Russia -> some people in Russia
That became obvious when sanctions and disinvestments really bit in the late 1980s and pressure from within forced the government into reforms that ultimately ended apartheid and minority rule.
I see no reason why the same should not apply to Russia. Indeed, I think that's part of the hope by following the same sanctions plus disinvestment route.
It's about whether populations in cases like this can be said to be accountable, and be treated that way, rather than pretending it's only the elite who are making all the decisions and hold bad views.
Israelis, for instance, are certainly collectively responsible for the actions of their government. It's not all just Netanyahu and a few others calling the shots.
Should every American be held responsible for all the US war crimes and bombings
This is a straw man. Nobody said every single Russian, or American, or Brit should be held solely and individually responsible, but that the population collectively should be.
One does not imply the other. It can be "whataboutism" in that it doesn't respond to the Russian topic in this thread. And we needn't ignore it. Write an article about the misdeeds of the Western governments and we'll discuss them in that thread. But US war crimes and bombings don't excuse Russia's current invasion of Ukraine.
Like, if we were to look at the body count of our respective militaries over the last 20 years the US military is clearly dominant in that regard, yet the outrage over Russia seems disproportional to the harm...is there not a lot of truth here that people seem less enthusiastic to discuss in the aggregate?
The US invaded Afghanistan with pretty much full international support and the authorisation of a UNSC resolution.
The invasion of Iraq was far more murky, and nearly split the alliance between the US, UK, France, and Germany as a result. It also caused serious consequences to US power. But it wasn’t a reshaping of the world map, did not include annexation, and was rapidly regularised by UNSC resolutions because of the US’s commitment to allowing an independent government to be formed as well as elections it would not control.
Most importantly though, the US-led coalition had the faintest cover of legal plausible deniability in UNSC 1441, which could be read as having authorised force because of Iraq’s ongoing noncompliance. I disagree with that interpretation, but it has never been fully settled.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was explicitly an annexation by force, and lacked even the pretence of any attempted justification under international law. Putin has also in speeches strongly implied that Ukraine is merely the first in his ambitions, that Russia had a ‘right’ to all the former frontier countries of both the USSR and the Russian Empire.
Where the invasion of Iraq was a bending of international law and the post-WW2 consensus, Russia’s is a complete break of it, and a statement that sovereignty of smaller countries as protected by international law doesn’t matter at all. That’s why it’s treated differently.
Have you any proof or at least evidence to substantiate this?
> The US invaded Afghanistan with pretty much full international support and the authorisation of a UNSC resolution.
Stated support - whether that was with zero aversion is unknown.
Also: while this is related to the specific questions I've asked, it is not answering those questions.
The questions I am asking are regarding the relative harm committed by our respective militaries, and whether our reactions and discussions are proportional to that harm.
> The invasion of Iraq was far more murky, and nearly split the alliance between the US, UK, France, and Germany as a result. It also caused serious consequences to US power. But it wasn’t a reshaping of the world map, did not include annexation, and was rapidly regularised by UNSC resolutions because of the US’s commitment to allowing an independent government to be formed as well as elections it would not control.
All very interesting, and important, but does not address the questions.
>Most importantly though, the US-led coalition had the faintest cover of legal plausible deniability in UNSC 1441, which could be read as having authorised force because of Iraq’s ongoing noncompliance. I disagree with that interpretation, but it has never been fully settled.
This is a matter of opinion. For some people, how many human beings were killed is more important than whether such actions have legal cover.
Do you remember a few years back when we were in the middle of a pandemic, and people dying was a super duper big deal? Do you remmber popular slogans like "Every life matters"? Isn't it interesting how flexible and dynamic humans are on their "bedrock, unequivocal, non-negotiable, just plain common sense" ethical axioms? Isn't it interesting how logically inconsistent and hypocritical people are, and how many people may die unnecessarily due to these strange cultural norms, that are enforced daily right here in "rational" forums like this?
> Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was explicitly an annexation by force, and lacked even the pretence of any attempted justification under international law.
Isn't it interesting how we always talk about this war from the prospect of "justification", rather than causality....and if someone was to inject the notion of causality into the conversation, a probabilistically predictable series of memetic "rebuttals/debunkings" would be likely to manifest?
Isn't it also funny how "international law" (or anything, really) is so important, when it serves our interests.
>Putin has also in speeches strongly implied that Ukraine is merely the first in his ambitions, that Russia had a ‘right’ to all the former frontier countries of both the USSR and the Russian Empire.
Surely. "Implied" is a very interesting word from a neuroscience/psychology/cultural perspective, because the way it is used suggests that the speaker is the only one involved in the implementation of "implied", when in actual fact each listener also plays a crucially important role in the implementation.
> Where the invasion of Iraq was a bending of international law and the post-WW2 consensus, Russia’s is a complete break of it...
Can you write out some pseudocode for isCompleteBreak() so I can better understand your intended meaning?
> and a statement that sovereignty of smaller countries as protected by international law doesn’t matter at all.
Who has committed this crime more in the last 20 years - Russia, or the US?
INB4: "whataboutism".
> That’s why it’s treated differently.
It is "treated differently" by millions of people. You do not have access to why each person treats it differently, thus you have imagined a reason....and due to living in a fantasy world being a (sometimes, and sometimes not) culturally acceptable and often encouraged behavior, no one finds it strange in the slightest. But if we were to change this topic from war to something like compilers and you made stuff up like this, it would no longer be culturally acceptable, you would get shredded in the comments.
Isn't this an interesting world we live in....if one is able to sustain a state of curiosity in one's mind, that is....unfortunately, the mind often seems to have a mind of its own...one whose behavior is subject to decades of social conditioning.
Gosh, I hope all of this is within the Overton Window of "things that are relevant to curious hackers", because it would be a shame if someone was to violate the Overton Window of what portions of reality are acceptable for discussion here and some people experienced a little psychological discomfort.
tl;dr: I asked specific questions, you did not even try to answer those questions.
Very few people disagree with the current state of affairs, it's "1984" with people just believing in whatever is being told to them. I'm saying this cause I've some distant families there, it's absolutely surreal. Either way, if you don't fall in line, you better leave the country (try to), or at best remain very, very quiet and keep your thoughts for yourself.
This is not just a "Putin" problem.
First, this is anything but simple.
Second, many Russians do care, but it is rational to stay quiet.
Third, your comment is one starting point for discussion but certainly not the end. Some follow up questions:
A. What would it take for more Russians to band together to oust Putin? Russians know the brutality of oppression and the long arm of state surveillance.
B. I take your point that this is not just a Putin problem. What happens after?
- The oligarchs have strong incentives to carry on similarly. They get so rich that they can buy loyalty “down the chain”. It becomes an issue of self interest to be corrupt, because it gets you a better quality of life. Sadly, a country with a high quality of life would be less susceptible.
- There will be some kind of selection process post Putin. It is unclear who might have the cunning, blackmail ability, and control of the military and intelligence forces. These levers make popular unrest almost futile.
Putin played the classic "tough on crime" authoritarian tack, except the crime wave was genuine, and huge. The routine street crime and killings were brought to a stop, and ... unfortunately he's been riding the popularity wave from that for at least 20 years. I mean — he didn't solve the high-level corruption of basically having a mafia class run things, which robs the average people of opportunity, but he did slam down on street crime, at least.
Credit for this is a bit misplaced, but it is a reason why he was unusually popular for quite a while.
And potentially some domestic-terror false flag operations, who knows.