*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[OngBonga]

I know I'm an arsehole, I'm sorry.

[Vinland]

Gotta love when a propaganda narrative is turned on its head

[OngBonga]

What, like when Ukraine fire missiles into Poland and then try to blame Russia?

Maybe.

We'll see.

[OngBonga]

https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/ukra...ty-of-kolomyya

https://twitter.com/edolinsky/status...95991272411136

Nothing to see here, just a senior Ukrainian cop in 2020 asking for a list of Jews in a Ukrainian town, including addresses and phone numbers.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Dude, wtf is your point? There were Nazis in Ukraine? There are Nazis in the US, too. There are Nazis in the UK. There are Nazis in Russia.

Russia is bombing civilian infrastructure to the ground. They are targeting the power grids to disable the heat and electricity of civilians who have nothing to do with whatever Nazism BS that Russia is claiming to. There have been mass graves of tortured and executed people in every liberated town that Ukraine has reclaimed. There have been torture chambers found and attested to by survivors in the liberated towns.

This is indefensible on any level.

It wouldn't matter if every false claim Putin made against Ukraine were true. This is indefensible. This is terrorism. This is causing misery and hardships and potentially death to the people Putin claimed to be helping.

There is no defense of Putin's aggression. I can tolerate defense of the Russian soldiers given little to no choice in their participation in this. I can tolerate encouraging us to look with humanity upon even the most wretched criminals.

I cannot tolerate any hint that Russia is justified in this, or that Ukraine is not justified in defending their land.

[OngBonga]

We are supporting Ukraine. We are supporting a country that seems to have a very serious problem with racist ideology. In the other thread we're discussing racism and how terrible it is, yet if I attempt to make the point that we are actively supporting a country that has actual Nazis in its military and police, I'm the asshole. Based on Russia bad.

Do you care about all the other wars happening around the world? How about Yemen, who are being attacked by American and British weapons? What makes Ukraine more important than Yemen? What isn't happening is the media ramming Yemen down your throat, so you're not thinking about it on a daily basis. But they want you to think about Ukraine.

What's happening in Ukraine is fucking terrible. Russia is terrible. Putin is terrible. And drumroll please... we are fucking terrible. The UK, USA, we're precisely as bad as Russia, because we use war as a means to an end. The only difference between USA and Russia is that USA is much, much, much stronger and therefore doesn't get its ass kicked.

I cannot tolerate any hint that Russia is justified in this, or that Ukraine is not justified in defending their land.

For clarity, Russia are not justified in attacking Ukraine, and Ukraine is justified defending its territory. And I'll even add that I hope they win.

But we are completely unjustified in supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia, and we should not be supporting Ukraine unless we're going to support literally every country in the world that gets invaded or attacked. Starting with Yemen.

[OngBonga]

I can't tolerate Western hypocrisy.

[OngBonga]

And it's kinda crazy that if I attempt to talk about police chiefs asking for a list of the Jews in his town, that doesn't trigger alarm bells, rather it triggers "wtf dude Russia bad".

Let's just pay no attention to it, because Putin is an asshole. Let's pretend that didn't happen.

[OngBonga]

I can't tolerate Western hypocrisy.

The reason for this btw is because it weighs on me. It makes me feel like I'm supporting a warmongering regime. What Putin does is completely out of my hands. What the UK does, well maybe I should go and protest outside the Saudi embassy or something. But I don't. I just smoke weed and pretend it's not happening.

We're made to believe that we live in the most advanced societies on the planet, that our moral standards are the highest, that our way of life is the right way of life. But it's all a lie. We're supporting regimes around the world, we overthrow problematic regimes, we're responsible for way more civilian deaths than Russia, and all the time we present ourselves as the highest moral authority on the planet.

And the people just don't see it. That's why they get away with it. Because we don't act. And I'm part of the "we".

I'm not part of Putin's "we".

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's because the fact that you're pointing out that there were problematic Nazis in Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion is both true and false and plays to the justification of the invasion made by Putin.

What is true is that yes, there were Nazi groups in Ukraine. Yes, they had militant Nazis.
So what?
What is false is the implication that's unusual or another country's problem.
The US has militant Nazis. The UK has militant Nazis. Every major country has a problem with Nazism in some form.
That's not any other nation's invitation to invade.

The problem is that in this thread, you mentioning that there is truth to Putin's claim of Nazi's implies that Russia is justified in its invasion.

I was willing to entertain that argument for about 1 week in late Feb early Mar this year. Now I know better. Context matters.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine is a Jew. It's fair to say that these Nazi groups in Ukraine were not acting on the endorsement of their president, if not their whole gov't. Barring that, it's an internal problem.

Even if these militant nazis were posing a threat to the border with Russia - EVEN IF. That is not an invitation to invade a country, attempt to sack its capitol, and then proceed to torture and execute the population of the land you've claimed while simultaneously destroying massive amounts of civilian infrastructure.


So sure... Ukraine had militant Nazis. So what?
What's your actual point?




As for the rest - this is the Putin shootin' thread. If you'd like to talk about Yemen, or any other war, then go for it. Bring it up. It's not like you've been shouting about Yemen for a while and no one's taking you up on it. Prob. start a new thread for specific wars or a general one for international conflicts. Go wild. Why not both?

[CoccoBill]

I agree with pretty much all of that, but I still don't see the point of your post. Russia invaded Ukraine under the dummy pretense that "it's run by nazis", and now you post "look, there's a nazi". What's the key takeaway?

We already talked about this a few times. Yeah, I'm sure there's nazis in Ukraine, just like you can find at least one in pretty much every country I'm sure. We might even be talking about thousands of nazis. In a country of 43 million. For the record, I wouldn't support bombing civilians in Germany if it were 1945 now and we just found out what's going on.

