I thought you as an avg Westerner were comparing your fate in the West with the fate of the refugees from non-Western country, which I find laughable. — neomac

Yes, this is exactly your problem.

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

Tell me, would you have asked poor Americans that were drafted to commit a de facto genocide in Vietnam why they didn't just flee the country if they didn't like it?

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.

Constant destructive, genocidal wars all over the world, domestic human rights violations (bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, right to property, right to privacy, to name a few), utter political corruption, etc.

That Westerners criticize the West is normal: we do it because we can, because we are free to do it. — Olivier5

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.

Some beautiful Western hypocrisy on display here - when other countries do it you cry for war and regime change. When the West does it, well, you can leave if you don't like it. :vomit:

Your argument requires a comparison, it cannot be supported by the provision of only one side. You argued that the effect was greater than... that requires two sources showing that one is greater than the other. Providing one source and saying "wow, that looks really big" is not sufficient. — Isaac

Sure, but here you are failing to understand at much deeper level. I’ll try to summarise the main points in the simplest way I can:

• It doesn’t make sense to me to set rational standards arbitrary high because we are cognitively limited creatures, that’s true for the front-line expert go figure for the avg person. So the best the avg person can do is to invest part of their cognitive skills in understanding global events that impact his life by relying on some experts within his reach, and process the information in accordance to some affordable rational standards (not whatever arbitrary high standard, not even a scientific/expert standard).
• Now let’s assume, for example, that from the experts’ feedback within my reach I can find a study which estimates the global economic impact of the war in Ukraine in these terms: “Billions of people face the greatest cost-of-living crisis in a generation” so what one can logically infer is that no other cost-of-living crisis in a generation were as great as the one resulted by this war (this is a comparison) and that no "greatest cost-of-living crisis in a generation” was provoked by other events distinct by the war in Ukraine (this is another comparison). So some relevant comparisons are done for me by the expert. How about infrastructural damage and human damage? They must be taken into account (check the stats, make comparisons with other war around the world etc.), but I’ll come to that later.
• There is a war in Ukraine because Putin decided to pursue a war on the Ukrainian territory. So the comparison is now not only in terms of nature or volume of the damage but also in terms of political agency. “Billions of people face the greatest cost-of-living crisis in a generation” is the result of the Ukrainian war that a single person decided to pursue.
• Now the crucial point (but I can’t elaborate it in greater detail, nor I can reference any specific geopolitical experts that I read, anyway Mearsheimer could be a starting point): what really counts at state level in a international system, it’s not just the absolute or relative volume of damage (in material and human terms) wrt the subjacent political agency that this war is causing, but also its geopolitical relevance in the context of power struggles or equilibria. That is the factor that can magnify or shrink the weight of any cost/benefit metrics one can provide: 1M deaths in Yemen do not damage the American hegemony (on the contrary - one could argue - it increases it b/c it’s a proxy war against the Iranian regime) as 5K deaths in Ukraine so they do not have the same geopolitical value. So why is the 5K deaths in Ukraine so valuable? Because Putin is now the only head of state with the resources and the determination to military challenge the West and so destabilise the American-led world order with a war in Ukraine. By doing this he’s going to be an example for anti-Western authoritarian regimes and at the same time an incentive to build an allegiance among countries antagonising the West. That’s why the US (and the West) can’t just let go of Ukraine and ignore all the geopolitical implications.
• Concerning me, why do I side with the West? For the simple reason that in the West avg people could enjoy a level of rights and material well-being that I find evidently preferable than what I and like-minded people could get in authoritarian regimes. The price for this, is to deal with all the shit geopolitical power struggles & equilibria implies, as anybody else who has a sense of realpolitik should do, no matter of what their preference is.

