↪neomac
Yeah, but the main difference discovered, between you and I, being that you're incapable of basic reading comprehension, but rather need others to tell you what to believe. — Vaskane

Sure, I need IHL experts to tell me what IHL experts think about "human shields" and IHL laws, if that's what I'm interested in. And I'm interested in their interpretation because it has legal effects, your interpretation is just an intellectual fart which you should be ashamed of, not brag about. Your "basic reading comprehension" skills are poor reading comprehension skills, and make IHL laws not only contradictory and paradoxical, but also it betrays the spirit of the law of war which permits civilian casualties under certain circumstances, and not solicit it.

provoking a counter attack by Pakistan. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Beware that both Pakistan and Iran are attacking each others' sides of Belochistan. A chaos land where anti-regime terrorists and drug/arm smugglers of both sides can hide.

Poll: Ukrainians' trust in Zelensky declines to 62%, trust in military, Zaluzhnyi remains high
https://kyivindependent.com/poll-ukrainians-trust-in-zelensky-declines-trust-in-zaluzhnyi-is-high/
https://kyivindependent.com/poll-zelensky-tops-list-as-most-trusted-ukrainian-political-figure/

I on the other hand simply pull up the law and throw basic reading comprehension in your face — Vaskane

But I questioned your basic reading comprehension of the letter of the law too. And the fact that you didn't realize it, it is pretty telling about your basic reading comprehension skills. Dude.

Listen… ehm… brilliant Cybersecurity Compliance (as in compliance with the law) graduate, US Navy Intelligence Community genius, past time law superhero, in other words… dude, for being one who claims to understand words and not ignore them, you most certainly seem to not understand or to ignore mine. So I’ll repeat them, again, for the last time: if you want to score points with me give me IHL experts’ sources, ONG legals sources, Palestinian/Hamas sources arguing that Israel is using its civilians as human shields by occupying Israel land wherever they are. Until then the only loophole I see is in your fallacious appeal to irrelevant titles, anecdotes and question-begging ad hominem. Don’t come empty handed at the next round, ok?

1 - If the formation of a military block bordering with Russia on its eastern front was perceived by Russia as an intolerable existential security threat , this would hold for NATO as much as for a European military alliance. Even more so, if one remember that the US has NEVER EVER invaded Russia proper. France, Germany and Poland did. — neomac

Russia hasn't invaded a NATO country nor an EU country.
Ukraine is neither in NATO nor the EU. — boethius

Russia wasn’t invaded by NATO nor an EU country either. And Ukraine is not part of the Russian Federation either. So what?

Ukraine also (in the before times) owned Crimea which was home to an important Russian military naval base. — boethius

Ukraine also owns commodities precious to Europe (and the World). And the Russian military naval base is a gun pointing at Ukraine’s business with Europe (and the World). So what?

Ukraine is also politically unstable with plenty of armed factions willing to cause trouble and explicitly dedicated to the destruction of Russia. — boethius

Could you provide sources from “plenty of armed factions” to support your claim that “plenty of armed factions” are “explicitly dedicated to the destruction of Russia” prior to 2014?

Furthermore, and this responds to ssu as well who seems often mystified that Russia views NATO as a threat, NATO is not just an alliance where parties commit to mutual defence, it is also a military hardware system.

Moving weapons closer to someone or something is by definition a threat. — boethius

By definition even? Did your babushka tell you that?

If I put a gun to your head, you'd view that as threatening even if I was "promising" to not harm you and if fact only putting a gun to your head to defend myself! — boethius

That’s true for Russia as much as for Ukraine. However for Ukraine it is two times more true:
1 - By your babushka’s definition of legitimate threat plus Russia having weapons on the border with Ukraine
2 - Russia has historically bullied Ukraine, not the other way around
3 - Russia is a nuclear power and a military capacity that is overwhelming wrt Ukraine without Western support

Now, you can argue that Russia shouldn't invade Ukraine even if NATO is indeed a legitimate threat to Russia, but arguing NATO is not a legitimate threat is just dumb. — boethius

It’s not as dumb as claiming that Ukraine is a threat to Russia just by moving weapons to Ukraine (Ukraine could build their weapon industry too, but better if they buy western of course). Compare the different threats posed by: strategic nuclear weapons vs tactic nuclear weapons , lethal vs non-lethal weapons, hot weapons vs cold weapons. Bringing to Ukraine lots of Swiss knives is definitely a threat to Russia by your babushka’s definition. But a laughable one.

It is such an obvious legitimate threat that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was completely predictable if the push / game of footsie to integrate Ukraine into NATO continued. — boethius

Your babushka’s definition of legitimate threat (“Moving weapons closer to someone or something is by definition a threat”) doesn’t make predictable Russian aggression of Ukraine AT ALL.
Indeed, a counterexample is the Cuban crisis. The US didn’t need to invade, regime change or annex Cuba, once the Soviet Union and the US found an agreement over the deployment of nuclear weapons Cuban could keep its regime and its territorial integrity.
Russia itself offers another counterexample, here: in April 1997, China and Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan signed the Agreement on Mutual Reduction of Military Forces in the Border Areas. It stipulates that the five countries shall reduce their military forces in the border areas to the minimum level compatible with their friendly and good-neighborly relations, a level that shall not go beyond their defense needs
http://lt.china-office.gov.cn/eng/zt/zfbps/200405/t20040530_2910828.htm
So it’s not evident AT ALL that if Ukraine has in border areas a level of weapons that does “not go beyond their defense needs”, this would be an unbearable existential threat to Russia.

Which makes that policy either completely idiotic or then entirely for the purpose of provoking Russia into invading Ukraine. — boethius

The alleged provocation is claimed to become unbearable in 2008 and the NATO enlargement even before 2008 and before Putin for that matter.
Yet the invasion of Crimea happened in 2014 and the “special military operation“ in 2022. So, at least, 6 years later after the unbearable existential threat for Russia has manifested. How so?
“Provocation” doesn’t seem to have enough explanatory power without assuming HEGEMONIC COMPETITION over spheres of influence and all other relevant events that ENABLED AND ENCOURAGED Russia aggression of Ukraine in 2014 and then in 2022. More than PROVOCATION to aggress Ukraine we should talk about OPPORTUNITY to aggress Ukraine.

the purpose of the policy is not the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty — boethius

The preservation of Ukraine sovereignty has been already achieved so far. Russia failed its regime coup in Kiev. The West may not be interested in or capable of securing the Ukrainian territorial integrity by military means.

