The morality of war - Man's inhumanity to man

[Kalbear]

I'm a bit tipsy so want to jump on one thing here, the supposed idea that this is just the US and the west. 

Sweden is against Russia. Sweden is sending a lot of arms to Ukraine. Sweden is fucking joining nato and getting ready for war. The last fucking time that Sweden was at all interested in fighting anything associated with Russia was in the napoleon age. 

Do you know how fucking big an asshole you have to be to piss off the swedes?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Someone didn't see Midsommar...

[Zorral]

Um Sweden also voted in a 20% representation in the government for neo Nazis, so Sweden may not be quite the argument Kal thinks it is.

[TormundsWoman]

You lot just don’t get it: this is somehow the US’s fault but at this point in the game, it no longer matters. Sides have been taken. So maybe if you’re on the Putin’s and his acolytes’ side just say so I can send you some sunflower seeds!

that being said, don’t piss off Sweden. Everyone know deep down they are even worse than the US. I’m sure it will be the Swedes’ fault soon.

That will be a relief.

 

[Week]

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Someone didn't see Midsommar...

A festival that takes place every 90-years hardly suggests that they were particularly piqued. Despite the goings on of said fest.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Oh, Rips...

On 10/4/2022 at 2:19 AM, Rippounet said:

The choice was never between supporting Ukraine or doing nothing (that's the false dichotomy that I loathe). The question is what the West's objective should be (or should have been). And because the West is not actually a belligerent but a co-belligerent, the objective should always have been to stop the war asap and bring the criminals to justice, because the West -supposedly- wants to stand for the preservation of human life and human dignity.
In clear terms that means demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory ("status quo ante") and identifying the Russian officers responsible for crimes against the Ukrainian population to prepare their prosecution. That might sound naive, but I don't believe it is, not in the face of obvious Russian incompetence and not in the face of overwhelming Western superiority, that mean Russia may find itself having to accept whatever the West's terms are.
Military support for Ukraine was supposedly based on the principle of self-defense, so it always made sense to condition the sending of weapons to the impossibility of holding talks, or, to put it differently, to arm the Ukrainians as long as the Russian aren't reasonable. And whereas it is only natural for the Ukrainians to seek vengeance and reclaim the invaded territories through war, the West itself has no clear reason to share that objective. Therefore, the West should always have kept communications open with Russia with clear demands (withdrawal of Russian forces), and encouraged the Ukrainians to do the same with their own terms. To talk is not to accept or condone the invader's perspective, but also the possibility of reaching your objectives without unnecessary lives being lost. In international relations, countries do not have the luxury of denying even the worst nations the possibility of a negotiated end to a conflict. That may be immoral in itself, but that is besides the point, or we shouldn't be buying anything from China or talking with people like Bolsonaro.

Ok, how would the West set up a tribunal and get Putin and his henchmen to stand trial? I find this in equal measures an admirable (and principled) as much as infuriating position to take for lack of practicality. The Nuremberg trials happened after the military defeat of Germany in WWII. Milosevic and co found themselves in the Hague after they were defeated militarically. Had Putin succeeded with Blitzkrieg against Ukraine, there would've been a zero chance of him or his troops standing trial. Hell, Girkin is still somebody Dutch prosecutors would like to have a word with over the downing of MH 17. Preservation of human life and dignity also sounds a wee bit hollow, as the west didn't start this war (nor is it directly involved in it), and there's strong evidence of war crimes committed by Russian troops (not just in Bucha). So the west should not have armed Ukraine in given it the chance to fight back, and instead should've let Ukraine being subjugated by Russia (including ethnic cleansing, genocide (actual and cultural). So what was the actual course of action there?

 

Demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops and restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, that is the explicit objective of Ukraine. So if that's what Russia was willing to accept, this war would be over. Russia can declare an end to their SMO and withdraw their troops from Ukrainian territory any time they like. They don't. Ukraine wouldn't be able to push Russia out by force without Western military equipment. Withdraw it, and watch the proverbial tide of war turn against Ukraine and Russia retaking the initiative and more territory. So yeah, the idea, that Russia would be willing to just withdraw and send their war criminals to The Hague does sound naive, because it is naive, and not backed by any evidence we see. On Russian tv the Kremlim propaghandists even claimed, the Bucha massacre didn't happen, all crises actors, they also didn't bomb the maternity ward in Mariupol. I also missed the bit of news, where Russia sent the people responsible for bombing hospitals in Syria to face trial. This detachment from an observable reality is absolutely infuriating.

So because we (unfortunately) make deals with other despicable goverments in China and Brazil, we should also start to hug Putin a bit closer again?  What on earth?! Come on now, you are way smarter than that.

