NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 30 2023 23:59 KwarK wrote: I don't think they're inhuman, I don't think they're animals, I don't think that they should be treated as animals.
Please stop arguing against a strawman and putting my name on it.
I quoted what you said in the past. You can say whatever you please now, that doesn't change what you said back then. You didn't try to correct what you said then, so why should I believe you now after you're posting another radical idea?
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Russian tv proudly declares to the Russian people that they are fighting for genocide. They're not being tricked into it, they like the genocide part. This wasn't a bait and switch, they want to erase the Ukrainian culture and national identity because it refuses to submit to the natural supremacy of the Russian people.
On July 30 2023 21:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Enable doesn't have a willful component. It just means making something possible. So yes you are enabling global warming like pretty much every human contributing greenhouse gasses in their lives.
Going to Ukrainian soil to kill Ukranians or loading rockets to fire on Ukranian buildings does enable the genocide of Ukranians. Even just paying taxes that buy rockets enables it in a way.
The morality of being forced by existing in a system, or choosing to is a bit different discussion. There's still a choice to not do harm to Ukrainians the end, even if it can come at big personal cost of prison.
Just like we humans choose to use cars because the system expects it of us, even if we know moving around in a 1200kg hunk of iron is a stupid use of energy. You can't claim no morale responsibility for enjoying the convenience of modern transport over walking/biking even if the system demands us to be able to move 100km in an hour to show up somewhere.
It's very difficult to live contrary to the system though. Mobilized definitely share less of the moral burden than the designers and proponents of this invasion/war. But their is still a moral component there.
If I was forced into an active warzone and I'm being shot at by Ukrainians, I think I have the right to shoot back to defend myself.
It's your low bar for "forced" that's the problem here. Unless you were cryogenically frozen before Feb '22 and defrosted in a trench in Donetsk stuck between Ukrainians and Russian enforcers, you had ways of avoiding ending up in that situation without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance. It's not enough for there to be any punishment or inconvenience whatsoever to absolve you, it has to be a comparable one.
Ardias is a good man. He's still in Russia even though he could've technically left. He has personal reasons for that decision. Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
The condition I wrote applies all the same to people we know of (like Ardias) and to people we don't know of, why wouldn't it? If he can avoid ending up in a kill or be killed situation in Ukrainian mud without having to make a comparable sacrifice then he ought to do it.
So what is your conclusion about Ardias then? He decided to stay in Russia, for his own reasons. What is your judgement of him as a person? Please tell us.
Based on that alone? None. As others have wrote, leaving the country isn't the only way to avoid ending up in the scenario you wrote.
But anyone that refuses the inconvenience of leaving, then refuses the fine or jail time for avoiding the summons, then refuses to take a beating from their commander for not following orders, then refuses the risk that comes with desertion, cannot be absolved of being an enabler of this genocide attempt. And that's not even an exhaustive list, there's people that bribed their way out of it, and probably other ways I'm missing right now.
I can't find it right now but I recall an interview with a Russian that fled to Germany at the start of the invasion and was volunteering with the humanitarian aid logistics for Ukraine, he was asked he feels any responsibility for the war and he said he shares at least "1 / 140 million" of the blame. I think that's the healthy approach to this.
In the most circulated clip of the drone explosion from last night in Moscow the first thing I felt was empathy towards the terrorized woman filming it, I don't want anyone to feel that scared. But then I immediately felt mad knowing that if a hundred million Russians had thought about those terrorized people hiding in basements in Kharkiv for months in the same way, we wouldn't fucking be here.
Dead bodies of dead Russian soldiers say otherwise. Do you claim that they're all guilty?
Wtf does whether they are alive any more or not have anything to do with whether they participated in a genocide? Yes, they did, by virtue of being part of a military who invaded another country and committed genocide. This seems difficult for your to understand.
Now they are dead. Those two are not remotely mutually exclusive
People are essentially arguing that Russian propaganda is so ineffectual that no man should be able to fall for it and that, if they end up fighting an unjust war as a consequence, they're all... incredibly stupid. Or evil. Or selfish. Or all of the above.
No, we are arguing that what they believe is not relevant to what is happening as a result of their actions.
