…unless they also condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Most European territories serve the USA’s geopolitical goals. Sanctions against Russia right now are part of that. There’s nothing moral about it. It’s simply a service to the USA for being in its sphere of influence. There is nothing, not a single shred of integrity in that.
If you find a territory which sanctions Russia for its crime, and also the USA for its crimes, you can recognise it as a real principled act.
War is bad, mkay?
Muricans when mask off: nah we just pretend selectively, we like GI Joe/Marvel complex mindset
Does it matter to the discourse re Ukraine though? Being hypocritical doesn’t mean being wrong in every case. Not to mention that by that same token, the people who condemn the US for its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan would be as hypocritical for not condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
You also seem to miss that the actions can serve more than one actor. Europe’s goals can be aligned with the US without it being hypocritical - they simply align.
Yeah, but it is good to keep in mind that it also works the other way around: “People who condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan and Iraq are hypocrites unless they also condemn Russia for invading Ukraine.”
The other commenters don’t agree with you, but yes that is completely true. A good outcome would be some kind of precedent, where from now on all invasions result in sanctions.
But of course that’s not what’s happening. The anti-war reaction is not genuine. Any action by the USA/Israel will be supported and any action by Russia will be violently opposed. Actions by China/India etc will be taken on a case-by-case basis - how do they affect the USA’s interests in the region.
Removed by mod
The essay denies the existence of Ukraine as an independent nation. Noting the large number of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, Putin compares “the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia” to a use of weapons of mass destruction against Russians. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians?wprov=sfla1)
I’d be Ukrainian, I would like to join a defensive alliance to protect me against Russia. I am sure you can understand why they wanted to join Nato. By the way, you can read the whole page and you may see why some ex-part of USSR are so scared by Russia that they joined NATO
Removed by mod
And who else was going to stop the genocide that Ukraine carried out against ethnic Russians for 8 years? Diplomacy certainly failed, so Russia had no other option left.
And who else was going to destroy chemical weapon in Iraq? Diplomacy certainly failed, so the USA had no other option left. /s
Russia and the USA are imperialist states that do care about people only when it is also in their interest.
Chemical weapons in Iraq clearly didnt exist. Remember Colin Powell presenting washing powder as “chemical weapons” at the UN? That was the only proof ever given. Russia will doubtlessly present proof for its claims once the war is over, and then we can see if it was true.
If Russia joined the war for imperialist reasons, that means they were planning to profit financially. How do they profit if they know that they were going to be sanctioned severely? Its much easier to believe that they were concerned about their security, considering that Ukraine threatened to acquire nuclear weapons just a few days earlier.
There is clearly no genocide.
From Putin himself:
“[The Donbass residents], who did not agree with the [2014] coup [in Kiev], were immediately hit with punitive military operations. A blockade was immediately put in place against these people. They were subjected to systematic shelling, air strikes. This is what is called ‘genocide’”.
This is a civil war, not a genocide. By the way, preventing a genocide is a legitimate reason to ask for an intervention of UN. This is not the path they chose.
On chemical weapons, it is clear today that they “do not exist” but at the time, they were “proof” from the CIA and the Italian secret service that they existed. They were all fake, however, they were several proofs. It was word against word. French for example said chemical weapons existed but there were no production and Iraq agreed to cooperate for their destruction so they were against war. In the end, some old and mostly unusable chemical weapons were found in Iraq. I think we agree on this issue, I just wanted to bring nuance on what you wrote.
They profit way more from Ukraine as a puppet state than as an allied of Europe.
Imperialism is not just a question of money.
You assume that Putin anticipated sanctions. He clearly anticipated some of them but not that much. He also thought that way more Ukrainian would support the invasion (like in Crimea) and that the Ukrainian army would be less prepared and so on. But it is a whole other debate.
They annexed Crimea in 2014. Do you really think that the annexion of a region from a sovereign state is not a clear sign of imperialism ? Furthermore, I find it much easier to believe that Putin wants to submits Ukraine to Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians).
There were 14.000 civilians killed in Donbass by the Kiev regime. As your quote says, “this is what is called a genocide”. And genocide often happens during wartime, so the fact that there was a civil war does not preclude a genocide at all.
So you admit that the chemical weapons claims were invented. Then why was no one punished for those false allegations which resulted in millions of deaths? Why wasnt the CIA dissolved, and reparations paid to the innocent Iraqi people? Is that what you call justice?
There were 14.000 civilians killed in Donbass by the Kiev regime.
