Like every other day, I was shopping this morning at my local bakery in Warsaw, Poland. As I was packing my purchases, a woman next in line after me ordered coffee in Ukrainian.
(We have it lucky. Polish and Ukrainian are mutually intelligible to some extent, which enables basic communication even without knowing each other's languages.)
I said, to no one in particular, "Do widzenia, слава Україні" as I was leaving. She reciprocated the customary "Героям слава" in an obviously moved voice.
Small things matter. We need to support each other in every possible way. Donating helps, so does showing solidarity, and so does spreading the word.
Будь в безпеці, zverok. Our thoughts are with you all.
On that topic, it's really interesting how presumably small things that nobody focuses on in particular can really make a difference (for good) for people in very dire circumstances (like the refugees are).
For example over here in Bucharest (from where I'm from) I've started seeing lots and lots of Ukrainian mothers taking their kids for a walk in downtown Bucharest relying only on their mobile phone's map apps. What makes that possible is the smartphone itself, which, however bad-talked as a technology piece is really helpful when you're hundreds/thousands of kms away from your actual home, plus free voice and data plans that were provided by the local telecom companies to all Ukrainian refugees.
Again, I know it's not much (after all, many of the Ukrainians who remained at home face the much more dire prospect of actual Russian bombs) but imo I think that it's important that as a refugee mother with your kids after you in a foreign country you sort of gain the autonomy of respecting your daily ritual of walking with your kid(s) without being assisted by anyone else. This "stickiness" to normalcy (like walking your kids unassisted in a foreign city where you've just arrived one or two days prior while escaping war) it's what also makes life worth living, in a way.
Not only that, also having to power up their devices, and something like internet is a key to entertainment and information for children. If they wouldn't have smartphones, they'd ask for directions, and also directions are already there as well. But with it, there's a whole lot more possible, without having to rely on external factors (except data connection perhaps, as well as having the map loaded up). It makes me wonder if an old smartphone is a good donation to a refugee.
The modern response "Heroiam slava!" (Glory to the heroes!) appeared in the 1930s among members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). [0]
The greeting "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!" became an official slogan of Stepan Bandera's Nazi allied OUN-B in April 1941. OUN actively participated in holocaust and other atrocities during WW2. [1]
In other words, he roughly said "See you, Heil Hitler!" and she replied "Sieg Heil!"
"Glory to Russia" ("Слава России") is the name of a national series of patriotic children's contests supported by the President's Fund for Cultural Initiatives: https://www.deti-rossia.ru/. It obviously does not compare to "Heil Hitler".
"Eternal glory to heroes of the Great Patriotic War" ("Вечная слава героям ВОВ") is a common refrain in Russian remembrance of WWII. You will see it on signs and on TV around memorial holidays. It obviously does not compare to "sieg heil".
Russia also had a nationalist movement that collaborated at times with the Nazis, the Russian Liberation Army. And Russian nationalists have attempted to rehabilitate their leader, General Vlasov, since the fall of the USSR, much as Ukrainian nationalists have Stepan Bandera.
Yes, you're right. But there's a slight difference. No street, square, bridge etc. in Russia is named after Vlasov. And there are no monuments to Vlasov in Russia. Also Putin never said that praising a Nazi war criminal as a national hero is a normal and cool thing.
Zelensky: "There are indisputable heroes. Stepan Bandera is a hero for a certain part of Ukrainians, and this is a normal and cool thing." [0]
It's quite ridiculous but are you trying to insinuate that she was a Nazi?
By the same logic you are applying does it mean that everyone that uses the phrase Allahu Akbar (God is great) is also a terrorist?
It depends on the context. If you are on a bus and someone randomly stands and shouts Allahu Akbar, it would strike terror into those around them, so yes they could be a sort of terrorist, even if they aren’t actually about to blow themselves up.
But if you’re in a mosque, it’s not unusual to hear it exclaimed.
Let's be frank here, both of us know what you are implying. Cutting excerpts of wikipedia without the context is a pretty valid disinformation tactic. Replacing words randomly also to suit your previous point is ridiculous.
