Russia has invaded Ukraine

[jfman]

It’s always good to read a western interpretation of events. I do like the set up though - either Ukraine is sovereign or it is not.

It essentially forces the reader to pick a side under emotive terms invoking the Russian bogey man - you either buy into national sovereignty; or the right of people to self-determination but you cannot have both.

Makes you wonder why Ukraine signed up in bad faith to a negotiated settlement it had no intention of adhering to.

Makes you wonder why Russia signed up to it if they intended to invade Ukraine a couple of years after they signed up to it…

Pretty sure it’s not "emotive" to think that Russia shouldn’t invade another country, then commit war crimes…

"Self determination" - invading a Region with Russian troops, mercenaries, and apparatchiks doesn’t come under any definition* of "self determination" I can find…

*my bad - it comes under the "Russian excuse for invading" definition

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Makes you wonder why Russia signed up to it if they intended to invade Ukraine a couple of years after they signed up to it…

Pretty sure it’s not "emotive" to think that Russia shouldn’t invade another country, then commit war crimes…

"Self determination" - invading a Region with Russian troops, mercenaries, and apparatchiks doesn’t come under any definition* of "self determination" I can find…

*my bad - it comes under the "Russian excuse for invading" definition

As if to prove my point thanks for demonstrating your inability to view the dispute through anything other than a western lens. The straw man of a Russian invasion - something I offered no opinion on at all - used to excuse Ukraine from any responsibility to its own international obligations. Thus further entrenching both sides.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Makes you wonder why Russia signed up to it if they intended to invade Ukraine a couple of years after they signed up to it…

Pretty sure it’s not "emotive" to think that Russia shouldn’t invade another country, then commit war crimes…

"Self determination" - invading a Region with Russian troops, mercenaries, and apparatchiks doesn’t come under any definition* of "self determination" I can find…

*my bad - it comes under the "Russian excuse for invading" definition

Did you feel the same when the UK and USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

In Iraq weapons of mass destruction was our excuse

Originally Posted by jfman

As if to prove my point thanks for demonstrating your inability to view the dispute through anything other than a western lens. The straw man of a Russian invasion - something I offered no opinion on at all - used to excuse Ukraine from any responsibility to its own international obligations. Thus further entrenching both sides.

Who’s to say he can’t view the dispute through any other lens? Here’s a radical possibility for you: perhaps he’s studied the conflict, with due regard to points of view and ways of construing it, and presents here conclusions that are well founded but perhaps differ from yours.

I’d dearly love to know where you got your lens, incidentally, if only to ensure I never buy one by mistake. Your readiness to construe the violent separatist insurgencies in the Donbas as legitimate issues of self determination Ukraine should just live with is troubling, to say the least. Personally I think it’s awfully naive, but the I know you’ll simply dismiss that as a product of my Western lens.

LOL also at your brazen attempt to comment on only those aspects of the unfolding crisis that suit your obsessions. Go on, how about you offer an opinion on the Russian invasion. I’d be genuinely interested to hear it.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Did you feel the same when the UK and USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

In Iraq weapons of mass destruction was our excuse

Yes, actually, I did…

But just counter your whataboutism, can you highlight where the USA/U.K. forces repeatedly massacred civilians and put them into mass graves in Iraq & Afghanistan?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Who’s to say he can’t view the dispute through any other lens? Here’s a radical possibility for you: perhaps he’s studied the conflict, with due regard to points of view and ways of construing it, and presents here conclusions that are well founded but perhaps differ from yours.

Indeed nobody is obliged to view anything other than through the lens they choose, however they can be unsurprised if ultimately the reality - especially in an issue such as war - is much more complex.

I’d dearly love to know where you got your lens, incidentally, if only to ensure I never buy one by mistake. Your readiness to construe the violent separatist insurgencies in the Donbas as legitimate issues of self determination Ukraine should just live with is troubling, to say the least. Personally I think it’s awfully naive, but the I know you’ll simply dismiss that as a product of my Western lens.