The situation in Yemen sucks, just like it does in Ethiopia, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan etc. Ukraine is still the only sovereign nation invaded by a superior force with the intent of wiping the whole country off the map currently. Yeah, it sucks that for many nations, profiting from weapons sales trumps any moral arguments, but that is still the world we live in. Paying attention to one thing doesn't mean closing ones eyes from others, if you feel like starting a thread about Yemen, go for it. Be the change you wanna see.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And it's kinda crazy that if I attempt to talk about police chiefs asking for a list of the Jews in his town, that doesn't trigger alarm bells, rather it triggers "wtf dude Russia bad".

Let's just pay no attention to it, because Putin is an asshole. Let's pretend that didn't happen.

wtf dude Nazis are bad!!!


Also, the lie about the severity of the Nazi (bad!!) problem as a pretext for the widespread loss of life and liberty to not only the Ukrainian people but the approaching 100,000 Russians that have died for this... that's bad, too. Worse, even.

It's almost like bringing up a totalitarian shithead's excuses to do evil and pointing out there was a grain of truth in the evil warlord's BS is - understandably - going to sound like being an apologist for said evil fuckhead.

My apologies for misinterpreting your intent to just casually point out a 2 year old story of a problematic Nazi in Ukraine.

[OngBonga]

What is true is that yes, there were Nazi groups in Ukraine. Yes, they had militant Nazis.
So what?
What is false is the implication that's unusual or another country's problem.

It certainly is unusual. It would be highly unusual for a police chief in the UK to ask for the names, numbers and addresses of local Jews. And it would be highly unusual for the UK military to incorporate a paramilitary Nazi group into the armed forces.

This isn't some rogue officer or soldier we're talking about. This is institutionalised.

The US has militant Nazis. The UK has militant Nazis.

They're not part of the armed forces though. They are banned groups, certainly here in the UK.

That's not any other nation's invitation to invade.

Well, let me first off clarify that I don't believe Russia are justified in invading Ukraine because Ukraine has a Nazi problem. However, Russia would be justified in doing so if they felt it was a serious national security risk. But Ukraine's Nazi problem isn't a security risk for Russia.

But if there were Russian Jews living in the border regions that Russia felt were in real danger, then yes I would accept a degree of justification in military action. But that threat has to be real. it's not real. Ukraine's Nazi problem isn't that bad that they're threatening a new Holocaust.

I would suspect the motivation of the police chief who sent that letter was to intimidate Jews, it was an act of anti-Semitism. He should have been fired immediately. And the government should not be incorporating Nazi groups into the military. That's what makes this different to the Nazi problems we have in our nations. As best as I'm aware, there are no openly Nazis in the UK in any position of influence or power. Being openly Nazi would be career suicide.

The problem is that in this thread, you mentioning that there is truth to Putin's claim of Nazi's implies that Russia is justified in its invasion.

I guess this is an easy misunderstanding to make, but to clarify, I think Putin's claim that Ukraine has a Nazi problem is true, but that does not justify Russia invading Ukraine. I don't recall once actually justifying their invasion. I might well have attempted to see the geopolitical motivation, that's not the same as justifying.

The democratically elected president of Ukraine is a Jew.

He's also corrupt.

It's fair to say that these Nazi groups in Ukraine were not acting on the endorsement of their president, if not their whole gov't.

So wtf are they doing being an actual part of the nation's military?

Even if these militant nazis were posing a threat to the border with Russia - EVEN IF. That is not an invitation to invade a country

Well as I've already said in this post, I disagree here, but this is an irrelevance because it's not what's happening.

Russia would, in theory, be perfectly justified defending their citizens in internationally recognised Russian territory from Nazis.

There's no justification whatsoever for war crimes.

As for the rest - this is the Putin shootin' thread. If you'd like to talk about Yemen, or any other war, then go for it.

This is a thread about geopolitics and war. We don't need a new thread for every subgenre.

wtf dude Nazis are bad!!!

Yes, historically much worse than Russians.

My apologies for misinterpreting your intent to just casually point out a 2 year old story of a problematic Nazi in Ukraine.

Sarcasm detected. But it predates the war, right? So this clearly isn't Putin's war propaganda. That it's 2 years old is not insignificant.

[OngBonga]

The UK was justified in invading Germany in WWII to protect Europe, even though the UK wasn't originally a threat. Hitler knew that the UK would be an extremely difficult enemy so would have preferred us to stay out of the war. We could have done. We didn't sit by and do nothing because we recognised the threat to Europe was too severe, even if the UK could avoid the same fate.

Some invasions are justified. It's just this Russian invasion isn't one of them.

That's not to say we should be supporting a corrupt Ukrainian regime.

[oskar]

I can't tolerate Western hypocrisy.

It's not hypocrisy. I can support a nation's sovereignty without supporting any of their policies or actions. And calling the UK's involvement in WW2 an "invasion" is pretty rich. Should I really take this seriously? Are you having a Kanye moment? May I suggest a glass of water and some fresh air and we get back to this when we can agree that the Allied did not "invade" nazi germany. lmfao

[oskar]

Some invasions are justified. It's just this Russian invasion isn't one of them.

Ok I missed that, but then what's your point? Most people support the Ukraine because they think the russian invasion is unjustified.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd hazard to say his point is that there's a racist undertone to the support for (white) Ukraine being so passionate as to ignore even the faint slivers of truth in the opposing side's arguments -

while not seeing equivalent investment in other invasions of other (non-white) people.

Which is, I think, a bit fair. At the start of the invasion, the refugee lines with Ukrainians (white) were being processed at expedited rates, pushing other people (non-white) to the side and allowing the Ukrainians through. It has that stink about it.

The ongoing support of Saudi Arabia by the US seems problematic at face value. The Saudi conflict with Yemen is decades old, IIRC. Perhaps as old as the founding of SA in 1932.

