What do you want to world to do? Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions and many countries are funding + arming its opponent in a war.
Russians need a travel visa to go to any Western country and most of the world. Some EU countries are banned Russians from entering; the US is not issuing travel visas in Russia anymore.
US is actually quite good on offering entry to refugees from Russia. At least 30,000 people from Russia entered US through Mexico and requested asylum in US and many got it. The problem is that it's only option for basically rich citizens of Russia because whole process is expensive, hard and quite dangerous.
EU is much closer, but it does nothing. Putins regime could've lost 30-50% of it's high-skilled workforce if EU or UK just made it easier to immigrate. E.g literally 100,000s of Russian IT workforce left due to war and political situation, but getting actual work visas is hard process and outside of country of citizenship it's only gets harder if not impossible.
But honestly west can't even help Ukraine efficiently. How can one expect EU to actually do anything to cripple Russia economy...
There are a lot of political immigrants from Russia as well as people who trying to avoid being drawn into army. And for people who left Russia back in 2022 it's just basically impossible to get any visas anywhere simply because you can't apply for one outside of Russia without having some other residency permit that' impossible to get in Georgia / Turkey and many other countries.
EU still provide visas to tons of people who continue to live in Russia and pay taxes in Russia, but dont give any visas to people who left and dont support Putins regime.
And a tourist visa is hard to get even with a residence permit. The consuls (rightly) see you as an immigration hazard. After all, you've already moved countries one time, who's to say you won't repeat the trick?
Meanwhile in Moscow, you have a good chance to get a 5-year visa from France.
Fun fact: the exact same phenomenon was being ridiculed by the White Russians, back in the 1920s. European countries were suspecting them of being Bolshevik, yet the actual Bolsheviks could come just fine.
Now, of course tourist visas are not really relevant for emigration, but it's an example of the attitude shown towards us.
It's not like west suppose to kill or inprison them. Just go after their finances and throughfully check their source of wealth. Lots of lots of people who are close to Putins regime continue to live in a west and spend money they get out of Russia.
> No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
> Pillage is prohibited.
> Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
KYC and AML procedures have nothing to do with Geneva convention. There are a lot of Putin cronies whose families still live in west and launder money they make on this war every single day.
To add to this: Germany is more than happy to launder russian money - see Deutsche Bank, Vivid money, Solaris Bank etc. BaFin (the financial regulatory authority in Germany) ignores the situation (like they did with Wirecard)
A couple of months (more like years, maybe?) ago it was fairly easy to find many articles about FSB money being laundered through Vivid. But, lo and behold, a search for "FSB" and "Vivid" returns some very ...strange articles: https://imgur.com/VOCNvna
Enact personal sanctions against war-enablers, which is fine with me by the way. But the family of war-enablers are not necessarily involved in their crimes. You didn't mention stolen wealth or money laundering at all. You said:
> And their families and kids who all keep their money in US, UK and EU.
Let's just say, for arguments sake, there is a child who is genuinely estranged from his war-enabling parents, living in Europe on his own dime. Should they fall under these sanctions? I would say no.
War enablers have nothing, their families apparently have a lot, somehow. A strict KYC/AML would quickly find connections of their family wealth to Russia, Putin and his regime. However reality is banks forced to go after each and every Russian due to universal requirements which they have to apply to all equally. This makes any sort of comprehensive KYC/AML checks impossible because of the scale they have to applied at. These restrictions really target ordinary Russians while high-net-worth individuals find their ways around. West should dig under specific individual rather than doing what it does today. Navalny’s ACF has a list to start with.
I did. Now you may argue that NATO and Russia are not in a state of war and therefore Russian citizens do not fall under the definition of a protected person given in article 4, but then you would be saying that it is alright to commit war crimes during peace times. Which seems kind of backwards to me.
It's a war economy. Russia builds a lot of tanks, mans a large army, pays a lot to the families of the fallen, it all adds a lot to the GDP.
But those tanks are going to burn, they don't add value to the economy, won't be exchanged for foreign goods. If you dig a hole into the ground, you increase the GDP, war destruction is not much different in its value creation. GDP is not a perfect measure of an economy.
A) Russia is large enough that it doesn't really need foreign trade to have an economy
B) We -- ie "the west" have no control over what India and China does wrt russia. If they keep buying Russian oil, we can't stop them.
> Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions and many countries are funding + arming its opponent in a war.
Supply more weapons to Ukraine? No matter what, Ukraine lacks resources everywhere. Tanks, long-range missiles, anti-air defense, artillery, ammunition.
Alternatively, we can do whatever we can to assist the Russian opposition. A lot of them have been forced into exile. Give them money and access to even a bit of the juicy stuff the CIA is bound to have on the entire Russian elite...
That's different from having a working country and well functioning economy. Not that you're wrong, just I don't think that is in indication of the sanctions being effective or not.
