Well, one year long invadion should give you a hint. Detaining people for calling it war instead of "special operation" is another one. Calling other neighbours "fake/artificial" countries is another bad sign that Russia's intentions are not good.
People were not detained in the USA for using the wrong nomenclature to describe the Iraq invasion, and yet that was also an unspeakably cruel, venal war of cynical aggression knowingly perpetrated on laughably false pretenses. To this day roughly half of Americans think it was the right move - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co...
So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.
The thing is, there's vanishingly few "good invasions".
Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people.
The logic error you've committed above: Stifling dissent about the war with authoritarian measures may not be a necessary condition for an invasion to be bad, but it still can be a hint that the invasion is bad.
Rejecting the territorial integrity of the country invaded, similarly, can be a pretty good hint.
>"Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people."
As ugly as it sounds I would actually prefer that the US had annexed countries it had invaded. This way it would at least be responsible and people would leave in more decent place than before. Instead they came in, murdered and otherwise fucked people and then left without much remorse and repercussion.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be a gotcha. Are you assuming that everyone opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine think the USA invasion of Iraq was good? I think in both cases it's very easy to identify which side is in the wrong, and it's the one invading another country.
When McCarthy did it, it didn't show how strong McCarthy was; it showed how weak he was. When Putin does it, it doesn't show how strong Putin is, either.
To see Putin as a weak evildoer is falling for US propaganda.
The truth is more nuanced. Strong powers take advantage of weak powers and the US is no exception. We do it by expanding NATO territory. There are also arguments to be made that the US pushed Putin into the war. As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US. The war also greatly increased US natgas exports to Europe.
It's pretty immoral / weak to for the world's superpower to push neighboring countries into war for these reasons.
1. NATO expansion isn't driven by US imperialism. We aren't conquering countries and forcing them to join; they are asking to join - and not because we're tying a big aid package to NATO membership. They're joining because they're worried about Russian imperialism.
2. You say it's accepting propaganda to see Putin as weak. But you see him as being pushed into war by the US. That's not something that happens to someone who is strong.
3. "As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US."
Absolutely. More: It's to NATO's advantage to have Russia use up its arms fighting a non-NATO-member.
Sure, Putin is not a good leader for Russia, he's power-hungry and does not seem to have the best interests of the Russian people in mind. However by those same metrics you should consider US leadership as also being a weak evildoer.
Is it good or evil to push other countries into war knowing that thousands will die?
Is it good or evil to profit off the resulting energy crisis?
Is it even smart to risk a global nuclear war to destroy outdated arms and decades old tanks?
Is it good or evil to trigger economic collapse via sanctions causing starvation both inside the country and to export nations? Don't we consider Mao and Stalin some of the most evil people that ever lived for doing the same? Starvation is a terrible way to die yet it isn't even seen as collateral damage.
Putin will die anyway in the next couple decades. It made no sense to poke the bear and trigger all this. It ultimately just strengthens China and increases the amount of global suffering.
Dan Carlin has a great 'Poking the Bear' episode that goes into detail on the many ways in which the US provoked Russia/Putin. Of course Putin was the primary cause of the war but it is foolish to believe that the US is blameless.
Well, I think mislabeling as a “one year long invasion” what is a decade long war with Ukraine intentionally shelling urban centers in violation of a negotiated peace speaks to having been taken in by propaganda.
The crimes in Bucha were corroborated by not only the testimony of the residents there, but also the security cameras left in homes and businesses and even satellite photography. The Russians left corpses laying out in the streets for weeks as they occupied the town.
I do know that US media has lied or propagandized numerous aspects of this war — from the origins to the current status.
My question was that broader one:
How do you know this isn’t like Iraq (where the media lied about reasons) or Afghanistan (where the media lied about status, until the sudden collapse)?
> both sides have presented evidence of war crimes
Both sides always do. One side, in this case, has international validation. If you’re ignoring evidence and going off headlines, of course you’ll have a shallower view.
Not sure if this is a troll or a bot but I'll take the question seriously and answer it seriously. After all, this did occur to me at the time.
What convinced me that I'm not falling for Western propaganda? What it came down to was the following argument, and it has to be an argument and not a soundbite because in order to get beneath the propaganda we have to go deep.
- Many of Russia's claims against Ukraine are either true or have real elements of truth to them. Yes the founder of Azov is an avowed nationalist*. Yes, there have been laws passed in Ukraine that required greater use of Ukrainian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201.... Yes, the parliament of Ukraine considered giving Hero status to Stepan Bandera, who is a controversial figure because (among other things) he did work with the Nazis in WWII. Yes, there was fighting in Donbas, and while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014.
- None of these arguments rise to the level of necessitating military intervention.
- Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. If you're worried about persecution of Russians in Ukraine, make it easy for them to get to Russia. If you're concerned about fighting, use your status as a UNSC member to call for a peacekeeping mission. Russia did none of these things.
I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments, the substance and the necessity of military action just aren't there. Bandera's quite a character, but put his history aside for a moment and ask yourself what's his relevance to the current conflict: Yushchenko awarded him hero status in 2010. Yanukovich cancelled this a couple months later. In 2019 Ukraine's parliament took up the issue and decided against giving him an award. And Russia wants to send in soldiers for that? Because they considered him for an award and rejected the idea?
