Ukraine: Russian Diplomat at UN Quits, Kyiv Joins Forces With Poland
Zelenskyy on Poland: “We are introducing joint customs control with Poland. This will significantly speed up border procedures.”
It’s Day 88 of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I need to keep this going because it affects us since we keep sending our money and weapons to Ukraine.
I doubt it will end soon because Kyiv (rightfully) won’t give Russia any land.
Kherson, Controlled by Russians, Makes Ruble Its Currency
Let’s see how this works out:
Authorities in the Moscow-controlled Ukrainian region of Kherson have announced the introduction of the ruble as an official currency alongside the Ukrainian hryvnia.
The region’s capital Kherson was the first major city to fall to Russian forces in the war.
“Today a decree will be issued that formalises the introduction in the Kherson region of dual currency,” the pro-Moscow head of the regional administration, Vladimir Saldo.
“This means all traders have the right to – and later will be obliged to – display prices in two currencies, in hryvnias and Russian rubles,” he said.
“The Russian ruble exchange rate will be twice that of the hryvnia, two Russian rubles for one hryvnia.”
He added that in the next few days a Russian bank would open a branch in Kherson and offer accounts to businesses, which could show Ukrainian documents.
Russian Soldier Sentenced to Life
The soldier confessed to killing the elderly man:
Vadim Shishimarin, a 21-year-old Russian soldier, had pleaded guilty to killing Oleksandr Shelipov, 62, in the northeastern Ukrainian village of Chupakhivka on February 28 after being ordered to shoot.
A Ukrainian court sentenced him to life in prison on Monday morning.
Judge Serhiy Agafonov said Shishimarin, carrying out a “criminal order” by a soldier of higher rank, had fired several shots at the victim’s head from an automatic weapon.
Shishimarin, wearing a blue and grey hooded sweatshirt, watched proceedings silently from a reinforced glass box in the courtroom and showed no emotion as the verdict was read out.
The trial is significant for Ukraine, which has accused Russia of atrocities and brutality against civilians during the invasion and said it has identified more than 10,000 possible war crimes. Russia has denied targeting civilians.
Russian Diplomat Quits and Defects
He worked at the UN base in Geneva:
A Russian diplomat at the country’s permanent mission at the United Nations in Geneva said on Monday he was leaving his post because of his disagreement with Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, a rare political resignation over the war.
Boris Bondarev, a who identified himself on LinkedIn as a counsellor at Russia’s permanent mission to the UN who worked on arms control, told Reuters: “I went to the mission like any other Monday morning and I forwarded my resignation letter and I walked out.”
“I started to imagine this a few years ago but the scale of this disaster drove me to do it,” he said.
He said he had raised his concerns about the invasion with senior embassy staff several times. “I was told to keep my mouth shut in order to avoid ramifications,” he said.
Poland and Ukraine Join Forces
Polish President Andrzej Duda visited Ukraine this weekend. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy the countries will join forces.
Poland knows a thing or two about Russian aggression:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a “historic” joint customs control with Poland on Sunday, stressing “unity of Ukrainians and Poles is a constant that no one will break.”
“A solution has been reached that is revolutionizing the order on our border,” Zelensky said during his nightly video address. “We are introducing joint customs control with Poland. This will significantly speed up border procedures. It will remove most of the corruption risks. But it is also the beginning of our integration into the common customs space of the European Union. That is a truly historic process.”
Zelensky comments came on the heels of Polish President Andrzej Duda’s visit to Kyiv earlier in the day. Duda also emphasized the unity between the two countries as he became the first foreign leader since the Russian invasion to address Ukraine’s parliament, the Rada.
Zelensky described Ukrainian-Polish relations as “finally on a completely clean, sincere basis, without any quarrels and old conflict heritage. This is an achievement—the historic achievement of our people. And I want the brotherhood between Ukrainians and Poles to be preserved forever. As I talked about it today in front of the deputies, our unity of Ukrainians and Poles is a constant that no one will break.”
