Should Russia keep eastern Ukraine? | Will Israel annexe southern Lebanon? | 200K Q&A Part I

[@dario5178]

No one is totally free from bias but I appreciate a non partisan take on international relations.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I generally try my best. :-)

[@Bulgarian021]

@@JamesKerLindsay "it is not the objective reality that matters " but how people see their own country and how they perceive the world - what you said is really amazing and I think it is very wise. Truth is subjective in fact, and that is kind of sad

[@emanueldelacruz1101]

@@dario5178 He said there's a lot of evidence of NK fighting in Ukraine. What evidence is he talking about?

[@FreelancerFinancialsUK]

@@emanueldelacruz1101 there’s absolutely no evidence.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

This “where’s the evidence” was the same sort of nonsense we heard before Russia invaded. Lots of bot accounts asking for evidence, disputing reliable information from other governments and sources. This is all part of hybrid war. If you’re not being paid to say this, then you really need to take a good hard look at your values. You are doing Russia’s dirty work.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

I know. You probably weren't expecting this! :-) However, I hope you like it. The plan is to start uploading a second weekly video each week, most usually on Tuesday. The aim will be to keep them slightly different from the Friday videos. I have a few ideas. But any thoughts would be really welcome. Let me know below.

[@FlamingBasketballClub]

Sometime next year you should do a video on the 80th anniversary of United Nations. 🗣️📢

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@FlamingBasketballClub Thanks. That’s a great idea!

[@massaganaa]

Maybe keep Friday to the format you have atm; whilst the other video a round up of other events around the world that have happened in the past week that one might not have seen in mainstream media, a 3-4 min quick analysis of each one (if you intend to keep to a 10-20 video length)

[@salilbhatnagar]

Congrats on 200k!!

[@skeetrix5577]

I was like "wait it's not Friday yet!!" this was a welcome surprise. thanks professor!

[@JohnNjengaCOCO]

North Korean troops have been training in Russia since 1950s. Same way my country sends troops to the US and UK for special training.

[@williamlloyd3769]

You have to wonder if Cyprus would even exist or exist as a smaller country today if it weren’t for the presence of UK bases.

[@solsunman383]

What did the UK do when Turkey invaded? Didn't they just sit on their hands, in spite of the treaty saying they would defend Cyprus?

[@TimLoo-w4u]

​@solsunman383 cowardice at the highest. Plus who can forget several dead brits in aden during aden emergency. Oh you guys can blame Labour.......hahahahaha. because of that there was an alleged coup detat. U need a strong woman to stop that nonsense. It is not Maggie. If only Harold Wilson won 1970 ge

[@shafsteryellow]

@@solsunman383 Greece invaded first and Turkey plead with the Uk to get involved but they didn’t want to so Turkey to lead…

[@soterisphilippou7338]

There was always the plan to partition Cyprus. British plan. Britain and the UN watched and done nothing. They could have stopped everything and prevent the problems we have now. Show me a country where the British were , left and now there’s peace. Look at Middle East look at Kashmir. Nothing but problems. Divide and rule the British moto

[@solsunman383]

@@shafsteryellow That was my point. The UK was embarrassingly weak in it's response.

[@cauwenberghsroeland8607]

Hypocrisy : the "landgrab" means allso to assure administration, (re)building, ... putting dictators in power doesn't cost the building of a hospital... The West didn't colonise, no but kill presidents, arm rebels, ... yes ! We arm Taiwan, we did arm Savimbi, we did kill Lumumba, we did put Bokassa in power in place of David Dacko, , we replaced him again with Dacko, we and replaced Dacko once gain with general Kolingba and his minister of euh... of...of... eh... , we replaced them with Patassé that we removed... Who did "clean" Mossadegh ? For what ? Worse than annexation , submission. How many people killed to controll the laundery of drugmoney through controlling the production of minerals in Congo ? Thank you , mr Clinton. ... Imagine to annex Congo... the cost of developping medical care, social security, law and order... better have milicia's...

[@BozaCukuranovic3223]

Great content, been following your work from the pre-YT era as Serbian media often cited you, extremely refreshing and unbiased, especially from a Westerner.

[@lordfedjoe]

I find it fascinating how you talk about Russia and Israel differently. You speak of Israel by giving them cover and explanation. But you talk about Russia with so much emotion. You tried to make a case for Israel by mentioning their security, but you talk about Russia with disdain and make a case against them. It's fascinating indeed. I don't know your political view if you are a Right Wing. But you seem to be Too western leaning to be objective in your analysis. This is the second time I'm observing this about your video. You need to be consistent with your judgement and morality

[@bernd_das_brot6911]

What? You seem to be coming to this video with a bias you want to see confirmed. He is obviously also negative about Israels actions, but the nature of the question is just very different. One is “could it be a possibility that Israel attempts an annexation in southern Lebanon?” Which invites a question on would Israel do this, IE is it in their interests. The other question was basically “Doesn’t Russia have the right to annex territory because that was how it was always done?” Which asks for a question on what we must expect, want and strive for in international diplomacy. These questions are both about annexation but are very different in nature. He isn’t giving Israel a cover he is telling us what their interests are. And the prof is not blindly “pro western” he is for democracy and the rule of (international) law.

[@markdowding5737]

​@@bernd_das_brot6911 I think he is talking about Israel's annexation of the Golan heights, which were done before Russia's and no One seemed to care at the time. The US even ended up recognizing Israel's annexation as legit (which was done before Russia's actions)

[@bernd_das_brot6911]

@@markdowding5737 he isn’t.

[@joeblack5393]

@@bernd_das_brot6911 You seem to have only just now realized that JKL is a Western hegemony globalist whose job is basically to come up with quasi academic justifications for Western blatant violations of the international law. Well now you know...

[@Swiplys]

I felt this exact same sentiment too. It is hypocrisy at its finest

[@Todd.B]

Thanks professor, I only got through the first question before having to go to work but that was a great answer. Not only is that the way to approach international policies but in todays divided political environment it is also helpful internally as well in helping understand each other. Will finish up later on the video.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much, Todd. Have a great rest of the day! :-)

[@TheProgCorner]

You’re the best, Jim!!!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Cheers a lot! 😀

[@cte4dota]

Congratulation Professor! Keep it up. Much support form one of the most controversial country on ur channel Serbia, haha, cheers!

