UN may ban US to use drone drone

The UN Commission has launched an investigation into the practice of using unmanned aerial drums (UAVs) as weapons within the framework of the war the United States is waging against the al Qaeda terrorist organization. The investigation was initiated after the 3 of the country was officially contacted by the UN, one of which is Pakistan. In Pakistan, the strikes of American UAVs are regarded as an encroachment on the sovereignty of the country. According to the Associated Press, which refers to its own sources in the UN commission, the other two countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Taking into account that the investigation as a whole is anti-American in nature, these countries may be the PRC and Russia, since the United Kingdom and France are allies of the United States.

A British lawyer, one of the UN experts on counter-terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson believes that the exponential growth of the use of unmanned technology in both civil and military sphere is a new challenge that is being thrown to the generally accepted norms of international law. According to him, it is necessary to create international legal mechanisms that would regulate the conduct of an effective and independent investigation into each fact of the death of civilians during the attack of UAV drums.

Ben Emmerson is going to submit his detailed report on this matter to the UN General Assembly before the end of 2013. At the same time, the official representative of the United States to the United Nations on condition of anonymity noted that the US government publicly acknowledges the fact that it conducts strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles against targets one way or another connected with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. Claiming that these attacks are fully consistent with the letter of the law.

According to the Long War Journal, which monitors statistics on the use of attack UAVs, American flying Robots attacked various targets located in Pakistan in 2008 - 35 times, in 2010 - 117 times, in 2011 - 64 times and 46 times during 2012. The vast majority of these operations are carried out by the CIA as part of a program to prevent potential terrorist attacks against American citizens. According to Ben Emmerson, the death of civilians during the use of strike UAVs can be equated to war crimes. According to the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism, from June 2004 to September 2012, up to 3325 people were killed in Pakistan as a result of UAV airstrikes, of which up to 881 people were civilians, including 176 children. It is reported that the effectiveness of these strikes is quite low - at the level of 2%, only 2% of those killed are terrorists of a sufficiently high level.

The result of the investigation, which will conduct the UN General Assembly, may be a ban on the use of drone drone. However, this decision will be made only if the United States does not veto this decision, which is very doubtful. The right to use the veto has all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the United States. Earlier, in the UN human rights report from 2010, Philip Austin, an independent expert on extrajudicial killings, told about reliably known facts of using UAVs for the destruction of alleged terrorists by the special services of the USA, Israel and Russia, while Iran and China also have this technology.

The chief editor of the National Defense magazine and the chairman of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Igor Korotchenko, expressed his position on the issue of Voice of Russia Radio. According to him, there is no doubt that the United States is quite inefficient in applying its latest military technology in Pakistan. First of all, this may be due to the lack of quality data from intelligence services. Impact UAV hit the target is not independently. They have operators who are located either in a special control center in Langley, or in any of the divisions of the Pentagon.

UAV operators at work

All modern Drones The United States is connected to the command center via satellite channels. At the same time, the UAV operator can be located anywhere in the world, while the combat operation is controlled directly on the spot in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Having received preliminary information from the reconnaissance, the operator, who is in front of the monitor screen in real time, evaluates what the drone camera transmits to him and then independently makes a decision - to press the missile launch button or not. The final decision is always up to the individual. And this means that the notorious human factor is the cause of possible errors.

The quality of pre-intelligence and the quality of training of drone drone operators UAV is all about. Often, drones, driven by the Americans, mistakenly inflict airstrikes on funeral or wedding processions, taking them for gatherings of warlords. Or blows are delivered to peaceful women and children who are engaged in gathering brushwood in the forest, and they are again mistaken for militants and inflicted an airstrike.

No one questions the fact that modern American drones are great combat vehicles. But even they will make mistakes if they are controlled by a person who has inadequate or incomplete intelligence information. For example, an American agent in Pakistan gives information that a militia gathering will take place in a given area, and as a result a wedding or someone’s funeral is accepted as a gathering. At this time, the operator in the mode of lack of time and the inability to view the picture in detail takes the cluster of civilians for the necessary purpose, resulting in the death of innocent civilians.