On July 30 2023 22:40 KwarK wrote: You’ve got to remember that Magic Powers, contrary to all historical evidence, still believes in the clean Wehrmacht lie and that his grandfather fought for the Nazis. He has a personal investment in the idea that the Wehrmacht did nothing wrong. There’s no reasoning with that.
You've got to remember that KwarK is a liar. Magic Powers never said anything about the Wehrmacht being clean or his grandfather being innocent. That were all words KwarK put in his mouth, KwarK selectively quoted Magic Powers throughout that exchange, to paint him as some sort of nazi sympathiser. In my opinion he did this deliberately. By admission of another mod, he should have been punished for this, but didn't solely because they wanted to avoid any mod drama.
He literally said that any member of the Wehrmacht who wasn't found guilty at Nuremberg was, by definition, innocent of all crimes. I really don't think you were following that exchange if you didn't recognize how extreme he was in his defence of the Wehrmacht.
I remember that you do not respect the rule of law when it doesn't suit your opinions, yes. Just like how you like to selectively apply basic human rights.
Really? Stating that Wehrmacht soldiers were all participating in a genocide and enabled countless war crimes equals not respecting the rule of law? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And that's a nuanced argument that we can reasonably have. As you've certainly noticed I'm being careful with my wording in this regard when I express my own views. We can use a different word instead of "enabling genocide" if you like, but I want to note that we're on a different wavelength from KwarK. While we're willing to discuss the moral implications of being complicit in a genocide in one way or another, KwarK has expressly stated that he doesn't make such a distinction (and he's now vehemently denying not having made that distinction).
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And that's a nuanced argument that we can reasonably have. As you've certainly noticed I'm being careful with my wording in this regard when I express my own views. We can use a different word instead of "enabling genocide" if you like, but I want to note that we're on a different wavelength from KwarK. While we're willing to discuss the moral implications of being complicit in a genocide in one way or another, KwarK has expressly stated that he doesn't make such a distinction (and he's now vehemently denying not having made that distinction).
If what I'm currently saying is different from the thing you're imagining I was previously saying then why not simply imagine that I was swayed by your arguments and imagine that you've talked me down to a more reasonable position. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether what I'm saying now is consistent with my prior posts, it's still what I'm saying now. Whether I was always saying it or whether you talked me there doesn't actually make a difference.
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Russian tv proudly declares to the Russian people that they are fighting for genocide. They're not being tricked into it, they like the genocide part. This wasn't a bait and switch, they want to erase the Ukrainian culture and national identity because it refuses to submit to the natural supremacy of the Russian people.
I need evidence of that. Prove to me please that Russian state TV openly declares (without meaningful pushback) that they're planning to eradicate the Ukrainian people. I really need footage of that, and not just one soundbite. It has to be a compilation that's longer than a few minutes of random soundbites that can only be heard every few weeks or so, or from fringe radicalized stations à la Alex Jones. It has to be reputable Russian TV channels.
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
Absolutely
On July 30 2023 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Some of the Russian soldiers who have died were completely innocent people who got thrown into the meatgrinder. You cannot reasonably argue against that.
You cannot reasonably argue it. These are armed men entering a foreign country as part of a campaign of genocide. Their role in that genocide is to shoot anyone who tries to prevent it. They are performing that role.
"Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians"
Is what you said. Don't gaslight me.
Their motivation for enabling a genocide does not in any way invalidate the fact that they are engaged in it.
Yes, I'm aware of that. And that's a nuanced argument that we can reasonably have. As you've certainly noticed I'm being careful with my wording in this regard when I express my own views. We can use a different word instead of "enabling genocide" if you like, but I want to note that we're on a different wavelength from KwarK. While we're willing to discuss the moral implications of being complicit in a genocide in one way or another, KwarK has expressly stated that he doesn't make such a distinction (and he's now vehemently denying not having made that distinction).
If what I'm currently saying is different from the thing you're imagining I was previously saying then why not simply imagine that I was swayed by your arguments and imagine that you've talked me down to a more reasonable position. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether what I'm saying now is consistent with my prior posts, it's still what I'm saying now. Whether I was always saying it or whether you talked me there doesn't actually make a difference.