Now let’s get back to your original objection (N.B. the same considerations will apply to this other objection [1]): “Lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty... Do we mount a multi-billion dollar campaign against each? No”. No, lots of global events do not cause “that level of damage” because the level of damage in geopolitical terms is not measurable in one single dimension (e.g. number of deaths or infrastructural damage, BTW what infrastructural damage is doing oppressive police?) irrespective of the nature of the subjacent political agency (one can not stop global environmental pollution and poverty as Putin can stop his war with a single decision) and irrespective of their impact on the power equilibria on a global scale (why on earth would one think that 1M deaths in Myanmar or Yemen or O(100K) deaths in England due to lack of public health interventions impact power equilibria on a global scale as the war in Ukraine? What’s the geopolitical theory that would support such claims? None).

it is precisely the geopolitical significance of this war to the global order that magnifies the importance of any material and human damage caused by this war, especially from the Western prospective. — neomac
So I was right with "...you reckon" then, since none of that can be quantified and rests entirely on your subjective opinion. — Isaac

I don’t understand what you mean by “subjective” here. Surely I’m expressing my opinion as opposed to expressing the opinion of someone else. And I’m expressing my opinion about what I find intelligible as a legitimate goal of the West within the geopolitical game as opposed to expressing my opinion about what I find intelligible as a legitimate goal of Russia within the geopolitical game. But this is not subjective to me: if one knows the game of chess and understands that player A has to move in certain ways to win a chess game against B, his belief is not subjective. What could be subjective is his personal support for player A. Given certain geopolitical assumptions, I find enough intelligible some moves of the West in this war and their relevance (that part is not subjective). In addition to that, I side with the West (that part is subjective).

1) Look back through my posts. I've cited dozens of experts, yet still this cheap rhetorical trick is trotted out every few pages "where's your evidence", as if it hadn't already been supplied in droves.
2) You cannot expect to keep shifting the burden of proof and act as if that was a counter argument. If you think there are literally no experts advising multi-billion dollar campaigns against poverty, famine, pollution, and disease, then you're the one who needs to supply evidence to back up such a wild claim. — Isaac

You may have supplied in droves what you think it was relevant to you, not what I asked in my previous comment. I find plausible that there are “experts advising multi-billion dollar campaigns against poverty, famine, pollution, and disease” but my questions were more specific: e.g. who are the “experts in their field” arguing that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”?
Now the last experts you cited during our recent exchanges weren’t dozens but only two, as far as I can remember, namely Janne Mende and Ahmed Shaheed [2] and their quotations were about the contributions or struggles of some non-Western countries in institutionally codifying “human rights”. In those quotations, nowhere is written “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts” nor anything that resembles it enough to me. Those quotes do not fall within the scope of what I asked. That’s one a rational failure of yours. Besides you quoted them to counter another claim of mine but also in that case those quotations were beyond the scope of my claim. That’s another rational failure of yours.
Besides global governance institutions far from being an infallible or impartial normative constraining factor for geopolitical agents, they are often instruments of geopolitical power, so it’s naive to form rational expectations from global governance institutions and their history without considering the subjacent geopolitical power struggles or equilibria. Always for the same reason, prescriptions (moral, legal, epistemic) to be rational must be grounded on possibilities, means, powers. So we shouldn’t confuse the expert in the domain of what is allowed by the norm, with the expert in the domain of what can be done with proper means. Or infer from what the expert of the normative domain assesses as legitimate or illegitimate the conclusion that is what is likely the case (this would a confusion between should and can) without further assumptions. Failing to acknowledge this would amount to another rational failure of yours.

Well, we might still disagree on how to asses experts. And even on how one cites experts. — neomac
I don't see how. The qualification of experts is pretty standard, as is the method of citation. — Isaac

Yet you can fail it, as you can fail an addition or a modus tollens. For example by conveniently citing what supports your point but omitting what questions it, or by confusing the pertinence of the expertise (the feedback of the expert in the institutional domain of international relations may be not as relevant as the feedback of the expert in geopolitical analysts in the domain of security). So it’s not matter of standards, but on how you apply it.

