What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[DGuller]

I'm in favor of crimes being prosecuted.  Is that controversial?

Depends on how selective that prosecution is.

[Razgovory]

I'm in favor of crimes being prosecuted.  Is that controversial?

In the Ukraine thread Zanza posted a photo of civilian ships attacked by Ukraine.  It would be probably be controversial if Ukrainian leaders were charged with that crime.

[The Minsky Moment]

If the ships were military supply ships or merchant ships operating under a military convoy, then the attacks are permitted under the law of war.  Even if otherwise, the ICC would not get involved absent a finding that Ukrainian courts were unwilling or unable to prosecute. If a crime was committed and Ukraine's legal system refused to act, I can't see why it would be controversial for the ICC to investigate.

[Razgovory]

If the ships were military supply ships or merchant ships operating under a military convoy, then the attacks are permitted under the law of war.  Even if otherwise, the ICC would not get involved absent a finding that Ukrainian courts were unwilling or unable to prosecute. If a crime was committed and Ukraine's legal system refused to act, I can't see why it would be controversial for the ICC to investigate.

Took a look,  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/12/ukrainian-drone-strikes-force-russia-to-suspend-shipping-in-sea-of-azov

Russia has been forced to suspend shipping in the Sea of Azov after 90 vessels were targeted by Ukrainian drones in less than a week.

Ukraine's drone forces chief, Robert Brovdi, said on Sunday that his units had hit 10 tankers and four ferries overnight, as well as a major oil refinery in the city of Syzran. There had been several strikes on electricity substations in occupied Crimea, he added.

"The technological humiliation of the [Russian] empire continues. It will fall because of Crimea," Brovdi wrote on social media. He said Moscow's shadow fleet, which transports sanctioned oil products around the world, was "noticeably shrinking" and could no longer use the Kerch strait, connecting the Sea of Azov with the Black Sea.

The Sea of Azov is a vital waterway that connects Russia with eastern Europe. It is of crucial economic and military importance to Moscow, which uses it to ship oil, grain and other products such as steel to international markets.

Russia suspended shipping through the Don-Azov canal on Friday, Reuters reported. The canal connects with a Russian river network and the Caspian Sea. This export route via Kerch and the Bosphorus strait in Turkey is effectively shut down.

Ukraine's former defence minister, Andriy Zagorodnyuk, said the Kremlin had lost control of a "critical" maritime corridor. He said the blockade affected military vessels and shipping transporting grain stolen from occupied southern Ukraine and moved through the ports of Berdyansk and Mariupol.

"The Caspian Sea doesn't have any connection to the world's oceans. It has turned into a lake. All of its products – agricultural, fertiliser, whatever – go through this channel and river," Zagorodnyuk said.

Russia's small flotilla in the Caspian was likewise trapped, he added, predicting further strikes on Russian ships in and around the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk.

Ukraine has been systematically destroying much of Russia's radar and anti-aircraft defences. This has enabled it to carry out a series of devastating long-range strikes on Russian oil refineries, including one last week in the Siberian city of Omsk, 2,700km (1,700 miles) from Ukrainian territory.

Residents in Syzran reported the sound of drones at 5am on Sunday followed by loud explosions. Photographs and videos showed a large fire at the oil refinery, with thick columns of black smoke rising above an industrial area. The complex supplies the Russian military and sends fuel abroad via the Azov-Kerch canal.

Kyiv has also launched a wave of mid-range strikes on land and sea supply routes into occupied Crimea, hitting lorries, ships and crossing points. One tanker caught fire overnight as it entered the Azov-Black Sea canal, Russian officials said. On Sunday, local channels reported two large oil spills off the coast of Taganrog.

Yevgeniya Gaber, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council thinktank, said the attacks were part of a much broader strategy that included isolating Crimea and "turning it into an island".

The overall goal was "to progressively degrade Russia's ability to sustain offensive operations by disrupting logistics, fuel supplies and transport infrastructure, and cutting off military units in the south of Ukraine", she said.