There is racism in the world. Calling out and discussing minor problematic racial issues such as the one with Fulani and the Old Maid is a healthy conversation to have. BUT it's disingenuous to blow up a tiny issue like that while simultaneously ignoring the actual big-picture race issues. Or even to elevate the minor issues to the level of international war crimes is actually a big problem since those international issues are actively ongoing, not ancient history.

[OngBonga]

I guess part of my motivation for bringing this up was to demonstrate that we support racists. Poop said to me in the other thread that he thinks I am defending a racist by arguing this old lady might not have been in the wrong. Well when we defend a nation that incorporates Nazi groups into their military, and appoints Nazis as police chiefs, we're defending racists. Not "oops I said something stupid" racists, hardcore racists that glorify the worst genocide in human history.

[OngBonga]

It's not hypocrisy. I can support a nation's sovereignty without supporting any of their policies or actions. And calling the UK's involvement in WW2 an "invasion" is pretty rich. Should I really take this seriously? Are you having a Kanye moment? May I suggest a glass of water and some fresh air and we get back to this when we can agree that the Allied did not "invade" nazi germany. lmfao

It's not the same kind of "invasion" but when we send war planes into enemy territory, it's an invasion. Even if we're already at war. We literally occupied Hamburg and other parts of Germany. That's British boots on the ground in Germany. That's an occupation, which is a type of invasion.

Of course we were absolutely justified in doing so. The point of my making this comment was simply to argue that some invasions are justified. Russia would be justified if there was a real and serious threat to their national security. I don't believe that's the case. I believe Russia have made their national security situation orders of magnitude worse as a result of this invasion, since Finland and Sweden are now joining NATO, close to the geopolitical worst case scenario for Russia.

[oskar]

I guess part of my motivation for bringing this up was to demonstrate that we support racists. Poop said to me in the other thread that he thinks I am defending a racist by arguing this old lady might not have been in the wrong. Well when we defend a nation that incorporates Nazi groups into their military, and appoints Nazis as police chiefs, we're defending racists. Not "oops I said something stupid" racists, hardcore racists that glorify the worst genocide in human history.

Well yes, I support racists, but I don't support them because they are racists. That's why I don't think it's hypocritical. Now I don't think a majority of Ukrainians are nazis, or even a majority of their government forces, but it's a landlocked european, barely diverse country. Not the place I expect to find a tolerant, cosmopolitan population.
There's definitely racism involved in the enthusiastic support by other majority white nations to take in Ukrainian refugees and offer aid. So there's hypocrisy there. We did not see the same level of support for refugees from Syria or Sudan.

[OngBonga]

Well yes, I support racists, but I don't support them because they are racists.

Well that's ok then.

Now I don't think a majority of Ukrainians are nazis...

No they're not and I certainly don't have a problem supporting Ukrainians who are fleeing the war. I'm not suggesting we ban Ukrainian migrants because they might be Nazis. I'm suggesting we don't support a corrupt regime that has an institutionalised Nazi problem.

There's definitely racism involved in the enthusiastic support by other majority white nations to take in Ukrainian refugees and offer aid. So there's hypocrisy there. We did not see the same level of support for refugees from Syria or Sudan.

Well I can't speak for mainland European nations but I can assure you we have a great deal more migrants from Asian and African countries than we do Ukraine. And there was greater enthusiasm from British people for Hong Kong migrants to come here than Ukrainians.

[OngBonga]

There are a few reasons why people felt that we should accept large numbers of Hong Kong refugees...

1. They were British citizens until 1997,
2. They provide huge potential economic value,
3. They come from a very civilised and advanced society,
4. They are not religious nutters who treat women and gays as inferiors.

There is both a moral obligation and a socioeconomic incentive. Most people don't care about skin colour. They care about economics and social cohesion.

[oskar]

We had people at the train stations to pick up Ukrainian refugees. I do not remember anything like that happening during the Syrian refugee crisis.
As far as supporting a "corrupt regime" You're going to be hard pressed to find a nation that's entirely unproblematic. I'm not going to hinge my support for a countries sovereignty on any of that. The Ukrainian government has been democratically elected, there's no doubt about that, and it's not guilty of anything that would warrant foreign intervention. If it did, whatever intervention was necessary would have to go through the UN, and not be decided by a dying oligarch, but we're in agreement about that.

[OngBonga]

We had people at the train stations to pick up Ukrainian refugees. I do not remember anything like that happening during the Syrian refugee crisis.

Well you're in Austria aren't you? Ukraine is a continental neighbour. Syria isn't.

As far as supporting a "corrupt regime" You're going to be hard pressed to find a nation that's entirely unproblematic.

Well now you're talking my language. We're corrupt (NATO, UK, "the West", whatever). That's why we support corrupt regimes.

I'm not going to hinge my support for a countries sovereignty on any of that.

I'm not keen on sending billions of dollars to such regimes.

The Ukrainian government has been democratically elected, there's no doubt about that

Do you have a short memory? They had a democratic government overthrown, and we helped.

...and it's not guilty of anything that would warrant foreign intervention.

I'd agree here. They are guilty of war crimes, but that's what happens when people invade you. That's not a deal breaker. I don't like it obviously, but I don't like war.

[Poopadoop]

Germany just cracked a right-wing coup plot to overthrow the gov't. So apparently they've got a Nazi problem too, and we should stop being friends with them.

Oh, and France nearly elected a right-wing nutjob as president. Better push them aside too.

Italy actually elected a hard right-wing government. So obviously we can't have anything to do with them.

If only there was some way of isolating ourself from all our horrible neighbour countries and their hard right politics. If we make it hard to trade with them that should sort them out. All we would need is some politicians who promote nationalistic and anti-immigration #MEGA ideas, some serious hard right-wing extremists like Farage could convince people I bet.

