Ukraine War Watch Thread

User avatar
ººº
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:54 am

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by ººº »

US does not recognizes the ICC but wants to send Putin there, do you need more?

It looks like talking about how many angels can fit in a pin's head.
Not that Russia is any better.
User avatar
ibm9000
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2022 9:24 am

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by ibm9000 »

Not that Russia is any better.
Exactly my point, thanks.
User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by caltrek »

erowind wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:29 am
caltrek wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 10:34 pm
erowind wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:08 pm

An open admission to violating the geneva convention and treating civilians as combatants.
Nope. Article 4:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories...

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces...
So, the way I read it is that support workers can be treated as prisoners of war. So, as long as their rights as such are then respected there would be no violation.

Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-me ... soners-war
There is a very big difference between taking a civilian labor unit hostage and actively shelling/firing upon it... The Geneva convention does not at all imply that it is okay to fire upon civilians engaged in non-combat labor.
Right. So, it very much depends upon the context. Are said "civilians" being treated as prisoners of war because they have been captured during a military operation? Did they suffer from an attack because they were imbedded in a military unit actively carrying out combat? Were they themselves carrying out military operations? Were they attacked despite being unarmed, separated from military units, and not engaging in combat operations?

So, there was no "open admission" as the context was not specifically made clear.
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
User avatar
wjfox
Site Admin
Posts: 8730
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 6:09 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by wjfox »

User avatar
erowind
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 5:42 am

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by erowind »

caltrek wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 1:24 pm
erowind wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:29 am
caltrek wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 10:34 pm
Nope. Article 4:


So, the way I read it is that support workers can be treated as prisoners of war. So, as long as their rights as such are then respected there would be no violation.

Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-me ... soners-war
There is a very big difference between taking a civilian labor unit hostage and actively shelling/firing upon it... The Geneva convention does not at all imply that it is okay to fire upon civilians engaged in non-combat labor.
So, there was no "open admission" as the context was not specifically made clear.
Except the article quoted the workers saying they were being shelled and this is taken as a reliable article no? Pro NATO supporters are so eager to jump on the Russian military at the slightest hint of wrongdoing but will defend the Ukrainian military to the last breath over the same actions. The same speculation you're engaging in (maybe the enemy put the civilians in the line of fire deliberately, etc) people are called out over when used in defense of the Russian military. What is established is that civilians are being fired on by the Ukrainian military and visibly here that isn't enough to warrant condemnation, which shows bias.

And the Ukranian military has been firing on civilians who aren't even adjacent to the Russian military since before 2022. The shelling of Donbass and Luhansk has been pronounced for years.

Either war is hell, and we acknowledge that hell equally, which I have consistently done in this thread, or we are nationalists. The reason I don't condemn Russia constantly here as I have stated before is because it's unconstructive outside of a room of Russian nationalists. An the reason I don't condemn Russia uniquely is that despite all the propaganda surrounding this war, Russia as a state, has committed no worse crimes than any other imperial state. This is a situation of WWI not of WWII, though, that is impossible to see for many on either side of the conflict.

(In some rare cases war is justified, wars of liberation as in the American civil war. There is no liberation in imperial war, no better society on the other side, only death.)

To answer your question on oligarchy from a while ago by the way. I don't remember if I wrote a proper response or not. In a few sentences, no, there are very few countries on this planet that aren't oligarchies, the YPJ in Rojava, the Zapitas in Chiapas, the Mondragon coops in Basque. Most nations today are on some spectrum between outright autocracy and hybrid regime. Some have elements of social democracy or democratic mechanisms but none are full direct or otherwise bottom-up organized democracies. "Representative" democracy is a lie that's been sold to us by monarchists before and capitalists now. Democracy does not exist in any nation where money buys politicians and policy and any country where the primary mode of life involves submitting to petty dictators in the form of company bosses shows rather clearly the power relations of its political system. And most all politicians are certainly bought in both Russia, the United States, Ukraine and all of the EU.
User avatar
ibm9000
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2022 9:24 am

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by ibm9000 »

In some rare cases war is justified, wars of liberation as in the American civil war.
I don't know what you are trying to say here, the ACW was not a war of liberation.

You and your friends imposing your moral principles by the force of arms is justified?, how many friends do you need for that? Caltrek and his friends can start a war, a justified war according to them.

If you are talking about the American War of Independence... Every county and every village in this planet has the right to secession; and the right to start a war for that?, a justified war?