Zelensky also said he signed a decree introducing a new award “to thank those cities of partner countries that have helped the most. And Rzeszow became the first such city. The savior city. It is fair to say.”
The Ukrainian leader went on to announce the preparation of a bill that will mirror the law passed in Poland about Ukrainian citizens who sought refuge in Poland and who “have been legally given the same opportunities as Poles.”
Go Away, Russia
Russia wants Ukrainian land for a ceasefire. Not that grabbing the land would make them stop.
Russia already has Crimea. It wants the pro-Russia separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Ukrainian officials said no way:
Russian-backed separatists already controlled swathes of territory in Luhansk and the neighboring Donetsk province before the Feb. 24 invasion, but Moscow wants to seize the last remaining Ukrainian-held territory in Donbas.
“The situation in Donbas is extremely difficult,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. The Russian army was trying to attack the cities of Sloviansk and Sievierodonetsk, but Ukrainian forces were holding off their advance, he said.
Earlier, Zelenskiy told local television that while the fighting would be bloody, the end would come only through diplomacy and that the Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory would be temporary.
Zelenskyy adviser Mykhailo Podolyak ruled out agreeing to a ceasefire and said Kyiv would not accept any deal with Moscow that involved ceding territory. He said making concessions would backfire on Ukraine because Russia would hit back harder after any break in fighting.
“The war will not stop (after concessions). It will just be put on pause for some time,” Podolyak, Ukraine’s lead negotiator, told Reuters in an interview in the heavily guarded presidential office.
“They’ll start a new offensive, even more bloody and large-scale.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If Poland decides to occupy part of Western Ukraine at the invitation of the Ukrainians, I do not see how that can be interpreted as anything other than direct NATO involvement.
You ever listen to a white house spokesperson? They will tell you up is down; black is white; good is bad; our country is in great shape, Biden has all his faculties and is the best president this country has ever had.
All the polls are wrong—you don’t know anything, so you must listen only to what they say and do not attempt to do your own thinking.
Sounds very much like the old USSR line on everything.
Where do you suppose they got their handbook?
The translation is not perfect which causes a periodic breakdown. Need to circle back from time to time and check the translation.
No.
In fact, because Poland is entering an existing war, An ttack on Poland will probably not trigger Article 5.
When it comes to defending the West’s money laundering enterprise, we seem willing to ignore all norms and precedents. I guess we will see if we are willing to go to actual war about it.
Oooh! Dat hurts!
Technically Poland occupying Ukraine is nothing to do with Russia, and if Poland doesn’t attack Russian forces then there is no legal justification for Russia to attack Polish forces.
Poland could even invade Ukraine instead of entering by invitation, and Russia could not oppose the Polish forces. They could decline to step aside and make way for them, but they couldn’t mount an offensive against them with it being initiation of a war between Russia and Poland.
I’m not sure what Article 5 says about intentionally stepping into harm’s way, but it’s very possible for Poland to occupy vast tracts of Ukraine without entering the war between Russia and Ukraine.
You think the Poles want huge tracts of land?
Galatia
Exactly what is this “legal justification” you pontificate about? ( who enforces it?)
Oh, I forgot, the Chairborne Stranger with a browser who has never actually been anywhere or done anything in time of war but “read” all about it like a good REMF.
Oh, Article 5 is very specific regarding an UNPROVOKED ATTACK ( which if Poland acts as an entity with a deliberate decision to enter an already occurring action, it is out of bounds for the requirement and wont trigger anything except most likely a severe Russian response)
In case you never read about it, they call the land in the middle of a conflict “no man’s land’ for a GOOD REASON and if Poland comes in, they will likely find their collective assess wiped out.
You don’t fully grasp this because you have never seen it ( and certainly the media has a different agenda they are promoting so they are not going to tell anyone either) BUT
Putin is in full command and control of this, he is winning and he is taking this time to test/evaluate/purge his own forces in order to modernize them.
