HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

eveningcoffee

2,148 karma · joined December 2, 2014

Some experience pending...
submissionscomments
eveningcoffee··on Why Has Germany Been So Slow to Deliver Weapons?
(1) Then you don't have paid enough attention if you think that you need to kill millions for "actual" genocide. Or do you think we should wait until it becomes "actual" genocide until we intervene? Or should we attempt to stop it directly?

There have been multiple warnings by people seriously committed for human rights, but most importantly, parliaments of all Baltic states, Poland and Canada have already declared Russia's actions in Ukraine to be genocide based on evidence available.

Here is an independent legal analysis if you think these declarations were just politically motivated.

https://newlinesinstitute.org/russia/an-independent-legal-an...

It is unacceptable that after largest recent genocide committed, Germany has become a genocide denier because it would be inconvenient to accept it because it would mean serious actions have to be taken to stop genocide continuing.

(2) There exists very clear European values. These are valuing democratic governance, human rights, free movement of trade and people.

(3) Oh, that is the problem? You are personally afraid that you will lose money with Ukraine and will gain with Russia, is this right? What you think, what countries are the net winners in this EU game, Germany and France or the others? Either way, see point (2).

(4) And what bell should Navalny exactly ring? I know exactly what he is and it is irrelevant. He is repressed (mild label for attempted murder and political imprisonments, I guess) for being in opposition with the self appointed ruler, most importantly, for exposing corruption and having some level of actual political power regardless of his political views.

Is it your opinion that we should tolerate this because you have labeled him as "far-right"? Do you realize that on the political spectrum of Russia, he is very far from far right?

And what is in your opinion so colorful about Khodorkovsky?

So we can't accuse Russia in attempt to destabilize our democracy because we are trying to protect its democracy? Sounds like a fair comparison, does it? So in your opinion we could also not accuse North Korea in cyber attacks because we are having economic sanctions against it? Is that right?

(5) So in your opinion it is preferred for Europe to buy natural resources from a bloody genocidal despot instead of democratic nation that is in union with Europe and not in opposition and in constant attempt to undermine it?

(6) Do you think is there anything to do with Russian influence in Ukraine why it has been constantly in miserable state, or not? But my point was not about Ukraine but about Europe. If Russia is cut off from European revenue from natural resources because Europe can satisfy its needs internally then it will become democratic economical power house. Get it?

eveningcoffee··on Why Has Germany Been So Slow to Deliver Weapons?
This is some Chomsky level whataboutism.
eveningcoffee··on Why Has Germany Been So Slow to Deliver Weapons?
So lets get it straight. Because Russia delivers goods to Germany, it is okey to support genocide it commits against Ukraine? This is what you want to say?

You can't be serious, or you think what you say is demonstration of decent human being who supports European values?

There is a major difference between Russia and Ukraine - willingness of Ukrainians to move toward European values while Russia is moving in other direction in light speed.

Worse, Putin Russia is financing political instability in Europe by directly funding both far right and far left parties. But not only founding but giving them propaganda support through social media manipulations.

There is another, strategical aspect that shows that we should really, really support Ukraine - its natural resources. If these fall into hands of Putin, he has even more control over Europe.

With Ukraine Europe can become a democratic economical power house and leave Fascist Russia into isolation and this is what Putin fears the most and this is why Ukraine must win.

eveningcoffee··on Putin warns West of strikes if longer-range missiles supplied
So they claim that they will strike Ukraine if missiles are supplied: “we will strike at those targets which we have not yet been hitting.”

But it looks like they would do it anyway, as they strike new targets every day.

So there really is no difference.

eveningcoffee··on What the West (Still) Gets Wrong About Russian President Vladimir Putin
Quite contrary. She provides much insight into the issue and all these points are worth consideration and discussion.

Western politician try to project their view of the word on the other party and fail to see the issue from other point of view.

People who have more intimate knowledge about Russia, for example Finns (1), can provide much more valuable insight. Especially so Russians with even more intimate knowledge about Russia.

(1) Martti J. Kari (former intelligence Colonel in the Finnish Defence Forces) gives a lot of insight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw

Complementary material from Western point of view by historian and Holocaust researcher https://snyder.substack.com/

I recommend to read especially this https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-easter-offensive

Also Kamil Galeev from Russian Republic Tatarstan provides a lot of interesting insights https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani

Perhaps the most interesting read from him is https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1516162437455654913.html

eveningcoffee··on [dead]
This is again wrong. Like all European nations under Russian or Austrian and Ottoman empires, Ukrainians created their own democratic state after WW1.

