The difference however is that Ukraine is more pro-Western than Russia.
— neomac

Your evidence for that? — Isaac

Maidan.

Is the Western World really still a force for good?
— yebiga

Still? Which good old day are you nostalgic for? Mussolini made the trains run on time, and The British Empire made the trains, and published Marx. — unenlightened

Let's delete "for good", which is indeed quite debatable. The remaining part of the question is in the balance: Is the Western World still a force?

The Russian army has announced on its Telegram account (where else?) that it has replaced the commander of the SMO. It can mean only one thing: that the previous top commander (whose name was not made public) was found fearsomely efficient.

The new commander in Ukraine is Army General Sergei Surovikin. At 55, is a veteran of the civil war in Tajikistan in the 1990s, the second Chechen war in the 2000s and the Russian intervention in Syria launched in 2015. Until now, he led the group of "Southern" forces in Ukraine, according to a Russian ministry report from July.

I'm coming from a place called "stating the glaringly obvious". You thought I was a boy scout? Now that's cute..

I've got nothing in response to that — Isaac

Of course you don't. Humanitarian concerns are not the primary reasons why the 'West' helps Ukraine. We are doing so out of perceived self interest, first and foremost, and that is perfectly natural and sane: Macron, Biden or Scholtz were not elected by Ukrainians to protect Ukrainian interests. They were elected by French, Americans and Germans to protect these nations' interests.

America, France, Engalnd are unequivocally not next on Putin's hit-list. — Isaac

Do you have access to his hit list? Personally I don't, and I consider that Poland, Germany and France could very well get threatened in the future if Russia wins in Ukraine.

It's one of the people who've been critical of all the pro-western cheerleading, what a surprise. — Isaac

He mentioned them like I mention them, in passim.

Answer the question: Why do you think it is that Uighurs don't get any help from the EU or NATO?

Forget NATO. Here on TPF, who cares about the Uighurs? Nobody.

We care about Ukraine because we identify with them, because we could very well be next. This is exactly what Zelensky says, he perfectly understood that.

People who speak with contempt of Machiavelli haven't read his book. He is a more subtle thinker than cretins think, eg he says that in politics, naįve boyscouts often do more damage than shrewd calculators.

There are many excellent moral reasons to help the Ukrainians. Just like there are many excellent moral reasons to help the Uighurs. But one people gets help and the other doesn't. Why, do you think?

It's called geopolitics, not boyscoutism.

If we supply such enormous quantities of aid, we have a right and a duty to ensure that aid is being used to promote only humanitarian goals. — Isaac

We are not supporting Ukraine for humanitarian reasons, but to protect ourselves.

The official story is being adjusted so the public is moved in the direction of this adjustment. — apokrisis

Maybe they are re-discovering glasnost, though.

I think they are now realizing how self-defeating the 'official truth regime' is. The understand better now what some of us have spoken of here: that constant lies pollute the world view of the liars, detach them from reality and lead them to take very bad decisions. So on Russian TV, where they used to lambast the 'defeatists' who originally cautioned against the war, now they lambast those who report too rosy a picture, those who 'fail to take ful measure of the seriousness of the situation'. It's quite the U turn... :-) — Olivier5

Andrey Kartapolov, a senior Russian lawmaker called on military officials to tell the truth about developments on the ground in Ukraine following the string of bruising defeats.

Kartapolov, who is the chairman of the lower house of parliament's defence committee, told a journalist from state-run media that "we need to stop lying."

"The reports of the defence ministry do not change. The people know. Our people are not stupid. This can lead to loss of credibility," Kartapolov added.

------

This war may have at least one virtue, if it reconciles the Russian elite with the importance of telling the truth.

Interesting video by RAI News from Kherson region, of a Russian tank applying @Isaac's principles:

https://www.rainews.it/video/2022/10/carro-armato-russo-si-arrende-con-bandiera-bianca-intorno-a-kherson-c5bacdff-1fbc-4ab0-b6ae-07ba732ff681.html

Russia is journalistic hell.

However, I think they are now realizing how self-defeating the 'official truth regime' is. The understand better now what some of us have spoken of here: that constant lies pollute the world view of the liars, detach them from reality and lead them to take very bad decisions. So on Russian TV, where they used to lambast the 'defeatists' who originally cautioned against the war, now they lambast those who report too rosy a picture, those who 'fail to take ful measure of the seriousness of the situation'. It's quite the U turn... :-)

address the issue of Ukraine unilaterally banning opposition press — Isaac

Opposition press is NOT banned in Ukraine. They un-liscenced three TV channels from broadcasting but didn't ban them. Plenty other outlets are still on, and even those 3 TVs are still operating, but just on YouTube.

RSF = Reporters Sans Frontières. Nothing to see with Reuters

600 to 1,000 casuslties a day, and you're talking about a few beatings and some stolen kit? — Isaac

I am talking about freedom of press, as you know. It is an important democratic principle. It's not about 'kits'.