Glory to the heroes of the country is also pretty common in the army in Romania, there is even a famous monument with this written on it: "Intru slava eroilor neamului" which means To the glory to the heroes of the nation. This monument was built after the first world war.
Because they are "not the same banderites". The modern use of the slogan managed to get heavily rehabilitated over years, also it originated considerably before conflicts (increased by polish fascists who effectively took over sanation government) led to massacres (which happened both ways, and similarly current polish government essentially does the same thing as Ukraine with Stepan Bandera, arguably longer - it started before they got into full power).
And well, we're next if Ukraine falls, or such is the feeling among considerable portion of polish people. Even pure self-interest makes it clear which way our support is going.
Wołyń was horrific, but the Ukrainian people today are quite obviously not the same people as the banderites 80 years ago, the world has changed much since then. This rhetoric only serves Putin's interests, who must be quite displeased with how accepting Poles are of Ukrainian refugees.
PS I do wonder why your Polish is broken, it should be "banderowców którzy", not "banderówców które"
"(...) returned to Kharkiv to do something useful for the city. With no military experience and even no driving license, I do things on a very small scale"
The sense of due duty to your community beyond your family and your own life. I am not really sure I would have the courage to do that.
To Zverok: respect and good luck.
To the rest: support Ukraine.
I wouldn't fight for my country in an offensive war, it's an arbitrary construct that means little to me to but I would fight for my family, my friends and the people around me in a defensive war.
This is what shines through when you see things about the Ukraine in the news, these people are fighting for everything - it's about the maximum level of motivation that a people could have.
I particularly like that it brings up what Russia has promised to citizens if they submit, as if it didn't promise, repeatedly, that it wasn't going to invade (both immediately before the 2022 escalation, and in binding treaties that were in place at the time of the initial 2014 invasion.) Russias promises are worth less than nothing, at this point.
> I am not really sure I would have the courage to do that.
I don't know either. I think you can only tell when the time is there.
Coming from a western country, democracy, freedom and economic wealth is all taken for granted. Therefore, I'm not sure everybody would realise what we could lose.
When I look at my Ukrainian colleagues, they don't take that for granted. Their fight for those privileges is very recent, and was still ongoing. They definitely tasted it already.
So now this bastard Kremlin is trying to drag them back in the mud. I think their will to give their kids a prosperous life is higher than the pain they have to go through right now. They know the difference between the two.
They have all my respect, and definitely deserve the democracy and freedom they are fighting for right now.
You may be shocked what you're capable of when everything is on the line. Don't count yourself out until you (very hopefully never) are in the same situation.
Ukraine is at a crossroads: join the rest of Europe or be dragged down into a dictatorship run by oligarchs. Giving up is not an option. If Russia wins the country is fucked for another generation.
The thing is, there is no "winning" for Russia. Even if the "special military operation" ends with some kind of agreement and Putin declares a "victory" (which he will no matter what), he and the country will remain a pariah to much of the world, not unlike Qaddafi's Libya.
On the topic of helping, does anyone have ideas/tips on how to help refugees attempting to communicate with the embassies in another country for refugee status/assistance?
I have extended family from Ukraine that speaks very little English and also can’t communicate in the countries native language that they fled to, but my partner and I cannot call those embassies to help relay information because we’re in the USA and our numbers don’t work. We have a few roundabout ideas to try(ie call the family on WhatsApp and be on speakerphone), but we’re wondering if anyone has experience doing this or knows of any agencies on the ground that are providing help around this?
Look for established and older Ukrainian diaspora groups in the country in question. Also many of the countries have established portals for refugees. Try to vet any helpers, unfortunately there are criminals that prey on refugees
If it's any help, I am helping to organise for the parents of my Ukranian friend to move to Bulgaria. And possibly a few other friends. It's picturesque in the mountains and Russian is widely spoken. Renting an appartment here is about 150 EUR/mo. If they are Russian speakers, they will have a bit easier time here than Poland, language-wise. Call me if I can help: +359 879 340194.
Thanks for the link. We have arranged for about 20 studio appartments to be made available for Ukranians, and, it's possible we could organise more. I submitted details to the google form on bg4ua website. Please give me a call to see what else we can do, if you are involved with them or otherwise, I'm up late (+359 879 340194).