Oh snap!

[oskar]

Germany ... we should stop being friends with them.

I've been saying that.

I'm not keen on sending billions of dollars to such regimes.

That I can understand, but it's not like the money is being set on fire. I believe most of the money is US military aid which is immediately invested back in weapons supplied by the US. So it's a stim package for the US military of sorts... 20 billion in military aid (over the past 2 years) is a lot but it's less than 3% of their military budget and considering that they're kind of in between wars atm those 3% are probably the most well spent part of that budget.

[oskar]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63885028.amp
This is pretty wild. I did not expect anything like this in germany. Good to see that it got slapped down hard.

[oskar]

Do you have a short memory? They had a democratic government overthrown, and we helped.

I don't know much about that. Overthrown doesn't imply undemocratic. Zelensky was elected and has a clear majority support... at least since the start of the war.

[MadMojoMonkey]

(I'm a bit fuzzy on these points, so if you know I'm wrong about the following, please offer a correction. Good sources tend to be many pages long, and not necessarily easy to follow.)

The cost-benefit analysis of the US expenses in Ukraine are (unbelievably) good so far.
We're getting value out of outdated military equipment that we weren't using, and weren't going to be using, and it was sitting in storage waiting to be dismantled / reclaimed for parts.
We're not sending new / higher tech stuff as aid. We're sending the stuff that is old to us, that we wouldn't ever use again unless the newer stuff ran out. The cost to us is far less than the benefit to our allies. Some Americans are crying about the billions we're "wasting" on Ukraine, but the reality is that those billions were already wasted on military supplies we never ended up using. Now we have a way to use them, and the price tag on their delivery will be recouped. We're making so much value by "selling" aid to Ukraine when what we're actually sending them is tantamount to our military trash.

That wont stay that way forever. Eventually those stocks of older munitions will be gone, and we'll be facing a much different question of the cost on our side to maintain support of Ukraine. So far, though... the costs evaluation is complicated.


Ukraine needs military aid in part because the nations now aiding Ukraine talked Ukraine into disarming itself in a show of their desire for peace. Russia in now sending those exact same planes Ukraine gave up to bomb Ukrainian targets. The fact that Ukraine needs assistance is in part due to them trusting us to provide assistance if they should need it.

As I understand it, historically, Ukraine was where a significant amount of the USSR's weapon production came from. So Ukraine has that industrial knowledge and expertise, and I've been told some of those facilities are still intact. The longer this war drags on, the more Ukraine will be able to get those facilities on line. They're understandably not too keen on disarmament anymore.


The economic impact on Russia has been steep. Some estimates put Russia's spending at 4:1 of the opposition spending. That's almost certainly an incorrect number, inflated for war propaganda reasons. Still... if our opposition is to Putin, and he holds his power by maintaining the wealth of his oligarchs, and this war is hurting the oligarchs, then we're getting *something* of a return on our investment to hurt Putin. IDK how to evaluate that, but economic sources online seem to be adamant that the strain on the Russian economy is much greater than the strain on nations sending aid to Ukraine.


So the economics of war are in play. I don't understand economics much, but I try to. So far, the cost to the US seems to be buying far more for it than it otherwise would have.

[OngBonga]

Germany just cracked a right-wing coup plot to overthrow the gov't. So apparently they've got a Nazi problem too, and we should stop being friends with them.

For fuck's sake.

Question...

Did Germany
a) arrest them, or
b) give them high profile jobs and incorporate them into the military?

Stop pretending you don't understand what I'm saying. It's just making you look thick.

Oh, and France nearly elected a right-wing nutjob as president. Better push them aside too.

They didn't though. And "right-wing nutjob" is not the same as "openly Nazi".

Again, you're just giving the impression that you're incapable of basic reading.

Italy actually elected a hard right-wing government. So obviously we can't have anything to do with them.

Are they openly Nazis? If so, then yes, we should most certainly stop engaging with them like they are friends.

[OngBonga]

That I can understand, but it's not like the money is being set on fire.

idk about this. I have no idea what's happening to that money, but when corrupt people send money to corrupt people then it might as well be set on fire.

I don't know much about that. Overthrown doesn't imply undemocratic. Zelensky was elected and has a clear majority support... at least since the start of the war.

A government overthrown immediately after winning an election might be considered undemocratic in some quarters.

Although it's messy as fuck. idk if the accusations of electoral fraud were legit or not.

[MadMojoMonkey]

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/th...fying-ukraine/

The Ukrainian military consists of over 250k people in 5 branches.
The National guard consists of ~50k people. 20% of the military
The Azov battalion consists of ~1k people. 0.4% of the military
It is estimated that ~10% - 20% of the Azov battalion is Nazis. 0.04% - 0.08% of the military

We're talking about 100 - 200 people when we talk about the Azov Nazis.


OK, so even 1 is problematic, so what gives? Why are a nation of non Nazi supporters allowing these 100 - 200 Nazis to stand as national heroes?
Azov battalion defended Mariupol in 2014 and since against Russian aggression and invasion. They repelled the Russian advances on Mariupol in 2014 when Crimea was annexed by Russia. They fought with patriotism and success to defend their country and its people then. The Azov defense of Mariupol this year was major news for weeks on end. They ultimately lost the city, but their fight was courageous and forced pyrrhic victories on the Russians, amplifying the casualties of the invaders.

It's complicated. It's fucking complicated, even.

You and I may hate Nazis, but if our lives were literally saved by 1, we might have a more layered and complicated view of that particular Nazi.


Context matters.

[MadMojoMonkey]

idk about this. I have no idea what's happening to that money, but when corrupt people send money to corrupt people then it might as well be set on fire.

I mean... I feel that, but ... everyone has a price. Some are higher than others, but for the right incentive... anyone's morals can be bought. Everyone will rationalize that the net good outweighs whatever moral bad they're being incentivized to "allow."


