> So what plan, exactly?
That's a question on everyone's mind about this whole invasion. I guess I should have said “idiotic justification as portrayed by Russian propaganda” instead of “plan”.
That's a question on everyone's mind about this whole invasion. I guess I should have said “idiotic justification as portrayed by Russian propaganda” instead of “plan”.
don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia? blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates with banning american companies? then its an action against free speech, again?
The Speech Putin did had some etnonationalism BS and claims of defending the land agains the threat of NATO. In most bordering NATO countries what you have is SAMs (anti-air missiles), and honestly pretty much any NATO country could claim that they feel threatened by Russian nukes.
And there's apprently plenty of gas just about the Dombass region and to the west of Crimea, such a coincidence.
So yeah, propaganda all around, but if you cut through it there isn't much left for russian sympathy.
if ukraine is fighting tooth and nail against russia(with or without help) they are equals so non-participants should abstain from taking sides. otherwise they are essentially joining the fight
Every tank Ukrainians blow up is to defend their families for rape, murder and torture.
Nobody forced the Russians to invade. Any claim to such end is a deluded fabrication.
Pacifism is simply not a morally viable stance when a country is invaded by such a brutal force. We should not cheer the loss of life. But we should support 100% Ukrainian heroism and their efforts to defend their country.
Propaganda is one of the theaters of modern war. Ukrainians seem to be quite adept at it. But this does not make their position any more suspect.
Laughable. When an armed robber enters your house and tries to kill you and you hit them back that doesn't make you and the robber equals.
The land they are standing on is Ukrainian, the russian troops standing there have no business being there.
i am not sympathizing with anyone for that matter. i am pointing out what i observe....
you know when america invaded iraq for "WMDs" and they turned out to be nothing and literally nothing happened? "strong anger" does not equate to waging a war against america like its being done against russia.
let me ask you, you and me are neither americans nor russians. did the world care when america invaded afghanistan, iraq, libya, syria and razed those nations to the ground? but god forbid russia does the same to ukraine. then its a matter of world peace. last i knew in afghanistan there were many countries whose soldiers fought along americans so all those countries were equally complicit in the crime against citizens of those nations.
why?
As for Iraq, yes people did care, there were large protests in London and Tony Blair is still hated by the general public in the UK. I don't know the real feeling in the US. The UK government didn't listen because Tony wanted his ego boost on the world stage.
The only NATO backed war of that era which had any grounds was in Afghanistan, Bin Laden attacked the US, and the US had to do something. It was executed terribly in the beginning (from what I understand the Afghans wanted to help get rid of Bin Laden) but in the end there was justification.
Iraq was illegal and only gave Russia cover for its actions against it's neighbours rich up until the Ukraine invasion.
But only since Russia started invading. When news about Ukraine were still all about their corrupt government, breaking human rights, their horrible prisons and more like that nobody thought Ukraine to to 'close' or anything.
It's obvious the whole perception of Ukraine just suddenly changed because Russia is the bad guy.
They are European and they did not deserve this invasion and as far as I'm concerned deserve all the help and compassion the rest of us can offer.
I just struggle with the idea of sending weapons to a country that has a well recorded near history of human right violations. In my opinion the public voice is less about the actual people but about political fears.
"European" is a rather loose term. When I was a kid, Europe stopped at the border with East Germany. Later, a bunch of former soviet countries became "european" countries. Then Ukraine. For a while, Russia was acclaimed as a european country (it's still often described that way in the UK press).
Call me an old fogey, but I'm still doubtful that the former East Germany is really european yet. Being "european" is a question of culture, not of political alliances and borders.
My Ukrainian coworkers were easy to work with, easy to communicate with, hardworking and an equal to any of us in ability.
I've never made the acquaintance of a Ukrainian; I'm sure they're lovely (and familiar). I have worked with Russians; they were also charming (and familiar).
I'll ask you to clarify because it sounds, to me, like you are saying something I hope you are not.
> I've never made the acquaintance of a Ukrainian; I'm sure they're lovely (and familiar). I have worked with Russians; they were also charming (and familiar).
I'd be more than happy to embrace Russians living, abiding and supporting their nation with their labor as sisters and brothers when their country stops assaulting sovereign nations. Unfortunately, there is no one else who can stop the invasion but its own people.