You could just contact Polish organization (if they are in Poland) if u want i can link few organizations.
Right now we have about 2milion UA refugees in Poland and about 2-3 million immigrants so they should be able to have normal life for a short period of time and communicate in Russian/Ukrainian in most places cause of enormous polish efforts otherwise they should go to Poland and from there you could start supporting them.
Locally we have Ukrainian (and Russian) Facebook groups full with people willing to help for such things. For anything else I've been using the speakerphone workaround.
What countries? If you've got fast internet, I've used skype international calling quite successfully before. Supported in quite a few places. Used it when I had to 'locally' call NZ from Japan once.
It is amazing how this inspiring willingness to fight for the bare essentials that the West has for so long forgotten the need to be ready to be fight for has transformed the West and given it meaning again.
Reminds me of Leo Strauss, a philosopher often cited by the neoconservatives and therefore of course dismissed by most of us but I think there's more nuance in his understanding of the world and this feels to me like a very Straussian moment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
You are amazing, Ukraine! Fighting for freedom of thought in a world still half led by visions of totalitarianism. Visions that were not shed decades ago as we falsely believed.
It's interesting to me to hear you say that. I would say that about Trump but not GWB in hindsight. At that time I was of the opinion you share and I remember feeling that GWB was essentially everything that was bad in the world… but in hindsight I realize how narrowly scoped my vision was and the spectrum is so much bigger and in fact I now believe it's important to be willing to find common ground with conservatives who at least believe in the free world. Trump I genuinely do not believe believed in the free world and the rule of law and in the value of our institutions
As someone probably of similar age to you, my views on GWB have definitely changed as I've aged.
When I was younger, I actively protested, saw his presidency as the antithesis of my values, etc.
At my current age, I believe more that there is no pure "good" in the world. What is good in one way, is by definition tinged with evil in others. And that pursuing one good requires doing (or at least allowing) some evil.
And that what's probably most important is being honest about the evils you do, in pursuits of your goods, and constantly re-weighing the balance on your moral scales.
Biden abhors war and the employment of US offensive military power. That is a good. But it creates evil by providing space for unresponded-to aggression. Shipping weapons to Ukraine to defend its sovereign territory is also a good. But it creates evil by escalating battlefield lethality and depending on the service (and often sacrifice) of brave Ukrainians.
The real world sucks, and there should be no easy answers that let us sleep soundly at night.
My own views sort of shifted but not in the same way. I was 17 when the War in Iraq started. My view at the time was of very skeptical support; having lived through the 90s I had an engrained view that the world needed to use force to help prevent ethnic cleansing. We didn't intervene early enough or strongly enough in Rwanda, and that particularly bothered me. After the beginning of the war, I pretty quickly became anti-war when it became increasingly clear to me that the pretexts (WMD, Saddam is going to attack the Kurds again) were not justified. I would say by about mid-2004 I was pretty comfortably anti-war. When Bush called for the "surge" I was definitely all the way against the War in Iraq.
Today if you asked me what I thought about it, I would say Iraq was the worst and least justified misadventure America embarked on that had some ostensible humanitarian pretext. So I guess my position would be that I still wish we could prevent genocide, but I'm increasingly convinced it's difficult to tell justified reason from pretext in time to intervene, either as a country or as as individuals trying to hold our leaders to account. I guess I would say is that Bush struck me as a person who embodied the way in which misguided motivations could lead to terrible results.
But with Trump, there was no misgivings. He had terrible motivations. His view on the use of force was two fold: (1) I don't give a fuck about any other country, why should I? (2) We're number one and I'll blow you up with my bombs.
I think it's tempting for many to look at his isolationism as a repudiation of Clinton-Bush-Obama era, but it was a repudiation only of the duty to care about others. His frequent verbal escalations and tactical willingness to disregard collateral damage (in Iraq/Syria), as well as his weird outbursts like threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons, and his constant constant constant remarks expressing praise and respect for violent autocrats justified by admiration of their will to power make it clear that he was just as willing to use force, just as militaristic, just for somehow even worse reasons. I am very thankfully that none of the bubbling tensions ever came to a true head under him.