I'm absolutely willing to think that you've changed your mind on things, whether that was because of other people's efforts or your own, either way is great. The problem I have today is that I haven't seen any of that change happen because you've never wrote to me about it and I've also not seen it in this forum. And today I heard you voice another idea of very similar nature as the last time. Can you see how this would rub me the wrong way, and maybe a response similar to mine today can be somewhat expected?
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
On July 30 2023 21:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Enable doesn't have a willful component. It just means making something possible. So yes you are enabling global warming like pretty much every human contributing greenhouse gasses in their lives.
Going to Ukrainian soil to kill Ukranians or loading rockets to fire on Ukranian buildings does enable the genocide of Ukranians. Even just paying taxes that buy rockets enables it in a way.
The morality of being forced by existing in a system, or choosing to is a bit different discussion. There's still a choice to not do harm to Ukrainians the end, even if it can come at big personal cost of prison.
Just like we humans choose to use cars because the system expects it of us, even if we know moving around in a 1200kg hunk of iron is a stupid use of energy. You can't claim no morale responsibility for enjoying the convenience of modern transport over walking/biking even if the system demands us to be able to move 100km in an hour to show up somewhere.
It's very difficult to live contrary to the system though. Mobilized definitely share less of the moral burden than the designers and proponents of this invasion/war. But their is still a moral component there.
If I was forced into an active warzone and I'm being shot at by Ukrainians, I think I have the right to shoot back to defend myself.
It's your low bar for "forced" that's the problem here. Unless you were cryogenically frozen before Feb '22 and defrosted in a trench in Donetsk stuck between Ukrainians and Russian enforcers, you had ways of avoiding ending up in that situation without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance. It's not enough for there to be any punishment or inconvenience whatsoever to absolve you, it has to be a comparable one.
Ardias is a good man. He's still in Russia even though he could've technically left. He has personal reasons for that decision. Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
The condition I wrote applies all the same to people we know of (like Ardias) and to people we don't know of, why wouldn't it? If he can avoid ending up in a kill or be killed situation in Ukrainian mud without having to make a comparable sacrifice then he ought to do it.
So what is your conclusion about Ardias then? He decided to stay in Russia, for his own reasons. What is your judgement of him as a person? Please tell us.
Based on that alone? None. As others have wrote, leaving the country isn't the only way to avoid ending up in the scenario you wrote.
But anyone that refuses the inconvenience of leaving, then refuses the fine or jail time for avoiding the summons, then refuses to take a beating from their commander for not following orders, then refuses the risk that comes with desertion, cannot be absolved of being an enabler of this genocide attempt. And that's not even an exhaustive list, there's people that bribed their way out of it, and probably other ways I'm missing right now.
I can't find it right now but I recall an interview with a Russian that fled to Germany at the start of the invasion and was volunteering with the humanitarian aid logistics for Ukraine, he was asked he feels any responsibility for the war and he said he shares at least "1 / 140 million" of the blame. I think that's the healthy approach to this.
In the most circulated clip of the drone explosion from last night in Moscow the first thing I felt was empathy towards the terrorized woman filming it, I don't want anyone to feel that scared. But then I immediately felt mad knowing that if a hundred million Russians had thought about those terrorized people hiding in basements in Kharkiv for months in the same way, we wouldn't fucking be here.
Dead bodies of dead Russian soldiers say otherwise. Do you claim that they're all guilty? That would be a claim of omnipotence. You're not omnipotent, you can't just blanket state that all of these soldiers are guilty. Why are you presuming their guilt if you don't know anything about what happened in their lives?
Do you strictly refuse to believe that some people were exposed to nothing but Russian state TV so they can't help but believe the west is evil and Russia is good? And do you strictly refuse to believe that some people lack access to actually good information that could help them determine which side is in the right and which side is in the wrong?
being ignorant is not a defence absolving ones actions.
Whether they believe Russia is evil or not isn't relevant. Whether they believe genocide is happening isn't relevant. It is happening, and they are enabling it. Period, full stop, the end.
