. I can't be responsible for the fact that you're too stupid to understand the conversation. — Isaac

Show me one single post of yours discussing the possible consequences of this war on Ukraine.

By pressuring our governments, voting our politicians in or out, engaging in demonstrations that could push or stop legislation, sending letters to our representatives all of which are an essential part of democracy.

As we are not citizens of Russia, we do not have this option - and also they get arrested if they do protest.



Yes, it has a very long, ugly history, curiously supporting the more radical elements of Islam, which often coincide (not always) with Western economic and military interests.

Nevertheless, that's a topic deserving of its own thread.

It seems you mentally block out what it means to recognize the independence of another state. — ssu

On the contrary, it’s YOU who’s blocking out the fact that a state can de-recognize something it previously recognized if circumstances change!!! :rofl:

In December 1991 Ukraine was a friendly state and co-member with Russia of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This began to change after 1994 when Ukraine decided to get closer and closer to NATO, and America and its NATO Empire tried to bring Russia under their domination, with the result that US-Russia relations soured.

As for the “Budapest Memorandum” of 1994, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s a well-known fact that that memorandum was only a formality that without a sanctions mechanism provided no real guarantees to Ukraine.

When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Ukraine waved the agreement but to no avail. Theoretically, you could argue that Russia violated the agreement by annexing Crimea, but then so did America and other signatories by refusing to take any action.

Plus, the memorandum was just an American trick to get Ukraine to get rid of its nukes that America claimed were directed at it. So, basically, you’re doing nothing except expose yourself as a clueless NATO Nazi!

Anyway, now that Turkey’s Sublime Sultan Erdogan has vowed to personally assist Finland to join NATO as fast as possible, you’ve got nothing to fear. I’m sure you’ll be in by Friday after prayers. Whether it’s gonna be this Friday, or this year, or this century, is hard to tell. But that’s another story …. :rofl:

its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. — Manuel

Well, yes. It tends to be folks that allow themselves to be guided by emotions (@Olivier5), propaganda (@ssu), or political ideology (@Christoffer), instead of reason. In any case, when they start saying that it is “unprincipled” to consider all the facts, you know that this is getting toxic .... :grin:

I for one think that it makes more sense to see (1) territorial claims, (2) Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and (3) alleged Russian “war crimes” as separate issues.

Real war crimes are established through evidence-based legal process, not through Ukrainian propaganda or allegations made by Western media outfits and NATO activists.

Besides, not being on the ground in Ukraine, we can’t know for sure what’s happening and bombing residential buildings isn’t necessarily proof of intent to harm civilians.

Obviously, Russia’s actual goal is to hit Ukraine’s military facilities and troops. But my guess is that the Russians are simply using the weapons they’ve got, i.e., old-fashioned multiple rocket launchers that fire unguided rockets. Even when they’re using guided missiles, if the military target is close to civilian areas, collateral damage can’t always be avoided.

In any case, until such “crimes” have been officially established, it is pointless to even start speculating about them.

The central issue for now remains the legitimacy of claims made by both sides in relation to territorial and security concerns.

From what I see, no one has demonstrated that placing the ethnic-Russian Donbas region, Crimea, and the Black Sea under NATO, i.e., under US control, should be of no concern to Russia!

And, as I said before, much of what’s posted on this thread isn’t philosophical statements but the politically-motivated (and/or Covid-19-affected?) outbursts of angry, middle-aged Western males trying to vent their frustration over Russia’s challenge to America’s neo-colonialist New (or not-so-new) World Order.

And you’re absolutely right about Western duplicity and hypocrisy. NATO member Turkey has repeatedly invaded Kurdish territories in Syria and has proudly announced that it will do so again:

Erdogan: Turkey's Syria operation could happen 'suddenly' - The Independent

Thousands of Kurdish civilians killed, millions displaced or deported, thousands of villages destroyed. Is America or NATO giving drones, howitzers, and missile launchers to the Kurds to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity???

Of course not. On the contrary, NATO claims that Turkey has “legitimate security concerns” in the region and seems to think that it can murder as many innocent Kurdish men, women, and children, as it pleases! Not to mention the massacres and other atrocities committed against Kurds (and others) in Turkey itself. And what do our "moralists" here have to say? "NATO doesn't get involved in the internal affairs of its members"!

I don't think it's even possible to have a modern day war, without committing war crimes. It comes with the territory.

I do agree that the evidence needs to examined by independent legal scholars, looking at the facts - as far isolated from ideology as possible. But to get rid of ideology entirely I don't think is possible.

It's part of being human, to have biases. It need not be bad.

But sure, hypocrisy from the West, no doubt at all about that.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?
— baker

Wondering if you still think this way???
— creativesoul

Of course.

It's the notion that one can hate and despise someone and consider them their enemy, but still expect this party to be nice and harmless that is absurd. — baker

This is working from an emaciated set of morals. That all depends upon how we treat others, including our enemies(those whom we despise and hate), doesn't it?

Peaceful co-existence need only require that one sovereign nation respect another. The same is true of individual people. One can consider another an enemy on certain terms and in certain non violent, non harmful ways. These terms and ways do not cause harm. Nor do they seek any unnecessary unprovoked offensive violence towards this enemy. Seeing another as an enemy is in itself insufficient ground for the enemy to cause retaliatory harm. So, no it is not the least absurd to be able to expect to see another as an enemy(in nice and harmless ways), and completely expect the enemy to be and remain nice and harmless.