Trump is still the only US president in this century that didn't start a war, neither directly nor indirectly. He should get some credits because of that.
As for his internal politics, as a non-American I don't care, as long as USA isn't concerned about internal and external politics of the countries I have some connection with.
And also in that regard, the best US president ever since I remember, and that goes back around to Reagan time.
It seems to me more like Arendt's banality of evil is mostly at work (in many cases, anyway. There are certainly some people on this planet who I would say are truly evil but they are relatively uncommon): https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-...
> Shipping weapons to Ukraine to defend its sovereign territory is also a good. But it creates evil by escalating battlefield lethality and depending on the service (and often sacrifice) of brave Ukrainians.
Shipping those weapons does not create evil. The evil (Russian military aggression) is already there, the evil is responding to the weapons with escalation in an attempt to overwhelm to prevent defeat.
The proof is in not shipping the weapons: subjugation, slavery, for the Ukrainian people (quite possibly for generations to come). It can mean the complete wiping out of their culture, in the style of Tibet.
The weapons draw out a more dramatic response from the attacking evil, they do not create more evil; and they - ideally - prevent an even greater evil, which is the enslavement of the Ukrainian people if the war effort is lost. All the weapons do is pull some of the future suffering forward in time (you suffer more now, so your people hopefully suffer dramatically less later), however the trade, the potential upside, is obviously the possibility to achieve freedom and vanquish the aggressor. The aggressor creates all of the evil, all of the suffering, they're solely morally responsible for it. The weapons make a positive possible, the lack of said weapons guarantee only darkness. Putin's conquest effort isn't going to be stopped by peaceful protest (some authoritarians might bend for that under some circumstances, he won't).
The point is, the evil is already there. If you leave it alone (don't challenge it), you'll suffer more over a longer period of time. If you challenge it, you may suffer more short-term, however that challenge isn't creating any additional evil, it's creating the potential for good for the people of Ukraine. The suffering and evil can't be avoided, the only choice is whether you want to try to defeat it, or roll over and hand yourself over to its long-term chains.
This is the same logic (albeit different analogy) of closing your eyes, outstretching your arms and swinging them widely. Somebody is still going to get hurt, even if they really should get out of the way.
Strewing together moral absolutes means you stop living in the real world. Violence and war brings more evil to the world, even if it is morally justified. Your failure to acknowledge any of this is appalling.
Somebody whose lost their entire extended family and village by mortar fire because the Ukrainians fought back will be in an objectively much worse position than under a harsh Russian occupation. Weapons, in this case, escalated the conflict and created evil for this person, no amount of moral whitewashing over "freedom" and "vanquishing the aggressor" absolves this.
It may very well be the case that the net utilitarian impact of Ukraine escalating their response to the invasion justifies the resistance, but we live in the real world, and nothing is as cut and dry as you claim, not even a hostile invasion by a despotic power.
> Somebody whose lost their entire extended family and village by mortar fire because the Ukrainians fought back will be in an objectively much worse position than under a harsh Russian occupation.
Please go ahead and make the same argument for the German Nazis. I really want to hear it. I realize in the past that Godwin would be invoked at this point, but we are now in a time where 1:1 comparisons are much more apt, especially when Russians are falsely labeling Ukrainians as "Nazis".
What you're basically saying is that we should just let invaders commit their violence and trust that we will be better off laying down than standing up.
You say that someone whose lost their entire extended family and village would have been better off surrendering to the invaders who killed them. Why? Why does that follow? What is stopping the invaders from killing your friends and family and razing your village after they have conquered your country? At some point you actually have to stand up to protect your family from the people trying to kill them. Because what's to prevent them from setting up death camps at that point? What if their goal is not to occupy your country but to exterminate it?
And what of Ukraine? What happens to the country when Russia takes over? They will destroy that which makes Ukraine unique and rewrite the history for its people and the world. The Republic of Venice remembers what happens when you let the invaders take over. Hundreds of years after the republic surrendered to the invading Napoleon, the Republic of Venice still has not recovered and may never. For a lot of Ukrainians, this could mean the literal end of their country. Where do you live? Do you love your country? Would you appreciate if some people decided they wanted to erase the country you love from world maps? Would you fight to protect it or would you just let it happen?