[@rpgbb]

I have reading a history of Prussia “Iron Kingdom”, basically modern Europe has been in a constant state of war for 400 years. In this context, the last 79 years have been an exception. Now we are back to a traditional state of affairs. As the professor says it’s not a world we want to live in but the problem is that the post WW2 order didn’t remove the colonial dynamics, didn’t promote democracy, free trade or the rule of law. With hindsight, the process of decolonisation was too fast, sloppy. Singapore is a good example, the British allowed a dictator to take over, imposed racial policies and built a playground for the triads. Also it doesn’t help the US doesn’t recognise international law, they can commit assassinations, coup d’etats without consequences. In this sense, Russia and China are right we need a new world order but the already they offer is lousy. We need more like an EU at a global level, supranational courts, free trade, rule of law, freedom of movement and a democratic system within this framework. Democracy itself is not the solution without human rights, civil liberties and rule of law. Again, Singapore is a fine example why just having regular elections is not the solution

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Iron Kingdom is a fantastic book! But I do worry about a return to nineteenth century thinking about international relations. I know the last 80 years have been an anomaly, but it has been a largely welcome change that has allowed many generations to grow up with far less of a threat of war. I feel that is changing.

[@fruchttiger8767]

@@rpgbb youre right. I think the first step is to enforce un law and ICJ prosecution on a global level. Its not fair for israel and the US to have special status regarding international law. the veto system should be reformed too.

[@manekrit2417]

Adressing colonial dynamics with EU like institiution is like putting down fire with cerosine. EU as "free trade" blokc imperialsit in its nature it imposes trademarks and intellectual property of France/Germany/Benelux onto less developed in terms of constant capital countries of South and East of its block and outside block with WTO (last case with Indonesia. Indoneasian minister of forreighn affairs called that imperialist). EU is peaceful submission to rhineland capitalists by other european countries and cannot be replicated outside of europe because of non-existant threat of violence. Other Union projects never lead to extension of integrations of EU like mercasuur and african union cuz they had more balanced powerleves between members. Russian power block Eurasian economis union have eu like economic policy and it is dominated by russian capitalists.

[@Bulgarian021]

It is really weird and far from logic if any person believes that colonisation is the main problem of the world and the way the colonisation process ended is the reason for whatever giant problems we face in 2024. THERE WAS and there WILL ALWAYS be someone weaker on the world map controlled by some great power one way or the other. Not to mention European mega powers ruled many lands in the past /France, England, Spain etc./ not because they are EU , not because they are the only bad guys on the planet and not because of racism BUT because they were stronger and smarter in some areas and they just COULD RULE Africa/ South America. So they did. If the Malians could take over Spain and France and make them their slaves in the late medieval times then be sure they would have done it. If China could conquer the Turkish empire in 1700-1800 be sure they would have done it. But they could not do it in real life. Everyone is the same in terms of fighting for money and power, all want more and more, and it is never enough. But the way you work when you want to win something /land or oil or resources or whatever ... / , the way you do things is really what makes the difference

[@Albireo8]

World Economic Forum anyone?

[@Julia-Richter]

Congratulations!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you! 🙂

[@iany2448]

Russia certainly can use Kosovo as precedent for changing Ukraine national border.

[@ndetokiio3563]

In the name of alliance such as BRICs just like u.s.a used NATO

[@shkronjax]

Sure but not for its imperialist goals.

[@ferencdeak8784]

If Kosovo is the model, then the People's Republic of Donetsk and the People's Republic of Luhansk should remain independent. The NATO powers did not allow Kosovo and Albania to unite precisely because of the danger of this precedent.

[@milostomic8539]

​​@@ferencdeak8784But do those countries still consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia? If not, then those countries are changing international borders.

[@FilipPetrovic999]

@@ferencdeak8784 They were "independent" since 2014, but NATO powers did not recognized it... Why? Because all important powers respect international law only when it suits them.

[@FivioLamar]

Another great video. Glad I found this channel and congrats

[@echarts3710]

Few years before becoming an IR graduate, I remember asking an IR graduate about what type of job opportunities I can have in the future. He told me "you can become everything...and nothing." Now that I'm a master student in European Studies while searching jobs ranging from diplomacy, international institutions and totally different jobs in private sector; I can give this advice: It's okay that you don't have a job or internship at early age, but at least find a sector you're totally interested in to apply in the future. Great thing about an IR degree is that you have the flexibility to change sectors, so don't be afraid that you'll waste your life in one.

[@kamalmohamed3496]

Thank You James always great videos

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much! :-)

[@Hidfhjccbxcbhc]

I always share many of my Somali 🇸🇴 friends, your channel will grow soon, please keep updating and analyzing current Geopolitical issues. Thank you very much.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much! That's brilliant. I really appreciate it.

[@kinemaxillo-faciale]

@@JamesKerLindsay I really wonder why on all your points of views o find you very harsh on the Muslims, and empathys with the west, I understand that it's your culture..., Can you try to see the other side as humans it will help you understand more about the situation. Thank you for understanding

[@Hidfhjccbxcbhc]

@JamesKerLindsay our youth learning in University likes to study IR and they do like most knowledge, Professor thank you too 🙏

[@vladbassov4665]

Can I add a few words? Ukraine can at least resist having allies on 3 sides and uninterrupted supplies of all it needs for defence, and Russia is only 3,3 times bigger. Serbia is about one twentieth of NATO and surrounded by it. If NATO moved to Ukraine as was on the agenda, it would pretty soon trigger WW3, at best by some technical error with only 10 minutes of fly time from there to vital Russian centres - no time to check if your radars are correct.

[@VladTevez]

11:15 Spoiler alert: Cyprus and the UK will eventually come to a sort of an agreement, UK will keep the most important military installations, will give more territory to Cyprus, perhaps will give some of the BR installations outside of the bases, and some reimbursement will be given (or the annual payment will be renewed). At least that's what I believe

[@JamesKerLindsay]

It will be very interesting to see how this issue evolves. Cyprus and the U.K. have steadily improved their relations in recent years. However, Nicosia has clearly been watching this issue closely.

[@VladTevez]

@@JamesKerLindsay Any opinion of today's visit of Christodoulis to the White House? Do you believe, as former Turkish Ambassador in DC Namik Tan wrote, that Cyprus will become a major non-NATO ally?

