The CCP is watching this go down with the understanding that if they invade Taiwan the world won’t stop buying their stuff because money matters more than people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...
I was too young to remember the war in Vietnam but my older colleagues told me the general feeling was very much anti-war, and they had to do pretty hardcore stuff in order to avoid being drafted.
With the exception of using chemical weapon (agent orange) and napalm, you gonna have to extrapolate and provide source for your claim.
Or as Wikipedia puts it: "United States war crimes - This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items."
no no no ... you cant blame US like that. It's pure as driven snow. It's champion of democracy. Pristine. Flawless.
The whole iraq invasion resulted in 7k civilian deaths. Pretty sure the russians are topping that in ukraine. For comparison, another case of shock and awe in recent history was done by russians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9... which resulted in the death of approx 6% of the civilian population in Grozny. Its not like Syria or Afghanistan was conducted any different, so this is what we can expect.
The current Ukraine civilian death count is only up to 1.5k so far [3], so Russia's got a lot of catching up to do before it can compete with what's happening in Iraq (though I truly hope it doesn't).
[0]: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
[1]: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...
[3]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2022/04/ukraine-civilian-casua...
The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) documented a higher number of civilian deaths up to the end of the major combat phase (May 1, 2003). In a 2005 report,[86] using updated information, the IBC reported that 7,299 civilians are documented to have been killed, primarily by U.S. air and ground forces.
Civil war instigated by US and arming the insurgents similar to how they armed the Mujhadeen and the ISIS and Ukraine....
Sources other than american tv provide vastly different numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
As garbage as "they're next to us and have some shared history" is for a reason to try to conquer someone, it's still a hundred times better than invading a country on the other side of the planet, turning it in to a war zone for a decade/decades, then leaving when you got bored is.
oh ok. We will have to disregard those?
Sure champion of democracy worldwide. sure.
The emperor is without clothes and the senile old leader is stuttering out nonsense while rabidly protecting his son's assets in Ukraine.
But whatever helps you sleep in peace at night.
Because then you'll notice a few things: a its acknowledgement of certain USA war crimes and b that its tongue in cheek.
Although also c and d too its always a good idea to provide sources for any claim (especially heinous acts) and most people associate war crimes with human-by-human acts such as mass rape, genocide and forceful relocation, which I'm genuinely interested in knowing if USA has done such act.
The U.S. did invade Iraq, using the authority granted in U.N. resolution 678. That was not a crime either, because it was carried out legally.
> North Vietnam was the aggressor.
No. North vietnam were liberators helping their fellow vietnamese in the south ( viet cong ) expel a foreign occupier.
> The U.S. did invade Iraq, using the authority granted in U.N. resolution 678.
How sneaky of you. That was the 1st iraq war. What about the 2nd iraq war?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
All the middle east wars by US including the millions murdered, raped, tortured by US was illegal according to UN.
But "WHY IS RUSSIA SO AGGRESIVE?"
The Vietnamese wanted independence and the refusal of France and later the the intervention of the US into the Vietnamese internal politics led the Vietnamese people to turn to the Communist party as the party of independence.
The very same thing happened a few years earlier in Cuba.
But the Communist parties were not "liberators", as both the Vietnamese and the Cuban peoples discovered very quickly. But the French (obviously) and the US weren't either.
Vietnam is a nice country... for tourists. People there are not free at all. Nor are Cubans.
Saying it was legal and not an invasion, because the client regime invited them, is like saying the Soviet Union never invaded Afghanistan, because they were also invited and it was ‘legal’.
They were crimes, the two biggest crimes since WW2
While Afghanistan was a Soviet client state before the Soviet-Afghan war, that War started with a successful decapitation strike by the USSR against the Afghan regime, so it’s not really analogous to the US war in South Vietnam.
The UN explicitly stated that the invasion was illegal. I even remember the chief inspector declaring that he should have gone back to fishing instead of wasting time because the US had already decided to invade Iraq on false pretenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War "The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva"
Remember "freedom fries"?
The war hysteria was as rabid then as it is now for "pro ukraine" bullshit of arming both sides and letting blood spill.
Amazing mental gymnastics white washing the millions of people murdered by US in desperate search for their oil.
These rules get real slippery real fast. If your entire position is based on a slanted reading of some minor detail of obscure legalese, don't be surprised when evil people use the legalese against you
These rules get real slippery real fast
Do you believe invading militaries should not be opposed?
Or do you see the Russian military as the good guy here?
And here people make it look like a weekend outing with some pals - hey, you should have called Jack out because he unnecessarily yelled at me! Yeah!
