There is a certain court in The Hague that tends to have an opinion on such matters. But the US seems to think they shouldn't be held accountable when it comes to international law or human rights.. ("The Hague Invasion Act").

If it has to get to the Hague, there were drastic failures earlier. The US has a right to a speedy and public trial, and needs to put its money where its mouth is (or was).

>and needs to put its money where its mouth is (or was).

Unwillingness to practice what you preach when people you don't like benefit is a huge problem with all sorts of institutions in the US and will not get better at least not for a generation or two. Broad acceptance of double standards is a necessary part of the currently depending ideological divide so we basically need to wait until the people peddling that are out of the workforce.

Is this the same speedy and public trial that the gitmo detainees got?

No, good God no! There are a ton of conservative voters who loathed the Dubya administration, and I'm one of them. But you have to understand, that's what created Trump, especially as Democrats doubled down on social issues.

> There is a certain court in The Hague that tends to have an opinion on such matters. But the US seems to think they shouldn't be held accountable when it comes to international law or human rights.. ("The Hague Invasion Act").

International law isn't really law in the sense we're used to. There is no world government. International relations are anarchic, and the "international law" that's binding on a country is pretty much what it agrees to abide by or can be forcibly compelled to abide by (through military action, etc).

Funny thing is that Obama asked the Netherlands to take some ex Gitmo prisoners. The Dutch government politely declined to fix his problems knowing full well the legal minefield.

How do you hold the United States of America accountable?

If you are a citizen of another country, at least, vote against politicians that want to strengthen your country's alliance with it, and respond to polls in ways that indicate opposition to causes it cares about.

The US is dependent on its network of allies in many respects; most pertinently, much of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns would not have been possible without the support of its European and the Middle Eastern ones, providing overflight permissions, military bases, intelligence and often even hosting "black sites" where people from the target nations could be tortured far from the meddlesome eyes of journalists and NGOs.

What is most countries alternative to allying with the US?

China? Russia? With their spotless record on human rights?

Being independent? US, China and Russia project this image of great power but they can hardly project it, as evidenced most recently in Ukraine.

According to whom? The reddit armchair generals? MSM "journalists" with non-technical degrees like humanities?

Russia is weeks, perhaps days, away from consolidating the Donbas (area large than the entire UK) and have greatly reduced the NATO-trained and supported Ukrainian military's (second largest in Europe) ability to conduct offensive maneuver warfare in a time span of just a few of weeks. And that's with maybe using 20% of Russias military capacity. All according to western sources.

Let's not conflate how we feel about the situation with the reality on the ground. The sooner we're honest about whats going, the sooner we can have peace.

Russia isn't really consolidating anything - they are destroying Donbas, razing entire cities. That's after three months of failures, like when they were forced to flee from Kyiv and then Kharkiv. And no, that's not 20% of their capability, that's all of their military capability (that's why they are using conscripts), except the strategic forces. And that's against a rather underfunded country which, during previous Russian invasion, couldn't defend at all.

Ukraine's main problem is that they are not being supplied with enough heavy weapons. The sooner they are, the sooner we can have peace.

You might want to take some time off from reading Sputnik, comrade :-)

It's actually "tovarishch" in Russian, not "comrade". Comrade is Spanish. If you're going to take lazy cheap shots, at least get it right.

Also, I'd love to hear which heavy weapon systems the west has that could change the tide. Like what are the exact platforms and logistics of getting them there and the Ukrainian forces trained up on them?

Yeah, you don't actually have a clue, do you.

Nobody cares what it sounds in Russian; this joke wasn't aimed at Russians.

As for heavy weapon systems - literally any of them. Every day Ukrainians are successfully stopping Rashists' attacks, but they don't have the weaponry required to counterattack.

> And that's with maybe using 20% of Russias military capacity.

Let's not fool ourselves here: if there was a way for Putin to avoid looking like an idiot who struggles to take even parts of Ukraine he would take it.

Truth is he failed spectacularily and everyone who has the slightest idea can see for themselves that Russia is struggling mightily despite their initial backstab where they had a few hours to bomb Ukraine and insert troops at will despite their promises the night before.

