Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[Reashot Xigwin]

The entire Russian experience in Ukraine. Sums up in a few words.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580628992209883136

 

[jhungary]

no they didn't lost sovereignity as it don't need a UN sit and as i said , there is a solution , declare independent and join the way is open , well sort of

• The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
• The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.
• If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.
• Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

This is my last post on this matter.

Let's use some case law as an example.

Russia being kicked out of UN Human Right Council with a UNGA vote according to Article 18, do you agree?

Russia being kicked out of UN Human Right Council with a UNGA vote WIHTOUT a Security Council recommendation, do you agree?

Russia was kicked out of Human Right Council with a UNGA vote that did not count the Abstained vote, do you agree?

Security Council is a privilege for UN Member, do you agree?

Here is the kicker

Article 18 did not specifically apply to any role within UN as it was not specifically call on which roles were covered by UN Charter Article 18. So what that would mean if someone was to start a vote on whether or not kicking Russia out of Security Council, the same condition as in Article 18 applies.

Now answer yourself this question, if Russia were able to kick out of UN Human Right Council with supermajority which abstain does not count (as the resolution result suggested) then what make you think Article 18 cannot applies to the same vote that would kick Russia out of Security Council? As long as they have supermajority? Weren't Security Council a part of UN member Privilege?

I don't need you to answer me, this is to pick your brain.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580613050427588610

 

[PakFactor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580613050427588610

Damn. Soon they'll become less religious once all the Orthodox ISI are dead. I never thought I'd see the white terror in my lifetime. Thank you, Putin.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It's ALWAYS for vs against. It has been since 1945, the abstained DOES NOT COUNT toward the total vote.

wrong, the count always included the abstain and if abstain was not counted , in the article 18 they didn't said said " two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. " we simply said a 2/3rd of votes

Dude, YOU ALWAYS NEED SOVEREIGNTY. In fact you keep saying "They need to declare independent" is a direct result of sovereignty, otherwise, what is independent??

And we are not talking about Taiwan rejoining UN, we are talking about Taiwan/ROC got expelled from UN when they have membership before. I mean, what else is the parameter for ROC losing their seat (call it whatever you want) if sovereignty is not count? The entire thing is about sovereignty.......

Again, I cannot dumb it down further for you.

and I cant make it dumber , you don't need a UN sit to be sovereign

 

[Hack-Hook]

This is my last post on this matter.

Let's use some case law as an example.

Russia being kicked out of UN Human Right Council with a UNGA vote according to Article 18, do you agree?

Russia being kicked out of UN Human Right Council with a UNGA vote WIHTOUT a Security Council recommendation, do you agree?

Russia was kicked out of Human Right Council with a UNGA vote that did not count the Abstained vote, do you agree?

Security Council is a privilege for UN Member, do you agree?

Here is the kicker

Article 18 did not specifically apply to any role within UN as it was not specifically call on which roles were covered by UN Charter Article 18. So what that would mean if someone was to start a vote on whether or not kicking Russia out of Security Council, the same condition as in Article 18 applies.

Now answer yourself this question, if Russia were able to kick out of UN Human Right Council with supermajority which abstain does not count (as the resolution result suggested) then what make you think Article 18 cannot applies to the same vote that would kick Russia out of Security Council? As long as they have supermajority? Weren't Security Council a part of UN member Privilege?

I don't need you to answer me, this is to pick your brain.

good if you think you can pull it out try it, who care
you are comparing apple with orange

Ukraine invasion: should Russia lose its seat on the UN Security Council? | Feature from King's College London

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

The drone's shrapnel after the mig shot it down is the cause of the plane's crash.

Unless of course that's what u insinuating.

The drone has hit its pre-determined target. And it was not 1 MIG-29 that crashed, but actually two of them. So in essence, it is the Ukrainian MIG-29 plane that got defeated.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

 

[jhungary]

wrong, the count always included the abstain and if abstain was not counted , in the article 18 they didn't said said " two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. " we simply said a 2/3rd of votes

and I cant make it dumber , you don't need a UN sit to be sovereign

Well, evidentially you did.

UN Seat, not Sit....

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580702648206262273

 

[jhungary]

good if you think you can pull it out try it, who care
you are comparing apple with orange

Ukraine invasion: should Russia lose its seat on the UN Security Council? | Feature from King's College London

And as I said some post ago, there are scholar from both sides sit (yes, this is sit) at the issue,

Can Russia Be Removed from the U.N. Security Council?

Created to maintain global peace and stability, the council is powerless as one of its permanent members wages a brutal unprovoked war in Ukraine.

diplomaticacademy.us

Don't forget, Russia DID NOT get the current seat in Security Council as Russia, they got it by "Inherit" it from Soviet Union, in case you have not notice, the issue is much more similar than China/Taiwan issue than you think.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580707563888181249

 

[zectech]

I have said it before, I'll say it again. Russia is using the Ukraine conflict to try to weaken or destroy the EU politically and economically.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579279261592354817

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580584785830813697

The panic is still on after those Shageed-136 drones kept hitting their targets.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580590797463789568

 

[Oldman1]

cuz of ALL THE MILITARY CRAP RUSSia threw at Ukraine? RUssia's artillery is better, its air defense is better, its just stronger militarily, and Ukraine has been stupid also during many parts of this war, Ukraine already reported 10s of thousands dead, but yes, Russia probably lost 10-20K soldiers.

Just cause they all of the military crap thrown at the Ukrainians don't mean anything. Many of that crap have fallen into Ukrainian hands. Russia has lost more than 20k, even the 6k official claims.

probably not that low, but not 60K dead- thats propaganda- Ukraine's military ISNT that effective, dont kid yourself - it likely doesnt evne have the strength to keep fighting like this past this year- so much for all those saying "Ukraine will switch to hit and run asymmetrical warfare when the war grinds on"..lmao...Ukranians are fleeing ukraine after their lightss got cut off. lmao.

because it needs more soldiers to hold onto all that territory it ook from Ukraine- you forget how huge Ukraine is? fighting is different from fighting and staying and holding securely - that requires alot more troops.

Yes I'm aware how huge Ukraine is. Perhaps Russia should have thought of that in the first place.

but millions are mobilizing no? just wait - arent Ukranians fleeing after their electricty got denazified? i mean, they're such patriots, a lil inconvenience and they wanna exit?

Millions? Russians can barely get to 200k. Many of them have to be sent back home after realizing they just don't meet the needs of the Russian army because of their age or health. Or even their status like specialize worker or employee.

RUssia lost some of the territory, Ukraine cant even get any back now, and its tried for 10+ days to do so- cuz its exhausted also- small, broke azz, 3rd world military that people would've called stupid if they werent white.

where? lmao--- yo utell youself these tales so u can live in your denial- Ukraine is getting killed as we speak now - no water, roads, rail, electricity, damn even Afghanistan isnt that bad now.

its all war though, dont get into any specifics to distract- war is war if your troops and military are formally involved and active in the conflict, end of story.

oh sharap!

Russia lost more occupied territory from Kiev region in the north to Kharkiv and Kherson and even Snake Island. Maybe they will do more goodwill retreat to help improve their relations with Ukraine in the long term. Just remember that the Russians could barely last long in the final weeks of the winter.

we means us

wasn't t-62 or t-64 supposed to be better than t-72 and T80 is actually based on it ?
t-72 was just a lower class tank that could be produced a lot faster

If it was better, then they would have stick to the T-64 or T-62 instead of moving on to the T-72 and T-80s.