On 10/4/2022 at 2:19 AM, Rippounet said:

And this is where I align with Chomsky in his criticism of US positions. Because the US didn't dictate terms to Russia that are consistent with international law or some sort of internationally acceptable rule, it found itself embracing Ukrainian objectives (even vocally supporting ones beyond the status quo ante), seemingly making the unconditional capitulation of Russia its own objective. It therefore isn't surprising that other nations like India or China could remain openly neutral. It isn't surprising that so many experts on international relations were either uneasy or critical of the strategy. And of course it isn't surprising that pacifists would find themselves unable to condone it.
This is how we come to Chomsky's conclusion that the conflict has become a "ghastly experiment." The experiment is to see whether the Ukrainians can defeat Russia, which can only be described as an imperialist state ruled by an ageing autocrat with weapons of mass destruction. And maybe the Ukrainians can win (it certainly seems so), but that possibility also means letting them fight all the conscripts that Putin is willing or able to send, for god knows how long, while the threat of escalation in both Russian crimes and military confrontation remain. Not only does it mean that Ukrainian civilians can only rely on their military to protect them, but it also means that Putin is free to follow his own path of crimes against his people, sending countless men with little training and equipment to die in a war that most of them probably don't support, or at least wouldn't support if they weren't victims of state propaganda. It is making the entire Russian people pay for the crimes of their leader, their government, or their military.

Uff. Someone got it backwards there... The Ukrainian position is the only reasonable position according to International Law, which values territorial integrity quite highly for some reason. The US embracing that position for once, doesn't invalidate it. Broken clock etc.

I find the worry for Russian conscripts kinda touching, but that reverses who is victim and who is perpatrator here. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine and Ukrainians are the victims in that conflict. That's the basic fact Chomsky can't negotiate away. Conscripts who are fundamentally opposed to it, can refuse to fight in Ukraine and spend time in a Russian prison. It's within the control of Russians to remove Putin and save those conscripts. So there are choices. Conscripts fighting in Ukraine have decided, that the risk of getting killed there is preferably to imprisonment in Russia. 

Minsk was never viable, the Ukrainians swallowed it at gun point, because they had no choice. And Russia more or less secretly supplied arms, weapons and manpower to Donbas and Luhansk. 

[Werthead]

On 10/4/2022 at 5:48 PM, KalVsWade said:

Then you should be very surprised, because Putin has shown absolutely zero sign of coming back to the table publicly or otherwise. The normal suspects of countries who would facilitate this - Turkey, Belarus, China - have been entirely quiet in this regard. It's almost as if Putin is not actually interested in negotiation. 

Yup, and Turkey was very successful in pushing for talks early in the conflict and has been pushing for them ever since, and has seemingly gotten very frustrated with Russian intransigence to the point of backing Ukraine more and more and criticising Russia more and more and also backing Azerbaijan's play with Armenia against Russian interests. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Turkey started making more aggressive plays in Syria soon as Russia pulls out troops and mercenaries to send to Ukraine.

Despite all of that, Erdogan does seem to have retained good personal relations with Putin: they were seen walking arm-in-arm recently (!) and Putin doesn't seem to have refused to take his calls as he has with others. Erdogan seems to be in this weird position of opposing Putin, even saying he'll have to give up Crimea, but retaining some measure of personal respect (though not enough to actually end the war, of course), I think primarily through a combination of frankness, support (letting Russia take the lead in negotiating an end to the 2020 Azerbaijan-Armenia War, despite recent events showing that can start again when Azerbaijan and Turkey want) and also the geopolitical reality that the entire Caucasus could go up in flames if Turkey really wanted to. I suspect Turkey's reaction to Russia using WMD in Ukraine might be more of a factor in Putin's calculations than any other country's (maybe bar China).

Lukashenko has said that he has pushed for an end to the war, and strongly recommended it a few months ago when Russia had achieved the apex of its success in Ukraine (so far) and he believed a really great deal could have been struck. But then he says a lot of shit.

China I think is in a really awkward position because China has sold itself as the big dog on the block and what it says goes, and it has huge influence over Russia etc, but Beijing also seems to know that if they publicly put pressure on Russia to end the war, Russia will probably ignore them and that's egg on Xi Jinping's face just before the start of his third term. Behind the scenes what discussions have gone on is much less clear.

I think for a diplomatic front going forwards, Turkey and India might make some headway if they form a common position (they seem pretty aligned) and make a joint push for a peaceful solution predicating on Russian withdrawal from to least 23 February borders, to try to at least get some discussions flowing.

Quote

I don't get this at all. Who is calling for Russian genocide? This seems like one of those Chomsky polemics that doesn't make any sense but sounds like a good bumper sticker.

Not even the Ukrainians are calling for a Russian genocide. They just want them the fuck out of their country. And we're still seeing, seven months into this conflict and post-Bucha, Ukrainian soldiers and even civilians accepting Russian forces surrendering, feeding them, letting them call their families etc (there are also reports of some Russians being treated much more harshly by Ukrainian forces, but these seem to be much more limited in number versus Russian mistreatment of prisoners). There was that video yesterday of a Russian IFV giving up, sticking up the white flag, the Ukrainians taking them prisoner, talking to them in Russian and making sure they were okay etc (although obviously they were on camera, and knew it). The Ukrainian treatment of Russian prisoners seems to be based on who they are and what they've done, whilst the Russians have adopted a much more blanket, brutal approach to Ukrainians.