One can still discriminate between rational and irrational — neomac
To paraphrase Van Inwagen, if you and your epistemic peer disagree, you must accept the possibility of your epistemic peer group being wrong, and that includes you. You cannot resolve a disagreement about what is rational by appeal to what is rational. — Isaac

I’m not here to resolve disagreements. I’m here to exercise my rational skills as a form of intellectual entertainment. And my impression so far is that, to paraphrase Heraclitus, you are playing dumb, dude.

As I said, you need to meet a minimum threshold of comprehension to take in part in discussions at this level. If you seriously don't understand how evidence underdetermines theories then I can't help you (not on this thread anyway - feel free to open a thread raising the question and we can discuss it there). — Isaac

I seriously don’t understand if you understand how evidence underdetermines theories, and how it helps your counter my arguments. So until you clarify this in better terms, I’ll assume you have no clue of what you are talking about.

I want to do neither. The argument was about whether Ukraine had committed war crimes, I posted an article proving they had. That's it. It does not need to further caveats to remind everyone that Russia has too, and the suggestion that Wikipedia is a better source than an actual published paper is too absurd for further comment. — Isaac

Olivier wrote: “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”
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”). And I wasn’t suggesting that wikipedia is better source than amnesty for the simple reason that wikipedia cites many amnesty papers as a source (including your article), actually is pretty much a summary of all what Amnesty has reported! How absurd is this comment of yours now? Pray tell.




[1]

A few million are currently at severe risk of starvation (according to UNICEF) in Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head, something like 10-20,000 are killed in the Myanmar conflict in a year, a few thousand a year every single year for decades in the Mexican war on drugs. The US supported war in Yemen has killed over a million with a similar annual death toll to Myanmar.

A failure to tackle air pollution kills 100,000 or more people every year in India. Even here in England there are something like 100-150,000 deaths a year from all causes that could be avoided through public health interventions.

There's wars in Ethiopia and Somalia which, coupled with famines, cause thousands of deaths every year. Half a million children are at risk of death from the latest drought and that's barely even made the inside pages of most newspapers, nearly twice that in Sudan… — Isaac

[2]

As Janne Mende argues...

the Western human rights tradition cannot be equated with the contemporary human rights regime, which differs from its pre-1945 predecessors (Moyn, 2012). It was not the gradual increase of declarations or a smooth combination of natural law and citizenship rights that led to the foundation of the international human rights regime, but rather the international reaction to the genocide and atrocities committed by National Socialist Germany

Interpreting the pre-1945 declarations in their historical contexts reveals that they were not fully embraced by Western societies at the time but were the subject of highly controversial struggles (Bielefeldt, 2007: 182f.).3 What is more, pre-1945 non-Western movements and struggles encompassed similar or even further-reaching ideas that provided a foundation for human rights.

Critical accounts identify a tendency to overemphasize human rights violations in the Global South. This tends to construct a non-Western “other” that needs to be saved by Western states (Chakrabarty, 2008; Kapur, 2006). Thereby, the human rights regime creates a dichotomy between the Western embracement and the non-Western violation of human rights (Mutua, 2008). This dichotomy neglects human rights violations in Western states and disregards the complicity of the latter with the former (Chowdhry, 2005).

Deliberations within UN human rights for a highlight fault lines characterized by regional, substantial, and strategic alliances, not simply Western versus non-Western states. Human rights activists and diplomats from the Global South use the human rights framework to strengthen their demands. In a recent example, a group of non-Western states initiated a working group dedicated to drafting a binding treaty for corporate responsibility for human rights. The group was led by Ecuador and South Africa, and supported by Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Kenya, Namibia, and Peru, among others, as well as by NGOs from all parts of the world. Although their proposal was opposed by the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, and the European Union, they were successful in that the UN Human Rights Council founded an intergovernmental working group (Mende, 2017) that published its Zero Draft in 2018. — Janne Mende, Department of International Relations, Institute of Political Science, Justus Liebig University


Ahmed Shaheed gives some historical context...

Fifty-eight countries assembled in 1948 to affirm their “faith in the dignity and worth of all persons” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, wherein a framework for preserving that dignity and fostering respect for its worth was offered. Among these states were, African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Thirty-seven states were associated with Judeo-Christian traditions; 11 Islamic; six Marxist; and four identified as being associated with Buddhist-Confucian traditions.

