Something from the pro-war rally that Putin held:

We needed to drag Crimea out of that humiliating position and state that Crimea and Sevastopol had been pushed into when they were part of another state that had only provided leftover financing to these territories.

There is more to it. The fact is we know what needs to be done next, how it needs to be done, and at what cost – and we will fulfil all these plans, absolutely.

These decisions are not even as important as the fact that the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol made the right choice when they put up a firm barrier against neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists. What was and is still happening on other territories is the best indication that they did the right thing.

People who lived and live in Donbass did not agree with this coup d’état, either. Several punitive military operations were instantly staged against them; they were besieged and subjected to systemic shelling with artillery and bombing by aircraft – and this is actually what is called “genocide.”

The main goal and motive of the military operation that we launched in Donbass and Ukraine is to relieve these people of suffering, of this genocide. At this point, I recall the words from the Holy Scripture: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” And we are seeing how heroically our military are fighting during this operation.

These words come from the Holy Scripture of Christianity, from what is cherished by those who profess this religion. But the bottom line is that this is a universal value for all nations and those of all religions in Russia, and primarily for our people. The best evidence of this is how our fellows are fighting and acting in this operation: shoulder to shoulder, helping and supporting each other. If they have to, they will cover each other with their bodies to protect their comrade from a bullet in the battlefield, as they would to save their brother. It has been a long time since we had such unity. — Vladimir Putin

Person referring to Holy Scripture in the justification of the war he started likely isn't going to cut a peace deal immediately.

One view is that ethical dilemmas of this kind only exist for world leaders as they act to advance the interests of their countries in the context of competition for political survival. — frank

Economic survival also. One option is for people joining the armed forces that they will not engage in any war or military action that proceeds without UN Security Council approval. Tell your local recruiting officer. Not sure how that will go down.

So the question is, why the above condemnation (which I agree with, actually, don't find anything incorrect there) is only preserved for Israel, but not for Russia and Putin? Now for some reason I find myself with a realpolitik (or anti-US?) Benkei who doesn't care what Russia does. (Perhaps it's all Western propaganda or what?) — ssu

The difference is that the Palestinians have not made strategic choices for which they can be blamed, as opposed to Israel and its enablers. They haven't done anything wrong except for existing. If you want to compare it, then the Palestinians are Ukrainians.

It's interesting to see you think there's an inconsistency.

There's just two levels, strategic and rules based. I blame Russia for an act of aggression but I think it was the only correct strategic move. I therefore blame the USA and NATO for limiting strategic choices that result in war.

Here are a couple video's about the invasion in Ukraine that I posted in another thread:





..just in case someone on this thread is interested in them and didn't see them.

Also there there is livemap, which shows an interact map of Ukraine and some of what is going on there:

https://liveuamap.com/

Dude, the whole current war is precisely because NATO isn't Ukraine's friend ... or it would be in Ukraine right now shoulder to shoulder, protecting its "friend".

Saying NATO arms dealing with Ukraine is "friendship" is like saying your meth dealer dealing you meth is "friendship".

Maybe you need the meth, but big mistake thinking your meth dealer's your friend. That's how suicides happen. Public service announcement everyone.

NATO can't have it both ways — boethius

Yeah, this is the problem in a nutshell. NATO could still fast track Ukraine membership. But it won't because it doesn't want war with Russia, which means it would never let Ukraine join (since it would be de facto at war because of Russia's occupation of Crimea).

Ukraine would need to essentially invade Russia to get Crimea back, and, as we've just established, NATO's not going to help them do that. So they've no choice there either.

And if NATO aren't going to help in Crimea, they're certainly not going to go to war to return de facto independent states to the control of a previous authority.

So Ukraine are sending men off to die for the right to make a choice they don't even have.

Put the other way round is even more problematic...

No outcome currently on the table could be avoided by any possible military victory. They will not achieve membership of NATO, they will not get Crimea back, and they will not regain full control over the Dombass. So what, I'd like to know, is the strategic objective?

Offered so far has been...

We don't trust Putin - not a strategic objective, and in any case a 'fight to the death option'.

Various forms of 'teaching Putin a lesson' - I can't even believe anyone could describe the horror of Mariupol in one breath and then suggest it's all worth it to see the look on Putin's face if he loses.