[@georgeanastasi7729]

Iirc didn't the UK previously offer to return a large amount of SBA territory to the republic of Cyprus as part of a settlement (Annan plan). And if that's the case, would that make Cyprus' claim stronger? Much of the sba isn't military land in any case but farmland or housing. With the exception of RAF akrotori, episkopi, troodos and ayios nikolaos listening stations the rest is of little value to the UK imho. I can't see Cyprus being adversarial about it anyway as they have made a pivot to the West which will continue.

[@Slippin_Jimmy1012]

Although this is nothing related to the main topics at hand, I just want to say that I like the new video thumbnail designs. They look sleek.

[@CalCalCal6996]

Thanks for the incredible content James!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks a lot! :-)

[@paramahansayogananda6719]

Thank you so much Prof. I’m very honoured to have my question answered!

[@Krazy6ix]

congratulations on 200k James 👏👏

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much! :-)

[@wtfa2910]

The only reason I watched this channel because I can actually understand what you're saying unlike other channels

[@ИльяРезников-н8з]

The biggest problem about NATO going into Kosovo is that it makes the argument about NATO being purely deffensive alliance illigitimate. Serbia did not attack NATO countries, but it got attacked by them. So Russian fears about NATO getting to their borders is now ligit. And if Britain can retain annaxed territories simply because it is important for their security, than Russia feels that preventing a military alliance from getting to Russia's boarders is something worth using military force for. If noone is punished for attacking Serbia, than all those international laws are nothing. This has to change. Those rules must be for everyone. So, while we shouldn't be ok with Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory, but what we should do is admit it is a product of current system, and that a new, actually just system must be established.

[@fpsserbia6570]

military unions are not purely defensive agreements nor are they meant for peace, military alliance are built to conquer not protect, to spread your influence, that is why NATO is built and that is why Russia is building it own alliance, China,....

[@timkey_4542]

@@ИльяРезников-н8з I think you have the right argument but the wrong reasons. Yes, Russia's Government is afraid of its neighbouring countries joining NATO. But not because they fear an attack by NATO on Russia. What they instead fear is a Berlin type situation. See during the cold war, in the 50s, the border between East and West Berlin was wide open. East Berliners saw that their socialist paradise wasn't a paradise after all and left. Eventually the East Germans had to put a wall up. What Russia fears about its neighbours joining NATO or by extension the west is not of any military nature. Its fear is that the Russian people will get the same thoughts as these east berliners and decide that they want western life too. Maybe not by emigrating. But perhaps via a change of government. Then again the situation from Kosovo and Ukraine's a bit different because 1) Nato's not a country and 2) It didn't annex any territory. It just stopped the serbians and albanians from killing each other.

[@ИльяРезников-н8з]

@timkey_4542 1) About Berlin idea, don't really understand, where you get it from. Russia is a fully European country, and life in Western Russia is purely Western. It's a capitalist country with Western culture. And the life in Russia in 2010-s was many times better than in 1990-s, so it would really be hard to make a case againt such life. But even if we take your argument, how does it contradict the fact that NATO is a millitary alliance, and any government in Russia, however liveral it could be, was bound to see an aggressive military block as a threat. It's not really about NATO's presumed intentions, but more about its capabilities. Adding Ukraine and Georgia to NATO would boost those capabilities to preassure ir even attack Russia to unexceptable level. The intentions can change fast, while those capabilities once established would remain a forever threat. 2) Does the fact that the territory in Serbia was not annexed by any NATO country really make it any better? All those death and all the distruction, including massive civilian casaulties. If it can go unpunished, that meabs that nothing can protect any country, but its own militarry force. And that leads to the preventive attack logic. That's why the system is broken.

[@petrasmiles1029]

​@@timkey_4542 What West are you talking about. You think a Russian person from Moscow or St Petersburg or Vladivostok think that it is better in Berlin or Rome or London? You obviously have never been to Russia. At least not in the last 15 years or so. Russians are very capitalistic in nature, and because of communism and insecurities that it brought they spend so much on everything, clothes, brands, luxurious travels, etc. They value public order though and stability above everything else.

[@daste1263]

​@@ИльяРезников-н8з But even if we take your argument, how does it contradict the fact that Russia has a vast military, and any governments in NATO, however liberal they may be, were bound to see an aggressive military power intent on conquest as a threat. It's not really about Russia's presumed intentions, but more about its capabilities. Adding Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia to Russia would boost those capabilities to preassure or even attack NATO to unacceptable levels. The intentions can change fast, while those capabilities once established would remain a forever threat. yw

[@marcocolo7151]

Surprised to see a video on Wednesday!😂 I'm looking forward to see the Tuesday's videos, seems an interesting idea. Keep up the good work professor!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I was hoping to have it up yesterday, but it was a little delayed. But Tuesday’s will be the days to watch. :-)

[@louiekiwi]

Right from the outset, the question is misplaced. North Korea is not sending troops to fight in Ukraine. They are confined to Russian territory namely in the Kursk region. They maybe deployed later in the republics Lugansk and Donetsk.

[@YorkGod1]

I do enjoy these videos!

[@marcolagae2170]

Love your videos as always!!! Love the new and modern thumbnails for the videos too!:)

[@tim8323]

Congratulations on reaching 200k subscribers! I always enjoy watching you videos and appreciate your expertise and fact-based reporting on geopolitical events. As a side note, I really like the new thumbnail style.

[@proximacentaur1654]

Congrats on 200K. Thoroughly deserved,

[@LuisRomeroLopez]

Congrats for the 200K! 😃 Don't always comment, but sure I follow the videos.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I really and truly appreciate all support. 🙏🏻👍👏😀

[@fra604]

Thanks for answering my question, I'll make sure to turn the advice into action! 💪

[@justinwonfor4427]

Congratulations prof. Your channel has really assisted me as an IR scholar. Thank you for your effort and thoughts.

[@BellicoseNation]

Professor I will have to see what you have up on Vietnam, with its rapid growth and popularity... and being in the vice between the US and China, it must be an interesting take you have?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I really should take another look at Vietnam. 👍

[@st0rmrider]

Congrats on the 200k

[@notdpanda9525]

Congratulations, hope you keep up the good work. 🎉

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much! I'm so grateful to everyone who has supported the channel - in whatever way.

[@garedmorort]

Love this kind of videos! Keep it up

[@pj828]

Thanks for the great content!!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you! 🙂

[@danicic87]

Saying that Sadam did not opened door for inspections for weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not tryed to admit that is total bullshit .