Both arguments to the contrary that you've advanced, (1) that it doesn't create any more evil & (2) that any non-evil side effects are justified because of moral and/or utilitarian superiority, are slippery slopes to moral absolution of any reaction.
An action can be just, and right, and practical, and the best available option... but still be evil.
And the difference between being a despotic megalomaniac is equal parts actions undertaken and honesty about those actions.
The US is shipping weapons to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers. I support this and believe it to be the best action possible, but I also deeply and resolutely believe it's evil.
> are slippery slopes to moral absolution of any reaction.
Calling these arguments slippery slope doesn't really do much here. We are in fact at an absolute circumstance, so the slope doesn't really have much room to slip. I think the actions of the Russians are quite extreme, and we are allowed to make some moral judgements of these actions given how horrific they are. If we can't, then morality loses a lot of meaning. To say that we can't make a moral judgement is to say that the images we are seeing are not real or are not horrific, and that's a different discussion entirely.
> The US is shipping weapons to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers. I support this and believe it to be the best action possible, but I also deeply and resolutely believe it's evil.
If you're going to take something that can be together just, right, practical, the best option, and yet still evil, we need to have a deeper discussion of what exactly your perception of evil is, because it seems to encompass quite a lot. If everything is evil then nothing is. Because since you're using such extreme words, you really have to take your argument to the extreme. And like I said, just because it's the extreme doesn't mean that's not where we currently are, so it's appropriate to analyze the extreme. Your argument taken to its conclusion would be that the allies freeing prisoners at Nazi death camps during WWII was a justified act of evil. I don't see any other way to interpret your argument.
> We are in fact at an absolute circumstance, so the slope doesn't really have much room to slip.
E.g. "Nuking Moscow isn't evil because it will end the war in Ukraine."
> deeper discussion of what exactly your perception of evil is
The opposite of good. By my calculus, killing humans is evil.
It may be effective, in that it produces a desired outcome, and it may be just, in that the outcome promotes greater justice or lessens injustice, but those are both orthogonal measurements.
If the Red Army had murdered every guard at the Auschwitz camps in January 1945, that would have been evil. It also would have probably been just.
Not an American but similar view of GWB. However... I feel leaders should be judged by the direction they tried to move things; and the Bush Administration did not move the USA in a more lawful, democratic and humanistic direction to say the least.
There are many steps to move a democracy to a totalitarian state, and the time to hit the breaks is at earliest signs of fascist behavior.
Abstractly, the people who excused and weakened institutions may have done more to create an eventual totalitarian state than the asshole who moved the final 1% and seized power.
Yeah it seems like the globalist mindset that much of the west adopted blinded it to the geopolitical realities that still govern international relations. Remember the "Russian reset"[1]? It was a big red button that was supposed to reset Russian relations. Remember when Obama criticized Romney for saying the biggest threat in the future would be Russia? Obama laughed it off because "this isn't the cold war anymore." Remember when Clinton gave China the NAFTA deal? GWB was cut from the same cloth as these other globalist-minded presidents.
The western globalist attitude involves giving power to our rivals in the hopes they will become our friends. Guess what...they're still our rivals.
That's a confrontational mindset. In reality, there was a window post-1990 in which we (the US, Europe, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and the most stable African countries) could have created the means to resolve global conflicts peacefully, or at least in a shared manner. The real victory of Desert Storm wasn't the military annihilation of a regional power in a matter of months, but the fact that it was achieved under a UN mandate. That practice should have become the norm.
The major crisis right after (Yugoslavia, the first post-WW2 war in Europe which we try so hard to forget every day) still had some UN legitimacy - NATO acted somewhat unilaterally but it was arguably as protection for a UN peacekeeping operation. The Russians had to follow suit - begrudgingly, but on shared terms.