Now that the copium highs are wearing off, such as belief in the great counter offensive and "cutting the land bridge", I really hope cheerleaders for Ukraine fighting, repudiating any compromise whatsoever, rather than negotiating and compromising and really able to take a long honest stare at the dead so far and simply ask themselves if its fair that these people died on false premises and false promises. — boethius

First, I must ask: who are “the cheerleaders for Ukraine fighting” “repudiating any compromise whatsoever” in this thread? I want names and quotes.
Second, your caricature is conflating propaganda with politics AS USUAL. It’s a caricature, because as far as I’m concerned, those people who believed/believe it possible for Ukraine to regain its territories back, don’t need to have a specific military plan or timeline in mind, and their expectations were/are conditional on the Western military aid which has significantly declined over time so far. But the idea that the Western military support would be actually enough to support the Ukrainian offensive, could be more a honest hope than a honest belief. It’s conflating propaganda with politics because it’s completely unreasonable to expect that politicians would easily fall for propaganda (so e.g. politics may say something to the press and then say something else behind doors). And, by my understanding, political decision makers of sovereign countries are the primary responsible of their policies because THAT’S THE POLITICAL RULE OF THE GAME THEY ARE PLAYING: the political leadership of sovereign states IS the political agent and must primarily respond for their foreign policy decisions wrt the perceived national interest TO THEIR PEOPLE. Besides the political urge for propaganda is PHYSIOLOGICAL to the political competition and pushed by media outlets (also beyond political utility or intentionality) so one should neither overstate the reliability of propaganda (e.g. propaganda slogans like "whatever it takes”), nor overblame its unreliability. The same holds for ANY COUNTER-PROPAGANDA (INCLUDING YOURS!). All I can agree with is that Russia has scored more points in the propaganda contest so far and this is a major blowback against the West. Maybe deservedly so.
Third, as far as I’m concerned, I do not regret nor retreat anything I said, and I still support it. ALL OF IT, WORD BY WORD. And I would do so even if the entire Ukraine (my country, the world) and its population was erased by fighting with Russia. Also because, differently from you, I’m not doing propaganda. As far as I’m concerned, I’m just engaging in an irrelevant philosophy forum with irrelevant anonymous nobodies (who have ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CLUE on what to do to fix the world) as a form of selfish intellectual entertainment like a videogame, and nothing else. You can’t emotionally blackmail me, man of honour. So suck it up and move on.

Damn dude you are dumb as a brick it seems. — Vaskane

If you want to insult me, it would be more fair to notify me first, so I can readily insult you back.
Where are your manners, asshole?!

That's precisely why 51-7 is a war crime. — Vaskane

You are conflating things. Isreal would violate IHL by moving (deporting?) its civilians in ILLEGALLY occupied territories and it would show lack of concern for civilians by exposing them to possible retaliations by hostile powers but that wouldn’t yet amount to a case of “human shields” usage.
Indeed, IHL explicitly treats the case of “Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory” in a dedicated rule: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130#Fn_9AD70858_00003
The status of illegal settler even if promoted by a state is not a case of human shield, as far as I’ve understood. Besides the massacres of October 7h do not concern illegally occupied territories!

Moving civilians into contested land, to block military operations is human shielding as stated by two Corpus of Laws, including the Geneva Convention. — Vaskane

In IHL 51-7, it’s written: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.” and it doesn’t mention “contested land”. And IHL 51-7 needs to be interpreted in light of 51-6 (which is what Hamas massacre is violating), the examples given or suggested by the underlined note (which echoes the principle of distinction).

Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives[/u]
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97

Again, you're not even using the law, you're just quoting articles about the law. — Vaskane

I explained to you why: quoting laws is not always enough for laymen like me and you. One needs also to rely on legal expertise to identify standard interpretation when others are possible. And that is all that matters to me. So even if there are other interpretations than the standard one, I still care exclusively about the standard one.

Means blocking military operations by moving civilians into an area is considered human shielding, and this is what Israel does. — Vaskane

And yet you couldn’t report any IHL experts accusing Israel of using its civilians as human shields yet. Instead you reported an IHL expert that expressly and repeatedly claimed Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields.

Tell us, what do you suppose the following means:

"MOVING CIVILIANS INTO AN AREA TO IMPEDE OPERATIONS." — Vaskane

Examples have been given:
“placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains”. (AREA = ammunition trains, OPERATION = strikes against the ammunition train)
“place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points” (AREA = military defence point, OPERATION = strikes against military defence point)
“rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia” (AREA = location of the military units, OPERATION = strikes against location of the military units)

The military operation still requires co-location of military objectives (https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/military-objectives/) and civilians as distinguishable military targets of a strike.

A particular difficulty appears where civilian objects, namely, infrastructure and buildings (roads, schools, factories, electrical fittings, radio and TV installations), are temporarily used for military purpose or are used for both civilian and military purpose. These are dual-use objects; when they fulfill the two cumulative conditions, they may be considered legitimate military targets if additional specific conditions are respected: it is mandatory to take necessary measures before the attack to ensure that civilians are evacuated. In addition, the attack must not create disproportionate harm to non-combatants.
The key issue here is to ensure that the destruction of the object is indeed due to its military use rather than to terrorize civilians or weaken their morale.

In other words the military operation that is impeded (by exploiting civilians as human shields) should make military sense without civilian involvement. But the operation of massacring and terrorazing non-combatant Israeli civilians as did Hamas in October the 7th doesn’t make sense without Israeli non-combatant civilians. While the Israeli strikes against Hamas combatants and Hamas infrastructures by IDF make sense even without Palestinian non-combatant civilians used as “human shields”.

We all are tempted to say Germany wake up, aren't we?
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/germany-has-5-8-years-to-get-military-into-shape-defence-minister-warns/

Why would Schmitt put a target on himself like that?
I don't need his opinion to interpret the law. Schmitt's paper is to show Israel's targeting practice, silly, and the tyranny of context in which it's applied. Two of the Corpus of Laws relevant specifically state "MOVING CIVILIANS INTO AREAS TO IMPEDE MILITARY OPERATIONS," as war-crimes relevant to human shielding — Vaskane

.

This line you quote does not refer to the condition of being ILLEGAL settler (which BTW is not the case of the massacre of October the 7th), but to military objectives to be distinguished by non-combatant civilians according to the principle of distinction. See the examples and the explanation:

Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97

It’s NOT the land the military target of Hamas strikes and which Israel hides behind civilians, it’s the civilians. They have to be massacred. The legal point you are making it is something different: namely that legitimizing settlements prohibited by international law and therefore exposing its own citizens to retaliations for which Israel can not advocate the right of self-defence is legally imputable against Israel. And I think this accusation has been already leveled against Israel.

