:up:

By Tjeerd Royaards, the Netherlands

Tx, this is all very useful.

For the record, I have much respect for Amnesty, and would not want to slander anyone. I just reported on the reactions to this press release coming from within Amnesty itself, and related to due process.

The report may well be correct, factually, and pointing to issues important to address. But in context, here on TPF, it came up in the discussion branded as a proof that Ukrainians commit war crimes. Which is absolutely not the case. The report does not qualify anything reportedly done by the Ukrainian forces as a war crime.

He has been stating as have Russian leaders, that Ukraine is a "red line" for them for over twenty years, why is this not taken seriously? — Manuel

You are right, we should have smelled the coffee a long time ago, and responded much more aggressively to the Crimea land grab. We were fools not to take his threats seriously. But now we know.

Now, Putin has annexed his territorial conquests to Russia. That to me is ample evidence that his motives are 1) land grab, 2) people grab, and 3) power grab. This is about land lust and Russian nationalism.

A new form of fascism is rising in Europe.

Now what?

"Gentlemen's agreements" are rare in International politics, and transient.

Even if the story is true, that promise would have been made to a very different Russia, one that was led by Gorbachev, was decolonizing and becoming a democracy.

As for Gorbatchev:

"It's not just the (special military) operation that started on Feb. 24, but the entire evolution of relations between Russia and Ukraine over the past years that was really, really a big blow to him. It really crushed him emotionally and psychologically," Palazhchenko told Reuters in an interview.

"It was very obvious to us in our conversations with him that he was shocked and bewildered by what was happening (after Russian troops entered Ukraine in February) for all kinds of reasons. He believed not just in the closeness of the Russian and Ukrainian people, he believed that those two nations were intermingled."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/gorbachev-died-shocked-bewildered-by-ukraine-conflict-interpreter-2022-09-01/

All this amounts to believing some of Putin's account about some of his motivations. It's not going anywhere close to overwhelming. In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. As a matter of fact, your own linked article debunks the claim that NATO ever promised anything to Russia.

Overwhelmingly I think the evidence shows that NATO encroachment was the main issue for Putin's invasion — Manuel

What evidence is there for this, overwhelming or not?

What we seem to disagree with is how to proceed to end this and to what extent was the West a cause of the invasion. — Manuel

If you had to apportion blame to Putin and to 'the West', what would be your estimate?

And yet I have to say it yet again, that Putin is a criminal. Again. Ok, fine. — Manuel

It's not just you. Everyone here has had to say things that should go without saying. I find myself stating the glaringly obvious again and again.

Why is that so? Perhaps because we think of ourselves as philosophers, able to challenge anything no matter how common-sensical. Or perhaps because we need to build trust, as a group. Trust that we share at least SOME common ground.

Each and every post would be too frequent, but what skin gets pulled off your nose if you state it once in a while? Why should it be a problem to say clearly what you believe in, and restate it once in a while?

If you are unwilling to transparently share your perspective, you have a problem, not the rest of us.

From the French press. It's confirmed in Wikipedia:

Amnesty's Canadian branch issued a statement expressing regret for among other things the "insufficient context and legal analysis".[137] On 12 August, Amnesty's German branch issued a statement apologizing for aspects of the report's release and its effect, saying that it would be examined through a process initiated at the international level to determine what went wrong, and condemning its instrumentalization by Russian authorities.[138]

The reaction by the Canadian Chapter was in my opinion absolutely spot on:


Response to Amnesty International’s August 4, 2022, Press Release

Amnesty International Canadian Section (English Speaking) acknowledges and deeply regrets the hurt, anger, and disappointment caused to our Ukrainian colleagues, the Ukrainian community at large, members, and supporters across Canada following the August 4 press release on research conducted on Russian strikes between April and July 2022.

In every conflict situation, Amnesty’s primary focus is the protection of human rights and civilians, particularly those most vulnerable and at risk. Although this was the intention of the research and extended press release, Amnesty International failed on several fronts.

We regret the insufficient context and legal analysis, particularly given the nature of Russia’s aggression. These findings were not communicated with the sensitivity, responsibility, and precision required and expected of Amnesty. We recognize the magnitude and impact of these failings from an institution of our stature, particularly in times of conflict.

The manner in which the International Secretariat conducted this work, engaged with sections internally, and publicly communicated these findings resulted in creating the opposite effect and challenged our core principle of impartiality. We also regret the International Secretariat subsequent communication and response to public and legal critique.

We condemn Russia’s instrumentalization of the press release to justify its illegal aggression. Since the start of the invasion in February, Amnesty International has and continues to categorically condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an unjustified act of aggression and a grave violation of international law.

