How should west respond to Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[barbos]

Speaking of Iran, I used to think that their regime was islamist while population was much less religious.
Whereas SA the ruling family was not really religious while population was much more religious.
Now I think Iranian regime is not as religious as the western media tries to portray.
Basically the same level as any other government which never shy from using religion as a tool, nothing more.
But population in Iran is not that religious.

 

[Tigers!]

Fiber-optic drones more expensive than radio-link ones. But they provide high resolution jam-free picture for hunting military targets on the battlefield.
Only deranged idiot would believe they make good tool for terrorizing civilians. Russia can terrorize civilians less expensively just fine. But we don't terrorize civilians, ukrainian army does.

The problem is one of metrics. Russian drones are supposed to kill Ukranian troops, but they are hard to find. Civilians are much easier to find. Thus you get drone operators hitting civilians in order to look good to command.

More telling is the kid's response: look for the guideline, count to 15.

Entirely sensible battlefield instructions--given to a civilian. You don't train civilians in how to deal with military threats unless you expect them to face such threats. An untrained civilian might very well recognize to go for the guideline, but a count of 15 for a safety parameter is training.

Wow, what a bullshit.
And what part of "story is a complete fiction" you do not not understand?
You are fucking clueless, more clueless the the rest of the usual suspects here.

It's probably time for your afternoon nap.

 

[barbos]

Fiber-optic drones more expensive than radio-link ones. But they provide high resolution jam-free picture for hunting military targets on the battlefield.
Only deranged idiot would believe they make good tool for terrorizing civilians. Russia can terrorize civilians less expensively just fine. But we don't terrorize civilians, ukrainian army does.

The problem is one of metrics. Russian drones are supposed to kill Ukranian troops, but they are hard to find. Civilians are much easier to find. Thus you get drone operators hitting civilians in order to look good to command.

More telling is the kid's response: look for the guideline, count to 15.

Entirely sensible battlefield instructions--given to a civilian. You don't train civilians in how to deal with military threats unless you expect them to face such threats. An untrained civilian might very well recognize to go for the guideline, but a count of 15 for a safety parameter is training.

Wow, what a bullshit.
And what part of "story is a complete fiction" you do not not understand?
You are fucking clueless, more clueless the the rest of the usual suspects here.

It's probably time for your afternoon nap.

A firm believer into ukrainian babushkas destroying russian drones with pickle jars detected.

 

[Tigers!]

Fiber-optic drones more expensive than radio-link ones. But they provide high resolution jam-free picture for hunting military targets on the battlefield.
Only deranged idiot would believe they make good tool for terrorizing civilians. Russia can terrorize civilians less expensively just fine. But we don't terrorize civilians, ukrainian army does.

The problem is one of metrics. Russian drones are supposed to kill Ukranian troops, but they are hard to find. Civilians are much easier to find. Thus you get drone operators hitting civilians in order to look good to command.

More telling is the kid's response: look for the guideline, count to 15.

Entirely sensible battlefield instructions--given to a civilian. You don't train civilians in how to deal with military threats unless you expect them to face such threats. An untrained civilian might very well recognize to go for the guideline, but a count of 15 for a safety parameter is training.

Wow, what a bullshit.
And what part of "story is a complete fiction" you do not not understand?
You are fucking clueless, more clueless the the rest of the usual suspects here.

It's probably time for your afternoon nap.

A firm believer into ukrainian babushkas destroying russian drones with pickle jars detected.

A direct hit from a pickle jar would bring down a quadcopter or a little bigger drone.
My maternal babushka was a very good shot with almost anything. 6 children and > 30 grandkids sharpened her aim.

 

[barbos]

My maternal babushka was a very good shot with almost anything

Including your skull apparenlty.
Problem solved, ukrainian T-TS-Ka should start rounding up babushkas and sending them to the front line.

 

[Tigers!]

My maternal babushka was a very good shot with almost anything

Including your skull apparenlty.

Shh. Keep it just between ourselves.

 

[Arctish]

One of your problems is that you don't understand international law. According to the UN charter, a state may use force only when authorized by UN security council or in self-defense against an armed attack. There was no Ukrainian attack on Russian land. Just as Israel was not part of the US and Crimea was not part of Russia, neither attack was legal.

Disagree on Iran. It is standardly accepted that a country may join a war against a friend even in the absence of a defense treaty.

When did Israel declared war on Iran?

When did Iran declare war on Israel?

Wars are generally not declared these days.

Israel hit Hezbollah targets, killed some Iranian guy. Iran attacked Israel. That's a de-facto war.

The UN Charter clearly states that member States may not threaten or use force against other States, or act in ways that subvert the purpose of the UN. It doesn't make exceptions for tit-for-tat strikes or for third parties to get involved in "de-facto" wars.

Member States can only act in self-defense or with the authorization of the UN.

 

[barbos]

One of your problems is that you don't understand international law. According to the UN charter, a state may use force only when authorized by UN security council or in self-defense against an armed attack. There was no Ukrainian attack on Russian land. Just as Israel was not part of the US and Crimea was not part of Russia, neither attack was legal.

Disagree on Iran. It is standardly accepted that a country may join a war against a friend even in the absence of a defense treaty.

When did Israel declared war on Iran?

When did Iran declare war on Israel?

Wars are generally not declared these days.

Israel hit Hezbollah targets, killed some Iranian guy. Iran attacked Israel. That's a de-facto war.

The UN Charter clearly states that member States may not threaten or use force against other States, or act in ways that subvert the purpose of the UN. It doesn't make exceptions for tit-for-tat strikes or for third parties to get involved in "de-facto" wars.

Member States can only act in self-defense or with the authorization of the UN.

Since when did it stop USA?