Trying to base your judgement off of if Schmitt said so or not is fallacious to the point of fact of you appeal to authority -- ignoring the wording of the law . Which is exactly what I said I was using to interpret the law, remember? Try not to lose "focus" as you would say . — Vaskane

First, the accusation of fallacious appeal to authority doesn’t make any sense, since the authoritative interpretation of the law is not what you or Hamas claim it to be, but what results from the authority, namely domain-specific legal expertise and practice. You, not me, brought Schmitt up as “one of West Point leading scholars” and I also invited you to cite other relevant sources in support of your claims. BTW, you can find plenty of human rights organizations that are notoriously very critical of Israel illegal settlements or Israel killing Palestinian civilians or denying that Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields, see here:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/15/israel/palestine-unlawful-israeli-airstrikes-kill-civilians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas
But I couldn’t find any relevant source arguing that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields in general, or in the case of the October massacre, or in the illegal settlements, in the specific sense in which it is understood in international law. While they do not have problems to report Israel of using Palestinians as human shields: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/mde151432002en.pdf
Since I’m a layman, if you find one relevant source, you are welcome to let me know, of course.

Bro, and let me put it to you again, I was bitching at you about the law of proportionality, and how obtuse and effed up it is. I wasn't bitching at you about anything else you said. And my complaint was with the Law of Proportionality, not with what you said. But you took what I said as an attack against you, and you tried challenging how Israel uses Human Shielding. My B for not specifying that I wasn't attacking you. But I thought since I was bitching solely about how stupid and effed up ambiguous the laws are that surround the law of proportionality, and not about what you said in particular, I figured the subject in which the bitching was directed at was obviously that of the Law of Proportionality. So effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets. — Vaskane

Bro, I’m complaining about you complaining about the Law of Proportionality as being so ambiguous that “Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”. International law as understood by the International Criminal Court is not based on Hamas’ interpretation of the Law of Proportionality or the legal notion of Human Shield, so iI doubt that it would make sense for Hamas to plan its strikes based on its own interpretation of International law. They may plan their strikes having in mind what Israel has been ALREADY accused of by ICC and human rights ONGs.
In short, my understanding is that the law of proportionality and the legal notion of human shield in international law are not as ambiguous as you claim it to be, reason (but maybe not the only one) why Israel may show reluctance in accepting international law investigations as it does. But also reason why there is nobody (like ICC and human rights ONGs) claiming that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields, as far as I can tell. And this accusation of Israel using its own citizens as human shields would sound more plausible in strikes against illegally occupied territories (according to international law), more than in the case of the massacre of the 7th October.
It would be more interesting to support your complaint if you could AT LEAST find Hamas/Palestinian sources claiming that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields. But, even in this case, I would take it as infowar (i.e. as instrumentally messing with the poor understanding of international law by laymen, not because the law is that ambiguous per se) as much as accusing Israel of violating the law of proportionality based on a comparison between Israeli and Palestinian casualties among civilians.

Obviously you're inability at analysis comes from the rigidness of your mind in the word play of "legitimate military target," which is just a distraction from the actual laws. Your "focus" is more like tunnel vision. — Vaskane

You're like bound to definitions, which is cool, but causing you to think very rigidly. — Vaskane

Well if you wanna put it in these terms, then I’ll repeat my point once again: “NOWHERE Michael Schmidt made the claim that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine. He is always talking about the usage of human shields by Israeli’s enemies, namely Hamas, see examples [1]. So this article offers no evidence to support the truth of your conditional: “Since Israel disregards 51-7 and feels the land is protected by the people they funnel into it. Then Israel uses people as human shields”.
The same holds true for the quotes you reported, because NOTHING in those quotes is even remotely in conflict with what I said, repeatedly, in my earlier posts. Those quotes insist on the definition of “human shields” which, to my understanding, apply VERY WELL to the case of HAMAS, but not so well to the case of Israel, and most certainly do not apply in the case of the October massacre.
Since it’s your interpretation against mine over a legal point, and since I assume we are no legal experts, I told you: “feel free to cite others ‘West Point leading scholars’ arguing that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine or in the massacre of October. Now you made me curious”. So if you can’t, don’t waste your time lecturing me about your understanding of the international law. Get it now, dude?

If I take land from you and put civilians in it to protect the area so if you come in and kill them I can call you a terrorist in the news media so people take my side and call you a terrorist, even though I stole your land and moved my own people onto it, onto disputed land in order to make it harder for you to reclaim. Guess what you're doing? Using humans to make enemy objectives harder to achieve. It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory. Russia's doing the same thing with Crimea. If you want to capture land in todays warfare -- take it, then move your people onto it. — Vaskane

Again your point is referring to illegally occupied territories. And I wrote: “One might want to argue that Israel may use illegal settlers (ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW) as “human shields”. I doubt that even in this case the accusation would hold unless it is proven that the principle of distinction (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/distinction) has been intentionally violated by Israel as Hamas has been accused to do (https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/amnesty-international-breach-principle-distinction). In any case, the point is that the civilian targets in the attack of Hamas weren’t illegal settlers under international law.”
And yes “It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory” (legal point) and moving people in disputed land by Israel (BTW Israel doesn’t need to move anything, Israeli settlers move and Israel legalises them) is considered illegal (legal point) and Israel would do this in order to make it harder for Palestinians to reclaim land, as much as Russia is doing in Crimea (warfare point). So fucking what? Would the notion of “human shield” as understood in international law apply? To me, no unless the principle of distinction has been violated on the Israeli/Russian part.
As I told you and now repeat: “There is no need to muddle semantics of international law (as far as I've understood it, of course) to make your point”. I was making a legal point not a warfare point. And your warfare point is really nothing I wasn’t already aware of or that deserves three posts to clarify or to brag about. But if you feel the overwhelming urge to embarrass yourself for another round, pls bore me some more as if I didn’t have enough already.

These dudes. Really.

Here some points:

1 - If the formation of a military block bordering with Russia on its eastern front was perceived by Russia as an intolerable existential security threat , this would hold for NATO as much as for a European military alliance. Even more so, if one remembers that the US has NEVER EVER invaded Russia proper. France, Germany and Poland did.

2 - Imperialism is obviously not an exclusive mark of the US foreign policy. European countries like the UK, France and Germany, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China have shown imperialist ambitions in the past, and for the last ones also remarkably revived in the present. Imperialism as it goes away it can also come back. So Putin is not only interested in having the US out from Europe just now but forever by preventing the US from coming back. That’s why for Putin it would be important to keep alive harmless or pro-Russian European regimes while promoting intra European and inter European political polarisation with all its available means (infowar, corruption, commodity blackmailing, poison and mysterious suicides, etc.). Russia may very well need to hegemonise Europe not only to keep the US out and Germany down (and the rise of a Western military block), but also to counterbalance its dependence on China, and its Muslim/Chinese competitors in the mediterranean-africana area.

