World war 3....

And yet all legal opinion is that they have acted legally.

BTW Which article of protocol of the Act do you believe they have broken?

 

@bantamlad92

here are the articles covered by the act you quoted. The discrimination part has to be attached to restrictions on one of these. So which one do you think Wimbledon has broken?

Right to Life

Freedom from torture and degrading treatment

Freedom from slavery

Right to liberty

Right to a fair trial

No punishment without law

Respect for private and family life

Freedom of thought, belief, religion

Freedom of expression

Freedom of assembly

Right to marry and start a family

 

Sorry your racist stance towards Russia is abhorrent.

 

I’ll take that as a you can not actually say which law they have broken

 

Just like he can't say which of Putin's demands are reasonable.

 

Russia has illegally invaded another sovereign country, is systematically targeting and slaughtering its civilian population and causing millions to flee. The war in Ukraine is a battle between an autocratic totalitarian dictatorship and the right of independent democratic governments to make their own choices.
It's not 'racist' against Russians to oppose Putin's actions any more than opposing Hitler's Germany was racist against Germans.

Yes, it's unfortunate that individual Russian sportspeople are caught in the recriminations from this conflict. But Russia has for decades systematically used its sports stars to bolster its international reputation and prestige, even going as far as state financed drug programmes to enhance performance and gain more medals. Refusing to allow Russian tennis players to play at Wimbledon is part of a broad strategy to isolate Russia from all cultural and sporting activities. It's not racist or discriminatory against those individuals - it's a targeted strategy to make Russia feel the consequences of its illegal and unwarranted actions in Ukraine.

 

So come on then - give me some links to what you consider reliable sources of information. I'm very keen to understand where you get your opinion-forming narratives from.

 

Not sure why you're calling people 'thick', when consultations are ongoing at pretty dramatic levels as to the legality of the situation.

Declaring these actions definitely illegal is a bit 'thick', whereas waiting to see and not being certain is the correct interpretation.

It's a bit more complex than just googling human rights, noting the bit about nationality, and then deciding it's clear cut.

Until it's been thrashed out in court, it's not clear cut.

 

In case you haven’t yet realised, our state has censored the reporting of literally anything pro-Russia during this military operation. The state only backs those it has political / economical interest in, hence turning the blind eye to innocent civilian killings committed by governments of Arab countries for example.

The Ukrainians have had lord knows how many years to prepare for battle with Russia (since 2014 and possibly beyond) yet only try to join NATO at the 11th hour.

Putin is always one step ahead of Zelensky and the vast majority of world leaders. Russia’s economy is going to absolutely boom (once the west have stupidly severed links with them and put themselves and all of us in the shit) when they become self reliant and build back better (ha) with China.

It only takes a few killings of his own people for Putin to step in with a special military operation to prevent further genocide of his own people and Ukraine is crying to the world for something they brought on themselves. The western world has become very soft mentally, easily offended by anything and as such this is such a shock horror to idiots when there are constantly wars going on around the world but I again revert to censorship by the state.

I would also suggest there’s an undercurrent of sympathy for Ukraine over other countries because they’re white, and perhaps the fact it’s not us killing civilians for a change.

This is absolutely no different to the UK or USA conducting military operations in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan et al, which have all resulted in civilian casualties due to internal terrorism.

It’s double standards. I could go on with this forever but quite frankly I don’t have the time nor the will to debate with blinkered folk.

 

Yes, can't wait for Russia to drop nukes because a couple of tennis players were banned from a tournament.

 

I'd say the invasion of a fellow sovereign country is a bigger worry, maybe stopping these innocent sports people may get reported and the Russian people start to realise they are being sold a pup by Putin.

 

"Special military operation" - it's not a special military operation, it's a full scale invasion of a sovereign independent country FFS. Using Putin's own weasel words does you no favours.

"Killing his own people". You mean the separatists Putin emboldened by his illegal annexation of Crimea, rigged referenda etc. There has been fighting in Donbas since 2014 since Putin encouraged Russian separatists to break away. But he has used lies about genocide - fact checked and dismissed for lack of evidence many times - as an excuse to pursue his dreams of recreating the lost Soviet empire. He simply cannot accept that the former satellite Soviet states are independent countries that have no wish to 'return to the fold". He denies the reality of Ukraine as a separate country, believing it to be simply a region of Russia. Ukraine wants to be a modern western European nation and Putin can't accept that - but it isn't his choice to make, it's Ukraine's.