They're not nearly crippling enough. But the problem is that there are a lot of sanction breakers and that those get away with it because we allow them to. That could and probably should stop. Obviously that will hurt the West as well but I'm ok with that, there are no principles without a cost.
There're countless studies conducted during the Ukraine-Russia war pointing out what sectors to hit with full export ban to grind Russian military capability to a halt (e.g Austrian GFM manufacturing equipment for artillery barrels production). But this is very politicized discussion. Obviously companies will want to protect their interests and politicians prefer to make strong and visible statements in place of the working ones (like, freezing Russian assets outside of Russia does very little damage to Russia itself right now, compared to, say, decimating their heavy equipment supply chain)
Business is separate from war (see Sweden's metallurgy industry during WW2).
I think you’ll find that even the neutral countries are providing support to Ukraine via the backdoor (eg Swiss with their armour going via DE).
I believe the strategy that the powers at be are attempting is to keep Russia occupied in Ukraine for as long as possible without major escalation. Without assigning morality, it seems like a tough balancing act to achieve.
There isn't much more we can do. NATO could end Russia with more weapons and making a defence deal with Saudis in exchange for price dumping of oil and gas[1].
But no one wants a nuclear state to fail. Moscow must be terrified of another coup d'etat, hence Navalny's death.
[1]extracting, insurance and delivery cost for Saudis are about $17 and for Russia it maybe as high as $40 now.
When Russia invades Poland to create a land connection to Kaliningrad, just as they invaded Ukraine to create a land connection to Crimea, Europe will wish it had done 10x as much as it did.
Western countries could deliver planes, Germany could deliver Taurus cruise missles, countries could give submarines in the atlantic to target Russian oil rigs etc.
Exactly this. They're slow-walking this thing when they should be decisive. Kick Orban and Hungary out of the EU if they keep playing silly games, make a real stand and stay the course. This dumb half-assed stretching the line is going to end up in misery.
> When Russia invades Poland to create a land connection to Kaliningrad, just as they invaded Ukraine to create a land connection to Crimea, Europe will wish it had done 10x as much as it did.
If it invades Poland. Finland joining NATO makes such an invasion less likely, because (I'm told) that membership gives NATO enough logistics to encircle Kaliningrad without going through the Suwałki Gap, and this in turn changes Kaliningrad itself from an asset into a liability. No, I'm not sure why Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia were not already sufficient for this.
> Western countries could deliver planes, Germany could deliver Taurus cruise missles, countries could give submarines in the atlantic to target Russian oil rigs etc.
Yes, though I've heard convincing arguments that part of the current Russian strategy is to keep NATO sufficiently worried about escalation that they focus on building up their own forces instead of donating those same resources to Ukraine.
To be fair, a nuclear state did fail. The US launched a program to help secure nuclear material and it more or less worked out.
You could argue that if the Russian state failed then a group of nations could literally just buy their nukes from whatever gangsters ever up in charge.
I'd argue USSR collapse was a messy dissolution. A failure would be: Tatarstan declares independence, regular fighting in the streets of Moscow for months.
Why would Saudi go against Russia for doing something they do themselves, i.e murdering opposition(Khashogi)?
Similarly, why would this be the trigger when the Saudi experience shows US is fine with it?
In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. The number one problem for SA is security. The state is fragile. Wahabi, Muslim Brotherhood, tribes that hate House of Saud. Secondly, Iran possess a direct threat, Houthi could destroy critical infrastructure. $$$$ spent on military doesn't help - they lost the war in Yemen.
SA is on a lookout for allies: Defence partnership with Pakistan which probably end up in a nuclear technology transfer or purchase of atomic weapons.
If USA would give better security guarantees to SA (similar to Jordan) with some tech transfer, SA would increase the output by 2x, which would result in $45 per barrel.
Wahhabism isn't an internal threat to Saudi, like at all. It's their export ideology and it is not at all appealing to the citizens of one of the best welfare states in the world. Wahhabism in actual Saudi is completely different to what gets exported.
As for Iran, seems like recently there has been a rapprochement(mediated by China), will need to see where it leads. It's pretty clear to me SA is on the lookout for allies, but US is low on their list, as they realised(correctly) that all the human rights issues in Russia exist there as well and might get tackled by the West in a decarbonised future.
Not anymore after MBS came to power. Wahabhi missionary worm was a King Fahd policy (and why so many foreign mosques are named after him).
> it is not at all appealing to the citizens of one of the best welfare states in the world
Not to most, but it's definetly appealing to a small subset similar to how White Nationalism is appealing to a small subset of Americans.