Being ignorant is definitely an excuse for many things, and I won't budge on this. To a brainwashed Russian soldier, we sound like complete madmen.
Being ignorant may be relevant in terms of a moral judgement, but whether those soldiers are enabling a genocide is not a moral judgement. It's a factual statement which happens to be true.
And as Kwark pointed out, even having access exclusively to Russian propaganda is not enough to absolve anyone as that propaganda actively advocates for a genocide of Ukrainians. Russian soldiers have everything they need to realise that they are not the good guys.
Guilt exists on a spectrum. You can say that Putin, not the soldiers or random russians are the ones responsible for the war, but likewise, 'innocent' should be reserved for people who did more than accept what is happening.
The climate change parallel is quite apt tbh. There are some people who have pushed consumerism and consumption of fossil fuels and destruction of forests to produce more beef and these people are more responsible, but if your biological footprint is greater than 1, you are not innocent. Your vegan friend who bikes everywhere, refuses to fly, wears only second hand clothing and adds an extra layer of clothing rather than increases the heat during winter might be, but a solid 98%+ of people in western countries are not.
On July 31 2023 00:49 Nezgar wrote: While I disagree with calling them Nazis, they ARE fascists. Their government is fascist, their ideology is fascist - they are fascists. And that includes everyone who supports that government, its actions and the actions of the Russian army. Anyone who has picked up a gun, especially those who have fired it at Ukrainians in Ukraine, and anyone helping the war effort directly or indirectly, is guilty of enabling that invasions and bears responsibility.
I don't think a residential building in Moscow was the target for that drone because that's simply not the kind of warfare that Ukraine has been waging so far, but anyone arguing for firebombing Dresden and dropping nukes on Japan has to concede that this IS how you fight fascism. The entire ideology is based on the notion that might makes right, that they are superior and invincible. Russian fascism also has the neat little addition that they believe that the Russian people are special, their version of manifest destiny, and that they are eternally innocent as a nation and people. You cannot negotiate with that. You cannot reason with that. You cannot appease that. We have learned that over the course of the last 20 years, especially the Germans. The only thing that has historically worked is to shatter that notion of invincibility and superiority and to force them to do some serious reflecting.
NATO isn't going to occupy Saint Petersburg. Ukrainian troops are not going to march on Moscow. But the Russian people have to learn that war is not just a neat little thing that happens to other, inferior people.
Even if they are guilty, Russian soldiers who have become POW still deserve to be treated like human beings. I am always happy when I see Russians surrender and from what I have seen so far, the vast majority of them are treated with dignity and respect. But I am not going to lose sleep when a HIMARS rocket riddles a Russian soldier's body with hundreds of tungsten balls while he's aiming his artillery piece at Ukrainian villages. They have made their bed, they cannot complain when Ukrainians drone-drop grenades into it.
At the risk of derailing the thread or completely misunderstanding you: The strategic bombings of ww2 are unacceptable by todays standards, and nobody who has even the most miniscule integrity agrees with them. I am not a fan of the euphemistic term, and thus will rather use the much more honest term "terrorbombing" when talking about strategic bombing intended to break the moral of a population, despite its baggage of often having been used by german right wingers. I am not talking about strategic bombing with the goal to reduce the warfare capabilities by destroying military factories, logistics, production etc. The german nazi government was a bunch of despicable criminals fighting a total war, so naturally they were fine with nazi germany terrorbombing cities indiscriminately. Today, people who have a informed opinion on the matter do not support that decision. The allied terrorbombings have been controversial even among the allies themselves at the times (a little less so when it came to japan, but thats how it goes. further away, racism, pick your favourite reason and you won't be completely wrong), and nobody with an informed opinion on it today defends them past maybe a "it was different times". They would be completely unacceptable today, and they are definitely not an accepted way to fight fascism. At least not among "western values" which people in here at least like to pretend to hold up.
