also why are they still sniping journalists if there's a ceasefire?

I think people are seriously tired of that argument, though with Putin I'll admit it has more validity than in most cases.

You see, Venezuela had a "socalist revolution" followed by a slight misinterpretation of Marxism, and ... let's just call it "dictatorship of billionnaires", and ignore that for more than a decade this was enormously supported and pushed by leftists worldwide:

https://marxist.com/a-tribute-to-hugo-chavez.htm

Now Venezuela is a state run through criminal gangs with a billionaire dictator on top. You know, doesn't quite satisfy the definition of socialism or communism. Yet socialism is what got them there.

Therefore ... can you call Chavez a socialist? Why? He certainly had the chance to implement socialism, even communism ... and did the exact opposite. Kim Jong Il or his father? Xi Jingping? Khomeini or Khamenei of Iran? All gathered power as communists, none can be said to be even remotely communist once they got to power.

So same can be said of Iran, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Soviet Union and many others. It'd be very inaccurate to call any of these places communist (except the Soviet Union), or even socialist. Most of them never even tried (in fact it surprised me quite a bit that the mullahs actually really tried to be communist)

Even many leaders in the west started their careers as communists, only to betray every communist and socialist principle once they got any amount of power, for example, the best paid politician in the world, Antonio Guterrez. Can you call them communists? They're about as communist as I am canine.

And in a roundabout way, the same goes for Putin. He came into power as an extreme version of Guterrez: they both climbed the ladder to power using violence to push communism. They both totally betrayed communism once they had even a small amount of power, and frankly Putin's the more honorable of the two: the choice to betray communism was made for him, whereas Guterrez betrayed communism out of free will in trade for power. And there's so many of these guys. Jose Manuel Barrosso, violent communist, non-executive chairman and senior adviser of Goldman Sachs International, after ... let's say "helping" that firm in 2007. Yes, really.

So is Putin a communist? You can be cynical and simply state the truth: Putin is an incredibly successful communist. The most successful communist in the world today, except perhaps for Xi Jinping. And, like all successful communists, he isn't the least bit communist.

UN law isn't really a thing. I see this misconception a lot, that people think the UN is some kind of international law. The reality is that the UN is a debating forum, subordinate to everything else that exists. Countries used to bomb each other a lot. The hope with the UN is that, instead of countries bombing each other, sometimes they will merely yell at each other, agree on who would be able to outbomb the other, not actually bomb anyone, and then lives will be saved. Actual violence is replaced by words and consensus. The Security Council permanent members are countries that you cannot possibly hope to outbomb, because they have nukes (well, the list is somewhat outdated), which is why they have veto power. A veto is the verbal replacement for launching a nuke. You (as a leader of a country) are free to defy a veto - the UN won't come after you, since it's not the law. But you should expect the vetoing country to nuke you or something equivalent, for real. You can also expect no other country to help you - they basically already agreed to that, by agreeing to the rule that lets nuke countries issue vetos.