What right will we have to criticize Putin if he kills Ukrainian president Zelenskyy?

[tuban_muzuru@ohai.social]

@randahl

I hesitate to be Reply Guy - but GRU has made dozens of attempts on his life.

[paulk@writing.exchange]

@randahl My country (Netherlands) is almost as guilty in this illegal war as 'we' send a warship to protect the (real) agressors.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@randahl

2 things

1. that also means we can kill putin

2. there's all sorts of countries, some obeying international law, some not. that the usa turned into a vile criminal country doesn't mean the law abiding ones should be impressed. also, russia was already not one of the law abiding countries, and never felt limits

it has already tried to kill zelensky a number of times

there's a wikipedia page for it:

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

conservative estimates are 2-3 tries. up to ~12 tries

[tuban_muzuru@ohai.social]

@paulk @randahl

The more interesting question is whether norms matter even when enforcement is weak. And the answer is probably yes, slowly, imperfectly, over decades. Which is cold comfort in the present tense.

[not2b@sfba.social]

@randahl Those of us who consistently oppose political assassination and wars of choice have every right. Russia's attack on Ukraine was wrong; Israel and the US's attack on Iran is wrong.

[tuban_muzuru@ohai.social]

@Lats @randahl

Putin is a rodent hiding in his burrows, 50 meters deep. He will be dragged out, squealing, by the next set of autocrats.

They will do terrible things to his body.

[caman@connectop.us]

@randahl The problem with the concept of “international law” is that it’s always been voluntary. The closest the world has ever come to enforceable international law was the First International Peace Conference at The Hague. Participant nations were willing to limit things like dum dum bullets, but when it came to real armament limitations and agreeing to binding arbitration in place of war, the “great nations,” namely the US, UK, France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary refused to consider such a notion. Russia, whose Tsar, had initiated the conference, was the only major power to promote binding arbitration as a concept. Neither the League of Nations, nor the United Nations has ever attempted to force nations to avoid war. THIS is why Ukraine is in the mess it’s in right now. THIS is why we have a rogue American president invading countries at will.

[paulwermer@sfba.social]

@randahl exactly this.

[shuro@friends.deko.cloud]

@randahl to be honest it won't matter much (or vice versa) in context of the war already happening.

National leaders are chiefs of command of their respective armed forces and thus expected and high-value targets just as other military personnel. Trump himself isn't an exception. They are not noncombatants.

Wars themselves are the problem. Or how certain nations feel free to use force abroad (which eventually causes wars).

[billmcguire@mastodon.social]

@randahl

exactly right. and trump's pal Putin was giving Iran all the info about where to hit our military bases in our friendly Gulf states. Geesh. trump can't buy a clue.

[giliell@mastodon.social]

@randahl Rules are very important and other people really need to follow them, but since they're currently inconvenient to what I want I get an exception.

[giliell@mastodon.social]

@Lats @randahl Why should he? The orange dictator loves him

[waldschnecke@chaos.social]

@randahl I lost track as when we stopped holding Politicians responsible for their actions or failings. To an extend in some countries this still seems to be the case, but under the line it's a very disappointing result.
After all; these people are supposed to represent what the majority wants or at least agrees to (to an extend).
In my brain, just arond covid things started to go sideways very fast, very extreme - but I may just have been to occupied with myself before that...

[gonzo_askold@mastodon.social]

@randahl angry but friendly phone calls

[elcelio@mastodon.uno]

@randahl as if putin needs any justification to kill Zelensky.

This line of reasoning is dangerous.

[valguard@ohai.social]

@randahl International law is a set of rules and regulations created by great powers and works only if it's enforced by great powers. The problem starts when great powers leaders are dictators, then international law exist on paper, but no one to enforce. This is the time we are living in.

[nilsmielke@det.social]

@randahl …or Trump.

[bubi352@mstdn.social]

@randahl with "we" you mean us citizens, I guess? Everything else is just whataboutism. And "legal standpoint" isn't a real thing internationally, who would enforce it?

[bubi352@mstdn.social]

@BillMcGuire @randahl trump doesn't care. He wears his merch at grievings of soldiers that were killed because of him.

[exxo@nrw.social]

@randahl You mean like preventing Putin from killing Nawalny?

To be clear: international law would be great, but right now it's dead. And game theory teaches us that it's not advantageous to be the only one sticking to it. It's just disappointing.