Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,326 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 1 hour, 11 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“You are your own expert and nobody can convince you otherwise of your own facts.”
It doesn’t take an expert to notice no decomposition or animal predation. And I’ve linked to an expert.
Tell me All-in as you continue to noticeably avoid the question. Why no animal predation? Why, why, why?
Let’s look at things from a slightly different angle: the commonly accepted doctrine of Just War.
Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
Russia has an arguable case here, claiming that they acted to protect the populations of Donetsk and Lugansk from shelling and further depredations by Kyiv (also, the later claim that Kyiv was organising for a massive onslaught to pacify those reasons). Now, the doctrine of national sovereignty would apply here, as Kyiv was putting down an internal revolt, so Moscow would need to rely on a case of grave violations of human rights (of which, see more below). This justification fails if it could be shown that Moscow had instigated the uprisings in those reasons to engineer a justification for war.
Competent authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. “A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler’s Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice”.
This is interesting: Russia’s denial that it was going to invade, right up until the moment it did vitiates this criterion, that Moscow made no international appeals, or bilateral moves or publicly stated it had to act. Likewise, the shifting goalposts, from defending the Russian minority in Ukraine to the annexation of territory, means that Russia does seem to be delinquent in this regard.
Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success
Herein is Moscow’s gravest sin, plainly, the probability of success was low, their initial gamble didn’t pay off, and confrontation with a large military force that was going to require destruction and bloodshed far greater than the ill they were professing to address.
Now, whether their conduct in the war is within the realms of just war theory is a matter for another time, my point here is that their justification for war in the first place is sufficiently weak that it is plausible that even without atrocity their actions constitute war crimes.
TS, you are also skilled in deflection and diversion
I quote the Bucha doctor only because of the issue of the white arm bands.
You had claimed earlier that it is worn by pro-Russian friendlies and therefore it was most likely Azov killing collaborators.
I have now given you two examples that the white armband did not signify any such thing.
Alos in a previous post referred to the Azov knowing that Russian soldiers used civilians with white armbands as human shields.
Why no animal predation? Perhaps because the streets were still occupied by Russian troops and traffic. Perhaps there were some that the photos did not show. I don’t claim to know. Those who would know, the investigators, you casually dismiss.
But of course, there are witness accounts that you never accept
“We had to beg the Russians to let us bury them. They told us it was still cold, so it didn’t matter, they could lie there. But the dogs were starting to eat them. In the end we convinced them it was a sanitary issue and they let us dig the grave at the church of Andrew the Apostle since it was near both their military position and the morgue and hospital.”
Note the reference to the temperature being cold that decomposition would have been slowed
But that is from the Guardian
The Guardian ran a story earlier this year that the Queen had died. Oh wait! That was in The Guardian.
“Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
Russia has an arguable case here, claiming that they acted to protect the populations of Donetsk and Lugansk from shelling and further depredations by Kyiv (also, the later claim that Kyiv was organising for a massive onslaught to pacify those reasons).”
With you so far.
“Now, the doctrine of national sovereignty would apply here, as Kyiv was putting down an internal revolt”
OK, we’ve a problem here. Ukraine was no longer a sovereign country. Its legitimate government had been overthrown in a US funded coup. Victoria Nuland publicly admitted to spending $5 billion on the overthrow of the government. She personally chose the new cabinet. This government launched the war in the Donbass which caused a massive refugee exodus and disenfranchised similar numbers of voters with sympathies toward Russia. This disenfranchisement ensured that all future governments, including the current one, are not legitimate. Kiev is Washington’s pawn. Washington scuttled peace talks with Russia and entirely funds its government and military apparatus. Ukraine, therefore, is not sovereign. So, an appeal to sovereignty is moot.
“so Moscow would need to rely on a case of grave violations of human rights (of which, see more below). This justification fails if it could be shown that Moscow had instigated the uprisings in those reasons to engineer a justification for war.”
Russia didn’t instigate the uprisings. The Washinton and its hand picked fascist coup plotters did when they overthrow a legitimately elected government, massacresd their opponents and banned the speaking of Russian.
“Competent authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. “A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler’s Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice”.
This is interesting: Russia’s denial that it was going to invade, right up until the moment it did vitiates this criterion”
The Kremlin had no intention of intervening in the civil war until the last minute. At least if US officials are to be believed.
U.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraine
“that Moscow made no international appeals, or bilateral moves or publicly stated it had to act.”