The religious reforms post-2017 have been massive [0], and the fact that shows like Masameer or Bait Tahrir are being openly produced is a testament to that fact
> As for Iran, seems like recently there has been a rapprochement(mediated by China)
Only limited to Yemen. The relationship post-rapprochement was still fairly shaky and went down the gutter once 10/7 happened [1]
> pretty clear to me SA is on the lookout for allies, but US is low on their list
Yea no. Saudi is still continuing with US lead Israel-Saudi normalization [2] along with pushing for a US Defense Pact similar to what Japan has [3]
I think the notion that US Defense Pact is a sign of the countries being true allies needs to be examined. It's clear what the benefit for Saudi is, but it isn't so clear what the benefit for the US is/what the cost for Saudi is(beyond spending money on US arms which they wanted to do anyway).
The reason why I say this: Around the time of the price cap on Russian oil US was already asking Saudi to pump supply so that Russian budget would suffer, and of course Saudis didn't do anything. I think MBS is going fully down the Erdogan/Orban route where he is nominally "West aligned" but is going to be playing both sides as much as he can. When I said allies I meant someone who they would have reciprocal relationships with(which IMO isn't really the case with US atm).
> Around the time of the price cap on Russian oil US was already asking Saudi to pump supply so that Russian budget would suffer, and of course Saudis didn't do anything
You're overreading into what is a fairly routine demand and response.
Saudi is in the process of implementing MBS's Vision 2030 [0], which requires a lot of financing, and oil prices have been dropping significantly over the last few years.
Most US allies outside of Europe are indifferent to Russia because the bigger bad to them is China or local rivalries.
Even in the US, Ukraine (and Israel and China) almost never comes up in conversations outside of Reddit. Adviika and much of the Russia-Ukraine war is barely mentioned in any mainstream American news because it doesn't hold much relevance to most Americans compared to domestic concerns [1]
> allies I meant someone who they would have reciprocal relationships with(which IMO isn't really the case with US atm)
Nothing you've said is proof to the contrary. Oil price decreases are always a no-go for Saudi given that 75% of state revenue is financed by oil.
I mean that's kind of my point. I don't really understand what the point of calling US and Saudi allies is when this clearly only extends to the Iran issue in which Saudi is only too happy to freeload on US commitments to the region/Israel as it matches their goals. Its also my more general point, US doesn't really have a lot of allies in the sense "I help you out you help me out", most of these so-called "allies" are interested in freeloading on US's back as much as possible whilst trying to get as much from Russia/China elsewhere as possible.
>Oil price decreases are always a no go for Saudi
Factually false, remember 2015? Saudis tried to kill US shale pretty aggressively.
I didn't say anything about who was or wasn't to blame. My point is just that it's weird to say "there's not much more we can do" when that funding package is still in limbo.
You didn't say it, but it is the Republicans that are to blame. They seem to believe that obstruction is a form of government. And the weirdest thing is that their supporters seem to believe this is true.
I agree, but the person I was responding to seemed to think that I was somehow blaming Congress in general rather than the Republicans, which is reading something into my comment that simply wasn't there.
<< They seem to believe that obstruction is a form of government.
It may come as something of a shock to some, but US constitution effectively guarantees gridlock if the various blocks are unable to agree. It is a feature and not a bug.
In other words, obstruction, such as it is -- last time I checked there were still talks about aid package slowly making it through house with pieces being cut out -- is a valid form of political expression.
History is not a set of if/then statements. It is not written in stone. My most charitable interpretation of the post is that history can be a useful heuristic, but to blindly assert 'future will be' x is inaccurate at best.
I think I understand where you am coming from, but the post I see from you are all unnecessarily 'angry' presenting an opinion as an axiom. It may be worthwhile to take a step back and consider whether those contributions are useful to the community. Frankly, it may be detracting people from the message you intend to spread.
> but the post I see from you are all unnecessarily 'angry' presenting an opinion as an axiom.
Ah, ok so until things really derail you shouldn't be upset. Sorry but I'm not 'angry', I'm ANGRY and that is mostly because I spent a long time working through my various family's stories about WWII, what led up to it and how it all ended up and that nobody that could have done something about it acted when they still could. This isn't some kind of abstract mental exercise. If you're not angry that simply means you haven't thought it through yet.
<< I spent a long time working through my various family's stories about WWII
I do not want to seem dismissive, but I am from the old country and, well, we all have family stories about WW2. I am not going to delve deep into into it though.
<< If you're not angry that simply means you haven't thought it through yet.
I personally think it is a common misconception. Yes, anger can be a good catalyst and may force a person to act, but I am not entirely certain anger is a good advisor. On a personal scale, I rank it just below fear in terms of usefulness.
My actual point: If you are angry, you are not thinking clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I find myself so.
> I do not want to seem dismissive, but I am from the old country and, well, we all have family stories about WW2. I am not going to delve deep into into it though.
Proceeds to be dismissive.
> I personally think it is a common misconception. Yes, anger can be a good catalyst and may force a person to act, but I am not entirely certain anger is a good advisor. On a personal scale, I rank it just below fear in terms of usefulness.