The press is taking these acts and creating a false narrative of Putin this and that ( for their own motives) but none of it is true.
Russians don’t fight or have the values we do. They have no issue, problem or reservation whatsoever about sending troops to die and do it again just to prove a point. (ask the Nazi’s how many they killed but they kept coming and wore them down)
The Russians don’t consider the “feelings” of their own people so don’t expect them to care about the enemy.
People who have never dealt with this type of govt and military don’t understand just how normal and expected this brutality is. Judging this via a “western view’ is a fool’s errand.
Laugh. You’ve been claiming for weeks that Russia is winning. Although I’m still waiting for all these encirclements you’ve been promising.
If Poland doesn’t attack Russian forces, doesn’t enter Russian territory, doesn’t attack Russian interests in other countries, then Poland has not provoked an attack. If Poland happens to be, let’s say, providing humanitarian aid, agricultural support, transport interlinks, food supplies and medical assistance to civilian populations in Ukraine, they’re provoking nothing.
If Poland do all of that and Russia attacks them, that’s an unprovoked attack by Russia that justifies a full NATO response.
It’s not “no man’s land”, it’s Ukraine. It’s not between two front lines, it’s in the West and centre of the country. It’s not between international borders, it’s inside an internationally recognised independent state.
As for your comments on Putin I agree he’s in full command and control of his armed forces. He’s taken control off his generals and is micromanaging it himself. Tell me, did he lose two BTGs trying to cross the river last week or was it three? You can’t tell me the Russian troops thought that was a good idea, they value their own lives too much, so someone incompetent was clearly throwing their lives away trying to create a bridgehead. And failing.
Sounds like Putin to me. After all, he’s tested, evaluated and purged his forces extremely effectively. He’s purged a full third of his invasion force. He’s managed to reduce the cost of servicing and maintaining 700 tanks and thousands of other vehicles. He’s making massive savings on aviation fuel, and successfully distracted the Ukrainians by leaving them to collect all the wreckage of the aircraft that would’ve used it. Truly he’s a master of his own domain.
But not Ukraine. He’s not the master of Ukraine, its land and definitely not its people. Putin’s running out of missiles, can’t manufacture more, can’t replace his tanks, can’t build new aircraft. He can’t even recruit more fodder to throw away in Donbas because he’s scared of declaring war, something he’d have to do to conscript more men.
Russian leaders don’t fight, and do indeed have no issue throwing away entire armies. But this is a new connected world, full of information, and Russian mothers are noticing that their children aren’t coming home, are noticing that this special military operation is being called a war by every other country, are seeing the footage of their children being killed by drones, by artillery, by ATGMs.
So are the Russian forces. I’ve lost count now, how many BTGs have refused to fight? How many officers have shot themselves, how many units have destroyed their own equipment so that they can surrender, how many times have the Chechens had to kill Russians to try and quell a mutiny?
I’m not judging this by a Western view, I’m judging this through information capture and assessment.
Poland get their collective “assess” wiped out? If Russia can even find enough forces to fight Poland their performance against Ukraine suggests that Poland wouldn’t even need to call on the rest of NATO.
Russia are a threat to Russians right now, and absolutely nobody else.
You kind of skipped Mariupol.
That’s not how it works. That’s why the borders are important. That’s why Russia won’t engage in interdiction of munitions and supply convoys in Poland. They cross the border into Ukraine and they are a legitimate target. That’s why the Ukrainians are manning the convoys. The Poles would have made themselves a target and ART 5 wouldn’t be in play.
@ Diaper
No, Sh!t for brains. Instead of putting words in my mouth i didn’t say and spouting things you don’t comprehend- shut up, listen and learn.
First, I said winning ( and will), i said nothing about encirclement’s or Hollywood victories because thats not how asymmetrical war goes. Putin’s “victory” has many depths and definitions-and he is in control of the tempo and the tactics.