It did all these things. Russia strenuously argued for the implementation of the Minsk 2 Agreement which former Ukrainian and German presidents both recently agreed was a ruse to re-arm Ukraine and prepare it for war with Russia. Russia also proposed a security agreement halting NATO’s eastern expansion which was summarily ignored by the west.
“Likewise, the shifting goalposts, from defending the Russian minority in Ukraine”
These goal posts have never shifted.
“to the annexation of territory”
Kiev lost its right to rule over ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine once it attempted to ethnically cleanse them from the region. The people there exercised their right to self determination and chose the Russian Federation over rule by a death cult of suicidal Nazis.
“means that Russia does seem to be delinquent in this regard.”
If you base your reasoning on faulty assumptions you’ll reach faulty conclusions.
“Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success”
Says who? Sounds awfully arbitrary to me. In a war against Nazis you’re going to give them a “fair fight” are you? Why would you do that when instead you can deploy overwhelming might to crush them as they deserve and thereby shorten the conflict?
“Herein is Moscow’s gravest sin, plainly, the probability of success was low”
Erm, newsflash, the Kremlin’s initial plan almost succeeded. It would have left Ukraine a functioning polity. But Ukraine is not sovereign so the puppets in Kiev followed NATO orders and remained belligerent. This forced Russia’s plan B. Pulverising Ukraine’s military. It is close to achieving this end and forcing unconditional surrender. It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe this to be true because reality does not conform to your personal beliefs. It is as it is. Ukraine is losing catastrophically and soon even Guardian Brahs will have to admit the fact.
“their initial gamble didn’t pay off”
Plan A failed in part though it succeeded in much of the east. As for the conflict writ large you’ve fallen in to the same trap as All-in; calling the match at the half time whistle after one team has accrued 6 red cards.
“and confrontation with a large military force that was going to require destruction and bloodshed far greater than the ill they were professing to address.”
You’ve no way of knowing how destructive the ethnic cleansing of Donbass would have been. Nor of the repercussions of a nuclear armed Ukraine on Russia’s border and the consequent possibility of nuclear conflagration.The supreme war crime is starting a war. Kiev started the war. Russia is finishing it.
“Now, whether their conduct in the war is within the realms of just war theory is a matter for another time, my point here is that their justification for war in the first place is sufficiently weak that it is plausible that even without atrocity their actions constitute war crimes.”
That’s your opinion. Scott Ritter has argued there is a legal case supporting Russia’s actions. Putin is a trained lawyer and surely has legal advisers who’ve crafted a similar opinion. Perhaps these justifications will be interrogated one day. Until then, the Nazis will get the shellacing they deserve.
OK, we’ve a problem here. Ukraine was no longer a sovereign country. Its legitimate government had been overthrown in a US funded coup. Victoria Nuland publicly admitted to spending $5 billion on the overthrow of the government. She personally chose the new cabinet. This government launched the war in the Donbass which caused a massive refugee exodus and disenfranchised similar numbers of voters with sympathies toward Russia. This disenfranchisement ensured that all future governments, including the current one, are not legitimate. Kiev is Washington’s pawn. Washington scuttled peace talks with Russia and entirely funds its government and military apparatus. Ukraine, therefore, is not sovereign. So, an appeal to sovereignty is moot.
What’s that skippy? He’s moving the goalposts again? That played no part in Moscow’s causus belli there has been no mention from Moscow that their intention is to remove the illegitimate government. That would also be incompatible with annexation, since the point of the war would, Shirley, be to remove the installed government and allow a genuinely Ukrainian government to be formed, within it’s existing territory.
It did all these things. Russia strenuously argued for the implementation of the Minsk 2 Agreement which former Ukrainian and German presidents both recently agreed was a ruse to re-arm Ukraine. Russia also proposed a security agreement halting NATO’s eastern expansion which was summarily ignored by NATO. No ultimatums were issued, no attempt to go through the UN for a peace keeping force, etc. That Putin only decided at the last minute only compounds the crime not exonerating him.
Anyway, I don’t know if the Amnesty report on Russian action in occupied zones has landed here before, apologies if it has: but it’s worth a read, especially to see the faces of the victims of this war: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/5561/2022/en/
“What’s that skippy?”
And here I was thinking I could have an actual adult conversation with one of you dolts. Well, I tried.
“He’s moving the goalposts again? That played no part in Moscow’s causus belli”
Young Master Smeg,the casus belli was halting the crimes of the illegitimate, Washington installed, fascist coup government. De-Nazification. A stated Kremlin goal.
“there has been no mention from Moscow that their intention is to remove the illegitimate government.”
Shall I say it more slowly so you can understand child? D-e-N-a-z-i-f-c-a-t-i-o-n.