[@mitchyoung93]

NATO bombed Yugoslavia and occupied its internationally recognized territory, invaded Afghanistan, and destroyed Libya. It is not a defensive alliance.

[@timor64]

wow! congratulations!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much! :-)

[@mna9211]

I am from India and i do like your unbiased videos on International relations.

[@Wizzyhatg]

UN Resolution 1701 has always been acceptable to Israel, that's why they signed it. It was never enforced by Lebanon or UNIFIL, so Israel is enforcing it itself.

[@archangel2633]

UNIFIL has been a spectacular failiure.

[@NanaOsei-g2b]

Prof, your videos has aroused in me much interest in IR and I have decided to do my masters in IR. Please you are my IR godfather ❤. If you don't mind, which institution will be good for me? I now pay much attention to geopolitics and IR because of your brilliant analysis. Bless you.

[@abdullahaliabbasi]

1 more thing, you are adding some informality into the videos.... I like the old way where you would not change the pitch of your speech so much :) But I still like your videos.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. These are my Q&A videos. These are unscripted, so they sound very different from my usual videos. They are much more informal. :-)

[@abdullahaliabbasi]

@@JamesKerLindsay Well, thats good...

[@Ldnnate]

Great video, thanks Professor

[@adriandiaz8665]

I love your videos Professor

[@casey203]

The more I follow geo politics the more I realize the “rules based” international order is really just a voluntary system of recommendations. Most (especially non western) countries appeal to the order when it benefits them and completely ignore them when it doesn’t. The few college professors and diplomats still trying to act like it exists are deluding themselves or pushing an agenda.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

Everybody does that. Rules based world order are actually just for the weak, not for the strong.

[@katz9649]

What do you mean especially non western countries? Western countries are the most aggressive and numerous offenders when it comes to international law violations... but we never see it discussed because a non western nation is the victim .. America is actually the #1 offender

[@petardetar5191]

You are on hard drugs !!! Can Confirm from other man comment: Western countries are the most aggressive and numerous offenders when it comes to international law violations ! Do your homework-before, don't write stupid claims ! It is western ruled based order, and wester countries are abusing it all the times for their benefit, specially US

[@modenasolone]

You lost me on that, Casey. Was that a joke?

[@Asfandyar_]

Lol, it's the western states doing the most selective application of rules based world order.

[@rursus8354]

2:28: When understanding the world view of an isolated dictatorship, Gollum is the perfect model of understanding: _"it was my birthday, I had the right to the ring, it is mine"_ and or: _"nice hobbits, we should be nice to them"_ and _"we swore to the owner of the ring, if I own the ring, I will be nice to me"_

[@Vellupellu]

Perhaps North Korea wants to see how it's army would manage in a modern war.

[@bernd_das_brot6911]

Congrats prof

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much!

[@markdowding5737]

Great video, do you think Cyprus might try to take the UK to court citing the case of the Chagos islands for their case. You said the UK might be saved on a technicality but it doesn't seem Cyprus has much to loose, especially if they could get the support of a UN General Assembly resolution

[@FlamingBasketballClub]

Superpowers will always break international law. Such is the unfortunate nature of international relations/geopolitics. ☠️☠️☠️💀💀💀

[@Bulgarian021]

+1 !

[@louiekiwi]

As for "Annexing" Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, there's the question of self determination and 97% election results which are a bit uncomfortable for our western position. Better to just accept that as a done deal and move on.

[@fnansjy456]

Their is a word for it,It is called fake ,They you also believe kim Jong il is very very popular

[@KonradAdenauerJr]

No, Russia's seizure of eastern Ukraine cannot be allowed to stand, since any agreement to that effect would merely be for Russia a break to prepare for future attempts at seizing more Ukrainian territories.

[@bilic8094]

So how come so called kosovo can stand ?

[@gawkthimm6030]

@@bilic8094 because it was part of yugoslavia and none want to revive that, while millions want to restore Ukraines borders

[@bilic8094]

@@gawkthimm6030 It wasn't a federal unit in yugoslavia and never had a right to independence it's Serbia's southern province currently occupied.

[@gawkthimm6030]

@@bilic8094 why does serbia consider itself the only legitimate successor and have any claim to any land?. Russia had to get recognition from the international community for them to agree that Russia was the successor of the Soviets, its not just automatic...

[@janetmontgomery-r6j]

I understand the stated risks and the confusion of emotions re Ukraine why can't it be an independent state like lichensteijn, Monaco, Vatican and self choose to have good relationships with both Russia and Ukraine and then it would reaussring to all countries Russia european et al involved for long term better relationships and futures and mutual benefits.

[@Minininininininininininininick]

Great videos as always!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much!

[@thomasbootham2707]

Hi James could you do a video on whether you think a federal uk could happen and do you think it would help ease the current dissatisfaction with the union felt all across the 4 nations

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Great suggestion. I will mark it down.

[@Behemoth29]

17:15 I would argue that there is no difference whether or not Iraq was formally under US sovereignty. I fail to see how invading a country, toppling the government, destroying its infrastructure, launching it into civil war, militarily occupying it for over 20 years and selecting replacement governments is somehow morally superior to outright annexation, just because it does not technically fall under US sovereignty. When contrasted with, say, the annexation of Crimea, which was essentially bloodless and supported by the majority of the locals (both in the 90s, in 2014 and now). Can someone please explain how this is the greater of the two evils?

[@user-dq1je7zy3p]

The Crimea referendums were rigged

[@TodaTruth]

Great channel 🎉❤

[@quartercast]

Hi Prof, congrats on 200K and excellent video as always! I was wondering if you could answer my question about third party participants in the Russia-Ukraine war. Since NKR has sent troops to fight on Russia's behalf in the Ukraine theatre, does this constitute a declaration of war between Ukraine and NKR? According to international law would Ukraine be justified to attack NKR proper (theoretically)? How about other lesser co-belligerents like Belarus, are they also considered technically at war with Ukraine?

[@petrasmiles1029]

Ukraine has not formally declared a war on Russia. That would mean all Nato countries might also be at war for supplying a party to the war.

[@michaelhenault1444]

James, you seem more relaxed 😎 and sharing more of your own expertise.😊

[@nenad6787]

With its fledging economy and deindustrialisation due to high energy prices, support of Ukraine is but a wet dream of leaders with poor leadership quality .