...It was Egyptian delegate, Omar Lutfi, who proposed that the UDHR reference the “universality” of human rights

...social and economic rights were placed on the agenda as a result of pushes from the Arab States and the Soviet bloc, respectively.

...the Soviet bloc, which demanded more emphasis on socio‐economic rights than referenced in the document

...the UDHR was formed with major influence from non-Western states, thereby giving it legitimacy as a truly universally-applicable charter to guide humanity’s pursuit of peace and security.

...states like Chile, Jamaica, Argentina, Ghana, the Philippines and others were vanguards for the advancement of concepts such as “protecting,” in addition to “promoting” human rights.

In 1963, for example, fourteen non-Western UN member states requested that the General Assembly include a discussion on the Violation of Human Rights in South Viet-Nam on its agenda, alleging that the Diem regime had been perpetuating violations of rights of Vietnamese Buddhists in the country

in 1967, a cross-regional group of states from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Caribbean secured the adoption of two commission resolutions, establishing the first two Special Procedure mandates: the Ad-Hoc Working Group of Experts on southern Africa and the Special Rapporteur on Apartheid. The special procedures mechanism was thus established. Both resolutions were adopted by a vote, with most Western countries abstaining. — Dr. Ahmed Shaheed - UN Special Rapporteur — Isaac

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

Then you did not read me carefully enough. And I agree with @Olivier5

Tell me, would you have asked poor Americans that were drafted to commit a de facto genocide in Vietnam why they didn't just flee the country if they didn't like it? — Tzeentch

As an avg Westerner, no of course. But that's not your situation, right? Nor the situation of any avg Westerner as far as I can tell.

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.

Isaac is lying — Olivier5

:snicker:

His priorities are not the same as yours, oui mon ami? Truth has ... well ...

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.

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.

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.

Concerning me, why do I side with the West? For the simple reason that in the West avg people could enjoy a level of rights and material well-being that I find evidently preferable than what I and like-minded people could get in authoritarian regimes. — neomac

One can enjoy the hard-fought rights of the US — freedom of speech, for example — and still recognize the awful foreign policy of the government.

I condemn Putin for this war, and I also condemn my government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of “picking a side” is strange.

Well, people are bombarded with the "good vs. evil" picture all the time in the media and pop culture, so naturally this view transfers to the real world and thus the outcome is that some people prefer the war to go on, than trying to look for a way to negotiate to end the war.

It is indeed strange that we must pick sides, because otherwise we support Putin, as such views appear to exclude each other.

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

I condemn Putin for this war, and I also condemn my government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of “picking a side” is strange. — Mikie

Strange it is but just for the laughs - The Regime Change Scoreboard.

NATO = 0/1 v RUSSIA 2/30 (Draghi, Truss/Bozo)

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. — Olivier5

I don't know what you mean by "reviewed by the organization". The article clearly states:
Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.
Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets.
I don't know if the accusations of "fighting tactics endengering civilians" and alleged evidences provided by Amnesty suffice in legal terms though. Anyways I knew also about the reactions that the Amnesty's claims sparked from the wikipedia page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Placement_of_military_objectives_near_civilian_objects

It is indeed strange that we must pick sides, because otherwise we support Putin, as such views appear to exclude each other. — Manuel

The only ones supporting Putin are those who argue in defense of Putin. The side-picking is obvious in people's rhetoric. Personally I side with the west, not because it is an innocent perfect utopia, but because it allows progress, personal freedom and security far better than any other form of government or society so far. Siding with the least worse does not mean supporting the bad sides of it, but it damn straight stands up against the tyranny of someone like Putin.

The problem is that when people who generally argue against western ideals, i.e, and specifically, unhinged neoliberal capitalism and the consumer existence, they, in lack of actual rational thought, are unable to intellectually and emotionally handle a discussion surrounding the war in Ukraine. They're so deeply entrenched in their dislike of western society that when a person like Putin essentially wage war against western ideals and any post-soviet nation who wants to rebuild into such ideals, they get confused into somehow defending Putin or validating his perspective just because it somewhat aligns with how they dislike western ideals.

