose the platform from a place that has a history of being an adversary of (in this case) RU.
> either you are in a small fully trusted and encrypted circle
Good advise to never say anything even with a fully trusted circle, because it's not only who gets your phone but who gets your recipients phone. Also peoples allegiances change. Today's friends will 100% flip on you tomorrow.
Maybe this old linked piece of excellent advise is relevant? ...: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8950875
Spreading FUD in this time does no one any good.
My bet, is that if nobody is really aware that you're messing with the Russian Postal Service during 'this time' there isn't really going to be a concern.
The UK Government, I believe, just this morning indicated that they would support people who wanted to go and fight.
People have fought with the Kurds from various countries, though their actions were on foreign soil.
My hunch is that this is political. If you're doing it for ISIS, and authorities become aware, you're somehow going to be in trouble. They will find a law that you are breaking.
If you are fighting against Russian in a moment of crisis, and not completely publicly flaunting some very obvious law, then maybe the authorities won't care.
In the US however, it's tricky, because if someone, somewhere doesn't like what you're up to, they can put the DA on someone and find a way to book them for '100 years in jail' (i.e. Aaron Swartz).
To actually take a shot at your question, for the US at least in general it appears to be perfectly legal purely as a matter of current US law for a private citizen to go and fight for another country, so long as it's not against the US. I could have sworn this had come up fairly recently in the midst of all the middle east battles and indeed Foreign Policy had a whole article devoted to it in 2011: "Is It Legal for Americans to Fight in Another Country’s Army?" [0]. Caveats don't seem to apply here, obviously the UA is not an American "designated terrorist organization", Russia is not an ally (to put it mildly), etc. So just in terms of "could an American go volunteer for this?" answer seems to be yes.
Of course in practice it's a lot more complicated. Being legal to go fight in another army has nothing to do with actually getting there, what you can bring, and coverage for your actions. Unless you have a direct private US<>Ukraine flight or boat, have to check on transit laws for all the countries one is going through. Laws about transport of weapons or equipment (ITAR) still apply, though things you bring purely for your own use may be allowed but it's not clear at a glance. Bringing extras would definitely require licensing. Regulations for commercial air/sea travel, customs and so on still apply. If an officially sanctioned uniformed part of the UA volunteers should be protected by the GC and POW treaties and so on same as any other soldier, but of course Russia's adherence to that isn't a given, and they won't actually have the US military backing them directly like a US soldier would. Any crimes committed could be prosecuted, and there are requirements for GC coverage (like being in uniform, chain of command) that over enthusiastic volunteers might ignore at their peril. Russia could well be expected to flat out invent supposed crimes they "saw" volunteers committing and that wouldn't be trivial to avoid if captured. And much more.
It's a heroic cause and if somebody or some group was serious about navigating all that and accepting the risk even beyond that to their lives I'd honor them for it, and if all went well and they made it home there doesn't appear to be any legal risk back here so there is that. But it'd be an even more serious business than going to fight as part of the regular US forces.
----
0: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/02/is-it-legal-for-america...
What’s the game plan? To clarify, not saying it’s a bad idea, just that I don’t understand how it is supposed to work
I doubt they will give them a detailed list of targets and say hit Sberbank & Rosneft please, but more of a guide to fighters to assess their own capabilities and risks. Then based on that self-assessment which targets to self-identify and select, and also where to report to on a regular basis. I doubt it would be a collaborative environment where people who've never met share communication with other operatives. But it might become one if the war drags on (it probably does and in any case there is strong incentive to keep building on this afterwards)
This is just speculation. In reality they might all be thrown into a couple of telegram channels and hope for the best. In fact maybe this could also be a great idea, because if you compartmentalize 1000 people with potential 20 Russian-friendly lurkers into 5-person chat channels you might get some sabotage but the benefits of team-work might outweigh the sabotage. Also your chances of people staying on because they're part of a team is bigger.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-russi...
I wouldn't be surprised if special operations groups were already in country but this would let them be a lot more liberal with showing themselves.
”don’t get yourselves into trouble. Wink wink”
Could you have a full armoured regiment take 1 month PTO and go fight for Ukraine and then suddenly have some British armour dropped off for the Ukrainian army to use?
Could you say a drone command group is taking a month off then lend and lease a fleet of drones to the Ukrainian air force?
This feels like a very Putinesque salami tactic, maybe we should be hitting back the say way he's hitting Ukraine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/vladimir-putin...
For guys with guns, those are guys with guns. For drones, it is hard to prove it's not Ukrainians flying those TB2s or how many they have or anything.
Getting away with Patriot or few A-10's being on vacation might be hard.