Second, it a non combatant country sends UNIFORMED MILITARY in a combat zone ( reason or purpose being irrelevant) they are NOW COMBATANTS regardless of what your web search expertise says and they will be treated accordingly. That is not an “unprovoked” attack.
Third, You dont understand the Soviet mind regarding Putin. IN TRAINING they ACCEPT a 10% MORTALITY. ( let that sink in, 1 in every 10 soldiers DYING in a training exercise is “good training”) They train with LIVE ammo and LIVE NBC (Now CBRN) agents.
They don’t look at combat losses in “human terms” like we do so you cannot evaluate them by “our’ standards.
Fourth, all your ( and everyone else’s) commentary on Putin this and that is all unqualified speculation from people who know as little or even less than you do( if thats even possible) or people with an agenda. Nobody is “reporting” directly from the Supreme Soviet with “hot off the Press’ legitimate intel.
Its amazing you “know’ all of this without ever spending a single day in any uniform or theater.
As i said, a REMF with no concept or clue
Russia will step it up, Putin will not be backed down by Poland, a NATO country
Slavic Spring, and cover-up, in progress.
Shishimarin’s lawyer has indicated that he’s going to appeal his sentence.
I don’t know the normal punishment for murder in Ukraine, so it’ll be interesting to hear the grounds for the appeal.
I can think of a dozen ( this is without even having the details of the Kangaroo trial the Sgt. was faced with)- here are the top few. (What really sux is me being put in the position to defend someone who may be personally innocent of a “war crime” and as a UNIFORMED soldier in a time of WAR has no liability for this action but it makes me “look” like I am “defending” Russia or its conduct in all of this- I am NOT) That said.
Grounds of the articles of the 3rd Geneva Convention 1949
Granted much of this is speculative as none of the details/evidence/testimony or even the laws in question are available for analysis as of this post.
Article 82- this needs to be a MILITARY court ( not a civilian court) because “hypothetically” if the soldier “believed” ( with the fog of war) that this civilian posed a threat by alerting others- its a justified killing. ( or he thought the civilian was an insurgent or whatever).
Allegedly ( per the story) the Sgt. was “ordered” to fire so there’s the superior order provision. (The soldier in the field does NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to interpret the “legality” of an order- our own forces have court martialed people for this because they “objected” to orders/deployment and they lost too for the same reason- this is for officer mainly). The soldier does NOT have any authority to “disobey a direct order IN COMBAT”.
Article 84- I have seen nothing indicating the qualifiers for a civilian court in this case were adhered to.
Article 87- I want to see how the Ukraine court punishes its own (I think the Russians will eventually show them). I see nothing indicating this provision exists which would invalidate the trial if it doesn’t
Article- 104- I want to see the full charges and specifications to FIRST make sure this “event” actually meets the criteria for a war crime under treaty. (Nothing revealed so far shows it does- this would invalidate the trial on grounds and merit)
This is just off the top of my head.
First, I recognise the difference between putting the case for the defence, and supporting the actions of the person on trial.
Then we get onto the crime that was committed: Someone whose own commanders tell us wasn’t at war shot an unarmed civilian in the head to (in his own words) prevent them revealing the other crimes he and his colleagues were committing, including stealing a car.
He admits doing this. Someone walking down the road on the phone isn’t a combatant. Someone reporting illegal immigrants stealing a car isn’t a legitimate target of war. That’s murder.
As for the blind obedience to orders, no. That one was settled at Nuremberg. See also paragraph 68 of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/notes and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/892
Does this come under the Geneva Convention or was it a civil matter? Interesting question. https://theconversation.com/war-crimes-trial-of-russian-soldier-was-perfectly-legal-but-that-doesnt-make-it-wise-183586 raises the same points that you do regarding the Geneva Convention, but then states that the trial was legal. Specifically, from that article:
“The Russian soldier was prosecuted under a part of the Ukrainian criminal code that addresses conduct during war.”
Frankly I think we’d need a full week’s conference of international experts to unpick this one.
