4 ms·

Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.

by Dahoon 6y ago

nl 6y ago
The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.
- buran77 6y ago
  The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "international law"? How much outside interference do you think the elections in Ukraine got and how much of it was condemned? There was no "innocent side" in the whole Crimean issue. Whether local or on the other side of the world, all parties involved played the same game to try to gain something. Civilians as usually took the brunt of the conflict. Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending. Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.
  - thefounder 6y ago
    Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?
    - elmo2you 6y ago
      Mark those words carefully, because you are likely going to regret them. To a degree it's understandable that those who are constantly bombarded by their own relentless propaganda fail to see that they are indeed the bad guys. But this machinery that has so many so thorough brainwashed, has no intention of stopping. Also, it will have to get increasingly more criminal to sustain itself. As so many of these systems before it, it will eventually turn on itself (it is already doing that, big time) and eventually destroy itself from the inside out. Only the strongest believers will be able to hold on to their faith in being the good guys. Others will wonder: "Why didn't we see it (coming)", ignorant of how many outsiders did already see it coming for a long time. Either way, a lot of people will have a similarly painful realization as the Germans had after WW2. Don't take my word for it. You will see.
    - buran77 6y ago
      You didn't actually contradict anything I said though. You just let your personal feelings decide which identical half of the coin looks better. Don't fall prey to emotion just because the facts make you angry or don't fit the narrative you learned to love. All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not accepting reality doesn't make you right. The US isn't inherently better or worse, more or less immoral than other superpowers but it does have the military, economic, and political power to do whatever they need to do to grow it or at least not lose any of it. If it means bombing a hospital, imposing sanctions on an enemy, or strongarming an ally they'll do it because not doing it means giving up an inch. One here, one there, pretty soon they're a mile behind. So no quarter given.
      - jonathanstrange 6y ago
        You're still misrepresenting international law, though. It's not as ephemeral as your portray it, most of it is based on existing treaties, declarations, and agreements, and the rest of it is also not arbitrary but rather based on convention and customary procedure among states. There is a reason why countries like the US and Russia go at great length in arguing that what they do is not violating international law in cases when they are actually breaking it. Moreover, even those states who occasionally break it most of the time conform with international law and resort to treaties and conflict resolution mechanisms associated with them. It's not as if Russia (or the US, for what it matters) ratify no international agreements at all or always break them or completely ignore international agreements. Overall, your position is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality of international relations. Countries do not just do whatever they want out of a position of power, and for most part even those that break treaties, agreements, and habitual rules of conduct only do so as an exception to the rule. I can assure you that Russia cares a great deal about being recognized as a rational and reliable actor rather than as a mad rogue state. What you say about the morality of states (whatever that means, to me the concept is meaningless) is clearly just your personal opinion, so let's ignore that.
  - curryst 6y ago
    > The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's far more basic than that. Enforcement of domestic laws is based on the monopoly on violence the government carries. In international law, the two parties do not acknowledge each other's monopoly on violence. They are extremely unlikely to just roll over and accept the punishment. Enforcing international law is just war with added steps and a more morally palatable justification. Sometimes nations capitulate before war breaks out (typically because the punishment is less severe than war, or because their odds of winning are low), but it doesn't change that they're surrendering to violence. > Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is largely broken. It's predicated on the idea that the combined military power of the rest of the world can overpower the "guilty" country. Nuclear weaponry means that in the event of international law enforcement that threatens the existence of a country, they have just as much ability to make the rest of the world uninhabitable as the alliance of nations does to destroy theirs. We can't meaningfully enforce international law against nuclear capable countries. This is why economy-ruining sanctions are only enforced on nations that lack nuclear armaments. Hypothetically, if Cuba had nuclear missiles, do you really think our embargo of them would have lasted this long? It's just a further division of the world into have's and have nots.

Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.

by Dahoon 6y ago

Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.

nl 6y ago

The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.

buran77 6y ago
The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "international law"? How much outside interference do you think the elections in Ukraine got and how much of it was condemned? There was no "innocent side" in the whole Crimean issue. Whether local or on the other side of the world, all parties involved played the same game to try to gain something. Civilians as usually took the brunt of the conflict. Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending. Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.
- thefounder 6y ago
  Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    Mark those words carefully, because you are likely going to regret them. To a degree it's understandable that those who are constantly bombarded by their own relentless propaganda fail to see that they are indeed the bad guys. But this machinery that has so many so thorough brainwashed, has no intention of stopping. Also, it will have to get increasingly more criminal to sustain itself. As so many of these systems before it, it will eventually turn on itself (it is already doing that, big time) and eventually destroy itself from the inside out. Only the strongest believers will be able to hold on to their faith in being the good guys. Others will wonder: "Why didn't we see it (coming)", ignorant of how many outsiders did already see it coming for a long time. Either way, a lot of people will have a similarly painful realization as the Germans had after WW2. Don't take my word for it. You will see.
  - buran77 6y ago
    You didn't actually contradict anything I said though. You just let your personal feelings decide which identical half of the coin looks better. Don't fall prey to emotion just because the facts make you angry or don't fit the narrative you learned to love. All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not accepting reality doesn't make you right. The US isn't inherently better or worse, more or less immoral than other superpowers but it does have the military, economic, and political power to do whatever they need to do to grow it or at least not lose any of it. If it means bombing a hospital, imposing sanctions on an enemy, or strongarming an ally they'll do it because not doing it means giving up an inch. One here, one there, pretty soon they're a mile behind. So no quarter given.
    - jonathanstrange 6y ago
      You're still misrepresenting international law, though. It's not as ephemeral as your portray it, most of it is based on existing treaties, declarations, and agreements, and the rest of it is also not arbitrary but rather based on convention and customary procedure among states. There is a reason why countries like the US and Russia go at great length in arguing that what they do is not violating international law in cases when they are actually breaking it. Moreover, even those states who occasionally break it most of the time conform with international law and resort to treaties and conflict resolution mechanisms associated with them. It's not as if Russia (or the US, for what it matters) ratify no international agreements at all or always break them or completely ignore international agreements. Overall, your position is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality of international relations. Countries do not just do whatever they want out of a position of power, and for most part even those that break treaties, agreements, and habitual rules of conduct only do so as an exception to the rule. I can assure you that Russia cares a great deal about being recognized as a rational and reliable actor rather than as a mad rogue state. What you say about the morality of states (whatever that means, to me the concept is meaningless) is clearly just your personal opinion, so let's ignore that.
- curryst 6y ago
  > The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's far more basic than that. Enforcement of domestic laws is based on the monopoly on violence the government carries. In international law, the two parties do not acknowledge each other's monopoly on violence. They are extremely unlikely to just roll over and accept the punishment. Enforcing international law is just war with added steps and a more morally palatable justification. Sometimes nations capitulate before war breaks out (typically because the punishment is less severe than war, or because their odds of winning are low), but it doesn't change that they're surrendering to violence. > Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is largely broken. It's predicated on the idea that the combined military power of the rest of the world can overpower the "guilty" country. Nuclear weaponry means that in the event of international law enforcement that threatens the existence of a country, they have just as much ability to make the rest of the world uninhabitable as the alliance of nations does to destroy theirs. We can't meaningfully enforce international law against nuclear capable countries. This is why economy-ruining sanctions are only enforced on nations that lack nuclear armaments. Hypothetically, if Cuba had nuclear missiles, do you really think our embargo of them would have lasted this long? It's just a further division of the world into have's and have nots.