.
.
.
.
FUCK the 10 million Muslims killed by NATO, and the 65 million refugees created by these wars, or the 100s $ billions of economic and infrastructure damage. By fake wars, fake ISIS CIA Islam.
Lets talk about how to protect WHITIE people. The Whitie people in Ukraine.
But under the Minsk Agreement where the 2 Russian enclaves had already declared themselves independent, no UN involvement, no R2P, but a fuzzy agreement between France, Germany, Russia and the OSCE, null and void to begin with because the breakaway republics had already broken away. Declared themselves independent.
About
The responsibility to protect embodies a political commitment to end the worst forms of violence and persecution. It seeks to narrow the gap between Member States’ pre-existing obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law and the reality faced by populations at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Background
Following the atrocities committed in the 1990s in the Balkans and Rwanda, which the international community failed to prevent, and the NATO military intervention in Kosovo, which was criticized by many as a violation of the prohibition of the use of force, the international community engaged in a serious debate on how to react to gross and systematic violations of human rights. In September 1999, while presenting his annual report to the UN General Assembly, Kofi Annan reflected upon “the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century” and challenged the Member States to “find common ground in upholding the principles of the Charter, and acting in defence of common humanity”. He repeated the challenge in his 2000 Millennium Report, saying that: “if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”
The challenge was taken by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the Canadian Government, which at the end of 2001 issued a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. The concept of the responsibility to protect drew inspiration of Francis Deng’s idea of “State sovereignty as a responsibility” and affirmed the notion that sovereignty is not just protection from outside interference – rather is a matter of states having positive responsibilities for their population’s welfare, and to assist each other. Consequently, the primary responsibility for the protection of its people rested first and foremost with the State itself. However, a ‘residual responsibility’ also lied with the broader community of states, which was ‘activated when a particular state is clearly either unwilling or unable to fulfil its responsibility to protect or is itself the actual perpetrator of crimes or atrocities’
The subsequent report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, entitled A more secure world: our shared responsibility (A/59/565) and the Secretary-General’s 2005 report In Larger Freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all (A/59/2005) endorsed the principle that State sovereignty carried with it the obligation of the State to protect its own people, and that if the State was unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility shifted to the international community to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect them. Neither report asserted a basis to use force for this purpose other than Security Council authorisation under Chapter VII of the Charter as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other serious international crimes.
At the 2005 high-level UN World Summit meeting, Member States finally committed to the principle of the responsibility to protect by including it into the outcome document of that meeting (A/RES/60/1). Though the concept adopted omitted some of the aspects proposed initially by the ICISS, it retains its fundamental aspects in relation to prevention of and response to the most serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.
Adoption of the principle
Group Photo of 2005 World Summit. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe
In paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (A/RES/60/1) Heads of State and Government affirmed their responsibility to protect their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and accepted a collective responsibility to encourage and help each other uphold this commitment. They also declared their preparedness to take timely and decisive action, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations, when national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations.
These are NOT UKRAINIAN NEO-NAZIS threatening to genocide Russian speakers, its a Sunday picnic at the park for faggots only, and anyway they look friendly and WHITIE, in ninja Charlottesville (2017) CIA black ops. mode.
Is Putin a daft invader or HITLER?
Following the atrocities committed in the 1990s in the Balkans and Rwanda, which the international community failed to prevent, and the NATO military intervention in Kosovo, which was criticized by many as a violation of the prohibition of the use of force, the international community engaged in a serious debate on how to react to gross and systematic violations of human rights. In September 1999, while presenting his annual report to the UN General Assembly, Kofi Annan reflected upon “the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century” and challenged the Member States to “find common ground in upholding the principles of the Charter, and acting in defence of common humanity”. He repeated the challenge in his 2000 Millennium Report, saying that: “if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”
The challenge was taken by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the Canadian Government, which at the end of 2001 issued a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. The concept of the responsibility to protect drew inspiration of Francis Deng’s idea of “State sovereignty as a responsibility” and affirmed the notion that sovereignty is not just protection from outside interference – rather is a matter of states having positive responsibilities for their population’s welfare, and to assist each other. Consequently, the primary responsibility for the protection of its people rested first and foremost with the State itself. However, a ‘residual responsibility’ also lied with the broader community of states, which was ‘activated when a particular state is clearly either unwilling or unable to fulfil its responsibility to protect or is itself the actual perpetrator of crimes or atrocities’
The subsequent report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, entitled A more secure world: our shared responsibility (A/59/565) and the Secretary-General’s 2005 report In Larger Freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all (A/59/2005) endorsed the principle that State sovereignty carried with it the obligation of the State to protect its own people, and that if the State was unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility shifted to the international community to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect them. Neither report asserted a basis to use force for this purpose other than Security Council authorisation under Chapter VII of the Charter as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other serious international crimes.
At the 2005 high-level UN World Summit meeting, Member States finally committed to the principle of the responsibility to protect by including it into the outcome document of that meeting (A/RES/60/1). Though the concept adopted omitted some of the aspects proposed initially by the ICISS, it retains its fundamental aspects in relation to prevention of and response to the most serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.
Adoption of the principle
Group Photo of 2005 World Summit. UN Photo/Eskinder DebebeIn paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (A/RES/60/1) Heads of State and Government affirmed their responsibility to protect their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and accepted a collective responsibility to encourage and help each other uphold this commitment. They also declared their preparedness to take timely and decisive action, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations, when national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations.
But, but but BUT there is no GENOCIDE in Eastern Ukraine! To implement R2P
The handful that die in Eastern Ukraine are brave Ukrainian soldiers defending their frontier against the Putin spunky badass hordes who just seem to be better at everything, including covert ops.
These are NOT UKRAINIAN NEO-NAZIS threatening to genocide Russian speakers, its a Sunday picnic at the park for faggots only, and anyway they look friendly and WHITIE, in ninja Charlottesville (2017) CIA black ops. mode.
What about what the German intelligence said about 50,000 dead Ukrainians from the recent conflict?--more lies from the Nazi Germans.
What about 2-3 million Russians leaving Ukraine into Russia? LIES LIES LIES
Why has Ukraine's population gone from 51.36 million in 1991 to 40 million now? LIES LIES AND MORE LIES!
Why has 100,000 Russian refugees left the Eastern part of Ukraine for safety into Rostov just yesterday? LIES, LIES and more LIES...THESE ARE ACTUALLY UNDERCOVER RUSSIAN SOLDIERS IN DRAG, CRISIS ACTORS.
What about the Mars landscape in Eastern Ukraine-2014--2022? PHOTOSHOPPING LIES LIES LIES Putin KGB Badass spunky sneaky deceptive liar in chief!
340 KM DISTANCE STALINGRAD UNDER GERMAN OCCUPATION---ah ha !!!!!!!! THIS ISN'T A PICTURE OF UKRAINE ITS STALINGRAD 1942.....MORE KGB lies.
Putin is attempting to restart the SOVIET EMPIRE, which WILL ofcourse become a threat to NATO, and the American Empire and their GOOD DEEDS AROUND THE WORLD AS ONLY I KNOW PERSONALLY (but good for the MIC defense contractors). After the Russian Duma requested acceptance of the independence of the 2 Russian enclaves, he finally after 8 years (self-declared in 2014) relented with what appears to be reluctance and sadness.(BODY LANGUAGE)
Is Putin a daft invader or HITLER?
Is the USA Empire PROJECTING with Russia, for Jacob?
Zelensky sounds like Hitler when he says Ukraine has the INFRASTRUCTURE for nuke bombs. What will desperate Zelensky do to stay in power, and counter Russia? What are his moral and political boundaries?