They fail despite having multiple influential politicians who they had bribed in advance, multiple sleeper cells, and, on the paper, a much much stronger army.

He has already sent the troops that was supposed to protect the strategically important Murmansk area, proving 1.) The Ukraine invasion is massively important to him 2.) He also proved all the words about being afraid of Nato is just a waste of perfectly fine silence, as he knows perfectly well that Nato is mostly peaceful and has not intention of invading or nuking Russia. After all he removed these troops while Nato, Sweden and Finland was gathering lots of troops right across the border :-D

> All according to western sources.

Someone dubbed Heissentruths, truths whose exact value cannot be known until you open the box.

Russians and their friends has a lot of Heissentruths. Western media being a reliable source is one of these. In this case it is absolutely true and very reliable, in another case were they point out the Russian attempts at genocide they are of course absolutely unreliable and only fools would refer to them.

Edit:

If Nato joins the conflict, Russian authorities only hope is their strategic weapons.

And given what we have seen about how well the kleptocracy maintains their conventional weapons I am somewhat less worried about that then what I was in February/March.

I have a feeling they too have noted this as I hear less and less mentions of this option from them, so it is either that they have realized the red button won't work or they are preparing a surprise.

> If Nato joins the conflict, Russian authorities only hope is their strategic weapons.

If Nato joins the conflict, they will very quickly get aquatinted with Kinzhal, Tsirkon & Avangard hypersonics (un-interceptable as of now) loaded with conventional warheads (non-nuke) followed by a barrage of their other (of larger variety and longer range than anything western) ballistic stand-off weapons. For now, Russia has the advantage in ballistics and layered air defense (S-300, 400 & 500, Pantsir + electronic warfare systems). They also have an advantage in field artillery (more variety & longer range than anything western). Even the US president had to admit the hypersonic complication.

> If Nato joins the conflict, they will very quickly get aquatinted with Kinzhal, Tsirkon & Avangard hypersonics (un-interceptable as of now) loaded with conventional warheads (non-nuke) followed by a barrage of their other (of larger variety and longer range than anything western) ballistic stand-off weapons.

Exactly how many of those missiles does Russia have in its inventory? I suspect it's only enough to get NATO mad. If it had enough to do serious damage, I'd have expected the Russians to have done better in Ukraine.

Also, the Kinzhal and Avangard appear to be nuclear capable, and the Avangard is ICBM-launched. It would be, to use a technical term, stupid-as-fuck to use those with conventional warheads against a nuclear-armed adversary.

> Exactly how many of those missiles does Russia have in its inventory?

Good question, it's hard to say - but probably enough to knock out most NATO command and control and sink all carrier groups in Europe. Remember, MSM said they would run out in just a couple days about two months ago. Considering they're launching a handful per day for the past few months, probably not any time soon. You can bet that their factories are working three shift right now.

> Good question, it's hard to say - but probably enough to knock out most NATO command and control and sink all carrier groups in Europe.

What's your source on that? Because it sounds like a fantasy. The Russians haven't even knocked out most of Ukraine's command and control, and doing the same against NATO would be a much larger task.

Just an educated guess from an armchair general of the 404th chairborn division.

Now we are getting somewhere :-)

Yes, yes, uninterceptable. But there are Kessler sats up there who intercept the once un-interceptable ICBMs and there are toys down near the ground, that can intercept hypersonic missiles. All it takes is hard glorified buckshot, the detection is were its still at. And that is getting better all the time. Which is exactly the problem. All those bloated behemoths of the past, are running out of time.. they are not crisis stable and have nothing compelling going for them.

> there are toys down near the ground, that can intercept hypersonic missiles

Which toys, exactly? Like which specific weapons systems? Because that could be a game changer. From the research I've done, there are no capable systems as of yet unless there's some secret programs that we don't know about.

Early on, Russia hit the base near the Polish boarder used for mercenary intake and the incoming warning system didn't even come on. And those were supposedly not even hypersonic. Google up the pics, videos and interviews. It was devastating.