Gaber added: "There is not a single oil refinery that is unhit now. Maritime logistics in the Sea of Azov, all of this fits into the same strategy and operational concept, which is a strategic neutralisation of Russia. I'm sure we will see more deep strikes on Russian territory."


Video released by Brovdi's unmanned strike aviation brigade, Magyar's Birds, shows Russian tankers fitted with protective cages and ropes. These have not prevented night-time Ukrainian drone strikes and crews have abandoned some damaged and burnt-out vessels, leaving them adrift.

Repeated Ukrainian attacks have forced the authorities in Crimea to declare a state of emergency. Widespread electricity blackouts and acute petrol shortages have been reported and the peninsula's tourist industry has collapsed. Car drivers have been forced to travel to Russia in search of fuel, with long queues outside petrol stations in many regions.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine's president, has described the strikes on Russia's energy infrastructure as part of Kyiv's campaign of "long-range sanctions" carried out in response to Moscow's refusal to end its war. Vladimir Putin insists his original military goals – to seize the eastern Donbas and other Ukrainian regions – are unchanged.

Overnight, three people were killed in Russian attacks on Ukraine's central Dnipropetrovsk region, including two in a bombing of an industrial facility in Zelenskyy's home city of Kryvyi Rih, regional officials said. A separate drone attack on the southern city of Kherson killed a 48-year-old, reported its mayor, Yaroslav Shanko.

Sounds very much like hitting civilian targets to me.  Now obviously the Ukrainians are not going to indict their leaders for this.  They've done this many times in the past, such as the strike on a Russian heating station in Moscow https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-strikes-russian-power-heat-station-moscow-region-russian-official-says-2025-11-23/ and no indictments have come down.  Doing so would be widely unpopular, as hitting such targets really helps the war effort.  The ICC is unlikely to count this as a war crime because the Ukrainian cause is popular. We all know this, and frankly, we're all okay with this.  In fact, the only way for Ukrainian leaders to be charged with war crimes is they lose, which becomes more likely if they don't hit civilian targets. 

[Zanza]

Just more reasons to get rid of the United States in critical infrastructure like banking, payments, cloud services so that their sanctions are less relevant.

[Jacob]

Is commercial shipping defined as "civilian targets"?

I guess I should look it up.

[grumbler]

Sounds very much like hitting civilian targets to me.  Now obviously the Ukrainians are not going to indict their leaders for this.  They've done this many times in the past, such as the strike on a Russian heating station in Moscow https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-strikes-russian-power-heat-station-moscow-region-russian-official-says-2025-11-23/ and no indictments have come down.  Doing so would be widely unpopular, as hitting such targets really helps the war effort.  The ICC is unlikely to count this as a war crime because the Ukrainian cause is popular. We all know this, and frankly, we're all okay with this.  In fact, the only way for Ukrainian leaders to be charged with war crimes is they lose, which becomes more likely if they don't hit civilian targets. 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the LOAC prohibits attacks on "civilian Targets." Persons and places playing no role in the war are protected, but merchant shipping carrying material that could be used by their side to prosecute the war (like fuel, food, and ammunition) are subject to attack. The only exceptions are for medical supplies (carried by vessels clearly marked and which have no militarily useful material) and refugee shipping also clearly marked.

The Moscow power plant was used to support the Russian war effort and thus a legitimate target. Only those persons and places that are irrelevant to the war are immune.

[grumbler]

Is commercial shipping defined as "civilian targets"?

I guess I should look it up.

That depends entirely on how they are being used.

[crazy canuck]

Just more reasons to get rid of the United States in critical infrastructure like banking, payments, cloud services so that their sanctions are less relevant.

Yeah, it was awkward enough when the United States refused to allow its own to be prosecuted, but now that it's putting pressure to ensure others are also not prosecuted is yet another red line they have crossed

[Sheilbh]

Is commercial shipping defined as "civilian targets"?

I guess I should look it up.