And because there’s clear difference of outrage when brown, yellow, black lives are bombed into oblivion, burnt into tar, whisked away into nothingness from sovereign territories without any accountability and repercussions compared to when the war is right inside Europe. Yeah, that’s real. But you all can’t see that. Why? Because it has been given a catchy name “Global War on Terror”? By the way, this is not a thing of past. It is still going on. Full throttle.
Others see that. Have been seeing for decades. Have seen the f..ing cold war and its farce as well.
So why GP asks? That’s why GP asks that’s everybody is bad here and calling Russia out bad will mean calling others’ actions/deeds good while possibly shooting themselves in the foot.
> Do you believe invading militaries should not be opposed?
Yes, should be. “Every” invading army should be. Every! Colonial powers should pay. Aggressors should atone, reimburse. In an ideal utopia inhabited only by pure flower children and silver snowflakes all this would happen maybe.
Not your or someone’s selective outrage!
Bit does it happen? No.
In the real world that doesn’t happen, it hasn’t happened, and hence many countries and entities are “not stupid enough” to catch a flying arrow in someone else’s yard in their own hinds. However heinous or a bad bully that archer is. Because as I said that’s the better of two bad options for many.
of course. and OP answered with the same answer.
please stop strawmanning, the joke is on you for not accepting the evidence. try to open your eyes to the murderous hypocrisy and deep-rooted racism of Global North/Western imperialism.
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/jakarta-method-vincent-bevins...
Similarly, everybody hates imperialism, and Putin's war is still wrong. It doesn't change what actions we must take to stop Putin.
The US is unlikely to invade Poland in order to displace the polish people with Americans. To some degree a war over oil resources feel much less threatening to countries than a war for lebensraum, especially for countries which don't have a lot of oil resources. Every nation however has land, and thus every nation is a target when a country like Russia is after territory. This is a big reason why a lot of countries around Russia is currently increasing their military budgets, loosing more money on that then any losses to the economy from not buying conflict resources from Russia. If you are pumping your money into the military, it makes economical sense to not fund the military threat you are defending against.
If they are doing something bad, should they avoid punishment?
So, which categories can we apply? In the end, much like standard crime, there can be only one: Are they following the standards set by international law, or are they not? And that we cannot honestly answer as of now. Consider these basic questions:
1. Is the Russian military responsible for the decision to wage what we in the west consider a "war of aggression" against Ukraine? To parse that question lightly more pointed: Has every member of the Russian forces currently engaged in the Ukraine theatre signed off the decision to invade?
2. Is the Russian military collectively responsible for any action the Russian military and/or the Russian political leadership takes?
3. Can we be certain that all the information we get is truthful, especially when it comes to information that would suggest Russian military war crimes?
4. Which amount of civilian casualties is "acceptable" before it becomes a punishable war crime? When "we" kill civilians, "we" call it "collateral damage". At which point does collateral damage become a war crime?
5. Is the Ukraine war illegitimate? When considering this question, please take into account that we may have several gaps in our understanding of the situation, and that we tend to wave away Russian sources as "enemy propaganda".
If they are breaking international law, the decision makers in the Russian political leadership and military should be judged and potentially punished by an international court of law. Unfortunately, that only works as long as they are a member of that court (or are thoroughly defeated), and Russia isn't - much like the US - (and is unlikely to be defeated).
Because of people like you, with moral relativism.
And truly the Nazis basically won WW2 given Operation Paperclip and all the massacres the US oversaw afterwards in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, etc.
Sure we might not speaking German or wearing swastikas, but the American Eagle is currently financing genocide (let's use Yemen as the example here) and the only media attention we can seem to get is for Ukraine because their aggressor is our geopolitical enemy
I'm all for the sanctions against Russia before someone accuses me of whataboutism. However, I would like to see stronger international standards, as well as an ICC joined by the US. That requires the US to allow for international oversight and not have a Hague invasion clause. Are Americans willing to be held to the same standard as their enemies? If not just say might makes right and remove this pretense that it's about war crimes or human rights
Do you think the Ukrainians feel differently?
What a disgusting point of view.
you would tell the Americans to continue the bombing in Yemen?
Try that in US, what will happen? Nothing.
Russia (and China) are big countries and dangerous ones because ruled not by the rule of law but by a will of rulers and oligarchs. And now we have opportunity to stop at least one of them.
Change it - to try that “about US” and “be in” Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. Then see what happens to the individual! Guess?
Even this comment of yours reeks of hypocrisy. You are totally focused on “what happens to people in the US” and as long as that’s fine all is hunky dory.
In your comment you’ve totally not even touched upon what “USA has been doing outside USA - to other countries - usually the developing and underdeveloped countries”. Because that is “well.. you know… you know..”.
> by the rule of law
Which fucking law? Whose rule? Whose rule of law?