I dislike jingoistic nationalism. "Historic wrongs" tends to be associated with things like revanchism and irredentism, which are political forces that lead to wars. Talk of "bravery" in warfare is normally about the glorious deeds of "our side". Nobody talks about the bravery of their enemy.
I've heard stories about despicable actions by Russian troops, which I'm inclined to believe - actions not compatible with any claim of bravery. But it seems to me undeniable that Putin, at least, has acted bravely. Perhaps "courageously" would be a better word, in the Sir Humphrey, Yes, Minister sense.
I think it is brave of Ukrainians to defend their homeland from an invading nation. It was very easy in the beginning to simply run to the nearest EU country and be taken in with open arms. It is brave of Ukrainians to say, "No, we are not yours, we are our own" and to defend that declaration when tested.
When talk of historic wrongs makes you uncomfortable I wonder what you think of Denmark celebrating its liberation from the Nazis and if talk of the historic wrong of the Nazis also makes you uncomfortable i.e. do you believe the historic wrong of enslaving our nation was wrong or do you believe it a blameless act? One can extrapolate this question to other historic wrongs such as the Holodomor.
I can't reply to your comment, so I'll reply to my own.
Bravery as virtue: virtue is a value judgement; your example about throwing children is rather reductionist, and I can't address it. If you want to argue from analogy, it's helpful to choose an analogy that isn't as extreme as throwing your own child at the enemy, and then running away.
Brave Ukrainians defending their homeland: I think most people will defend their homeland against an invader, if they have the capacity. It's normal for invaders to destroy culture, families, and cities. I'm impressed by the Ukrainian resistance; I wasn't expecting it. It's hard to deny that their resistance is brave. My surprise is mainly because I didn't think they had the capacity; after all, they gave no resistance to the invasion of Crimea.
Historic wrongs, and Denmark: I only know a little of Danish history. I am familiar with some of what happened in WWII. I think it's a terrible mistake for someone from country A to get tangled up in the "historic wrongs" committed against country B by country C. More generally, as a peace-lover, my preference is to put the past in the past, and respect current boundaries. If someone is violating current boundaries, I'm against them; but nobody is violating, nor even threatening Denmark's boundaries.
Please bear in mind that Mr. Putin's rationalisation of his invasion of Ukraine is explicitly based on "historic wrongs", specifically what he considers mistakes made by the bolsheviks in setting up the state of Ukraine. If historic wrongs is an OK inspiration for Danish nationalists, then why not for Russian nationalists? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So I think Putin's invasion is a clear example of why making a stand on "historic wrongs" is likely to lead to misery and destruction.
But you do realize that a large part of these problems stem from the corruption and the main source of that in Ukraine was (is?) ungodly amounts of money coming in from Putins regime to bribe the shit out of everyone (mainly in the form of selling gas/oil to some local oligarch way under market price and which they then sell at market price). This whole conflict started when the Ukraine people decided to say fuck this and kicked out Putins friend out from power and Russia retaliated by taking over Crimea and give money/weapons to the seperatist in Donetsk and Luhansk.
About half of us called bullshit the instant "WMDs" were paraded as the reason to go to war.
And I think the other half have, over time, come to see the whole operation as a regretful waste of time, money, and lives.
So, no, I don't think there are any fans of the U.S. invasion of Iraq still around. Some of us are still incensed by the lies that were trotted out though.
this is the only point i'm trying to make. suppose tomorrow biden comes up and wants to invade iran for example. will american public lap it up like they have for the last so many decades, thats there but what about the rest of the world community? how many will arm IRAN against USA when they know USA to be the one who is invading? who will fight alongside USA?
USA or for that matter, "Allies" do not have the moral upper hand in the world, no one has. every nation is the same so why not accept that as a reality and move on?
russia may indeed be the bad guy here. heck, putin might be personally responsible for murder of thousands but so is bush and obama so how does that give usa the right ?
one commenter said "after 9/11 usa had to do something" and they invaded a soverign nation, destroyed it because a single person was responsible? its fine when usa takes revenge but russia cant defend its borders?
i am not a troll, i am not a paid/unpaid actor. i just want to point out that there is propaganda on both sides, thats all
> this is the only point i'm trying to make.
And it's a bad one. Because:
> suppose tomorrow biden comes up and wants to invade iran for example. will american public lap it up like they have for the last so many decades,
The very line you quoted told you that many (most?) of them didn't "lap it up" then either.
You're really not very good at this, are you?