I don't want to be dismissive, but you are giving undue weight to your own opinion over those of others when you probably should at least give them equal weight, on the off chance that you are simply wrong.
> My actual point: If you are angry, you are not thinking clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I find myself so.
What you meant to say: "If I am angry, I am not thinking clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I find myself so."
<< you are giving undue weight to your own opinion over those of others
Are you sure you not projecting a tad bit here?
<< Proceeds to be dismissive.
Would you feel better if I wrote 'too dismissive'?
<< What you meant to say
Heh.
<< you are simply wrong.
What exactly am I being wrong about?
We established we share some ww2 background with its survivors and their descendants and, as a result, your opinion is, at best, as unimportant as mine.
I think we established that emotion ( anger ) may not such a great way to establish whether one is paying attention.
What did I miss?
Friend, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far your responses are not very inspiring. Hell, I am not even sure what you are angry about.
I mean, I can talk generalities too you know. People suck. See?
The question that kicked off this discussion was "What do you want [the] world to do?" In that context it's pretty obvious what it means to say that the US Congress could approve more aid to Ukraine. Of course some people don't want to do that. That's why it remains something that we could do rather than something that we're doing.
But the US Congress can no more approve significant aid to Ukraine than it can make pi == 3.
In a platonic ideal world, sure. But in the world as it stands, this is not possible. The constraints on the system prohibit it as surely as if the Constitution specifically forbade it.
Russia has already failed. The mob controls the nukes, that's the only reason why they managed to get as far as they did in Ukraine. If not for that it would have been long over.
Russia is a nuclear kleptocracy, it is ruled by a mob that seized power in a country that was already very fragile but that still had a massive arsenal. If you think about Russia in terms of a large gang run empire it starts to make a lot more sense. I know plenty of absolutely great Russian people, the country however is giving me the creeps and I don't see any of it ending well.
You can attack a country with nuclear weapons, provided you use only conventional ones, then threaten to escalate to nuclear if they do that. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate threat which would ensure mutual severe damage if not destruction if used, therefore nobody uses them first unless they're completely nuts, or they're cornered. Putin is a criminal but he's far from being crazy, and as for now is surely also far from being cornered. Surgical attacks in
Russia with conventional weapons would undermine his powers and create enough public disapproval to facilitate a coup from within, but should be done with extreme care and up to a certain point in order not to trigger a nuclear response.
Sadly, even using conventional weapons, the number of deaths would be huge; it is entirely possible that Putin would sacrifice millions of innocents sending them to the front line before giving up, also because when dictators give up they usually die shortly after.
Black/Azov Sea aside, they're not touching the area where the power resides, which is usually needed to weaken the leader image. Last bombing in Belgorod is probably just an error, but in any case it accomplishes nothing aside giving more fuel for Russian propaganda.
I should clarify that I'm not defending Russian actions or trying to be a useful idiot here, there just are red lines that if crossed, a nuclear power will respond with nuclear force. The same is true for China, the US, and even smaller powers like Pakistan.
I support sending Ukraine more ammo to defend its sovereignty. Appeasement is also bad.
Systematically calling russian people Orcs is the worst dehumanising things to do IMO.
I have nothing to do with that conflict but I don't like how confident some people are that they're on the side of the Good, thus that they could do whatever to their opponents. (Cf Kasparov who wanted to nuke Russia at the beginning of the war)
The most dehumanizing thing would be to compile all the material that shows what atrocities russians have carried out in Ukraine and show it in Western schools during history classes, would pretty much guarantee nobody wanting anything to do with russians for each generation that is shown the material. And this is ignoring all precedent russian history.
It's very easy to look at what's happening from afar and call the term "orc" dehumanizing, and yes I share the opinion that being too confident in being on the good side is wrong, but we must also not fall into moral relativism were we see a horde of barbarians blackmailing the world with nuclear weapons and we are worried about using the term orc.
Humans are born with equal rights (at least in some countries) but aren't equal in capacity, character, judgment, and so on.
> Humans are born with equal rights (at least in some countries) but aren't equal in capacity, character, judgment, and so on.
This is the most insulting statement on humanity and democracy I have read recently. I don’t really think you have meant it the way you have written it. Let’s unpack some parts of the statement.
> Humans are born with equal rights
This part sanitizes the fact that some are born in poor some in rich families. The rights may be in theory equal but only the one with the wealth and knowledge on political environment will be able to use them.
> [Humans] aren't [born] equal in capacity, character, judgment, and so on.
I can only read this part sensing some rasism and elitism. This neglects a dramatic impact on the environment where the person is born and expectations from them if they want to fit in.
To conclude, Russians are not orcs because they are born that way, but instead because they have been raised in an orc fertilising envirtonment.
