Does the Filming of the Russian POWs Violate the Geneva Conventions?

I recently wrote a column on why I believe that the Russians are now committing flagrant war crimes. Ukraine is the victim of those crimes and the images from that country are truly sickening.  Vladimir Putin and his government now stands as not just a pariah among nations but criminal actors who have shattered the most basic principles of international law and the Law of War. In that context, it is difficult to raise questions about the response of Ukraine, which is facing annihilation at the hands of a tyrant. However, Ukraine is reportedly showing videotapes of Russian POWs. While it pales in comparison to what is being done by the Russians, the practice may violate Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions. Despite my strong and ongoing support for Ukraine in this struggle, it is important to flag such potential violations when they occur. It also has bearing on the media in using such images.

The Ukrainians are showing weeping Russian prisoners of war who denounce Russia and declare that they were used like ‘cannon fodder’ by Russian commanders. The video airing on the networks show “Security Service of Ukraine” across the top of the images.

As civil libertarians, we are often compelled to raise concerns despite our revulsion with the conduct or views of a party. These soldiers are combatants protected by the Geneva Conventions and other treaties. Ukrainian POWs are protected under the same status.

The issue of filming POWs has long been contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

Here is the relevant provision:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.


Text of the provision*

(1) Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

(2) Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

(3) Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

* Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference.

Likewise, the Fourth Geneva Convention, covering civilians, states:

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War art. 27, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516.

Obviously, these provisions do not expressly ban filming of POWs but protects them from acts of “intimidation and … insults and public curiosity.”

The International Red Cross and other international humanitarian groups have long condemned the filming for POWs for propaganda or public messaging.

“Being exposed to ‘public curiosity’ as a prisoner of war, even when such exposure is not accompanied by insulting remarks or actions, is humiliating in itself and therefore specifically prohibited. For the purposes of the present article, ‘public’ should be interpreted as referring to anyone who is not directly involved in handling the prisoners of war, including other members of the Detaining Power. Exposure to public curiosity can take many forms. The prohibition undoubtedly covers parading prisoners in public. Moreover, prisoners must not be exposed to humiliation when they leave their camp for work, are transferred to another facility or are being repatriated. In modern conflicts, the prohibition also covers, subject to the considerations discussed below, the disclosure of photographic and video images, recordings of interrogations or private conversations or personal correspondence or any other private data, irrespective of which public communication channel is used, including the internet. Although this is seemingly different from being marched through a hostile crowd, such disclosure could still be humiliating and jeopardize the safety of the prisoners’ families and of the prisoners themselves once they are released.”

During the Iraq War and other conflicts, the United States has objected to the filming of American POWs as a violation of Article 13.

There have been debates over the use of photos where the identity of POWs are obscured but that is not the case in the Ukrainian footage.

In ACLU v. Dep’t of Def., 543 F.3d 59, 90 (2d Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 777 (2009). the court allowed the release of Abu Ghraib photos of detainee abuse as an exception to these rules but only because the identity of the individuals was obscured.

It is not clear who is in possession or took the videotapes of these POWs. Many citizens are joining the front lines in this fight. However, as difficult as it is in this fluid battlefield, Ukraine is under an obligation to seek adherence to the conventions.

One answer cannot be that the Russians deserve it. The Conventions are only viable if they are applied evenly. If we apply the rules selectively, the Russians will claim the same exceptional status in their treatment of Ukrainian POWs.

There may be a claim that these POWs volunteered to make such statements. For example, the media may claim that it was given access to these soldiers who agreed to be interviewed. The Red Cross has always been leery of such consent claims when a combatant is being held. Moreover, one article suggests that the government was behind the display, noting “Ukraine on Wednesday invited the worried mothers of Russian troops captured on the battlefield to come and collect their sons.”

We need to know more about these circumstances, but these videotapes raise a credible concern over adherence to Article 13.


180 thoughts on “Does the Filming of the Russian POWs Violate the Geneva Conventions?”

