[flagged]
What on earth are you talking about? Specifically, with references please.
Everything is documented
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl...
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape-idUKBREA...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%9320...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-speci...
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill...
and many more
The completely unrelated pieces about Iraq and Poppy Bush, even less so.
Strangely, the Reuters article you linked to was about the separatists getting arms from Russia, not Ukraine.
the main point of that one was the question "where does Ukraine gets their weapon from"
then you have the leaked audio from the US government who clearly was preparing the coup
cross-referencing articles should be common sense
> The completely unrelated pieces about Iraq and Poppy Bush, even less so.
It is all linked, again use articles as reference and history books as data
Napoleon, Hitler? Soviet Union? should ring bells, all of them wanted to push East
Why does the US also want to push NATO East?
It does not. NATO membership is the initiative of Eastern European governments out of fear that Russia will invade them if they remain neutral like Ukraine, against hesitancy and skepticism of North America and Western Europe who thought until last year that this is a silly idea and a manifestation of historic trauma, and not a real danger.
It's easier to ignore history books and follow a government propaganda, you don't have to think! saves some neurons, or perhaps that's because we don't need them stupid neurons
Iraq is not a State Party to the Rome Statute (nor is it a nonparty that voluntarily acceded to ICC jurisdiction on its territory for the time in question), and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on a territorial basis for war crimes in Iraq. The US is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on the basis of nationality over war crimes committed by Americans. It needs one or the other to exercise jurisdiction over war crimes. (The ICC did conduct an investigation of allegations of UK war crimes in Iraq, over which it would have jurisdiction as the UK is a State Party. ) [0]
Ukraine is also not a State Party to the Rome Statue, but has made a declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory twice (first for crimes between 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014 and then a second open-ended declaration covering the time period from 20 February 2014 onwards. As a result, the ICC has jurisdiction on a territorial basis for crimes committed within the territory of Ukraine from 21 November 2013 onwards.
> they didn’t do shit for Ukraine arming people in the donbas in 2014
Arming people within your sovereign territory is not a war crime. (Heck, arming people outside of your sovereign territory is also not a war crime.)
> they don’t do shit for the Israeli colony,
They have not yet reached the point of issuing warrants; they have opened investigations (delayed in part by the process of determining the extent of the court’s territorial jurisdiction given the nature of the situation) and made determinations that there is reasonable basis to believe that IDF, Hamas, and other forces in Palestine have committed specific enumerated war crimes. [1]
> but they do shit for Putin?
Russia in Ukraine has been rather unusually flagrant in its war crimes (largely, I would assume, because of the confidence they feel in their impunity.)
[0] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/2...
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/2...