UAV MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B)

MQ-9 Reaper (from the English. Reaper or reaper) - shock reconnaissance drone, created by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems for the needs of the Air Force and the US Navy. In addition, the UAV has already been put into service with the Air Force of Great Britain, Italy and Turkey. His first flight performed 2 February 2001 of the year. The drone was created on the basis of the famous UAV MQ-1 Predator (English predator). An unmanned aircraft can reach speeds of more than 400 km / h, and its practical ceiling is 13 thousand meters, the maximum duration of the flight of the device is 24 hours. In total, the US Air Force is ready to purchase up to 276 drums of the MQ-9 Reaper UAV. According to 2011, the year in service with the US Air Force ranged from 63 to 74 of similar machines.

UAV MQ-1 Predator

The MQ-9 Reaper UAV is an improved and enhanced version of the MQ-1 Predator. Its main difference is the use of more traditional V-shaped tail, which has a positive V-shape. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems tested the Predator B prototype 2 with two different engines: the Williams FJ44-2A turbofan and the Honeywell TPE-331-10T TVD. At the same time, its internal equipment is basically the same as its predecessor and includes radar with a synthesized aperture AN / APY-8 Lynx and an infrared optical-electronic aiming system Raytheon AN / ASS-52 (V). This UAV can easily perform the role of a combat complex armed with Hellfire anti-tank guided missiles or other guided weapons systems.

Currently known 2 additional modifications of the machine. A modification of Block-1 was introduced in April 2012. It is distinguished by its flight time increased by 10-15 hours. Upgraded drone drone in the state is in the air up to 37 hours. It was possible to achieve such indicators due to the updated chassis and additional fuel tanks. According to the manufacturer, if the MQ-9 Reaper has wings of increased length (26,9 meters instead of standard 20,0 meters), then the UAV can be in the sky for up to 42 hours.

The modification of the Block-5 UAV increased the power of the power plant, mounted a second radio station for transmitting data to several ground or air targets, and increased the payload of the drone.

UAV MQ-9 Reaper

The MQ-9 Reaper UAV has 6 suspension points: 2 internal 680 kg., 2 middle wing 230-270 kg. and 2 console - 68-91 kg. In this case, the drone is able to carry up to 14 missiles AGM-114 Hellfire "air-to-ground", while its predecessor was armed with only two missiles. If necessary, instead of these missiles, Reaper can take on the 4 missiles Hellfire and 2 bombs with a laser guidance system - GBU-12 Paveway II weighing 250 kg. each It can also use the Mark 82 smart bombs with GPS guidance.

For the needs of the US Navy, its own aircraft based on the Reaper was created, which received the designation "Mariner". This aircraft is equipped with folding wings and has an increased fuel capacity, which allows it to stay in the air for up to 49 hours. The re-equipment of the first US Air Force combat squadron with a new UAV model was completed in August 2008. Attack UAVs MQ-9 Reaper have proven themselves well in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their main advantage compared to the F-16 fighter is the lower cost of acquisition and operation, longer flight duration, operator safety and the possibility of their work during long flights in shifts.

Information sources:
http://www.utro.ru/articles/2013/01/25/1097271.shtml
http://rus.ruvr.ru/radio_broadcast/60413827/89491218.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bpla/mq9.html
http://ru.wikipedia.org

Comments

[atalef]

The use of UAVs is inevitable, this is the next stage in the development of the Air Force and not a single commission or UN General Assembly can ban them. Moreover, the decision of the UN General Assembly is only advisory in nature. Only the decision of the Security Council in which the United States has the right * Veto * is binding. So, what will end with --- is clear.
I do not think that Russia will support this decision, in honor of which, due to the problems of Pakistan, Russia should limit itself in the future to use strike UAVs, UN decisions have a second side. If a ban comes in (which is not realistic) then with regard to other countries. Whether it is beneficial to Russia is definitely not. Therefore, the article (-) for an incorrect title, not reliable information (regarding the possibility of the General Assembly of the UN) and for the lack of thoughtfulness as such a decision would damage the combat capability of Russia in the future.

[dmitreach]

I put a plus article for a review of UAVs and statistics. I partially agree with your opinion.

international legal mechanisms should be established

which are not available on many issues (for example: weapons on civilian ships against pirates).
However, Russia acts as a champion and guarantor of International Law (events in Syria and 888 for example), Americans have something to fear. If not banned, then Russia will not miss the chance to "dump the Americans in fluff." The weakening of US authority can be achieved without obtaining a literal "prohibition law." In the traditions of "black PR" the main thing is to blame, and then let them justify themselves. Moreover, there is a reason. Not anything personally, so to speak. They just got it. The whole world.
We still don’t have such armaments in service for years, so why would the US not criticize, since they themselves give a reason?