Ukrainian People's Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic

In fact, current Ukraine is successor of this state.

I do not know what in your mind are European interests but to me it is wider acceptance of European ideas - building prosperous democratic societies.

European leaders believed that deeper integration of Russia with Europe will help it to move exactly in this direction. Instead it milked Europe to build an army to destroy it.

Russia did not attack Ukraine because its resources, it attacked it because it was moving too close to Europe and became too Unrussia.

With some exceptions, Europe is a union of democratic nation states, and in fact some of its members splitting up into multiple nation states would only strengthen it. Ukraine is perfectly fine for Europe and joining the union through the accession process will make it much better country.

eveningcoffee··on [dead]
Yes, it is logical for Russia to be friend with USA and Europe but its leader does not want to. You can't be friend with somebody who does not want to be your friend. It is not possible.

You have everything upside down in your head. Helping Ukraine does not destabilize Europe. Letting Putin win does, because destabilizing and dividing Europe is his main goal. He does not stop in Ukraine because winning there will simply confirm his concept of winning wars.

Another wrong aspect is that you imagine that Russia is like UK, a democratic country. It is not, Putin has turned it into a Fascist regime. If you asked what is wrong in Nazi Germany's attack against Poland, then you would be asking the right question - you don't realize why it is wrong because you are not asking the right question.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Indians (including diplomats and common people) have been very active proponents of whataboutism to justify their attempt to profit from Ukrainian suffering and their ignorance toward it.

Here is a statement by Indian diplomat Subrahmanyam Jaishankar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tru06ruZvd4

In this is extremely arrogant remark he claims Europeans to not care about other nations out of Europe. Everyone who knows just a little history knows that it is completely false.

Even if we consider just India, European Union is provided humanitarian aid to India in tens of millions euros. In last COVID-19 crisis, it was Europe that shared the vaccine technology with India.

If there is humanitarian crisis in the world, it is mostly Europeans who rush to help first.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
This comment was mainly motivated by this comment of yours

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31607305

I gave it now complete answer.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Ok, I had more time to focus on this comment that I thought to be about something else.

Honestly, this comment is pointless. See again the example here

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31602479

that you have not addressed.

Let me iterate it one more time. Whataboutism does not help. It only distracts.

If you care about Yemen, if you care about Ethiopia (I actually care but I do not have any idea how to stop it) then propose solutions that would end the conflict. I'm eager to read about these.

Don't fuck up (sorry) solutions to other conflicts that can be realistically implemented. It does not help.

Talk about your conflicts, propose solutions, but don't fuck up solutions to other conflicts because you think that your conflicts do not receive enough attention.

Ukrainian invasion is European war, so Europeans care, especially Eastern Europeans. This conflict has at the moment only military solution as all the other solutions have failed so far. How many times have European leaders called Putin? What is the result? During Georgian war it had effect. Not anymore. It is ideological war, it does not have any rational purpose. It only ends when either Ukraine surrenders or somebody or something convinces Putin to stop.

What it could be in your opinion? Ukraine not joining NATO? Sorry, it was not going to because of ongoing conflict anyway. And Putin knows this.

But lets assume that Putin agrees to stop hostilities for land. Lets be generous and give him all the Donbas and all the land currently occupied by Russia. What does stop him from starting the war again when he has recovered and regrouped? If you think Russia respects agreements then you really do not know Russia. You do not know Russian mentality. Many people do. Listen to them.

The current solution is to exhaust Russia's warring capacity so it literally could not make continued war in the future. The more modern heavy weapons Ukraine receives, less are there civil casualties because Ukraine can eliminate Russian forces from safer distance. This is literally the only thing at the moment that helps to save lives. Everything else is just wishful thinking and procrastination.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
I will just mention here that Putin can claim what ever he wants. It does not make it true. All this "8 years in Donbas" is a huge fabrication of reality by Russian propaganda.

Russian invasion in Donbas deliberately created a failed state ruled by warlords and gangs. It was no accident. The economy of the whole occupied region has been destroyed.