[@atollking201]

Notice how he never explains in his videos why the reintegration of Chagos to Mauritius according to international law does not affect the case of the Falkland Islands nor that of Gibraltar. As a matter of fact, they are absolutely affected, because respecting the territorial integrity of Mauritius should not be hampered by the will of the population of the territory, in this case, the brutally evicted Chagossians, who have an unquestionable right to return to their home, apart from the respect for their well-being and self-governance under Mauritius obviously. Without mentioning, of course, that the cases of the Falkland Islands and of Gibraltar have already been affected by other cases, like that of Hong Kong, Macau, or the Panama Canal Zone, where a state had sovereignty and so the population of the non-self-governing territory enjoys no exclusive self-determination, as explained by British Judge Rosalyn Higgins, former president of the International Court of Justice, and others. Put simply, if a leased non-self-governing territory should be reintegrated to its sovereign state at the end of the concession, then an usurped non-self-governing territory more so. As Dolzer said in his book on the Question of the Falkland Islands, there is no such thing in international law as a right to self-determination that legitimizes a territorial integrity violation, otherwise, you would legitimize other situations around the world, like the ones James is very much against in this same video, contradicting himself. As for Cyprus and Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the treaty in which Cypriot authorities ceded the base areas is invalid, since it violated the principle of self-determination. The Cypriot population should have been asked whether they wanted to dismember their territory or not. As James himself said, we are not in the a pre-1945 era, where territory can be acquired just by negotiations or by a declaration of war and a treaty of peace. The permanent population of a legal political unit is collectively sovereign and should be asked about any move that affects their rights.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

I did explain. In detail. It was based on the decision by the United Kingdom to separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius despite a UN General Assembly Reolution 1514 just a few years earlier stating very clearly that this was not permissible. This prohibition does not apply to Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands. Both were acquired by Britain long before the resolution and neither involves the partition of territory. The Chagos Islands revolves around a very specific question under international law. And international law is all about precision. Again, I explained this.

[@atollking201]

@@JamesKerLindsay No, you are still avoiding the actual argument: there is a violation of territorial integrity and there is a population that could, according to the British government, decide the fate of said violation. The point is that, if there is no exclusive self-determination for Chagossians, then there is no self-determination for any population living in usurped lands. Besides, resolution 1514 (XV) very clearly states in paragraphs 6 that the violation of the territorial integrity of any country is incompatible with international law, meaning that self-determination does not apply in those cases obviously (violations and also leases), which includes Hong Kong, Macau, the Panama Canal Zone, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands obviously. It is simply unacceptable that you even suggest that the cases of the Falkland Islands and of Gibraltar are not partitions of territory. What about the territory of Argentina and Spain? 1514 does not say nothing about partitions of territory, it says in general terms that any violation, total or partial of a country (legal state or legal non-self-governing territory) is incompatible with international law. Furthermore, paragraph 7 very clearly states that the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations need to be taken into account, including that of territorial integrity. The United Kingdom itself in 2019 admitted that paragraph 6 is also meant to avoid any decolonization that leads to dismemberment of the territory of a sovereign state. Rosalyn Higgins said specifically referring to this cases that if sovereign is Argentine or Spanish, then there is no such thing as exclusive self-determination, their self-determination is one and the same with the rest of the legal political unit to which the territory legitimately belongs, in this case Argentine or Spanish. If you want precision, then you need to take into account every detail, not only those that favor your position. So do not deviate and answer the question: if a violation of territorial integrity like that of Chagos is not solved through self-determination because it is Mauritian territory, then why that does not affect the case of the Falklands? Your position on that is just untenable.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@ it’s clearly not worth trying to have a sensible debate on this. You are mixing up all sorts of different issues. As I said, international law is about precision. Argentina and Spain are more than welcome to refer the matter to the ICJ. And I suspect they would age if they felt they had strong legal arguments. Anyway, you clearly want to adopt the “kitchen sink” approach to debate and so I don’t feel we’ll make much progress. I am reasonable. I have often spoken out against colonialism. I like a good discussion. But it needs to be focused. Just shouting “self-determination” at me is not good enough. I work on the subject. I have written books on it. I know it well. So, on this matter, more than most, I would appreciate the chance to have an informed and sensible discussion based on precise facts and arguments.

[@atollking201]

@@JamesKerLindsay Well, then be precise and tackle the arguments instead of avoiding them. I even cited you jurists of international law, are they also confusing all these issues? I do not think that Argentina nor Spain need to take the case to the International Court of Justice, I mean, their cases are more than obviously solid, that would just only strengthen their position. All works written by jurists conclude that the islands were first French, then Spanish by cession and finally Argentine by succession, so what else do you want? Dolzer is among those who have even encouraged Argentina to take the case to the International Court of Justice by the way. Also, I would like to remind you that the United Kingdom does not accept the jurisdiction of the court for certain disputes. It also asked Argentina to take the case of the dependencies of the islands to the court, but not the islands themselves, which already shows the weakness in British title. Argentina responded that it cannot accept as friendly that the islands are not included in the case. What about the arbitration that Argentina proposed to the United Kingdom during the 19th century and the latter rejected, considering the case closed, which is its historical position. Your argument on this just fails at every level of analysis. And the case of Gibraltar, if you actually read the Peace of Utrecht is very clear that the territory of Gibraltar is explicitly not ceded, only the settlement is. The territory was illegally annexed during the 19th century as well. You have a treaty telling you that, are you sure that you want a an international court doing the same? Without mentioning the reservation of Spain to recover the settlement. I have already exposed facts and arguments. You have not, that is the reality. And I do not care that you have written books on it, because I am not telling you my position, I am telling you the position of every academic work written on this, so you have no argument again. You have no idea how self-determination nor territorial integrity work apparently or you are too biased to admit it: Dolzer, Goebel, Higgins, Gustafson, Laver, Kohen, etcetera, do not agree with your appreciation, which is not invalid because of them, but because there is simply no logic in it.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@atollking201 This is just tedious and pointless. You clearly know nothing about these matters. I explained the legal issues tackled in the Chagos Islands case clearly. I pointed out in the video that they do potentially have a bearing on Cyprus, and explained why. You are just throwing in completely different arguments that are wholly unrelated to the discussion. It doesn’t matter who you cite, if you cite them out of context and on completely different matters, then it means nothing. Anyway, this is not how to have a sensible debate. I’ll leave it there.

