22 ms·
It's incredible to me how anyone — including Russians — can look at this and decide that Russia is on the right side of anything. Just flatly, what is wrong wi
by justrealist 3y ago
It's incredible to me how anyone — including Russians — can look at this and decide that Russia is on the right side of anything. Just flatly, what is wrong with you?
This was a real functioning city of 75,000 people. They did nothing except exist. Now it is ruins. What are you bringing to the world? What are you accomplishing? Do you think this city is liberated?
Even if you buy into the full Russian story of Ukraine "shelling Donbas for 8 years", do you see anything in Donetsk that could possibly compare to this? You've destroyed more in a year of war than Ukraine would have shelled in three centuries of skirmishing with the Donbas.
- maerF0x0 3y ago> Russia is on the right side of anything By that argument essentially no war, ever, is on the right side of anything. Perhaps that's your position, but I'm sure some folks would differ and believe sometimes war is justified. If war is sometimes justified, then the argument comes down to goals and values. Russians, apparently, value "unification" and strategic buffer zones more than the world believed, and it might even be the West's fault this is such a protracted war. for example see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKpU1fEiTjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKpU1fEiTjQ (nb: "today" is Dec 2022 in this)
- maerF0x0 3y agoBtw: Reminder that HN voting system is not reddit's agree style upvote. It's instead to function on the quality of argument and evidences presented. Would love to hear a rebuttal to both the Professor's and Editorial content that demonstrates that Russia isn't the only one who should be demonized here.
- the_only_law 3y ago> Reminder that HN voting system is not reddit's agree style upvote. Where the fuck do you people get this from? PG has explicitly states downvote to disagree is just fine here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117118#117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117118#117171
- jfghi 3y agoSame way that meta “values your privacy”
- contrarian1234 3y agoMy guess is that they aren't happy about the day to day, but they've been sold a narrative that NATO's expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat to them. You can look at it like the Battle for Fallujah. It was horrible and bloody - but in the global narrative of eliminating islamic extremists that pose a threat to the west the battle was sort of seen as an unavoidable I'm not trying to make a moral equivalence between the two - just explain how one horrible thing in the context of something bigger might feel inescapable
- justrealist 3y agoFallujah was never burned to the ground. Fallujah's population never dropped to 0. Apartment blocks were never shelled to the ground. Fallujah has a population of 275,000. Bakhmut will never again have more than a handful of people. It's not the lack of moral equivalence, it's the lack of any equivalent whatsoever.
- atchoo 3y agoIn Fallujah, the US: - damaged more than half of the residences and destroyed a quarter of them (air strikes) - shot and killed unarmed protestors - used cluster bombs - used white phosphorous - used depleted uranium - left the area with increased cancer, birth defects and infant mortality
- vasergen 3y ago> but they've been sold a narrative that NATO's expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat to them When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine. After the war started Finland joined NATO and it is the longest border between NATO and Russia and nobody from Russia said anything about that.
- runsWphotons 3y agoThere was plenty of talking about it before the war, you just werent listening to the right channels. No one said anything about Finland joining because the bridges are already burned, it is too late.
- sampa 3y ago[flagged]
- paganel 3y agoThese were the people of Bakhmut in 2014 [1], after the events of Maidan in Kiev. Notice the Russian flag. It's unfortunate that the Ukrainian State hasn't allowed the people of the city to choose their own way so that it had to come to all this destruction, I agree with you on that. As for the buildings, they will be re-built, look at today's Grozny. [1] https://twitter.com/CheburekiMan/status/1660124734871453697/photo/1 https://twitter.com/CheburekiMan/status/1660124734871453697/...
- justrealist 3y agoThe people of Bakhmut wanted to be part of Russia, so Russia had to destroy the city? Is that what it means to be part of Russia?
- paganel 3y agoIt was that or the Odessa House of Trade Unions treatment for the local Russian population wanting not to depend on Kiev. As I said, all this wouldn’t and shouldn’t have happened had the Ukrainians really believed in the principle of autonomy and of subsidiarity. Happily for them as soon as they’ll join us in the EU they’ll get right on to that.
- lawn 3y ago[flagged]
- revskill 3y agoThe Americans also destroyed other countries, too. Noone said Russia is right, neither the Americans.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago>The Americans also destroyed other countries, too. Hey, don't look over there, look at Russia, they're the bad guys.
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoWhataboutism notwithstanding, Russia really is the bad guy here.
- ChuckNorris89 3y agoWhere did I say it's not the bad guy? Whataboutism doesn't make something not true.
- Gud 3y agoThis is just blatantly wrong. Few would argue that the current theocracy of Iran and the Peoples Republic of Korea etc. are the good guys.
- XajniN 3y agoAt the time, the regime established in the South Korea was even worse than in the North
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wsc981 3y agoI think this situation is sad for all involved, but I do feel a big part of the blame lies with the USA who have been expanding NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders, even though Russia warned against this many, many, many times in the past. Ukraine was too close for comfort (kinda similar to Russia trying to plant nukes in Cuba during Cuba crises, now USA is doing the same). All of this could have been avoided if USA respected Russia's wishes regarding NATO expansion [0]. And also, Ukraine bombing Donbass region for many many years prior to the war, also didn't help for sure. And I don't understand why the USA and UK still tried to push this war, with Boris Johnson personally visiting Zelensky when Ukraine was close to signing a peace deal with Russia [1]. Boris Johnson blocked the deal, but why? What did Boris Johnson believe was to gain here? --- [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-e... [1]: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch...