If you mean Emancipation...
The ACW was about the States' Rights. The political issue of slavery (passing that bucket around for many years instead of solving the issue) came later, during the war; and it had a lot to do with Lincoln, personally, and his friends. Yes, the States' Rights issue was due to the slavery issue. Every country (even with a slavery past) would had been justified to go around invading countries where slavery was legal?
The EU has the article 50, I cannot remember reading anything like that about the American Constitution nor the opposite, any formal (under the threat of war) prohibition of leaving the Union. In case of the inexistence of article 50, the EU would had been justified to invade UK to preserve the Union?
I have never been able to read any legal argument to preserve the Union by the force of arms, it was never presented, it was illegal (IMO, it was an invasion, a war of aggression) even if Secession was alegal.
There is no liberation in imperial war...
It is a dangerous position to start justifying wars, History is full of that. There is no distinction in war, they are all wars (but there are "likes", the wars that we justify).

And now, coming back to Ukraine...
User avatar
funkervogt
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 3:03 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by funkervogt »

The ACW was about the States' Rights. The political issue of slavery (passing that bucket around for many years instead of solving the issue) came later, during the war; and it had a lot to do with Lincoln, personally, and his friends. Yes, the States' Rights issue was due to the slavery issue.
This is an important fact that few Americans know. Slavery and the right of states to leave the USA were two different legal issues. When the Southern states started voting to secede from the country, there was nothing in the Constitution or federal law that prohibited them from doing so. There's an alternate timeline where the South seceded because it disagreed with tariff and trade policies being created in Washington, DC, and not because of slavery, and as such, we look back upon any resulting war with moral ambiguity. Americans' impressions of the Civil War are more morally charged than they should be because slavery and the right of state succession are not separated from each other. Most people simply think that the War was meant to end slavery.
In case of the inexistence of article 50, the EU would had been justified to invade UK to preserve the Union?
The authors of the Treaty on European Union obviously learned from the mistake that the authors of the U.S. Constitution made, since the former included Article 50, which lets countries leave the E.U. for any reason. It's a good provision to have, and I actually think the U.S. Constitution should be changed to let states peacefully leave our country, though there would be a high bar to doing so.
I have never been able to read any legal argument to preserve the Union by the force of arms, it was never presented, it was illegal (IMO, it was an invasion, a war of aggression) even if Secession was alegal.
You should question that assumption. After the Southern states seceded, they demanded that ownership of U.S. military bases built on their territory be transferred to them. When Lincoln refused, the southern military forces attacked them and the federal personnel inside of them. The acts of aggression justified the North's retaliation, though we can debate whether it gave them the legal or moral right to conquer all the territory of the South.
Last edited by funkervogt on Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ibm9000
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2022 9:24 am

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by ibm9000 »

You should question that assumption...
Only that my assumption is (only) about "the Union by the force of arms", not about US property in the CSA.
User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by caltrek »

ibm9000 wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:49 am
In some rare cases war is justified, wars of liberation as in the American civil war.
I don't know what you are trying to say here, the ACW was not a war of liberation.

You and your friends imposing your moral principles by the force of arms is justified?, how many friends do you need for that? Caltrek and his friends can start a war, a justified war according to them.
...
I beg your pardon. At no time do I remember stating that starting a war was justified. My only point was that perhaps fighting a war of defense against an invader was justified. In such cases, the war has been "started" by said aggressor. Maybe that doesn't make a difference to you. Maybe you feel like one should just immediately surrender every time some bully of a nation threatens hostility. Even when genocide seems to be in the cards. Maybe that makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

As to the American Civil War, that belongs in another thread. We actually dd have a thread on that in the old forum. Much of what has been said here is a condensed rehash of that old thread. So, failing having this placed in another thread, I will make no further comment on that topic. At least for now.
Last edited by caltrek on Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by caltrek »

Except the article quoted the workers saying they were being shelled and this is taken as a reliable article no?
From the article:
The migrant worker from Kyrgyzstan, who did not want his last name published, says he is aware of the risks involved and has discussed the topic with Kyrgyz migrants working in Ukraine’s war zones.

“They told me sometimes they came under shelling and that people get killed,” Urmat told RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service.

So they come under shelling while working in a war zone. No discussion about other circumstances, such as were they close to Russian troops or working in conjunction with Russian personnel.

So, that was the point I was trying to make. That there was no “confession” on the part of Ukrainian officials. In othe cases, Ukrainian officials seem to take great pride in conforming to the Geneva convention, which makes the argument of there being a “confession” even less plausible.

As for your other points, that is all well and good, and I am tempted to let them stand as is. However, since you have brought them up, let me address them now.