Please do not add your interpretations and state them as mine, I'm happy to clarify what I meant: I think all humans should have the same exact rights, but humans aren't born the same, some are blonde, some are tall, some are, in fact, very fucking stupid, some of them are psychopaths. There is nothing classist or racist in that. I don't want to go into the nurture vs nature argument, but if somebody is doing something very bad to somebody else (e.g. attempted murder), he should be stopped. I don't think I am saying anything extravagant here.
To justify or diminish what the bad actor (the would-be murderer) is doing in any way is real racism/classism/whatever.
>but instead because they have been raised in an orc fertilising envirtonment
I mean, after centuries of repression, gulags, etc. I'm sure either the culture or the society could have been affected? Let's drop the orc term and substitute it with "wish Ukrainian genocide".
To conclude, Russians are not "wishers of Ukrainian genocide" because they are born that way, but instead because they have been raised in a "wishers of Ukrainian genocide" fertilising envirtonment.
Now that I've sanitized the sentence, could you point out why I should care about how russians have come to be this way rather than caring about stopping them to avoid the destruction of Ukraine?
Ok. I see that we are on the same page if we were to agree on the definition of “born” to reaching a mature age.
> Now that I've sanitized the sentence, could you point out why I should care about how russians have come to be this way rather than caring about stopping them to avoid the destruction of Ukraine?
The distinction is necessary because the war does not only occur on the battlefield, but there is a significant portion on propoganda. The propaganda reaches best thoose who are not being integrated and with very open immigration policy there now are many within the Europe. With stratification of wealth there are many poor who don’t feel that they belong. Imagine telling them that they are born inferior.
Long before the invasion there were atrocities committed in the war. Civilians killed by literal nazis and the world cheering them on. All because a pro-russian won the election and the pro western candidate was too impatient to wait until the next chance.
Geopolitics is ugly and the world is run by psychopaths. You're siding with one side, and asking to indoctrinate our children to hate the other, just like you've probably been your entire life.
We're always at war with the east. Endless proxy wars and more division is not the solution. We like to believe we're on the good side in the west but I don't, we brought this war on Ukraine with empty promises and now that shit hit the fan we let them fend on their own, and taking the opportunity to test some weapons.
I like to hold my side to a higher standard than the "enemy".
Your entire comment exudes russian propaganda but is shy to bring out specific facts. "civilians killed by nazis", "it's all geopolitics atrocities are normal", "proxy war". Let me tell you this straight: Ukrainians have a right to decide if they want to be part of the russkiy mir or if they want to be independent, no amount of disinformation or demoralization changes this fact.
Teaching history is not indoctrination. You expose people to facts, they'll draw a conclusion. Some facts lead to obvious conclusions.
There is simply no going back from the genocidal acts AND statements made by russians, no amount of NATO bad cope will change that.
>We like to believe we're on the good side in the west but I don't
If you believe russia is on the good side you need to be checked in, but I'm sure you live in a place that wouldn't be impacted by the russkiy mir spilling over and going on some more. Allow me the arrogance to suggest a good intro material to understand why your comment is completely wrong: Timothy Snyder: The Making of Modern Ukraine.
>I like to hold my side to a higher standard than the "enemy".
Same, I can't believe some people would shrug off the kind of atrocities russians brought to Ukraine (again, let's ignore past history). It looks like most russians are even supporting it. The fact is that there are two types of Europeans: the ones who didn't experience russians subjugating their country and the ones who would rather die fighting.
I was watching the protests live in western media and have been following this since the beginning. I don't take my information from anyone but what I see and my own conclusions from the facts.
> If you believe russia is on the good side you need to be checked in
I don't believe one side is the good side, like I mentioned the world is run by psychopaths and I refuse to pick a side. That's the entire problem today, everyone picks a side and sees the opposition as enemies or as the GP said "orcs". The world is more complicated than that.
> Ukrainians have a right to decide if they want to be part of the russkiy mir or if they want to be independent
They did, in an election, which started the Euromaidan and everything went to shit. Tymoshenko was against the deal for the Russian Crimea fleet long before that and she instigated her followers to take to the streets. This is called democracy from "our" side, coup if it's the opponent. I'm 100% sure the US would annex their bases in a similar situation.
Telling that you think the choice is Russia or independence. It's a choice between east and west, the situation is about the fleet in Crimea. Why do you think Erdogan can piss in all directions at once? The Bosporus.
I'm not saying anything going on in the world is okay but you're fooling yourself if you don't think we have a part in this. We want the east poor and in chaos, we were fine with Saddam killing the kurds, but leave the petrodollar? Oh no you don't!
It's easier to call what I say propaganda or misinfirmation, but they're facts. Read up on everything from sources you trust and you should come to the same conclusions. Nothing I say is even far fetched, the US is the self-appointed world police and this has been going on for decades, centuries if you think of the west. Some people just have to run the world and don't want to share.
>I was watching the protests live in western media and have been following this since the beginning.
This doesn't matter, let's just discuss facts.