Then 2001 happened and all that strenuous effort to keep powers together was just thrown out of the window, in pursue of simple and pure vengeance - the oldest and most tribalistic instinct for violence, the biblical an-eye-for-an-eye. Even then, there was still a chance to forgive it as a temporary aberration of a young country that had never been seriously attacked on its mainland before. Instead, the US literally decided to conquer Iraq on a whim in 2002/2003. At that point, anybody who had ever seriously considered cooperation had to change course, or lost massive amounts of political capital. Areas that were slowly moving towards softer stances (Iran, China, Russia, etc) predictably reacted by rushing back to the safety of oppositional competition. And now it's what it is.
Escalating competition further and further is not the answer, and will lead the world to darker and darker places.
We need to confront the problem of blind globalism.
> Escalating competition further and further is not the answer
Blind globalism is not the answer either, but that is what we've had for decades. It has resulted in a wide variety of terrible things for the countries advocating globalism. For example: a global pandemic, a decrease in biodiversity due to invasive species, slave-like conditions in countries like China, and IP theft on a staggering scale. I'm sure there are more consequences of blind globalism. My point is, we need to have a serious conversation about whether we should be traded with certain nations, whether we should be trading in certain essential items, etc.
Edit: just thought of a couple more problems with our current global trade setup: China can manufacture outside of the west's regulations designed to protect people's health and the environment, and the west has lost so many strategic skillsets and manufacturing capacity to China.
Too many people have let their vision become consumed by the fact that Trump was an insufferable asshole. A nuanced discussion can be had about his time in office and his actual actions, without giving undue weight to the shit that comes out of the man's mouth. Just as an example of something most democrats would applaud, he signed an executive order to keep federal unemployment assistance flowing, while congress was happy to keep bickering and holding millions of Americans hostage. I'm not trying to break down the man's presidency here, but I would say that this provided more good to the average American, in a time of great need, than anything any recent president had done.
I do feel compelled to mention the following in regard to the comparison with Bush. The man, Cheney's puppet as he was, started an illegal war that killed a few hundred thousand people. Using the intelligence apparatus to manipulate Congress and the American people, in my view, is much worse than anything Trump had done. Same with enabling the domestic spying apparatus with the Patriot Act. If that's not undermining our institutions, I don't know what is.
I guess I should preempt the obvious counter argument about Trump's allegation that the election was stolen. The Democrats did the same exact thing with Russiagate. Both in terms of the accusation and pursuing it through legal channels, all based on fictional evidence to boot.
We should not allow us to miss the bigger picture while falling for the manufacrured distraction of "my party vs their party." But rather look to understand the special interests that are amplifying our division, and benefitting from it.
> The Democrats did the same exact thing with Russiagate. Both in terms of the accusation and pursuing it through legal channels, all based on fictional evidence to boot.
It’s incredible that this is still being parroted even after the Russian invasion. Go and read at the actual Muller report and Senate Intel report vol 5. The findings of the us senate and special counsel are that Russia hacked the 2016 election with the intent of helping Trump, and the Trump campaign worked willingly with them on this effort and lied about it to everyone.
Most notably, Trump’s campaign manager was sharing internal campaign data with a Russian Intel officer, who transmitted the data to the GRU. This is the collusion we had all claimed was happening, and it was found. Calling this a hoax at this point is willingly spreading Russian disinformation. This is the position of Vladimir Putin, that Russian interference in 2016 was a hoax. Think about that, as he bombs and targets civilians. Why are you still carrying their water for them on this front? What if, actually, after all these years, you are wrong about that? What evidence would it take to change your mind?
Let me ask you this, as you say the Russian scandal was based on fictional evidence, how many pages of the Mueller report and Senate Intel report have you personally actually read?
Here’s their bottom line:
It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era.
Trump and his associates participated and enabled hacking of his rivals in 2016. Russian collusion. Republicans authored that report, btw. What’s your position on the 2016 election after reading that?
I think it’s too soon to make an assessment. Trump spent his whole presidency casting aspersions on NATO, and tried to cut defense aid to Ukraine. If this situation escalates further, he may be viewed as a James Buchanan figure.
