Not only do they recommend more, and better weapons, but the isolation of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and a “dedicated war crimes court”.
What do we do with Putin when the war is over? How, given the realities, can Putin actually face sanction? He won’t turn himself into the Hague. We can’t walk into Russia and arrest him. I think a dedicated panel could help answer these questions.
From the article:
“In addition to immediate help for Ukraine, they also pushed the U.S. to back a dedicated war crimes court to prosecute the invasion’s human-rights abuses.
Ms. Matviichuk said such a body is needed because current accountability mechanisms do not have the ability to charge Mr. Putin with the central offence of starting the war. An international tribunal would also bring the resources necessary to deal with the enormous amount of evidence.”
Well, if the **peace** prize people are saying more weapons…
SEND MORE WEAPONS!
Now.
To be fair, I say that too.
I’d say send more even if they dont need them to win the war. Better equipment means less Ukrainians lost.
r/nottheonion?
More anti drone shorad AA. More patriot level lorad. More drones. More air power. More long range missiles. More demining vehicles.
Will definitely win but more weapons would make it quicker.
While I whole heartedly agree, more weapons and faster, it’s easier said than done. The US and NATO have to keep enough at home to defend themselves and have to keep a little extra if China decides to invade Taiwan. While I don’t think China would at the moment after seeing how poorly it’s gone for Russia to face off against the west. On the other hand I didn’t think Putin was dumb enough to go full regard and invade Ukraine.
Wonder how the US “policy makers” and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reacted to this statement:
>He compared the **West’s record of inaction to U.S. pop culture’s most famous touchstone of learned helplessness: Homer Simpson**.
>
>“Some say that it might prevent negotiations, it might prevent the accomplishment of peace. Here, **I remember a great American philosopher, Homer Simpson, who said: ‘the first attempt is the first step toward failure,’”** Mr. Cherkasov said. “I very much hope the international community is not going to follow the teachings of this philosopher.”
9 comments
Not only do they recommend more, and better weapons, but the isolation of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and a “dedicated war crimes court”.
What do we do with Putin when the war is over? How, given the realities, can Putin actually face sanction? He won’t turn himself into the Hague. We can’t walk into Russia and arrest him. I think a dedicated panel could help answer these questions.
From the article:
“In addition to immediate help for Ukraine, they also pushed the U.S. to back a dedicated war crimes court to prosecute the invasion’s human-rights abuses.
Ms. Matviichuk said such a body is needed because current accountability mechanisms do not have the ability to charge Mr. Putin with the central offence of starting the war. An international tribunal would also bring the resources necessary to deal with the enormous amount of evidence.”
Well, if the **peace** prize people are saying more weapons…
SEND MORE WEAPONS!
Now.
To be fair, I say that too.
I’d say send more even if they dont need them to win the war. Better equipment means less Ukrainians lost.
r/nottheonion?
More anti drone shorad AA. More patriot level lorad. More drones. More air power. More long range missiles. More demining vehicles.
Will definitely win but more weapons would make it quicker.
While I whole heartedly agree, more weapons and faster, it’s easier said than done. The US and NATO have to keep enough at home to defend themselves and have to keep a little extra if China decides to invade Taiwan. While I don’t think China would at the moment after seeing how poorly it’s gone for Russia to face off against the west. On the other hand I didn’t think Putin was dumb enough to go full regard and invade Ukraine.
Wonder how the US “policy makers” and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reacted to this statement:
>He compared the **West’s record of inaction to U.S. pop culture’s most famous touchstone of learned helplessness: Homer Simpson**.
>
>“Some say that it might prevent negotiations, it might prevent the accomplishment of peace. Here, **I remember a great American philosopher, Homer Simpson, who said: ‘the first attempt is the first step toward failure,’”** Mr. Cherkasov said. “I very much hope the international community is not going to follow the teachings of this philosopher.”