One can peacefully co-exist with one's enemy if both should so choose.




One can see another as the enemy of self-governance.

Here is the overlap Un and Isaac have been skirting around. There are some in all governments, I would suspect, who are such. Whether or not they are knowingly and intentionally against self-governance for the sake of being so(authoritarians), or whether they act in ways contradictory and harmful to such governments(too many to capture here), I would consider these people enemies of self-governance.

The hallmarks(actual results) of good self-governance are shown in the actual lives and livelihoods of the overwhelming majority. Good government produces quality lives.

In December 1991 Ukraine was a friendly state and co-member with Russia of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This began to change after 1994 when Ukraine decided to get closer and closer to NATO, and America and its NATO Empire tried to bring Russia under their domination, with the result that US-Russia relations soured. — Apollodorus

'Empire', 'domination'...

Rhetorical drivel.

Key words:Ukraine decided...

Ukraine liked what NATO and the west had to offer it as a sovereign country. Russia did not. Some in the Ukrainian territory were/are unhappy about it. Others(it seems the overwhelming majority) were/are fine with it.

Key words:Ukraine decided... — creativesoul

In what naive world do you imagine that the enormous political might of America and Europe simply stood back and said to Ukraine "it's your choice, we'll not try to influence you in any way"?

It's funny in a world where we wouldn't even trust a used car salesman to give an honest pitch, people seem to have tremendous trouble with the idea that the world's most powerful nations might not be fully honest and on the level in their dealings with other countries.

The West runs something little short of a protection racket and people still want to believe they're running a 1950s sweet shop.

I don't think it's even possible to have a modern day war, without committing war crimes. It comes with the territory. — Manuel

So Hitler and Stalin were in the right, and the Red Cross are fools. Good to know.

As we are not citizens of Russia, we do not have this option - and also they get arrested if they do protest. — Manuel

We do have the option of protesting against the Russian government. And we can do it on behalf of all decent Russians.

"War crime" is a tautology.

Nice example of the Putinistas' political philosophy: cynicism and nihilism.

Lol, yes, because I think war is a crime. If this makes me a 'Putinista' then you bet I'm a Putinista, so long as we are evacuating words of all meaning.

I feel sorry for you too. It must be sad to be you. It's already depressing to have you around.

Of course war is a crime. But who started this war? Your honey bunny Putin did.

So you agree with me but just want to talk shit? OK.

Must be sad to be so insecure.

I don't do war crime apologies, sorry.

You don't English either, apparently.

Better than you though.

I don't war crime apologies — Olivier5

Pre-edit.

Lol.

Sooo funny.

Anyway it's great how Germany is literally changing its constitution to appease weapon mongerers and merchants of death:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-05-29/germany-to-change-constitution-to-enable-110-billion-defense-fund

"BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany has agreed to change its constitution to allow for a credit-based special defense fund of 100 billion euros ($107.35 billion) proposed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the German finance ministry announced on Sunday. Germany's centre-right opposition and ruling coalition with centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) said they reached the required two-thirds majority to exempt the defense fund from a constitutional debt brake."

It's always good fun when Germany is armed to the teeth. That has always gone well.

What other funny funny jokes could one make about war crimes? Any proposal? It's always good to start the day with maximum cynicism.

Additional fun from the Western media:

British empire smut rag The Times has a new article out titled "Azov Battalion drops neo-Nazi symbol exploited by Russian propagandists," which has got to be the most hilarious headline of 2022 so far (and I'm including The Onion and other intentionally funny headlines in the running).

"The Azov Battalion has removed a neo-Nazi symbol from its insignia that has helped perpetuate Russian propaganda about Ukraine being in the grip of far-right nationalism," The Times informs us. "At the unveiling of a new special forces unit in Kharkiv, patches handed to soldiers did not feature the wolfsangel, a medieval German symbol that was adopted by the Nazis and which has been used by the battalion since 2014. Instead, they featured a golden trident, the Ukrainian national symbol worn by other regiments."

Yeah that's how you solve Ukraine's Nazi problem. A logo change.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/empire-solves-ukraines-nazi-problem?s=w

I don't war crime apologies
— Olivier5

Pre-edit.

Lol. — Streetlight

A classic example of why you are not a trustworthy human being and have the sense of humor of a child. Thank Cthulhu you're no longer a mod.

Because I quoted his words back at him before he changed it?

I shouldn't have to spell this out, X.

OK. Stay classy.

Stay classy. — Streetlight

:rofl: :vomit:

In what naive world do you imagine that the enormous political might of America and Europe simply stood back and said to Ukraine "it's your choice, we'll not try to influence you in any way"? — Isaac

Those are not mutually exclusive notions; influence and choice. Of course the west wanted Ukraine to join forces. There was something in it for the west as well as Ukraine, otherwise the west would not have been interested, nor would Ukraine.

Just because the US policy has a sorted history of hidden agendas and not so honest means, it does not follow that every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means.

Literally every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means.

I do not agree.

Then you haven't been paying attention.