No war is right. That's it. No situation is black and white.. One could argue that Russia's invasion could've been avoided by simply talking while other places didnt even have a choice. Wars are politicians incompetence or simply not seeing others interests and points of view but their own. Remove yourself from countries try to look from a 3rd point of view and you will see. The only way to break this cycle... All these poor innocent lives in all these wars all of a sudden came to me as a result of what I see in my current age and I will be honest, I am more mad at humanity than ever... what we think we are vs what we actually are is so different and that should be opened up and taught in schools.
Yes, both countries are evil, but US is "number one".
edit:
" A war of permanent occupation, and oppression, under absolute rule, is not the same."
The US set up a puppet government, Putin will likely do the same.
The inference, in this context, is that the US directly slaughtered 200k civilians. This is pure deceit.
Or are you suggesting the US lined up civilians and shot them?
What you mean is, the US destabilized the region and then locals slaughtered each other, causing 200k deaths.
A massive difference.
The Middle East is a hotbed of conflicting religions, and tribalism runs rampant. Any "destabilization" caused deaths are impossible to separate from whatever next local conflict would have caused, regardless.
Great false optics though.
The middle east being a hotbed of conflicting religions is not an excuse. It just means that the US should have treated the region with a lot more care, you don't go around bombing nuclear reactors and then claim that it is their fault for exploding.
According to UN, Russian actions costed 1207 civilians their life, not 300.
Wrong logic.
First, one report claims this as a theory, where as the US believes 1300.
Second, this was over 5 years, half a decade!
Third, great care was taken to not harm civilians.
Fourth, this was the US and her allies, not the US alone. Some of her allies are locals.
Further, this was a campaign against a violent group, Islamic State, invading, and slaughteting people relentlessly. Had the US and allies not stepped in, it is not hard to imagine IS killing even more, had their progress not been halted.
This is just an absurd comparison. You are working so hard, and diligently, to present the US in the worst light possible. It is just silly.
"Second, this was over 5 years, half a decade!"
And? The US has not really changed. Look at Yemen, Libya, etc.
"Third, great care was taken to not harm civilians."
You certainly can't see that great care in the "collateral murder" video. I am sure Russia will also talk about the great care that it took to not hurt civilians.
"Fourth, this was the US and her allies, not the US alone. Some of her allies are locals."
I don't think that this really changes anything. In addition Russia could claim the same about solders from Chechnya, Belarus, Crimea, etc.
"You are working so hard, and diligently, to present the US in the worst light possible"
You are working so hard, and diligently, to justify the atrocities that the US committed.
Am I wrong here? It looks like nobody really cared about Syrian people and that's what's similar in US and Russia foreign policy. Wars are usually waged for land or for power, not to protect someone's liberties.
You are right though that America recently didn't annex land; but they did so earlier, see history of Panama Canal Zone for example [1]:
> In March 1902 Colombia set its terms for such a treaty: Colombia was to be sovereign over the canal, which would be policed by Colombians paid for by the United States. The host nation would receive a larger percentage of the tolls than provided for in earlier draft treaties.
> The draft terms were quickly rejected by American officials.
> A Frenchman who had worked on his nation's canal efforts, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, represented Panamanian insurgents; he met with Roosevelt and with Secretary of State John Hay, who saw to it that his principals received covert support. When the revolution came in November 1903, the United States intervened to protect the rebels, who succeeded in taking over the province, declaring it independent as the Republic of Panama.
> negotiated a treaty, giving the United States a zone 20 miles (32 km) wide and full authority to pass laws to govern that zone.
The same trick that US, USSR and Russia have repeated multiple times since: support the opposition against the government; get something valuable (like land or permission to build military bases) in return. Repeat if the opposition you have helped stops being grateful.
It's a bit more complicated than just “nobody really cared” — the U.S. was already bogged down in two wars of choice with no end in sight so a third one was going to be a very hard sell. The U.S. did provide aid to some groups and actively attacked ISIL but the latter was the primary combat goal because there was no interest in occupying Syria and accepting the massive requirements in personnel and casualties that would require.
That's one of the key differences with the current situation in the Ukraine: Russia has made it clear that their goal is to rebuild the historic empire and are willing to accept large death counts to do so.