Our commitment to investigate the Russian military’s aggression and war crimes against the Ukrainian people is reflected in the extensive research conducted since the beginning of the invasion in February. Amnesty has documented war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine in nearly two dozen outputs—ranging from press releases to a 72-page report.

As a section firmly committed to an equitable and decolonized approach to human rights, we greatly regret the deficiency in the collaboration between our International Secretariat and our AI Ukraine colleagues, which resulted in the resignation of Amnesty Ukraine’s director.

A decolonial approach begins with the principle to do no harm and centering those we are privileged to work with, particularly when they are most impacted and when they tell us that they are in harm’s way. How we work is as important as what we work on—and, in this case, our ways of working from an equity-informed perspective fell unacceptably short.

Several years ago, Amnesty International purposefully decentralized to better listen, respond to, and be led by the voices of human rights defenders on the frontlines. Unfortunately, this press release defaulted to outdated ways of working that centralize knowledge and decision-making while placing local expertise and understanding at the margins. We have done this at considerable risk to our colleagues and rights holders in Ukraine. [...]

https://www.amnesty.ca/news/uncategorized/response-to-amnesty-internationals-august-4-2022-press-release/

And always remember, always always always, to say that Putin is a criminal, which he is. Because we didn't know that. — Manuel

The point of saying it unambiguously is not to inform others about who Putin is, mind you, but to reassure them about who you are. Because if you do not believe or cannot say clearly that Putin is a criminal, then there's a possibility that you may be an accomplice of his crimes, or a supporter.

I don't know what you mean by "reviewed by the organization". — neomac

I mean that Amnesty International has launched an evaluation of this specific report to check whether or not it followed due process.

After years of searching, I regret to inform that there is apparently no perfect paradise on earth.
— Olivier5

Nothing but hypocrisy. Not that I expected anything different. — Tzeentch

Your expectations are blinding you. You are unable to see anything because you close your eyes, afraid as you are of your interlocutors.

His priorities are not the same as yours — Agent Smith

His relationship to Madame Truth is conflictual. It seems to be about beating her into submission.

So the sarcastic remark wasn’t about war crime per se, but the nature of war crimes committed by Ukrainians. You article didn’t list any of such war crimes (“endanger civilians” is not equal to “murder civilians”). — neomac

Note that the Amnesty report in question is being reviewed by the organization. It was rejected by many long-time Amnesty members as flawed in its methodology (written only by foreigners) and conclusions that fuel Russian propaganda narratives.

There was no accusation of war crime by Ukrainian forces in that report, anyway, so @Isaac is lying, as he often does.

That doesn't excuse any of these things, nor does the excuse that it's worse in other places of the world, nor does it make someone who seeks to flee these things anything less than a political refugee. — Tzeentch

After years of searching, I regret to inform that there is apparently no perfect paradise on earth. A consequence is that you cannot "flee these things" because it's worse elsewhere. Everything is relative, as you must know.

People tend to flee non-Western countries to go in to Western countries, in far larger numbers than vice versa. That should tell you something. People vote with their feet.

In short, you can do one of two things with your Western soup: either you drink it, or you pee in it. But you pee in it abundantly and then you complaint about the taste... That's kinda odd. If you prefer some non-Western soup, go right ahead; nobody is stopping you.

You too vote with your feet, honey bunny. When you stay forever in the West, while bitching forever about the West, we all understand that you don't really mean it. Your complaints are just noise, mind farts. Otherwise, you would act on them.

You look at the West through pink-coloured glasses, apparently unable to acknowledge political malpractice when it is carried out by the West. — Tzeentch

You seem to look at the West with shit-colored glasses; hence you see "political malpractice" everywhere while remaining remarkably shy on exactly what malpractice you are talking about...

That Westerners criticize the West is normal: we do it because we can, because we are free to do it. As a result, it's easy to think that the West stinks to heavens high compared to other nations, because if you criticise, say, the Government of Iran in Iran, or the Government of China from China, chances are you will end in jail or dead - so you just don't criticize them from the inside and this creates a bias.

On this biased information basis, a politically naive Western observer such as yourself might conclude that Iran or China are much better places to live in than "the West". This would be a mistake, as you could verify by travelling there.

The fact is that Russia had been saying, for years, that involvement in Ukraine, including the push for NATO membership, was a threat. — Mikie

NATO caca.

Relevance to the current geopolitical situation we're discussing. — boethius

Oh well. I can see quite a few elements of geopolitical relevance in the current context. No issue here.

My point was different: that to the extent that the West leads the world, it does so scientifically, economically, culturally and militarily, but not morally. It doesn't exert a moral leadership that I can see or trust, although politicians may pretend otherwise. One could perhaps claim that Western values are IN THEORY, AS INTENDED, morally superior to any others. That would sound unwise to me but it can be argued. But how many people nowadays still believe that the West lives by its own values?