Utilitarianism is a basic thought process, really. Anyone can come to an "if the good outweighs the bad, then it's worth it." If the good they perceive is high enough.


So everyone's corrupt... it's just a matter of how exposed we are to those incentives that would turn us.

[OngBonga]

We're talking about 100 - 200 people when we talk about the Azov Nazis.

This is their logo.

azov.jpg

It's called a Wolfsangel. Like the Swastika, this emblem predates Nazi times, but was appropriated by the Nazis. The Azov deny they use this emblem as a nod to Nazi ideology, but I'm going to just outright call them liars.

They might well be war heroes in Ukraine. That doesn't mean they are good guys, and it doesn't mean we should be supporting a nation state that recognises them as legitimate militants.

I'm not sure if I believe the figure of 100-200 given their logo is very similar to a Nazi symbol. I'm not really sure why someone who doesn't approve of Nazi ideology would associate themselves with this group. I would expect it to be much closer to 100%, if not precisely.

So everyone's corrupt...

Again, this doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye. And I'm certainly not going to support corruption based on the premise that war is worse. War is a hugely corrupt economy in itself.

[OngBonga]

I mean, if I create a militant group and use a rotated swastika as the emblem, I don't think I'd be saying "only 20% of us max are Nazis, we're not a Nazi group." If I didn't want to be associated with Nazis, I wouldn't use their insignia, and I'd expel from the group anyone who is a Nazi.

If you use Nazi emblems and provide a safe haven for Nazis, you're a Nazi group.

[oskar]

this just in:
https://time.com/person-of-the-year-...ymyr-zelensky/

[OngBonga]

I would hope you can at least see why I strongly oppose these kind of groups. War is bad, and Putin is an asshole. That's all very well and good, but Putin isn't worse than Hitler.

A Nazi police chief asking for a list of Jews should ring alarm bells. There should be a great deal of concern about such a development. It should be international news, rather than someone saying something stupid at a party. Those who supported Hitler before his crimes became clear, or those that allied with him for their own national security interests, it's a great source of historical shame. Try talking to Finns about their support for the Nazis in WWII. It's a national embarrassment. You can even argue they had no choice, but they're still ashamed of it. Rightly so.

We're not learning from history. Nazi ideology belongs in the bin of history. There is no excuse for clinging on to such an ideology. Thinking that Putin is worse and therefore Nazi groups are tolerable is a grave mistake.

[oskar]

I feel like what you're imagining is kind of like that joke from the recent Rick and Morty episode where Iron-Man Jerry goes to fight the Hitlers at the Hitler convention and ends up blowing up the entire planet and goes "damn I hope there wasn't anyone else on this planet" and it cuts to a news anchor going "...and there was no one else on the planet! Only Hitlers!"
But Ukraine is not a nation of 44 million Hitlers all planning their own holocaust. If it were you'd have a point, but there are many other Ukrainiens who have a right to their country.

[OngBonga]

The 44 million not-Hitlers should be making a lot more noise about Nazi police chiefs and militants.

This couldn't happen in the UK. Nazis exist here but they hide under rocks because they are not welcome in a civilised society.

How many Germans do you think were actually Nazis? How many of them knew and approved of what was happening? It starts with a minority, and it escalates though tolerance and ignorance.

[Poopadoop]

The 44 million not-Hitlers should be making a lot more noise about Nazi police chiefs and militants.

This couldn't happen in the UK. Nazis exist here but they hide under rocks because they are not welcome in a civilised society.

How many Germans do you think were actually Nazis? How many of them knew and approved of what was happening? It starts with a minority, and it escalates though tolerance and ignorance.

So your solution is to let Putin overrun Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia so he can weed out all the Nazis and replace them with Oligarchs?

If not, what is your actual objection to sending aid to Ukraine? Some of them are bad people? It's like we're going in circles here.

[Poopadoop]

this just in:
https://time.com/person-of-the-year-...ymyr-zelensky/

Meh, Stalin and Hitler were both MoY before. So were Rudy Guiliani and Mark Zuckerberg.

Z man is obviously cut from a different cloth from those ones, but I wouldn't think PoY is necessarily a moral endorsement.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I feel like you missed this part, ong.

OK, so even 1 is problematic, so what gives? Why are a nation of non Nazi supporters allowing these 100 - 200 Nazis to stand as national heroes?
Azov battalion defended Mariupol in 2014 and since against Russian aggression and invasion. They repelled the Russian advances on Mariupol in 2014 when Crimea was annexed by Russia. They fought with patriotism and success to defend their country and its people then. The Azov defense of Mariupol this year was major news for weeks on end. They ultimately lost the city, but their fight was courageous and forced pyrrhic victories on the Russians, amplifying the casualties of the invaders.

It's complicated. It's fucking complicated, even.

You and I may hate Nazis, but if our lives were literally saved by 1, we might have a more layered and complicated view of that particular Nazi.


Context matters.

You're acting like you can boil down a person's entire being into "Do they support Nazis?" without allowing for a nuanced answer.

And Poop asked a very good question: Is the moral position to not support Ukraine because of the existence of Azov so important to you that you can turn a blind eye to the actual torture and execution of people - including children - and the bombing of civilian infrastructure to deliberately cause people to freeze to death in the winter and the kidnapping and deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children?

Is your stance against Nazism so strong that you can ignore the actual harm being done based on your fear of the potential harm that a couple hundred Nazis can do?

Serious question.

[OngBonga]

So your solution is to let Putin overrun Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia so he can weed out all the Nazis and replace them with Oligarchs?

Ukraine is not NATO. Unless we're going to intervene every time a non-NATO country gets attacked, then we sit it out.

