8 ms·

This remark implies that the warring parties are somehow equally responsible. I do not know where the OP is (Sudan?) and know nothing about what’s going on ther

This remark implies that the warring parties are somehow equally responsible. I do not know where the OP is (Sudan?) and know nothing about what’s going on there. But Ukraine situation is crystal clear - there is the victim and the aggressor. Representing them as as equally guilty of war is at best misleading.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago
People unable to comprehend complexity tend to refer to complex situations as "crystal clear", "simple", "undeniable". Others try to refrain from making such comments, if not because they possess an advanced intelligence, because they want to avoid making a fool of themselves.
ethbr0 3y ago
No, it doesn't. It's a fair comment about external arms supply intensifying conflicts, without apportioning blame.
- xdennis 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    I think you and parent are reading things into the comment that isn't there. On one axis, there's volume and sophistication of arms. On another axis, there's culpability, righteousness, and what comes after. No requirement to intermingle the two. Examples of genocide aren't germane to the observation that heavier weapons increase the intensity of civil war conflicts. That's why UN arms embargoes have historically always been a first step.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dimitrios1 3y ago
    Again, it's been said already, but you are reading into something that isn't there. Providing arms to a side that didn't have them is going to intensify the conflict. That's just the absolute cold hard reality of the situation. That's all that was being pointed out. Linking to early soviet era atrocities shows just how much you are reaching. The soviets were not discriminatory in who they killed, and very often included their own, such as the Great Purge, which happened before Holodomor. It was about resisting Sovietism.
    - yks 3y ago
      > The soviets were not discriminatory in who they killed, and very often included their own Well, Ukrainians don't think so, and then Russians of today have even more unambiguous genocidal intentions towards them. Paraphrasing a (Russian) classic – these genocides have never happened before and yet again. Also, Wagners torture mobilized Russian soldiers just as gleefully as Ukrainian ones, but that does not mean that the genocidal intent is absolved, it just means that its the Russian way of doing things.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I agree with the sibling that you are reading things into OP's comment that aren't there. OP isn't saying anything about the validity or wisdom of supplying arms to Ukraine. They're talking about Sudan, and how no one is interested/non-busy enough to supply their warring parties with weapons -- coincidentally, because of the war in Ukraine. (FWIW, I absolutely agree with your points: while the Western supply of arms to Ukraine has certainly intensified the conflict, the alternative is that Ukraine would have been fully occupied by Russia a long time ago. But I don't believe OP was taking a stance on that at all.)
potatototoo99 3y ago
Vae victis. Whoever wins the war will set the record on responsibility, like they always do.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  "Winner writes the history" is largely bullshit. 90% of the narrative about the third reich and WW2 right up until recently came from the very Nazis responsible.
  - manuel_w 3y ago
    I don't understand how that counters "Winner writes the history". If the winner wouldn't write history it wouldn't be a problem to talk about - Holodomor in Russia - the genocide on the Armenians in Turkey.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      I look at history as what the world thinks rather than just one country, and still Armenian Genocide history was a close call. Took a long time for other countries (over 100y for the US) to recognize it due to fear of retaliation, and Ottoman Empire was debatably not even a "winner."
beebeepka 3y ago
Be honest with yourself and try to imagine what would happen to, say Mexico, if Russia were to stage a coup, install their guy, and deploy weapons. Cuba has been under the boot for how many decades now? Are they not victims? The never ending "civil war" in Sudan is just one of the countless proxy conflicts between the US and Russia The population doesn't want to be under Russia's boot, of course. Nobody does. But you're clearly playing the naivety card when you should, and do, know better
- netsharc 3y ago
  > if Russia were to stage a coup, install their guy, and deploy weapons. So... is your understanding that Russia's been "forced" to invade because the US was arming Ukraine to eventually invade Russia? I guess this is not an original argument to get into, but do we want to agree on some basic facts before we start: 1. Putin is corrupt. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0 . Sure the people making the video are people who want to see him be taken down and a Pro-Putin take could be that these guys are liars funded by "foreign states" to make propaganda to make Putin look bad, but there's tons of other evidence of his corruption. 2. The person ousted in the "coup" (Viktor Yanukovych) was also deeply corrupt. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/rebels-toured-palace-ukraine-presidential-compound-viktor-yanukovych https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/rebels-toured-... If we can agree that these 2 things are true, then I think there's an argument I can make that the Ukranian people's wish to be closer to the west is genuine and is not a Western-manufactured thing. Because the alternative is for a corrupt Ukranian leader that would've moved to be even more in bed with a corrupt Russian leader and for the citizenry to be robbed of their prosperity and welfare. The argument that Putin did it to stop NATO's growing sphere of influence is a curious reversal of roles of the bad and good guys. Of course it's hard to argue the US/EU are the super clean good guys, hey there's corruption in these 2 institutions as well... but the way I see it, to say that Putin is the better guy against US/EU/NATO requires a lot of self-deception. Or am I the one being deluded?
  - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
    > So... is your understanding that Russia's been "forced" to invade because the US was arming Ukraine to eventually invade Russia? Yes, among other things. > Putin is corrupt Probably true on some level, I don't know enough about it to judge it and I don't see how it makes a difference. Have you checked what the current alternatives to Putin are? > The person ousted in the "coup" (Viktor Yanukovych) was also deeply corrupt Yanukovych was democratically elected, so you can remove the quotes from coup. By the way Zelenskiy is also corrupt as revealed by the pandora papers[0]. I guess it's hard to do something in Ukraine without being at least a bit corrupt? .0: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-o...
aliher1911 3y ago
Wagner group (russian private military) which is now busy in Ukraine and lost quite a bit of personnel was actively involved in Sudan. I might be mistaken but they have some interests in gold mining operation which is a shared venture between Sudan and some Russian business.
kelnos 3y ago
I don't think the OP was saying what you think they were saying. They were merely pointing out that the US and Russia are too "distracted" with Ukraine to provide arms to the warring parties in Sudan, and so hopefully the Sudanese conflict will fizzle out sooner than if the Ukraine war was not going on. I don't believe OP was making any kind of judgment on whether or not the West supplying weapons to Ukraine is a good or bad thing, or is morally right or wrong. Just observing a possible effect on their own situation.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago

People unable to comprehend complexity tend to refer to complex situations as "crystal clear", "simple", "undeniable". Others try to refrain from making such comments, if not because they possess an advanced intelligence, because they want to avoid making a fool of themselves.

ethbr0 3y ago

No, it doesn't. It's a fair comment about external arms supply intensifying conflicts, without apportioning blame.

xdennis 3y ago
[flagged]
- ethbr0 3y ago
  I think you and parent are reading things into the comment that isn't there. On one axis, there's volume and sophistication of arms. On another axis, there's culpability, righteousness, and what comes after. No requirement to intermingle the two. Examples of genocide aren't germane to the observation that heavier weapons increase the intensity of civil war conflicts. That's why UN arms embargoes have historically always been a first step.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dimitrios1 3y ago
  Again, it's been said already, but you are reading into something that isn't there. Providing arms to a side that didn't have them is going to intensify the conflict. That's just the absolute cold hard reality of the situation. That's all that was being pointed out. Linking to early soviet era atrocities shows just how much you are reaching. The soviets were not discriminatory in who they killed, and very often included their own, such as the Great Purge, which happened before Holodomor. It was about resisting Sovietism.
  - yks 3y ago
    > The soviets were not discriminatory in who they killed, and very often included their own Well, Ukrainians don't think so, and then Russians of today have even more unambiguous genocidal intentions towards them. Paraphrasing a (Russian) classic – these genocides have never happened before and yet again. Also, Wagners torture mobilized Russian soldiers just as gleefully as Ukrainian ones, but that does not mean that the genocidal intent is absolved, it just means that its the Russian way of doing things.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I agree with the sibling that you are reading things into OP's comment that aren't there. OP isn't saying anything about the validity or wisdom of supplying arms to Ukraine. They're talking about Sudan, and how no one is interested/non-busy enough to supply their warring parties with weapons -- coincidentally, because of the war in Ukraine. (FWIW, I absolutely agree with your points: while the Western supply of arms to Ukraine has certainly intensified the conflict, the alternative is that Ukraine would have been fully occupied by Russia a long time ago. But I don't believe OP was taking a stance on that at all.)