  1. Given the comments by Mespo, Lefty, & a few others, I was not going to comment on this piece, because they have essentially written what I would have. In his blog, Turley raises the question not so much of what a war crime might be, but which war crimes are liable to be prosecuted. While despicable, using an enemy POW as a propaganda tool is not on the same level as shelling civilian areas for eight years, as the Ukrainian army has done to the breakaway areas of Luhansk and Donbas, where 80 percent of the casualties were ethnic Russians, not ethnic Ukrainians. But few people noticed, and NATO blithely ignored reality and (nudge nudge) invited Ukraine to join, as did the EU, which would like to have new markets and new sources of cheap labor. It is not just NATO that expands indefinitely, raising the question of where it will stop expanding — the Urals? The Great Wall? The China Sea? South Africa?
    Nor is using a POW for propaganda purposes on the same level as destroying civilian infrastructure in order to cripple a regime, as the US and NATO have done, nor even on the same level as deliberating provoking street demonstrations and rebellion, while arming extremists in order to overthrow a legitimately elected government, as the West has repeatedly done (and called it by clever names) or arming states which regularly target civilians in places like Yemen.
    I will worry about minor war crimes when I see the ICC, the UNSC, and other international institutions look seriously at the major war crimes committed by democratic states, their defensive alliances, and their less than defensively minded allies.
    For the trolls — I am not a Putin supporter, and I am not (like you?) being paid. What I am is an old-style lefty (like Lefty) who has paid attention to politics, diplomacy, and war for more than sixty years — a ‘realist’ like Kennan an Mearsheimer who tries not to let moral rectitude and group think cloud my mind and obstruct my efforts to understand what actually motivates individuals and governments. So I do not begin my analysis of recent events in Ukraine, a country created in 1991 from the ruins of the Soviety Union, with Putin’s seizure of Crimea, but with the US-supported overthrow of a government put into power through elections that the OSCE considered “free and fair.” I suspect that if others began their analysis in 2013, did their research with due diligence across a wide variety of sources (which is what real scholars are supposed to do), and paid attention to what actually happened on Maidan and to Victoria Nuland’s telephone call, that perhaps they would see the present differently than they do.
    Or not. The rub with free speech in a democratic country is that we ultimately fall back on majority rule, because consensus can only be coerced.

      1. By the way, I might have described myself as a lefty realist as well a few years ago. The left’s embrace of identity politics and Kendiism, transgenderism, neo-racist school indoctrination, climate alarmism, open borders, Covidian tyranny and the Russia hoax all cured me of any sympathy for the left.

        1. Lefty. Righty. Switch hitter. ever explore what often takes place with pows in battle areas? by our country or any other country? Those legal constraints are often tossed aside.

  2. Justice should be applied equally, but that also applies to a magnitude of crime. Filming POW’s who are otherwise treated according to the Geneva convention is certainly a crime of less magnitude than invading another country and deliberately bombing/killing civilians. The other issue is whether Putin cares. If nobody is able/willing to stop his invasion of Ukraine, what makes anybody think he will stand trial in an international court of law, unless he is militarily defeated.

  3. Had Breaker Morant’s Rule 303 been used by the Ukraine Forces there would be no photos…..ergo….no question of whether it is a violation of some obscure Geneva Accord Rule.

    When you break and enter into a home… run the real risk of getting shot dead by the Home Owner.

    Seems like that principle should apply to an invasion of one’s homeland by armed intruders.

  4. (OT)

    This is major news. Will Turley address it?

    “Trump and right-wing lawyer [John Eastman] were part of ‘criminal conspiracy’ to overturn 2020 election, January 6 committee alleges”

    Also today, one of the Oath Keepers pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and obstruction and is cooperating with the DOJ.

    1. January 6th Committee:
      “The facts we’ve gathered strongly suggest that Dr. Eastman’s emails may show that he helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power.”

      Recall that there is a crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.

      Here’s hoping that the DOJ acts on their information.

        1. read the exchange between John Eastman and Pence’s lawyer on Jan. 6, one of the exhibits released tonight:
          Because all criminal investigations release evidence to shape public opinion before a trial. But wait, Congress cannot conduct a criminal investigation. That is not an article I power.
          But it is a huge sign there is nothing there. Just like the Mueller investigation, its only purpose is Political war. This has nothing to do with justice.