[@oscarmora4602]

Informative

[@unoriginal_username1]

19:01 I for one welcome a return to real politics , not a global system where 98% of it is showcasing and back room dealings without the publics opinion on them. Argentina cries at the UN because they know in the real world they won’t get the Falklands from the UK using force. And the other 2% is whatever great powers decide to do won’t be pushed back on. Israel acts as it does become it knows the US has its back , China does what it want by building military bases in the ocean because in reality only another major power could stop them and they won’t. REAL WORLD Vs the fake world we pretend we live in. International law means NOTHING unless it has force behind it

[@Catmint309]

Happy Halloween 🎃🎃🎃🎃

[@Scrooge1Percenter]

It's not a question of should, but they will, and nothing will change that. And looking at Battlefield reality, they are adding more territory on a daily basis.

[@JonLondrezos]

Re the Cyprus question: The Cypriots I speak with tell me that the British territories are actually beneficial to the island. Their priority is the end the turkish occupation of northern Cyprus. Re the "Should Russia..." question, we need to qualify what do we mean by "should". If it is based on today's reality then "yes", if it is based on principles then "no". I will not attempt to expand on either because I would be stating things already known, and especially (in the case of "no") things explained very well to us by Prof James.

[@vitlosvp]

Hi Prof., In relation to UK bases in Cyprus, UNGA Res 1514 says to crystallize customary international law. So this is the moment it is binding to the international community as a whole. However, Cyprus could argue that the UK was bound by its practice long before. In particular the principle uti possidetis has been applied since the independence of Spanish colonies in the XIXth century. So I would argue that in principle Cyprus has a pretty strong claim. A different issue is whether it is in its interest. On another issue, would you consider the TRNC an annexation by Turkey? I know the general consensus is that it is considered occupied via puppet state and annexation depends on the application of Turkish national law but in practical terms? Congrats on 200k! Been following your videos since the first time I learnt what public international law is. Now I’m pursuing a masters on IHL and HHRR.

[@catapetrovich6688]

To answer your question, not only it must keep eastern Ukraine but it will keep it, just as it has kept all of its territories from time immemorial. Besides, all Slavs are linked to another -- it's their 'Manifest Destiny'! Of course, there always will be deniers....

[@benb.9235]

After 2-block WW II & 2-block Cold War, we had a nice time for 3 decades. Now welcome to 2-block CW II.

[@rms7999]

Professor, thanks for this Q&A video! I have a question: if China were to do to Taiwan the same as Russia does to Ukraine, would that scenario represent a violation of the international law, given that most countries do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state? Thanks!

[@markdowding5737]

No, it woulnt. Its would be a situation similar to Nagorno-karabakh, but the west might actually care because Taiwan produces many of of its high end chips

[@rms7999]

@@markdowding5737 Obrigado, but I still cannot figure out what intl law would actually be violated in that case.

[@lordhighexecutioner]

Remember also that much of Lugansk and Donetsk, including their capitals, seceded by their own devices in 2014.

[@andrigeogiou8420]

There is NO way for that to be exceptable. . IF this happened , then my country, Cyprus, will be in danger . The island is already half almost occupied by Turkey since 1974

[@Alexmodernstate2024]

Northern Cyprus will be the most dangerous region for international conflicts. I don’t think that we will be able to find a peaceful way to deal with it

[@Wozza365]

I can't see the north Cyprus issue becoming active any time soon, but I also don't see it being "solved" it will likely just stay as is for many years

[@martinvandenbroek9960]

What's the difference between occupying and controlling a country for 'as long as you need', which is basically a and 'grabbing land'..

[@gediminaskucinskas6952]

Regarding NK it may also be a simple case of NK wanting its troops to gain some experience. In case it wants to give a nice fat greeting for their southern neighbours.

[@baseerathassan3418]

Nice channel. Please make detail videos on ww1 and ww2. It's causes and all that.. thank-you 🤍

[@merxho95]

Congratulations

[@stunimbus1543]

What is the relationship between the UK bases in Cyprus, and the Turkish annexation? I was once told that the region around Aya Napa would have been in the Turkish area was it not for the UK bases. And if the UK bases closed - would the eastern base be in the Turkish area? The border between the Turkish area and Cypriot area does appear to run right upto the UK compound. And is the Turkish area still considered legally part of Cyprus thats occupied or annexed by Turkey? Would Cyprus be well advised to get their occupied area back from Turkey before considering the UK bases - the UK bases being something of a deterrent to Turkey doing military stuff?

[@shafsteryellow]

Wait what are you suggesting that Cyprus goes to war against Turkey?

[@stunimbus1543]

@@shafsteryellow It struck me that if Mauritius can get the UK to negotiate after an ICJ decision, then its bizarre that Turkey can completely ignore 2 UN resolutions - 541 & 550. Surely if the UK is being castigated by the international community over Diego Garcia then Turkey must be an absolute pariah.

[@vivarino1521]

Azerbaijan has violently annexed territory from Armenians and the west has remained silent

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Are you referring to Nagorno-Karabakh or areas inside Armenia proper?

[@EdwardSnortin]

This entire war could have been avoided if Ukraine had just let them have Donbas.

[@gvibration1]

?? There was little international reaction to the 2014 annexation.

[@davidmkwambisijnr218]

But the Russia land grab situation is nuanced and you response didn't allude to that. It's not like they just woke up one day and said we want to go into an extremely costly war for the sake of grabbing some land. If one's objective is to get to the hospital as soon as possible, because they have a dire emergency, it should be expected that speeding and running red lights will inherently be part of that objective

[@yidpgh]

I am an israeli living here in Israel....I am also a right wing Israeli which means I want to "annex" Yehuda and Samaria. I can tell you that the majority of right wingers dont want absolutely anything to do with southern Lebanon...been there done that and did not work as it we wanted. And even YandS, people here in the right dont want to "annex" it until we know what to do in terms of of one state solution: enfranchising the palestinians as full isralies, keeping it under a military governorship until we can sort out who is a terrorist from who could be an honest citizen, or finding a way to send them to Jordan as most of them come from families that in 1967 had their Jordanian passports cancelled. Hence, trust me dude.....no one wants Lebanon here

[@TSEliot1978]

Well problem is that Ukraine cannot take it back. So unless you want a NATO-Russia hot war it stays that way. And before anyone says "long-range strikes", Ukraine has been allowed to use ATACMS ect. inside Ukraine for a long time and Russia is still advancing.