THE WORLD: gasps
UK: These guys were on a holiday there
THE WORLD: claps
I guess in a three months I would have more than enough of these gasps/claps jokes.
But US and UK with their increased deployment on NATO borders might use it as a cover to put special forces in, but since the fighting is far from the NATO borders right now, I don't know how much it will help Ukraine.
He was part of the Swedish Voluntary Air Force F19 [2], as an airplane mechanic. I still have some of his winter war gear and the medal he got.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_intervention_in_the_Wi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Regiment_19,_Finnish_Ai...
As you said Sweden allowed and encouraged Swedish volunteers to Finland, but the military also sent a lot of firearms, artillery and other equipment. But the railways in Sweden and Finland were of different widths meaning all cargo would have to be unloaded and re-loaded by hand at the border. They still tried but the system was quickly overrun.
The winter in 39/40 was one of the coldest ever here, meaning the Bothnian Bay was frozen solid. The solution was to drive civilian truck convoys loaded with armaments over the ice over "Kvarken", the strait from Holmsund to Vasa. There they unloaded the trucks and loaded Finnish pulp for paper production, which was the only thing they had a surplus of.
They had to drive at night and cover their headlamps so Soviet planes wouldn't spot them. They had to drive with their door open so they could get out and run if they were attacked or if the ice started caving, meaning many of them got frostbitten (especially those from southern Sweden )
My grandfather drove many times and "advanced" to plowtruck in the front part of the convoy, a safer position. One time there was a blizzard and the tracks got covered with snow in seconds. Since the drivers couldn't see more than a meter or two, the convoy quickly clogged up. Even if the ice was thick, it couldn't handle it. One driver died. He was the only casualty of the "Kvarken traffic" although 6 trucks went through the ice in total.
My grandfather proposed to my grandmother in the beginning of the war, but she already had a boyfriend. The morning after the blizzard my grandmother heard that the convoy hadn't yet arrived in Vasa. She was worried and devastated, and realized she loved him.
So, I guess the moral of the story is I exist because Sweden and Finland had incompatible train tracks..
Nukes are always the wildcard, but if Putin is willing to use them first at all, we already have much bigger problems.
> They want to restore a supplicant government loyal to Russia,
What exactly do you think imperialism is?
Somewhere between the cabinet and the rest of the military there is quite the lack of motivation.
Chechnya is not a country and is a part of Russia. Before that it was part of the USSR.
https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-not-a-real-country-h...
> If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/belarusalert/soft-anne...
Now they’re definitely gonna push their hardest to join NATO after the war is over, and who could blame them?
Joining NATO means "the member" doesn't have a history of armed invasion; NATO does.
They are not less white. White as all encompassing the most important racial/ethnic category is an American invention. It does not make sense to import it outside of America and assume it will work.
Also, Putin line is that Ukraine is fake nation. It should not exist as independent entity, basically.
Many western nations have strong ties to Ukraine through historical waves of immigration, and in the case of Poland, they are neighbours with a similar way of life and language.
Plus Ukrainians are taking a stand to defend their democracy, whereas Afghanistan made no such effort.
Also, the west went above and beyond wrt Syria, but Putin obviously won that one.
Russia-UK relations are extremely bad right now.
no wonder with Bellingcat ready to diminish every effort by Russia ... from the time RU shot down MH17, to when Brits harassed those Russian tourists who wanted to marvel at the spire, and most recently the whole Navalny poisoning where they stalked the assassins. This sort of attitude by UK isn't exactly helping relations :) /s
Edit: well, that escalated quickly:
https://ria.ru/20220227/putin-1775389742.html
'As stated in the directory on the website of the Ministry of Defense, the strategic forces "are designed to deter aggression against Russia and its allies, as well as to defeat the aggressor (inflicting defeat on him), including in a war with the use of nuclear weapons."'
Putin didn't even call any bluff. Biden admitted on TV that they aren't doing to do anything weeks ago. Putin did exactly what he said he would do, and Biden is doing exactly what he said he would do.
It's no wonder nothing happened when Trump was in office. How many times do we need to learn that appeasement does nothing. If the Allies stopped Germany when they remilitarized the Rhineland, Hitler would've been done without much of a war. Instead, the world appeased Hitler until it was too late.
The world appeased Putin with Crimea, and then the separatists. The world is appeasing this. What's the next escalation?
There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.
Russia's military is weak, their economy is extremely weak, their manufacturing base is extremely weak, and their only defensive fall-back is nuclear weapons and masses of bodies to throw at an invading force (it would be very unwise for anybody to bother invading Russia, there's no point to that). The use of nuclear weapons doesn't equate to a world war.