From one non native speaker to another(?):

I've learned that mercenaries are the paid ones, people like Russian Wagner etc.

The ones on the Ukrainian side are "volunteers".

You're deflecting again.

But sure, fair enough - a lot of those guys were volunteers. Either way, they got hammered as did the ones in the Odessa hotel (and likely others).

You are using this word "deflecting" and I don't think you know what it means.

Here's another "English as a foreign language" tip:

Every time you come across a word you are not sure about, look it up.

You'll be amazed at how much your English improves, both reading comprehension and writing.

Are you implying that I'm Russian or something? Not sure I follow...

I'm just pointing out that you don't know what mercenaries mean.

Or you didn't know that Ukrainian Foreign Legion unlike Russian Wagner and certain other aren't paid.

Either way it means you either don't master English completely, or you aren't up to snuff on what is going on.

I heard you, you actually made a good point regarding mercenary vs volunteer.

>If Nato joins the conflict, they will very quickly get aquatinted with Kinzhal, Tsirkon & Avangard hypersonics

Meanwhile, in the real world, Russia has to resort to anti-ship missiles, because it’s running out of cruise missiles.

You really believe that the guys who can't properly weld an armoured vehicle can produce ICBMs? That the guys who cannot produce their own cannon barrels any longer are capable of creating rocket engines? That the guys who cannot prevent thieves from stealing electronics from their doomsday plane are somehow capable to produce, maintain and secure a fleet of ICBMs?

Are you really sure that the Russian cleptocracy that sends sappers to the front line with wooden bricks wrapped up as TNT (yep) and styrofoam wrapped up as dry rations for "liberated" civilians are somehow capable of maintaining a fleet of strategic missiles at 1/100 of the budget that US spends to maintain theirs?

I'm not.

But I am afraid that if we give them 5 years they will manage to get something working.

And that scares me more than the thought of angering Putin right now.

Luckily I don't have to make this decisions, we have people in Nato who knows extremely much more than me. If they tell me to show up I do.

So all the videos getting posted by Ukrainians of missiles zipping through the sky as well as missile strikes are fakes? The western news showing video clips of Russian missiles hitting Ukrainian infrastructure like bridges and bases are fakes? The Pentagon openly saying that Russia has been using hypersonics - fakes? The Russian RD-180 rocket engines powering NASAs Atlas V are fakes?

Do you have access to a computer and basic Google skills?

I've heard talk of one hypersonic that hit a weapons cache early in the war. The rest of what I have seen has been ordinary missiles of various kinds, often either aimed at civilian infrastructure or extremely imprecise.

They haven't appeared to use a lot of hypersonics (no need, really); probably just testing and calibration. With just the kinetic energy alone, they can do massive damage. And make no mistake, the US will have them soon enough. There's a reason Russia made their moves now (during that gap).

As for preciseness, the newer ballistics have precision of over 90% (thanks, US designed chips). Older ones probably 75%. Their biggest weakness is access to chips.

And the imprecise hits are coming from the Tochka-Us, an old system that mostly the Ukrainians are fielding - but maybe pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists forces some, too.

Check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Military-Supremacy-American-St...

> As for preciseness, the newer ballistics have precision of over 90%

Ok, so they are bombing civilians on purpose, is that what you say?

What do you think?

A combination:

It is no secret that much of the good Soviet tech was produced in Ukraine, both tanks and missiles, and without maintenance they won't be as precise as they were supposed to be. And for some reason Ukrainians hasn't wanted to do maintenance on Russians tech the last few years.

That said we've also seen plenty enough evidence that Russians shoot civilians on purpose.

If I remember correctly, the weapons cache turned out to be a barn.

Thus far, Russian stuff that actually works is the one from USSR times.

Tbh this “angering Putin” might make sense. As long as Rashists believe they can win, they continue to bleed out. When they realize they can’t win this, they could try something else, so it makes sense to try to defer that.

