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 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote: I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
On July 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote: I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
Self defence is a good reason.
Self defense is defined as a measured response to prevent harm from oneself. How is creating an explosion in Moscow a necessary step to defend Ukraine from Russia?
On July 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote: I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
Self defence is a good reason.
Self defense is defined as a measured response to prevent harm from oneself. How is creating an explosion in Moscow a necessary step to defend Ukraine from Russia?
Well, there is the possiblity that if the war hits a little closer to home for the average russian, they may start caring about their leaders engaged in a pointless war of agression, and pressure them to dial back the crazy. I don't know if this is a realistic plan, but I don't think its completely outrageous idea.
On July 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote: I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
And do you have any evidence that (A) the Ukrainians did it and (B) they did it for revenge? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
On July 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote: I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
Self defence is a good reason.
Self defense is defined as a measured response to prevent harm from oneself. How is creating an explosion in Moscow a necessary step to defend Ukraine from Russia?
1. Demonstrating capability is necessary for deterrence. There’s a reason that Russia’s fleet hasn’t been sinking grain ships. Ukraine has demonstrated that if it leaves the safety of its fortified harbours it will be targeted.
2. Russia believes that their ability to kill Ukrainian civilians at will is proof of their right to dominate Ukraine. That’s just how fascism works. They don’t view Ukraine as a peer adversary because doing so would challenge the basis for the conflict. Reciprocity forces recognition of peer status.
In the Russian fascist worldview Ukraine does not exist as a real entity. That’s why it has been so important to them to portray the Ukrainians as tools of the west, to insist that they will only negotiate with the west directly, to claim that the west is their opponent in this war, and that it is really about protecting “Russians” (who happen to speak Ukrainian and live in Ukraine) from western abuse. This foundational premise, that Ukraine isn’t the enemy because there is no Ukraine, is essential to their casus belli. It’s why this isn’t a war, it’s a military operation. It’s why Ukrainian attacks on the Kerch bridge are “terrorism”. Wars only happen between peers.
Reciprocal counterattacks that force consideration of Ukraine as a rival state with its own autonomy, culture, interests, and government help Ukraine. The precursor for “can we succeed in a war against Ukraine?” is necessarily “are we at war with Ukraine?”
I don't. I am just arguing against absolving Ukrainians of any guilt should they try to attack civilian targets in Moscow to "speak the language of the enemy."
On August 01 2023 00:55 Broetchenholer wrote: I don't. I am just arguing against absolving Ukrainians of any guilt should they try to attack civilian targets in Moscow to "speak the language of the enemy."
Perhaps you should wait until they actually deliberately target civilians. It's honestly impressive how they managed to remain humane in the face of Russian barbarity.
On July 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote: I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
Sending drones into Moscow is 100 % right. There is plenty of military targets there. It's not Ukraines fault if they miss because of jamming. If Russia wants to prevent it they can deploy enough AA to shoot them down.
Understand this.
If Russia did not have nukes (or if Ukraine also had them) would have taken massive amounts of their territory that is not defended and we would see negotiations for peace. But they are figthing an unfair war and the only way it ends is when Russia wants it to end. Public opinion is a piece of the puzzle and Kwark is correct in that fascists do not like being bombed. That doesn't mean terrorbombing civilians but if Ukrainian drones can start doing strikes all over Russia it sends a messege. They have to do a lot of other things to convince Russia that they are being retarded but this is fair game 100 %.
On August 01 2023 00:55 Broetchenholer wrote: I don't. I am just arguing against absolving Ukrainians of any guilt should they try to attack civilian targets in Moscow to "speak the language of the enemy."
Drones were shot down (or jammed down? whatever term you want to use) and as a result of that landed somewhere civilian.
The notion that this was a Ukranian attack on civilian targets is bullshit to begin with and if you go all the way back to where this 'discussion' started the very first thing Kwark said is that they likely didn't hit their intended target.