The main reason of reduced civilian casualties has been many fold in my opinion. First is timely evacuation before Russian forces had reached the populated areas. Around 14 million people fled their homes. Where this was not successful there were huge numbers of civilian casualties like in Mariupol where the estimated death toll is over 20000 people. Destruction of lives in Mariupol has been deliberate to set it as an example result of not surrendering. The actual number is also really unknown. Over 1000 of dead have been discovered in the liberated Kyiv region where many people were evacuated before Russian forces and where occupation was very short lived. Russian forces have not managed to take, or even reach large centers yet. Ukrainian air defense has been effective against bombing attempts and Russian capacity to use long range missiles is limited.

Most importantly, we also do not know what is really happening on occupied territories. Bucha massacre was only revealed after Russian forces were pushed out in hurry.

You are here mixing up many things like they are somehow comparable. You can't compare Serbia, where attacking civilians was not deliberate, or Georgia where fighting did not reach larger centers and was stopped because of international pressure, to Ukraine.

In fact mentioning NATO operation in Kosovo war here in any capacity demonstrates your complete lack of integrity. NATO campaign did not target civilians. In contrary only in Mariupol 600 people died in a single deliberate strike against clearly marked civilian shelter. This is 100 more people killed deliberately in a single strike than after full campaign in Kosovo war by accident (including Albanians used as human shield by Serbian forces).

Objective of the Kosovo war was to prevent Serbian (confirmed) planned genocide against Kosovo Albanians. Serbians committed deliberate planned genocide against other nations on Balkan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_Plan

It is sickening that there are people who call themselves libertarians and who deny this genocide.

Objective of the war in Ukraine, as has been clearly stated on numerous occasions, is genocide against Ukrainians. There are already numerous people who could be arrested based on the international law for committing incitement to genocide if they happen to travel out of Russia.

Minsk II, at least on paper, is restoring pre 2014 invasion situation and having a democratic referendum about the status of the region. I don't see why Ukraine should be against it and in my opinion Ukraine has made all the steps possible from its side to reach this situation. The agreement is very clear about pulling out all the Russian forces from the territory and about disarming other illegal armed groups. Ukraine can't do it. It can't pull out Russian forces, it was also not in any capacity to disarm the illegal armed groups with heavy weapons. Claiming otherwise and accusing Ukraine in any wrongdoing is extremely dishonest. No democratic referendum is possible if Donbas is still occupied by Russian forces and controlled by terrorist groups.

This conflict was beneficial for Russia. So it continued. I do not know why are you so eagerly supporting Russia's imperialist ambitions.

There is war in Ukraine because Putin thinks that it belongs to Russia. It is simple as that. How is it so hard to process for self claimed libertarians when this is what Putin himself clearly claims.

If you are so eager to give something to Russia, why not give Alaska? Why not give Sunny Isles Beach to Russia? Don't want to?

What if Ukrainians also don't want to give their land to Russia?

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
We can almost address the situation in 2014, but before doing that, one more aspect should be discussed.

It is alliances of the nations in the reach of Russia with other nations in attempt to counter Russia's negative influence (occupation, genocide, ethnocide).

In recent history, Estonia and Latvia managed to gain their independence after WW1 in large part with the help of Britain because its interests to restore Royalists power in Russia aligned with independence war of Baltic nations against Bolsheviks. Ukraine was able to gain its independence with the help of Germany in the end of WW1. This can also explain why Baltic nations hoped that alliance with Britain could help them against Russia and why Ukrainians hoped to restore free Ukraine with the help of Germans. None of this played out but it could have if the circumstances would have been a little different.

This means that nations who consider Russia as threat are naturally looking for international players who could counter Russia's influence. Today it is European Union, NATO and US. Therefore talking about US imperialism in context of Ukraine and calling Ukraine a pawn, is malicious (borderline racist) and also idiotic.

Taking all the previous into account, it is important to distinguish between Ukrainians (either Ukrainian or Russian speaking) and Russians (ethnic Russians moved into Ukraine as part of the Russification plan).

Before 2014 Svoboda was only political power what was openly critical toward Russia. It is clear based on the elections that took place after 2012 that it was the only motivation why people voted for it. Later when they did not have such monopoly, they became irrelevant. It is not possible to deduce anything based on 2012 election results.

Without knowing what these "basically Nazi beliefs" are it is not possible to conclude anything either and that 20% is very clear minority. Azov Battalion was a multicultural battalion, it had Russian speaking majority and it consisted Christians, Jewish and Slavic paganism followers.

It is also very important to observe that Russia had already invaded Crimea in February 2014.