The sole ground you (and the Professor) have suggested that remotely gets him off the hook is if the civilian was deemed to be acting as an active
..combatant, and even then we have to assume that he was engaged in a ‘legal’ act of war – and not in contravention of the Ukrainian military code (which may well be the Ukrainian criminal code, as that appears to contain the laws regarding military conduct during a war).
@ Diaper #2
You aren’t just an incomprehensible idiot- you are not even right enough to be wrong.
Once again, let me correct all of your errors so the normal readers wont accept your lunacy as legitimate fact and can know what the real information is.
By the numbers again:
You>>His commanders include Vladimir Putin who has stated emphatically that his soldiers are not at war. Including this murderer.
No, everything here is incorrect. A soldier only has ONE “commander” ( that’s defined as the next COMMISSIONED OFFICER over him who he BY LAW AND REGULATION MUST ANSWER TO). Other officers ( and including even our POTUS) are what they are but they are not DIRECTLY “commanders” of the soldier. ( every order would be an eternal cluster$ck if that was true).
Look up and study “chain of command” as a do out for your learning.
So, whatever Putin ( or anyone else) said or did has NO BEARING and carries NO WEIGHT on this soldier or situation. So Putin lied- he is the Head of State and has that privilege. That changes NOTHING relative to this alleged case.
You>>As for your shouting about officers giving orders, I refer you to the learned article I cited, which points out that the applicable laws are the Ukraine criminal code. I didn’t know you were such an expert in that, perhaps you could link to the part of that code which lets soldiers murder civilians.
I am equally and probably MORE “learned” than that author so shut up and listen.
The UK “code” in question is invalid under treaty for a war crimes tribunal because it doesn’t address treaty concerns, has never been ratified by anyone and carries no weight. Its a HUMANITARIAN conduct set of laws, it doesn’t DEFINE WAR CRIMES.
That’s a DISTINCTION with a BIG DIFFERENCE because almost all military actions are not “humanitarian” just by virtue of the massive death and destruction but that does NOT make them a WAR CRIME. (Dresden is a test case that has long been resolved in that regard)
This shooting has NOT ( by treaty and proper authority) been declared a WAR CRIME so it CANNOT be “murder” as it was carried out in the course of a combat operation. ( a killing, yes but the operative word here is MURDER)
You>>>Just that.. that’s the code he was found guilty under, and so I rather suspect the bit your argument relies on doesn’t exist.
I defined this earlier. The only thing that doesn’t exist here is your actual knowledge and understanding of the subject and you wont ever get there being a no combat, no experience REMF reading selected articles on a browser.
You>>>As for “been there / done it” I doubt you’ve ever been to Ukraine, let alone murdered a civilian there. Do please stop pretending you’re somehow superior in analysing this when you can’t even find that it wasn’t prosecuted under the Geneva Convention, let alone the details of the court case.
I’m not “pretending” slick ( but no, I’ve never been to the Ukraine but been all over the region and never murdered a civilian)
Consider this REMF, look at all the military (officers and NCO’s and some SF, some JAG and so forth) posting here. Ever notice they don’t jump in and eviscerate me for all this “false information?
Those who have been there know those who have by their actions and words ( not to mention received the same training)
The only thing I am “superior” to here is YOU. ( hardly an achievement worth mentioning but you did bring it up in an ad hom attempt to elevate yourself by insulting me so I decided to give it back to you with interest yet again)
@ Diaper #3
Why don’t you get off the couch and put your imagination away, enlist- pull a few real tours in real engagements- learn some things first hand then come back and report how wrong we are to the board.
Assuming you survive
You really are that stupid so once again, lets attempt to educate the deliberately dumb.
I have to point these errors out so your unqualified rants don’t influence other well meaning people to believe you actually have an understanding of what you are talking about. I will put them in proper context as they apply to further illustrate your errors.