On the oft repeated bullshit about 'supporting Ukraine'...

in a typical colonial way, commentators are homogenizing Ukrainians and misrecognizing the political diversity in a nation of 40 million people. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently tweeted about the principle “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” contrary to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inclination to determine Ukraine’s membership in NATO in a narrow circle of Great Powers. However, the problem is not only deciding “without Ukraine” but also deciding “for” very diverse Ukrainians as if they held identical opinions on the critical issues in question. — Volodymyr Ishchenko, research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin.,*

*His research focused on protests and social movements, revolutions, radical right and left politics, nationalism and civil society. He authored a number of peer-reviewed articles and interviews on contemporary Ukrainian politics, the Euromaidan uprising, and the ensuing war in 2013-14

Anyone who thinks that 'the Ukrainians' are some kind of homogeneous mass that they can 'support' is talking shite.

If people want to discuss the issues that Russia is using as propaganda talking points, then it would be good to understand that they are talking about issues that are used as propaganda. — ssu

But you've yet to explain what you want anyone to do about this, nor provided any reason at all for your assumption that they don't already know this.

Sometimes the facts (on which the propaganda is based) are relevant to understanding the issue. You can't just ban discussion of them on the grounds that some current aggressor is using them as a basis for their propaganda. No one here is promoting propaganda. Not one person has said that Ukraine's Neo-Nazi problem morally justified invasion, not one person has said that NATO expansion morally justified invasion. There's been no suggestion that Ukraine is 'rightfully' part of Russia, and no one has claimed that Ukraine are developing biological weapons designed to carry out some kind of Russocide.

So if no one here is promoting Putin's propaganda, why is discussing any of the facts on which it is based so in need of constant suppression?

On the subject of 'misinformation'...

Then came the surfacing of Hunter Biden’s missing laptop, with its library of decadent pictures and business email chains, mysteriously left at a Wilmington repair shop, which found its way to Republican political operatives including Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, plus the rightwing press and the FBI.

On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity. — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden-joe-biden-president-business-dealings

ban — Isaac

suppression — Isaac

Can you explain how you're using these words?

I have seen many responses directly rebutting the claims at issue.

I have seen many dismissive non-responses (that the claims need not be discussed, much less rebutted, because they are irrelevant, unimportant, overblown, etc.).

Does any of that qualify as "banning" or "suppressing" discussion for you?

If you want to compare it, then the Palestinians are Ukrainians. — Benkei

Aren't the Palestinians similar here to the Ukrainians? There's a link, except that:

- There was no Independent sovereign state of Palestine, whose territory and borders (the new) Israel would have earlier acknowledged.

- Unlike now when NATO and EU are assisting Ukraine, the Arab countries didn't join the war against Israel to help the Palestinians, but to carve up their own piece of the former British Mandate with Jordan being the most successful in this endeavour (thanks to an army trained and lead by British professional soldiers).

- The Palestinians fleeing the conflict thought they would come back after the fighting, but the Ukrainians now fleeing Eastern Ukraine can understand that if Russia holds those territories, there is no going back to home.

I blame Russia for an act of aggression but I think it was the only correct strategic move. — Benkei

WTF?

Only correct strategic move? To start a war they cannot win?

You really honestly say that invading Ukraine was the "only correct strategic move" for Russia? To start a war against a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons, doesn't have territorial claims at Russia and isn't thinking of attacking Russia, is the "only correct strategic move"?

Then you "therefore blame the USA and NATO for limiting strategic choices that result in war".

Let's think about just what you say: That what one US president promised years ago about NATO membership in the distant somehow "limited" Putin's options to not only annex Crimea, not only to try instill civil war in many regions (and being successful in the Donbass), but then years later, when there wasn't any indication of NATO membership of Ukraine, to start an all out invasion of Ukraine...and that's the ONLY CORRECT STRATEGIC MOVE?

:vomit:

But you've yet to explain what you want anyone to do about this, nor provided any reason at all for your assumption that they don't already know this. — Isaac

Just to put into the proper context issues like the idea of the US sponsoring biowarfare labs in Ukraine.

It's like someone ardently wants to discuss Pizzagate in a thread of US politics as a real issue. So let's discuss where the children were kept! No really, where are they?

Not one person has said that Ukraine's Neo-Nazi problem morally justified invasion, not one person has said that NATO expansion morally justified invasion. — Isaac

Yet people have said that the US installed neo-nazis to lead Ukraine's government and have long wanted to make this a discussion of neo-nazis, even if extreme right has for example in France a lot more support... which has been supported by Putin's Russia. Hopefully we perhaps have sufficiently cleared the role of the extreme-right in Ukrainian politics: that even if they do exist, perhaps the assumption that they rule Ukraine isn't truthful.