The moral high ground comes at the cost of having to endure some things without dealing back in kind. Because once we start arguing in favour of something "because they did it too", we lose all of our claim to morality. I read your post as the exact flawed reasoning that the allies had back then, which today is not only morally unacceptable, but on which the consensus at the moment is also that it doesn't work. You don't fight fascism by terrorising the population that lives under fascism. The terrorbombings of germany against the british, the allied against germany, and most recently russia vs ukraine have shown that terrorising the population only seems to strengthen their resolve against the (perceived) attacker. (Perceived attacker here is supposed to acknowledge that russia is the aggressor in the war, but from the perspective of someone living in a russia city that might get hit ukraine is the attacker in that situation, or they might believe the lies about the war being russia defending itself)
To reiterate, I am not suggesting that ukraine is terrorbombing russian cities, I am trying to drive home the point that emotional reactions and rightful speeches of "fascism can only be fought by force" are inherently flawed when their end result is the justification of things we in the west generally see as unacceptable and inexcusable. Unless ofc someone wants to willingly ignore the historic evidence that they are wrong and also voluntarily remove themselves from our western values. To my knowledge, ukraine has not shown anything that points to a deliberate and systematic terrorisation of the russian population, so there is even less of a reason to come up with twisted arguments to justify these sort of actions. I understand the frustration of inaction, but this ain't the way.
And as with the great orc debate, I perfectly understand if a ukrainian makes these kinds of arguments due to the situation they are in. They are still wrong, but I would not hold it against them personally. But if you are some forum warrior far away from any danger, the nicest thing I can tell you in this regard is to touch grass and come back when you are ready for our western values. Stop shooting yourself in the foot and stop abandoning the values we are supposed to defend out of a misguided desire.
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
Thank you. I wrote a rough transcript (exclamation marks and question marks of the most critical points):
(Video uploaded 1 month ago ~June/July 2023)
!? - The Ukrainian question must be solved once and for all - Kyiv is a de facto weapon of NATO to wage war against us ? - It's not enough to take their weapon away from them (i.e. from NATO), they must never get this weapon back
!? -- I think we should change the very paradigm of the special military operation -- The Great Patriotic War is starting -- This is no longer about defending Russia's new regions (annexed territory) -- Russia and the historic Russian Federation has been attacked! (referring to the towns of Shebekino and Grayvoron, near the border between Russia and Ukraine) -- People are being evacuated from Belgorod -- Russian citizens are constitutionally obligated to defend their Motherland!
- There is the Kursk region (another town somewhat near the border), there are drones in Moscow!
? --- There has to be a different approach, it's impossible to solve this through limited means. Additional forces have to be brought in, otherwise the situation will get worse for us
- Only Putin can make these decisions !!! - What comes to mind right now, I will say it again, is to destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent
So this is the key quote: "[...] destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent [...]"
That is referring to Putin's decision. It's a suggestion by the woman from the TV channel (since it's scripted, it would be written and approved by the channel).
My question would be two-fold: Was this clearly suggested already prior to the waves of mobilization or only after? Are the Russian soldiers at the front free to access this channel? And how often do they realistically receive news updates from that TV station (considering they're often busy fighting)?
On July 30 2023 21:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Enable doesn't have a willful component. It just means making something possible. So yes you are enabling global warming like pretty much every human contributing greenhouse gasses in their lives.
Going to Ukrainian soil to kill Ukranians or loading rockets to fire on Ukranian buildings does enable the genocide of Ukranians. Even just paying taxes that buy rockets enables it in a way.
The morality of being forced by existing in a system, or choosing to is a bit different discussion. There's still a choice to not do harm to Ukrainians the end, even if it can come at big personal cost of prison.
Just like we humans choose to use cars because the system expects it of us, even if we know moving around in a 1200kg hunk of iron is a stupid use of energy. You can't claim no morale responsibility for enjoying the convenience of modern transport over walking/biking even if the system demands us to be able to move 100km in an hour to show up somewhere.
It's very difficult to live contrary to the system though. Mobilized definitely share less of the moral burden than the designers and proponents of this invasion/war. But their is still a moral component there.
If I was forced into an active warzone and I'm being shot at by Ukrainians, I think I have the right to shoot back to defend myself.
