I know this will get labeled as whataboutism, so to pre-empt that I am suggesting sanctions and Hague charges for all perpetrators, but what is uniquely bad about killing Ukrainians over Syrians, Libyans, or Iraqis?
Some numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ukrainian_refugee_crisis , note the dates.
On the other hand, accepting even less refugees in the previous crisis is something that was definitely (politically) possible at the time.
But Ukraine was different (and I hope it still will be), turning from the world of the strongman and toward Europe and modern freedoms. It was on the same trajectory that Poland went on 18 years ago: a massively better life for the average, ordinary person. Ukraine had troubles, but those were solvable because that is what they wanted.
All of that is now ground up along with so many children under the ruble in the streets because Putin had to establish a slightly larger state.
So when Ukraine was killed, not only was the civilians there massacered, so was the future of the entire country or at least pushed another generation into the future.
I hope neither of the perpretators ever make it the Hague, a few years in prison is nowhere near enough punishment.
> turning from the world of the strongman and toward Europe and modern freedoms
Towards Europe, certainly, but also towards nationalism - undoubtedly. It is not a "modern freedom" to ban minority languages from schools and government, restrict regional autonomy, etc.
Please, it's not a ban. The relevant law only applies to state-funded schools and makes sure that students who don't speak Ukrainian gradually learn it over the years and start using it in school:
_https://ukrainian-studies.ca/2020/08/01/ukraines-russian-lan...
If Ukraine hasn't been the target of Russian territorial expansionism, we could argue that this law is overreaching. However Russia had claimed the right to "defend Russian-speaking people" outside of Russia before invading Ukraine in 2014 (the law was passed in 2017). Under these conditions, passing such a law was practically a question of self-preservation.
Really? Reading your source it seems that it explicitly states "Ukrainian as the only means of instruction in schools after the primary division." Saying that this only applies to "state-funded schools" may be true, but you're papering over the fact that your own source indicates that fewer than 1% of students attend non-public schools.
From your own source:
> The Law determines three patterns for Ukrainian-language instruction in secondary schools of Ukraine. The first concerns indigenous peoples such as the Crimean Tatars, who have the right to be educated in their own language, with Ukrainian taught as a separate subject, at any school stage. The second pattern addresses Ukraine’s national minorities whose languages are official languages of the EU. The primary school division is available for them in their minority language (with Ukrainian as a separate subject), while higher divisions see a graduated expansion of Ukrainian-language instruction—from twenty percent in fifth year to forty percent in ninth year of middle (junior high) school and to sixty percent of all subjects during the three years of high school. The third pattern applies to “other minorities,” i.e., Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians who attend Russian-language secondary schools. For them, Ukrainian-language instruction should be at a minimum of eighty percent in both middle and high schools, with the opportunity to have Russian taught as a subject or elective. The Law also clearly states that these provisions apply to state-funded schools only and entitles all private schools to a free choice of their language of instruction; nevertheless, private schools must teach the Ukrainian language and ensure that their students acquire the fluency standard defined by the state.
Seems from reading this that Russian is specifically targeted and proscribed from being taught in schools. Keep in mind there are entire regions of Ukraine where Russian is the predominant language. And we wonder why people in Crimea wanted to leave after Euromaidan...
> Under these conditions, passing such a law was practically a question of self-preservation.
By eliminating Russian speaking people in Ukraine? Not a great justification.
This law was passed in 2017, 3 years after the Euromaidan, because Russia invaded Ukraine giving the mere existence of the Russian language in Ukraine as the reason for the invasion.
> And we wonder why people in Crimea wanted to leave after Euromaidan... > By eliminating Russian speaking people in Ukraine? Not a great justification.
I see. I made the mistake of assuming you were arguing in good faith. Won't happen again; have a nice day!
Russia also invaded Ukraine in 2014. The parliament voted to ban Russian language in schools immediately after 2014, it was only vetoed by the president at the time.
> I see. I made the mistake of assuming you were arguing in good faith. Won't happen again; have a nice day!
I am arguing in good faith - you claimed that the reason they stopped teaching Russian in schools was due to the Russian invasion, but there is ample evidence of attempts to do this prior to the Russian invasion.
Seems to me you cited the part where it is explicitly allowed to be taught in schools, both private and public, contradicting your claim that it is “proscribed from being taught in schools”.
As for domestic prosecution, the record is mixed, but there was that high-profile case that got a presidential pardon.
Leave your job because tech companies have contracts with the government/"defense industry" and also pay taxes.
Don't buy anything from the grocery stores.
Cancel your flight if it's on an Airbus/Boeing.
Otherwise, it's all empty talk. To be clear, it absolutely is in my opinion.
They might also believe that invading Ukraine is uniquely bad because it is a developed western nation within mainland Europe, setting a terrible precedent. Or they might simply not have thought very much about the contradiction. And I note that you're lumping every western nation under the same category when some are much less objectionable than others; in how many developing nations has Finland engaged in extralegal murder?
That said, yes, the costs are lower to protesting the invasion of Ukraine than protesting everything the US government does overseas. So what? The costs are lower for me to buy Kroger brand soft drinks, too, that doesn't mean my opinions about the flavor is just empty talk.
But nobody (AFAIK) is contesting that the US killed more civilians in Iraq or in Syria (or second-order in Libya) than Russia has killed in Ukraine.
Your argument is that people perceive it as okay because the intentions were good? Our government could not forsee that these people would die, it was unexpected?
Or were they unintended consequences that were foreseen? I don't believe such a distinction is defensible, if you foresee the consequence and do it anyways, you intended such a consequence.
Even worse, I think the argument is that the intentions were good because it was our rulers who did it, not theirs. Our rulers are careful and thoughtful, while theirs are evil and cruel.
That's missing the point. Nobody with knowledge of the matter is contesting that, but plenty of people lack that knowledge. This means that they're not willfully ignoring the kind of contradiction that would make their opinions about Ukraine "empty talk".
> Your argument is that people perceive it as okay because the intentions were good?
No, my opinion is that many people don't realize how objectionably the US has behaved in the past (and currently), so it's not apropos to call them out on a contradiction that invalidates their outlook on Russia's invasion. Call them out on ignorance all you like, though.
It's not like there's a Netherlands invasion of Germany for us to all use as a neutral reference.