No, that’s not true. The total number of Civilian deaths in the Donbass war prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion is estimated by UN at 3,393 (caused by actions by all sides, not just Ukraine). Total number of deaths (including soldiers, including all sides of the war) is estimated at 14,000 (which is perhaps where you got that number). And this is over a 7 year period.
It’s still of course possible that a genocide happened there, but that kind of accusation requires some proof, I would say. It’s hard to understand why no such proof seems to exist? I’m sure they would have a great interest in presenting such evidence to, say, Hague and UN. Instead, what we’re seeing is Ukraine itself opening criminal cases against Russia, which opens them up for counter-arguments if any exist.
I did not state that the situation was fair in Iraq. In fact, I condemn the American invasions. So, I also condemn Russian invasion for the very same reasons.
To come back on the false allegation of Putin that there is a genocide.
And genocide often happens during wartime, so the fact that there was a civil war does not preclude a genocide at all.
I totally agree with you. However, this is not a genocide for two reasons: there is no will to destroy Ethnic Russians of Ukraine and 99.9% of the Ethnic Russians of Donetsk and Luhansk survived this so-called genocide.
I suppose your figures are true, which means 14.000 civilians of Ethnic Russians were killed by the Ukrainian regime. There are more than 6 millions people living living in Donetsk and Luhansk, around 40% are Russians. It means 0.1% of them were killed. To compare, between 60 and 75% of Armenian were killed during the genocide in the first world war, depending of estimations.
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people, usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)
Don’t get me wrong: It is a tragedy but it is no genocide.
This war will kill thousands of Ukrainians and Russians for no justifiable reason. Trying to justify it because “NATO imperialism” is just nationalism. I don’t think leftists should accept and repeat such propaganda.
Sorry but you clearly dont know what you are talking about. A genocide is not defined by the number of people killed, but by its goals. And the goals were clearly to “remove” all ethnic Russians from Ukraine. Luckily that was not achieved, because LDNR militias defeated Ukronazis on the battlefield.
Even Ukrainian TV is openly calling for genocide of Russians at this point. Of course, western media is silent about that. Also, use of the Russian language was banned in Ukraine years ago.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/03/16/nazi-ukraine-tv-presenter-calls-for-genocide-of-russians/
So you admit that the chemical weapons claims were invented.
Yes.
Then why was no one punished for those false allegations which resulted in millions of deaths? Why wasnt the CIA dissolved, and reparations paid to the innocent Iraqi people?
I would be glad to listen the answers you have to this questions
The decision to invade Iraq came first. All they had to do was invent some justification, which ended up being “weapons of mass destruction”. So everything went according to plan for u.s. elites.
Most European territories serve the USA’s geopolitical goals. Sanctions against Russia right now are part of that. There’s nothing moral about it. It’s simply a service to the USA for being in its sphere of influence. There is nothing, not a single shred of integrity in that.
European countries must send a strong message that war in Europe is not worth it… hence sanctions. They are not dooing it because they “serve the USA’s geopolitical goals”.
It’s hard to be sure what’s going on behind the scenes. The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
To me it’s pretty clear that this big reaction to the invasion is driven by the USA. The USA has a huge political influence in (at least western) Europe. That can be proven by examples only.
The reaction has been so consistent between all the countries, it must be driven by a single powerful influencer. Otherwise there would normally be disagreements, oneupmanship, the usual.
But other interpretations are possible. What makes you believe the one you said?
If you unironically believe those antiwar lies and not USA making you Europeans dependent on them and their vassal states for gas instead of Russia…
Russia is trying to annex another country by war, and has in fact already done so to a part of it (Crimea). This is specifically forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations, which Russia itself has agreed to. So you are not at all comparing equal things, so no, we are not hypocrites at all.
Moreover, Russia’s war against Ukraine has been condemned by the UN in every vote, almost unanimously, that Russia itself could not veto. Do you really believe that USA has that much political power around the globe?
Lastly, when is the last time USA annexed part of another country?
I don’t really distinguish between annexation and occupation. But yes maybe there is some legal difference. Which chapter deals with this?
Chapter I, Article 2. Annexation vs occupation might be a bit subtle, but occupation keeps the country existing as an entity, whereas annexation ends it.
Examples: The US occupied Iraq, and Iraq still exists. Russia annexed Crimea, and that part now exists as a part of Russia, even though not accepted by either Ukraine or most of the international community. Apparently Russia’s goal was to annex all of Ukraine, but it’s difficult to say yet whether this is actually what they wanted to do originally. They are looking, right now, to annex the Donbass area, and they’re using the same method they used in Crimea (and what Hitler used in many countries before WW2, incidentally): by occupying the area first, and then holding a fake election.
