The bridge is not civilian collateral damage, it’s a military target as it serves as a major military supply line.
The bridge is not civilian collateral damage, it’s a military target as it serves as a major military supply line.
Nukes are bad, nobody wants to use them.
Things are going to get "interesting".
International Law is USA hegemony.
The reality is that both America and Russia have willingly violated international law in the past, and accountability—not to mention fairness for smaller independent countries like Ukraine—is hard to come by.
From the perspective of any independent nation in Europe, it’s clear the world is more dangerous than was hoped thanks to Russia’s aggression. You are obviously an American, but not everything is about your country.
We hear this a lot, but I've read lots and lots of articles about occupied Donetsk in western media since 2014. Reporters on the ground interviewing people on both sides of things. What has been ignored? A substantial proportion of the population of that area fled into other parts of Ukraine in 2014, why are they ignored? They were forced from their home by the actions of Russia and their agitators - and they don't want to be part of Russia. And all the old folk had to cross back into Ukraine proper to collect their pensions.
Also a lot of people in Ukraine speak Russian, including the president so this whole "Russian speaking Ukrainians" is stupid. What Ukraine did was to try and contain a military operation being run in one of their regions by a neighbouring country.
It's nothing like "law" within a nation. It's a super minimal set of basic principles that all or most countries agree upon. There isn't really a great enforcement mechanism (though symbolic rulings can be obtained in some forums such as the ICJ in the Hague), it's just built on top of good will and consensus. The only power the US has in international law is the power of suggestion.