If not, what is your actual objection to sending aid to Ukraine? Some of them are bad people? It's like we're going in circles here.

I'm not keen on damaging the UK economy by sending badly needed money to a corrupt regime. I'm also not keen on the global weapons trade, which is why I also oppose us sending weapons to Saudi Arabia. It makes us complicit in war crimes.

We can, and do, support Ukraine with sanctions against Russia. That hurts our economy, but it hurt Russia a lot more. It's an effective way to give Ukraine an edge without actually having to give them money and military hardware. We punish Russia without rewarding Ukraine. There's a solution.

Sending weapons is a dangerous game. Are we really willing to go to war with Russia over this? That's the message we're sending.

[OngBonga]

You're acting like you can boil down a person's entire being into "Do they support Nazis?" without allowing for a nuanced answer.

I'm sorry but it feels like we're forgetting that Nazis were responsible for the worst genocide in history.

Anyone who supports Nazis supports genocide. That's an unavoidable fact. There's no nuance there.

Is the moral position to not support Ukraine because of the existence of Azov so important to you that you can turn a blind eye to the actual torture and execution of people - including children - and the bombing of civilian infrastructure to deliberately cause people to freeze to death in the winter and the kidnapping and deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children?

If we can prove Russia are committing war crimes, then we take that through the correct legal channels, which means sanctions and international arrest warrants. Oh and precisely the same is true of Ukraine, who are also reportedly torturing people - including children - and attempting to drive Russian speaking people out of Eastern Ukraine, with no regard for how cold they are this winter.

This isn't good vs evil.

Is your stance against Nazism so strong that you can ignore the actual harm being done based on your fear of the potential harm that a couple hundred Nazis can do?

We have an opportunity here to put massive pressure on Ukraine to rid their institutions of Nazis. If they won't, then we sit by and do nothing, they are not allies. If they do, then we can call them allies and maybe even talk about NATO.

We're not taking this opportunity. Instead we're turning a blind eye and even sending them money and weapons. That tells the world that the West considers Russia to be a more serious threat than Nazis. This is contrary to what history has taught us.

There are more than a couple of hundred Nazis in Ukraine. There's probably more than that in the UK.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Anyone who supports Nazis supports genocide. That's an unavoidable fact. There's no nuance there.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to go easy on the Nazis.
I'm only saying that we have a cushy view from the outside of Nazism as a whole, whereas Ukrainian people have a conundrum on their hands. They hate Nazism, but a few specific Nazis have saved their lives. That's complicated.
My point is only that it's more complicated than the simple black and white you're trying to boil it down to.

***
Maybe it's a shitty investment to fight Putin in this way, but the economic analyses I've seen and shared indicate otherwise.

***
There are no legal channels to press accusations of war crimes against Russia.
You need an enforcing agency above the accused to press that. There is no enforcing agency that can force Russia to submit to these accusations.

[OngBonga]

They hate Nazism, but a few specific Nazis have saved their lives. That's complicated.

Ok, but if Fred West saved my life I'd say thanks but you're still a cunt for burying all those people under your patio.

My point is only that it's more complicated than the simple black and white you're trying to boil it down to.

Ok fair enough, nothing is black and white, but even if you can squeeze an iota of nuance out of me there's still no justifying supporting Nazis.

Maybe it's a shitty investment to fight Putin in this way, but the economic analyses I've seen and shared indicate otherwise.

The economic reality of war means that it's in our interests to engage in war. That's extremely problematic. It's not in my interests, or your interests. We're paying more for fuel and wheat. But it's certainly in the interests of those who have a vested interest in things like military hardware, weapons, ammo, construction, the list is endless.

There are no legal channels to press accusations of war crimes against Russia.
You need an enforcing agency above the accused to press that. There is no enforcing agency that can force Russia to submit to these accusations.

This is not completely true. We can't force Russia to submit to international courts and extradite suspects, but if we can get people out of Russia then they can be prosecuted. Many of those who were guilty of war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo were tried. They were caught, they were tried. It takes time, but the political will tend to shift because in ten years or whatever Russia will want sanctions lifted. That's when those who committed war crimes will start looking over their shoulders.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ok, but if Fred West saved my life I'd say thanks but you're still a cunt for burying all those people under your patio.

That's all I'm asking for.

Ok fair enough, nothing is black and white, but even if you can squeeze an iota of nuance out of me there's still no justifying supporting Nazis.

OK, but do we agree that supporting a nation is not identical to supporting the Nazis in that nation?

The reason we are *so* vehemently opposed to Nazis isn't just their ass-backward hate, but the scale of their atrocities.
We also hate the KKK, but the scale of their atrocities pales to WWII Nazis.
There were no atrocities on *that* scale in Ukraine prior to Feb 24 of this year.

The economic reality of war means that it's in our interests to engage in war. That's extremely problematic. It's not in my interests, or your interests. We're paying more for fuel and wheat. But it's certainly in the interests of those who have a vested interest in things like military hardware, weapons, ammo, construction, the list is endless.

True facts, there.

This is not completely true. We can't force Russia to submit to international courts and extradite suspects, but if we can get people out of Russia then they can be prosecuted. Many of those who were guilty of war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo were tried. They were caught, they were tried. It takes time, but the political will tend to shift because in ten years or whatever Russia will want sanctions lifted. That's when those who committed war crimes will start looking over their shoulders.

Bosnia and Kosovo - genocides

You're suggesting that we allow genocides to happen because 10 years later we can punish the perpetrators?
Not try to actively stop the genocide in the first place?
I kinda doubt that, actually.

So during WWII, your argument would be... let's just let this Hitler thing play out and see how it goes..? Maybe after he's taken all of mainland Europe, and just across the Channel from us banging on our door, then we'll ask him nicely to just not.
Doubt.

[OngBonga]

OK, but do we agree that supporting a nation is not identical to supporting the Nazis in that nation?