Pro NATO supporters are so eager to jump on the Russian military at the slightest hint of wrongdoing but will defend the Ukrainian military to the last breath over the same actions. The same speculation you're engaging in (maybe the enemy put the civilians in the line of fire deliberately, etc) people are called out over when used in defense of the Russian military. What is established is that civilians are being fired on by the Ukrainian military and visibly here that isn't enough to warrant condemnation, which shows bias.
Admitedly speculation. Still, it is quite clear that civilian buildings in Ukraine are being struck by artillery and or rocket fire from the Russians. Conversely, it is my recollection that has been explained in places like the The Drive that weapons supplied to Ukraine have allowed for a more precise targeting of military objectives. Further, that efforts have been made by the Ukraine to confine such targeting to military assets. Civilian casualties have thus been a matter of “collateral damage.”

Yes, I hate that euphemism as much as you.
And the Ukranian military has been firing on civilians who aren't even adjacent to the Russian military since before 2022. The shelling of Donbass and Luhansk has been pronounced for years.
So, maybe these are instances where they have been close to the military? Further, that is the context in which the Ukrainian indicated that they would be treated the same as Russian military personnel, or words to that effect. Something which, at least when applied to prisoners of war, is quite in keeping with the Geneva convention
Either war is hell, and we acknowledge that hell equally,
Agreed
which I have consistently done in this thread, or we are nationalists.
It occurs to me that perhaps two can become inextricable if the nation to which one identifies, in one’s mind at least, is more democratic and whose government is more respective of freedom of speech, etc. Democracy, as defined by others and not by yourself, can become a part of that culture. As can relative freedom of speech, etc. Not perfect in that regard, just relatively speaking.
The reason I don't condemn Russia constantly here as I have stated before is because it's unconstructive outside of a room of Russian nationalists. An the reason I don't condemn Russia uniquely is that despite all the propaganda surrounding this war, Russia as a state, has committed no worse crimes than any other imperial state.
What has the Ukraine ever done to earn it the label of being an “imperial state”?

Just who invaded who?

Sorry, but the preponderance of evidence I have seen indicates that Russia has a far worse record in that regard. Now, I have never been to the Ukraine and never spoken in person to anybody who has been to the Ukraine since the war has started. So, yes, I am relying on media sources to reach that conclusion. So, yes, there is a need to be careful in that regard and keep an open mind to other evidence presented. Provisionally, we will just have to agree to disagree. I reserve the right to change my mind on this point upon review of further evidence that may be presented.
This is a situation of WWI not of WWII, though, that is impossible to see for many on either side of the conflict. (In some rare cases war is justified, wars of liberation as in the American civil war. There is no liberation in imperial war, no better society on the other side, only death.)
Again, as I have argued before, leaving the Ukrainians and what they feel about their government and their relative freedom out of the equation. See above re: the U.S. Civil War.
To answer your question on oligarchy from a while ago by the way. I don't remember if I wrote a proper response or not.
My recollection is that you did once earlier.
In a few sentences, no, there are very few countries on this planet that aren't oligarchies, the YPJ in Rojava, the Zapitas in Chiapas, the Mondragon coops in Basque. Most nations today are on some spectrum between outright autocracy and hybrid regime. Some have elements of social democracy or democratic mechanisms but none are full direct or otherwise bottom-up organized democracies. "Representative" democracy is a lie that's been sold to us by monarchists before and capitalists now. Democracy does not exist in any nation where money buys politicians and policy and any country where the primary mode of life involves submitting to petty dictators in the form of company bosses shows rather clearly the power relations of its political system. And most all politicians are certainly bought in both Russia, the United States, Ukraine and all of the EU.
Still. There is a difference between being coerced into behavior by force of arms, and being persuaded by a well-funded advertising campaign. Particularly when there are definite possibilities that exist to peacefully organize for the purpose of counter-messaging. To deny that such differences exists is to put forward a false equivalency.

Edit. As I wrote earlier: It is not foolish to point out which empire shot first. It is rather to point out evidence that one side is pursuing a course of genocidal nihilism, while the other is acting in self-defense. That they may also be acting in defense of a system you hate does not alter the fact that they are defending something that they hold to be valuable. One should not shrug such motivations off as being misguided or naive. Before one can exercise the choice to form a co-op or commune, one must have the freedom of choice. Such a freedom does not always mean that the persons exercising that choice will pursue only goals for themselves that you would choose for yourself. Don't leave out the right to self-determination on the part of Ukrainians from the equation.

I do share your admiration for the Mandragon co-op.
Last edited by caltrek on Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
Post Reply