And I do think things may get worse. Currently a sovereign country is being invaded and civilians are being targeted. The second order effects might be even worse
* If Russia pulls resources from Syria then the civil war might come to a head. The regime leans heavily on Russian air support
* Russian paramilitary provides defense for unpopular governments like Tanzania’s. If they got pulled these countries might go into civil war
* Ukraine and Russia are two of the worlds largest exporters of grain. Countries like Egypt are big importers (Egypt actually subsidizes the purchases heavily). If grain costs go up (and other commodities like oil) this could cause unrest
* Nuclear war
* Cyber war targeting key infrastructure. The possibility of massive collateral damage is high (see Not Petya)
Some of these things are not intrinsically bad (I have no love for despotic governments for example) but the potential sum total of events could throw the world into chaos.
The War on Terror was a massive mistake. America needs to keep the crazy evangelicals who want to bring on the end times by attacking the Middle East far from the oval office. But taking on an isolationist position in response to the 2000’s would be a massive mistake. It’s clearer than ever that power vacuums have to be filled
It would be horrible if this war would end up reinvigorating neoconservative thought or any kind of ideology that sees geopolitics in terms of good vs. evil or ideology1 vs. ideology2 (e.g. freedom vs. totalitarianism).
> There is a rumor that Putin had recently made a personal order to damage as much of Kharkiv as possible, to retaliate for breaking the hope of being “pro-Russian.” And however absurd it might sound, I am close to believing it because there seems to be no other point in doing what they do now.
I have the same impression, just old bitter fart and shadow of a man he once was, entrenched in his untouchable position, throwing childish deadly tantrums on a nation that decided to stood up to him as one.
An idea - even if they laugh on ICT in Haag, what if there would be international arrest warrant on all those sanctioned persons including him, no diplomatic immunity? Meaning they can't travel most of the world, forever. Just a nuisance maybe. but proverbial death by thousand cuts starts somewhere. And remove russia from permanent UN security council for the duration of 'special operation', since they just veto everything now.
We should never violate the principle of diplomatic immunity, even if it's used by war criminals. The personal safety of diplomats is a crucial historical norm in the civilized world and is essential for preventing conflicts.
However just because someone has a diplomatic passport doesn't mean they have complete freedom of movement. Countries can deny them entry or deport them just like any other alien.
> An idea - even if they laugh on ICT in Haag, what if there would be international arrest warrant on all those sanctioned persons including him, no diplomatic immunity?
Maybe they would just implement their own “Hague Invasion Act”?[1]
[1]: Really the American Service-Members' Protection Act
It still seems illogical. Kharkiv had a huge Russian population. I had some friends from there who sighed "finally!" when they heard Putin started the invasion. They truly believed he would end the years-long conflict and finally they will live in peace on a territory more or less Russian. Today, there is no single Russian in Kharkiv who would support Putin or even believe what he says. He betrayed his own people.
Even some of my Ukrainian friends (we have a huge UA diaspora here in Prague) share the same sentiment.
They were heavily pro-Russian to start with. Strongly against the corrupted Ukrainian government & oligarchs, remembering the Odessa massacre during Maidan etc.
But they feel betrayed now – Putin seems to have lost all the goodwill there, the hearts of even those people.
I think it's fairly straight forward. Ideally capture or if necessary destroy Ukraine as to prevent Ukraine turning into, from the Russian perspective, an 'anti-Russian Russia'. The vision is that both Belarus and Ukraine are extensions of the Russian state and as such a Western aligned Ukraine isn't going to be tolerated.
My knowledge of Russian bureaucrats comes mostly from watching Chernobyl on HBO, but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't simply that Putin said he wanted Ukraine and nobody at the top could push back.
My knowledge of (not Russian but) post-Soviet bureaucrats comes from personal experience, I speak fluent Russian and follow their news/politics sporadically but over the past few decades. I think the way they are portrayed in Chernobyl is brilliant. It's a structure so permeated by apathy, corruption, bullying and grandstanding that it simply cannot effectively transmit information in either direction, whether top-down or bottom-up (but especially bottom up). It's clear that Putin was fed a steady diet of his own wishful thinking / propaganda, and he bought into it fully. If he had a realistic view of the world around him, he would have prepared a lot better for this war of aggression that he staked everything on.
