Comments by "andrew worth" (@andrewworth7574) on "F-16s, Patriots, HAWKS u0026 More: NATO Boosts Kyiv’s Firepower Against Russia | Too Little, Too Late?" video.

International trade in arms is not an act of war. Invading a neighboring country certainly is.
2
@martinvidenovic5767 where did you get that figure (2100) from? Ukraine has not admitted 500,000 dead.
2
@stevevojtek8856 source? Kremlin
2
Putin's Russia is an imperialist autocracy, bent on repeating the subjugation of neighboring countries.
1
@23WarinWest-El nato hasn't invaded anyone, where have you been for the last decade?
1
@23WarinWest-El The Law Of Nations is a 260 year old book. Modern international law has nothing to say about international partners supplying weapons to a country that has been invaded. International law does have plenty to say about respecting sovereign territory and invading other countries.
1
@23WarinWest-El the US constitution is irrelevant to international law (you might as well site the Iranian or Ghanaian constitutions), which is the purvey of the UN. In the Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent conflict, only modern imperialist Russia is in breech of international law.
1
@23WarinWest-El national constitutions are irrelevant to international law, which is the purvey of the UN. In regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent conflict, only Russia is in breech of international law.
1
@23WarinWest-El your repeated references to the US constitution are nonsense. I've not claimed that international law is universally enforceable. As you acknowledge, the international law that exists in codified in the UN charter. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine Russia is in breach of its obligations under that charter. In this conflict, no other country has breached their charter obligations.
1
@23WarinWest-El de facto law is a law or regulation that is followed but "is not specifically enumerated by a law." The UN charter is enumerated, it's written in black and white. It is not enforceable as law within a sovereign territory is enforceable because the UN is not collectively sovereign. We do not have a world government. Russia has failed to meet its obligations under the UN charter. As a member of the UN, Russia has made a written commitment, it's signed up to those obligations in writing.
1
@23WarinWest-El an ad hominem is a personal attack, I was not criticizing you personally, I was describing your claim that articles within the US constitution had the status of international law. They do not, ditto for articles in the constitution of Vanuatu.
1
@23WarinWest-El I thought I was clear. Your claim is false, and I've said why. International law has the "status" the International community gives, in the GA votes the Russian aggression was condemned several times, with the votes being around 140 voting against Russia to about 5 in support of Russia. Russia hides behind the threat of its nuclear arsenal. Without that threat against the International community, Russia would have been defeated, and Putin would be dead or on trial.
1
@23WarinWest-El your threats are pathetic. Grow up.
1
@23WarinWest-El "I'd file a suit" Wow, you fell off your trolley.
1
@23WarinWest-El oh, and you've got the meaning of "de facto" back to front, it's means the opposite of what you think, it means with standing but absent formalization. If international law was de facto law, it would mean it's enforced even though it's not formally codified.
1
Nato would crush Russia if it was all in, so far Russia is fighting a far smaller country supported by the Nato surplus store.
1
@ishitabhalla4462 mustn't send the madman over the edge.
1
Russia isn't capable of winning a war through dismantling an enemy as the US can.
1
@martinvidenovic5767 evidence your 2100 dead claim?
1
@martinvidenovic5767 name the general
1
@martinvidenovic5767 name the general
1
@martinvidenovic5767 name the general
1
@martinvidenovic5767 name the Ukrainian general.
1
@martinvidenovic5767 name the Ukrainian general.
1