Where would WW3 come from? Russia has very few allies and China isn't joining WW3 on their side (China would stay out of it unless attacked, they'd strategically position themselves to benefit from the damage to their peers).
Belarus is a joke (and that regime would be quickly broken in a conflict). Syria is destroyed. Iran is a non-threat. What else has Russia got on their side?
WWIII, in a literal sense (that is, between world-wide alliances), won't happen, since certainly China/India have not reason to enter it.
On the other hand though, Russia vs. the West is not so far fetched. Keep in mind that Putimir announced:
> Russian president Vladimir Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrence forces on high alert after aggressive statements by Nato countries, Reuters reports.
Whether this is a bluff or not, it shows a clearly deranged personality. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a matter of principle, he'd initiate a nuclear war rather than losing Ukraine. After all, invading Ukraine has been motivated entirely by principle.
Ukrainians and Georgians are indeed fighting our war, defending the European cause, while we are bystanders. The entire situation makes me feel sick.
My personal opinion is that Putin was never negotiating in good faith. He was negotiating as a stalling tactic while prepared and/or waited for the most opportune time to invade.
For example, you can check:
- the book "Foundations of Geopolitics ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
- its author and "philosopher" Aleksandr Dugin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
Putin has a long-term vision and strategy to build a fascist empire, he has been working on this for decades.
Ukraine deserves all the money that will go toward building back their economy when they finally win this war.
If NATO will disable the Russian nuclear C&C, they will no longer be able to launch a coordinated attack, and it will be for individual officers in bunkers to decide of fighting an unwinnable war.
It is called mutual ASSURED destruction (MAD) for a reason.
Which group are they fighting for? It's a former Soviet state fighting Russia. Part of being an independent nation means being diplomatic and not pissing off your neighbor. The CSA attacked a US fort and now they don't exist either. That's just the way it goes.
If by "our" you mean free democracy, eh, Ukraine wasn't exactly the bastion of free democracy you think it is. There were plenty of coups and illegitimate governments in its short life. There's nuance here but a lot of people are ignoring it and just eating up propaganda.
It's a former Soviet state defending itself from a Russian invasion.
Suddenly this guarantee which has brought us if not peace then a little breathing room was torn like a thin veneer. We have had 70 years to get our act together, dealing with the consequences that drumfire and shellshock of two world wars had on the European subconscious mind.
Edit: There is no such thing as "willingness to prosecute" in EU, all crimes must and will be prosecuted here (the officials of many states even said so). This applies to French foreing legions too. People with dual citizenship are treated specially, each state has their own rules for that situation (sometimes approval of the other state is needed, sometimes not). Dual nationality without dual citizenship means nothing.
Russia has no business whatsoever in the internal or foreign affairs of Ukraine that don't concern them.
The Soviet Union placing ICBMs 100 miles from Florida is very much a threat.
While the threat of violence always underlies the balance of power, countries have to form some basis of civil agreement in order for things to work.
In your example, imagine if you had to personal carry a gun to ensure your own safety and the fulfilment of contracts. That's not going to work.
Russia has every right to lament treatment of Russian minority, at the same time, it was created by them.
Russia has been very, very directly interfering in Ukranian politics and trying to turn it into a vassal state for the last 30 years.
The Russian occupation in 2014 definitely created the 'permanent line of violence' in Donbas, which they are now using as a pretext for invasion.
As the commenter noted: Russia can fuck themselves. In a world where nobody is perfect, they are 'bad actors' and particularly they have a lot of weapons which they throw around in that context. Screw them.
US/EU options are limited because of NATO, WW3 outcomes, but we should take every other opportunity to help Ukraine.
What the Ukranians have been doing in the last few days is nothing short of heroic.
In many ways, the US and China have each been trying to do very much the same thing as Russia, just taking different routes to doing so. China uses golden handcuffs in Africa and Southeast Asia (plus some strong arming of its direct neighbors), the USA uses direct handouts (cash and goods) and the promise of coming to the military aid of a country to keep others from building up their own economies or arsenals while allowing the US to host their airbases and missile silos around the world, and Russia just takes the direct approach of strong-arming its neighbors into becoming vassal states.
UK has stated you won’t be prosecuted https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877?ns_mchan...
Edit: as pointed out below, has stated they will “support” citizens taking up the fight, not explicitly that they will not be prosecuted.
Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal. And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.
"British subject" could be defined as "British subject", which is a special type of British nationality that's not even used anymore, and furthermore, strictly speaking Russia is not at war with Ukraine, because there never was a declaration of war.
Of course in 1870 when the law was written nation states still used to declare war on each other, but since the UN decided that war is wrong and laid very strict rules on when you can declare war, nobody has done that ever since. So no declaration of war.