It's your low bar for "forced" that's the problem here. Unless you were cryogenically frozen before Feb '22 and defrosted in a trench in Donetsk stuck between Ukrainians and Russian enforcers, you had ways of avoiding ending up in that situation without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance. It's not enough for there to be any punishment or inconvenience whatsoever to absolve you, it has to be a comparable one.
Ardias is a good man. He's still in Russia even though he could've technically left. He has personal reasons for that decision. Would you say that, if he were to be sent to the frontline, he should be accused of being an active participant in genocide?
The condition I wrote applies all the same to people we know of (like Ardias) and to people we don't know of, why wouldn't it? If he can avoid ending up in a kill or be killed situation in Ukrainian mud without having to make a comparable sacrifice then he ought to do it.
So what is your conclusion about Ardias then? He decided to stay in Russia, for his own reasons. What is your judgement of him as a person? Please tell us.
Based on that alone? None. As others have wrote, leaving the country isn't the only way to avoid ending up in the scenario you wrote.
But anyone that refuses the inconvenience of leaving, then refuses the fine or jail time for avoiding the summons, then refuses to take a beating from their commander for not following orders, then refuses the risk that comes with desertion, cannot be absolved of being an enabler of this genocide attempt. And that's not even an exhaustive list, there's people that bribed their way out of it, and probably other ways I'm missing right now.
I can't find it right now but I recall an interview with a Russian that fled to Germany at the start of the invasion and was volunteering with the humanitarian aid logistics for Ukraine, he was asked he feels any responsibility for the war and he said he shares at least "1 / 140 million" of the blame. I think that's the healthy approach to this.
In the most circulated clip of the drone explosion from last night in Moscow the first thing I felt was empathy towards the terrorized woman filming it, I don't want anyone to feel that scared. But then I immediately felt mad knowing that if a hundred million Russians had thought about those terrorized people hiding in basements in Kharkiv for months in the same way, we wouldn't fucking be here.
Dead bodies of dead Russian soldiers say otherwise. Do you claim that they're all guilty?
Wtf does whether they are alive any more or not have anything to do with whether they participated in a genocide? Yes, they did, by virtue of being part of a military who invaded another country and committed genocide. This seems difficult for your to understand.
Now they are dead. Those two are not remotely mutually exclusive
It's not about them being dead. Some of them were brainwashed to such a degree that they're now dead because they thought they were fighting for a just cause. People are essentially arguing that Russian propaganda is so ineffectual that no man should be able to fall for it and that, if they end up fighting an unjust war as a consequence, they're all... incredibly stupid. Or evil. Or selfish. Or all of the above. Do you think that's reasonable? Men from entire towns being mobilized to be shipped to war. They're all stupid? Or they're all evil? Or they're all selfish? Or they're all of the above? Not one of them can be good, smart and selfless, and just tragically brainwashed? Really think about it. This would imply that Russian TV propaganda is ineffectual even in the most remote areas where they don't have access to good information.
As pointed out by a number of people, their motivation has no bearing on whether they are enabling a genocide. By participating in a genocidal war they are, by definition, enabling it. It's a factual statement, not a moral judgement. Being ignorant or differently motivated is completely irrelevant.
Secondly, have you ever watched or read any Russian propaganda? Russia's policy towards Ukrainians is openly genocidal. It boils down to: "Ukrainians are brainwashed Russians. We give them two options: become Russians or die." This is no different from ISIS's "convert or die" policy. Russian propaganda also talks openly about attacking civilian infrastructure, freezing the EU to death/Ukrainians into submission, launching nukes on Western capitals and kidnapping Ukrainian children to raise them as Russian (that includes teaching them how to operate drones to kill other Ukrainians - there's a piece on it by RIA).
If they see this and think they're fighting for a just cause, it's entirely on them.
You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
On July 31 2023 01:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: Guilt exists on a spectrum. You can say that Putin, not the soldiers or random russians are the ones responsible for the war, but likewise, 'innocent' should be reserved for people who did more than accept what is happening.
The climate change parallel is quite apt tbh. There are some people who have pushed consumerism and consumption of fossil fuels and destruction of forests to produce more beef and these people are more responsible, but if your biological footprint is greater than 1, you are not innocent. Your vegan friend who bikes everywhere, refuses to fly, wears only second hand clothing and adds an extra layer of clothing rather than increases the heat during winter might be, but a solid 98%+ of people in western countries are not.