Before 2nd May, both Maidan and anti-Maidan supporters had coordinated their protest to avoid clashes and violence.

This changed on 2nd May when anti-Maidan militia attacked pro unity march. Vitaliy Budko opened fire from his 5.45 mm calibre Kalashnikov and killed a man. It was clear that wide scale violence was their plan from the beginning. Fighting broke loose in the city. Outnumbered, anti-Maidan militia retreated. When Vitaliy Budko returned to the Kulikovo Field, he offered anti-Maidan supporters to leave but they instead decided to barricade into Union building. Maiden protesters were not interested to attack the building but destroy the camp in front of the building. Nobody wanted to burn people alive. It was an accident, mainly caused by the people in the building who had created a complete fire hazard inside the stairhall.

If you want to have an objective idea of what really happened, I recommend you to read

An Eyewitness Account of Events in Odessa on 2 May 2014 By Sergey Dibrov A Special Investigative Report for Radio Liberty

But it does not matter what really happened, as you correctly have identified, it was the turning point because now Russian media weapon kicked in with full force.

As in 2007, completely fabricated representation of the reality was produced. There were of course no Russians attacking peaceful march, there were no fight in front of the Union building, it was just peaceful Russians surrounded in the building and burned alive by Ukrainian Nazis (please recall what I said about Nazis). Complete fabrication of the reality. This was then constantly hammered down in Russian media. There were other numerous hoaxes like crucifixion of a Russian boy, hanging in the forest and so on. All these hoaxes were used to rally Russians from Russia into Donbas because Ukrainians did not want to fight. The narrative that was used was again the familiar one - Russia is under attack and it must be protected by attacking another country to protect it against Nazis.

The war in Donbas was not a civil war, it was a Russian invasion using hybrid war tactics.

If we remove Russia from the conflict, it will end.

Russia is the "root problem".

Lets see if you are really against imperialism or you just hate US.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Another very important aspect to understand is how Russia has weaponized falsified historical narratives. Claim that Estonian government attempts to rewrite the history was also very prominent Russian propaganda claim during the 2007 riots.

Russia's most important historical narrative revolves around the victory in WW2 against Nazi Germany.

In fact WW2 does not exists in Russia. Everything starts in 1941 with the attack of Nazi Germany against USSR. How the Red Army was in Poland and why it was in the attack position is not discussed. To be honest, contradictions on the level of schizophrenia are rather rule than an exception in the Russian narrative.

For example there is claim that Hitler betrayed Stalin. But you can only betray your friend or allay, yet Stalin and Hitler were never friends or allies. The existence of MRP is either not discussed or is downplayed as "just" a non-aggression agreement. Its additional protocols where the spheres of influences were agreed on is denied, especially the division of Poland and attack against it in alliance is denied most fiercely.

Immediate repressions on the occupied territories are naturally denied too. The fact that almost all the military and in large part also police officers were murdered in Baltic states and in Poland, is denied. Deportations of large part of the population, including women and children, into labor camps is also denied. There are two notable things I would like to point out. First one is that the men were mostly directed into labor camps especially designed to kill prisoners through forced work and malnutrition. The second one is that also large proportion of the Jews were arrested, murdered or deported. For example 200000 Polish Jews were deported into Gulag labor camps. This was also the reason why not all the Jews on the Russian occupied territories did evacuate before the German advance and fell prey of Nazis.

The horrors continued when Russians returned after Germans left.

These horrors are then presented as glorious liberation what of course is not an acceptable narrative to the survivors of the horrors but are not understandable to the brainwashed masses who do not have any understanding of the human suffering it caused.

Every nation between the Germany and Russia has its own specific story but none of them is favorable toward Russians, except the Serbian story.

The worst part is training of the Russian population to react strongly to the trigger words. Have you watched the movie Inglourious Basterds? I could not make myself to watch it because of the level of dehumanization it creates. Yet Russian population has been trained to react to the Nazi keyword with strong hate. Keep this in mind when you see another Russian spokesperson to call somebody a Nazi.

Russian narrative about Ukraine has one additional important detail. In this narrative Ukrainian People's Republic never existed. In Russian narrative the history of Ukraine starts with the Russian puppet state - Ukrainian SSR, yet like every nation under the previous rule of Russian or Austrian empires managed to create their own nation state after WW1, so did Ukrainians. Yet the existence of this democratic state and its destruction by Russia is denied.