Entire fucking colonialism was a “legal endeavour”, in fact essentially a “civilising” the “natives” expedition that the kind white world took upon itself with great pains to do in the name of God and the King. Is that kind of rule of law you’re talking about? Because that kind of thinking never went anywhere during nid 1900s. It’s right there.
Well, then I guess Russia also decided to sell Ukraine some “freedom”. Oh, that sounds horrible? But why so?
have you been to the US and/or UK? what do you make of the capitalist owned and capitalist controlled media?
> Russia (and China) are big countries and dangerous ones because ruled not by the rule of law but by a will of rulers and oligarchs.
ah cool, so they don't have weird things like FISA courts and a huge national security apparatus (sort of like this CIA thing), and army, which together coups countries and assassinates leaders? [1]
> And now we have opportunity to stop at least one of them.
who is this 'we' you speak of? [2]
[1] https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/washington-bullets-cia-coups-...
there's also this Youtuber who got a 'home visit' from the US govt. for 'anti-American sentiments' on his channel: https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/k2wt7j/youtube_a...
alienation growing everywhere (parallel with increasing inquality) means capitalist realism is everywhere, so yeah, maybe the censorship and encroachment on free speech is less visible, but that's also because our imagination has been shot meaning we can't easily imagine and write about/describe alternatives. remember Thatcher's "there is no alternative" (TINA), Fukuyama's 'end of history', etc.? many in the working class now struggle to see our chains.
You may be surprised to learn how irrelevant the corporate media is now, very low viewership counts, and a flourishing alternative media ecosystem, where everyone can believe what they want.
This diversity of information sources has its echo-chamber downside, but no one is being imprisoned because of their views like in Russia or China.
"I don't like those countries and they're angry with me".
I guess that puts any invasion as justifiable.
Yes, lots of hypocrisy to go all around—its called human nature. But what Russia is doing TODAY is just plane evil, and what other countries have done and will probably do again does not make Russian action any less evil.
Really?? approximately half a million children died in Iraq. Russian soldiers take the brunt of civilians throwing objects and molotov cocktails at them and try to stop them by standing on the roads.
You think Iraqi civilians could have blockaded US army by standing on the road?
It's human nature when Russia does it (and what Russia is doing is abhorrent and disgusting) and when US does it, its brushed under the carpet as champion of democracy
If US did something wrong how does it relate to Russia or China doing similar wrong things?
Stop them whatever means necessary.
In other words, please cripple your already struggling economies because of a war that you had nothing to do with. Sure, your citizens might have to freeze or starve but this is absolutely necessary to support the current thing. Oh, and please keep buying Saudi and Emirati oil and please keep selling them weapons to bomb Yemen. Anything else would be whataboutism.
A sudden stop would have a bigger effect that just losing money.
The pandemic already showed that.
This can only be solved in the long run and not in the short term.
But I doubt that will happen because this wouldn't need questioning the principles of capitalism.
Totalitarianism and capitalism always worked well together.
The most totalitarian states were the most anti-capitalist.
Capitalism means tolerating the emergence of independent centers of economic power, which is a threat to totalitarian control. That is why the PRC has been arresting wealthy tech founder-CEOs in China.
Cheap labor is easier to get in totalitarian states, that's why China is the workbench of the world and that's why the FRG let produce in the GDR and even gave it credits so that the production could continue.
I think you're technically right, but what you're implying is not. States following all kinds of economic systems work well together. For example, Venezuela works well with Russia and China, and is a fully socialist state.
And while you are right about capitalist states benefiting from the cheap labor of totalitarian states, capitalist states benefit even more from the capital skilled work forces from other capitalist states.
I'm sure the CIA would be surprised to hear that.
I'm not aware of EU wide polling around this theme, but look at page 7 of the latest Infratest-Dimap survey[0] for example. A majority of Germans want an oil boycott, even if that is forecast to bring a -3% negative effect on German GDP. The only population subgroup with a clear majority against a boycott are AfD supporters.
[0] https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DT2204_...
Seriously, what is it with far right groups and Russophilia ? One would think they'd be against the menacing nationalistic foreign power. Like the various quislings, it's funny how they square their nationalism with cooperation with another people's nationalism against their own's.
Or maybe it's simpler and it's just a matter of money. It's well documented Le Pen was saved by Russian loans, who knows if AfD aren't also on Russian payroll.
Sadly most people I have suggested this to think I'm nuts. And Ireland isn't that cold.
> Sadly most people I have suggested this to think I'm nuts.
there's probably thousands of times more gas used to produce all the commodities you buy and use in your everyday life. so this strategy of individualist 'sacrifice' (vs. systemic change) is merely a fart in the wind.
