Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[Paul2]

General Assembly HAVE the right to enforce a resolution if they were passed by 2/3.

Or how do you think China replace Taiwan in Security Council back in 1970?

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Article 18 of UN Charter

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IV: The General Assembly

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IV: The General Assembly

web.archive.org

Article 18​

1. Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1 (c) of Article 86, the admission of new Members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.
3. Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

They can literally kick Russia out of UN if they passed the resolution by 2/3...

Could've been done in 2008, but now.

Only a blind not sees that a lot of countries bet not on russia winning, but on the West getting weaker coming out of this.

For as long as the 3rd world sees any chance to exploit this as a springboard, 2/3 majority is unachievable.

 

[jhungary]

Could've been done in 2008, but now.

Only a blind not sees that a lot of countries bet not on russia winning, but on the West getting weaker coming out of this.

For as long as the 3rd world sees any chance to exploit this as a springboard, 2/3 majority is unachievable.

Still 143 to 5. Let's say 1/3 of those 3rd world changes their mind you still have around 90, I like those odd.

 

[Hack-Hook]

but he cannot carry more than 4 missiles, reports of 5 and 7 targets per mission are only possible if they used a gun to shoot them down.

well it have 7 hardpoint and one cannon , let say the one on the body can't carry missile and is used for fuel tanks it can carry up to 6x r-77 (doubt they are compatible with Ukrainian Mig-29s) or more likely 4x-r-73 and 2x R-27

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Ukrainian took out 4 KA-52 attack helicopter in just 18 minutes

Ukraines Air Force confirms theres photo and video evidence of shooting down of 4 Ka-52 helicopters on Wednesday

UKRAINSKA PRAVDA - WEDNESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2022, 18:40 There is photo and video evidence to confirm the shooting down of 4 Russian Ka-52 combat helicopters. Sources: Yurii Ihnat, the spokesman for Air Force Command, on air during the national 24/7 newscast, on October 12 Quote: "18 minutes is the...

www.yahoo.com

 

[jhungary]

Ukraine war latest: Ukraine joining Nato 'would guarantee World War Three', says Russia

Ukraine joining Nato would mean "a guaranteed escalation" to a third world war, the deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council has said.

www.telegraph.co.uk

So let me get this straight.

Ukraine cannot join NATO, or gurantee WW3.
Ukraine cannot retake Russian Annexed territories, or guarantee WW3
Ukraine cannot even attack Russian in Annexed Territories or guarantee WW3.
The West even cannot support Ukraine or guarantee WW3

On the other hand

Russia can take any Ukrainian land and annex them.
Russia can attack any target, anywhere in Ukraine.
Russian can force conscript any Ukrainian to fight in Ukraine.
Russian can support any group in Ukraine as long as those group work for Russian interest.

Why not just ask Zelenskyy to sign over the entire Ukraine to Russia lol.

 

[Hack-Hook]

General Assembly HAVE the right to enforce a resolution if they were passed by 2/3.

Or how do you think China replace Taiwan in Security Council back in 1970?

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Article 18 of UN Charter

that was not a vote by 2/3rd but it become a vote by majority
as un members decided its not important enough to be a vote by 2/3rd and rejected USA proposal

by the way let look at the un charter

Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice/Charter of the United Nations - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

more exactly at article 6

Article 6​

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

what happened to Taiwan is not applicable here in that they didn't throw out a member they gave its sit to another group that they believed represent the land and country better , now go and try get that recommendation about Russia from UNSC if you can

in short article 18 you quote only become to effect if article 6 come to effect first

 

[Enigma SIG]

How do you know when someone are losing?

When they start building ww2 style trench lines:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580192286348279809

What you on about?

Ukraine doing the same:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/y26981

 

[Hack-Hook]

Could've been done in 2008, but now.

Only a blind not sees that a lot of countries bet not on russia winning, but on the West getting weaker coming out of this.

For as long as the 3rd world sees any chance to exploit this as a springboard, 2/3 majority is unachievable.

could not have been don in 2008 , 1993 or 1951 and never been done ever and never will be done until there is veto power in UNSC

Still 143 to 5. Let's say 1/3 of those 3rd world changes their mind you still have around 90, I like those odd.

even if it be 175 to 1 can't be done until you solve your problem with article 6 . general assembly can't discuss expulsion of a member from UN without recommendation of UNSC and UNSC have no authority to throw anyone out they had to refer it to general assembly

 

[jhungary]

that was not a vote by 2/3rd but it become a vote by majority
as un members decided its not important enough to be a vote by 2/3rd and rejected USA proposal

by the way let look at the un charter

Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice/Charter of the United Nations - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

more exactly at article 6


what happened to Taiwan is not applicable here in that they didn't throw out a member they gave its sit to another group that they believed represent the land and country better , now go and try get that recommendation about Russia from UNSC if you can

in short article 18 you quote only become to effect if article 6 come to effect first

You don't need a UNSC resolution, you only need a UNSC recommendation, which according to Article 27, chapter 5,

Chapter V: Article 27 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications

This is the website of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs (Legal Publications of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs). Here you will find related information and links.

legal.un.org

“1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”

There are no veto on procedural matters, as long as you get 9/15 (again, 2/3) of the vote, it will be recommended.