Why is it so important? Because Crimea and large parts of then Ukrainian populated areas of current Russia belonged to this state.

Next falsified historical narrative is Russia constantly being under attack for 1000 years yet constantly growing from small principality to vast empire over two continents. In this narrative Russia must constantly protect itself and is constantly suffering. This is basis for the Russian Christ of the nation concept that has been developed into perfection by Ivan Ilyin and is the main basis for the current Russian expansionist and imperialist ideology. Being attacked by Nazis and then expanding by protecting itself fits perfectly into this narrative.

This leads to the Russian minority narrative. Nation that has large numerical dominance is considered somehow repressed by the nation that is ten to hundred times smaller in numbers on its own territory. It is not the Russians who have forcefully moved in large numbers into occupied territory that are the oppressors, it is the other way around.

Like I mentioned, schizophrenic understandings are rather rule than an exception.

There are of course more such false narratives but these mentioned form the basis of the Russian imperialist narrative that current regime has weaponized.

So talking about Russian minority in Ukraine, or Russian majority areas in Ukraine, this has to be seriously taken into account.

Ukrainian SSR was formed on basis of Ukrainian majority on its territories but still many territories with the Ukrainian majority like Kuban were left out. How was it then possible that Russians gained majority in many Eastern Ukrainian areas?

There are three answers to this: Holodomor, deportations and Russification. Killing large part of Ukrainian population by man made famine, deporting native Ukrainian population into other territory and populating the territory with large number of Russians. Genocide and ethnocide, two imperialist tools of Russia over centuries.

Therefore when somebody talks about oppression of Russian minority in Ukraine then this person is directly advancing Russia's imperialist policies.

If somebody claims that this area has Russian majority in Ukraine then this person is again is directly advancing Russia's imperialist policies.

If you are against imperialism then you will not do that.

If you are against imperialism then you would try to advance policies that will try to heal results of previous imperialist actions.

If you are against imperialism then you do not support any Russia's action against Ukraine.

If you can't do that then you are not against imperialism, you are perhaps against US, but not against imperialism.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
So lets try to sort this out a little. First and very important matter to understand is that by 2014, Russia had completely weaponized its media. To understand the power and extent of it, I will refer to earlier usage of this weapon that has been extensively studied - 2007 Estonian riots.

Events revolved around a statue. You probably knew this but lets take a moment to appreciate the absurdity of this.

Estonian capital had a bronze statue of a Red Army soldier in the middle of the city that was used as gathering ground for hard core Russia supporters around 9th May every year. The company was usually not large but because they consumed strong alcohol, it was noisy and disorderly and because many of them also waved red Soviet flags, it also attracted attention of Estonians who perceived this as demonstration of Russian supremacy and insult on their suffering because of the Russian occupation. Russian narrative of these gatherings was commemoration of the fallen soldiers who liberated Estonia. This did not help to bring two communities closer. When existence of the actual remains under the statue was confirmed, Estonian government decided to follow the Russian narrative and move the statue out of the city center to the cemetery and also rebury the remains there properly. If local Russians learned about this, small crowd, perhaps few dozen, game to protest against this relocation. This was the starting point to from where the weaponized Russian media kicked in.

The peaceful relocation of the statue to the cemetery and reburial of the remains was reframed as plan to destroy the statue and the remains. Then this was used as backdrop to the narrative that it is all done as an attack against Russians, their memory and all the things Russian. Suddenly this became the main focal point of all the Russia, like it was the most important thing in the world. It was constantly hammered in the media for weeks, members of the Russian parliament gave their opinions and the narrative was getting more and more hostile by every day and more and more detached from the reality. Of course it was framed as expression of Nazism. It was complete mass hysteria. And it worked. Estonian Russians, who were mostly under influence of the Russian media, bought this false narrative and gathered to protest in thousands.

The protests were violent, rocks were thrown at the police, which of course was not displayed in the Russian media, there it was a peaceful protest, but the situation was still mostly orderly and under police control. Until a complete hoax was used to spark disorderly riots that ended in city wide destruction of the private property. The statue was photoshopped out of the image, cut off from the legs, and it was then distributed in Russian media as proof that it had been destroyed. The footage of the police operation, that followed, was then displayed in the Russian media to portray it as Estonian government violent attack on the Russian population. More hoaxes were created like the claim that police officers murdered a Russian man on the street.

