>

As if anyone would do anything for environment damage.
I wonder how much radioactive dust they kicked up at Chernobyl alone. >

That was wild. 
A bunch of Russians digging trenches in the exclusion zone because they didn't learn about Chernobyl in school and probably missed the HBO miniseries, then they all had to go to Belarus for treatment a few weeks later. >

The platoon Sergeant judging the soldiers’ hasty position: not great, not terrible. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)


Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said on Monday that Russia violated an article of the 1949 Geneva Conventions by causing around $35 billion in environmental damage in Ukraine amid its ongoing war.
"The damage to the ecology caused by Russia is estimated at $35.3 billion. Millions of hectares of nature preserves are under threat. Article 55 of the Protocol I prohibits waging war VS the natural environment by way of reprisals, but Russia doesn't care," he tweeted.
"Article 55 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, titled Protection of the Natural Environment, reads as follows:"Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: environment^#1 Ukrainian^#2 Ukraine^#3 Russia^#4 Convention^#5 >

Nice it’s my cake day >

Fuck it, I’m feeling nice. Have a silver. >

OK.... take a breath..... russia gives zero shits about anything "Geneva Convention" related.  It is obvious to all that russia threw that book in the trash can when they invaded a sovereign country. >

None of the actual world powers give a fuck about Geneva convention. >

Are you low-key accusing EU of not giving a fuck about Geneva convention? Because I have news for you. EU is a world power, a peaceful one right now, but you wouldn't want to mess with them if you aren't USA. And we give a fuck about human rights, ecology etc. Perhaps more than anyone right now. >

EU can't even defend themselves without the US. World power my ass. >

I dunno,  seems their weapons are holding up just fine in Ukraine, and since the EU is helping Ukraine.... and Ukraine is winning against Russia... I wouldnt be so quick to discount the EU.  Yes US is supporting also however the EU is also filled with US weapons and tactics... >

Don't be delusional.
Were it not for the US, this war would have been over last year. >

Euros mad that up until Putin set foot in Ukraine, France and the many EU nations where sending weapons and money to Russia even after the invasion back in 2014. 
The UK, Turkey, Poland and the US are 90% of the reason why Ukraine even stood a chance against Russia. Europe would have capitulated and returned to business as usual if Russia actually managed to invade and conquer Ukraine in its original timeframe. 
All this posturing means shit when Germany couldn’t even export the ammunition for its Gepards because Switzerland was blocking it. >

Some EU fanbois puffing their chests like they can do it without US. Lol
Remind me how many operating bases US has around EU and why every tiny EU nation is dying to join nato? Right, it’s not because they think French will protect them. >

I know they aren't worried about this and other environmental and legal considerations at the moment but I am sure they will be in the future. >

I don’t know why they would >

If western countries use this as the basis to release seized Russian assets to Ukraine, then yeah, Russia would probably care.
IIRC this is why Russia wanted leverage for a peace deal that lets them retain territory, as they can also include terms to attempt to place limits on their liability. >

Mmm that makes sense, thanks. >

Russians might have an opinion on it when they're forced to pay reparations for the next 100 years. Not sure, because it seems they're either way happy with being serfs forever. Putin doesn't care because he'll be dust soon enough. >

Hopefully that isnt what happens. Historically forcing a nation to pay reparations for that long causes worse problems. >

I thought those were "suggestions" since no one else seems to follow them >

I mean, I am all ok for being against war crimes, but... where is one supposed to fight one ? (Pro tip: you shouldn't) can't bomb cities because civilians, can't bomb the outskirts because environment, can't kill anyone, what is supposed to be done in a "right" war? What the US with all of NATO did for years in the ME (lol)? Or what? Once it starts as I see it you have 2 option: scare the other into submission out with all you have got or obliterate everyone and occupy the territory or claim it back (based on the side you are in)... can't see any other way out to end one...
I guess you are supposed to play rock paper scissor lizard to decide who gets what territory?
Note from the author: please avoid war at all costs everyone loses >

Alr but who actually listens to the Geneva convention? >

Their early work was a little too New Wave for my tastes. >

They were cool until they got rid of the first singer. >

Didn’t George W. Bush and company violate some things when they lied US into the Iraq war? Nothing ever happened to them. >

Not really. Frowned upon but I highly doubt really illegal >

Like they care, or any country for that matter. >

Are they using depleted uranium rounds? >

Putin claimed he would cut down every tree in Ukraine after his conquest. Add eco terrorist to his war criminal resume. >

At what point does the number of war crimes result in losing your permanent seat on the UN Security Council? >

At least they fertilized Ukrainian soil with 107K corpses.... >

Oh look, it's the least of Russia's countless crimes. >

Russians wipe their asses with useless stuff like Geneva convention docs. The anger here is hilarious.  Ya'll still don't get it. Russians are fucking animals.  Everything Patton said about them was proven true decades ago. This is just them trying to keep the conversation relevant.  Lol..