3 - Putin is mortal and will die at some point (but pro-Russian cheerleaders shouldn’t lose hope, with the US and NATO gone Georgia, Moldova and the Baltic States are up for grabbing even if Russia has lost its pretext of NATO enlargement!). So, one can’t just look at Putin but also the Russia political elite and environment which will likely survive Putin (imperialism is not a mark of Putin but a historical trend which Putin may have unleashed), or even outside Russia. What his war is meant to prove to the World (including Westerners) is that authoritarian regimes have won over Western democracies in international competition and that the West is declining while the Rest is rising in power and demands: the West is not just the US, the West is Europe too! A resentful Rest which doesn’t forget Western wrongdoings (and, let me remind you that the West is not just the US but also the Europeans, or ex-US vassals, or ex-filthy coward cockroaches servile to the Yankees, and right after being callous exploitative colonizers of the Rest!), also thanks to the Western zealous anti-Western propagandists for which even a remote reference of something good coming from the West is an unbearably outrageous proof of hypocrisy and wanna bitch about it from their armchair as customary among men of honour. This will embolden assertiveness of the Rest in terms of security threats (like islamic terrorism and commercial routs disruption) and economic threats (due to the dependencies of the West from abroad commodities).

4 - Europe is rich of inter-European interest conflicts as far as security and economy are concerned (including territorial disputes). And along all dimensions: Western Europe vs Eastern Europe, North Europe vs South Europe, financially virtuous Europe vs financially sucker Europe, liberal Europe vs illiberal Europe, etc. Even without an American divide and conquer strategy. European countries have enough historical dispositions to be and act selfishly at the expense of fellow European countries, eroding European cohesion and coordination for any European project including a European army. And the European populist aversion for multilateral agreements (like the one required by a European army) which will require super-national constraints, and national jealousy might drive countries back to bilateral agreements as established by nation states. Besides we shouldn’t antagonise Russia, Russia is not a threat, that's all US propaganda, right? (I do wonder who would dare to antagonise Russia and say they are a security threat, after the US is gone, i.e. I’m afraid that’s not an option) so what's even the point of having a European army, exactly? So for Russia it would be more easy to destabilise Europe at convenience, once the US has left, by polarising and paralizing democracies, until they turn into a civil war or authoritarian regimes, if needed to make Europe more docile for any security and economic demands Russia has. Russia can even present itself as a mediator/peace-keeper in inter-European conflicts (like in the Balcans which may turn into the next hot spot, which will likely divert European attentions from Russia) and help European countries which risk a civil war by turning them authoritarian, if needed, maybe by sending a Wagner group around European countries as it happened in Africa. Or even support parties that would prefer to buy weapons from Russia instead of building a national military industry (even more so if that would support a European army).
So without the US, Russia would have a much easier hand at replacing Western corrupt and servile elites serving American corrupt and greedy industrial-military complex with Western corrupt and servile elites serving Russian corrupt and greedy industrial-military complex. What a win!

5 - How about the Great Satan once it is gone from Europe? Nothing to worry about, since the Great Satan has no longer reason to invest in supporting EU and NATO at their own expense, they will invest in support of their economy and security at the European expense. The other good news is that the Great Satan won’t need to pull strings in the background, now that they can pull strings in foreground with bilateral agreements also to counterbalance the Russian hegemonic penetration in Europe. (Oh and with the end of the EU and the euro, another competitor of the dollar is gone!)


But sure, after the US is gone, what could possibly go wrong? We will preserve peace, democracy, unity and prosperity, and the Rest will love us, Europeans, the self-deprecating servile minions of the Great Satan (which replaced them as the Great Satan!). The entire multipolar world is looking forward to seeing us flourish, of course. They are sitting quietly on their armchair and passionately chatting about this epiphany in philosophy forums like this one (if their authoritarian regimes allows them, of course).

So fuck the Great Satan, fuck globalization, fuck NATO and EU, and glory to the multipolar world! :D

I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters. — Echarmion

It doesn't sound implausible to me either.

Putin's trump card in this conflict appears to ultimately be the right wing movements that Russia has sponsored in the West for years. — Echarmion

BTW the divide & conquer strategy applied in Europe might make sense to Russia more than to the US due to the geographic proximity between Europe and Russia. Not to mention that NATO, EU and globalization supported by the US were there more to unite than to divide.

the reason for not giving Ukraine the best weapons there are, has been exactly the worry of escalation to a nuclear war. — ssu

I don’t know if that’s “the reason”, there might be other plausible reasons weihing in the American strategic calculus:
1 - Avoid to get too much involved in a war that isn’t as relevant as the incumbent conflict with China over Taiwan.
2 - Avoid the collapse of Putin’s regime in case of clamorous defeat, which might open the door to more aggressive political leaders .
3 - Avoid the collapse of Russia and worrying about the fate of its nuclear arsenal and the chance for China to expand its sphere of influence on the Russia eastern front.
4 - Keep Russia stuck in Ukraine to weaken its possible support to China in case of a conflict over Taiwan and prevent a reconciliation between Europeans and Russia as long as possible.
5 - Realising the soft and hard limits of the deterrence capacity of the West as a system of military and economic alliance against a hostile Rest.

The real question is, how much Europeans have that will to fight in the first place? Because that's where your deterrence starts from. — ssu

Well put!

↪neomac
I'm using the law as it's stated within the law. That you can't fathom that shows you're incapable of decent analysis. Israel inadvertently makes its population human shields by assuming the law of proportionality protects the area from military operations in which it moves civilians. — Vaskane

Land is a legitimate military target. Or do you feel there's no military advantage to controlling land? It's why Israel breaks IHL 51-7

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

"SHALL NOT BE USED TO RENDER CERTAIN POINTS OR AREAS IMMUNE FROM MILITARY OPERATIONS."

Again analysis doesn't seem to be your strong point. Not sure wtf you think Area means? Surface area of the human body? No, area means environment. — Vaskane

Dude, focus, I already made my point that question such argument of yours:
1. On the 7th October Hamas didn’t target points or areas as legitimate military objectives like rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications that can be used by the military for communications or transporting assets. And the civilians that were killed and made hostage weren’t collateral damage of a strike against such legitimate military objectives, they were the illegitimate military objective: Hamas directly massacred civilians and made hostages. And as in IHL 51-6: Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51). So, by my understanding, there is no room to claim that those citizens of October massacre were used as human shield by Israel.
2. One might want to argue that Israel may use illegal settlers (ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW) as “human shields”. I doubt that even in this case the accusation would hold unless it is proven that the principle of distinction (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/distinction) has been intentionally violated by Israel as Hamas has been accused to do (https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/amnesty-international-breach-principle-distinction). In any case, the point is that the civilian targets in the attack of Hamas weren’t illegal settlers under international law.

Besides I doubt that if you use the adverb “inadvertently” you are making stronger your already weak argument.