On July 31 2023 21:12 Broetchenholer wrote: I agree with Djabanate, Kwark is casually dropping a "you should bomb civilians of a fascist society for profit(?!?!)." and everyone is like, you do you, KwarK, anyway, how dare someone say not all Russians are fascists. Sending drones into Moscow is wrong, it is doing nothing but potentially terrorize civilians. It is why we condemn drone strikes on Odessa, Kyev and Kharkiv, and rightfully so. Now the Ukrainians do it to claim "revenge" and we are like, i bet they had a good reason for it.
Self defence is a good reason.
Self defense is defined as a measured response to prevent harm from oneself. How is creating an explosion in Moscow a necessary step to defend Ukraine from Russia?
1. Demonstrating capability is necessary for deterrence. There’s a reason that Russia’s fleet hasn’t been sinking grain ships. Ukraine has demonstrated that if it leaves the safety of its fortified harbours it will be targeted.
2. Russia believes that their ability to kill Ukrainian civilians at will is proof of their right to dominate Ukraine. That’s just how fascism works. They don’t view Ukraine as a peer adversary because doing so would challenge the basis for the conflict. Reciprocity forces recognition of peer status.
In the Russian fascist worldview Ukraine does not exist as a real entity. That’s why it has been so important to them to portray the Ukrainians as tools of the west, to insist that they will only negotiate with the west directly, to claim that the west is their opponent in this war, and that it is really about protecting “Russians” (who happen to speak Ukrainian and live in Ukraine) from western abuse. This foundational premise, that Ukraine isn’t the enemy because there is no Ukraine, is essential to their casus belli. It’s why this isn’t a war, it’s a military operation. It’s why Ukrainian attacks on the Kerch bridge are “terrorism”. Wars only happen between peers.
Reciprocal counterattacks that force consideration of Ukraine as a rival state with its own autonomy, culture, interests, and government help Ukraine. The precursor for “can we succeed in a war against Ukraine?” is necessarily “are we at war with Ukraine?”
What has any of that got to do with the issue at hand? The way fascist countries work does not make them special in how international law is applied to them. Killing or terrorizing civilians as a deterrent is not different because one side is democratic one one side is not. You also don't just get green light for violating rules because it is really helpful to your cause, even if your arguments holds value that russians need to understand Ukraine is a country by getting shelled by them.
On August 01 2023 01:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Ukraine and Croatia have made a deal to export grain through their ports bypassing the Black Sea etc.
Good news, but the grain still has to get there via railway etc. Perun's latest video had a section on just how much grain is going through the black sea ports - somewhere around this time:
30 million tonnes of grain via ship through the grain deal, and existing route through Romania handled 15m tonnes in 1H 2023. It's a lot of grain that needs to be rerouted, and it won't be easy, or cheap to do so.
On August 01 2023 01:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Ukraine and Croatia have made a deal to export grain through their ports bypassing the Black Sea etc.
I feel like this barely changes anything in case the direct black sea route becomes unavailable. I don't think getting their grain out onto ships in the mediterranean was the problem, but doing so by other means than exporting it by land. Croatia is pretty far away, I feel like once ukrainian grain reaches the mediterranean coastline by land there was never an issue to transport it further via ships.
As I understand it this also doesn't change that the railway to poland is the bottleneck in grain exports if the black sea becomes unavailable. And that any other method than shipping it directly from ukraine via sea is way more expensive, I think I remember train being the 2nd best option and still being 3x as expensive or something like that.
On August 01 2023 00:55 Broetchenholer wrote: I don't. I am just arguing against absolving Ukrainians of any guilt should they try to attack civilian targets in Moscow to "speak the language of the enemy."
Drones were shot down (or jammed down? whatever term you want to use) and as a result of that landed somewhere civilian.
The notion that this was a Ukranian attack on civilian targets is bullshit to begin with and if you go all the way back to where this 'discussion' started the very first thing Kwark said is that they likely didn't hit their intended target.
And still he said that Ukraine is justified in targeting russian civilians. That claim is all we are arguing about.
On August 01 2023 01:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Ukraine and Croatia have made a deal to export grain through their ports bypassing the Black Sea etc.
Good news, but the grain still has to get there via railway etc.