          Also never forget. this is a DEMOCRAT committee. All the Republican Congressmen were rejected by Pelosi. The purpose was always a faux congressional show trial. Cheney will not likely be congress critters in a year, and Kinzinger already refused to run for re-election.

          1. The Jan. 6 Committee’s investigation isn’t a criminal investigation, and this lawsuit isn’t a criminal one. John Eastman is the one who filed this civil lawsuit, and it’s appropriate for the committee to make its case in response.

            Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans whether you can admit it or not, so you’re simply lying when you say “All the Republican Congressmen were rejected by Pelosi.” And remember that the only reason that it’s a House Select Committee with membership controlled solely by the Speaker is because Senate Republicans filibustered the creation of a bicameral national commission where Congressional Republicans would have had as much control over the membership as Congressional Democrats:

            1. Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans whether you can admit it or not, so you’re simply lying when you say “All the Republican Congressmen were rejected by Pelosi.”

              Pelosi picked Cheney and Kinzinger. House rules I assume. Pelosi also kicked off all the Republicans picked by McCarthty.

              The committee is hand picked by Pelosi. NOT bipartisan.

              Your whining about the Senate actions has no bearing.

              1. Senate actions have a bearing because the House Select Committee only came into being because the Senate Republicans refused to have the bicameral Commission that was originally proposed. The House voted in favor of that bicameral Commission and sent the bill to the Senate, and the Senate Republicans filibustered it, so it was never created. If that bicameral Commission had been created, the Republicans in both chambers would have had as much control over the membership as the Democrats.

                Yes, by rules of the House, all House Select Committees have membership approved by the Speaker. That rule predates Pelosi.

                It’s bipartisan because there are members from both parties.

      1. Anon,

        It is noteworthy that the Jan 6 Commission has a twitter account but, in hindsight, this is no surprise. This is nothing but a political smear campaign and how better to promote the smear amongst the leftists than twitter?

        Once you accept that this is the case it is, once again, no surprise that they would ‘tweet’ to their sycophantic followers that the evidence ‘suggests’ that Eastman ‘may’ have conspired with Trump. Is that our standard of justice today; the ‘suggestion’ that someone ‘may’ have broken the law?

        But, it worked because here you are gleefully proclaiming; ‘finally, we have him now!’

        How many times are you going to try to kick the football before you finally realize that it will always be pulled back because there is nothing there?

        1. “It is noteworthy that the Jan 6 Commission has a twitter account”

          It is? Why? Lots of Congressional committees (and/or their Democratic and Republican subsets) have Twitter accounts.

          I see that you have no interest in discussing the evidence provided in their response to Eastman’s motion.

          I’m not surprised, as you’d previously asked me for evidence in other columns and then chose not to discuss it when I provided it to you. Apparently you’d rather gripe about Democrats. [yawn]

          “This is nothing but a political smear campaign ”

          I don’t agree.

          “here you are gleefully proclaiming; ‘finally, we have him now!’ ”

          Here you are lying about me instead of choosing to have a good faith discussion of the evidence. It’s a sign of weakness on your part.

          1. Anon,

            I asked the question “Is that our standard of justice today; the ‘suggestion’ that someone ‘may’ have broken the law?” This was an invitation for discussion but yuo chose to ignore this in your response. Instead you have accused me of weakness for not being willing to discuss the evidence. I asked the question, it is you who are weak for not answering. I will add that, in the general case, you are weak because you will nit choose a moniker. You know that you cannot defend much of what you post so you hide by blaming to “other Anon guy”

            Next, I said “here you are gleefully proclaiming; ‘finally, we have him now!’”” This is known as ‘hyperbole’, you should look this term up when you have a chance. Until then, suffice it to say that a casual blog reader would presume when reading the three consecutive OT posts that you felt compelled to make alleging that Trump ‘may’ be charged with a crime that you are obsessed with his demise one way ir the other.

            When you add to this that you have made similar OT posts on other articles this just creates the idea that Trump must live rent-free in your head and you are convinced that th e only way for the pain to go away is for him to be ‘locked up’.