How many Jews died on October 7th vs Palestinians since? — Vaskane

Irrelevant, since I’m talking about law of proportionality in jus in bello: ”The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality).
As it has been clarified also by others in this thread, the comparison of “Jews died on October 7th vs Palestinians since” is not pertinent when assessing proportionality in jus in bello.

"Tyranny of Context" by Michael Schmidt does a fair job at detailing Israel's targeting practices. — Vaskane

If that’s the article you are talking about (https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1905&context=jil) by “one of West Point leading scholars”, as far as I read it (very quickly, so correct me if I’m wrong), NOWHERE Michael Schmidt made the claim that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine. He is always talking about the usage of human shields by Israeli’s enemies, namely Hamas, see examples [1]. So this article offers no evidence to support the truth of your conditional: “Since Israel disregards 51-7 and feels the land is protected by the people they funnel into it. Then Israel uses people as human shields”.
But feel free to cite others “West Point leading scholars” arguing that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine or, to stay more on topic, in the massacre of October. You made me curious.

And within it shows that Israel purposefully ignores 51-7 of IHL. — Vaskane

So Israel purposefully ignores 51-7 of IHL but inadvertently makes its population human shields? I doubt your beliefs on the subject are consistent.

Interestingly enough apparently the US and Israel aren't actually bound to IHL. — Vaskane

Interesting indeed, because if they are not bound, is it reasonable to expect that Israel would feel compelled to comply with the IHL, just because IHL prohibits this or that?



[1]
Hamas’ tactics and strategy in the recent Gaza conflict were
dramatically different, but also calculated to create asymmetry. The
Gaza Strip is an almost entirely urban battlefield. Only 40
kilometers long and 10 deep, Gaza is densely packed with civilians
and civilian objects.55 Hamas exploits this reality intentionally.
During every round of hostilities in Gaza since Israel’s unilateral
disengagement, Hamas has fought almost exclusively from among
the civilian population. It employs both voluntary and involuntary
(those taken to the target area or forced to remain there) human
shields, conducts command and control from civilian homes, caches
weapons in civilian property, often fails to wear uniforms or
otherwise distinguish its fighters from civilians, prohibits or deters
civilians from leaving areas likely to be targeted, and fires rockets
from schools, mosques, United Nations facilities, and civilian
residences.56 It seeks to create asymmetry by using the law, which it
Like Hezbollah, Hamas appreciates the enormous value Israel
places on its civilian population and soldiers. To leverage these
concerns to its benefit, for example, it fires rockets indiscriminately
at Israeli civilian population centers to terrorize civilians and
provoke an Israel military response, which the international
community may perceive as heavy-handed.58 Hamas also
increasingly relies on an elaborate tunnel network. Designed to
offset the IDF’s reliance on air power and its employment of UAVs
for observation, the group has increasingly gone underground.59
Some tunnels are used to infiltrate into Israel to conduct attacks or
to overwhelm isolated IDF positions and, in particular, take
prisoners. Others are filled with explosives and detonated under
IDF positions or used as “bait”, that is, designed to be discovered by
the IDF and then detonated while its forces are inside. Still others
are used to move personnel and material within, to, and from Gaza.


78 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. [Vol. 37:1
warheads detonate in such a way as to contain and direct the blast,
and the effects of weather and other variables.
Finally, the IDF has adapted to fight under the particular
circumstances it faces – combat in urban terrain against an
adversary that routinely fails to distinguish itself from the civilian
population and uses that population and civilian objects to shield its
forces and operations from attack. Since the IDF is not
expeditionary, the IDF has been able to develop a deep
understanding of the most likely theaters of operations—Gaza,
Lebanon and the West Bank. For instance, its planners have a
granular appreciation of such critical targeting matters as the usual
pattern of civilian life in the target area, construction materials used
to build homes and other structures, and the load-bearing capacity
of roads and bridges. It is therefore especially well equipped to
precisely identify the required destructive capacity of the weapons
it employs against particular targets and the likely collateral damage
that will result from an attack.


2015] TYRANNY OF CONTEXT 115
strike. This position is styled by proponents as analogous to the
generally accepted view that workers in a munitions factory are
civilians who continue to enjoy their protected status despite an
activity that plainly contributes to the conflict. Along the same lines,
if members of an organized armed group carry them out, the
activities do not amount to a continuous combat function that would
permit targeting the individuals based solely on membership in the
group.
Israel and the Authors view such activity as direct participation
in hostilities. This is both a principled position and a practical one
in light of the fact that rockets pose a threat to Israel’s civilian
population, are built in or near the battle area, and are the weapon
with the greatest potential for bringing those who use it success in
the conflict (however success might be defined). To conclude
otherwise would ignore the military necessity element underlying
the LOAC and, quite simply, be illogical in light of the reality of the
conflicts Israel faces. Interestingly, the MAG officers asked would
not offer an opinion on whether individuals transporting weapons
through the tunnels into Gaza are directly participating in
hostilities. Both of the Authors would readily conclude they are so
participating on the basis of the proximity to the area of combat and
the immediacy of the use of the weapons.

5.4. Human Shields
The IDF regularly confronts the use of human shields by its
enemies.172 According to Additional Protocol I, Article 57(7),
“[T]he presence or movements of the civilian population or
individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points
or areas immune from military operations, in particular in
attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to
shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to
the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian”
Although most States, including the United States and Israel,174
accept these provisions as reflecting customary law, the
interpretation thereof has been the source of significant controversy
since it was highlighted during the Interpretive Guidance project.175
The project’s debate surrounded the distinction between individuals
who voluntarily shield a target, as when individuals go to a target
in order to shield it from attack, and those who shield involuntarily,
as in the case of weapons placed in a school occupied by students
and teachers unaware of the presence of the weapons. Israel has
faced both situations. For instance, the IDF often warns individuals
in a building to be attacked to leave the facility. In some cases,
Hamas responds by urging people to come to the target area in order
to deter the Israeli attack. More commonly used is the practice of
conducting military activities, such as launching rockets, from the
top of, or next to, inhabited buildings, like apartment complexes and
schools




This is especially the case with respect to urban areas such as Gaza
where civilians and civilian objects are collocated with fighters and
military objectives. Moreover, Israel’s opponents, as described
earlier, have adopted a strategy of operating near civilians and
civilian objects and using civilians as human shields, both
voluntarily and involuntarily. This further enhances the degree of
uncertainty attendant to IDF strikes.


As an example, given the propensity of Israel’s
enemies to use human shields, it is unsurprising that Israel has taken
the position that individuals voluntarily acting in this manner are to
be treated as direct participants in hostilities. In light of its enemies’
frequent failure to distinguish itself from the civilian population, it
is equally unsurprising that Israel has embraced the principle of
reasonableness with respect to target identification. Perhaps most
noteworthy is the high value Israel places on the safety of its soldiers
and its civilian population.

