You're 100% correct. It's a shame the cheering only lasted for a week and a half though.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Double tap missle strikes so you can hit the first responders.
Not NATO, but the US, the UK and even Ukraine participated in the invasion (maybe they were promised NATO membership) I dont know why they did it.
Has there ever been another historical incident of an army being tricked into war by their leaders? The propaganda they're been fed over the last 2 decades must be through the roof.
Makes zero sense.
I thought I posted that tweet in the Russia thread. 
The threads are blurring like the morality of geopoliticalsI thought I posted that tweet in the Russia thread.
John Mearsheimer and the dark origins of realism
Rage aimed at the eminent international relations scholar reflects liberal frustration over the West's limited power to prevent Russia's war in Ukraine.
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/john-mearsheimer-and-the-dark-origins-of-realism
Rage aimed at the eminent international relations scholar reflects liberal frustration over the West's limited power to prevent Russia's war in Ukraine.
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/john-mearsheimer-and-the-dark-origins-of-realism
I read the article but I can't quite get what the author's point was? That Mearsheimer realism is still not sufficient to explain events?
For the best part of a week, Russia wouldn’t officially acknowledge to the public that their troops were anywhere in Ukraine outside of Donbas. I believe it 100%. There’s not a doubt in my mind that a significant proportion of the Russian armed forces had little idea what they were doing before they were sent over the border.
Heard this a few times before today, one was in one of the videos of calls from Russian soldiers back to family.
I think his point is that Mearsheimer explains the underlying dynamic of the situation (Nato expansion triggering Russia), but he calls Mearsheimer's leap to war as an automatic and logical consequence too simplistic, citing the the history of aggressive wars since WWI and the existence of nukes as evidence. And for this specific case he claims that even Mearsheimer's Russian counterparts didn't expect war.
There are almost always certain dynamics that lead to wars between countries. We don't always have to agree with them.
For example Saddam going into Kuwait wasn't just about territory. The Kuwaitis had been impacting life in Iraq by messing with supplies that were making life hard for the population of Iraq.
Can't find the link but I think it was in Business Insider a few years ago where people from Iraq were interviewed, not politicians but the general public and they had gone from living quite well to low wages and poverty.
For example Saddam going into Kuwait wasn't just about territory. The Kuwaitis had been impacting life in Iraq by messing with supplies that were making life hard for the population of Iraq.
Can't find the link but I think it was in Business Insider a few years ago where people from Iraq were interviewed, not politicians but the general public and they had gone from living quite well to low wages and poverty.
But given the relentless smear campaign against the "Nazi rulers" of Ukraine, it is weird anyone in Russia would believe that Russia and Ukraine can have some friendly training together.
What is an energy play?
Positions?
Watt the Butler Saw, Hearth of a Salesman etc.
So everyone country isn't 'free' like the US? Thanks for the insight. But it makes feck all difference to the war crimes the US have committed which are just as bad if not worse than what others have done / are doing.
L
That wasn't the topic but anyway. As far as I know, the US didn't do anything comparable to bombing evacuation corridors, shelling nuclear plants and targeting (not accidently hitting) civilians at the scale we're currently witnessing. Also, US soldiers were actually convicted of war crimes. I don't think you believe that the Russian governments will hold its soldiers accountable for killing civilians, do you? Right now it actually rather seems as if they are actively aiming for them to increase the pressure on Zelensky to accept the Russian conditions for peace.
Which brings us back to the democracy thing again. Yes, it's no difference to the victim if the war crime was committed by a despot or a democracy. But it is obiously much harder to get away with such despicable acts if you're living in a democracy. No Western leader enjoys the same level of immunity as Putin does. No consultans or political allies to Western presidents can direct all their efforts at impressing a single person holding the state in his stranglehold. It is also much more difficult to manipulate the masses into believing your fake accusations if there's free speech. Another layer preventing this type of stuff. And in the end, you cant rule alone in a democracy. The reported isolation of Putin, sort of like the ultimate filter bubble, that detached him from reality and made him paranoid wouldn't be possible in a state that values the division of power.