It makes you feel better for having a moral high ground, sure. Objectively it's not that big of a change, while systemic social changes take time. For the most people, it feels like not in their lifetime.
The problem we have right now is: we literally don’t know what the consequences of going cold turkey would be. It’s very likely, that creature comfort would be _completely_ unaffected. The problem lies within the industry. And it’s unclear how elastic the demand there can even be. E.g. things like ceramic burners, it’s unclear whether you can reactivate them after you let them cool down or whether they’d burst. Same goes for nearly every intermediate stage in chemical processes and storages. It’s unclear if “pausing” production doesn’t also imply “rebuilding”. And depending on the elasticity of the demand (which will probably be surprisingly high, since these companies are _extremely_ well motivated to find solutions to a problem they hadn’t had before) it’s unclear how much gas we need (both in storage and by implication still buying from Russia).
We now have best-case scenarios talking about ~6% GDP loss max. But that assume practically no second order effects and is based on GDP numbers. Ie i wouldn’t be surprised, if that requires gas to go where there simply is no pipeline.
As I said in the beginning: The problem is we don’t know how things are interconnected. Yes by all means: if you feel comfortable with a lower room temperature then lower your temp. But these 1-2% things… we don’t have 30 of those. And they are extremely costly in terms of political capital
no it isn't.
does Germany produce the smartphones its citizens use? does it mine the rare earth minerals inside those phones? to pretend that we originate from inside of imaginary lines on a map and therefore should only be concerned with national issues is false. our world is one whole and we are all children of the same tribe.
Global North capitalists hoard science, send commoditized 'intellectual property' recipes for black boxed hardware to the Global South, collect rents on those recipes while not physically producing anything themselves... all while plundering the resources and labor/life-energy of people in the Global South.
this is a dirty rentierist black-box technological hellworld through and through. causing ecological and social damage and externalizing responsibility/costs is the name of the game here.
adding this as a source these highlights from a recent paper (especially the last point is relevant to this convo):
• Rich countries rely on a large net appropriation of resources from the global South.
• Drain from the South is worth over $10 trillion per year, in Northern prices.
• The South’s losses outstrip their aid receipts by a factor of 30.
• Unequal exchange is a major driver of underdevelopment and global inequality.
• The impact of excess resource consumption in the North is offshored to the South.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802...
I agree my individual action is not very relevant but I think a widespread adoption of such measures would have an impact on political thinking in Europe. Obviously that hasn't happened.
True, industrial users can't just start using something else instead of gas in their processes. And if they go out of business, that's production gone, supply chains gone, workplaces gone. Certainly not a good thing, but please – it's not elderly frozen to death by this Christmas.
My point being, it's not about individual heaters and house heating. That would be a solvable problem – an expense. However, making that expense is a different thing, since now you'd gotta convince your citizens that they must – not should, but must pay up in taxes for that solution to be enacted. And why? Because some other country got invaded and that pro-o-o-obably might cause something bad in the future for your country.
The other side of the coin being that some things are harder to solve: you can't import on a short notice a replacement for, say, chemical plants that need gas and everything that's connected to them.
Does this matter? The embargoes are putting up a heavy strain on the world's logistic supply chains. The price of everything that depends on logistics is going up, including things in theory not directly related to not-embargoed electric heaters.
Does the old man just not own enough clothes? If so, why would gas prices be the problem instead of his lack of clothes?
It would have been smart to invest in energy diversity before the war started. Too late for that now.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
So 74% of consumption is not households. What am I missing?
Translated: It doesn't matter if people freeze, to death or otherwise.
I guess you also don't mind food shortages, as long as they don't affect you personally.
Isn't it interesting how you admit that the lives of so many depend on natural resources they don't control?
But if burnt corpses start piling up in Brussels, I'll come back to this thread and admit to being wrong.
How could one overcome this in a short period of time without shutting down the whole economy? These aren't "comforts", they are necessities.
That being said: the problem is not necessarily gas-powered heating. The problem is an industry that is hugely dependant on gas, and - specific Ural-originated gas (yes, the factories can be modified to accept gas with a different chemical composition, but that takes time and money).
Absolutely not. American expansionism got us into the migrant crisis mess, but Russia invading Ukraine is 100% on Russia.
No, Russian expansionism is.
NATO expansion is among the many (some mutually contradictory) excuses Russia has give for it's expansionism.
In Puttin's point of view, any new NATO member is yet another US territory to deploy weapons from.
Exactly this. NATO literally ignored Putin. We unfortunately found that the events a while ago were the straw that broke the camel's back. Putin is now angry, and ignoring what he thinks or wants turned out to be stupid.
> or wants.
I don't think not caring about the Ukraine situation is the right call either.
Did it really? NATO is now in a stronger position than ever.