>I don't believe one side is the good side
I believe that not all sides are created equal. I'd rather have my family be captured by NATO forces than russian ones, what about you? I think the term "orc" is even too kind when it comes to people that come to rape and pillage, with no distinction for age.
You are muddying the water with all these implications about Euromaidan, CIA coups, fleet in Crimea, Saddam leaving the petrodollar, the US annexing bases etc. Let's state the cold facts: russia invaded Ukraine with a genocidal intent that has been shown with actions AND statements.
Let's say the choice is between East and West rather than about independence. It looks like Ukrainians chose West, that doesn't give russia any right or justification to invade. There is nothing you can say that justifies what russians have done to Ukrainians (again).
Russia wants to roleplay as an empire but it has literally nothing to offer to its would-be subjects. Are you really surprised about people preferring freedom of expression, free markets, a possible EU integration and the security of NATO rather than being part of the russkiy mir? All ex-subjects of russia would rather die than be at their mercy again.
> I believe that not all sides are created equal. I'd rather have my family be captured by NATO forces than russian ones, what about you?
I rather get killed in the forest than waterboarded in Guantanamo without trial for decades. But I would of course not have to choose at all.
> Let's state the cold facts: russia invaded Ukraine with a genocidal intent that has been shown with actions AND statements
Speaking of facts, how about you start providing your source for this hyperbole claim, and why mine about Crimea is muddying the waters. I also didn't mention the CIA, don't put words in my mouth it's dishonest.
> It looks like Ukrainians chose West, that doesn't give russia any right or justification to invade
No that's my point, they didn't. The pro-russian candidate won the election, and the pro-european side wouldn't have that so they burned buildings and started a civil war. Read up on Tymoshenko and everything leading up to Euromaidan and you'll find what I claim. Use any source you want, it's mainstream.
> Russia wants to roleplay as an empire
Ironic claim given the NATO expansion and the US activities in the middle-east. Russia has what, 3 allies left on it's borders and they're all in chaos from time to time with the western media cheering on the coups, last was Lukasjenko in Belarus. Why is that?
> Are you really surprised about people preferring freedom of expression, free markets, a possible EU integration and the security of NATO
This is the illusion we're being sold, but is speech really free even in the west? Can you imagine we're being told just as many lies as the other side of the world? There are some narratives that aren't allowed and groupthink and cancel culture is used as a weapon in the west. In my country people were ordering too much from China so we created a special toll for cheap Chinese products. Free market my ass.
We need to hold our leaders and ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies, but we don't. Especially not when resorting to name calling like we're school bullies. All our leaders have to say is "yeah one guest at that wedding in the desert was a terrorist" and we're fine with entire families being wiped out with the push of a button. It's all in the name of good right?
If we were actually good we would mourn anyone we had to kill, not agitate against the "orcs" like they're animals. It's disgusting. Meanwhile I'm being downvoted for stating what should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
>Speaking of facts, how about you start providing your source for this hyperbole claim
It is you sending out a volley non falsifiable claims as an argument that justifies the invasion. You might as well tell me that PG is behind everything, I can't disprove that.
>Ironic claim given the NATO expansion
What aboutism.
>This is the illusion we're being sold
Yeah alright. Please don't bring groupthink and cancel culture into the discussion, it's really not pertinent, you are 1 minute away from going "the west has fallen". And I agree with you that there are many things to improve, to say the least. Still, even if the Western free speech, free market, etc. is all an illusion, Ukrainians have the right to pick that rather than the russkiy mir.
>We need to hold our leaders and ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies
I agree. Raping, torturing, pillaging, genociding, should be unthinkable. Doing that is giving up on being human, imo.
>and we're fine with entire families being wiped out with the push of a button
Who's we?
>not agitate against the "orcs" like they're animals
Who's agitating? It seems to me that Western media has been even too kind to russians. The most terrible deeds that by sheer luck emerge and become public are quickly forgotten.
>anyone paying attention
I guess the only one paying attention is you, not sure what you are paying attention to tho, since you seem unable to state something even just remotely close to the fact that russians are doing something wrong. I wish you and your family will never have to live under the threat of the russkiy mir, but, usually, textbook useful idiots and demoralized people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw&ab_channel=Nicho...) tend to be far away from any danger in this day and age, with somebody else paying the price.
> It is you sending out a volley non falsifiable claims as an argument that justifies the invasion. You might as well tell me that PG is behind everything,
What is non falsifiable? You can even find it on Wikipedia, that's how mainstream it all is. Who is PG?
> What aboutism.
Irrelevant, the discussion is about vilifying and dehumanizing the opposition. That's how we get places like Guantanamo and the pictures of Iraqi prisoners US soldiers took for shits and giggles. So what we do as a comparison is on topic. But if whataboutism is your best response so be it.
> Ukrainians have the right to pick that rather than the russkiy mir.