By the way, I'm by no means defending the US. I absolutely despised them during the Iraq war as well and they have a very blood episodes of history that every American should be ashamed of. Large parts of the American population are far too nationalistic, their electoral system is deeply flawed, their society is far too gun loving, their spionage agencies are pursuing their geopolitical interests very recklessly, their media are highly suggestive and an absolute trainwreck, and I could go on and on for ages. But the Russian invasion is something different. It's the return of fascism in Europe.
This is hardly shocking or breaking news. Happens all the time among the well connected.
Russia obviously denies all this. And would call any casualties as merely accidental, and if push comes to shove would call them as collateral or would accuse Ukraine of using civilians as human shields.
Which is what US and many other countries have been doing for years.
You can't just draw that conclusion with sanctions when Saddam's regime and how it handled sanctions were also quite culpable for the end result.
How nice of the USA and UK, they only raged war and only killed 500k iraqis. The most important thing they did not censor information or shut down media they did not like.
How is this rubbish important for the people of iraq?
I don't think we should be setting the bar there.
As long as the the despicable acts are committed in other countries, it's not that hard after all.
Despite everything said afterwards (which I agree with), you still are.
Maybe it feels like something different only because this unfortunate tragedy is familiar to European culture and history, which you're obviously closer to and identify with. So far, at least 364 Ukranians have died in this war. Take a step back and look at it in context of other cultures.
For instance, there were more deaths in the Jalianwala Bagh massacre in less than two hours than in the entire Russian invasion of Ukraine so far. A British brigadier and his troops walked in through the only entrance/exit of a large enclosure hosting a peaceful protest in Amritsar, India, 1919 and - unprovoked and without cause - opened fire. He kept his troops firing even as people fled, till they were out of ammunition. He did it because he could.The UK tried to play down the death count since it was officially taken only four months after the massacre, but at least 1500 people were killed that day. To this date, the UK has never apologized.
As an Indian, it is my unfortunate inclination to assess other tragedies in the context of an event like this. But I know it's wrong, just the way it wrong for you to dismiss the deaths of 180,000 civilians in the Iraq war, or the 17,500 civilians killed in Yemen (hundreds of thousands dead indirectly), or the deaths of 47,000 Afghani civilians. These are all acts of aggression (not retaliation) that the US initiated - and doesn't include the 200,000 civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Is one tragedy lesser than the other because fewer people have died? How do you quantify the consequences of war for a community, no matter how small or large? These questions are difficult to answer and I don't think we can truly compare one to the other - given the very different and unique effects each one has on the victims, their families, and their communities.
We tend to have an exaggerated view of tragedies close to us and tragedies that are given more media coverage. But no matter what the metrics and the context, I don't think there is any way to defend the historical atrocities of the US/UK just because they're taking the side you identify with in this war, much less dismiss them because of the biased you have of the current aggression. There are no good guys here, only a Darwinian struggle of power where the victims are always the ones who never wished to participate. We shoudn't downplay other tragedies (which you're doing, perhaps inadvertently) to justify why the current one is 'different'.
Last edited:
The ones taking the big decisions did not get prosecuted. It is a mockery of the justice system that not one single person got investigated for the pile of lies and fabrications that led to the war.
Only poor soldiers can get convicted, and not nearly enough of them got convicted. And some of the convicted got pardons. So after all, immunity does exist when the victims are brown.
In the UK the government and the army were busy covering up the war criminals.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50419297
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55247033.amp
And of course the US pardons.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq
I can give you multiple examples, but just go google Al Amiriyah shelter bombing. You can see the horrific videos on Youtube too. The united states was a democracy and at the same time the only country to use an atomic bomb and kill more than 100k civilians on a land was retreating from war.
I am sorry, have I missed the Tony Blair and George Bush war crimes trial? Tony Blair was in fact knighted just recently for his services for the British empire, after all he succeed in his role as an imperialist.