            Seek help

            1. “This was an invitation for discussion but yuo chose to ignore this in your response.”

              BS. It was a rhetorical question, not a sincere one, and I treated it as such.

              “it is you who are weak for not answering.”

              The answer is obvious: justice comes from an honest investigation and, if appropriate, charges and either a plea or a trial where a jury decides whether or not to convict. But you never say what “suggestion” you’re referring to. For example, are you referring to Eastman’s own admission in his email exchange with Pence’s lawyer that Eastman had asked Pence to carry out what Eastman called a “relatively minor violation” of the Electoral Count Act? Eastman admits there that he was asking Pence to violate the law. Have you even bothered to read the exchange between Eastman and Jacob?

              You’re the one focusing on Trump, when I was focusing on Eastman.

              Yes, I have repeated this OT news a few times because it is major news that the President’s lawyer admits to having encouraged Pence to break the law. And not just any law, but subverting the peaceful transfer of power in our constitutional democratic republic.

              You don’t get it. No one is above the law. If a full investigation shows that Eastman “helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power,” then they should be prosecuted for it. And if the investigation doesn’t show that, then they shouldn’t be.

              1. Anon,

                Will you ignore the question a third time? “Is that our standard of justice today; the ‘suggestion’ that someone ‘may’ have broken the law?”

                I will also ask this question again; “How many times are you going to try to kick the football before you finally realize that it will always be pulled back because there is nothing there?”

                1. You can pretend that I didn’t answer, but I told you The answer is obvious: justice comes from an honest investigation and, if appropriate, charges and either a plea or a trial where a jury decides whether or not to convict. … If a full investigation shows that Eastman “helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power,” then they should be prosecuted for it. And if the investigation doesn’t show that, then they shouldn’t be, so you’re simply dishonest to pretend that I didn’t answer.

                  Unlike you, I do not pretend to know what will come of the investigation. I’m not kicking anything. I’m watching and reading. Time will tell what happens.

    2. What did the threaten this guy with?

      Being Arkancided like is thought that happened to the guy last week?

      After over a year of you people torturing & denying basic Rights like “Due Process” to those people, you people have no high ground of morality other then the fraud in your Blue State Sh*itholes.

      Just settle down & go get you another mRNA shot & your friends will take care of you maybe?

      1. Not sure which “guy” you’re referring to. Eastman? Pence? Pence’s laywer? Trump? James? Turley? someone else?

    3. Anonymous asks:

      “Will Turley address it?”

      Absolutely not, if past is prologue:

      1. On Eastman being forced out of his position at his law school which stated:

      “After discussions over the course of the last week, Dr. John Eastman and Chapman University have reached an agreement pursuant to which he will retire from Chapman, effective immediately. Dr. Eastman’s departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman and provides the most immediate and certain path forward for both the Chapman community and Dr. Eastman.”

      Turley has said nothing.

      2. On Eastman having his California law license investigated for engaging in “conduct in violation of California law and ethics rules governing attorneys following and in relation to the November 2020 presidential election” on account of his Memorandum to Pence, Turley has been mum.

      3. On Eastman’s assertion that he is withholding his emails, held by his former employer Chapman University, by citing attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, Turley is as silent as the grave.

      Turley’s uncharacteristic silence raises 2 possibilities:

      1. Turley believes that Eastman has no defenses and privately approves of the 1/6 investigation. Why wouldn’t he. After all, hd called for Trump’s Congressional censure for his reckless conduct on 1/6;

      2. Turley is ignoring Eastman because Fox News is. Amidst Fox’s defamation lawsuits filed against it for promulgating the Big Lie, the less said about the Big Lie, the better. Why mention the negative legal repercussions of those lawyers who were featured on Fox News in order to drive the false narrative that the election was stolen?

        1. The straight reporters at Fox may mention it online or during the day, BUT the most watched and influential prime time rage provocateurs, Watters, Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham, won’t touch it. Turley *may* address it here, BUT he will NEVER be called upon to provide his legal analysis on these Fox shows. Turley knows full well that Fox engages in *advocacy journalism* which he decries in the MSM, BUT we cannot hold him accountable for his hypocrisy because he is unwilling to be questioned by us.