[atalef]

Quote: dmitreach

The weakening of US authority can be achieved without obtaining a literal "prohibition law." In the traditions of "black PR" the main thing is to blame, and then let them justify themselves. Moreover, there is a reason. Not anything personally, so to speak. They just got it. The whole world.

Yes, they do not care. Imagine the United States striking the territory of a sovereign state (killing its citizens) without any coordination with Pakistan. This is not just a violation of the sovereignty of the state, a normal country after this just threw Amer from the country and stopped the deep. relations. Therefore, the problem is not in drones, but in compliance with international law. If tomorrow a tank, from some American base, rises and transfers the floor of the village (even if they are later declared terrorists). Let's start raising the question of banning the use of tanks or is the problem a little different?
It is necessary to discuss aspects of violation of international law and the sovereignty of countries, and not weapons that (under the control of the person who received the order) violate this sovereignty.

Quote: dmitreach

We still don’t have such armaments in service for years, so why would the US not criticize, since they themselves give a reason?

You know, sometimes criticism and its consequences under the leadership of the same Europe can lead to the point that after 20 years (or earlier) when they appear in Russia they will be taken and banned. It is necessary to look at the future, whatever happens with anti-personnel mines or smoke-lighting (phosphorus munitions). They created a convention (countries that have never fought, will not fight and want to rely on themselves) Russia has not joined this convention (and is not gathering) So now any anti-personnel mine or Lighting missile is perceived in the world (by humane people) almost as a weapon of genocide. And how to fight? Some of them thought - no. They want to look beautiful, they can’t throw their soldiers under the bullets. However, with their desire to ban UAVs, the same result would not work for Russia. That almost every blow to terrorists will be perceived as a violation by Russia of their pid .... their norms of warfare, where the enemy must be wiped with a flannel cloth and threatened with a finger, well, well, well !!!

[Civil]

atalef,

a well-known device put the United States to the UN, and they strike not only in Pakistan

[dmitreach]

They want to have a Wishlist that they would put on the UN when Russia grows stronger. In the 90s - yes, I agree. There was a circus.

[dmitreach]

So Pakistan is not the right to veto. Fashingtonum does not give a damn about the inhabitants of third world countries. (since the time of the slave trade, such a mentality. Only now it’s more likely that Arabs play the role of people of a bad sort, not Negroes)
Unfortunately, there is no equality in this world. But there are countries that can dictate a condition even to the United States, if they are not afraid to play with fire. The states are more and more like the biblical "Colossus with feet of clay". It seems to be made of steel, but if you look closely, it is made of clay. They cannot radically rock the boat without a UN mandate.
Test tube washing powder remember? Among equals, they still value agreements, because they depend economically.
They need papers authorizing the action, because there is such an agreement. That circus would have begun if they had announced that they were leaving Afgan (let's say they had no time for Afghan oil, although this is unlikely). Russia would be the first to recall the reason for the entry of troops. As the saying goes: "took up the tug .." don't get out of Afgan. The Americans also know this, and in the case of "when they feel like it" they will bargain like the last shopkeeper. And such a "tomorrow" may come if the spending on Afghanistan adds expediency to stay there. America knows how to count money.
That's why I say, Russia stands for International Law (not the right of the strong), because this is the only way the system of International Law will work. With a lot of the polar world, in which there is someone to argue with the states. China understands this, quietly, modestly, but sometimes says to the states "no."

will be perceived as a violation by Russia of their pid .... their norms of warfare, where the enemy must be wiped with a flannel cloth and threaten with a finger, well, well, well !!!

This is how it is perceived, at the moment - by putting a screw with the device. Especially in the context of their talent to hang humane noodles on their ears through the media. And magical skills to turn "yes" into "no", juggling "double standards". However, Russia has already shown how in a cheerful place it twists the opinions of some countries on the CFE Treaty. And it will also show if the interests of the country are paramount. So far, in a polite manner, having kicked off the CFE theme, with a very decent wording. It will be the same in the future, if there is a reason.

