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.