          1. jeffsilberman, you could send him an email although I don’t know if he would answer.

            1. David,

              Have you ever emailed him? I’m sure he will not reply because his hypocrisy is indefensible. He only gets away with it by his refusal to address it.

              All he could say is “I work for Fox. What do you expect? I should bite the hand that feeds me?”

              1. jeffsilberman, yes I sent him an email regarding a persistent violation of the blog’s civility code. I received a prompt reply.

                1. Would you mind explaining your specific complaint and his specific reply? Thanks.

  5. Let’s put it to a vote, shall we? How many of you Trumpists here support AFPAC’s praise of Putin?

    Come now. You can raise your hand. Most of you are anonymous or employ a pseudonym. Bd honest if you are able.

    1. Don’t be shy. Admit it- Russia is the ultimate “Red” state. I don’t mean “red” as in Communist. I mean “red” as in Republican. Russia is a country where religion predominates in making social policy. It has an alpha male leader just like Trump. Putin puts into practice what Trumpists yearn for. Let’s face it.

      1. Remember when Obama told Medvedev to wait till he gets re-elected, then he’ll have more flexibility. And Obama told Romney to keep his 1980s foreign policy. I do.

          1. If I have to explain this to you, then you definitely wouldn’t understand. Putin has always been what he is and these Liberal lefties thought they honestly negotiate with him. Somehow we (liberal Americans) think other people throughout the world appreciate our values and would want the same goals we do. Like we’re going to bring democracy to people who could care less about it. Mr. Putin is an old KGB guy and you can’t change the spots on a leopard.

  6. Anon @5:33

    Actually I don’t want the Ukraine to be part of Russia. It is highly likely neither does Putin. Most of Ukraine is an economic basket case, and he does not need the financial drain.

    What Putin has clearly, and repeatedly, said is that he must have a neutral Ukraine that provides a buffer between Russia, NATO forces and our missiles in Poland and Romania.

    We could have easily prevented this war by assuring Russia that the Ukraine would stay roughly neutral and not become a NATO armed force on Russia’s border or rearm with nukes as Zelensky suggested they might do. We refused to even consider doing those things. It ain’t science, but it is about rockets. That gets buried in the hysterical US government and MSM propaganda.

    1. Putin is a ruthless dictator in Russia.

      Maybe if he weren’t a ruthless dictator, he wouldn’t have to worry about whether Ukraine is neutral.

    2. I agree with this.

      Why do you think we refused to entertain the idea of a halt to NATO’s eastward expansion and a relatively neutral status for Ukraine? I believe the Biden administration recognised that the choice was between accepting this or facing an invasion. Yet they ignored the negotiated settlement and so got the invasion. They thus chose the consequences we see today.

      I find it difficult to accept that it was the principle of NATO’s open door policy and the sacred right of Ukraine to choose to join (regardless of what was best for us). Only those with no feel for the reality of power and no sense of concern for foreseeable consequences could act in this context for those reasons. Maybe our leaders are this irresponsible but I find that hard to fathom. There must have been some deeper reason.

      1. Daniel, Any country can apply to join NATO but the current members must all agree to the addition. At least France and Germany object to Ukraine’s joining at this time.

    3. Lefty675 is just another puppet for our Pro-Putin blog stooge. One can bet that the vast majority of Pro-Putin comments on these threads are from the same idiot loser.

    4. You are living in an alternate reality. The only missiles in the Eastern NATO countries are air defense Patriot systems and those were deployed only after Russia violated the INF Treaty by developing new intermediate range nuclear missiles. NATO has in fact been extraordinarily sensitive to Russia in not establishing forward bases in the new Eastern members, as they have in most Western European members. As with most blackmailers’ demands, agreeing to one only leads to new demands, not peace.

      1. AF JAG retired @8:25

        It is hard to have a conversation with you when you continue just to make stuff up. I would hope you did not practice law like that, but it seems likely a long standing behavior.