> its fine when usa takes revenge but russia cant defend its borders?
Russia ISN'T "defend[ing] its borders"! Holy shit, how often do people have to explain this so you Putin-Versteher will get it?!? NOBODY WAS ABOUT TO ATTACK RUSSIA.
> i am not a troll
Even if you think you aren't, you're walking and quacking like one. Which in the end means you are one.
I think Putin's reasoning is that Ukraine's very independence amounts to seizing Russian sovereign territory.
What I find remarkable is the rarity of reports of Ukrainian attacks behind Russian lines (i.e. in Russian territory). As far as I can tell, they've blown up two fuel dumps and an arms dump. Given the dependence of Russia on what appear to be thin logistics lines, I'd have expected loads of missile attacks on bridges and rail junctions.
Of course, there's propaganda everywhere; perhaps Ukraine has been attacking Russian supply lines, and we're not being told, because that would serve neither Ukraainian nor Russian interests. I guess we'll have to wait until historians get their hands on the records.
The Baykratar TB-2 drone from Turkey apparently has a 4,000km range. Clearly, Ukraine has the ability to strike behind Russian lines.
If Ukraine is really trying to avoid Russian civilian casualties by declining to attack Russian supply lines, that seems foolish, and I don't believe it. I do believe that they have not deliberately attacked Russian population centres.
Russia will not want to publicise successful attacks by Ukraine on Russian military positions in Russia. They are still pretending that Russia is not at war. And Ukraine will not want to tell the world that they have hit Russian civilians, or even targets in Russia; it's advantageous for Ukraine if everyone believes this is 100% a defensive action.
But you can't defend effectively just by sitting there in your trenches; you have to strike enemy supply lines. And Russia's supply lines are vulnerable. So I assume they are being attacked. We're just not being told about it.
So yes there's a gregarian component to it, yet it also have a huge impact for us. Russia did this because they know we're dependent on their energy and there's little the EU can do without stomaching huge economic losses.
It's not about peace, It's about interests,a power struggle. Russia also invaded Georgia, and Azerbaijan had a war with Armenia yet the EU did almost nothing about it.
I'd really like to have a paceful relationship with Russia, as it's on our best interests, but it seems they don't think the same about us.
1. Ukraine is in Europe, now that should not make a difference, but it does. Historically conflicts in Europe (in contrast to other parts of the world) have a much higher tendency to escalate into world-wide conflicts.
2. Ukraine, in contrast to Iraq, Libya and Syria is a reasonably functioning democracy (although with many issues).
3. The rhetoric out of Russia (and this is from Russian TV channels etc. not western propaganda) towards annihilation of Ukrainians is quite different to any of the things being said from the west in the other wars. There is also no evidence that in any of the other conflicts the US or its allies were using rapes as a systematic weapon against the civil population.
I also take issue with a couple of your points, you mention Afghanistan and Syria as being razed by America and its allies, you conveniently forgot the role of Russia in the destruction of those countries (Aleppo was destroyed by Russian mercenaries and Syrian troops for example). You also didn't mention Georgia, or Chechnya, were essentially nobody said anything either although it was Russia who invaded. In fact I believe most of the west was hoping for a quick win for the Russians in Ukraine as well, so they could just go back to "normal".
You say: > does not equate to waging a war against america like its being done against russia.
That is a very weird interpretation of what is going on, no matter if you believe that there is propaganda on both sides, lets not forget Russia invaded Ukraine. It is Russian soldiers fighting Ukrainian soldiers, so far no "Western" soldiers are involved so how is anyone waging war against Russia?
Finally, I find this sort of argument highly suspect. You argue that Iraq, Libya, Syria were unjust and lament the fact that there was not enough being done, but now you argue we should ignore Ukraine because it's Russia who is doing it? Is your argument, as long as the people I like do it it is ok? Were you not the one who were complaining about exactly this earlier?
For someone who is neutral, when Russia is committing war crimes, you spend a lot of your time talking about the US.
If I go down the street in Baramulla or Bijbehara (assuming no forces around) and ask what people think about Pak getting involved or not involved in Yemen what do you think they would say? Or about what Saudi Arabia doing? More to the point, do they think BD were traitors for leaving Pak in 1971? Or Muslims can never commit war crimes against other Muslims? Afghans never occupied Kashmir?
