Looking at the comments, has anyone actually read the article?

Finally some good news.

In 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a case involving Bosnia and Serbia, established that the obligation to refrain from providing weapons or other assistance begins the moment a state becomes aware of the existence of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. Now would you agree or disagree that by issuing the warrants or even before claiming actions “consistent with genocide”, the us was “aware of serious risk”? If it did then its punishable by Article 3, which deals with complicity, which itself then constitutes genocide.

Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters

If they were puppets, how could they come to their current conclusions? There are real puppets like for example German and now Polish governments, but the issue that icj, icc are facing is that how can you regulate crimes of empires, when they have too much power. Well for now lets at least record their crimes. So that in future they will remain in memory and if the power balance shifts, sanctions will follow.

then you don’t know much about him

Chomsky is alive at 96

fighting the antinazi sentiment one 2months old comment at a time

Their sacrifice in WW2, which was from a certain point on deliberate and ideology based(as in that they would not accept any rule of nazi ideology), has served even you. Unless you want a world where the nazis didnt lose, you too are in the debt of these tankies.

While Im not a tankie, they do have some historical appeal. You know like beating the Nazis, some small things here and there.

Thanks NATO.

The people want to be free as in Ukraine. Look how that “reasonable” policy worked out for them.

Yes and relevantly here it also ceases the necessity of total eradication.

So you dont have a source of this definition? Because in international law its defined quite differently, which is quite obvious since your definition, as given, would not classify many real instances as genocide.

What do you mean by your last point. Genocide only being on whole population. Where did you get this definition.

Damn I never thought about this narrative. Its kidna funny that scary russians interfere with the US elections, while literally all US corporations which run social networks interfere with all countries elections excluding those where they are banned.

Ok I got you. For me personally China usually seems like a decent alternative. I dont think that they are perfect.

I trust China far more than slovak government. I dont think that these deals with China will go this way, its more like when the other options(real alternatives offered currently) are bad they will get a deal with China. But normatively yes I guess, its just too much to ask of such governments judging by their current failures.

And none of these wrote the article.

Oh I see so what is the alternative offered to Slovaks then?