Political impacts of Ukraine war

[KevinB]

The U.S. doesn’t recognize the legal authority of the ICC whatsoever. The warrant is meaningless on U.S. soil.

Actually only for Protected Persons.

d) the term “protected person” means:
(i) any United States person, unless the United States provides formal consent to ICC jurisdiction over that person or becomes a state party to the Rome Statute, including:
(A) current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States;
(B) current or former elected or appointed officials of the United States Government; and
(C) any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government; and
(ii) any foreign person that is a citizen or lawful resident of an ally of the United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction over that person or is not a state party to the Rome Statute, including:
(A) current or former members of the armed forces of such ally of the United States;
(B) current or former elected or appointed government officials of such ally of the United States; and
(C) any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of such a government;
(e) the term “ally of the United States” means:
(i) a government of a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; or
(ii) a government of a “major non-NATO ally,” as that term is defined by section 2013(7) of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7432(7));
(f) the term “immediate family member” means a spouse or child;
(g) the term “alien” has the meanings given to the term in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)); and
(h) the term “foreign person” means a person that is not a United States person.

In February, POTUS added the current and former ally protections clause to the act.

As for unilateral police action, war crimes matters are dealt with by Homeland Security Investigations; it’s explicitly a federal thing.

You’d be surprised what the Counties and States can do if they feel motivated. As the RuAF have killed a number of US citizens, you may find that some of the states willing to take a swing for the fences depending on how the Governor thinks.

Let’s be real, if Trump wanted to invite Putin to the U.S., Putin would be designated as an Internationally Protected Person and would be welcomed and protected by the administration.

TBH I think even 47 knows that would be a boiling point issue for a lot of people, and just end up as a losing event for him.

He wouldn’t appear in public unless POTUS wanted him to catch a drone to the face.

Made an edit above

 

[brihard]

Actually only for Protected Persons.

d) the term “protected person” means:
(i) any United States person, unless the United States provides formal consent to ICC jurisdiction over that person or becomes a state party to the Rome Statute, including:
(A) current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States;
(B) current or former elected or appointed officials of the United States Government; and
(C) any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government; and
(ii) any foreign person that is a citizen or lawful resident of an ally of the United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction over that person or is not a state party to the Rome Statute, including:
(A) current or former members of the armed forces of such ally of the United States;
(B) current or former elected or appointed government officials of such ally of the United States; and
(C) any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of such a government;
(e) the term “ally of the United States” means:
(i) a government of a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; or
(ii) a government of a “major non-NATO ally,” as that term is defined by section 2013(7) of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7432(7));
(f) the term “immediate family member” means a spouse or child;
(g) the term “alien” has the meanings given to the term in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)); and
(h) the term “foreign person” means a person that is not a United States person.

In February, POTUS added the current and former ally protections clause to the act.



You’d be surprised what the Counties and States can do if they feel motivated. As the RuAF have killed a number of US citizens, you may find that some of the states willing to take a swing for the fences depending on how the Governor thinks.


TBH I think even 47 knows that would be a boiling point issue for a lot of people, and just end up as a losing event for him.

Made an edit above

That refers specifically to Trump’s EO sanctions against the ICC and those working on its behalf, and extends extraterritorially. Separate from and additional to that, the U.S. doesn’t recognize the ICC at all and has not ratified the Rome Statute. So while what you say is correct, it deals with sanctions over and above what I said about ICC warrants simply being of no force or effect in the U.S.

Separately, the U.S. is also a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, which includes heads of state. Federal law would protect Putin on that basis were he invited.

 

[Kirkhill]

A relevant snippet from the LPC platform on international partnerships:

“And, if needed, build on our peacekeeping heritage and step up to guarantee Ukraine’s security”

Am I reading this the same as others- Canada as a potential member in a ‘coalition of the willing’ in Ukraine?

British troops in Ukraine could be prosecuted under ECHR

Defence Secretary dismisses calls to shield peacekeepers from threat of Russian ‘lawfare’

www.telegraph.co.uk

The article describes the front line as being held by Ukrainians with the US supplying "Air Cover and Satellite Surveillance". The bases in the rear, Kryvyi Rih, Dnipro and Poltava would be home to JEF and French Troops. JEF, as noted previously, comprises Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, UK and Iceland.

Presumably Canada would be aligning with JEF or the French to continue to supply training and support in country.

 

[HavokFour]

British troops in Ukraine could be prosecuted under ECHR

Defence Secretary dismisses calls to shield peacekeepers from threat of Russian ‘lawfare’

www.telegraph.co.uk

View attachment 92991

The article describes the front line as being held by Ukrainians with the US supplying "Air Cover and Satellite Surveillance". The bases in the rear, Kryvyi Rih, Dnipro and Poltava would be home to JEF and French Troops. JEF, as noted previously, comprises Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, UK and Iceland.

Presumably Canada would be aligning with JEF or the French to continue to supply training and support in country.

Could also free up a ton of Ukrainian units that have been stationed along the Belarusian border.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bit of an odd story came out this morning.

Son of senior CIA official died fighting for Russian forces in Ukraine - Euromaidan Press

A young American who called himself an anti-fascist and criticized the US "military-industrial complex" died fighting for Russia in Ukraine.

euromaidanpress.com

Alt: https://archive.ph/tUnpv

@DarthPutinKGB scores a good one on this one .,,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1916147841174524397

The mom is not a recent appointee but someone who, according to her LinkedIn profile, had been in the IT and int world for many years.

More on this guy from some of the original outlets sharing this one:

Source Stories on Michael Gloss/Ukraine - Multy

multy.me