Who said anything about violent insurgencies? Once again it’s a straw man. The people in these areas have a right to the principle peaceful self determination - in accordance with the Minsk protocol - or they do not.

LOL also at your brazen attempt to comment on only those aspects of the unfolding crisis that suit your obsessions. Go on, how about you offer an opinion on the Russian invasion. I’d be genuinely interested to hear it.

I don’t see much to laugh about to be honest. I’m entertained though that this is my obsession, considering the extremely lengthy post you made the other day about how you’ve been reading up on this since February and are convinced Russia is on the brink of collapse. You seem far more obsessed and entrenched in your own echo chamber than I am.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, actually, I did…

But just counter your whataboutism, can you highlight where the USA/U.K. forces repeatedly massacred civilians and put them into mass graves in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Are the lives of victims of “collateral damage” worth less because they are buried individually?

There’s a major moral and legal difference between "collateral damage" and "war crimes", but you obviously see it through a different lens…

The people in these areas have a right to the principle peaceful self determination

Will the Russian invaders send soldiers around to ensure appropriate peaceful self-determination, like they did recently?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sham-referendums-ukraine/

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

There’s a major moral and legal difference between "collateral damage" and "war crimes", but you obviously see it through a different lens…

I’m not convinced the distinction is that important to the dead to be honest.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not convinced the distinction is that important to the dead to be honest.

It’s important to the War Crimes trials, though, and the families of the war crime victims…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Will the Russian invaders send soldiers around to ensure appropriate peaceful self-determination, like they did recently?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sham-referendums-ukraine/

Red herring alert. Nobody is claiming the Russian organised referendums are anything other than a sham which is why I referred to the principle of self-determination.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s important to the War Crimes trials,

Unless of course it’s an American soldier committing the rape or murder.

Originally Posted by jfman

Who said anything about violent insurgencies? Once again it’s a straw man. The people in these areas have a right to the principle peaceful self determination - in accordance with the Minsk protocol - or they do not.

As if to illustrate my point, you appeal to the Minsk Protocol, which Ukraine signed with a gun to its head as a direct result of violent insurrection fomented in the Donbas by the Russian state. The extent to which there ever was any great desire for self determination in Luhansk and Donetsk cannot now ever really be known, given the years of Russian propaganda, violent repression and genocide likely to have been perpetrated there (c.f. Bucha, Lyman etc - Russian state sponsored atrocities our faulty Western lenses were never supposed to see). All we really have to go on is the convincing ‘yes’ vote those areas returned in the referendum held prior to the establishment of the Ukrainian state.

I don’t see much to laugh about to be honest. I’m entertained though that this is my obsession, considering the extremely lengthy post you made the other day about how you’ve been reading up on this since February and are convinced Russia is on the brink of collapse. You seem far more obsessed and entrenched in your own echo chamber than I am.

My post is there for all users to see. I’m pretty sure the balanced view of what it says differs significantly from your summary here so I don’t feel any pressing need to re-state any of it.

As to your own obsessions, well you’ve been using this conflict as a handy means to signal your hatred of American foreign policy since day one. You castigate other posters for their lenses while making no obvious attempt to see any of this from a Ukrainian point of view. Just 2 days ago you dropped a link to a Guardian article in the thread with a one-line comment furthering your obsession with the idea that Americans are lurking in the background pulling strings and using Ukraine for their own ends.

Just for once it would be genuinely heartening to hear you set your opinions in the context of Ukrainian civilians suffering kidnap, torture, rape and forced deportation in the occupied areas. Or, if that’s a bit too real for you, how about simply the security concerns of Eastern European states who fear that if a line isn’t drawn now, they’ll be next on Putin’s list.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

As if to illustrate my point, you appeal to the Minsk Protocol, which Ukraine signed with a gun to its head as a direct result of violent insurrection fomented in the Donbas by the Russian state. The extent to which there ever was any great desire for self determination in Luhansk and Donetsk cannot now ever really be known, given the years of Russian propaganda, violent repression and genocide likely to have been perpetrated there (c.f. Bucha, Lyman etc - Russian state sponsored atrocities our faulty Western lenses were never supposed to see). All we really have to go on is the convincing ‘yes’ vote those areas returned in the referendum held prior to the establishment of the Ukrainian state.

