Oka, this article is weird for multiple reasons (like comments on Putin’s fashion choices), the most egregious part for me is the end:
Unlike Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, who frequently visits the front line, Putin has largely avoided combat zones over the past three years.
Yeah, I wonder why. One reason for this is probably the fact that the combat zones Zelenskyy visited were Ukrainian, not Russian (I am honestly surprised he hasn’t been shot at yet by the Russian armed forces).
Also, doesn’t this direct attack give Russia the ability to go “scorched earth”? I do not want them to but, international law-wise, does this not count for anything? I know international law means nothing as it is only applied to certain countries and actors, but even so I would like to know.
There would be no benefit for Russia from taking out Zelensky, he’d just be replaced by another puppet. I expect Russia isn’t going to substantially change what they’re doing as a result of this, but they will use it to highlight to their allies what they’re dealing with here.
Also, doesn’t this direct attack give Russia the ability to go “scorched earth”? I do not want them to but, international law-wise, does this not count for anything?
In this situation it’s going to be more about diplomacy and international views than international law. Like, notice this was apparently happening around the prison swap and before that much-vaunted Russian escalation via drones? Meaning the last few days of news about how Russia attacked even while negotiating towards peace are bupkis; the effect is going to be to minimize the level of acceptable retaliation by tricking people into thinking there’s nothing to retaliate against.
Oka, this article is weird for multiple reasons (like comments on Putin’s fashion choices), the most egregious part for me is the end:
Yeah, I wonder why. One reason for this is probably the fact that the combat zones Zelenskyy visited were Ukrainian, not Russian (I am honestly surprised he hasn’t been shot at yet by the Russian armed forces).
Also, doesn’t this direct attack give Russia the ability to go “scorched earth”? I do not want them to but, international law-wise, does this not count for anything? I know international law means nothing as it is only applied to certain countries and actors, but even so I would like to know.
Here is the archive link: https://archive.ph/FuwM7
There would be no benefit for Russia from taking out Zelensky, he’d just be replaced by another puppet. I expect Russia isn’t going to substantially change what they’re doing as a result of this, but they will use it to highlight to their allies what they’re dealing with here.
In this situation it’s going to be more about diplomacy and international views than international law. Like, notice this was apparently happening around the prison swap and before that much-vaunted Russian escalation via drones? Meaning the last few days of news about how Russia attacked even while negotiating towards peace are bupkis; the effect is going to be to minimize the level of acceptable retaliation by tricking people into thinking there’s nothing to retaliate against.