I think western media, of course influenced by it's "sources" tries too hard to portray the Russian military as some kind of amateur band of 100K people and not one of the most powerful warring organization in history.
According to this, the figure of 500,000 dead Iraqi children due to sanctions is almost certainly wrong, and a result of manipulation by Iraqi officials - Truth and death in Iraq under sanctions.
I remember reading a journal recently which weighed the excess mortality rate in context and derived the low figure (250k) with a degree of certainty but not necessarily in terms of apportioning blame (how Saddam handled the sanctions).
Yeah, the 250k is less controversial but no one will ever know the exact number.
The low figure derives from Garfield's analysis.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/
Last edited:
It's beyond parody at this point
250k is number that not even the west can deny. 500k maybe the entire population. You do understand that not only children died because of the sanctions. Their were lack of simple life saving medicines that Iraq were not allowed to import like antibiotics and the doctors hands were tied against diseases that killed many people despite the fact the were easy treatable with medicines and surgical equipment. The sanctions were barbaric and caused much of Iraq's problem in the present day. Justifying the sanctions was wrong as the only people who were affected by it was the general population not the Iraqi regime.
I guess it probably seems to you as if I would just go the convenient route but I don't think it makes sense to discuss crimes that are that long ago in this context. European countries were an absolute mess morally until the end of World War 2 and even things like the Vietnam war are already a liftetime ago. Of course massacres like the one you talked about are tragedies that the countries which committed these crimes should apologize for. But they are not really an indicator of how morally corrupt modern Western countries are, aren't they? And yes, it's human nature to be more involved when something regionally or socially close to you happens so in a way we're all hypocrites. I get that and it's very difficult to compare tragedies because of that. And I also fully, fully agree that tragedies in other parts of the world don't get the attention they deserve in the West.
Anyway, I believe we're right now mixing up many different dimensions in this discussion.
For me, the first dimension is intention.
Personally I believe that the intentions for the recent wars of the US and NATO can only be described as ambiguous. Of course the notion of the "war for oil" is very popular and has much truth to it but it also oversimplifies the matters most likely. There are many influencing factors behind these actions. When there are mass killings or brutal wars raging on in whatever part of the world, the society intuitively feels a drive to "do something". People just don't want to sit and watch while regimes commit terrble crimes to their own society. The US is therefore often confronted with decisions for which there is no right choice. Intervene and you will definitely be criticized, do not intervene and be criticized for inaction. But that's only one side of the medal. The other is that the US is a pretty aggressive player of geopolitics (destabilizing governments, etc.) and always considers what's to gain for themselves as well, which is the root of cynical labels such as "war for oil" or "we bring you democracy" that definitely have truth to it. Still, I think it is also wrong to suspect that motives like liberating populations from oppressive government plays absolutely zero role in their decision making - it most likely does and even though many tragedies came by it, it is still generally a morally reasonable intention - as I said, they'd also be criticized for inaction as well in many cases (see ISIS when Obama was pressured to intervene when he hesitated long time).
In contrast, there's nothing morally reasonable from Russia's perspective. One could argue that they want to protect and extend their system of government (autocracy or Putinism or whatever you want to call it) the same way the US wants to protect and extend democracy but in my opinion, that's comparing apples with oranges. Russia feared Ukraine because they were on their way of becoming a successful democracy and there was a risk that the close ties between Russians and Ukrainians would lead to an exchange of culture and thus could spark a desire in the Russian population as well. With his war, Russia seeks to prevent his own population from gaining freedom. This isn't ambiguous, this is a morally corrupt intention to begin with and there really is absolutely no redeeming factor to it. And this is the aspect without any room for interpretation, the same way human rights should not be discussed.
So while the US is in no way a saint (and I'm only "defending" them because I think they're overly criticized in here, I usually find myself criticzing the other side about the wrong doings of the US in such debates), I think Russia had much more sinister reasons to start this war.
The next dimension for me is the situation in which the country found itself at the time of the invasion.