On the other hand, you are wrong about the Taiwan Issue were not declared an "important issue" Because United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 was passed by 61 to 34 and declare it "important enough" for any thereafter Chinese issue to have been passed by 2/3 of the majority (which US still lose in the end).

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 (XVI) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bear in mind ROC WAS in the UN security council, if they can apply Veto to the article as you had suggested with Russia, would ROC be removed from the UNSC and got kicked out of UN to begin with (ROC are no longer a member of UN)?? Given even if you disallow Taiwan from vetoing their own issue as per article 27, US will still use their veto power.

Again, if they can do it to Taiwan, they can do it to Russia.

 

[Hack-Hook]

You don't need a UNSC resolution, you only need a UNSC recommendation, which according to Article 27, chapter 5,

"“ Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.”"

There are no veto on procedural matters, as long as you get 9/15 (again, 2/3) of the vote, it will be recommended.

On the other hand, you are wrong about the Taiwan Issue were not declared an "important issue" Because United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 was passed by 61 to 34 and declare it "important enough" for any thereafter Chinese issue to have been passed by 2/3 of the majority (which US still lose in the end).

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 (XVI) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bear in mind ROC WAS in the UN security council, if they can apply Veto to the article, would they be removed from the UNSC to begin with??

that was not expulsion that require unsc vote , it never come to UNSC , it was proposed by Albania

and again wrong the recommendation also can be vetoed you say procedural matters since when recommending expulsion of a member become procedural matter.

and I said the replacement of ROC by PRC was not deemed important enough to require 2/3rd of votes.

also I explain there why your Taiwan example is not applicable here , again then no country thrown out of UN , just decided Peking appoint China representative instead of Taipei

 

[jhungary]

that was not a vote by 2/3rd but it become a vote by majority
as un members decided its not important enough to be a vote by 2/3rd and rejected USA proposal

by the way let look at the un charter

Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice/Charter of the United Nations - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

more exactly at article 6


what happened to Taiwan is not applicable here in that they didn't throw out a member they gave its sit to another group that they believed represent the land and country better , now go and try get that recommendation about Russia from UNSC if you can

in short article 18 you quote only become to effect if article 6 come to effect first

Also, Taiwan has been try to argue the expulsion from UN is illegal under article 6 since 1998 (IIRC) it has no result and UN again rejected Taiwan membership to UN on the basis of Article 27 in 2008, so no, you don't really need to have UNSC recommendation or persistently violate UN Charter (which both Taiwan claim to not have) to be removed from UN or UNSC, otherwise Taiwanese case would be a miscarriage of justice, and you can go tell PRC that.

 

[jhungary]

that was not expulsion that require unsc vote , it never come to UNSC , it was proposed by Albania

It was an expulsion, otherwise if a change of representation was the only scope here, then Taiwan could be in UN because it was not named China, but it isn't.

and again wrong the recommendation also can be vetoed you say procedural matters since when recommending expulsion of a member become procedural matter.

What do you mean wrong? I have quote you the entire article.

A recommendation is a procedural, and under point 2, you do not need concurrent vote, which mean Veto does not apply.

Again, if veto is in play, explain to me how Taiwan loses UNSC seat?

and I said the replacement of ROC by PRC was not deemed important enough to require 2/3rd of votes.

Again, go read up on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 (XVI) was a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly that determined that any proposal to change the representation of China at the UN would be deemed an "important question" under the UN Charter which would therefore require a two-thirds majority vote. The motion for UN Resolution 1668 was raised in 1961 by United States, Australia, Japan, Italy and Colombia and passed with 61 UN Member States voted in favor of it, 34 UN Member States voted against it, 7 UN Member States abstaining, and 2 UN Member States non-voting. With its Resolution 2758 in 1971, the UN General Assembly voted with a two-thirds majority to change China's representation in the UN from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which is entitled by the founding of the United Nations as the cornerstone of modern day diplomacy since the Vienna Congress, was signed and ratified by Republic of China on 18 April 1961 and 19 December 1969.