Are we talking about personally supporting? Or our governments supporting?

When a government officially supports a nation that incorporates Nazi groups into their military, that's problematic. It's de facto support for Nazis whether we like it or not. It's like trying to have diplomatic relations with a country you don't recognise. You're de facto recognising them by having relations.

Nazi groups should be banned by any civilised country. If Ukraine formally ban Azov but turn a blind eye to their activities during times of war, that might be tolerable. But to recognise them as legitimate militants in the armed forces, this is not the kind of country we can formally be allied to. We certainly can't seriously consider them joining NATO under such circumstances.

The reason we are *so* vehemently opposed to Nazis isn't just their ass-backward hate, but the scale of their atrocities.

Without a doubt.

There were no atrocities on *that* scale in Ukraine prior to Feb 24 of this year.

There still aren't. What we're seeing right now is standard warfare. Bad things happen in war. I've talked in the past about a former acquaintance who beat a man to death with a gun in front of his child. This was shortly after he had to pick pieces of his friend up after an IED took out their convoy. Soldiers are normal people who are thrown into terrible situations, and many of them can't cope. So bad things happen. This isn't unique to Russia. Literally every military in the world that has sent soldiers into war has this problem.

The Holocaust was obviously very different. This is state policy, not broken soldiers doing terrible things. It's something we cannot allow to happen again.

You're suggesting that we allow genocides to happen because 10 years later we can punish the perpetrators?
Not try to actively stop the genocide in the first place?

Well we did intervene here. We didn't sit back and do nothing. But we still allowed it to happen before we responded. We just stopped it from getting worse.

If Russia are committing genocide, then we have a different conversation. That's a very powerful word that shouldn't be casually used to describe the shelling of a town. The British attack on Hamburg was not genocide, but it was very very brutal.

So during WWII, your argument would be... let's just let this Hitler thing play out and see how it goes..?

Well it's funny because it wasn't the atrocities that brought us into the war, it was the invasion of Poland. We were doing exactly that... seeing how it played out.

But again, if there's an actual genocide happening, it's a different conversation to an invasion.

[OngBonga]

To be clear about what genocide is... it's a policy of systematic erasure of a group of people (nation, religion, ethnic group). The purpose is to eliminate this group from existence, not to simply drive them to another territory or to rule over them.

If there is hard evidence (not propaganda) that Russian policy is to indiscriminately kill any and all Ukrainians they encounter, with the ultimate goal of seizing their territory and eliminating Ukrainians completely, then we have a genocide.

If Russian policy is to seize Ukraine and rule over Ukrainians, that's not genocide.

[MadMojoMonkey]

8 nations are now saying it's genocide.
Many others are saying, "it has all the hallmarks of genocide, but we don't have enough information to say it crosses the line, yet."

The dominant rhetoric in Russia is that of genocide, though pundit rhetoric and political rhetoric are not often indicative of what's happening in military operations.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, at least put duck on the list of things it probably is.


Putin still threatening nukes every time Ukraine receives more foreign aid.

"Let me keep killing you or I'll kill you."
-Putin

[OngBonga]

There's probably that many nations who recognise Crimea as Russian. That doesn't really change the discussion about whether Crimea belongs to Russia.

I don't want to keep coming across as a Putin apologist but I think we should be careful about our language, just as Putin should be when he implies nuclear escalation. I don't believe that Russian policy is to exterminate Ukrainians, and I don't believe Russian soldiers would be willing to indiscriminately kill Ukrainians, except maybe in the case of collateral damage resulting from a clear military objective.

Genocide happens when ethnic people hate each other., and one has a significant dominance over the other. In this case, the genociders are motivated to kill by hatred. Before the war, Russian and Ukrainians considered themselves Slav brothers. I don't think you could find enough Russian soldiers willing to carry out a policy of genocide. There is no reason for a Russian to hate a Ukrainian just for being Ukrainian. The Russian solider knows the Ukrainian is defending his home.

The only way I can see genocide happening is if those carrying it out are unaware of the true objective, or that a small group of extreme loyalists to Putin are carrying out atrocities. Genocide is a policy, it's not an accident of war. You have to do more than show an atrocity happened, you have to show it was intended that way.

[OngBonga]

I also don't believe Putin is going to use nukes. And certainly not strategic nukes.

idk if you're aware of the terms so to quickly define -

strategic nukes - the ones nobody ever wants to use, long range world enders.
tactical nukes - small nukes designed to achieve a battlefield objective.

Strategic nukes are off the table. Nobody wants to use them. That is guaranteed to get a nuclear reaction from NATO. One strategic nuke will quickly be followed by lots and it's game over.

Tactical nukes are different. Who knows how NATO responds to a battlefield nuke? Or China for that matter? This is a gamble Putin *might* take if he's losing the war, because it doesn't guarantee a nuclear response. But we enter uncharted territory, and strategic nukes might be on the table in this world. It could get to the point where one geopolitical incident could trigger it. We're a long way from there right now though. We're not going to have a strategic nuke exchange overnight. A tactical nuke is almost certainly going to be the first nuclear escalation, if it were to happen.

[OngBonga]

So with that in mind, anything Putin says that implies the UK, EU or USA are a nuclear target is nothing but sabre rattling. It's simply not going to happen before a severe battlefield escalation and a severe deterioration in geopolitical relations, even considering how bad they already are.

And if Putin were to press the button, it would be the last act of a madman. He knows it's suicide. He could just put a gun to his head and save humanity the horror. It at least goes through a man's mind before he nukes a major city, right? You think "do I really want to leave this legacy?".

Full scale global nuclear war doesn't really worry me, even in this geopolitical climate. Nobody wins, and everybody knows it. More chance that madman in Korea uses a strategic nuke, and even that is a near zero probability.

idk if anyone is mad enough to use a tactical nuke. If and when it happens it's a new world we're living in, that much is for sure.