> Western media being a reliable source is one of these

If you are a westerner, sure. If you follow non-western sources, you'll see there's no imminent coup on Putin, you'll see many testimonials of Azov torturing eastern Ukrainians, you'll see Russia slowly advancing into Ukraine, you'll know about mass Ukrainian soldiers defecting, you'll know casualty reporting by western media is either wrong or pure propaganda... The GP is correct, it'd be better for west's supporters to pay attention to what's happening on the battlefield instead of the obvious (to non-westerners) propaganda that's being spread. To sum it up, Ukraine is not winning and the Russian army is not a pack of doofus.

Even tidbits of truth accidentally seep through western media despite the massive campaign of consent and huge PR spending by the Ukrainian government:

https://pictures.reuters.com/Assets/V2/ChFSVFNTNTAwMDAwMDAwM...

^ Adorable unicorn-rainbow tattoo; probably just one of those temporary ones. Let's send him and his buddies more power weapons.

Please look up Task Force Rusisch.

Because Russians, unlike Ukrainians still have plenty of Nazis fighting for them.

You're deflecting. And making excuses for actual Nazis.

No.

I'm telling you outright that Ukrainians got their nazi problem under control during the last eight years while Russia did not and in fact encourages groups like Task Force Rusisch.

You are showing me half a tatoo in an image out of context.

I'm giving you and everyone else here some pointers to look up whole nazi detachments of the Russian army.

I don't trust western media on anyting important. Many of them lie without stopping about a number of things. You have to verify with a number of sources to get what is actually happening.

> If you follow non-western sources, you'll see there's no imminent coup on Putin, you'll see many testimonials of Azov torturing eastern Ukrainians, you'll see Russia slowly advancing into Ukraine, you'll know about mass Ukrainian soldiers defecting, you'll know casualty reporting by western media is either wrong or pure propaganda...

I also follow (and get pushed info from) non western sources, and according to them the assault on Kyiv was on track until it was a feint. Moskva was not hit, but had minor damage due to an accident and was simultaneously sailing by its own power, towed and all sailors were saved until it suddenly sunk in a very local storm. According to them Russians are the smart and nice guys that somehow couldn't prevent [UK Snipers/Ukrainians/Voldemort] (ok, one of these is a joke but I have forgotten a couple too) from raping and killing civilians in Bucha while they were there. I've had pro Russians telling me that a plausible explanation for Bucha was a foreign sniper shooting the civilians just as the Russians happened to drive into the streets there.

And I hear a lot about all the nasty things Azov has done against Russian speaking Ukrainians, often accompanied by a mix of 8 year old pictures, some of them havily manipulated. But looking closer at it Donbas looked nicer after 8 years of supposed Ukrainian shelling than after a few weeks of Russian "liberation". And more Russian speaking Ukrainians have been killed by the Russian "liberators" than by the "evil" Azov.

You know Ukraine recently fired Lyudmila Denisova, their commissioner for human rights, for pushing fake rape stories, right? She admitted that she thought they would garner more western support for sending weapons.

> You know Ukraine recently fired Lyudmila Denisova, their commissioner for human rights, for pushing fake rape stories, right? She admitted that she thought they would garner more western support for sending weapons.

Good for them.

Now think if Russians had did the same and fired the lying faces that lies every week on Russian TV.

But they don't.

Look: using cheap tricks against people who are smarter than you, more knowledgeable than you and doesn't care about persons, only truth, that is a rather sure fire way to get owned. Badly.

> US, China and Russia project this image of great power but they can hardly project it, as evidenced most recently in Ukraine.

The US can bomb any country to pieces if it wants, they have shown that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia can bomb a country to pieces (e.g. Syria) or massively impede any sort of progress (e.g. Libya). I wouldn't underestimate the UK and France either, both are nuclear powers and have sizable navies. Projecting power is not an issue at all for them, their weakness is nation building which is why Bosnia is on the verge of collapse, Afghanistan back into a hellhole and Iraq not too much better.

The wild card is China, they haven't done anything more than a couple of border fights with India and silently taken over Hong Kong so it's completely unknown how good their firepower and training actually is.