potatototoo99 3y ago

Vae victis. Whoever wins the war will set the record on responsibility, like they always do.

mrguyorama 3y ago
"Winner writes the history" is largely bullshit. 90% of the narrative about the third reich and WW2 right up until recently came from the very Nazis responsible.
- manuel_w 3y ago
  I don't understand how that counters "Winner writes the history". If the winner wouldn't write history it wouldn't be a problem to talk about - Holodomor in Russia - the genocide on the Armenians in Turkey.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    I look at history as what the world thinks rather than just one country, and still Armenian Genocide history was a close call. Took a long time for other countries (over 100y for the US) to recognize it due to fear of retaliation, and Ottoman Empire was debatably not even a "winner."

beebeepka 3y ago

Be honest with yourself and try to imagine what would happen to, say Mexico, if Russia were to stage a coup, install their guy, and deploy weapons. Cuba has been under the boot for how many decades now? Are they not victims? The never ending "civil war" in Sudan is just one of the countless proxy conflicts between the US and Russia The population doesn't want to be under Russia's boot, of course. Nobody does. But you're clearly playing the naivety card when you should, and do, know better

netsharc 3y ago
> if Russia were to stage a coup, install their guy, and deploy weapons. So... is your understanding that Russia's been "forced" to invade because the US was arming Ukraine to eventually invade Russia? I guess this is not an original argument to get into, but do we want to agree on some basic facts before we start: 1. Putin is corrupt. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0 . Sure the people making the video are people who want to see him be taken down and a Pro-Putin take could be that these guys are liars funded by "foreign states" to make propaganda to make Putin look bad, but there's tons of other evidence of his corruption. 2. The person ousted in the "coup" (Viktor Yanukovych) was also deeply corrupt. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/rebels-toured-palace-ukraine-presidential-compound-viktor-yanukovych https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/rebels-toured-... If we can agree that these 2 things are true, then I think there's an argument I can make that the Ukranian people's wish to be closer to the west is genuine and is not a Western-manufactured thing. Because the alternative is for a corrupt Ukranian leader that would've moved to be even more in bed with a corrupt Russian leader and for the citizenry to be robbed of their prosperity and welfare. The argument that Putin did it to stop NATO's growing sphere of influence is a curious reversal of roles of the bad and good guys. Of course it's hard to argue the US/EU are the super clean good guys, hey there's corruption in these 2 institutions as well... but the way I see it, to say that Putin is the better guy against US/EU/NATO requires a lot of self-deception. Or am I the one being deluded?
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago
  > So... is your understanding that Russia's been "forced" to invade because the US was arming Ukraine to eventually invade Russia? Yes, among other things. > Putin is corrupt Probably true on some level, I don't know enough about it to judge it and I don't see how it makes a difference. Have you checked what the current alternatives to Putin are? > The person ousted in the "coup" (Viktor Yanukovych) was also deeply corrupt Yanukovych was democratically elected, so you can remove the quotes from coup. By the way Zelenskiy is also corrupt as revealed by the pandora papers[0]. I guess it's hard to do something in Ukraine without being at least a bit corrupt? .0: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-o...

aliher1911 3y ago

Wagner group (russian private military) which is now busy in Ukraine and lost quite a bit of personnel was actively involved in Sudan. I might be mistaken but they have some interests in gold mining operation which is a shared venture between Sudan and some Russian business.

kelnos 3y ago

I don't think the OP was saying what you think they were saying. They were merely pointing out that the US and Russia are too "distracted" with Ukraine to provide arms to the warring parties in Sudan, and so hopefully the Sudanese conflict will fizzle out sooner than if the Ukraine war was not going on. I don't believe OP was making any kind of judgment on whether or not the West supplying weapons to Ukraine is a good or bad thing, or is morally right or wrong. Just observing a possible effect on their own situation.