This war does not present "a challenge to Western moral leadership", as such a thing does not exist. It is a challenge to Western geopolitical leadership.

I agree that the war crimes debate doesn't have all that much relevance. — boethius

???

Relevance is a relative term. Relevance to what, and for whom?

War crimes may be irrelevant to you, but they are relevant for the Ukrainians, and others.

I deny that greasing a bullet is a war crime.
— Olivier5

Oh! Really? You're saying there would need to be an impartial investigation and trial to really have some solid sense of what is and is not a crime and who's guilty of it? Interesting. — boethius

Nope. I am just saying that greased bullets aren't mentioned in the Geneva conventions defining war crimes, and that mentioning such red hearing in a discussion about war crimes amounts to trivializing the subject.

The central geo-political question of this war is the challenge to Western moral leadership. — boethius

Fixed. Morality and geopolitics don't mix well.

the bullets in lard was self-posted, and a clear war crime that no one denies. — boethius

I deny that greasing a bullet is a war crime.

Ukrainians also have plenty of evidence of committing war crimes, dipping bullets in lard and all — boethius

Really? That's all you could come up with in terms of Ukrainian war crimes??? No torture, no rapping, no murder of civilians, but the purely symbolic act of greasing a bullet...

Americans use superlatives often. — ssu

:up:

Go back to your quotes:

In the most basic, literal sense, an existential threat means a threat to the physical existence of the nation — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

This is what I am saying.

A less conventional understanding of the term posits the radical erosion or ending of U.S. prosperity and freedoms through economic, political, ideational, and military pressure, thereby in essence destroying the basis for the American way of life. — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

Although unconventional, this use still focuses on a radical collapse of society. Which is not the same thing as a mere annoyance.

Some argue that China could militarily push the United States out of Asia and dominate that region, denying the country air and naval access and hence support for critical allies. This would presumably have an existential impact by virtue of the supposedly critical importance of that region to the stability and prosperity of the United States.

That would be a mere annoyance, and would

fall below these two definitions [and] not convey what is meant by the word “existential.” — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

To my mind, existential means: relative to existence. Pundits can disagree. But even them know they are abusing the term when they do.

Someone may pretend that it poses him an existential threat if he finds one morning that his favorite parking spot in front of the office is already taken. Doesn't make it true.

Just because some journalists made a click bait out of the concept, doesn't mean it's right.

An existential threat is a threat to something's or someone's continued existence.

The term "existential threat" is international code language for saying "You are threatening my core strategic interests — Tzeentch

No. The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea."

You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language.

So how do you imagine this? Ukrainians constantly cajole, shame and bully their allies into sending them more and better weapons faster, but they don't actually want to use those weapons to fight the Russians? What do they need them for then? — SophistiCat

L.O.V.E.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1580090899228418048

Borrell probably means "the Russian army in Ukraine".

A Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine would trigger "such a powerful answer" from the West that the Russian army would be "annihilated," said Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief.

"There is the nuclear threat, and Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing," Borrell said during a European Diplomatic Academy event in Bruges.

"It has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the member states, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing neither."

"And any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer -- not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side -- that the Russian army will be annihilated, and Putin should not be bluffing," he said.

________

Few people may know Josep Borrell Fontelles. Born 24 April 1947, he is a Spanish politician serving as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy since 1 December 2019. A member of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), he served as President of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2007 and as Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation in the Government of Spain from 2018 to 2019.

But then those you mention are problematic in many ways. — Manuel

Marx and Machiavel were realists, almost scientific, using history as their lab. That's what I like in them: the respect for reality, at least as a general principle.

Popper also wrote well of democracy, and many others.

I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages
— Xtrix

Me too.

Then again, if you look at the tradition in philosophy, you find every kind of political persuasion — Manuel

Philosophers don't really understand politics as practiced. Most of times, they theorize about some ideal forms of government, often favouring the philosopher-king or philosophers parliaments... In other words, they dream up the kind of politics that they fantasize doing, if ever they were in power. God forbid!

There are exceptions, if course. Machiavelli made a brave attempt at understanding power in its real, practical relationship with people. But it is telling that The Prince with all its bitter realpolitics, was born from his failure as a "philosopher republican" in Florence. The Florentine Republic was short-lived. Machiavelli was captured and tortured by the Medici. That would leave a deep realist scar on the most idealist thinker.

Then there's Marx. Must I go on?

:clap:

We agree here.

It's almost as if @schopenhauer1 did not believe liars and equivocators. How dare he, seeing all the hard labor you put into your work?

Yes, let Turkey reopen a channel. And let's hope it leads to something. I won't hold my breath though. Diplomacy is slow.

Ha ha. That was easy though, Turkey facilitated previous talks eg on freeing cereals export ship lanes in the Black Sea. Those negotiations worked, BTW.