The keyword here is "ANY" which mean the replacement of ROC by PRC WOULD be deemed an important issue under UN Charter. Otherwise, what is "any" or are you saying PRC replace ROC does not belong to "ANY proposal to change the representation of China?"

also I explain there why your Taiwan example is not applicable here , again then no country thrown out of UN , just decided Peking appoint China representative instead of Taipei

Actually, no, UN ceased to recongnize ROC as a country, which is not according to Article 6. and you cannot simply replace a government of a country and not saying there were no country to begin with? Then what is Taiwan then? Who are the people living in Taiwan? And why Taiwan is not a member of UN if they are simply replacing the "representation" of China?

again, all these are very well documented and argued by Taiwanese since 1990, there are basically a bunch of legal scholars on both side of the issue, my wife, who is an international law lawyer, is basically by my side now siding with the PRC Chinese. And she said. ROC loses the seat not because if they are being replaced in China, but because they lost the statehood and hence lost the requirement of being a member of the UN. Which mean they were expelled, by the UN. which is what 2758 did. and not simply replaced by another entity.

 

[Viet]

A crowdfunding campaign for Ukraine to buy drones raised nearly $10 million in 24 hours​

As Russia's air strikes wreak havoc on Ukraine, crowdfunding campaigns are cropping up to support Ukraine's armed forces.​

BY
PRARTHANA PRAKASH
October 12, 2022 5:33 PM EDT

Ukrainian servicemen train using commercial drones in a military capacity to spot and target enemies for artillery teams in Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine on 13 August, 2022. Wolfgang Schwan/Anadolu Agency — Getty Images

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you don’t miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.
When Russia fired missiles into civilian areas of various cities across Ukraine Monday, its largest airstrike since the invasion, Ukraine supporters responded with their own weapon: a crowdfund.

In 24 hours, the campaign organized by two Ukrainians, Serhiy Prytula and Serhii Sternenko, raised $9.6 million to buy kamikaze drones, or unmanned GPS-guided drones, to aid the Ukrainian army, The Guardian reported. Prytula serves as a local politician and army volunteer and Sternenko is an activist.

Initially, the funds will be used to procure 50 Ram II drones, unmanned aerial vehicles with a 3kg explosive payload from Ukrainian companies, according to The Guardian.

Sternenko told the outlet that the campaign would make Ukraine’s defense stronger. “But we still need more weapons from our allies to stop this terror and the crime of genocide Russia commits daily in this European country,” he said.

Several funds dedicated to supplying drones for Ukrainian forces have emerged since the invasion in February. Drones for Ukraine Fund, for instance, has been raising money for Ukraine’s army by making key chain charms of scraps from plane wreckage sites.

Air defense has been key to Ukraine holding out against Russia. Allies to the country, including the U.S. and European countries, are supplying it with Soviet-eraand post-Cold War weapons

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told G7 representatives in a video conference Tuesday that Russia had killed 20 people on Monday using different munitions. He said that the Ukrainian intelligence unit believed Russia had ordered a specific type of kamikaze drone from Iran, which likely aided them in their recent attacks.

He requested other nations step up to help Ukraine establish an “air shield.”

“When Ukraine receives a sufficient number of modern and effective air defense systems, the key element of Russian terror—missile strikes—will cease to work,” Zelensky said during the virtual meeting.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he had ordered the long-range strikes after an attack over the weekend on a bridge that connects Russia to Crimea. Russia has not taken responsibility for choosing civilian targets, but Putin warned that more strikes will come if Ukraine attacks Russian territory again, Reuters reported.

 

[serenity]

Either has the S-70 smart guy
The point was the US tested nearly the same tech almost 20 years ago and retired it before the s-70’s first flight
Have anything else smart to say?

The troll said that the US has nothing equivalent to S-70 close to operational. You replied with "ever heard of the X-47".

The X-47 is not close to operational. In fact the X-47 is cancelled. Has never been operational and will never be operational. So your response to him is hilarious and incorrect. Sit down boy because you need to get smart first.

 

[dbc]

Those Shaheds, and cruise missiles can be easily shot down with a gun, which is what I am inclined to believe in due to news of UA planes downing more than 4 targets per sortie.

I think I've said it before the Iranian Shahed fly straight and level at about 3,000 ft over preprogrammed waypoints until it arrives at its target. Fast air isn't really ideally suited to the task of guns only intercept. If I were flying the latest block F/A-18 E/F, I'd simply use my radar to fry the radioshack electronics on the Shahed. Don't get me wrong Guns intercept is possible but you have to get low and slow behind the flying moped and expose yourself to ground fire.

I think we should be supplying Ukraine with armed Super Tucano or similar ...useful for these pesky drones and close air support for ground troops. Thoughts @jhungary ?