[VAF]

Quote: dmitreach

I put a plus article for a review of UAVs and statistics.

And I put + and you and the article!

But I just do not really agree with your thesis .. "Americans have something to fear"

When and where did the amers at least "listen" to the "recommendations" and "advice" of the UN and the Security Council?

all the more so. that the data roganization .... "manual" for amers

[dmitreach]

thanks for the plus. I twisted the stars here, relevant

From a showdown in Syria, a new era can be counted.
They should be wary of multipolarity if they want to maintain hegemony. Especially in the historical period, when they lifted up half the world, with their kooky, and the rest of the world joyfully want to dance on their bones, like Tobaccos.

In Syria.

Were tame when they some were.

[VAF]

Quote: dmitreach

I twisted the stars here, relevant

This is for Mistralka's barges .... yesterday! But this thing .. correctable

Quote: dmitreach

Especially in the historical period, when they lifted up half the world, with their kooky, and the rest of the world joyfully want to dance on their bones, like Tobaccos.

+!

Quote: dmitreach

They were tame when they were alone.

++++!

[dmitreach]

Guys, you want a joke off topic. at first, a horse was neighing for a long time. It is a pity that the Flag of the Russian Empire (the coat of arms of the Romanovs) is slightly different. (Interview, probably in Kadyrov’s office, regarding Chechen football players and the conflict with nationalists in the Israeli club. Program Today, 29.01.13/19/00, at XNUMX XNUMX.)

vaf

[Commodus]

Honey will forbid bees. Yes of course...

[dmitreach]

it’s not a matter of honey, but the fact that the bear came from the east. star-striped bees (although they are more drones) it is time to share the overpopulated.

[Jurkovs]

The question is not about the technical side of the matter, but about the moral. The UN can recognize robotic weapons that can, without human influence, find a target and destroy it as inhumane. And its use as a crime against humanity.

[borisst64]

Something I doubt that the United Nations is an authoritative organization for the United States. They didn’t give a damn for a long time.

[barbiturate]

Yes, the United States does not give a damn about the UN resolutions, especially the veto right. They just use their technical superiority and do it right. Of course, the opponents of the United States would like to see helicopters with special forces that can be shot down and soldiers who can be killed, I have no doubt that our zero generals would do that. As a result, several hundred more corpses of soldiers would have been shipped home in a few years, a trifle, but the so-called "peaceful" population is fine and continues to celebrate weddings.
I myself dislike amers, but in many moments they are great, one of them is drones and their massive use

[Odysseus]

Laughed from one article title.
The UN may something to ban the United States is that such a new joke?

[erased]

That would be the RF Ministry of Defense and get similar drones. This is a very good technique.
As for the UN ban - since when has the United States paid attention to this organization? This is their branch, faithful servants. So besides timid voices there will be no sense.

[DuraLexSedLex.]

So my friend is and no worse ... MIG worked at one time on one. It painfully reminds someone, only now he’s developed 20 years ago.

[Kapitanyuk]

But can it even rise into the air?

[Alex 241]

Unfortunately, the topic on SKAT is closed.

[BARKAS]

The article did not read only the headline, nonsense!

[VoStattik]

Sadly, the United States spits on UN decisions if they are not beneficial to them. I remember that not so long ago the United States was even going to refuse to rent the UN, when they were going to consider a disadvantageous US decision - the UN quickly backed up ...

[Natalia]

Yes, I think this is complete nonsense, I do not yet know such a country or organization that would be able to somehow limit the United States (well, except Russia of course ) ..... and then, attempts to ban certain types of weapons, because they do not kill humanely. Let's both kill humanely, and generally shoot from slingshots.
When there is a full-scale war, then all the means at hand are good, and no one will reckon with some kind of crazy conventions when it comes to their own security.

[OTAKE]

I’ve already seen how Russia restricts the USA :) First they accept some kind of law by Dima Yakovlev, then they want to cancel it, after the money was frozen on foreign accounts, oh yes, they also forbade bloodthirsty Americans to come to Russia, poor congressmen will no longer be able to go on vacation to Voronezh or to Yoshkar Olu ...

[Natalia]

Why don’t you say that Russia of 1994 is not Russia of 2013. How can you imagine that in the 90s we tried to challenge something there regarding the United States. And now Lavrov clearly said that Russia will adequately respond to any unfriendly decisions of the United States. And be that as it may, today, we will not let ourselves be beaten.