Merchant ships are broadly civilian from my understanding unless they're carrying war material or "dual use" but I think both those are subject to specific rules of engagement for them but the merchant marine of the world is supposed to be civilian. This is why unrestricted submarine warfare was such a shock/outrage and why Britain's traditional way of war which involves blockades has always been contentious.

In principle I get what JR is saying - and it would very much depend on the circumstaces. but I don't know that I'd necessarily feel comfortable with Ukraine facing war crimes tribunals. I remember early in the war the videos of Russian prisonser which I was very uncomfortable with and is absolutely in breach of the Geneva convention. But I'm not sure I'd necessarily feel a need for any prosecution (not least because they stopped - I think because friends raised similar concerns). But it'd be different, say, if there'd been a massacre in the incursion they made into Russian territory.

I'm in favor of crimes being prosecuted.  Is that controversial?

Yeah so I think where it gets controversial and challenging is in the context of a peace process. Which is why legacy was an issue that was just left alone in the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement and is now contentious as we are seeing prosecutions 30 years down the line.

Part of the peace process involved releasing thousands of people convicted of violent and terrorism related offences because they were in the context of (Loyalist and Republican) paramilitaries. They had, since the hunger strikes, effectively been treated as political prisoners even if they were guilty of, say, building and planting bombs or killing people. They're on suspended sentences so if they get involved in paramilitary activity again they can be immediately jailed.

But it leads to situations like Arlene Foster who was the DUP First Minister. As a child her school bus was bombed and she lived on a remote farm house in County Fermanagh that was attacked by IRA gunmen. Broadly it was a border county and Protestants in rural areas in border counties were made to leave - her family had flares so if they were attacked they could fire a flare and one of their neighbours would be able to inform the police. Her father was shot in the head in the attack (though survived). Her family did move into a council estate in the local town after that. I might get the name wrong here, but it's not known that Sean Kelly, was actually involved in either of those attacks. But he was the commander of the local PIRA and would have authorised the attacks. He was later imprisoned on terrorism charges and subsequently released. He became a Sinn Fein MLA and sat in the power-sharing cabinet with Arlene Foster. Her story isn't necessarily unique but I think it is an example of what a peace process actually looks like.

This is also where the contentiousness of legacy prosecutions has emerged. It's come from inquiries uncovering or confirming unlawful killings and worse, such as Bloody Sunday (the worst). Following those inquiries there are private prosecutions of veterans from either the military or the police some of which have been successful. These are seen as necessary ways of addressing the legacy by many in the nationalist community and Ireland more broadly. Obviously worth noting that the army and police were overwhelmingly Protestant, so in the context of an otherwise finely balanced deal, unionists consider that these disproportionately affect their community - while paramilitaries on both sides benefit from a sort of civic forgetfulness. The prosecutions have been very unpopular with veterans groups and campaigners in the UK more broadly which has made it politically difficult. Especially in a conflict where 90% of the civilian casualties were caused by the paramilitaries.

I'm not sure - I think both sides have a point which is why the people working on the Good Friday Agreement left this well alone. My own instinct is that you go for something like a Truth and Reconciliation approach where if you tell the truth there are no prosecutions, it's only if you're lying to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or whatever that it leads to prosecutions. But I think that's also because I'm very unpersuaded by the effectiveness of "war crimes" as an approach in delivering either what victims want (which is often simply to be heard and acknowledged) or justice whereas - not least because it is always looking for the most prosecutable case, while a Truth and Reconciliation Commission can be broader and more wide-ranging. I know someone who has worked on war crimes trials in the Balkans and in Cambodia and is incredibly cynical about them afterwards as either doing anything or meaningfully serving victims.

I also wonder the extent to which they help deliver peace - in that Northern Irish example there wouldn't be peace if there were still paramilitaries in prison even though they had absolutely killed civilians. I think it can make violent men doing evil things hold on even longer because there is no way out but absolute loss - I think of Gadaffi or Charles Taylor (the poster-boy for war crimes trials) in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Unlike a Truth and Reconciliation Commission this offers nothing for the victims but if the goal is peace I think it might be worth passing on the message that actually you can flee to a villa/dacha somewhere with some of your ill-gotten, blood-soaked gains if you just go quickly and the message that you'll be caught and prosecuted is helpful from an affective perspective but might be counter-productive.

I think it's quite complex to be honest and not as straightforward as crimes should be prosecuted.

[Razgovory]

Sounds very much like hitting civilian targets to me.  Now obviously the Ukrainians are not going to indict their leaders for this.  They've done this many times in the past, such as the strike on a Russian heating station in Moscow https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-strikes-russian-power-heat-station-moscow-region-russian-official-says-2025-11-23/ and no indictments have come down.  Doing so would be widely unpopular, as hitting such targets really helps the war effort.  The ICC is unlikely to count this as a war crime because the Ukrainian cause is popular. We all know this, and frankly, we're all okay with this.  In fact, the only way for Ukrainian leaders to be charged with war crimes is they lose, which becomes more likely if they don't hit civilian targets. 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the LOAC prohibits attacks on "civilian Targets." Persons and places playing no role in the war are protected, but merchant shipping carrying material that could be used by their side to prosecute the war (like fuel, food, and ammunition) are subject to attack. The only exceptions are for medical supplies (carried by vessels clearly marked and which have no militarily useful material) and refugee shipping also clearly marked.

The Moscow power plant was used to support the Russian war effort and thus a legitimate target. Only those persons and places that are irrelevant to the war are immune.

That's funny, when Trump was talking about hitting powerplants it was a war crime.  I never thought of home heating as a war material.  Presumably that student dorm that was hit two months ago was also duel purpose.  The ships that are getting hit are exporting goods, not importing them.  So they can't be moving war materials to the front.  Besides, isn't attacking ships containing food a no-no?  I thought denying people food was now wrong.

I personally, have no problem with hitting these targets, but some are clearly not military targets.

[grumbler]

Sounds very much like hitting civilian targets to me.  Now obviously the Ukrainians are not going to indict their leaders for this.  They've done this many times in the past, such as the strike on a Russian heating station in Moscow https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-strikes-russian-power-heat-station-moscow-region-russian-official-says-2025-11-23/ and no indictments have come down.  Doing so would be widely unpopular, as hitting such targets really helps the war effort.  The ICC is unlikely to count this as a war crime because the Ukrainian cause is popular. We all know this, and frankly, we're all okay with this.  In fact, the only way for Ukrainian leaders to be charged with war crimes is they lose, which becomes more likely if they don't hit civilian targets. 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the LOAC prohibits attacks on "civilian Targets." Persons and places playing no role in the war are protected, but merchant shipping carrying material that could be used by their side to prosecute the war (like fuel, food, and ammunition) are subject to attack. The only exceptions are for medical supplies (carried by vessels clearly marked and which have no militarily useful material) and refugee shipping also clearly marked.

The Moscow power plant was used to support the Russian war effort and thus a legitimate target. Only those persons and places that are irrelevant to the war are immune.

That's funny, when Trump was talking about hitting powerplants it was a war crime.  I never thought of home heating as a war material.  Presumably that student dorm that was hit two months ago was also duel purpose.  The ships that are getting hit are exporting goods, not importing them.  So they can't be moving war materials to the front.  Besides, isn't attacking ships containing food a no-no?  I thought denying people food was now wrong.

I personally, have no problem with hitting these targets, but some are clearly not military targets.

Feel free to make an argument (and support it with evidence) whenever you are done with this passive-aggressive posturing.

[Razgovory]

Now that you have been defeated, you are dismissed, Grumbler.

[grumbler]

Now that you have been defeated, you are dismissed, Grumbler.

Oooh! Feeling tough-guy, huh?

[Razgovory]

Look, you gotta make up your mind.  You want passive-aggressive, or just normal aggressive.