        I can certainly understand that as a JAG officer you might be clueless as to what an AGEIS Ashore system is comprised of. But it is puzzling that you would assert something that is objectively false instead of figuring it out. Patriot is indeed a defensive system. The AGEIS Ashore system we have deployed in eastern Europe (Poland and Romania), is also an offensive system. Is that clear enough? The Russians understand the difference even if you do not.

        There was a debate as to the range of a Russian missile system. Our decision to unilaterally assert that we knew better than the Russians what the capabilities of their missile was and to use that as an excuse to leave the INF Treaty rather than resolve the issue was neocon idiocy. We can thank war criminals including Duhbya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the passel of neocons they saddled up with for withdrawing from arms control agreements in addition to their WMD lies and illegal wars of aggression. They made the world a more dangerous place and we are still engaged in wars they started decades ago. The cost in blood and treasure has been huge. It is sad that you seem to have internalized their lies as truth.

        Our withdrawal from the INF Treaty is among the reasons why Putin observed last spring that the US is incapable of making and keeping agreements and that Russia was through coddling us. I do not admire Putin and it saddens me when he tells it straighter than our own government and its apologists. As I noted before, the worst mistake you can make is to believe your own propaganda. That is especially true when propaganda is wrapped in the flag.

        Speaking of alternate realities, you have no grasp of the obvious, and you cannot dance on the head of that pin. Eastern European NATO members have military bases. Our troops and weapons are on those bases. Biden recently sent thousands more US soldiers to eastern Europe and redeployed thousands more from Poland (also eastern Europe) further east.

        If you are typical of the people you served with it may shed light on why the US has not won a war since 1945. I hope for the nations sake that is not the case and that you are brighter than your postings here.

    5. Dishonest Putin-puppet Russian media propagangda. As usual with the Blame NATO crowd (including Putin) you forgot to care about what *Ukranians* want.

      “Putin says” may be the most worthless phrase in the US language. Putin is a liar and a dictator who murders, poisons, and jails political opponents. NATO has never attacked Russia, despite there already being NATO countries on Putin’s border. Even now, NATO is refusing to attack Russia.

      This has nothing to do with NATO. It’s about Putin being an aging megalomaniac who thinks Ukraine has no right to exist. And the fact that he has invaded his non-NATO neighbors multiple times is all the proof needed to explain why NATO is necessary.

      Putin does not get to decide foreign policy for the United States and Ukraine. This would have been prevented if you and he could accept that.

  7. “At this point what difference does it make” said a noted US politician about her negligence that let several Americans including a diplomat get murdered without lifting a hand. Pictures are just pictures.

    1. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”

      1. She knew even then, had done for awhile, that it was the terrorists she had been warned about and whom she had been begged to provide more security against.

        She is a wretched, deceitful creature with morals that would shame a maggot.

      2. Democrats impeached Trump for illegally denying Ukraine $400 million in security aid to blackmail Zelensky and weaken NATO on Putin’s behalf. Now, while Biden is uniting the world against Putin, Trump praises Putin as “savvy” and “genius” while Russian state TV broadcasts Tucker Carlson’s anti-Ukraine, anti-American Fox News propaganda.

        1. DK:

          “Democrats impeached Trump for illegally denying Ukraine $400 million in security aid to blackmail Zelensky and weaken NATO on Putin’s behalf. Now, while Biden is uniting the world against Putin, Trump praises Putin as “savvy” and “genius” while Russian state TV broadcasts Tucker Carlson’s anti-Ukraine, anti-American Fox News propaganda.”
          Based on that pack of Dim lying points, I commend you on the abbreviation forming the basis for your nom de plume. But hey go ahead and stick the “ic” back in the middle. They’re might be some dolt out there who thinks you’re legit.

    2. Putin has said repeatedly starting in 2007 that he would not tolerate the expansion of NATO further eastward into Ukraine or Georgia. He invaded Georgia in 2008 to stop it and invaded Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 to stop it. There is no evidence, had NATO not been offering membership to these countries, and had it said instead that its dramatic expansion eastward was over, that Putin would have invaded either. It of course cannot be proved that he would not have, but so far as I am aware he has not bombed or invaded any other countries, including former Soviet republics (though he did engage in a brutal war to keep Chechnya within Russia, as did Yeltsin). The same cannot be said of the US or NATO.