Croatia has access to the Danube river so a majority of the trip could be covered by ships, I think. Still has to travel from Danube (which is on Eastern border of Croatia with Serbia) down to the mediterranean coast by train/trucks which is a decent distance (around 300-400km depending on which route they take). Hopefully it helps a bit.
International law, and for that matter the rules of war, aren’t divinely inspired and enforced. They’re a worthy goal that civilized nations aspire to in order to place limits on something that is fundamentally abhorrent. A lot of them are extremely silly or arbitrary. We decide that low yield tactical nukes are a step too far and so we spend billions of dollars on material research trying to find the exact chemical composition to achieve the same amount of human suffering and destruction. Then we launch our thermobaric warheads and it looks just like the nuke would have but we stayed within the arbitrary rules of the game. The US bombs a village and then when counting the innocents killed will designate the men as combatants and the women as collateral, regardless of whether the women were part of insurgent activity and the men innocent.
None of these rules stand up to basic scrutiny but we believe in them because it is necessary to believe in them. We need them to cope with the horrors that we inflict upon each other. And not just in the context of war, we need them for resource allocation, we need them for justice, we need them to make it okay for us to live in luxury while children starve abroad. We need there to be a guiding principle or philosophy that says “these men may be burned alive because they were wearing the special green costume that makes it okay but it would be wrong to burn these other men alive”. As if it’s not all fundamentally criminal. These ships may be sunk because they carry weapons but these other ships carrying grain to be sold for money to buy weapons, those must not be sunk. It would be wrong to poison the crops of a village in Africa but it’s fine to pump thousands of tons of excess CO2 into the air and let a drought do it. The rules are the hypocrisy we need to forgive ourselves for the world. They’re what we need to live on soil that we know was won through genocide.
This is not to say that there shouldn’t be rules and that everyone should just nuke everyone else. Obviously there should be rules that we should aspire to. I’m very pro rule. There should be a lot more rules than there currently are and they should be enforced more strictly. Minimum prices paid for goods exported from the developing world. Child and forced labour rules (with teeth). But it is important to recognize that these rules are things that we imagined into existence to make human interactions more palatable. They serve us, we don’t serve them. The rules are a means to an end, a more humane and civilized society.
There are cases in which strict adherence to those rules fail to achieve the noble aims of the rules. A simple example is the rule against extrajudicial executions. Agents of the state should not be killing citizens, regardless of what they’re accused of. That prerogative is reserved for a jury of their peers presided over by a judge. It’s a great rule. But sometimes dangerous criminals are armed and unwilling to submit to a jury of their peers and when it is not possible to peacefully disarm them they may be killed by law enforcement. We’re all basically on board with that, the rule is noble and aspirational but reality requires exceptions. The nuclear bombings in WW2 were another example of actions that were contrary to the noble aspirations of our current rules but were, unfortunately, judged to be necessary to prevent even greater suffering. They were atrocities, but sometimes the world is atrocious.
Ultimately all war is criminal. We shouldn’t do it. If we must do it we should absolutely aspire to make it as palatable as possible. But these are just aspirations, not absolutes, and they must be examined within the context of a wider framework of aspirations. None of them hold up to absolute scrutiny. The objective isn’t the strictest possible compliance with the wording of the rules, it’s a better world in which humans are less awful to each other. When the goal of the rule and the wording of the rule come into conflict I support the goal.
One issue Ukraine has with using EU infrastructure is smuggling. EU produced grain is subsidized and has price controls to protect farmers. External imports are subject to import duties. In theory Ukrainian grain passing though European infrastructure going to a non EU nation would be exempt from import duties. In practice there have been a number of complaints about it being resold within the EU.
The railway bridge that totally didn't get hit because Russia suddenly managed to actually shoot down the missiles, and then refused civilians and journalists to even come close to it so they could uphold their pathetic attempts at lying for just another few hours?
"Doesn't look like anything to me"
Honestly, the damages aren't even all that bad. That could be fixed in pretty short amount of time. There was no need to try to hide it (Not to mention the naivety in thinking they could in the first place). Russia just lies to lie at this point.
EPT