By the Numbers:
First part where you say “who’s commanders tell us”- that’s bogus propaganda and false on its face because its unqualified hearsay and his COMMANDER ( in military parlance his DIRECT officer/NCO over him) WAS NOT A WITNESS NOR DID TESTIFY.
That’s how that works in the real world so “nobody said anything”.
Second, His admission is meaningless in context. Nobody disputes he killed the man- the question was IS IT A WAR CRIME AS DEFINED BY TREATY. This kangaroo court (based on what’s currently in the media) is NOT A PROPER VENUE to address that so ITS FINDING IS INVALID.
Hell, I personally have shot people in combat ( they were not uniformed either) and I was under orders- that was not a war crime either.
Third- Your Nuremberg argument is fatally flawed at every level ( as one would expect a REMF with no actual knowledge and experience to do). The doctrine applies to leaders, Flag officers, Directors and Statesmen. ( that’s why the whole of the German army was not prosecuted). There are some plain language exemptions but none that apply in this specific case.
See, the individual soldier IS NOT required to know the details of land warfare except in general terms. Also, the individual soldier DOES NOT have the legal authority nor immunity to make a determination of legality of order NOR to disobey those orders except in rare situations. The private on the ground doesn’t countermand the Colonel because of what he “thinks”) Disobeying that order can have that soldier in life or face a firing squad in combat.
Plus it still has yet to be determined the shooting was a WAR CRIME in the first place. ( the act of shooting a civilian- armed or not obviously dangerous, IN AND OF ITSELF does NOT default to a “war crime” because the Ukrainians and media say so.
You wouldn’t know that of course because you are a browser expert with no actual knowledge or experience and you didn’t perform the right search yet.
Fourth- Regarding that article. Weak but basically not different than what I said.
To correct you again, regarding the alleged “war crime’- it doesn’t matter what the civilian was doing ( or not doing)- what matters (in determining if the shooting was justified or a prosecutable war crime) is DID THE OFFICER GIVING THE ORDER (BELIEVE- not “know to a reasonable certainty”) the “civilian” was a DANGER to his military operation.
Assuming the media account that the Sgt. was ordered to fire is correct and true….
If the officer DID “believe” it then the order to fire was LAWFUL and the Sgt. did NOT commit a crime. (That’s the ACTUAL law of war- not your browser version).
The Sgt. did NOT have the authority to question the “legality” of an order through his chain and countermand it in a combat situation- so any “respondent superior” would attach to the officer- not the Sgt.
There is no evidence whatsoever that these critical points were properly reviewed and proven or that the selected court had the jurisdiction to do so.
That’s the difference between those of us who know the subject and been there/ done it versus a REMF with a browser.
Oh ffs, you’re like a child that refuses to listen.
His commanders include Vladimir Putin who has stated emphatically that his soldiers are not at war. Including this murderer.
As for your shouting about officers giving orders, I refer you to the learned article I cited, which points out that the applicable laws are the Ukraine criminal code. I didn’t know you were such an expert in that, perhaps you could link to the part of that code which lets soldiers murder civilians.
Just that.. that’s the code he was found guilty under, and so I rather suspect the bit your argument relies on doesn’t exist.
As for “been there / done it” I doubt you’ve ever been to Ukraine, let alone murdered a civilian there. Do please stop pretending you’re somehow superior in analysing this when you can’t even find that it wasn’t prosecuted under the Geneva Convention, let alone the details of the court case.
‘An unarmed civilian… walking down the road on a cell phone is not a combatant’. Hold on. Are you offering proof that that this individual hasn’t, at any point in the conflict, participated in any action that would revoke his status and transform him into a combatant? This is the substance of your argument so let’s examine your claim as you offered it. As for not in uniform…sorry that doesn’t cut it; see every counter insurgency conflict or asymmetrical conflict.. since ever.
‘On the phone’. What was he discussing and with whom? Troop movements? Russian order of battle? A successful recon and probe of enemy TTP related to action by a lone ‘civilian’? Was he discussing real time local Intel with his unit or a group of partisans? Was he seeking to determine if any of the homemade IED he set out had been detonated or discovered?