I'm using the law as it's stated within the law. — Vaskane

Do you have anything compelling to support such a claim?

That you can't fathom that shows you're incapable of — Vaskane

feeling compelled by claims made without a good argument or evidence to support them.

"legitimate military target" is the target of a direct strike. On the 7th October Hamas didn't attack civilian infrastructures with military value (like rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications that can be used by the military for communications or transporting assets), even less of illegitimate settlements under international law. They directly killed civilians and made hostages. There is no need to muddle semantics of international law (as far as I've understood it, of course) to make your point.

No, the problem is that the law of proportionality allows wonton mass murder under the guise of legitimate military conduct. — Vaskane

If the “proportionality” requirement is so loose, why do you think Israel (and all countries accused of committing war crimes for that matter) would be so reluctant to accept related foreign investigations? On the other side, if the “proportionality” requirement was as strict as you wish, what are the chances that such strict requirement would be integrated and applied in international law, if a lighter version of it is already hardly tolerated and applied?
For any legal system, the issue is not just the content of the law and how to interpret it in various circumstances but also the means to enforce them. Laws, not matter how just, that can’t be enforced risk to be nothing more than flatus vocis.

If Israel believes that all it has to do to defend land from being attacked is move Israeli occupants into illegally claimed lands, then Israel uses human bodies to protect the land from being taken back. Which, by the way, is breaking International Humanitarian Law. And still using human non-combatants to protect your land from the dangers of war. Thus since Israel believes that land is protected by the humans they funnel into an area to claim it for Greater Israel, Israel technically, uses human shielding, albeit by skirting the law, and breaking it even, by moving Israeli civilians into non Israeli lands. — Vaskane

But the legal notion of “human shields” I was referring to concerns legitimate military targets (legitimate according to the laws of war) hidden behind civilians and civilian infrastructures/facilities/properties as it is claimed to be the case for Hamas in Gaza. Besides, Hamas attacks on the 7th October didn’t target Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law, as far as I can tell.

I mean, can we just take a moment to reflect on these fucking rules to begin with. ”Oh, it's okay for states to negligently kill people but individuals aren't allowed to.” WTF? Well if I assess it would be good for the country to say, assassinate a state official who is a corrupt piece of shit, then why the fuck can't I? It's okay for THE STATE to do so. It's okay for a state to send hundreds of thousands or millions to their death over exploitation rights the next business queer can get rich off of. — Vaskane

If you are talking to me, I never made any such claim, nor presupposed it, nor implied it, nor meant to suggest it.

Law of proportionality is exactly how Israel utilizes its civilians as human shields. — Vaskane

Not sure to understand what you are claiming here: do you mean that on the 7th October there were Israeli combatants hiding among the civilians and preparing a terrorist attack on non-combatant Palestinian civilians to murder/decapitate/torture/rape them and take hostages, so Hamas attacked them first?

A very welcomed articulated post (BTW kudos for the mod title!). A few comments:
- Proportionality “needs quantifying” to offer actual military and legal guidance (an example of this is the “non-combatant casualty cutoff value”) wrt military necessity (at operational, tactic and strategic level) in the course of the war. Indeed, proportionality “prohibits the attack only if the attacker concludes the incidental or collateral consequences will be excessive to the anticipated concrete military advantage”. The problem is that the equation would still be very sensitive to the context (e.g. “non-combatant casualty cutoff value” is assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the conflicts and operations, would vary from 0 to 30 acceptable civilian deaths per strike), the available information (i.e. no matter if the result turned out to contradict the expectation at the time it was launched), how valuable the military target (i.e. a legitimate military objective, not civilians!), the measures taken to minimise the non-combatants casualties, the risk for one’s own soldiers, the overall military doctrine (which may vary country by country). The military calculus is more relevant to assess proportionality than the entity of the outcome per se. It’s the military calculus that needs interpreting and the interpretative benchmark of military calculus is offered by the military expertise and practice, not by ordinary people. In other words, “a legitimate critique must ultimately focus on the attack decision, and not the attack outcome. As a result, it is near impossible to conclude an attack violated the wartime proportionality rule without considering the situation that informed the attack decision at the time it was made. This does not mean attack effects are irrelevant. Instead, it means they are only one aspect of a much more complex legality assessment. This may be frustrating, as the full context of an attack decision is often difficult to access or replicate” (https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2023/10/26/geoff-corn-on-the-disproportionate-confusion-about-proportionality/).
- To assess proportionality and war crimes lawfully authorities (which ones?) need to run proper investigations (per strike) and feed them to an authoritative tribunal. It’s not enough to establish proportionality by popular outcry over whatever people take to be evidence of war crimes or guidance from general legal principles. Not to mention that, on general principles, it would be much easier to pin MOST of the responsibility for the current war crimes on Hamas, INCLUDING the ones allegedly and repeatedly committed by Israel, why? Because International humanitarian law is based on the separation of combatants from civilians: 1. armed forces cannot target civilians (which Hamas did in attacking Israeli civilians - as main target not as collateral damage! - and taking hostages) 2. they must separate their own military assets from the civilian population (which Hamas doesn’t do hiding its combatants, arsenals, infrastructure among civilians, in buildings and places with high-density population, in hospitals and schools) exposing civilians to Israeli attacks. Who wants to sanction Israel for Israel’s war crimes should sanction Palestine roughly twice as much for Hamas’ war crimes.
- But the problem of “proportionality” is much worse though: international legal institutions even if meant for humanitarian purposes still serve states not the other way around. The compliance to international legal institutions by states inevitably depend on power balance and systems of alliance, with all implied security dilemmas. NO major geopolitical actor is in the position to lecture Israel on how to react in case of existential threats or severe human rights violations or war crimes. Indeed, war crimes have been attributed to Syria (against the Syrian rebels), Turkey (e.g. against the Kurds), Saudi Arabia (e.g. against Yemen), Iran (e.g. by supporting war crimes of Hamas), Russia (e.g. against Ukraine), the US (e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq). So the international reactions to Israel’s military intervention in Gaza are more useful to assess the degree of convergence of interests in the geopolitical arena, than to pin down Israel’s responsibilities based on violations of international laws. So, as far as I’m concerned, if the international arena is taken as a morality contest, better to assess performances based more on how perceivably far we are from the principle “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” than on how legally close we are to “the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience”.

Concerning your point “the issue would be destroying all the infrastructure and relying on powerful munitions in an urban area against an enemy that seems to have been largely militarily defeated already. Where is the proportionality?”, I take it to mean that ambiguities remain in the Israeli strategic end-game which may exceed the purpose of defeating Hamas as political/military organization rooted in Gaza (hence the suspicion of wanting to expel Palestinians, annex Gaza or part of it, puppetize Palestine, etc.) and hang on the moral hazards of Netanyahu’s political predicament. That sounds plausible to me.