How can we know what Russia is going to do in Ukraine? Did Putin tell you? For now, we can say they're the same. Not to mention all those countries supported financially, militarily... by the US, who apply an absolute rule of oppression to their citizens.
So the comparison is false to begin with.
Similarity would be if Iraq attacked Israel (a dictator attacks democracy).
Also, both Chile or Guatemala were democracies when the US financed and organized the coups that deposed their elected presidents, just to put some friend dictator.
Yes, and any "definition of democracy" is questionable, either you have it or you don't. Do you think that Saddam was in any "definition" a democratic president?
How about Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Putin?
> Also, both Chile or Guatemala were democracies when the US financed and organized the coups that deposed their elected presidents, just to put some friend dictator.
That was wrong, what can I say? I don't pretend US is a good guy, it is more gray. But in that color definition Russia is black, or at least very dark gray.
And no, I'm not US citizen.
Actually, Putin has given a few speeches on the topic. In the most recent one, I believe, he said that he wanted to annex Ukraine. After a previous speech in which he said that he doesn't believe Ukraine has any existence as an ethnic state, since Ukrainians are (to him) just Russians.
https://www.trtworld.com/europe/lavrov-russia-s-goal-is-to-d...
That's why the current invadion is moreso akin to the Iraq war. The invadion in 2014 can be analogised to other conflicts, if you want.
The topic of discussion is that it is not:
- Russia has clear intent to annex territory
- US never had such intent from early 20 century: they left Iraq when they were asked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_United_States_tr...
Russia has already annexed territory.
By the way, the US is still occupying territory to this day in Cuba, so clearly the intent remains.
"All" means 100k of initial invasion forces? Or few hundreds who provide security to commercial objects in Iraq?
> Russia has already annexed territory.
They occupied territory, it is not recognized by many countries as annexed. Now they want it to be recognized.
It
The troops I'm talking about weren't for commercial security. They were in US "embassy" complexes and were used as an occupying military.
Russia annexed Crimea. They aren't occupying it. It is a done fact. Annexation has nothing to do with international recognition. Annexation is when a sovereign state takes over territory and annexes it to it's own. Which Russia did to Crimea in 2014.
Russia is asking Ukraine to recognize the facts on the ground and give up it's claim, after which both countries may exist in a state of peace.
Could you provide any reference on this?
> Russia annexed Crimea. They aren't occupying it.
Looks like rest of the world is in disagreement with this statement.
The Iranian affinity comes in no small part organically or from pro-Iranian militias.
They couldn't do anything about US actions, yes, because lacking military power.
I don't think it is an occupation as this word is defined.
I would take issue with the word justify.
That country A did something bad to country B doesn't justify country C doing the same bad thing to country D. But what it does do is puts the actions of country C in historical perspective (i.e. is it uniquely evil), and calls into question the moral argument advanced by country A (if it claims that what country C does to country D is wrong, then how come it did the same to country B? where was the moral argument then?).
When we see someone say one thing and do another, we call such person a hypocrite. This person might object that by calling him so, we engage in a whataboutism, because his actions have no bearing on whether what he says is the right thing to do. But such objection typically doesn't work. I wonder why.
If Russia is or is not justified in its invasion of Ukraine, what is it? What word would you use here when someone is attempting to draw a comparison in order to make one thing "ok" because of another thing?
I've no idea. I don't know if there is such a thing as a justified invasion; and if there is, then what are its criteria; and whether all countries have agreed to recognize the same set of criteria; and what specific criteria Russia would claim that it met in this case.
I know that there were several ill-defined reasons that the Russian government offered to its citizens. Obviously, after the invasion had already started. Obviously, insisting that they are in the right. I have not heard an in-depth analysis of their reasons against the criteria of a justified invasion. All I heard are fragments.
> What word would you use here when someone is attempting to draw a comparison in order to make one thing "ok" because of another thing?
"similar"? "dissimilar"? "understandable"? "incomprehensible"?
"ok" is a moral judgement; and applying a moral yardstick to instigators of a war is ... hard.
Any suggestion that Ukraine is not making its own choice to be a liberal democracy, even despite the Orange Revolution, even despite 2014, even despite the fierce defensive fighting going on as we speak, is an effort to deny an entire people agency. It is racist.