There are any number of justifiable reasons to engage him. Perhaps the Russian forces had declared a local curfew or a simple local order to stay inside because they viewed any traffic as hostile? Perhaps the individual ventured inside of the Russian protective bubble radius? Shooting anyone venturing out in defiance of such orders is a highly successful way to enforce them. See Iraq.
All these are legitimate reasons to engage a target in a conflict. Warfare is brutal and inhumane. It’s not a video game, there ain’t any restarts or extra lives granted. It’s kill or be killed. The success of the military mission comes first followed by the lives of your men; A CDR must be willing to risk their lives but only to support achieving the military objectives. The lives of the enemy or perceived enemies is very far down the list of priorities. The perceptions of chairborn commentators with no relevant personal experience in land warfare ain’t on the list at all.
Real world to dovetail off of your statement re: cell phone and being a combatant for our resident Chairborne Stranger “expert”
A “combatant” isn’t defined just as someone shooting but anyone who is assisting the “enemy” in his objectives either directly or indirectly. (insurgents, resistance, civilians)
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the bad guys used cells ( with the GPS) to fine tune indirect fire and often deposit one there as a homing device which is why we confiscated them.
So by both law and established treaty, this guy could legitimately be viewed as “armed” with a cell (in the eyes of the Russians) and as such became a LEGITIMATE TARGET ( by treaty and law) as a threat to military operations thus nullifying both this kangaroo court and its findings.
This is why its best not to listen to media and internet “experts” but find out the actual FACTS first.
Those points were explored in the article to which I referred. Perhaps you and Taurus should head over to Ukraine and offer your services to his defence team, who have clearly failed to consider any of those points and didn’t realise that raising them in court would get their chap off entirely.
If only they’d known two random people in the US know Ukrainian law so much better than they do. Do be gentle when you get in touch with them, they’ll be embarrassed.
Diaper,
I have more than a passing familiarity with RoE, the military law and international treaties that underpin them. I don’t claim any particular expertise but I do have experience in following an RoE as a Soldier, explaining and enforcing an RoE as a combat leader and developing an RoE as part of a general staff.
If I can shoot holes in this ‘trial’ process with my limited knowledge then an Advocate versed in Military Law would absolutely shred this farce.
Imagine a UK Soldier now being tried in by a local govt for actions undertaken in time of conflict when civilian rules don’t exist. I would imagine a great many British Para’s would be aghast to find themselves in this scenario relative to N Ireland.
Are you proposing that the UK govt reevaluate every action undertaken by British Para’s according to civilian not military law? If not why not? How about the remaining British Veterans of pre independence India? Burma? Shanghai? How about British actions in China as a whole? Surely the interests of justice demand the return of all treasure and goods expropriated by the British to include claw back at interest to both China and India for the historical actions you find so disturbing?
The Falklands seems like a natural place to begin with parallels to the current conflict; disputed territory, violent actions. I’m sure the govt of Argentina would love to assist you.
“unity of Ukrainians and Poles is a constant that no one will break.”
Unless the Turks make a better offer. Or the Russians.
The history of the Cossacks is replete with alliances forming and breaking almost continuously among those 4 countries. And constant betrayal between the Cossack tribes. (Think the history of the Scots, but on horseback.)
Actually, the Banderite/Nazis of Azov hate Poles just as much, if not more, than they hate Russians.
More leftist supported political kabuki for the YouTube generation to build support for the Ukraine.
Lets dissect it to show the truth.
The claim that its “legal”- that’s at best true but misleading. There is no “law” ( that opens another can of worms as to which law and whose country signed it and all those arguments but for the sake of brevity this will be in general terms)- No “law” says that the Ukraine “cannot” have such a court or trial during combat so by literal definition, its not “illegal” so it defaults to “legal”
BUT then there’s #III Geneva Convention (1949), Articles 82-85 and 103-108.