But anyone with the least sense of rationality, empathic ability and philosophical scrutiny would clearly see how tyrannical Putin really is, why he does what he does and how morally corrupt people under him are after all the war crimes and bodies of civillians and children that gets dug up from mass graves right now. It's massive, spread out and systemic, not singular events of isolated morally corrupt soldiers and leaders. From top down to individual soldiers conducting it.

The "good" vs" "bad" is in all aspects extremely obvious in this war and "picking" the side of the west does not validate previous war crimes and morally corrupt actions that infest western society, it just means that we pick the side that is the least worse, the side that can actually progress past the bad and that has a potential future where all people can live a good life with a sense of fulfillment. Putin stands for a totalitarian society where people are meat bags that can be thrown at whatever he feels he wants and progressing that society is an impossibility in its current state. If people cannot distinguish between the sides of this war, it basically means they are morally corrupt or unable to understand further than their superficial dislike of western society. Like people defending Hitler during the start of World War II. When society moved past that war, it was clear that those holding on to judging Hitler throughout his political movement and wartime were the ones who were right and the ones defending him were wrong. There was no grey area in that matter.

Some wars and conflicts aren't as complex as people like to think they are. The complexity can exist on individual scales and domino effects of foreign policies pushing details of a conflict in different directions, but picking a side against Putin, the people under him and their war does not mean we side with a neoliberal capitalist machine of destruction that the west is infected by, but the basic liberal core values that stands against the tyranny and brutality of people like Putin and the people supporting him.

But this thread has for a long time been infected by that kind side-picking. One side of empathic people who get outraged by the brutality of Putin and one side who can't align their criticism of the west with standing against Putin so they disregard any judgement of him or try to justify his reasons because of some weird emotional inability to both criticize the west and see Putin and his war machine for what it really is.

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.

OK, where did you get this information?

The only ones supporting Putin are those who argue in defense of Putin. The side-picking is obvious in people's rhetoric. Personally I side with the west, not because it is an innocent perfect utopia, but because it allows progress, personal freedom and security far better than any other form of government or society so far. Siding with the least worse does not mean supporting the bad sides of it, but it damn straight stands up against the tyranny of someone like Putin. — Christoffer

Arguing for a stop to the war is not the same as standing or supporting Putin - it does not follow at all, logically speaking.

I agree that the West is significantly freer than Russia, it's not even a contest. What does that have to do with anything?

They're so deeply entrenched in their dislike of western society that when a person like Putin essentially wage war against western ideals and any post-soviet nation who wants to rebuild into such ideals, they get confused into somehow defending Putin or validating his perspective just because it somewhat aligns with how they dislike western ideals. — Christoffer

Find someone here that is supporting Putin. I haven't seen one in a long time, at least 3 months, if not more. But out of everybody currently arguing, I don't see a single poster who supports Putin.

I would also like to know what is meant by "the West". Does South America count? Africa? Clearly not China because NATO members don't like it. If by the West you mean those countries here that sanction Russia, then I think it's a very nebulous notion:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2022/10/20/russia-ukraine-live-news-kyiv-restricts-power-use-after-attacks

it just means that we pick the side that is the least worse — Christoffer

The less bad "side" is to avoid another World War, because apparently two of them were not enough for us to get the message.

One side of empathic people who get outraged by the brutality of Putin and one side who can't align their criticism of the west with standing against Putin so they disregard any judgement of him or try to justify his reasons because of some weird emotional inability... — Christoffer

You can be outraged at the war crimes and want them to stop, while at the same time seeking to reduce the number of Ukrainians killed. Or you can create a Disney film in which the Empire is defeated.

There are many monsters which NATO is perfectly happy to ignore, like Saudi Arabia's bin Salman, Israel's Lapid, Brazil's Bolsonaro, Turkey's Erdogan and so on. Putin belonged to this happy camp until he acted on what he said was Russia red line for decades.