It's pretty normal to use behaviour and words as evidence of intention, as we don't have mind-reading machines. — bert1

Yes also breathing air as we are not breathless machines, I guess.

The facts of what has happened is evidence of intention. Words are evidence of intention. — bert1

Right, why do we even have an ICC if we have bert1 to teach us what counts as evidence in the violation of the Geneva convention?

Let's go back to: I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying.

The Martens clause leads interpretation.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.


The Geneva Conventions exclude breaking its rules even if the other party does (unless specifically stated otherwise) right there in article 1 and 3 of the convention. So Israel has a right to (counter)attack but not a right to breach the conventions. The disproportionality is apparent in the means chosen, collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians, which are all prohibited under the various conventions. Put in other words, excessive violence when acting in alleged self-defence, even if we accept a case of self-defence, is still illegal under international law and therefore disproportional.

More on reciprocity in humanitarian law: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400022178a.pdf — Benkei

Thanks for the quote and the link, Holy Benkei. I can understand that proportionality is matter of interpretation.
The problem is still who is interpreting the application of the convention, though. Because, as long as you want to talk laws, it’s not just a self-entitled anonymous nobody over the internet that must interpret violations of the Geneva Convention, but rather an authoritative (to the extant the balance of power allows it) if not recognised tribunal, yes?
Besides it isn’t that easy to prove the intentionality of such violations like “collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians” and pin it down on specific political leaders, or is it? Maybe that’s because the problem of implementing justice in the international arena can not be disentangled that easily from power balance and conflict of interests?

However, the real problem here is that you need laws to tell you what is ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience (that's how it ended up as law, because people with a conscience realised it had to be written down). — Benkei

Yes it’s a problem indeed, Holy Benkei. But still the same problem, if I do not have a conscience how can I grow one as you preach? You must certainly have the answer, yes? That’s why your immense wisdom is so precious to me. Teach me the holy way to fix the world horrors from your armchair. While you are at it, why do you think Geneva Conventions are too often violated as some say (https://onu.delegfrance.org/The-Geneva-Conventions-are-too-often-violated) and so hard to prosecute as others say (https://www.axios.com/2022/03/22/russia-putin-war-crimes-icc-ukraine)? Is it possible that there are enough people and, especially powerful people, which do not seem to comply to what is “ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience” EVEN IF international laws is telling them to do so? And if they do not comply and yet their action is so terrifyingly impactful, how else can they grow a conscience? Do you think if all anonymous nobodies in this forum will keep calling them “morderous iditios” long enough, would this grow conscience in them and everywhere in the universe and this will finally help fix the world horrors, Holy Benkei? Is that your gospel which will free us from the Evil?

So this is my last reply to you as I don't want to engage with murderous idiots here or in real life. — Benkei

But then how can murderous idiots grow a conscience if you refuse to share your immense wisdom with them, Holy Benkei?

neomac
No. And you haven't read those conventions or you would already have the answer. But nice try hiding your ignorance behind sarcasm. — Benkei

Yep you really gave me a lesson, Holy Benkei. I tried so hard to hide my immense ignorance. But you, in your immense wisdom, showed to the world how immense your wisdom is, didn't you? But what if I claimed I read them and the answer is NO, THERE IS NO EQUATION NOR FORMULA TO ASSESS REASONABLE PROPORTIONALITY OR PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN THOSE CONVENTIONS! Prove to the world that I'm a liar, Holy Benkei.

Read the Geneva and the Hague conventions if you have problems wrapping your head around which principles are involved. Or alternatively grow a conscience. — Benkei

Even if I read those conventions, you may question my understanding of them. So, in your immense wisdom, point me where exactly the Geneva and the Hague conventions specify the reasonable proportionality formula or equation. Or where "public conscience" to establish "reasonable proportionality" is specified for proper assessment.

Or alternatively grow a conscience. — Benkei

Help me grow it with your immense wisdom, Holy Benkei. If it was enough your injunction "grow a conscience" to make grow one in somebody, we would be living in a moral paradise already, wouldn't we?

public conscience — Benkei

"Public conscience" of which country? Should there be a referendum to establish it? Or a phone survey is enough? How large is the sample?

Maybe find a moral compass before asking moral questions. — Benkei

Maybe in your immense wisdom you can try to explain to me what that even means. What is the moral compass one needs BEFORE asking moral questions. Show me yours.

they have no basis to condemn Hamas' actions because it is simply fighting according to the rules by which such a war is fought. — Tzeentch

And the rules are? Give me two of them as precisely as you can.

But Israel clearly escalated beyond any reasonable proportionality. — Benkei

And the reasonable proportionality formula is? In your immense wisdom, do you have an equation to show us?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, we — we have issued the last drawdown package that — that we had funding to support. And that’s why it’s — it’s critical that — that Congress move on that national security supplemental request and we get more funding.

The — the assistance that we provided has now ground to a halt. The attacks that the Russians are conducting are only increasing. And now, as I talked about earlier this week, they’re using North Korean ballistic missiles to do their dirty work.

So, the — the need is acute right now, particularly in these winter months.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/01/11/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-and-national-economic-council-director-lael-brainard/

If the US leaves NATO, NATO might turn into a European military alliance or just end (if there is no shared understanding and willingness of what is the common enemy/enemies).
The problem is that we would still have a war in Ukraine and the risk that Russia will see the American retreat from Europe as an opportunity to become more aggressive, starting with the Baltic States. Also the Balcan area, plenty of territorial disputes, may become hotter. Go figure what will happen if Trump will try to RECONCILE with Russia over Ukraine in order to weaken the Russian pact with China.
Besides the cost of boosting the defence industry (BTW what will happen about the European nuclear deterrence which only few European states possess? Should the other start a nuclear program? What will happen to the defence of the commercial routs around the world? Should all Europeans boost investment into the Navy too?) or maybe reintroducing the military service, the economic crisis due to the economic competition of the Americans (which may even become more hawkish after the end of their NATO partnership e.g. consider the market of microchips and technologies) and the problem of commodity supply under the control of more assertive and competitive geopolitical agents (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and the US), the difficulty of coordinating this effort among Europeans may have repercussions on the stability of the EU and resurgence of populist movements (with its unresolved anti-elitism and unresolved identitarian issues with immigration and Muslim community). European tensions inside European countries and between European countries will still be fueled by hostile or competing powers (including the US), which in turn may even more polarize and paralyze European democracies in their capacity to pursue their strategic interests unless they turn into authoritarian regimes and/or search protection from foreign powers (if not the US, which one?). Also the EU is in danger. And the demographic decline won't help either for the next decades.