"Brought on themselves". No they didn't. That viewpoint only works if you accept Putin's logic that Ukraine has no right to choose its own destiny, its own political system and its own alliances. Ukraine has not threatened to invade Russia, has it? The only reason it wants to join NATO is because it is constantly under threat from its belligerent larger neighbour. If Russia hadn't annexed Crimea and made its desire to return Ukraine to the Russian 'motherland' perfectly obvious there would have been no need for Ukraine to seek the protection of NATO

Your crowing about Putin being one step ahead marks you out as a Putin apologist. Yes of course the west is restricting pro- Russian views. I'm not an idiot, I know that full well. But, restricted or not, nothing alters the simple fact that Russia has invaded another country in an attempt to deny the democratic choice of that country to become a western democracy. Russia also had the choice to take that path after the fall of the Soviet Union. Had it done so there would no longer be a need for NATO. But it didn't. It retreated into its centuries-old insular, despotic ways and missed it's opportunity to join the modern world. Putin is a nostalgist for a lost Russian empire and his obsession with recreating it is what has caused this unnecessary warfare.

I agree that there is a degree of hypocrisy in the west, which has plenty of blood on its hands. But Putin cannot be allowed to get away with this invasion. If he does then where next? The Baltic States? Poland? Czech Republic? It's clear that he has never accepted their independence and would get them back if given a chance.

There is a difference between Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc and what is happening in Ukraine. Regardless of the rights or (mostly) wrongs of those campaigns they did not primarily set out to slaughter large numbers of the civilian populations. There were undoubtedly far too many civilian deaths but they were not the primary purpose. By contrast, what Putin is now doing is the systematic wide scale destruction of civilian areas with no regard whatsoever for the scale of civilian deaths. Just as he did in Aleppo, it is a deliberate scorched earth policy designed to kill indiscriminately and terrorise the civilian population of Ukraine into surrender. If you can't understand the distinction between the two then I can't help you. Of course there is media bias but the sheer scale of destruction and civilian deaths goes far beyond anything that can be explained away by bias or Ukranian subterfuge. Nothing that Ukraine has done or not done can justify the destruction and war crimes that we are seeing

I'm still keen to learn which of Putin's demands you believe to be reasonable and which sources of information can give a more nuanced view of the situation. I'm happy to give the Russian viewpoint a fair airing as long as it's not simply a reiteration of the belief that Ukraine really belongs to Russia and that belief alone justifies the invasion.

 

The thing is there's an element of truth in there about the control of information - which is a concern to me.

However when you take that stance and then jump straight into the depths of Russian propaganda is makes the point worthless. You can't warn of the dangers of one sided misinformation on one side and then simply parrot the one sided information that is coming from the other.

And you make a fair point about the operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan too. I wish the politicians involved in starting those conflicts had been seen in the Hauge at some point. But that is where you tie yourself in nots again - you can't condemn those actions but say that Russia is well within their rights to cross into Ukraine and annex part of their legal territory. Now that's double standards!

 

Another top post from you in this thread. You have completely tied poor bantamlad92 in knots now

 

Supermarkets are now restricting purchases of cooking oil

 

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. Is this in the correct thread?

 

Yep. Due to production issues caused by the Russian invasion

 

Ah, that makes sense.

Use light olive oil instead. It's better for you.

 

The wording you are looking for is "Non Aligned" not western powers, The three countries that guaranteed Ukraines independence UK, USA and Russia on the basis that it would not become any nearer to the Russian Federation ( wanted by the USA and UK ) and not come closer to the west joining western collaborations ( Wanted by Russia ) One of the reasons for the war was the election of Zelenskyy in 2019 who declared an ambition to join NATO and the EU which would break the non aligned clause which Russia warned could lead to conflict but was ignored

 

But the Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994. So Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its encouragement of dissident separatists in Donbas had already blown a massive hole in the agreement. Having seen that Russia had already broken its side of the agreement, why should Ukraine have felt obliged to stick to its own previous promise of neutrality, when that had already failed to protect it from Putin's territorial ambitions? Who can blame Ukraine for seeking the protection of NATO when the supposed guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum had failed dismally to protect them?
Russia wanted to have its cake and eat it - to claim Ukraine was breaking it's neutrality promise whilst breaking it's own obligations to respect Ukrainian territorial integrity.

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up-178184