Things like what are Russia's options next would be interesting. Or how this war will affect the wider region. Or how the war might end. Or where is Russia going from here.

But I guess NATO bashing is the only proper intellectual issue to do.

:clap:

Can you explain how you're using these words? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. When someone asks about the use of words, its usually because they find them confusing or incorrect in some way, but without that information I'm not quite sure how to answer. But I'll do my best...

I'm using 'Ban' or 'suppress' as in 'prevent from being published or spoken about'.

Does any of that qualify as "banning" or "suppressing" discussion for you? — Srap Tasmaner

What else would you ascribe to those comments? The idea is quite clearly to shame, insult, excommunicate, ostracise, or otherwise make it less likely the people making those points will continue to do so - ie to suppress such posts. I don't see any justification for assuming the setting up of social taboos is to be treated differently to legal ones when discussing intent. The intent in both cases is the same - to prevent the offending behaviour.

If I disagree with someone about, say, visual processing, I actively want them to continue posting, I encourage their response, to find out more about their position. If I disagree with someone about, say, racism I'll make them feel like they don't deserve to be heard, I'll insult them, ostracise them, make them feel generally unwelcome. The aim is to get them to stop, not to find out more about their racism.

The latter technique is being used against things like Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, NATO expansion, US sponsored biological weapons research, and all strategies for Ukraine other than 'fight to the death'.

Note, I'm not objecting to the use (which I take to be a perfectly normal part of politics), I'm asking why in this instance people are choosing them against those issues.

As I believe we may have spoken about before, I'm significantly more interested in the methods people here use to defend their beliefs than I am in what those beliefs are.

Just to put into the proper context issues like the idea of the US sponsoring biowarfare labs in Ukraine. — ssu

By 'proper' you mean the one you think is right?

It's like someone ardently wants to discuss Pizzagate in a thread of US politics as a real issue. So let's discuss where the children were kept! No really, where are they? — ssu

Not in the least. The very reason we assume Pizzagate is nonsense is because of the absence of 'rooms where the children were kept', it would be more like saying we cannot discuss any high level collusion in government because that would be "...just like discussing Pizzagate"

The matters being raised here are real. There are Neo-Nazis, NATO is expanding, there are separatists in Dombass, Ukraine is corrupt, arms dealers do influence foreign policy... None of this is the least bit like Pizzagate.
Every single issue I've raised, without exception, has been raised also by either respected investigative journalists or, in most cases, by experts in their field. My citation rate here, I'd wager, is higher than yours.

These are not 'crazy conspiracy theories', these are legitimate foreign policy positions, but then you know that already, don't you?

Yet people have said that the US installed neo-nazis to lead Ukraine's government — ssu

Yep. As I said, its a theory held by people with sufficient expertise in the matter to outrank either of us. That you personally don't buy it is not reason to relegate it.

perhaps the assumption that they rule Ukraine isn't truthful. — ssu

Oh come on! Did you seriously think that would work? I expect a better class of strawman by this stage.

Things like what are Russia's options next would be interesting. Or how this war will affect the wider region. Or how the war might end. Or where is Russia going from here. — ssu

I suggest if you're interested in those questions you read some of the expert commentary, don't come to an unvetted internet forum for it..

I blame Russia for an act of aggression but I think it was the only correct strategic move. — Benkei

Strategy can result in an illegal war, we all know this. Strategy is only a plan of action to achieve something, in this case, not the survival of the world, but the survival of the fittest, with the 'not fit' being pushed down the food chain, not necessarily extinction.

Many wars are started by democratic countries, which raises the question who is really in control? A "government of the people, by the people, for the people" sounds great until you realize that he missed out a word.

"government of some people, by some the people, for some of the people" . The idea has been suggested before.

A Government For Some People, By Some People

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/government-for-some-people

Yet people have said that the US installed neo-nazis to lead Ukraine's government — ssu

BBC reported this in 2014 and 2015 . I am not sure what the BBC's strategy is, here. Suffice to say they were not happy with the government in 2015 and wanted to overthrow it again.

Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine: NEWSNIGHT
1,533,102 views Mar 1, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY


The far-right group threatening to overthrow Ukraine's government - Newsnight
109,897 views Jul 23, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEKQsnRGv7s

Some people are going for a trial thing ...