In the end the riots were dispersed with great effort, the statue was moved to the cemetery as planned, it was not destroyed of course and the remains were properly reburied.

In conclusion, Russian propaganda can create a complete fabrication of the reality and then use it as a weapon.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
I see that the same topic is covered by you here

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31607305

I will give multiple answers over the course of the day there.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
I see that the same topic is covered by you here

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31607305

I will give multiple answers over the course of the day there.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
You are so deep in the Russian propaganda ass, that it is pathetic. You are about to relearn a lot about your perception of the reality. Let me prepare it for you.
eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Btw. if you have access to Chomsky, I would recommend you to stress this to him if he cares about his legacy.
eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
There is also another notable observation.

Whataboutism and victim blaming do go hand in hand with you.

Again you are blaming Ukraine that it invited, or even conned Russia to attack.

If Russia had any interest to follow Minsk agreements, it would have done so. Instead it did the opposite. It sent more heavy weapons and did not disarm and disband terrorist groups it had established in Donbas.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
And this is again the essence of whataboutism and demonstration of its uselessness and harm.

See, I tried to explain how it is reasonable to handle the question about Ukraine, but you, instead of interacting with the issue, flooded the medium with complete unrelated nonsense.

You just flooded the medium with noise mostly.

I think Ukrainians made a very correct observation about Chomsky

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2022/05/19/open-letter-to-noam-ch...

"While you admittedly call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “war crime,” it appears to us that you cannot do so without naming in the same breath all of the past atrocities committed by the U.S. abroad (e.g., in Iraq or Afghanistan) and, ultimately, spending most of your time discussing the latter."

See also the example I made here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31602479

Worse, the two issues you like to stress here constantly (Yemen, Ethiopia) are completely different in nature and have very different solutions as was explained here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31603138 based on Yemen example.

In fact, there is (for now) clear and straightforward solution to end the war in Ukraine but Yemen and Ethiopia are lacking such solution, so these 2 are even completely irrelevant to the problem at hand.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
You believing that I equate state with people is wrong. I don't see point in further explanation, just take this into consideration.

I have tried to argue with people from India about Russian invasion and guess what, it all ends in whataboutism. As far I understand the situation based on observation, Indians hold grudges very long (why did US support Pakistan in the war that happened 50 years ago?) and I know that Russian media propaganda is very strong in India. It is complicated diplomatic issue.

I don't have contacts in Pakistan and China, so I could not comment on this one, but it looks to me that both countries are slightly balanced in favor of Ukraine, that is, if they did not favor Ukraine, they would be more supportive to Russia.

Hungarian president is very clearly in Putin pocket based on his statements. There are two factors: he is known to be incredibly corrupt (according to Hungarians) and there is Hungarian minority question in Ukraine. But he is clearly an outlier in EU.

Brazil has agreed to provided ammunition to Ukraine - shells for German Gepards. This shows that they are not very strongly aligned with Russia. I do not know what is the current status of the deal.

It was explained to me that Biden pretty much ruined in very short time what Trump had accomplished in Middle-East because this is Democrat party policy to favor Iran over Saudi-Arabia even when it is stubborn stupid, so exactly this is what he did - attempted to make Iran sell gas and oil to Europe. He managed to make bad situation worse unfortunately.

Israel support to Ukraine has grown stronger after Russia's complete diplomatic fiasco. It may get very bad if Russia somehow mistreats captured Azov Jewish fighters.

One thing is sure, Russian capability to affect public opinion in foreign countries should not be underestimated. It may appear that it completely lost its edge in Western countries but other countries are pretty much wide open and helpless against Russian propaganda because the population does not have internal detection mechanisms like Western countries have.

The main issue is that large part of the world, including Western countries, do not realize the extent of the problem the world is facing.

If Russia manages to win then globally

Using nuclear weapons (or threat of) as offensive weapon becomes possibility Using famine (or threat of) as offensive weapon becomes possibility Committing wide scale genocide becomes norm Support to Fascist regimes and movements will grow stronger Risk of local conflicts started by Russia will grow larger Risk of local conflicts started by aggressive local actor (with or without foreign support) will grow larger China's hostile ambitions against other countries will grow stronger

In addition risk of actual nuclear confrontation between NATO and Russia will rise.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Just one remark. Russia threatening the world with nuclear weapons and famine is another very strong reason in favor of Ukrainian win. It is in fact one of the main reasons. Nuclear weapons and famine should be not become de facto tools of war like Russia is currently using them.