There is a slight difference between de-platforming Russian propaganda channels in the West, and Russia jailing anybody speaking about the war in any other terms than those approved by Kremlin.
It's worth considering that the former is probably more effective, and certainly makes fewer people upset.
manning/assange anyone? oh they are terrorists right? for giving sensitive information to enemies but russian or chinese defectors are given "protection" because they do the same for america but if russia/china goes after them, well..... you know
But that is of course exactly what you'd say if you were a Russian troll.
I noticed the clue "Kashmiri" in your name only after my previous reply to a comment of yours. So, if that means your "third world country far away" is India... Yeah, pretty goddamn Russia-aligned. Maybe consider whether your own "neutral" media environment is really that neutral at all?
"Russia says it's blocking Facebook in alarming new censorship push" blocking facebook is censorship but blocking RT is defending free speech? nice
Edit: for the record I don't like the government blocking anything, but trying to point out the "hypocrisy" of the West like this isn't really very convincing to me. Looking after your own interests is not hypocrisy. Trolls need better ammo than this for the HN audience I think. You have to convince us that invading other countries and torturing PWOs is okay.
Well... If nothing else, both are huge spreaders of Russian propaganda. But yeah, you're right, it is funny: Maybe both should be banned in the West.
Until recently Ukraine was only in media for their gov breaking human rights and stuff like this, and now it's suddenly the long lost brother we all love so much.
Sure RT was full of bullshit, but so are many local papers, Facebook and everything else.
People taking clear sides when all they know is very filtered propaganda is sadening at least.
Citation needed.
Coup! Coup! Remember, never call it the "Maidan Revolution", it was a coup! Oh, wait, sorry, you're not trying to prove you're a Russian troll, are you? ;-)
But honestly, I've found that's the easiest heuristic, at least on Twitter: Whenever someone talks about the 2014 "coup" (or "Putsch") in Ukraine, they're a Putler RToll (<-- tpyoed that at first, noticed how fitting it was, so capitalised it).
[1]Here I am quoting one of the articles in the image [2]https://i.imgur.com/tfJ7PtX.jpg
No, this is incorrect. You can definitely get a pretty good picture. Saying that “you can only get a cloudy view” is a common Russian propaganda tactic aiming to neutralize the target.
The invasion of Ukraine is an illegal genocidal war.
That puts all the blame on this particular conflict 100% on Moscow, and the treatment of the civilian populations underlines the lack of decency, morals and respect for human life in the Russian institutions.
The genocidal illegal nature of the war immediately bins Russian state to the level of regimes like North-Korea, Pol-Pots cambodia or Nazi-Germany. You simply to do not allow propaganda from such entities to broadcast freely when they are obviously state entities. Free speech from individuals is different.
Are you even trying? You do understand that you aren’t talking to three years old? Anyone with half a brain will understand why this rhetoric is wrong.
This only means that you're misinformed and haven't really followed the situation.
I dislike bankrupt moral equivalency arguments.
Yeah, third world countries far away have their own perspective, and it's usually at least as weird as the other two. Well, in many it's of course just a copy of he Russian propaganda; don't know about yours.
> don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia?
No. Because it isn't. Because we have free speech, with media of different persuasions all allowed to spread their own versions of the truth.
To people from dictatorships -- like Russia, or many places in the third world -- this seems impossible, because they're not used to it. So when they -- you, apparently -- see that most media in the West on the whole agree on the basic facts, the "obvious" conclusion to them (you) becomes that "This must be just their side's propaganda!". Please try, in Occam's spirit, to consider the simpler explanation: The reason they all seem to more or less agree is that they've all done their own research, and what they're reporting is the truth they've found. You hear the same from them all, because the truth is the same for everyone.
> blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates with banning american companies? then its an action against free speech, again?
Yes, because what the West is blocking is a state-owned and -controlled Russian propaganda channel, and what Russia is blocking are free independent media. (Well, except for the VoA perhaps.)
I think this kind of view is the default interpretation for a majority of people, since it is a tempting conclusion to draw for people who aren't well versed in the actual details they're evaluating: to the ignorant, it does look like both sides are just slinging mud at eachother, and it's inherent cynicism seems "realistic".
I think to solve this, we need to educate people on the idea of "false equivalance" (that just because two parties are engaged in conflict, does not mean they are equally to blame) and to force them to state the details of what exactly both parties are doing in order to hopefully push them to recognize there is a meaningful difference between actions.