[@pwp8737]

if RF won't retreat, then the west continues to fund Ukraine till russia collapses.

[@Paerigos]

Ukraine is economically unsustainable if it doesnt get Kherson and Zaporozhi back. Its economically unviable territory. But - Donbas is economically unviable territory if Russian doent control Zaporozhi dam, and Crimea is economically unsustaitable if Kachovka isnt rebuilt. There is no peaceful division of Ukraine. Any division of Ukraine means war in few short years

[@Todd.B]

I was going to say something about land grabs but don't think I found a way to articulate my thought in a way that wouldn't be taken out of context and start a huge thing on here.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Yes, that's always a possibility! I grapple with it every week. :-)

[@fezabaydur2821]

Reunification is not a solution in Cyprus

[@WorldTravelerCooking]

So I completely agree with what you say about Russia and shaping borders. I would like to note that the annexations raise problems for Russia too (understanding that Crimea is a different case and is complicated not only by recent transfers of Crimea to Ukraine but also the 1991 autonomy referendum and the fact that the current Ukrainian government no longer recognizes that. So the argument about Crimea is fundamentally different than the argument about these four oblasts and there Russia has set themselves up for a bunch of potential problems. I see Russia's annexation of these 4 oblasts as motivated by two concerns, one domestic and one international. On the domestic front, Russia is barred from sending conscripts outside of Russian territories, and therefore Russian conscripts *can* be sent to the Ukraine war in areas where the front line is within these four oblasts. This allows Russia to continue to fight a sort of twilight war, not really bound by some of the restrictions that are designed to make this sort of thing hard under Russian law but still able to fight. The second is that it creates a claim on Ukrainian territory (to the administrative boundaries of these oblasts) that Ukraine can never and will never accept. And a live territorial dispute of this sort completely forecloses any possibility of Ukraine entering NATO. It might have been possible to persuade Ukraine to give up Crimea in order to join NATO, it is simply not possible to demand all of Kherson Oblast to be given up for the same. The problem for Russia is that almost everyone in the world agrees with you on the issue of annexations. Even Brazil and China earlier had made some noise about this issue. So Russia has made a strategic move which places them in a bad position where most neutral and even allied countries with them are very uneasy with this. And now Russia has a big international relations problem when the war ends. They cannot just give the areas back because that will leave people in Dagestan and other areas quite nervous. They cannot even negotiate the return of these. But they cannot really hold onto them either. My guess is that Russia will negotiate over two points here -- the first will be the administrative borders vs the front line, giving up on the maximalist claim in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. The second is that Russia will probably negotiate over sponsoring and facilitating reunification talks of these oblasts to Ukraine possible. Russia would not negotiate a final settlement but could facilitate talks to see if everyone could work out a way to join back to the 2021 borders. If these are successful they could do the same with Crimea too. There is no downside for Russia over such talks. If the talks succeed, then the breakaway Republics would get protections they want (and presumably to Russian geopolitical advantage) and this would make a Ukraine-West orientation harder. If the talks fail, particularly if Ukraine rejects a deal, then Russia is able to tell the world "we tried but Ukraine doesn't want these areas." So I could see such an approach as addressing many countries' concern about going back to wars of conquest, but for it to be compelling, I think Russia would have to show a willingness to go to great lengths to make a reunification attractive to both sides.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much. Great points about using Russian troops. That does make a lot of sense. It would also support your theory about Russia’s willingness to negotiate a deal that would see them reintegrated into Ukraine. However, I just sense that it is deeper than that now. Having annexed them and formally declaring them part of Russia, to much fanfare, I just think it would be too costly for Putin to give them away now.

[@WorldTravelerCooking]

@@JamesKerLindsay If you thought I said that Russia would negotiate their return, you misunderstood. I think Russia will try to facilitate talks between the breakaway regions and Ukraine which will either force internal political changes in Ukraine that would be helpful to Russia or legitimize Russian annexations. But Russia;s role in these negotiations would be at most to facilitate them and possibly offer support for a deal between these 4 oblast occupied regions and Ukraine.

[@Al-fz2qi]

@@WorldTravelerCooking Interesting points. These areas are now constitutionally part of Russia. They will not be given back. There seems to be no willingness on the part of NATO to go beyond a ceasefire/frozen conflict to make a peace treaty that addresses the issue of European security, which sparked this war in the first place. If there is such an agreement, then the future of the oblasts could be determined by referenda. The people of these oblasts will not go back to Ukraine against their will. Remember they only agreed to support Russia in the war on the understanding they would be incorporated. They knew full well the persecution they would face as "collaborators" if returned to Ukraine. None of these areas had to be lost to Ukraine - the US orchestrated pro-NATO coup in 1914 forced the Russian hand on Crimea, Russia did not support Donbas independence initially, the Minsk agreements posed no threat to the integrity of Ukraine, the Istanbul agreement would have left Ukraine intact if Boris Johnston had not scuppered it. NATO thought they could resolve the issue by war. In other words they were happy to let the side who wins determine the division of the spoils.

[@WorldTravelerCooking]

@@Al-fz2qi they may not be given back. They may be allowed to return if they want to in exchange for concessions. Those are totally different scenarios. And the effort of doing so if it fails would let Russia legitimize the annexations.

[@WorldTravelerCooking]

@@Al-fz2qi To be a little more clear, I suspect Russia will sponsor talks between these new federal Russian republics and Ukraine to see if they can work out a way to return. If they return, this would probably force things like closer ties between Ukraine and Russia, maybe inclusion in a Russian free trade zone, more local autonomy, and some constitutional changes all good for Russia. But critically it would not be Russia negotiating this and it might require a referendum in these new republics to see if they are willing to go back. And if they don't return, then it would mean Russia could say to the world "these groups just cannot live together. Look, we tried to broker a deal where they could return but nobody could come up with terms everyone could live with. Sure annexation is bad, but is there a better option?" And suddenly the annexation looks very good. This is particularly true if such a referendum fails in Ukraine ("They don't even want these areas back if it means working with the people who live there!") So I don't see a reason why Russia could not sponsor talks between these regions and Ukraine on reunification. They will probably even try to do the same with Crimea if the other four rejoin because Crimea would drive an even harder bargain than these areas would.