[OTAKE]

Quote: Natalia

Why don’t you say that Russia of 1994 is not Russia of 2013. How can you imagine that in the 90s we tried to challenge something there regarding the United States. And now Lavrov clearly said that Russia will adequately respond to any unfriendly decisions of the United States. And be that as it may, today, we will not let ourselves be beaten.

Well, since you started making comparisons, let's go along the same path, Russia in 2013 is not Russia in 1985, is this the case? :) The fact that Lavrov said clearly or not clearly does not mean anything, no one will take into account his words, how can the Russian authorities "adequately" answer someone in the international arena if their own people do not respect? :) or are there people here who read our Father every day in front of the TV at the sight of V.V, and drink Putinka in health before going to bed? :) Imagine what would be the response of the USSR to the "unfriendly" decisions of the United States. So comparing what was in 94 and what is now is not entirely appropriate)

[Pimply]

Firstly, the decision of the UN General Assembly is an advisory decision, not binding on anything, even a veto is not necessary. It’s like the decision of the residents to strictly condemn Comrade Semenov for taking whores to him. The tenants, of course, are small and frail, and everyone envies the fact that a) Semenov is big and strong, and often gives someone an annoying duel, b) the whores themselves go to him, c) they have a lot of him. Maybe they themselves would like, but it doesn’t work out. Therefore - urgently condemn Semenov. What he, in general, spit.

[lewerlin53rus]

The British lawyer, one of the UN experts on the fight against terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson, believes that the exponential increase in the use of unmanned technologies in both the civilian and military spheres poses a new challenge that poses to generally accepted norms of international law.

Ben Emmerson is going to submit his detailed report on this subject to the court of the UN General Assembly before the end of 2013.

Well, they will find a nimble maid or a youngster on him and cover it promptly.

[bazilio]

I am amazed by another fact - an aircraft, even without a pilot on board, should be equated with manned aircraft. What difference does it make, what kind of vehicle flew into Pakistan, manned or UAV is the fact of border violation and the invasion of airspace on the face. This is the direction in which thought should be developed. It is also necessary to sharply raise the issue of civilians who have died, although the U.S. government will blame the individual operators, who, in violation of paragraph 108, sub-paragraph Tse, paragraph G of part 11 of the Rules for sitting on the armchair of an UAV operator, have been scratching their belly for a long time or picking their nose. And raise the issue of compensation for the relatives of the victims. It is unlikely that these measures will be very painful for the United States, but the reputation will be tarnished. Even if there is no result, the fact itself, so to speak, of a collision will show the states that you need to be careful

[Avenger711]

Any unauthorized intrusion into the airspace of a sovereign state is contrary to international law. The invasion of armed aircraft can already be regarded as a direct aggression with all the consequences.

[Buxx]

Pakistan proto needs to effectively counter American drones - then they will not fly. Knock down 5-6 pieces per week and the hunt will disappear immediately

[pav-pon1972]

The article is of course interesting ... +.

From June 2004 to September 2012, up to 3325 people were killed as a result of UAV air strikes in Pakistan, up to 881 of them were civilians, including 176 children. It is reported that the effectiveness of these attacks is quite low - at the level of 2%, only 2% of those killed are terrorists of a rather high level

Well, by a simple mathematical calculation of 3325 people - 881 civilians - this is 26,5%, that is, efficiency is 77,5%. The author is cheating, cheating ...
Therefore, we also need to develop this direction in all branches and branches of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Up to the creation of "anti-UAV", reconnaissance, protection of lenses, even the transportation of small-sized cargo (for example: to install a nuclear mine) ....

[TSOOBER]

Nobody will forbid droneless people - definitely, it would be very nice to have such equipment too (who prevents in the territory of Qatar to find a couple of other terrorists - they blurted out something about Russia, hit a dozen and two dozen with a load of 200 to do) In general, people who know why RUSSIA NO SHOCK UAVS? It seems like a glider is not a super duper, and piston engines, so what's the matter? Explain the people! Electronic components? To order them for the first time in China, and then quietly replace your own or completely bright heads left?

[Sleptsoff]

Most likely there are no satellites through which these same drones are controlled.