This one? Or this one? I don’t understand why there are (at least) two different version. Maybe one is an amendment. But anyway neither makes a legal distinction between occupation and annexation.
If you’re saying that annexation (like in the Crimea) is “specifically forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations” but occupation (like in Iraq) is not, that doesn’t seem to be true, and I don’t see why the UN (or anyone) would make a big distinction between the two.
Do you really believe that USA has that much political power around the globe?
Lastly, when is the last time USA annexed part of another country?
You are an Anglo nationalist fascist, unironically. I bet you have a photo of Bush and Thatcher hanging in your house.
The node-ipc incident going on clearly tells us West does not exactly value morals. They, like fascists, view morals as an artificial construct, and do whatever they want because others are mostly weaker. You need a teacher or headmaster to reprimand and control the big bully in the school.
node-ipc incident
This one? https://hackingvision.com/2022/03/18/node-ipc-sabotaged-to-condemn-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
I’d say two things
- Not just the west. The world, and every society in it, is dominated by power players, who don’t care about anything but their own power.
- node-ipc wasn’t orchastrated by ‘the west’. Some criminals made some malicious software for political reasons. That doesn’t reflect on all of the west.
The criminals who did what they did with node-ipc was not a result of independent thinking, but brainwashing by Western society, news and media. They see the vile sentiment around them, and choose to discard morality and/or humanity.
The node-ipc incident going on clearly tells us West
Couple devs --> the West
Good one.
The criminals who did what they did with node-ipc was not a result of independent thinking, but brainwashing by Western society, news and media. They see the vile sentiment around them, and choose to discard morality and/or humanity.
I hope you apply this same logic to Russia then too, or any other power block, for consistency’s sake.
I will apply the same logic when the world has a hegemonic balance, and when Russia has done atleast a comparable number of atrocities as US/UK and other Western imperialist powers. Same logic needs similar or equal conditions, right?
I’m honestly curious what you think the world’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should actually be. Obviously to you, nobody can say shit to Russia because every nation in the world has done something bad and thus would be a hypocrite.
Nailed it.
Didn’t they address their thoughts on that pretty succinctly?
If you find a territory which sanctions Russia for its crime, and also the USA for its crimes, you can recognise it as a real principled act.
Try reading it again.
Plenty of European countries were dead set again the Iraq War. Not so much for Afghanistan, but the Taliban had harbored terrorists that attacked US soil. At a certain point, the US had a fairly legitimate cause to go into Afghanistan.
Was the invasion of Afghanistan permitted by the UN security council? Because thats the only legitimate cause for war according to international law (or self-defense, but 9/11 was carried out from inside u.s., not from Afghanistan).
It was also carried out by Saudi funded and trained extremists. Weirdly US did not go after Saudis.
UN and the international community considered that the USA was legitimate to demand the extradition of Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan and that the invasion was aimed to restore the international peace, in adequacy with the article 51 of the chart of UN.
“International community” is the same as “western countries”, which represents 25% of the world population at most. And which specific UN resolution permitted a military invasion and 20 years of military occupation?
In the international community, I included China, India, Russia and Pakistan among others. The UN do not allow in one resolution a twenty-year long war and it is a good thing IMO.
Dead set against?! Most of them participated in it.
It’s the height of absurdity to claim that US had any legitimacy to invade Afghanistan. US itself is a terrorist state that has carried out all kinds of attacks against countless countries all over the world.
Ya… of course. Let Saddam develop nukes. No harm has will ever come to the world if a Islamic dictator/dictator gets a nuke.
Lol you know that the US all but admitted that the pretext for the Iraq war was false right?
You’re joking, but I think your statement is actually true. No harm has ever come to the world if a Islamic dictator/dictator gets a nuke.
Only the USA has ever used nukes against people. So it probably would do so again, if there is ever a strategic advantage. It is literally the only state we know cannot be trusted with nukes.
Only the USA has ever used nukes against people. So it probably would do so again, if there is ever a strategic advantage. It is literally the only state we know cannot be trusted with nukes.
had the US not used the nukes more people would have died as a result, so yes, US is not a state which can’t be trusted with nukes. And Pakistan is the only Islamic republic with nukes, thankfully and unfortunately. They constantly threaten India of using Nukes. Pakistan’s nukes pose a challenge to peace as the Pakistanis and their government is not immune to coups(as history has proven).
had the US not used the nukes more people would have died as a result
That is a bold statement. Nuclear armaggedon described as a trolley problem. How do you figure?