      Now you can say that it is wrong for Russia to stop Ukraine or Georgia from joining NATO if that is what the parties want to do. Even if that is true as a matter of international law or abstract morality, it is irrelevant to the question of what is the prudent policy to follow when a great power asserts that a particular security interest is a red line for it, and that security interest demands only that a state on its border remain outside a military alliance it perceives with some justification as expansive and potentially hostile.

        1. Neither of these comments addresses the point, which is about prudent policy in the face of a great power’s repeatedly articulated red lines. And NATO was holding out membership to both Ukraine and Georgia. NATO stated as much in 2008. And Putin perceives NATO as hostile to Russia.

          1. Daniel, “NATO stated” no such thing.

            And note than V.V. Putin has become Vlad the Mad.

  8. Ukraine can invite Americans onto its territory if it wants to. Invited Americans in Ukraine should have more of a right to be in Ukraine than uninvited Russians. Americans are supposed to take a stand for rights. What about their right to be in a country where they are invited? Americans should take a stand for this right and stand their ground. When you are afraid of being hurt by a bully, the bully has won. “We are a responsible super-power, so we will run away to avoid conflict.” to paraphrase Kirby.

  9. 32 trimesters since the violent Western-backed coup, without reconciliation and remediation to the Ukranian people.

    Obama, Biden, McCain, Biden’s “Slavic Spring”.

  10. Natasha @3:51

    Apparently you were either not around or were not paying attention (as usual) when the US came to the very brink of WW3 with the USSR in 1962 over Soviet troops and missiles in Cuba. Those issues are no less profound 60 years later with the US and NATO on Russia’s doorstep in eastern Europe. Unsurprisingly the Russians see this as an existential issue for them every bit as much as we did for us.

    I am not defending Putin, I don’t much care for him. What I care for even less is our current US government and MSM hysterical anti Russian neo con warmongering that has taken over the country even more profoundly than the WMD lies and hysteria did in 2003. Your post illustrates just how bad, not to mention baseless that can get. Thanks for making the idiocy clear. Whatever the issue it seems you can always be counted on to do that.

    It is funny how those of you with Trump Derangement Syndrome try to make everyone who disagrees with your blather into a Trump supporter, and you even segue close to accusations of treason. I did not and do not support Trump any more than I do Putin, nor am I a right winger. New Deal Dem pretty much describes me, but that also is clearly beyond your comprehension and that of many of the woke hysterics the party is consumed by today. You speak of war criminals and I am grateful Trump spared us a corrupt and war criminal Clinton presidency. I wish the Dems had offered us an alternative to Trump who was not a corrupt soft in the head senile geezer on top of not being any too bright when he had something that passed for a brain. The empty headed virtue signal he saddled us with as VP did the country no favors either.

    Of the few things on the credit side of Trump’s ledger is that he did not start another war. He is the first president since 1981 to do that. You might think about that.

    Have a nice day:)

    1. Trump pardoned a war criminal.

      The biggest favor that Biden has done is sparing us from another 4 years of Trump.

  11. I agree with Turley’s position on applying the Geneva Convention against Ukraine in spite of the Russian aggression. It’s no surprise that Turley’s unequivocal stand against Putin’s invasion has drawn a rebuke from many of the lying Trumpists on this blog. Turley knows a tyrant when he sees one in Putin just as he knew a conman when he saw one when he called Trump a “carnival snake charmer.” Because of his devotion to the impartial application of the law as evidenced here, I have predicted that Turley will support the jury’s guilty verdict in any potential future criminal or civil judgement against Trump. It will be amusing to read their howls of indignation and sense of betrayal if and when that day arrives. The Trumpists will then realize unmistakably that Turley has always been a NeverTrumper.

