Amnesty International on Thursday said that Ukraine is endangering civilians in its war-fighting tactics by establishing bases and launching attacks from residential areas, including schools and hospitals.
“We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary-general. “Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.”
Amnesty said that most residential areas where Ukrainian soldiers located themselves were “kilometers” away from the front lines and that there were “viable alternatives” that would not endanger civilians.
The NGO said it found Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In 22 out of 29 schools that Amnesty visited, their researchers “either found soldiers using the premises or found evidence of current or prior military activity.”
Amnesty said that as a result of Ukraine’s tactics, Russian strikes in populated areas killed civilians. However, the NGO said that not every Russian attack followed this pattern and that where they accused Moscow of war crimes in Kharkiv, they did not find Ukraine using civilian areas as bases. Amnesty also said Ukraine’s tactics do not excuse Russia’s “indiscriminate attacks.”
Ukraine reacted angrily to Amnesty’s report, with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba saying he was “outraged.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused the NGO of “helping the terrorists” by publishing the report.
Callamard called on Ukraine to ensure that the areas it uses as bases are away from populated areas. “Militaries should never use hospitals to engage in warfare, and should only use schools or civilian homes as a last resort when there are no viable alternatives,” she said.
A really good recap of the situation by Brian Berletic and Mark Sleboda over at The New Atlas Youtube channel.A must see.
Russian Operations in Ukraine (August 4, 2022): featuring Mark Sleboda
Voldomort Zelensky and Mr. Potato Head Dmytro Kuleba are afraid of the truth about Ukrainian fascist war crimes which have been ongoing since 2014!
I agree, military should not operate out of civilian areas and place them in harm’s way.
But it’s interesting that AW chose to highlight this report so prominently and run it “above the fold” so to speak, because I did not see any coverage here of the following Amnesty International reports or statements (even using the search function)…
“Russian soldiers filmed viciously attacking Ukrainian POW must face justice”
“Municipal councillor sentenced to seven years in jail for opposing the Ukraine war”
“Hundreds killed in relentless Russian shelling of Kharkiv”
“Deadly Mariupol theatre strike ‘a clear war crime’ by Russian forces”
“Artist detained amid clampdown on anti-war feminists”
Lots of propaganda floating around. