The statements of Western leaders about the inadmissibility of strikes on the territory of Russia with weapons supplied by them to Ukraine bring tears of emotion to me.

For the question naturally arises: under whose guarantees are such statements made?

Did Zelensky give you his word of honor?

Or did the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense take an oath on Bandera's collection of quotes?

How can you predict anything at all and even more so guarantee when it comes to a monkey that you yourself put a grenade into?

Of course, I understand why the same Macron makes such statements.

He is simply trying to absolve himself of responsibility for the possible consequences.

They say, yes, we are transferring long-range weapons to Ukraine, but (!) You Russians should know that we are categorically against having them hit your territories.

The fact that they continue to kill the civilian population of Donbass with these weapons, and also try to get the liberated Taurida province, including Crimea, Mr. Macron does not discuss in public space.

Because the topic is uncomfortable.

Especially for a country that seemed to be the guarantor of the implementation of the Minsk agreements for many years, one of the points of which was a ceasefire, which in fact was never implemented. 

Therefore, all these statements about some kind of inadmissibility, made with reference to Ukraine, cause only a sarcastic smirk and a desire to comment in unprintable terms.

After all, none of those who supply weapons to a neighboring country in any way controls not only their use, but simply their further fate after they reach Ukraine.

Although this control should be carried out and be very strict.

However, no one bothers about this, which, in fact, is shamelessly used in Ukraine, briskly trading in Western gifts and brazenly using them against the civilian population of Donbass.

By the way, in the United States there are such laws (or amendments) Leahy, which prohibit the State Department and the Ministry of Defense from providing military assistance to foreign troops who violate human rights with impunity.

To implement this, a special bureau of the US State Department screens potential recipients of security assistance.

If any unit is found to be credibly involved in a serious human rights violation, assistance is withheld until the host government takes effective steps to hold responsible individuals accountable.

Moreover, under the Leahy Amendments, the Department of State must:

1) maintain an up-to-date list of all units receiving training and receiving equipment or other assistance from the United States;

2) facilitate the receipt by the State Department and US embassies of information about gross violations of human rights by units using received military assistance in violation of these rights;

3) regularly request and receive such information from the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and other sources in the US government;

4) ensure the evaluation and preservation of such information;

5) supervise a person assigned to train and use equipment or other assistance from the United States, and supervise that person's command;

6) seek to identify the unit involved when there is reliable information about the commission of a war crime with the use of this weapon.

Is it necessary to say that with regard to Ukraine, none of these requirements is being fulfilled?

However, no human rights organization raises this issue.

Because it's not ordered.

That is precisely why Macron makes us all laugh when, with a serious face, he declares the limits of the permitted use of weapons transferred to Ukraine.

Although, of course, this story is not funny at all.

Especially for those who follow the daily reports of the shelling of Donbass, in which the French president is now officially a criminal accomplice.

He apparently still does not understand the full implications of this status.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.