Still stuck here. What did they choose in the elections? Democracy picked Russia, coup gave them West. Read it twice so we don't need to go over it again. Wasted bytes.
> I agree. Raping, torturing, pillaging, genociding, should be unthinkable. Doing that is giving up on being human, imo.
And we don't? The US as we speak has warships protecting Israel in their genocide ("no water, no food, no electricity, nothing" - Israeli Defense Minister). Israel can compete in sports and Eurovision. Wars are a fucking popularity contest to us and it's absolutely disgusting.
You'll probably claim the Azov battalion were fine human beings towards ethnic Russians between 2014-2022?
> Who's we? Who's agitating? It seems to me that Western media has been even too kind to russians.
The elite in the west. Western media. Latest example is Tuckers interview, even before it aired they started questioning why Putin should get the chance to speak. Why not? What are we so afraid of?
Trump wins, and it must be Russia and Assange colluding. No no the americans can't possibly want this. Everytime this embarrassing blaming Russia for everything. Textbook propaganda.
> I guess the only one paying attention is you, not sure what you are paying attention to tho, since you seem unable to state something even just remotely close to the fact that russians are doing something wrong.
This is where you're deliberately misunderstanding me, even if I've mentioned in every comment that I don't pick sides. I just paint the picture that we're not as good as we try to claim and that we should get off our high horses. But I do see how we got in this situation, and it won't be the last one. For every atrocity you mention I can find comparisons from the West. I'm a pacifist and want peace and cooperation, not constant conflict.
Plenty of people are paying attention, but the majority aren't they just change their profile picture to the latest conflict du jour and repeat their politicians mantras. I think peace in the world is possible, but those with the power to achieve it don't want that. An equal world doesn't benefit them. And it's not their kids dying in Ukraine.
I would have much more respect for NATO if we actually went boots on the ground and helped sort out the mess we were part of creating. The poor Ukrainians were fooled, they took a big risk and when shit hit the fan they're on their own because we want to keep the illusion that we're not involved.
Vilifying a horde of barbarians that film themselves castrating prisoners or raping toddlers is indeed something I intend to do and dehumanize. The fact that you think what russians are doing and their past history and depravations towards neighboring countries is in any way comparable to NATO and the US is completely off the bonkers.
After bringing up points like Euromaidan being a coup, Saddam and the petrodollar, you are now bringing in shit like Trump, "elites in the west", and finally the Azov battalion and the Ukrainians doing violence on ethnic Russians, you are bringing out the points of "we must invade because the Ukrainians are bombarding Donetsk children and they are nazis" of russian propaganda. An attentive reader would have noticed that you said "ethnic russians", de facto stating that there is a chunk of Ukraine that is actually russia and must be saved.
I'll let you in on something: the fact that I feel so strongly about these fucking savages that invaded Ukraine and useful idiots gushing down russian propaganda is because I am a Westerner that lives in Ukraine and I've been living here since before the war. Part of the acquired family I have from my partner is from Donetsk and the fact that you bring up Azov and this ethnic russian thing is the cherry on top, the perfect piece of bullshit that me, actually living in Ukraine, is perfectly equipped to call you on about.
>For every atrocity you mention I can find comparisons from the West
No, you cannot. Russia, from its imperial times, has brought upon the world the worst depraved and terrible crimes, nazi concentration camps are a walk in the park compared to the joys of the russian empire and later the soviet union. And still, we're talking about 2024, these things are being done right now.
>I'm a pacifist and want peace and cooperation, not constant conflict.
You aren't, you are a useful idiot who paves the way for the demoralization of your nation and its later destruction
What disgusts me the most is that you seem to be unable to cede on the point that what russia did is wrong. You even mention that brutalities are okay because apparently, somebody else did them in the past. Russia invading is okay because trump/saddam/elites in the west/euromaidan/crimean fleet/azov battalion/whatever other shit you gobbled up on the internet. But hey, you are a pacifist.
Have you noticed how you don't argue any of my points? All you do is resort to calling me a useful idiot, building strawman arguments (like accusing me of accepting Putins claim of denazification, while I myself have mentioned it's all about Crimea, always was) or claiming I'm spreading Russian propaganda. I make a point of only sticking to what is verifiable in mainstream sources to avoid these kinds of useless accusations.
You have a very condescending and unnecessary tone, but make very few points yourself. Why is that?
You claim since you are in Ukraine (I call bullshit but whatever) you have better sources than me, I doubt it. Any source that would put Kiev in a bad light is regarded as traitors and jailed. Like that blogger was recently for example. So honest reporting from within Ukraine forget about it. Even western media has stopped trying to paint the beautiful picture Zelensky is. How many more Ukrainians are you willing to let die for NATOs cause? Are you fighting? To the last Ukrainian like Zelensky wants? For who? Why?