I'm not sure if you and Chomsky, as I understand, are willing to give in to such threats out of cowardice or stupidity.

Another main reason is that genocide is not acceptable. Russia is already committing genocide in Ukraine but it is clear that when it wins, the extent of the genocide will be multiple orders of magnitude larger.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Israel, anti-Zionists, are these people who think that Jews don't have the right for a state or people who think that they do not have right for Israel?

Well, they are there and I think they do not have any plan to go somewhere else. I think they have made it pretty clear by now.

The solution to end the conflict between people who call themselves Palestinians and Israelis comes down to the question: is there something that would make Palestinians satisfied in long term and is there somebody who can give it to them?

It comes down to this question because it looks to me that Israelis themselves are happy with the current situation, so they do not need anything.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
I refer you to these two comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31602479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31603138

Criticizing does not help. It does not matter if you criticize the worst, or the second worst or the third worst actor.

Helping helps. The first important step in this is figuring out what will help. I explained it in the linked comments, so I will not repeat it here.

The way Chomsky addresses the issue makes him look dishonest and this removes all his credibility.

His failure to recognize genocide Serbians committed on Balkan is very repulsive for me. Also seeing him dance around Ukrainian question does create similar associations in me.

I will address Russia and Israel in other comment.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Yemen and Ukraine.

Sending humanitarian aid to Yemen does not help, actually it has very high probability to prolong the struggle.

Sending immediately military aid to Ukraine has high probability to end the conflict and avoid larger humanitarian catastrophe.

It took me some time to figure out between who is the conflict in Yemen, and why, though involvement of Saudi-Arabia and Iran was a big give away. So it is indeed between Sunny and Shia Muslims. They all appear to be Arabs in large part, so it indeed is just difference in minor details of faith. But why? It appears that it is over control of natural resources. Both sides want to have full control and leave other side nothing. In fact it is just continuation of the previous Yemen civil war.

The war was started by Shia Muslims. The conflict is 8 year old by now and it appears to be in some sort of stalemate.

I have no idea if the diplomatic solution is possible at the moment. As it is civil war, neither side has in principle more right to win.

Should we fear consequences of one side losing? I don't know, is there risk of ethnic cleansing that could follow?

Should we fear consequences of one side winning? Perhaps. If Shias win, it would mean that they copy the same conflict elsewhere, for example in Iraq. I don't know.

Most important part here in comparison with Ukraine is that these conflicts are not comparable and solutions to these conflicts will be completely different.

One is civil war and another is full scale foreign invasion with the goal to end statehood of the victim.

It is also very clear that if Ukraine would win, the conflict will be over. There would be no large scale humanitarian crisis because neighboring countries would manage to provide enough help to avoid it. There will be probably some amount of repressions against the losing side but these would be reasonable and in accordance to accepted civil practices.

It is also very clear that if Russia would win, the conflict will just start because of very high likelihood of continuous insurgency. It is also clear that there would be large scale humanitarian crisis because Russia has already stated that it will use humanitarian aid as a way to punish Ukrainians for the resistance, it is also clear that there will be large wave of repressions resulting in end of life and end of freedom on large scale.

It is also very clear that if Russia wins, it would repeat the conflict elsewhere. Most likely against NATO country.

Based on the current information, Ukraine winning is highly favorable.

Current practice has also surely demonstrated that there is at the moment no possible diplomatic solution because Russia is not accepting any except total surrender that is again not acceptable by Ukraine and is also not favorable for the overall situation.

In conclusion, conflicts in Ukraine and Yemen are very different in origin and in possible solution. Comparing these two is meaningless and does not in any way help to find resolution to either one.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
While you claim to be objective, somehow you end up blaming US and protecting Russia and also blaming Ukraine.

I proposed a reasonable starting point for the discussion:

Russia is the aggressor. It has no rights over Ukraine or over its decisions about its alliances. Ukraine is acting in its best interests how it sees possible given its own situation and international (geopolitical) realities.

Yet you refuse it. Why?

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Your example is again made in bad faith.

If you want honest comparison, then you would always criticize your own family but never the neighbors family, even when they do exactly the same things, you find a way to show your family in bad light but neighbors family in good light.

This is what you (and Chomsky) do. This is what is nature of whataboutism.

These are the real double standards.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
I also asked you something but you refused to consider it.