You may say my last sentence is a defense of Putin, when it is a description of fact, going all the way back to the dissolution of the USSR, stated clearly by people who actually know about this conflict, like the US' last ambassador to the USSR Joh Matlock and others. But if you can't make a distinction between these two, then we are stuck.

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.

We live in insane times if every single time I post I have to say Putin is a criminal. It's a bit like saying guns are lethal during wartime (and outside of it too). What value does saying this so much have?

I've said it easily over 10 times and very explicitly, so has @Isaac and @Mikie and others. It adds zero clarity in how to get out of this situation.

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/

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.

But that's the thing, it's not once in a while, it must be stated in a three-post exchange. It's not that it takes skin off my nose to say it, it's that it's like saying "torture is bad". Wars are evil, people who begin wars aren't good people, 99.9% of the time.

I don't have a problem with this issue, you can merely skim my last few exchanges. Just imagine having to say, "torture is bad" and I condemn it, every three or four posts. As far as I can see, it creates a feeling of being virtuous for condemning something so obviously wrong, that it has little merit in trying to think about ways to solve the situation.

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

:up:

The Soviet Union lost 10,000 to 15,000 men in Afghanistan out of a much larger population base, says Samantha de Bendern, an associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the international affairs think tank Chatham House. And, she told The Associated Press, even the most conservative model suggests 50,000 men dead in Ukraine. That’s between three and five times greater than what the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan in nearly 11 years.

“I can’t see how a society can sustain that,” de Bendern said. — Associated Press

Arguing for a stop to the war is not the same as standing or supporting Putin - it does not follow at all, logically speaking. — Manuel

Of course not, but the arguments in here rarely follows that and instead boils down to defensive stances for Putin to give him something he wants to end the war without ever even thinking about the consequences of such an action. It's essentially giving a murderer who killed for money, all that money and be set free to maybe in the future murder again. And what about China, if they see that it's ok to invade and murder to gain some land and that the rest of the world will just have to accept it.

This single minded idea of ending a war by giving a criminal what he wants just to save lives is philosophically shallow and doesn't follow the actual analysis of consequences of such acts to its end point. How do you actually talk to a criminal like Putin who over and over breaks deals, lie and does whatever he wants. There is no peace talk that works with such people so thinking the war can end by giving a criminal what he wants thinking that's the end of it is naive to the extreme.

The resistance, the sanctions and opposition towards Putin seems by all measurements to actually work, regardless of what many have said in this thread. If this leads to getting rid of Putin, then it was all worth it. Would you agree that all the deaths in World War II to stop Hitler was worth it? Or should we just have given Hitler what he wanted in order to save those lives? What do you think the consequence would have been if that fascism spread and infested society on a deeper level over decades after it?

I would also like to know what is meant by "the West". Does South America count? Africa? Clearly not China because NATO members don't like it. If by the West you mean those countries here that sanction Russia, then I think it's a very nebulous notion: — Manuel

Fair point, "the west", in my definition, are nations with democratic elections, freedom and at least some social security for its citizens. I would barely say US is a truly western society, in terms of such definitions, but they still (hopefully) have a working legal system that protects democracy and still gives people the right to speak their opinions and minds without being put in prison. If democracy, low corruption, freedom of speech, freedom to choose your own life and have protected human rights is a definition of western society, then you can use that against the nations you want to evaluate. There are definitely nations in Africa that is western by those definitions. China isn't a western nations, not because of Nato, but because they don't have human rights in place, they don't have proper elections and they have a power structure and society that limits people to the extreme. Even though on a surface level they look like a free nation.

Putin doesn't like the west and that post-soviet nations want to be western societies because that would mean his form of power gets destroyed. He is afraid that this spreads into Russia, regardless of what the people want, because then he can't be the czar he wants to be.