For me the parallel that came to mind is an illegal annexation/occupation and ethnic cleansing campaign that the US and many European governments are arming, training, and subsidizing. If we were to apply some of the reasoning from the last several pages, it's a lot of pot calling the kettle black imo.
Russian state propagandists arguing that the Ukrainian question must be solved and that they need to kill every living thing in the Kharkiv oblast. Man, woman, child.
Thank you. I wrote a rough transcript (exclamation marks and question marks of the most critical points):
(Video uploaded 1 month ago ~June/July 2023)
!? - The Ukrainian question must be solved once and for all - Kyiv is a de facto weapon of NATO to wage war against us ? - It's not enough to take their weapon away from them (i.e. from NATO), they must never get this weapon back
!? -- I think we should change the very paradigm of the special military operation -- The Great Patriotic War is starting -- This is no longer about defending Russia's new regions (annexed territory) -- Russia and the historic Russian Federation has been attacked! (referring to the towns of Shebekino and Grayvoron, near the border between Russia and Ukraine) -- People are being evacuated from Belgorod -- Russian citizens are constitutionally obligated to defend their Motherland!
- There is the Kursk region (another town somewhat near the border), there are drones in Moscow!
? --- There has to be a different approach, it's impossible to solve this through limited means. Additional forces have to be brought in, otherwise the situation will get worse for us
- Only Putin can make these decisions !!! - What comes to mind right now, I will say it again, is to destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent
So this is the key quote: "[...] destroy every living thing in the Kharkiv region as a punishment and as a deterrent [...]"
That is referring to Putin's decision. It's a suggestion by the woman from the TV channel (since it's scripted, it would be written and approved by the channel).
My question would be two-fold: Was this clearly suggested already prior to the waves of mobilization or only after? Are the Russian soldiers at the front free to access this channel? And how often do they realistically receive news updates from that TV station (considering they're often busy fighting)?
You’re not really arguing in good faith here. You keep adding layer after layer of additional evidence I must provide. It’s not reasonable to argue in this way. If I were to provide evidence of the same rhetoric before mobilization you would simply ask for proof that the Russian soldiers had access to those broadcasts. If I provided that then you’d ask for proof that specific Russian soldiers heard them.
On July 31 2023 01:51 KwarK wrote: You can still believe in the values of peace and tolerance while recognizing that sometimes you need 180000 tungsten balls to defend them. They’re not incompatible. The idea that using force to defend peace is somehow betraying the ideals of peace is naive and simplistic.
You can argue the benefits of peace once the fascists have been forcibly disarmed and their ideology discredited. Trying to argue it beforehand is how we got the invasion of Poland or Ukraine. The best way of dissuading someone from thinking might makes right is showing them that they’re not mighty and therefore that within their own ideology they are wrong. Once you’ve achieved that you can be magnanimous in victory. By refusing to abuse your power over them the way they planned to abuse their power over others you can demonstrate the virtues of peace.
But only after they’ve lost their power. Not before.
Is this a response to my post? If so, quoting it instead of vague posting would be appreciated so one can actually follow the conversation, and it would be important for me to know if I need to respond.
On July 31 2023 01:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: Guilt exists on a spectrum. You can say that Putin, not the soldiers or random russians are the ones responsible for the war, but likewise, 'innocent' should be reserved for people who did more than accept what is happening.
The climate change parallel is quite apt tbh. There are some people who have pushed consumerism and consumption of fossil fuels and destruction of forests to produce more beef and these people are more responsible, but if your biological footprint is greater than 1, you are not innocent. Your vegan friend who bikes everywhere, refuses to fly, wears only second hand clothing and adds an extra layer of clothing rather than increases the heat during winter might be, but a solid 98%+ of people in western countries are not.
For me the parallel that came to mind is an illegal annexation/occupation and ethnic cleansing campaign that the US and many European governments are arming, training, and subsidizing. If we were to apply some of the reasoning from the last several pages, it's a lot of pot calling the kettle black imo.