More on this brave lady here…
3 Likes
If we take such a stance no virtually no country can call out Russia. It can be labeled hypocrisy. That’s ethically not right.
That’s not to condone, but there has to be recognition of the type of war crime and context. If Russia dropped a nuclear bomb on Kiev, or we or we found people were systematically being exterminated it would be morally wrong for the US or Germany not to condemn because of what happened in WW2. Putin could say exactly the same thing. That it’s hypocrisy.
We have reports of the systematic rape of woman, thousands of kids being taken, filtration camps were civilians are sent to far flung economically deprived cities.
Than there is the land. The reports above about Russia targeting agriculture. That’s targeting food production with a long term view. Likewise Russia believing mass deforestation is a legitimate war strategy. That’s a travesty.
We have seen schools and hospitals seen as legitimate targets. Not mistakes but part of strategy. The homes of journalists targeted. We have seen the use of weapons banned in most of the world. Cluster bombs, white phosphorus bombs, and thermobaric bombs in population centres.
Strategies to cut off food supplies to cities, starve the population out, cut off water and electricity. There is a callous and calculated targeting of human life.
The worst thing is nothing is off the cards for Putin. Biological warfare, tactical nukes, carpet bombing entire cities. The longer this drags on the more dangerous he gets. The Iraq war loss to terrible loss of life and destruction but that does not mean Russia gets a free pass. The biggest US/UK crime was going to war, with Russia it could very well be how they fight this war.
8 Likes
Land mines too, being left all over the place including children’s play areas.
2 Likes
that’s just appalling. I fail to understand how these soldiers can plant a proximity mine anywhere, let alone a playground
these are peoples communities, their homes. nobody deserves this, especially not children
Agree with this. While the US wars are for the US benefit and most of them fought under false pretenses, I think they have tried to follow Geneva conventions during the fighting. There are stories of individual soldiers going off the deep end, even small groups, but nothing compared to what Putin is doing. Putin also started a war under false pretenses (and for the record, way worse false pretenses than any US war, but that’s another thread for another time). But Putin is ignoring Geneva convention, and the orders to target civilians with illegal weapons come directly from his desk. It’s a hard point to argue, but I guess if you can look past why the war is being fought and focus on how it’s being done, I don’t think what Russia is doing is comparable to anything the West has done under that lens, which is what ‘war crimes’ attempts to do (I think). Look at the execution of the war, not the reason for it.
I’d still say Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would be woefully behind any US war by either standard (reason or execution), even if Bush’s WOMD was a shit sandwich to try and swallow, with the understanding that anytime boots hit foreign soil with weapons it’s a terrible thing, and we are trying to layer just how far down the awful scale you want to go.
3 Likes
Simply ‘whataboutism’ should be outlawed. Take every dispicable act as it is and judge it. It doesn’t matter what someone else did it’s what they/you/… do/did. I don’t care what the nationality is if someone ordered it, someone carried out vile acts they should be condemned and hopefully punished for it.
I’m really sick of this ‘whataboutism’ culture, you mention something and there’s some fuckwit that pipes up some whatabout nonsense, NO, it’s not what was being discussed!
8 Likes
From one of the tweets posted above
Some wonderful propaganda material for Russia…
1 Like
if only that actually amounted to something. all lip service, right now. the bad guys don’t play by the rules. they never have
1 Like
From the BBC just now…
Canada says it can help boost energy supplies
Canada has capacity to increase oil and gas exports by the equivalent of 300,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) by the end of this year, its natural resources minister has said.
Jonathan Wilkinson said Canada could increase oil exports by 200,000 bpd and gas by 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, in order to help other countries reduce their reliance on Russian energy.
He said the country was also looking into ways to supply liquified natural gas (LNG), which it does not currently export.
“Our European friends and allies need Canada and others to step up,” Wilkinson said. “They’re telling us they need our help in getting off Russian oil and gas in the short term, while speeding up the energy transition across the continent,” Wilkinson said.
To put this in perspective, Russia exports about five million barrels of crude oil each day, of which more than half goes to Europe.
2 Likes
1 Like
First let me start off by saying wars are almost never, if ever, justified especially when you look at the human cost of it.
On NATO… there is a not completely crazy argument (which may or may not be correct when all the falsehoods are eliminated) that they had a big hand in “instigating” this war. There are obviously two different beliefs.
One is that many (especially Russians) believe that there was an agreement that NATO would not expand East after the reunification of East and West Germany (Warsaw Pact? and subsequent discussions).
The quote from US Secretary of State James Baker: “I put the following question to (Gorbachev),” Baker recounted in a [letter] to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. “‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’”
The second belief is more widely held because even Gorbachev admits they were talking more about Germany in their discussions… but I think everyone agrees that the spirit of the agreement was broken regarding NATO.
And since we know that Russia has a big problem with NATO missiles at its doorstep… are NATO then partly or even largely responsible by courting new members like Ukraine? It is a bit murky at this point depending on your belief.
If you poke a crazy animal and it attacks you… who is responsible? It is a matter of perspective. This is almost a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis. NATO was essentially moving closer to putting weaponry at the Russian border and they didn’t like it.
Of course all these beliefs from both sides ignore the sovereignty of the country of Ukraine and their “right” to choose (which is also debatable because although most of us would fight to protect the freedom to choose… the reality is that you have to have power to do so).
Forget the propaganda… the only innocents in this politics are the civilians.
3 Likes
It’s perhaps relevant to mention that any assurance (no matter how valid or binding) given in the mid to late 80s was given to the USSR, not Russia.
4 Likes
I think that’s the case and I suspect that they are more involved than they are publicly stating.
Even if they are not actively involved they are gaining data both on their own and Russian weapons.
I think if it was down to Baerbock that would have happened already. I suspect it’s that the FDP that aren’t in favour.
I do think it’s worth keeping some measures short of military action in reserve. Blocking Nordstream 2 was an obvious first measure as it hurts Russia but has no immediate effect on anyone else.
Scholz appears to have been negotiating alternative supplies so I’d see how that pans out. I do think halting the closure of the atom plants would be advisable. It sends a message if nothing else.
1 Like