[@brianfoley4328]

Any discussion on how to assess and decide about policies does require trying to "see it from the other guy's perspective", but I disagree strongly that "your perspective doesn't matter". I can demonstrate with myriad examples of when "your perspective" was crucial in determining policy. particularly when the importance and timing of a decision was existentially important. In fact, there are times when the "other guy's perception/perspective" is detrimental to decision making, especially when it really counts. Again, I can deliver myriad examples of when the "other guy's perspective" was not only not necessary, but potentially disastrous. In peace time, I agree wholeheartedly with your proposition that it's vital to try and see the situation from the "other guy's" point of view. Understanding what's important to "the other guy" can be the key to finding a workable solution, but that is not case when bullets/shells/missiles are flying back and forth.

[@DioXin]

Hi Professor, I am an Israeli living in northern Israel (well, used to until we had to evacuate). UNIFIL had done absolutely nothing to fulfill it's task (and in some cases worsened by assisting Hezbollah). I live in a town that overlooked a Hezbollah fortification, I witnessed them being built in the open with no disturbance, with their flag raised on the final construction. Absolutely nothing can guarantee security against a non state actor force such as Hezbollah, not the UN for sure. Only the IDF can, because it has skin in the game, and it has to be on both sides of the border for this to be effective. There seems to be a division in Israeli society regarding southern Lebanon , some say the immediate threat is removed and the war should end, some claim the threat will revive within weeks after the withdrawal and that it's too soon. It is a difficult division as the toll of dead and wounded soldiers and citizen continues to climb as well as worsening economy. I'm afraid things will get much more volatile, unless a satisfactory agreement is achieved in the coming days (and not weeks).

[@JanjayTrollface]

Absolutely nothing can guarantee security against a non state actor force such as Hezbollah, not the UN for sure. Only the IDF can, because it has skin in the game, and it has to be on both sides of the border for this to be effective..... The last 40 years disagrees with you. I suggest you try something else.

[@shafsteryellow]

@@JanjayTrollfacewrong

[@tkm238-d4r]

At the core of the problem is that H has nothing to lose regarding South Lebanon since it has never been theirs. Furthermore it has always do things its own way. Meanwhile, Israel is still expected to follow norms that H is practically exempted from.

[@mnemonija]

You were misinformed that UN forces were mandated to fight off Hezbollah. It is explicitly outside of their mission. They are only supposed to observe and report, hoping that shame will be somewhat of a deterrent. Otherwise they neither have the numbers nor weapons to oppose any of the military forces in the region.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@mnemonija UNIFIL was not mandated to fight off Hezbollah, but it was mandated to keep them north of the Litani river, as per the UNSC resolution. It failed to do that, so why does it continue to exist, I do not know. UNIFIL sat and watched for almost 2 decades, how Hezbollah is building military infrastructure in an area where they should not have had any presence. The purpose of UNIFIL was to prevent this and allow the Lebanese army to control the territory south of the Litani river. I find it puzzling, under these circumstances, how the UN and UNIFIL criticize Israel for actually implementing the provisions of the UNSC resolution.

[@danielcarrillo4385]

on the topic of Lebanon and Ukraine I'll just iterate what my old SFC said which I believe applies to all sides of that topic......the enemy also gets a vote

[@ABCantonese]

And i forget about the Q&A request... Do you think you'll ever run out of questions?

[@GababoBule]

All those war is going wrong direction prof james👍

[@gvibration1]

Southern Lebanon possibility: 1. Israel expels Hezbollah and any groups sworn to it destruction; 2. assists all other groups to flourish (nb. Gaza had flourishing farms and businesses under Israel). 3. It remains part of Lebanon and participates in the Lebanese political system like all other parts of Lebanon. There's a very good chance the Lebanese government and army, all Druze, Christian and most Sunni groups would prefer that to Iran's regime and Palestinian groups pushing endless war. Especially if a Saudi/Israeli Abraham Accord is signed when Trump gets back in.

[@commonwunder]

0:51 N.Korea isn't sending over its entire army. All soldiers need real-world experience - test their training methods. The N.Korean generals believe they're getting invaluable, real world expertise - in an ever changing art form, that is cutting edge modern warfare.

[@WorldTravelerCooking]

The thing is, without specifics it is really hard to figure out what it means that North Korea is sending troops and whether these are fighting in Ukraine or simply against Ukraine (for example in the Kursk oblast). The latter seems to be very much in line with a mutual defense treaty, the former not so much. Similarly not allowing deep strikes with Western long range weapons into Russia follows a similar division. I think for North Korea, a big goal here is probably to get experience fighting alongside Russia if indeed they are in a mutual defense pact. Russia probably also wants to work out kinks in their cooperation too. 15000 troops is nothing in this war. In other words it isn't really the support. It is more like a development one step beyond a live ammunition firing exercise.

[@sheldonwheaton881]

Never reward aggression!!🗽🇺🇦

[@PMK9831]

Is that a question that we should even ask because the answer is already there. Russia has clearly said that they are not returning the annexed territories and they consider them part of Russia now, if they were planning on returning the territory they wouldn't have annexed it. The question is what happens next since nobody is backing down and third parties like North Korea are getting involved, how long before countries on Ukraines side get involved? it seems like it will get worse before it gets better.

[@Evemeister12]

It's two-faced to condemn Russia's actions in Ukraine while turning blind eye to Israel's actions in Lebanon.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Was Ukraine (or a group operating out of Ukraine) launching missiles into Russia before Russia invaded?

[@antlerman7644]

​@@JamesKerLindsay^^ the fact you distinguish between the two is one of the main reasons I follow you. I am largely disappointed with the left wing in the UK I thought I aligned with. I am glad Labour have distanced themselves from the Corbyn type of politics. They are not the same wars, I find it fustrating beyond all ends how all eyes are on Israel but Ukraine is being left in the media dust.

[@sirocco_1]

@@JamesKerLindsay Golan Heights was occupied by Israel in 1967 and in 2019 The United state recognized the Golan as part of Israeli sovereign territory. How can you convince me that it's not hypocrisy?

[@Virgil_Solozzo1923]

@@JamesKerLindsay There wasn't any group launching missiles into Russia, but the democratically elected President of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent western-backed coup in 2014, which led to certain parties attempting to ban the Russian language in the midst of violence against Russian speakers throughout Russia.

[@Bulgarian021]

Did Israel say Lebanon is not a real state and that the people in Lebanon are actually Jews with a fake label ?