Quote

The final problem with your argument is that it assumes stopping war now is somehow actually possible. Putin just declared that the Baltics, Kazakhstan, and several other countries are still part of Russia. How much are you willing to negotiate away? Would you give up France if it meant stopping war? 

It's also worth noting that more people can die in the compromise than they can in a war. In 1940 France surrendered once it was beaten on the battlefield, partially to save lives. However, France went on to lose almost as many dead in WWII as the United States and Britain combined, despite it effectively sitting out more than half the conflict as an active participant (obviously the bravery of the French Resistance and the French overseas forces that kept fighting alongside the British, Poles, Americans, Russians etc is not to be discounted) and Britain fighting for the entire span of the conflict and the US fighting for almost four years in very high-intensity combat operations on multiple fronts globally.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Rippounet

Please watch this and then explain to us all how Russian actions in Ukraine aren’t an effort at genocide, why you think the Ukrainians should sit down and just talk with the Russians, and again why it is wrong for the West to continue to supply the Ukrainians with the arms they need to defeat and push these Genocidiers out of Ukraine?

 

[Heartofice]

36 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Rippounet

Please watch this and then explain to us all how Russian actions in Ukraine aren’t an effort at genocide, why you think the Ukrainians should sit down and just talk with the Russians, and again why it is wrong for the West to continue to supply the Ukrainians with the arms they need to defeat and push these Genocidiers out of Ukraine?

 

Talk of being possessed by the devil is pretty ironic coming from that guy.

[Rippounet]

On 10/11/2022 at 4:23 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Please watch this and then explain to us all how Russian actions in Ukraine aren’t an effort at genocide, why you think the Ukrainians should sit down and just talk with the Russians, and again why it is wrong for the West to continue to supply the Ukrainians with the arms they need to defeat and push these Genocidiers out of Ukraine?

Despite taking much time to mull things over, I do not see how I could possibly explain to anyone (much less a lawyer, of all people) why it is morally dubious to choose arming the victim(s) of a horrendous crime as the first option to stop the continuation of said crime, rather than as a last resort.
It's somewhat both an insignificant difference in perspective, because in the end, I still support (and have always supported) the policies of my country (which is, and always has been, participating in arming Ukraine), and a gigantic difference in moral approaches, since I will desperately seek to be absolutely certain that it is in fact a last resort and go as far as to question the narrative in all kinds of ways, because I never ever want this as a guiding principle for anyone in international relations, especially not a global superpower.
 

On 10/5/2022 at 7:36 PM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It's within the control of Russians to remove Putin and save those conscripts. So there are choices.

If this is the kind of argument your positions lead to, I'll be glad to stick with my principled naiveté, thank you very much.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Despite taking much time to mull things over, I do not see how I could possibly explain to anyone (much less a lawyer, of all people) why it is morally dubious to choose arming the victim(s) of a horrendous crime as the first option to stop the continuation of said crime, rather than as a last resort.

Is Ukraine a sovereign nation with a choice to negotiate or fight and repell the Russian invasion?  Is the West wrong to respect Ukraine’s choice and to facilitate the choice Ukraine is making?

[Heartofice]

20 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Despite taking much time to mull things over, I do not see how I could possibly explain to anyone (much less a lawyer, of all people) why it is morally dubious to choose arming the victim(s) of a horrendous crime as the first option to stop the continuation of said crime, rather than as a last resort.
It's somewhat both an insignificant difference in perspective, because in the end, I still support (and have always supported) the policies of my country (which is, and always has been, participating in arming Ukraine), and a gigantic difference in moral approaches, since I will desperately seek to be absolutely certain that it is in fact a last resort and go as far as to question the narrative in all kinds of ways, because I never ever want this as a guiding principle for anyone in international relations, especially not a global superpower.

I guess my issue there is, does anyone really have the time to exhaust all of the other options in a war like this? How do you push for peace talks in a war with a side who's goal is essentially the takeover of another country if you don't also put yourself in a reasonable negotiating position by arming someone like Ukraine?

I would have thought the guiding principle here is that as a global community we cannot allow the hostile takeover of other sovereign nations by force, and appeasement of that on any level should not be tolerated.

[Kalbear]

My feeling is that the last resort argument was kind of settled when Russia invaded the country. And then it was extra settled when we discovered and continue to discover mass graves, torture sites, and war crimes galore. 

I get wanting to exhaust options - and I feel like that was done pretty well here, where the threat of sanctions and support was put in but not executed until the actual war started. But what options are there that haven't been tried and found wanting?