The less bad "side" is to avoid another World War, because apparently two of them were not enough for us to get the message. — Manuel

There's no guarantee that giving Putin what he wants would safeguard any of that and doing that would probably giving China a reason to invade Taiwan. Too many think that avoiding a World War needs to be avoided at any cost and this gives Putin a big tool to do whatever he wants. He can just threaten with nuclear weapons and everyone will dance to his music.

Taking a stance and opposing back can also stop a World War. It's the whole foundation for the cold war and it worked in its twisted way. And that would also show China that it's not worth invading Taiwan. Which could block another potential opening to a World War. These nations lives in a past era that the rest of the world essentially moved away from and if they could evolve into more modern times, primarily by the old people in power dying off, that could help creating an actual world peace on a level never seen before. Keeping a stalemate until then is also effective.

Putin wants the west to be weak, it's how he gains power. If we give him that power, how can you guarantee he will just be ok with what we gave him and not just attack another post-soviet nation?

You can be outraged at the war crimes and want them to stop, while at the same time seeking to reduce the number of Ukrainians killed. Or you can create a Disney film in which the Empire is defeated. — Manuel

Those kinds of arguments were posted early in this thread when I described potential acts by Putin that we have specifically seen later in this war. The "Movie villain" counter argument rings hollow when Putin actually acts like it and is just a way to dismiss arguments by strawman.

How would you reduce the number of Ukrainians being killed when they seek to defend themselves against those killings? We should, by your argument, give Putin some land where Ukrainians grew up and lives on after they conducted genocide. And what happens when he makes a move again? Give more land? Give up the whole of Ukraine? What about the respect for the Ukrainian people and what they want? Do you think they fight in this war just for the sake of it? You think they don't know they're dying on the battlefield? You think they are involved in a war where they don't know why? They do know why, they want to survive and be their own nation and you suggest that we should give Putin what he wants because we would then save Ukrainian lives? You think Ukrainians would be fine with all these deaths so far just to give up?

It's not me that has a simplified point of view here, it's you who suggest that ending the war at any cost is worth it, without even thinking about further consequences and what Ukrainians feel is worth fighting for. It's a naive point of view.

You may say my last sentence is a defense of Putin, when it is a description of fact, going all the way back to the dissolution of the USSR, stated clearly by people who actually know about this conflict, like the US' last ambassador to the USSR Joh Matlock and others. But if you can't make a distinction between these two, then we are stuck. — Manuel

No, I'd say it's a naive point of view to disregard the actions of Putin and the world view he put forward. And all actions taken in this war that made it worse has been from Putin and Nato has never been an existential threat to Russia. Putin doesn't own the other post-soviet nations and your point of view requires them to be a legitimate part of Russia, just like Putin want it to be, which they aren't. The expansion of Nato has been because of nations fearing what Putin might do and seeking security in an alliance that blocks such aggressions. I know, I live in a nation who wants this security. Any notion that Nato is an existential threat to Russia is a delusional idea promoted by Russian propaganda in order to give justification for Russias actions. And at the end of the day, Putin is responsible for all of this and any delusional idea that Nato forced him to do so is just buying into his narrative.

I left this thread to get away from these kinds of arguments because I'm tired of the level they ended up on. Read between the lines of what I write, I won't repeat myself.

One can enjoy the hard-fought rights of the US — freedom of speech, for example — and still recognize the awful foreign policy of the government.
I condemn Putin for this war, and I also condemn my government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of “picking a side” is strange. — Mikie

It’s like me saying: I can enjoy pizza and still recognise the awful amount of calories it contains. In other words, there might be a strong link between a regime of human rights under a certain government and the awful foreign policy of that government which is undeniably hard to swallow once you realise it.

BTW the abolition of slavery in the US was the result of bloody civil war where, one could argue, Confederates were provoked into war by the federal government: indeed, many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). Now I imagine somebody like you at that time saying: “I condemn the Confederates for this war, and I also condemn my federal government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of ‘picking a side’ is strange”.

Yes, it is an update from the Vietnam era:

"We had to destroy our village along with their village in order to save either one."

None of this lends like slightest evidence to the accusations of imperialism. — Mikie

This is simply trolling.

Good bye.