[APASUS]

Read the title

UN may ban US to use drone drone

I almost choked !! The UN can only gently scold the United States .................. they say ah ah ah!

[DuraLexSedLex.]

From the point of view of UAV technology, whether it is reconnaissance or strike eto is the next round in the history of the planet's air force.
It is interesting another AS, an authority (albeit an international one), directly dependent on one particular country, whose interests it lobbies for, may forbid something to this SPECIFIC country ...

[Black]

The whole world is trying to prevent Korea from doing AO, and so what?
And the United States is not Korea, as it were ...

[Sleptsoff]

Reaper is of course a thing! I myself am for drones, because anyway sooner or later we will come to this, progress cannot be stopped.

[shutyai]

It has long been exhausted as an organization.

[Alex]

Yes, it’s not even a matter of the United Nations. The whole system of international law is collapsing before our eyes. After the defeat of Russia in the Cold War, the world became unipolar. Now for the United States, the thing that was previously unthinkable was unilateral violation of international treaties, actions without any UN sanctions and the Security Council. Russia is trying to restore multipolarity, but obviously there are not enough forces.

[rubber_duck]

That's it. Only I would say that international law is not "crumbling", but is already de facto destroyed by the States. For its key and basic concept is sovereignty. Without it, the existing concept of international law simply does not make sense. And the United States and its "six" have long ago, pardon the expression, hammered a big bolt into this concept.

[rubber_duck]

That's it. Only I would say that international law is not "crumbling", but is already de facto destroyed by the States. For its key and basic concept is sovereignty. Without it, the existing concept of international law simply does not make sense. And the United States and its "six" have long ago, pardon the expression, hammered a big bolt into this concept.

[wax]

The use of drones for striking at targets of other states can be considered as aggression against these states. (Similar strikes from space). It is impossible to prohibit aggression, but aggression can also be called aggression - an inalienable right of states. But in general, the wider spread of drones and other non-contact (without people) means of destruction posed new legal problems in world politics.
Also controversial is the issue of terrorism. For example, in Syria we are dealing with terrorism, but it does not receive legal qualifications. The question of aggression itself was also modified. Training mercenaries and transferring them to another country - aggression or not? The world is sliding towards medieval law at a new technological level.

[bazilio]

Quote: Wax

posed new legal problems in world politics

Vaxa - I agree with you. True, these problems appeared a long time ago. International public law is the most controversial legal institution. In the basic principles of the MP, contradictions are already laid down.
In the case of the UAV, the states will definitely come up with something. So in the second half of the twentieth century the United States tried to introduce the concept of preventive defense in the MP. As follows from the UN Charter, the use of force is legitimate only against aggression. But the United States was offered not to wait for an act of aggression, so as not to suffer, but to deliver preemptive strikes against potential aggressors. In general, a reasonable decision is, if you see that they will give you a tarez now, wait until it arrives, it’s better to move it to the jaw yourself)) But the concept of a preemptive strike is fraught with the fact that even a military parade or military exercises can be adapted to an upcoming act of aggression. As a result, you can get a legitimate reason to use force first. i.e. aggression

[vik2013]

it's awesome

[vik2013]

A fleet of drones that the police in our skies are about to get updates.
Developed by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and BAE Systems, a $ 18,5 million standalone Real-Time Earth Widespread Surveillance Imaging System (ARGUS) program will be the most advanced CCTV system in the sky.
After attaching an unmanned aerial vehicle, the ARGUS camera can patrol 17500 feet and send back high-resolution images of 1,8 gigapixels.
The images are so crisp and clear that the analyst can see what color the shirt wears.
The following screen captures from the PBS documentary lead BAE engineers say this is the first time they have received permission to show ARGUS 'core functions.

[vik2013]

i like these drones

[gtc5ydgs]

Have you heard the news? The Russian authorities are already insolent in the end. They made this database
zipurl. ws / sngbaza where you can find information about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. I was really very surprised that there were a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug it up. In general, there are also good sides - this information can be deleted from the site.
I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...

[i.xxx-1971]

When I hear the UN, I remember the immortal words of the plumber Afoni: "Who is he?" What HE can do anything to ban the United States? OK !!!

[svp67]

UN may ban US to use drone drone

It would be interesting to see how the US-controlled "body" would ban this from the US ...