Outside of British jurisdiction, and very difficult evidence wise.
Are you saying that Brits can kill anyone outside of their country and not be prosecuted in Britain if found? That would make one nice supplier of murderers for hire to other countries. Come for a day, kill someone, get back and get paid.
Depends on the position one takes in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. From a legal realist perspective, it is the same, because an unenforced law is not a law at all.
> And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.
The UK government has the power to overrule the CPS and discontinue any prosecution, through the Attorney-General’s power of nolle prosequi. That legal procedure is rarely used, because generally if the Attorney-General merely privately threatens the CPS with use of this power, that is enough for them to back down and discontinue a prosecution.
A real world example is when the government pressured the SFO to discontinue prosecution of bribery charges relating to defence industry deals with Saudi Arabia, on the grounds that the prosecution would harm the UK’s relationship with that country.
If the UK government clearly communicates a policy that UK citizens are allowed to fight for the Ukrainian government, there is zero chance of the CPS prosecuting any of them for doing so. The CPS would likely not even have to be threatened, their “public interest” determination is supposed to show deference to the government’s foreign policy, they’d drop the idea all on their own.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says...
There's only ever been willingness to enforce that law if you joined a terrorist group or the Russian army.
This is flat out wrong.
> Beware, it's criminal to fight in a foreign army for most EU citizens.
We've got a law like that in my country too, and there's no exception for dual citizens. Except it's only ever been enforced in two cases where some individuals went to fight for ISIS. They don't care one bit if you're in the armed forces of a friendly nation.
Czech citizens have been in prison over French foreign legion membership.
What? This is nonsense. At least in Ireland, prosecutors have plenty of discretion not to push a case "because it is not in the public interest". And I'm quite sure other European countries don't all prosecute every alleged crime equally.
There is no single EU criminal law, each state has its own laws on both substantive criminal law and criminal procedure. What you’ve just said is a sweeping generalisation which might have some truth for some countries (it is true in principle for German law, although even German law has room for exceptions), but it is false for others (for example, Irish law is based on the English common law tradition, and so has prosecutorial discretion much as the England or the US do.)
Unlike French law, German law does have a principle of compulsory prosecution – a prosecutor has a legal duty to prosecute every serious crime of which they become aware – but the principle has collided with the reality that German prosecutors simply don't have the funding or resources to carry out that principle in practice. It really functions as an ideal rather than a reality. And increasingly, German law is being reformed to acknowledge that reality of prosecutorial discretion – a good example is StPO § 153 [1], under which prosecutors can formally decline to prosecute a crime if doing so would not be in the public interest – although unlike the English or French system, German prosecutors must seek the approval of a judge to do so.
I think you are from a European country which has a German-derived legal system, and are falsely generalising from that to the entire EU, ignoring that France (and I would assume other European countries with French-derived legal systems) approach this issue rather differently. You also seem to be focusing on the theoretical principles underlying German-based legal systems, unaware that those principles are often more theory than practice.
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433732
This has been done before by Bosnia during their conflict with Serbia. They made a call to Mujahideen of the world to defend them. The prize for participation was a Bosnian passport. Hindsight may be 20/20, however I do not see any possible scenario where Ukraine joins the EU after the dust settles. Even if Ukraine grants you a passport, it won't be worth much. Especially if Russia considers you a war criminal for your efforts.
And I'm fairly sure that all of the volunteers would rather die than surrender themselves to Russians. So shoot a couple of more Russians and die with them, instead of surrendering.
Are you serious? Of course it does and actively promotes defections from the Ukrainian army as best as it can.
Again!
There is a tiny number of people who can drop everything and hop on an plane to Ukraine to fight. There is a much larger number of people who can do so if it still allows them to, for example:
- pay their rent/mortgage back home; or
- to gain citizenship so they can stay in Ukraine once the fighting stops
On the other hand, I do think there is some number of millionaires / billionaires who would be willing to sponsor people too.
It's not like there isn't precedence in our time for this either. [0]
Is it really enough for so many people to just think "Putin bad man" and not consider that his country might have a legitimate reason for invading another state?
>Is it really enough for so many people to just think "Putin bad man" and not consider that his country might have a legitimate reason for invading another state?
He killed, poisoned and jailed opposition for more than 20 years. Now, when he dealt with opposition, he tries to jail everyone who is popular and independent(there were many examples in the recent years). His government is incredibly corrupt and positions are given based on loyalty, not competence. There are many proofs to that. You might want to see some of the Navalny's investigations, that were made before he got poisoned and jailed. It's pretty save to say that Putin is a bad man.