Glory to the age of the multipolar world:
https://nltimes.nl/2023/04/08/dutch-journalist-writes-critically-china-targeted-bizarre-intimidation-scheme
https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-embassy-in-stockholm-threatens-swedish-journalist/
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/journalist-03252019114547.html
https://www.asiapacific.ca/fr/asia-watch/czech-prime-minister-wants-chinese-ambassador-out

You need to understand that if Europe is under attack, we will never come to help you and to support you," Breton quoted Trump as saying during the Davos meeting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/we-will-never-help-europe-under-attack-eu-official-cites-trump-saying-2024-01-10/

BTW here some quotes from a year ago about security guarantees:

But the idea that guarantees are needed to enter into an international agreement is just a high school level and completely ignorant understanding of international relations. There is never any guarantees. — boethius


My impression is that you have no clue what you are talking about:

- International relations include a legal framework based on voluntary acceptance by acknowledged independent nations. Within this legal framework one can implement “security guarantees” (https://www.academia.edu/16541504/Legal_Notion_of_the_Terms_Security_Assurances_Security_Guarantees_and_Reassurances_in_International_Security_Law).
- The primary involved parties in the Ukrainian war are clearly interested in such “security guarantees”: Putin urges West to act quickly to offer security guarantees. (https://www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1067188698/putin-urges-west-to-act-quickly-to-offer-security-guarantees). And Ukraine showed interest in having one, given the consequences of the Budapest Memorandum about “security assurances” (https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/stvorennya-mehanizmu-bezpekovih-garantij-dlya-ukrayini-stane-76129).
- To the extent there is an international law and rational agents engage in it, there must be some reasonable application for it, independently from any arbitrarily high standard of reliability and compatibly with power balance/struggle concerns. The reason to me is obvious: the international legal framework increases transparency and trust, given the coordinated and codified procedures/roadmap to monitor and measure commitment and implied costs. — neomac

Dude, what you actually claimed is the following:

The peace deal was all but finished when Boris Johnson flew in to announce Ukraine would not be signing any deals with the Russians. — Tzeentch

"

To such rhetoric manipulation of yours and your sidekicks I commented:

Russia and Ukraine can agree on whatever ceasefire proposal, but if this proposal requires security guarantees from foreign guarantors, and foreign guarantors are not willing to provide them, then there won’t be a deal. — neomac

Concerning the Istanbul Communiqué, two points remain predictably uneasy to settle: the territorial claims over Donbas and Crimea, the security guarantees. Concerning the security guarantees, either they exclude Russia so they become a version of NATO which Russia couldn’t possibly like if that’s Putin’s issue, or they include Russia (the aggressor) which can at the very least sabotage any effort of Ukrainian Westernisation (as much as it happens with resolutions that go against Russian interest in the UN) while being spared economic and diplomatic sanctions. — neomac

So Chalyi's article confirms more what I argued than what you argued. You are dishonestly framing everything as to stress the MORAL responsibility of the West without even considering the reasons of the West. Even though you believe that states have no moral responsibility (since they are not moral agents) only legal and yet:

I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch

The US sought an excuse to invade Libya for reasons that had nothing to do with the humanitarian situation. Shame on the international community for going along with it, and in essence proving my point. — Tzeentch

Does "shame" express a moral, colloquial, legal, or strategic claim?

The sheer disgust you feel towards some of the clowns that inhabit the spheres of international politics is not enlightening but clouding your mind. Taking denouncing self-interest of a hegemonic country, like the US, and deconstructing propaganda hiding it as the best expression of a rational and intellectually honest task, EVEN WHEN ACCURATE, is still a myopic and populist prejudice. That is what is wasting your time on this thread in this philosophy forum.

Yes, because America is a pig, more powerful than the Third Reich ever dreamt of being, and the world is tired of America's abuse. America and Europe still have a colonial mentality, and America is rat shit crazy to dominate. Today is wakeup time, the world is changing. — boagie

Dude, you ain't gonna impress nobody with your foul mouth.

Why are not these nations of the East ever so grateful? — boagie

Because BRICS countries may have their own hegemonic ambitions, particularly China and Russia.

America is so caring, they just want everyone to be free, don't they? — boagie

America is caring for its own national interest, of course, and I find it rather naive and myopic to blame the US for it. Other countries' concern for freedom, civil rights, economic wealth, and democracy is instrumental to preserve the US hegemony, of course. If China and Russia invested the wealth accumulated with the globalization to support health, education, economic well being and civil rights for their own people, instead of investing in their coercive system to oppress their own people and support military projection overseas, they would have less military means and will to violently pursue hegemonic ambitions abroad. Germany and Japan after WW2 are successful examples of this strategy.

So the best sources are an eMail allegedly by Clinton and a supposed russian article reported by hearsay twice removed. — Echarmion

Clinton's email wasn't about Gaddafi's "ambitions to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar"
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide, the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659

The world is moving to a multipolar world, removing the America boot from their necks, soon it well become obvious to you as well. — boagie

I have no idea why you are so excited about it. "Multipolar world" means that the world is gonna be more peaceful, more equitable, more democratic?

Think about it, all the while the States has been subjugating if not destroying other countries' economies with their economic and military might, — boagie

Exactly the opposite is true. China and Russia economies could grow the way they did after the cold war thanks to the American-led globalization. This wealth boosted their military expenditures as much as their economic-military projection abroad.

Let's assume you are right whatever point you are trying to make, still “it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong”. Do you have anything to say about this? It's the third time I'm asking.

My prediction is that if Trump wins the elections, for sure Ukraine will have outlived its usefulness. — boethius

Meaning? What will happen then?

Really, typical? It seems to me boagie is literally the first participant in this discussion to present things as BRICS are good and America is bad. — boethius

The problem is that he didn’t make any arguments that you/Tzeench/Isaac wouldn’t make yourselves. So one may wonder why the different conclusion? BTW your/Tzeench/Isaac’s conclusion doesn't seem that different either. [1]


[1]

That’s what I asked you because that is what Tzeench claimed “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII” and that is how you interpreted it: “The one that causes most death and misery”. — neomac


@Tzeentch's claim here is pretty easy to support.

We are literally in a 6th mass extinction event heading towards civilisational collapse that is entirely due to US policy and acquiescence of their fellow Western acolytes, not to mention pollution of various other forms as well as neo-colonialism and US imperialism (however "soft" you want to call it -- being smothered by a pillow can have the exact same end result as being stabbed in the chest). — boethius

Again, you didn’t say anything that I didn’t already hear a thousand times in this thread and outside of it. That’s why I indirectly asked you: “it would be more interesting if you told us where the Russian propaganda about the genesis and the purpose of this war may be wrong”. Still waiting for an answer.