In any case, being "independent" doesn't really work either - if your resources are of interest to a major power, you will get fucked over eventually. Yugoslavia broke apart and most of its former parts allied with the EU/NATO, Cuba is deeply held back by US sanctions (which in my opinion should have gone years ago). Even the Swiss, the world's most prominent neutral nations, had to cave under US and EU pressure to open up their bank books. And now Ukraine, which was agreed to by both the NATO and Russia to stay neutral, was invaded by Russia on a pretext.

> Being independent? US, China and Russia project this image of great power but they can hardly project it, as evidenced most recently in Ukraine.

Speaking of Ukraine, it sure wishes it wasn't "independent" in the sense you advocate.

China certainly isn't spotless, but for starters it 1. Hadn't invaded anyone in at least five decades now, 2. Is not the country with largest incarceration rate.

Event the minority rights situation in China is actually improving (https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1535797471581941761), not declining.

They invaded Hong Kong.

Hong Kong was leased by the British for 99 years (lease terms were set after British beat Chinese in opium wars, giving British drug dealers the right to sell opium to Chinese citizens). After 99 years, China was strong enough where British couldn’t reasonably renege on lease or force new terms, so they gave it back to China.

I'm talking about the 2019-2020 destruction of their democracy.

The 1979 invasion of Vietnam was less than five decades ago.

China is not a democracy. That prevents any sane people to want to tighten their political relationship.

Americans' claim they live in democracy. Chinese say the same thing. To you China might not be a democracy; to somebody else US - where corporations literally just buy their own congressman - isn't a democracy either.

People in the USA vote regularly to choose their leader, while people in China do not. Hence, by definition, USA are a democracy and China is not.

Sure, the last two elections were a confirmation that democracy is not perfect (with millions of idiots voting Trump in 2016 and still millions of freaking idiots voting Trump in 2020), but it is the best we have got so far.

People in USA can’t vote to choose their leader at all - they can only choose their representatives, who then vote for the leader. That’s almost exactly how it works in China.

Bullshit!

When was the last time the Chinese people had a say in choosing the leading party?

I'm fine with what you're saying, but the sad truth is that US rarely has "allies" it's mostly puppets and dogs [1], even for a large and rich entity like the EU it's mostly forced to follow the US strategy willingly or forcefully.

-- 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABhZQ_VRbsQ

You only need to be accountable the responsible of this, not the entire country. This is the word of a very reduced group of people.

USA tribunals should be capable to pursue violations of human rights inside USA territory.

What if the entire country works hard to make sure they cannot be held accountable? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot... (without the typo)

In the most American way possible, by shaking our fists, mumbling about bureaucrats, and settling for a fraction of a cent per taxpayer.

People acted not the entire USA, and we could hold the people involved accountable by sending them to prison. Up to and including Presidents.

Not that we will, but it’s theoretically possible to do all sorts of things that won’t actually happen.

Instead of doing that, the citizens of the USA chose to re-elect the people involved.

And some even gave them money... I think it is reasonable to jail anyone who funded anyone involved here either death penalty or rest of their lives in such facility like one in question here. They can't be redeemed as human beings.

Trying to imprison the guy leaving office is a great way to have that guy not leave office. There's a reason that presidents don't get prosecuted, and it's not because nothing illegal happens.

It's like trying to end the war in Ukraine while also saying that you're trying to depose Putin. Putting very powerful people in corners tends to be a really bad plan.

I don't know if it is such an easy answer. On the one hand, a policy of not prosecuting the office holder might help the peaceful transfer of power; on the other, such a policy creates an unaccountable sovereign every four years.

Was it fear of prosecution that kept Caesar from giving up imperium when returning from Gaul? It was certainly a factor. Would there have been no Roman civil war if there was such a non-prosecution policy in place? I'm less certain.

The risk you bring up must be carefully considered, but so is having an unaccountable sovereign, just four years at a time.

then don't imprison the president, just everyone who was "just following orders"

This was done by a few people, who bleed like you and I do. Not by a country, solution is much easier.

How do you hold the UK accountable? Australia accountable? Switzerland?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention