3 ms·

>> Or some kind of righteous peace force who is above it all, that can attack anyone who attacks anyone else, not seeing the irony in their position of attackin

by 988747 5y ago

>> Or some kind of righteous peace force who is above it all, that can attack anyone who attacks anyone else, not seeing the irony in their position of attacking others who do something they don't like. It's not about attacking someone who "do something we don't like" it's about Russia clearly breaking international laws, and behaving like an asshole. No irony here. If we can police individual citizens within a country, why not police the countries themselves? >> no one ever wins a full-scale war like that. Everyone loses, some just lose a bit less than the others... You have to decide which do you value more: your freedom or your life. And if you answer "my life" then be prepared to be a slave for the rest of it.

brabel 5y ago
> why not police the countries themselves? That's the problem, exactly. You think your country is just and can intervene in other countries' affairs, just like the police does. But what you see as just and fair, people on the other side of the world see as barbaric (quite literarlly, as that's the original meaning of the word). That's extremely dangerous thinking. Only the International Court of Justice[1] can deliberate on whether a nation's actions are illegal, and luckily we do have laws that determine what sovereign nations may or may not do. That's an international organization where no one country can decide anything. Military agression on another country is always illegal: so Russia is indeed commiting an illegal act by invading Ukraine... unless there's consensus in the UN Security Council (of which Russia is a permanent member), however, it would be illegal for another country to intervene. You may think comitting a crime is justified if it's to defend a victim of another crime, but that's not the law we have currently agreed on. I urge everyone to read this document, "Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: What does International Law Have to Say?" [2], written in 2015!!! The international community somehow failed to stop Russia when it still could. It failed to address the situation, failed to communicate with Russia in an effective manner, it let Russia know that it's ok to break the law (according to Putin's message when he started the invasion, the West broke it first, multiple times, e.g. in Bosnia, Iraq, Syria etc which seems like have served as motivation for Putin to do the same as clearly there's no consequences), it just failed so much it's hard to believe it! So, here we are and war is a reality. > You have to decide which do you value more: your freedom or your life. There's no threat to the freedom of anyone in NATO countries... if you're saying the people of Ukraine should decide that, as they're the only ones now suffering the consequences of our failures, then I'd say that they did all they could to save both, but that was not enough. Maybe they should've known that NATO wouldn't accept them, and refrained from seeking membership, which might have saved them from this aggression? Is that what you think they should've done? That would not really have limited their freedom because NATO was never a realistic prospect anyway, or at least it would not be for a few years for sure (and Russia knows that every passing year could cause that to change)... and their lives would've been fine too! Seeking dialogue with Russia, they might have been able to stop the war in its Eastern borders and have avoided losing Krimea, even!! However, those things happened and now we all have to live with the consequences. Thinking what we should've done is only useful in the sense it may inform what we do next... and that' the important thing to do: to think of what we should do next very carefully if we want to stop escalation... or if we want to go back to the Cold War, which seems almost unavoidable right now. [1] https://www.icj-cij.org/en https://www.icj-cij.org/en [2] https://www.lawfareblog.com/russias-invasion-ukraine-what-does-international-law-have-say https://www.lawfareblog.com/russias-invasion-ukraine-what-do...

by 988747 5y ago

brabel 5y ago

> why not police the countries themselves? That's the problem, exactly. You think your country is just and can intervene in other countries' affairs, just like the police does. But what you see as just and fair, people on the other side of the world see as barbaric (quite literarlly, as that's the original meaning of the word). That's extremely dangerous thinking. Only the International Court of Justice[1] can deliberate on whether a nation's actions are illegal, and luckily we do have laws that determine what sovereign nations may or may not do. That's an international organization where no one country can decide anything. Military agression on another country is always illegal: so Russia is indeed commiting an illegal act by invading Ukraine... unless there's consensus in the UN Security Council (of which Russia is a permanent member), however, it would be illegal for another country to intervene. You may think comitting a crime is justified if it's to defend a victim of another crime, but that's not the law we have currently agreed on. I urge everyone to read this document, "Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: What does International Law Have to Say?" [2], written in 2015!!! The international community somehow failed to stop Russia when it still could. It failed to address the situation, failed to communicate with Russia in an effective manner, it let Russia know that it's ok to break the law (according to Putin's message when he started the invasion, the West broke it first, multiple times, e.g. in Bosnia, Iraq, Syria etc which seems like have served as motivation for Putin to do the same as clearly there's no consequences), it just failed so much it's hard to believe it! So, here we are and war is a reality. > You have to decide which do you value more: your freedom or your life. There's no threat to the freedom of anyone in NATO countries... if you're saying the people of Ukraine should decide that, as they're the only ones now suffering the consequences of our failures, then I'd say that they did all they could to save both, but that was not enough. Maybe they should've known that NATO wouldn't accept them, and refrained from seeking membership, which might have saved them from this aggression? Is that what you think they should've done? That would not really have limited their freedom because NATO was never a realistic prospect anyway, or at least it would not be for a few years for sure (and Russia knows that every passing year could cause that to change)... and their lives would've been fine too! Seeking dialogue with Russia, they might have been able to stop the war in its Eastern borders and have avoided losing Krimea, even!! However, those things happened and now we all have to live with the consequences. Thinking what we should've done is only useful in the sense it may inform what we do next... and that' the important thing to do: to think of what we should do next very carefully if we want to stop escalation... or if we want to go back to the Cold War, which seems almost unavoidable right now. [1] https://www.icj-cij.org/en https://www.icj-cij.org/en [2] https://www.lawfareblog.com/russias-invasion-ukraine-what-does-international-law-have-say https://www.lawfareblog.com/russias-invasion-ukraine-what-do...