Which begs the question why Ukraine signed at all knowing it would be saving up a conflict for later if they didn’t adhere to their side.

My post is there for all users to see. I’m pretty sure the balanced view of what it says differs significantly from your summary here so I don’t feel any pressing need to re-state any of it.

As to your own obsessions, well you’ve been using this conflict as a handy means to signal your hatred of American foreign policy since day one. You castigate other posters for their lenses while making no obvious attempt to see any of this from a Ukrainian point of view. Just 2 days ago you dropped a link to a Guardian article in the thread with a one-line comment furthering your obsession with the idea that Americans are lurking in the background pulling strings and using Ukraine for their own ends.

I think that’s a fanciful interpretation of reality, Chris. Anyone can read that article for themselves and consider whether America is pulling strings or not. Sure, I get that the plucky underdog is a good narrative for the propaganda machine but the reality remains Ukraine wouldn’t be in this conflict without American backing, just as it’ll be out of it without it.

Just for once it would be genuinely heartening to hear you set your opinions in the context of Ukrainian civilians suffering kidnap, torture, rape and forced deportation in the occupied areas. Or, if that’s a bit too real for you, how about simply the security concerns of Eastern European states who fear that if a line isn’t drawn now, they’ll be next on Putin’s list.

I’ve been clear about the horrors of war - hence my interest in (and discussion of) a meaningful (and quick) solution rather than perpetual conflict, or the western keyboard warriors wet dream of regime change in Moscow. There won’t be any less rape or murder if this drags on for a decade.

I don’t think the rest of Eastern Europe have much to fear given how little Russia have achieved in almost a year. Indeed you yourself opined the other day that Russia couldn’t even protect itself if required.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, actually, I did…

But just counter your whataboutism, can you highlight where the USA/U.K. forces repeatedly massacred civilians and put them into mass graves in Iraq & Afghanistan?

We won the war. Do you think we would be told? once again you seem to forget what propaganda is. Do you also think there was no torture on POWs? or at Guantanamo

I am not a Russian apologist I am a realist and the west is not innocent by a long long shot it is just we hold the moral high ground due to the fact we are the victors so far

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...ivilians/iraqi

up to 207K Civilian deaths caused by both sides. It is very nieve to think a good portion of those were collateral damage from Allied attacks. One would assume there would have been mass graves when large numbers were killed in attacks, I do not know

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Did you feel the same when the UK and USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

In Iraq weapons of mass destruction was our excuse

Yes, I even went on a march to show my disdain, did I see you there?

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, actually, I did…

But just counter your whataboutism, can you highlight where the USA/U.K. forces repeatedly massacred civilians and put them into mass graves in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Well there's the depleted uranium munitions that are still causing issues for the afghan population

Originally Posted by Hugh

There’s a major moral and legal difference between "collateral damage" and "war crimes", but you obviously see it through a different lens…



Will the Russian invaders send soldiers around to ensure appropriate peaceful self-determination, like they did recently?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sham-referendums-ukraine/

Don't suppose you remember this but years ago we were discussing South Ossetia and I was adamant the people that lived there should have the right to choose, even going as far as saying I'd be happy for Cornwall to go if that's what they wanted, don't mind admitting now that I was ignorant of what was going on, the gerrymandering of the population by shipping in settlers and the like

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

We won the war. Do you think we would be told? once again you seem to forget what propaganda is. Do you also think there was no torture on POWs? or at Guantanamo

I am not a Russian apologist I am a realist and the west is not innocent by a long long shot it is just we hold the moral high ground due to the fact we are the victors so far

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...ivilians/iraqi

up to 207K Civilian deaths caused by both sides. It is very nieve to think a good portion of those were collateral damage from Allied attacks. One would assume there would have been mass graves when large numbers were killed in attacks, I do not know

Difference is they aren't put in those graves with a bullet behind the ear, pithy comments like it doesn't matter to the dead only carry weight if you don't give a toss about international law