^{• Statement calling for the creation of a Special Tribunal for the punishment of the crime of aggression against Ukraine
• ICC prosecutor launches Ukraine war crimes investigation (AP)
• Ukraine calls for Nuremberg-style tribunal to judge Vladimir Putin (Politico)
• Why we need a new Nuremberg trial to make Putin pay (Daily Mail)
• Putin’s use of military force is a crime of aggression (Financial Times)}

I'm guessing, at best, Putin will just have fewer viable travel destinations.

We [...] unity. — Vladimir Putin

:vomit:

Demands ✓
Responses ✓
Meet ?
Bombs :fire: ✓ ↻

Were the demands always bullshit?

Only correct strategic move? To start a war they cannot win? — ssu

Yes. Nice of you to get all judgmental over that assessment. Just like the USA would've done in the Cuban missile crisis, the Russians attacked. Strategy isn't about morality. I thought you'd be the one person from the camp not agreeing with my position that wouldn't confuse the two.

I guess we're done then?

Some people are going for a trial thing ...

• Statement calling for the creation of a Special Tribunal for the punishment of the crime of aggression against Ukraine
• ICC prosecutor launches Ukraine war crimes investigation (AP)
• Ukraine calls for Nuremberg-style tribunal to judge Vladimir Putin (Politico)
• Why we need a new Nuremberg trial to make Putin pay (Daily Mail)
• Putin’s use of military force is a crime of aggression (Financial Times) — jorndoe

Can you imagine if even a fraction of this - totally symbolic, completely useless - self-satisfied wank was applied even for a moment to American crimes or infinitely greater magnitute?

Person referring to Holy Scripture in the justification of the war he started likely isn't going to cut a peace deal immediately. — ssu

George Bush

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Tony Blair

Blair ‘believed strongly, although he couldn’t say it at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone—Iraq too—was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil’

Joe Biden

“Those who have served through the ages and have drawn inspiration from the Book of Isaiah, when the Lord says: ‘Whom shall I send? Who shall go for us?’ The American military has been answering for a long time. ‘Here I am, Lord. Send me. Here I am, send me.’ Each one of these women and men of our armed forces are the heirs of that tradition of sacrifice, of volunteering to go into harm’s way to risk everything, not for glory, not for profit, but to defend what we love and the people we love.”

Donald Rumsfeld

GQ has an array of daily briefing booklet sent by Donald Rumsfeld to George W. Bush on the Iraq war and the war on terror that featured Biblical sayings. This is the reading prepared for a president who called the war on terror a “crusade.” Such Biblical inspirational sayings as “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death” were coupled with triumphant pictures for the President’s daily briefings.

...notice a pattern?

But yeah, by all means carry on with your Putin exceptionalism, makes a nice cover for your sycophancy.

Some people are going for a trial thing ... — jorndoe

I am worried for President Putin: my biggest fear is that he will be alone.

I was hoping no-one would bring up the Holy War thing, wars are annoying especially the Holy Wars that as are Holy as North Korea is Democratic.

Maybe President Putin was tempted by the Devil?

I am worried for President Putin: my biggest fear is that he will be alone. — FreeEmotion

You are afraid that he could end up committing suicide?

by all means carry on with your Putin exceptionalism — Isaac

@ssu did not say Putin was exceptional in that, though. He just said that holy warriors aren't known for signing peace deals, so Putin is unlikely to seek peace in Ukraine.

ssu did not say Putin was exceptional in that, though. He just said that holy warriors aren't known for signing peace deals, so Putin is unlikely to seek peace in Ukraine. — Olivier5

Yes. The point was to show how far @ssu's warmongering extended. We can't advocate negotiation with Putin because he's invoked religion... So we can't advocate negotiation with the US, or UK for the same reason. Do you think there's a single war ever been fought without one side or the other invoking, as Dylan put it, God on their Side ?

So what now? No one can be trusted, no one is likely sue for peace...we'll just resort to violence to settle all our disputes then. We might as well just nuke each other now and get it over with.

We can't advocate negotiation with Putin because he's invoked religion... — Isaac

That is not what he said, again. He pointed out that holy warriors often find it difficult to make peace with their enemies.

That is not what he said, again. He pointed out that holy warriors often find it difficult to make peace with their enemies. — Olivier5

Why point that out?

I suppose it's meant as an indication about Putin's psychology and intent.

For what purpose? What's the policy implication, what do we do with that knowledge?