Ukraine was country at peace and on a very good way to becoming a functioning democracy and growing economically. It's save to say that non of the casualties and the destruction would have happened if the Russians didn't invade. This simply can't be said about the countries the US invaded in recent history. Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein committed genocide, started wars, suppressed large parts of his population and did many other terrible cruelties for example. And it didn't start with him, the conflict between sunnites and shiites has been pretty bloody for centuries. So in a way, the US invaded countries for which one could believe they needed an intervention (whether or not this was the case is another question), Russia invaded one that definitely needed none. And in anticipation, yes, I see that Putin might argue Ukraine needed an intervention but then again it comes down to protecting a system that suppresses freedom and violates human rights. That's why I bring the governmental system in it so often. Putin's image of what justifies an invasion, the vision he was for the life of those he wants to occupy is very dark.
And this dimension IMO also includes "what's at stake". Putin effectively re-ignitied the cold war and escalated the threat of a nuclear war. And that's the one thing that everybody on this planet should prevent at all costs. Every other tragedy that has ever happened pales to this scenario.
And then there's of couse the actual crimes committed.
There's no debating the West has done terrible things - not only in the distant past, but also in Iraq, Afghanistan and the likes. Absolutely no denying that and this is the topic that makes the West look very, very bad. Because regardless of situation and intention, it's no difference to the victims and their relatives for which reasons and in which context it happened. Still, it seems that after his "soft approach" failed and it became more and more clear that he couldn't achieve his goals in Ukraine, it became a strategic dimension of Putin's war to target civilians. That's something I don't think NATO countries have done. There's a difference between giving the instructions to bomb evacuation corridors, officers or soldiers doing committing crimes autonomously and causing actual casualties in the sense of "collateral damage" (hate that phrase). I know it's same same for the people who died but when judging crimes, it is important if it happened intentional, recklessly or by accident.
Finally, there's also the element of accountability and redemption.
And yes, I know that many people never got what they deserved but at least in the West there's accountability to some degree. There have been convictions, there's free press that investigates and doesn't look away, there's societal pressure on punishing people who did something so wrong. And Western leaders can't act completely recklessly because they want to be reelected as well. It's far from perfect, no doubt, but at least it's a start. Nothing of that applies to Russia. The reigning system has to implode for Putin to be held responsible. You know that none of the people who actually gave the instructions to bomb evacuation corridors after they were agreed on or to bomb nuclear plants, hospitals or even schools/kindergardens will face any consequence if they aren't killed in the war itself.
Accountability!! was Blair or Bush held accountable? Blair was knighted just recently! your biased angle at looking into world conflicts make this post just a load of BS.
See, and this is why it doesn't make sense to discuss with whataboutsm warriors. Have youe even read the fecking paragraph? Jesus, how do you people get through your lifes with that attitude.
I will leave this here.
Your link doesn’t work but I know what it is (I think). There’s similar horror stories in Bagram: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/9/22/life-in-bagram-through-the-eyes-of-former-prisoners
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2015/6/9/omar-khadr-the-boy-i-witnessed-becoming-a-man
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/afghanistan-us-bagram-torture-prison
He’s written apologetic drivel. It’s literally excuse after excuse.
I think invading Iraq on a false premise is acting recklessly. Blair going in based on false reports of WMD is acting recklessly. Reckless actions have consequences, but it seems that the Iraqi people are paying for it, not the war criminals who went in.
I fixed the link. In the interview other sites are mentioned, Abu Ghraid wasn't even supposed to be the worst. The US institutionalized war crimes.
I read the whole paragraph it is just a failed try to make excuse for the atrocities the west has done. For the simple iraqi citizen who lost his brother or his daughter, this bs does not matter. From his angle of view, he was starved to death from 1991 to 2003 and then as bombed from 2003 onward and only two names are coupled to theses acts US and UK. That is eactly what the Ukrainian people is how going to feel now and after the war about Russia. You are not important in this war. The people who suffered and suffer right now are.