- amanaplanacanal 3y agoWhy are Russia wishes regarding who Ukraine allies with more important than Ukraine’s wishes?
- wsc981 3y ago> Why are Russia wishes regarding who Ukraine allies with more important than Ukraine’s wishes? In this regard I think so yes. For stability in the world it's a better situation.
- kurthr 3y agoWell, you have at least temporarily stabilized the Russian state (or at least Putin's position within it). I suspect this was the primary purpose, along with the belief that Ukraine and Crimea in particular are fundamentally Russian. Though things didn't go as planned and the longer this persists the more authoritarian (rather than simply depoliticized kleptocratic) the state must become to maintain it. It's a delicate balance, and the economic costs are high, but Putin is quite skilled at maintaining it. Concern for individual lives has never been a great concern in Russian wars. From a state propaganda point of view, they have patriotically battled the Nazi Jew Gay Needle Freaks who, along with NATO and "the West", are plotting the extermination of Russia and right thinking culture, but are doomed to fail due to their degenerate beliefs. It doesn't need to make sense.
- ghostwriter 3y ago[flagged]
- farseer 3y ago[flagged]
- padjo 3y agoI think it’s pretty clear now why they wanted to join NATO, the same reason Finland, Estonia, Lithuania etc wanted to join, Russia hasn’t given up on restoring the Russian Empire.
- poisonborz 3y agoWhy do you see all those countries wedged between western powers and Russia as helpless pawns? Maybe the people of those countries have their own will. And a memory of those 40 years. Wanting "buffer countries" is 19th century thinking and it expectedly worked against them - do you think anyone forced Sweden or Finland to join just now?
- farseer 3y agoI can't shake off the fact that Western powers won the cold war but imposed a victor's peace on Russia. Integrating Eastern European countries economically with the West (by their free will or not) is one thing but expanding NATO throughout the 90's and early 2000's was NOT a defensive move. Regarding Finland I am not discussing the security dynamics post invasion. The scenario has now changed from what could have been...
- lisasays 3y agoI can't shake off the fact that Western powers won the cold war but imposed a victor's peace on Russia. It's more of an assessment than "fact". But still, you don't need to shake if off. You can obsess about it all you want, in fact. What matters here is that the current conflict not just entirely one-sided -- but utterly, completely insane. And that that there are absolutely no historical circumstances which explain, contextualize or otherwise minimize the aggressor's actions.
- mrguyorama 3y agoAh yes, why would a victim look to find protection from centuries of bullying? You may not like the US, but the US has not bullied the baltics, and Russia has. Very simple to see why they do what they do.
- 4bpp 3y agoThis level of destruction appears to be the outcome of modern urban warfare against an entrenched and motivated defender every time. At https://news.sky.com/story/the-battle-for-mosul-how-the-recapture-of-the-city-unfolded-10809440 https://news.sky.com/story/the-battle-for-mosul-how-the-reca... and https://www.csis.org/analysis/real-lessons-mosul-and-sixteen-years-war-afghanistan-iraq-and-syria https://www.csis.org/analysis/real-lessons-mosul-and-sixteen... you can see similar pictures of Mosul, a city around 50 times the size of Bakhmut, after it was reconquered by a US-led coalition in 2017. Do you have trouble looking at it and deciding that the US is on the right side of anything? If yes, you will run out of "right sides" very fast; if not, your criteria for determining the right side are actually not mostly about the reduction of real functioning cities to rubble.
- lostmsu 3y agoWell yes. The other side means slavery for half the population.
- golergka 3y agoYou mean the lucky half that would survive.
- lostmsu 3y agoNot sure what you mean exactly.
- 4bpp 3y agoWell, sure - now apparently we've established that you can in fact turn cities into ruins and remain on the right side, and are just, as they say, haggling over the price. Ask the Russians, and they would tell you that to leave Bakhmut in Ukrainian hands would be to condemn its residents to a cultural genocide, pointing at various laws Ukraine passed prohibiting Russian-language schooling, ethnically Russian political parties being repressed and pro-Russian activists being killed extrajudicially, and most recently supposed pronouncements from members of the current Ukrainian government about eliminating disloyal residents after reconquering Russian-held territory. Do you think that cultural genocide is below the threshold where a reasonable person could support a siege which results in a city's destruction, but an extreme patriarchal regime is above? If yes, are you so certain that this threshold is universally agreed upon (and are you confident that you would not yourself be willing to shift it if someone were to dig up a conflict against a lesser evil than ISIS in which the US pulverised a city)? (Note that without a critical failure of theory of mind, a retort that the Russian charges against Ukraine are obviously false while the American charges against ISIS are obviously true is not meaningful. Can you say with confidence that growing up in Russia, you wouldn't have the same certainty that the Russian narrative is basically correct while the Americans are spouting self-serving propaganda? Is there some way you can imagine yourself convincing a Russian that American media is to be trusted without making your proposed chain of trust circular?)