Sequoia

I think you'd agree though, that quality is hardly exclusive to Russians. I heard a phrase "Once an Empire, Always an Empire" IIRC Iranians feel themselves to be inheritors of the Persian Empire and feel they are disrespected by not being treated as a great power. The UK seems to have better adjusted to no longer being an Empire than the French. Perhaps The Commonwealth preserves the appearances of an empire. And I will certainly not leave out the USA. While technically never an empire, it certainly has been the leader of a hegemony for about 80 years. How many Americans does it take to change a light bulb? Just one. He holds up the light bulb, and the World turns around him to screw it in.

I thought it might be useful to post what is known as the Rome Statute addition to the Geneva Convention. Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[25] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:

@G.I. Joe Welcome to the forums, but I thought I'd let you know that avatar has been in use by an esteemed forum member and former BFC employee, so you have big shoes to fill.

Sorry Elvis. I thought it pertinent in that former accolades may not equate with current expertise. I'll be more restrained going forward.

Think again.

Keas66. This may interest you. Note this is from 2012. Nobel laureate joins anti-vaccination crowd at Autism One (forbes.com)

I hope this thread gets back more to military analysis. We're better at that.

Link to a podcast about Ukraine's former possession of nukes. I don't know enough about the subject to review the right and wrong in the podcast. Deterrence in Ukraine (armscontrolwonk.com)

Take it outside guys.

Well, didn't the Mafia realize eventually they could make more money in Las Vegas if they obeyed the law? Plus it was a lot safer that way.

I would hope that happens as well, but I no idea of how it could realistically come about.

Putin is hardly doing what he wishes, and more Russians are dying than Ukrainians.

For anyone but Charles, impossible. P.S. answering Machor.

And if it's true, did they lie to him to set him up for a fall?

No one expects the Spanish Instalanza.

Kraft, your right, some will buy whatever Putin tells them, but not all. I'm hoping (perhaps naively) that the war will end soon by Putin stepping down because of "health" reasons.

I'm thinking perhaps the rallying points Putin would get internally from the transfer-he's already been pushing the NATO is plotting to get Russia theme for years to his people- might outweigh the benefit the of the MiGs.

I think the Ukrainian Armed forces have shown us they have been well prepared, so I have no reason to suppose they wouldn't be prepared for chemical use. At this point, given how introducing chemicals effects command and control, I would think it would hurt the Russian forces more than Ukraine's.

Nope, Ireland is not part of NATO

Stuffed with some other stuff too, but mostly informative.

Turkey doesn't need assistance to keep Russia from forcing the straits.

Did he really say he was interested?

edit. hit post button by mistake <

I would like to ask though, if you have already posted on your opinion on what NATO/The West should do/ Should have done please refrain from constantly doing so, unless their is a change in the situation. It is getting somewhat spammy Thanks!

I saw on another forum a post that giving Ukraine s300 SAMs would be useful as they are trained on them, but another poster said of all NATO countries only Turkey still has them. Accurate? Thanks