    Where do the Trumpists get the sense that Russia is the victim and not the perpetrator in the current crisis? Tucker Carlson among others. I submit for your perusal:

    “How the Most Russia-Friendly Corners of American Punditry Are Coping With the Ukraine Crisis”

    The article states:

    “Tucker Carlson’s argument on his highly rated prime-time Fox News show: that the Ukraine crisis was a “border dispute” in an “obscure” part of the world (he specifically belittled the idea that Americans should care what happens to people in Moldova) and that the country’s government is a sham administration that only exists to perpetuate Biden family corruption…..”

    “The main thing to know about Ukraine for our purposes is that its leaders once sent millions of dollars to Joe Biden’s family. Not surprisingly, Ukraine is now one of Biden’s favorite countries,“ Carlson said in a Feb. 22 monologue. “The administration assures us that this has nothing at all to do with repaying Joe Biden’s personal debts to Ukrainian oligarchs. Not at all. It’s completely and totally unrelated. The point here is to defend democracy. Not that Ukraine is a democracy. It is not a democracy.”

    Despite these obvious false narratives, Turley appeared last night on Carlson’s show to voice his legitimate consternation about how Biden handled the Jackson nomination. What is NOT legitimate is Turley appearing with the one of the leading voices in America who roots for Russia while remaining SILENT about Carlson’s ADVOCACY JOURNALISM (which Turley condemns when engaged by Fox’s media competitors in the MSM).

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Turley will live to regret his shameful association with Carlson and his self-censorship in denouncing Carlson’s false narratives. Carlson is perfectly free to defend Putin and praise autocrat Victor Orban, and Turley would otherwise be free to denounce Carlson’s bad speech with his own good speech, that is, until Fox bought Turley’s silence.

    1. Absolutely ridiculous. Tucker Carlson never once called Russia the victim nor do the so called “Trumpists”. Utter ignorance. This situation clearly did not occur under Trump’s watch and wouldn’t have. We have a weak inept man in the Oval Office who has done nothing but inspire chaos and evil to prevail. So sad to think of what we have yet to face with 3 years left in this sham presidency.

      1. Shells says:

        “So sad to think of what we have yet to face with 3 years left in this sham presidency.”

        I have not seen your name here before. Obviously, you are unaware of the fact that Turley does NOT believe in Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen. I pity you that you have been conned by this “carnival snake charmer” as Turley dismissively characterized Trump.

  12. If you don’t want a war with Russia, then you want Ukraine to become Russian territory. That’s what will happen.

  13. When someone wants to do something, they can conceive of any rationalization they want in order to do it, laws be damned.

  14. We shouldn’t be afraid of Russian escalation. Russia should be afraid of our escalation to their escalation.
    Russia is the one who should be afraid of intervening in our intervention.

  15. Soldiers , who are targeting and killing civilians in explosions that crumble concrete and steel , are being video-recorded? My heart bleeds for them…

  16. “Everyone is unified.” So what? Does this unity stop Ukrainian buildings from being destroyed? Does it stop Ukrainian bodies from being splattered?

    “Putin strengthened NATO.” NATO is so much stronger now, what does all of this strength do
    for Ukraine? If NATO is so strong, why is it still so afraid to act against Russia?

    1. Maybe you & I can come to a deal on a win/win for us USA people & Russia people & the Ukrainian people.

      All we nee to do is send the Global Homos Biden & Crew, Pelosi, Schumer, Dims, Rinos, Mitch McConnell, McCarthy that are trying genociding Russians & have already attacked us US citizens with their man made gain of function bio-weapons CV19 & CV19 Gene Therapy killer mRNA.

      All you need to do is be able to Read the latest papers of admissions from the Govt/Pfizer/ Moderna of their mRNA Death/Clot shot.

      Other wise get your hide on over to Ukraine & smile & wave for us defending GW’s Fatherland Security.

      Come to think of it. Lets lock up all those Global Homos like Soros, Gates, Schwab GW/Dick the Chaney & the rest of their crews, Apple/Facebook/Google/MSFT/etc., for CAH..

  17. There are things that can be done to stop Putin, but no one is willing to do them. I’m sorry, Ukraine. I’m so sorry.

Leave a Reply