There is no "Novorussiya" only Ukraine. How many Russian soldiers need to die before realizing that?
There is Novorussia and it was there long before invention of "independent Ukraine". Previous time, more than 10 mln of Europeans were eliminated for their attempt to take rightfully our lands. This time, we can kill, one billion of NATO+ countries population to ensafe our land and our people.
Millions of Americans and millions of Russians are at stake if nukes start flying.
Russia's military isn't very capable, so stop trying to bluff the US.
It is important to be numerical. I mean Russia wants to return Alaska, but hardly ready to pay more than 1 mln of Russians for this goal. And as you keep ability to kill more than one million of Russians even in the worst for you scenario of Russian counter-force attack (and Russians do know it) Alaska is perfectly safe (if don't do other stupid things). Russia wants to liberate Ukraine (and remove American strategic forces from Eastern Europe) and ready to pay at least 50 mln killed for it. And in all realistic scenarios you can't kill that many Russians by your strategic forces after Russian attack.
Given, that you don't send Infantry in Ukraine, you are not ready to lose even one million Americans for it. And it means that you should alleviate now, to minimise your losses.
"Genocide" means a lot of Russians dying.
No. There are two parts in the definition.
----------
Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
A
mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; Andy
A
physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
--------------
Two things are important - intention, and that's obviously take place, and actual murders or inflictions of human life. That's also happens.
And, to be numerical, during Kosovo conflict the Serbs killed few thousands of Albanians, most of whom were militants killed with weapons in their hands. You called it "genocide". And lifes of Russians are much more valued (at least from the Russian point of view) than lifes of Albanians.
I don't see Russians dying unless they are invading Ukraine.
Just because you don't want to see. And you don't want to see because you are a Nazi.
The EU doesn't have a goal of killing Russians that I heard about either.
They have goal "decolonisation of Russia" and it definitely means genocide of us.
Yes I deny the genocide of Russians as a pretext for war.
And, as I already said, it makes you a Nazi.
If the choice is Iran giving up their nukes or sit in the dark and die for thirst, I think the secular guys would give up their nukes.
No. We both know that Iran was attacked exactly because it didn't have nuclear program and nuclear weapons. Iran has plenty of gas and oil, and not enough weapons to deter Americans (because greedy American barbarians understand only a threat of annihilation). So, they have a choice - to get nukes, defeat Americans and live as rich and independent state, or to be killed, pillaged and raped by American soldiers who will kill them and take their land and their resources.
How could Iran defeat the US?
Two basic possibilities - more or less conventional war-rebellion on Middle East (including territories of US allies), or nuclear attack on US military bases as the first step (with the threat of a nuclear attack on US cities).
I don't see them as a threat unless they get nukes and ICBMs.
They will get nukes as soon as they wish and they don't need ICBMs. Medium Range Sea Launch Ballistic Missiles on civilian ships can be good enough to create a reasonable threat to destroy US infrastructure sites.
Here is a Princeton simulation of an all-out nuclear war between Russia and NATO. 91.5m dead immediately plus many more dying from the effects on the climate and radiation. A lose-lose outcome.
SGS developed a new simulation for a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia using realistic nuclear force postures, targets and fatality estimates. It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict.
sgs.princeton.edu
Those 90 mln are total amount. But if there is only one million of killed in Russia and 90 mln killed in the USA and EU, and we have post-war peace on Russia-acceptable terms, I'd rather call it "Victory". May be even win-win outcome, if America got a better government and political system, for the acceptable price of, say, 10 million killed.