Most specifically, the prisoner of War ( which the Sgt. is) is entitled to numerous things and the host country has to do/guarantee.
I have seen nothing in print anywhere showing the details of this trial, the POW’s defense, the specifics of the charge, evidence or verdict.
All I see written or spoken is hearsay propaganda.
The worst thing is that they have now opened the door for Russia to hold “war crimes trials” under the same circumstances so they best not whine when their own are subjected to the same.
Yeah. The timing by Ukraine govt for a show trial is bad. The Russians have something just under 2,000 members of the AZOV Brigade who surrendered. This seems like an incredibly provocative action that may place those guys in jeopardy. Unless, maybe the Ukrainian govt wants the Russians to get rid of their NAZI problem for them?
Makes me wonder if Ivan secretly didn’t want this kangaroo trial to go like it did so it could be used as justification for future trials of their own.
As long as Poland doesn’t charge Russian Armor on horses.
Bondarev better stay away from umbrellas.
This former diplomat should, seriously, avoid interior windows 2nd floor and above; always bring his own food or drink; and probably get a portable Geiger counter.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/08/criminal_code_0.pdf
There’s the actual translated Ukrainian Criminal code.
The only applicable section relating to prosecution of a POW ( not a foreign national because the Sgt. was a UNIFORMED soldier- not an individual) is this:
Article 438. Violation of rules of the warfare
1. Cruel treatment of prisoners of war or civilians, deportation of civilian population for forced labor, pillage of national
treasures on occupied territories, use of methods of the warfare prohibited by international instruments, or any other violations
of rules of the warfare recognized by international instruments consented to by binding by the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of
Ukraine, and also giving an order to commit any such actions, –
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of eight to twelve years.
2. The same acts accompanied with a murder, –
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of ten to fifteen years, or life imprisonment.
To help our resident REMF understand that which eludes him, lets take this from the top. The problems with this are both huge and immediate.
That “law’ addressing a person who is either a Ukrainian citizen or operating under color of UK law- the language does NOT address actions committed by an OPPOSING ENEMY in a time of war. ( a uniformed combatant)
The closest thing to a blanket statement can be found in this:
Article 6. The operation of the law on criminal liability in regard to offences committed on the territory of
Ukraine
1. Any person who has committed an offense on the territory of Ukraine shall be criminally liable under this Code.
2. An offense shall be deemed to have been committed on the territory of Ukraine if it has been initiated, continued, completed
or discontinued on the territory of Ukraine.
3. An offense shall be deemed to have been committed on the territory of Ukraine if the principal to such offense, or at least
one of the accomplices, has acted on the territory of Ukraine.
4. Where a diplomatic agent of a foreign state or another citizen who, under the laws of Ukraine or international treaties the
consent to the binding effect of which has been granted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, is not criminally cognizable by a
Ukrainian court commits an offense on the territory of Ukraine, the issue of his criminal liability shall be settled diplomatically.
……..
A UNIFORMED SOLDIER under FLAG ( and in war even) does not directly fall into any category covered under UK law as written as shown above. (Terms like “person”, national are individuals, “agents” are those operating under color of a country but soldiers are soldiers and a recognized separate and unequal entity universally)
One thing not in dispute is that this Sgt. is a POW (another special class recognized universally) and by the letter of their own law, this does NOT allow them to try a POW for WAR CRIMES. ( which is what they are alleging this crime is because only a “war crime” can be considered a CRIMINAL act during execution of military operations in a time of war)
This is invalid under color of UK’s own law as written ( read it for yourself) and this is without even hearing the full charges/specifications or the evidence/defense presented.
Yes this was an illegitimate verdict by a kangaroo court lacking proper venue and jurisdiction for this alleged crime.
Ever seen the cartoon of a bloody chessboard covered with dead pieces, while the black king and white king are enjoying a gourmet meal together at a nearby table?
That’s what this “war” in the Ukraine is starting to remind me of.