“That would also be incompatible with annexation, since the point of the war would, Shirley”
Who’s Shirley?
“be to remove the installed government and allow a genuinely Ukrainian government to be formed, within it’s existing territory.”
The people of the regions exercised their right to self determination. Would you deny them that right?
“No ultimatums were issued”
Shows how little you know. The adults are talking here, the child’s table is over there. But since you’ve interrupted…The Kremlin most certainly did issue an ultimatum. It said that if its security concerns were not met it would take “military technical measures” in response.
https://tass.com/defense/1388331
“no attempt to go through the UN for a peace keeping force”
The Minsk 2 Agreements were done through the Security Council Young Master Smeg. There was an imminent invasion threat, the US, France and UK can all veto at the Security Council. Any time spent dithering there would have benefited the Nazis in their ethnic cleansing operation. They had their chance with Minsk 2 and blew it.
“That Putin only decided at the last minute only compounds the crime not exonerating him.”
It was done in response to an imminent Ukrainian invasion of Donbass and in accordance with pre-emptive war doctrine which is legal.
“Anyway, I don’t know if the Amnesty report on Russian action in occupied zones has landed here before, apologies if it has: but it’s worth a read, especially to see the faces of the victims of this war”
No, it isn’t. Amnesty is not an impartial human rights organisation but an arm of the empire’s regime change apparatus. There is copious evidence in support of this view which I have linked to previously on this thread.
Who’s Shirley?
So close.
The people of the regions exercised their right to self determination. Would you deny them that right?
Bwahaahahahahahahaha! As a matter of fact, I don’t believe there is a right of self determination for peoples, only people. But, even on a formal statist level, referendums in warzones aren’t very convincing at the best of times.
Shall I say it more slowly so you can understand child? D-e-N-a-z-i-f-c-a-t-i-o-n.
denazification ≠ regime change.
“We had to beg the Russians to let us bury them. They told us it was still cold, so it didn’t matter, they could lie there. But the dogs were starting to eat them. In the end we convinced them it was a sanitary issue and they let us dig the grave at the church of Andrew the Apostle since it was near both their military position and the morgue and hospital.”
Interesting quote. The witness says they begged the Russians to allow bodies to be buried because the dogs were eating them. (No mention of these people being executed by the way). I guess traffic and Russians weren’t scaring any of the wildlife away. The bodies were eventually buried so we’re not talking about those discovered on the streets after the Russians withdrew are we?
So, what of the bodies of the executed? They were supposedly left out for weeks. That means the dogs would have started eating them as their other snacks had been buried. Yet there was no animal predation in any of the photographs was there? You say there may have been photographic evidence of animal predation. There may also have been photographic evidence of Starlight the rainbow unicorn but let’s just stick to the evidence, shall we? So, explain why none of the photos show animal predation. I’ll tell you why. Because the victims had only just been executed by Ukrainian National Guard death squads.
True Imperialist, you still watching those old war movies with Nazi baddies vs Soviet heroes? Tiresome. Change the record. We’ve had page after page here of your repetitiveness. You have nothing to tell us, yet you keep on doing so.
“True Imperialist, you still watching those old war movies with Nazi baddies vs Soviet heroes? Tiresome. Change the record. We’ve had page after page here of your repetitiveness. You have nothing to tell us, yet you keep on doing so.”
Lol. Teeny Thomas, you don’t seriously believe I’m here to educate you? No, there’s no educating the willfully ignorant. My pet project is disabusing any visitors to this site that you’re anything but a bunch of Socialist Poser Guardian Bros.
“there has been no mention from Moscow that their intention is to remove the illegitimate government.”
Shall I say it more slowly so you can understand child? D-e-N-a-z-i-f-c-a-t-i-o-n.
______________________________Sigh. Here we go on. More drivel from our resident bore and Putin bootlicker.
Why is the Ukrainian regime considered to be a “Nazi regime” but not the Russian regime when they are both so remarkably similar in practice and outlook – i.e repressive, right-wing oligarchies that muzzle their opponents, restrict free speech and pretend to be democracies
How does it make sense for one “Nazi” regime to try to de-Nazify another?
Putin’s fascists
Will TS now be urging us to wage war against Russia in order to “denazify” it?
How the Putin regime helped the Far Right in Germany. Putin’s claim to want to denazify Ukraine is about as credible as Hitler’s claim to be a socialist
https://theconversation.com/how-russians-have-helped-fuel-the-rise-of-germanys-far-right-105551
“Putin Doesn’t Combat Nazism, He Cultivates It”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.