* He (Andriy Biletsky) is quoted as having said something about "lead the white races .. against Semite-led untermenschen" but the Guardian article that makes the claim provides no citation.*
> while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014
Ukraine has intentionally shelled urban centers for a decade — and you think Russia is wrong to protect ethnic Russians from that?
> Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine.
Do you mean like asking France and Germany to negotiate a peace that protects the people of Donbas while remaining part of Ukraine?
Russia did that in 2014 — and it was cynically exploited to arm Ukraine for this conflict by NATO, who refused to protect the people in Donbas from Ukrainian shelling.
What should Russia have done to protect the ethnic Russians in Donbas — having tried to negotiate a peace only for Ukraine to shell their cities for another decade?
> I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments
You’re the one making emotional strawmen about Banderites rather than focusing on the stated Russian objective of protecting Donbas after a decade of diplomacy failed.
Is that because you learned about the Russian “position” from NATO propaganda rather than directly from RT?
This is the Russian position, according to RT:
> Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”
So to protect the people of Donbas, Russia fires missiles at Kiev, Kherson, Odessa, Lvov? To protect those people it launches an invasion and calls on the Ukrainian army to overthrow its government? To protect those people it annexes Kherson?
To protect those people it tries to decimate the energy infrastructure of Ukraine so that people will freeze in the winter and beg their government to stop fighting?
Do you honestly believe that Putin actually has the best interests of the people of Donbas at heart? Do you really think that's what this is about? When Russian journalists get murdered he shows no compassion. He doesn't give a fuck about the people of Donbas, he doesn't even give a fuck about his own people.
> So to protect the people of Donbas, Russia fires missiles at Kiev, Kherson, Odessa, Lvov?
> To protect those people it tries to decimate the energy infrastructure of Ukraine so that people will freeze in the winter and beg their government to stop fighting?
This is the brutality of war — and why Russia tried to make the Minsk agreements work.
> Do you honestly believe that Putin actually has the best interests of the people of Donbas at heart? Do you really think that's what this is about?
Yes — I believe that a substantial reason for this is what happened in Donbas. Russians are angry at Putin for being weak and allowing this violence against ethnic Russians.
I certainly believe that this is more about protecting Donbas and Russia than the past decade of events has been good faith by NATO — Russia’s story makes sense, while NATO is openly lying by pretending this was an unprovoked attack.
- - - - -
You didn’t answer:
What specifically should Russia have done when a decade of diplomacy failed?
You're 100% wrong here. This is not the brutality of war but the brutality of Russia. If the main goal is to protect the ethnic Russians of Donbas, why fire missiles at Lvov? Why try to send tanks into Kiev? Why capture Kherson? You know why? Because protecting Donbas is not the goal! It was a paper-thin excuse for some non-sense power politics and territorial expansion.
I already answered what Russia should have done. Russia claims "diplomacy has failed" and it's so paper thin. Even the US went before the UN in the case of Iraq. Russia did not go to the UN in this case. Their news programs (which I watch) will tell you they did, and their ambassador probably put forth some slapdash resolution, but did they take it seriously? No. Did they raise legitimate concerns and act like a partner interested in resolving a problem, as opposed to someone looking to escalate a problem into an excuse? No. They accuse Zelensky of being a drug-addicted fascist. Have you seen him? Have you seen Putin? Did you not see the anger and hatred in Putin's face on Feb 24? I did. I was shocked by it. I'd never seen his face so contorted. And this wasn't some propaganda show that took a clip out of context, I watched his whole speech on Russia's channel one.
I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point. Don't you have better things to do? I do, and I'm going to go see to them. Good day, sir.
> Did they raise legitimate concerns and act like a partner interested in resolving a problem, as opposed to someone looking to escalate a problem into an excuse?
They spent a decade trying to work with countries like France and Germany to enact the Minsk accords — which those countries promised to guarantee.
Did those NATO countries act like a partner interested in resolving a problem? — did they even do what they’d promised in that treaty?
> Have you seen him? Have you seen Putin? Did you not see the anger and hatred in Putin's face on Feb 24?
Yes — Putin’s speeches have been thoughtful and considered, explaining their reasons. Especially compared to the vapid virtue signaling from Ukraine and NATO.
> I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point.
This is a bad faith ad hominem because you’re uncomfortable answering the questions of someone who disagrees with you.
That’s a sign you don’t have good support for your beliefs — notice how you’re bothered but I’m not?
> Yes — I believe that a substantial reason for this is what happened in Donbas. Russians are angry at Putin for being weak and allowing this violence against ethnic Russians.
There was no violence to speak of. In all of 2021, only 25 civilians died, lowest annual figure since the war in Ukraine began in 2014. These deaths were mainly due to land mines in regions illegally occupied by Russia. To build support for the new invasion, Russian state media has blown these deaths out of proportion for years, depicting the situation as if people were living under constant artillery attacks and hiding in basements year after year.
> What specifically should Russia have done when a decade of diplomacy failed?
Cut funding and arming of the so-called "separatists" and remove Russian tanks, guns and military personnel from Ukraine. Politically, if they want a stable neighbour with exemplary human rights record, then they should encourage the integration of Ukraine into NATO, OECD and the EU. All countries in the region that have integrated with western organizations have seen dramatic improvements in all areas of human development.