[Poopadoop]

Before the war, Russian and Ukrainians considered themselves Slav brothers.

Well, they didn't let that stop them from massacring Poles in WWII, so there's that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

[CoccoBill]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_cr...ion_of_Ukraine

I think if they add some chemical or biological weapon use, they'll have the Geneva conventions covered.

[OngBonga]

Well, they didn't let that stop them from massacring Poles in WWII, so there's that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Yeah their secret police (NKVD) carried these atrocities out, not regular Soviet soldiers. So you're actually supporting my argument. Only extreme loyalists could carry out genocide. Now does Putin have loyalists made of the same stuff Stalin had? Does Putin command the same respect and authority?

[Poopadoop]

Yeah their secret police (NKVD) carried these atrocities out, not regular Soviet soldiers. So you're actually supporting my argument. Only extreme loyalists could carry out genocide. Now does Putin have loyalists made of the same stuff Stalin had? Does Putin command the same respect and authority?

So the Holocaust wasn't a real genocide because it was mostly carried out by the SS and Gestapo, who were fiercely loyal to Hitler? I didn't know that it had to have unanimous approval among the population or it didn't count. Oh well, Holocaust happens...

It really doesn't matter which individuals are doing the genociding, if they're getting direction from the top and following it, or, if they're doing it on their own initiative and their superiors are just looking the other way, it amounts to the same thing.

How many Russian soldiers have been court-martialed for executing civilians? I'm guessing it's a number somewhere between zero and none.

[OngBonga]

So the Holocaust wasn't a real genocide because it was mostly carried out by the SS and Gestapo, who were fiercely loyal to Hitler?

That isn't what I said. You're jumping to conclusions here.

I'm suggesting Putin doesn't have the numbers to carry out a genocide even if he wanted to. Maybe I'm wrong, but for it to happen it requires a fiercely loyal militia, one that does not question orders no matter how grave they might be. I don't think Putin has that influence over enough people. Hitler did. Stalin did. Putin is not in the same discussion as these kind of people.

It really doesn't matter which individuals are doing the genociding, if they're getting direction from the top and following it, or, if they're doing it on their own initiative and their superiors are just looking the other way, it amounts to the same thing.

It does matter if they're getting direction from the top. That's a rather important aspect of determining whether it is policy.

Granted, those at the top "looking the other way" would indeed likely amount to genocide, if it were happening on a large enough scale.

How many Russian soldiers have been court-martialed for executing civilians? I'm guessing it's a number somewhere between zero and none.

You're falling into the trap here of believing that executing a civilian amounts to genocide. That's not what genocide is. Executing civilians in cold blood is certainly a war crime, but if the reason was, for argument's sake, that the invaders did not have the capacity to take prisoners and did not want to release military aged men, so they shot them... that's a terrible war crime, but it's not genocide. Genocide is when you eliminate any and all Ukrainians with no other military objective. Basically, it's killing people because you want to kill them, not because you want to win a battle or occupy a strategic territory.

This is why we should be careful about how the word genocide is used. It means something specific. If we start using the word genocide to mean ethnic cleansing or collateral casualties or individual war crimes then we need a new word to describe the policy of killing a group of people for the sole purpose of erasing them from existence.

And then that word gets misused.

[OngBonga]

Genocide is basically the worst of the war crimes. It's worse than ethnic cleansing because the intention here is simply to drive a population from a territory, usually by means of brute force but it's a step down from genocide where you're not even giving them a genuine chance to leave. Genocide, that's where you round up Jews, gays and anyone else you don't like, and gas them. That's not trying to drive a population away from a territory, that's a clear policy to exterminate people based purely on their identity.

Ethnic cleansing is something many people might be turning a blind eye to, if and when Ukraine retake Crimea and evict the Russian population. You might want to be careful what moral standards you set right now, because the side you support might well have to cross those lines too if they are to achieve their military objectives.

War is shit.

[Poopadoop]

Genocide is basically the worst of the war crimes. It's worse than ethnic cleansing because the intention here is simply to drive a population from a territory,

What's the word for taking children from a combat zone and back into your own country. Ethnic borrowing?

Because that's what Russia has been doing.

Ethnic cleansing is something many people might be turning a blind eye to, if and when Ukraine retake Crimea and evict the Russian population. You might want to be careful what moral standards you set right now, because the side you support might well have to cross those lines too if they are to achieve their military objectives.

So you think if Ukraine does ethnic cleansing I'd be ok with it because it's Ukraine doing it? Huh?


Really it's kind of pointless arguing over semantics of how big a cunt Putin is. Ok, let's say he isn't as bad as Hitler or Stalin because he either doesn't have the power or he doesn't want to. Great, let's give him a pass then.

[OngBonga]

I didn't say give him a pass though. I'm just saying don't throw inaccurate accusations at him for the sake of using powerful words. Nearly all wars have strategic or economic objectives, not ethnic objectives. Throwing the word genocide around casually like it's a broad term is a disservice to the victims of genocide. It's right that there's a word specifically for the attempted elimination of a people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree that genocide is a big word, and that comparing and contrasting to other big words like "ethnic cleansing" and "war crimes" is exactly the conversation.

I also think that the public exposure of the horrors of war by the accessibility and technology of the modern press makes the conversation harder. War is horrific, but not all horror is genocide.

Which is why I noted that 8 nations are calling it genocide - maybe subtract 1 'cause 1 of the nations is Ukraine - conflict of interest.
Dozens of other nations are looking closely at what's going on and can only say, "From what limited information we have, it looks like genocide, but the fog of war is occluding a lot of information and we can't say for certain."

What you or I think isn't relevant. What the political leaders of the world think is relevant. We control no forces. They do.