Where's the proof, in a fair court, these 3 TV stations were spreading "hateful lies"? — boethius

How many journalists were assassinated by the regime, or jailed, or beaten up? How much if their equipment was confiscated?

According to RSF, there's vast difference between the two countries in terms of freedom of press and violence towards journalists.

since when did freedom of the press not include the freedom to propagandise? — boethius

Since WW2. It is forbidden in many democratic countries to spread hateful lies by way of press.

Is the exact opposite of journalists being "free to operate there". — boethius

Enemy operatives spreading propaganda cannot be classified as "free press". They are on a mission to disinform.

What kind of argument is this? — boethius

An argument against people staying in power too long, nominating puppets to reign in their place, and changing the constitution to retain power beyond set limits. Power corrupts.

Same as Ukraine. — boethius

Nope. A lot of independent journalists operate there. Likewise, Ukrainian opposition has not been persecuted, and the war in Dombass has nothing to see with the mass killings in Chechnya.

What criticism of Russian democracy does not also hold for Ukraine? — boethius

That the same guy heads the country for decades.

That most opposition figures have been killed or jailed, and their parties persecuted.

That all free press is banned from the country.

That entire regions have been massacred like Chechnya.

That one can go to jail for 15 years for criticizing the war, even if only by wearing a tshirt.

Russia is also a democracy — boethius

LOL

Ukraine is a democracy, while Russia is not. It makes a difference in my book, and obviously for Ukrainians.

Seems to me that nobody who's given up political hope for a long while would be able to appreciate its victory, against all odds. It would imply that they despaired too much.

nihilism trying to blot out what is perceived as hope, because it hurts too much to see hope killed one more time. — frank

I suspect it would hurt them even more if hope triumphed.

I get that there are actual psychopaths, but that's not what's usually happening. It's mostly walking wounded, trying to pass their wounds on to somebody else. — frank

I think the wound you speak of is the idea that politicians are all equally bad, and therefore that there can be no hope from politics. This idea is painful to hold, as it tells us we are powerless collectively. Especially so when one sees other folks still believing in a collective or another, and fighting for a cause.

It's cause envy.

I say the hell with fascists, whatever their reasons to be fascist.

Correct, but unknown to @Isaac.

I think they're just sympathetic to Russia for various reasons. — frank

Not really, or perhaps to Russia as a regime. They are sympathetic to the Putin regime, not to the Russian people.

The morally appropriate response is condemnation, period — frank

And fight.

Would-be philosophers busy trivializing war crimes... Figure that! Students of Heidegger perhaps.

I can't think of a single precedent. In no circumstances at all, that I'm aware of, throughout history, have war crimes continued on the same scale after peace negotiations as they were at before them. — Isaac

And yet the holocaust took place, largely in Poland, after Poland officially surrendered to the Germans.

Where the response to torture is "Yes, everybody does that," there's some moral calibration in order. No, not everybody does that, and those who do are criminals. — frank

Exactly. No need to trivialize war crimes.

Well, if you are truly interested in arguments, I suggest you pay attention to what I and others here are saying.

Just because you are unable to understand an argument, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Soddin war crime apologists...

There are no such war crimes in Russia nowadays. — Isaac

They routinely murder and torture folks there.

What evidence do you have that war crimes continue in occupied territories after the peace deals have been signed to a greater extent than they do during the war. — Isaac

What evidence do you have that they won't continue after a peace deal? And how would you bring the guilty to justice, after a peace deal?

A cover of Edith Piaf by Pomplemoose. The lyrics are variations about the Paris skies.



Under the sky of Paris
Flies away a song
Hum hum
It was born today
In the heart of a boy

Under the sky of Paris
Walking lovers
Hum hum
Their happiness built
Upon an song made just for them

Under the bridge of Bercy
A philosopher sits
Two musicians, a few onlookers
And then people, by the thousands

Under the sky of Paris
Will sing until the evening
Hum hum
The anthem of a people in love
With its old city

Near Notre Dame
Brews up a drama sometimes
Yes, but in Paname (nickname of Paris)
Everything can work out

Some rays shine
From the summer sky
An accordion from some sailor
And hope blossoms
Under the sky of Paris

But the sky of Paris
Has its own secret
For twenty centuries, it has been in love
With our Island Saint Louis

When it is too jealous
Of these millions of lovers
It grumbles and scolds at us
with its dazzling thunder

But the sky of Paris
Is not cruel for long
To ask for forgiveness
It hands over a rainbow

What is the link between the scale of the atrocities and the efficacy of continued war as a strategy to limit them? It's a simple enough question. — Isaac

A simple enough answer: a peace deal now entrenching Russia's position in Dombass and Crimea would ensure that they can continue their vast crimes unabated. The only way to stop them, is to take hold of them Russian criminals and bring them to justice, and kick the rest out of the country.

Yes, Putin is a war criminal, has committed AWFUL crimes in a war - to which I add, who has not? — Manuel

You have committed war crimes, Manuel? ??