Absolutely chaotic reporting from Russian media. On one hand, they will not admit the fire caused on the Moskva was caused by an attack. Then on the other, it is WWIII because NATO supplied weapons to Ukraine that then attacked and subsequently sunk the ship, but then they also acknowledge the Neptune. Which is it, Russia's military antiquities are unreliable duds or their military antiquities aren't up to thwarting and preventing an attack from Ukraine?Apparently, and according to Moscow, we (the west) have started WWIII with the sinking of the warship Moskva.
Irrelevant that the Ukrainians sunk it with a home grown Ukrainian produced weapon, that was based on the old Soviet KH-35 anti ship missile.
It would be as funny AF, if it wasn't for the fact that Russia started this shyte show the moment they waltzed across the Ukrainian border and their propaganda machine, which is putting Goebbels to shame, will probably kill millions.![]()
Both, and neither -- simultaneously.Absolutely chaotic reporting from Russian media. On one hand, they will not admit the fire caused on the Moskva was caused by an attack. Then on the other, it is WWIII because NATO supplied weapons to Ukraine that then attacked and subsequently sunk the ship, but then they also acknowledge the Neptune. Which is it, Russia's military antiquities are unreliable duds or their military antiquities aren't up to thwarting and preventing an attack from Ukraine?
I'm still waiting to hear how those couple of site explosions occurred in Russian territory a few weeks back. Were they poor border protection that allowed Ukrainian attack or were they poorly trained and operated support networks that had industrial accidents?
![]()
Russia alleges Ukrainian helicopters struck Belgorod fuel depot
Regional Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov says Ukrainian helicopters struck the facility after crossing the border.www.aljazeera.com
Will Russia agree to any amendment that reduces their veto power? Would the USA? Or China?About bloody time!
![]()
UN to debate Security Council permanent member veto power
The proposal requiring the five UNSC members to justify their use of veto comes after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.www.aljazeera.com
Who knows but at least it is a start to a conversation, hence the 'about time'. And there are the other two on that panel, France and UK.Will Russia agree to any amendment that reduces their veto power? Would the USA? Or China?
Not up to them, it is a UN amendment, there are 193 member states, as long as 129 others vote for the amendment it is irrelevant what United States, United Kingdom, France, China or Russia say.Will Russia agree to any amendment that reduces their veto power? Would the USA? Or China?
The fact that the 5 veto countries don't have the right to veto amendments to their veto powers is probably the most sensible (and surprising) thing I've ever heard about the UN.Not up to them, it is a UN amendment, there are 193 member states, as long as 129 others vote for the amendment it is irrelevant what United States, United Kingdom, France, China or Russia say.
Quote;
Charter of the United Nations can be amended. According to Article 108 of the Charter.
From what I read I get this.The fact that the 5 veto countries don't have the right to veto amendments to their veto powers is probably the most sensible (and surprising) thing I've ever heard about the UN.