And, as an aside, I think COVID started for the exact same reason as what's portrayed in Chernobyl. Chinese model of governance is not that different. When accurate sober assessments of facts on the ground are needed and speed is of the essence, its ineffectiveness takes over. Once the genie is out of the bottle and there's nothing to hide from superiors, and once Beijing sends over some adults to whip things into shape, the sheer scale of China's economy allows it to power through and suppress the crisis using draconian means. But for the first who knows how many weeks (certainly well before Jan 1 2020), it was much slower motion Chernobyl.
There certainly are reasons (not a value judgement), some of them cynical:
- Crimea wants to control the canal from the Djnepr, which had been shut off by Ukraine.
- Russia wants the coast line to control more gas fields in the Black Sea. The U.S. of course also want to control them by proxy (see Burisma/Biden). Snake island also controls some of the fields.
- Rightly or wrongly, Russia is scared of NATO expansion.
I think it may be the case that the great Russian empire theory is a pretext that is put forward by Putin for his own population and eagerly taken up by the West for propaganda. Attacks on Kyiv (stalled) and Kharkiv could be diversions from the south. As noted above, the Kharkiv attack does not make sense though.
The reasons for the immediate action might be logical, but looking at the medium term consequences it breaks down completely in my mind. The only two possibilities I can see going forward is either a forever-war as in Afghanistan, or a forever-sanction situation like Iran or DPRK.
I don't see how any listed benefits would outweigh the costs of either option. It troubles me a lot, because Putin has seemed to me to be a carefully calculating player up until this. It makes me wonder if he has truly lost it. Or if there is some grand plan which this is only a small part of. Both are scary.
Russia has a veto right only in the UN Security Council. For prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) this is irrelevant. What matters is that Ukraine has accepted the ICC's jurisdiction over all alleged crimes committed on its territory since 20 February 2014.[1] The nationality of the perpetrator is irrelevant, and no one has immunity.
The USA passed a law that its armed forces can invade the Hague if the ICC ever tried to charge the US.
It shows the farce of all of this - fresh from murdering Afghanis, Iraqis, Somalis, Syrians, and by proxy Yemeni, Palestinians etc., the US presses fir a "court" to try Russia in some sanctimonious exercise that it can not be a subject of.
That doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to give Russia and Putin a free pass.
Two wrongs does not make a right.
That said, Russia just as USA have nukes, so Putin will never go to ICC, and its waist of time discussing it.
It might not be nice, just or fair but if you have nuke, you are for all intense and purpose immune, unless your own country prosecutes you or gives you ower.
Theoretically the USSR is the entity which has a permanent veto right, and everyone has just allowed the Russian Federation to take the USSR’s seat.
In practice nobody is removing permanent veto power from the second largest nuclear power. The entire point of the UN was to give special powers to great nations so they wouldn’t fight out their grievances.
The only way to strip the Russia Federation of its Security Council seat would also call into question Russia even being in the UN. If they are kicked out of the UN entirely, would they even bother to reapply? Is it worth creating another League of Nations to have a temporarily more effective UN?
Soviet Union had a permanent veto right by statute. Russia only has it because people felt that Russia was the obvious successor despite leaving the Soviet Union before it was dissolved.
If enough important countries agree that Russia has no veto, then they can rewrite convention...
Well, in that case UN would just cease to exist, for good or for bad. We really don't need yet another international organisation that only pretends that the international law exists and apply it selective only to weak countries, leaving USA, Russia, China & other to be above the law.
Selective law is worse than no law at all, and selective justice is worse than no justice at all.
"The Alley of Angels in Donetsk, Ukraine is a memorial for children of Donbas killed during the War in Donbas."
Unfortunately, even the reporting of victims of war is quite selective. Hope that everyone responsible for killing children, regardless where they come from, will be punished appropriately.
(We have it lucky. Polish and Ukrainian are mutually intelligible to some extent, which enables basic communication even without knowing each other's languages.)
I said, to no one in particular, "Do widzenia, слава Україні" as I was leaving. She reciprocated the customary "Героям слава" in an obviously moved voice.
Small things matter. We need to support each other in every possible way. Donating helps, so does showing solidarity, and so does spreading the word.
Будь в безпеці, zverok. Our thoughts are with you all.