Your comment here doesn't make me unsee the civilians being killed between 2014-2022. This is not demoralization, you should've realized the west are vile scum from the get go and should've never trusted us. We use our puppets as long as they're useful, then we stage a coup or oust them ourselves. I've said I've wanted NATO to enter openly even after Euromaidan, before 2022. Because even then it was obvious what this was all about.
> What disgusts me the most is that you seem to be unable to cede on the point that what russia did is wrong. You even mention that brutalities are okay because apparently, somebody else did them in the past. Russia invading is okay because trump/saddam/elites in the west/euromaidan/crimean fleet/azov battalion/whatever other shit you gobbled up on the internet. But hey, you are a pacifist.
Why are you lying about my claims? Never said anything even close to that. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension? A language barrier? How can I be clearer than I've been in the last 15 comments? It's getting exhausting to repeat myself.
This could've been stopped anytime in the last 20-30 years. Ukraine wasn't even a country back when this all started. You're reacting now that Russia finally bites back, but all the pushing for half a century you ignore. That doesn't mean it's right, but it's expected and logical. We played and keep playing a part. How come only our side is allowed to be afraid, to expand and play power games? A leads to B leads to C. Simple logic.
Is there some kind of natural law that says we always have to be at war with the east? How about we take the first step and try something else for once?
>Have you noticed how you don't argue any of my points?
Your points are all non-falsifiable and are the checklist of russians propaganda (here I'm ignoring the ramblings about trump, saddam, etc.). You mentioned NATO expansion, Azov, "ethnic russians" being threathened, CIA coup, gonzalo lira, and so forth. You forgot to mention biolabs. I use a condescending tone because I eventually realized this was a lost cause and I'm just writing an answer for whoever lost soul ends up reading this thread.
Here's proof I'm in Ukraine, it's some random shit and a corner of my residential card. I'd rather not take a picture of my passport because it would show my nationality, which is Western but which I'd rather not disclose unnecessarily. https://imgur.com/a/dGR5rro
>you should've realized the west are vile scum
>Ukraine wasn't even a country back when this all started
>Russia finally bites back, but all the pushing for half a century you ignore
Doesn't get more pacifist than that. This is a worthless discussion, let's just stop. I've taken a look at your comment history and you seem very deeply involved into american polarizing politics like heads having to roll because of COVID lockdowns, I quote, "Heads have to roll". I'm convinced that what happened with COVID was stupid and government people should be more accountable for the fuck up, but looking at your post history you are a prime example of what Yuri Bezmenov was talking about. I bet you are this close to writing that the USA needs a revolution.
You don't seem to know what falsifiable means. Pick up a map, look at when NATO countries joined, and you'll see the so called non-falsifiable expansion.
It's easy to call me a liar, Putin apologist, and everything else, but difficult to dispute. Notice I haven't called you a single thing, I use my logic and reasoning.
Since you ask, I think the entire world needs a revolution, but a real one, not a color revolution funded by billionaires with agendas. Very few people are living like gods and they do it on the backs of the rest of the world. I'm allowed to be angry about that. Don't miss the real problem by focusing on the problems they want you to focus on. The elite in Russia/China etc are of course also in this.
I see you also suffer from a reading disability. In my very short comment you missed this bit:
> Don't miss the real problem by focusing on the problems they want you to focus on. The elite in Russia/China etc are of course also in this.
Do you see Putin as a part of the Russian elite? If so, why would you think I side with Putin? Do you have any opinion regarding the points I try to make?
Why is sensible and sane discussion so impossible in 2024? Why do we have to build strawmans and sink to these levels just to make a useless point? What happened to people? Am I even discussing with people? It feels more like bots ignoring all my points, crawling the internet, finding keywords and running sentiment analysis just to derail any valid discussions. Depressing, I'm here for mental stimulation. Don't be so fucking lazy.
The Russian soldiers who committed the atrocities we’ve seen in Ukraine gave up their humanity.
It’s the Russian soldiers in Ukraine that I’ve seen referred to as “orcs”, due to the fact they’re a savage invading army that leaves only destruction and indiscriminate death in their wake. Look at what they did in the beginning of the invasion when they thought they would quickly win and their crimes would never be uncovered.
No, you cannot give up your humanity. Commiting atrocities is as history sadly shows us, a very human thing to do. Pretending that those who do are not human is just setting us up for more atrocities.
Calling russian people Orcs is the worst dehumanising things to do IMO.
No, the "worst dehumanizing thing to do" is to gratuitously start a war that has probably killed or maimed 500,000 people so far and shows no signs of stopping.
To suggest that that this level of reactive name-calling (which in any case is used to apply to the invading forces; not to "Russians" in general) is somehow bigger and more dehumanizing than the awful, perverse and entirely one-sided war itself - is really quite silly.
Meanwhile the invading forces have all kinds of slur words for Ukrainians in turn, as I'm sure you know. So the argument is doubly silly, in that regard.