I wonder if you also deny genocide Serbians committed, like Chomsky? I'm just curious.

I think that very likely Chomsky is nothing more than a Russian shill, and considering how in harmony all of it resonates, I would give it high likelihood to be correct.

It was also discussed here, perhaps you missed it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31457200

Did input from Chomsky help somehow or was the opposite true that it muddied the discussion and made reaching the solution actually much harder?

This is why I started with comparison. To show that you can't just ask randomly: but what about? First most situations are not comparable and second, it really does not help.

Even though you appear to be blind to humane examples, I will try again with one.

Imagine you are in a foreign city, you have no money, you do knot know anybody, you have hunger. So you ask a person for help, you explain your situation and this person asks, but what about children in Africa?

You see, whataboutism did not help you and it did not also help children in Africa. That is the whole point of whataboutism - direct the attention away from the actual problem that needs direct immediate action.

So lets take one another example. There is Russian invasion in Ukraine, Russia is committing war crimes on large scale and it is most likely preparing for wide scale genocide. Ukraine needs immediate international assistance to counter the invasion, it needs humanitarian aid, financial aid and military aid and strong diplomatic support.

Now instead of actually reacting to this real need, to actually end the invasion, you ask, but what about Yemen?

Like asking about children in Africa, how does it help?

It certainly does not help Ukraine and it for sure does not help Yemen.

Because nobody cares about Yemen and now there is high likelihood that they do not also care about Ukraine anymore.

The person who asked from hungry you about children in Africa did not want to help them, he just wanted to distract you to go away.

I will write in sibling comment about Ukraine and Yemen in more detail.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
Just admit that you hate America and by proxy you hate Ukrainians.

You are not a libertarian. So is not your idol Chomsky.

You are just an uninformed person who does not have any idea of the actual situation.

You have absolutely no idea against what Ukrainians must stand. If you paid just a little bit of attention, you would advocate for sending more weapons and training such that Ukrainians could push Russian invasion out of Ukraine completely such that civilian suffering could end and would not lead to complete genocide.

Maxim Katz has made nice video (he includes English subtitles in case you actually do not speak Russian). I linked to the most important part of it for you. Watch this, this section is only about 3 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaRUepc-7VQ&t=443s

Now again, should Ukraine surrender to Russia?

If you were libertarian, you would not advocate surrender to the most dangerous Fascist regimes of current time.

But for some reason you do. Do you have an explanation for this?

Again you have chosen the victim blaming with your Afghanistan example and somehow again favorable toward Russia. Somehow Russian military pretense that happened after they assassinated last elected Afghanistan president it is not a problem. Somehow Russian Army (lets be honest here, decorating it with words like Soviet does not make it less what it is, Russian army) killing civilians is not a problem. The problem is resistance to the killing. Somehow again everybody must surrender to Russia.

I think you are indeed fairly consistent: US bad, Russia good, just like Chomsky.

This is also the core idea of whataboutism: US bad, Russia good. Always, no mater what. It is not: US bad, Russia bad, no.

I do not think that you have right to make decisions for the Ukrainian people. You are not the one. You do not know what they want. I admit that, I actually do not know what they really want. Perhaps they all want to die so it would be already over. Who knows?

What you are instead doing is assuming that what people want is the opposite to Zelensky and Arestovych. Somehow people are tricked by them. Does it sound familiar? Does it sound exactly what Russia is claiming? I think it does.

Why do you think Zelensky or Arestovych wanted war? It looks to me that for you preparations for the inevitable is wanting it. If you prepare for war, it must mean that you want it. Si vis pacem, para bellum has no meaning to you, I guess. The truth is, this war would be already long time over had Ukraine not prepared for the war. But it had.

It must be incredibly inconvenient for the Russia supporters.

Why did Ukraine just not lose? The war would be over, Russia would have just killed not much more than few 100k and not deported more than few 1000k, but the life would have gone on, the business would have gone on. With Russia of course, because Ukraine does not exist, it is a fake country.

eveningcoffee··on The word “whaboutism” considered harmful
I see that you are not willing to conduct a honest discussion.

Only thing I wonder about is how is it possible that the rhetoric and vocabulary you are using is too damn similar to Russian trolls.

I recommend you to meditate about it if you consider yourself an American.

You are a prime example that shows that whataboutism is exactly what it is thought to be.

← PreviousPage 2 of 34Next →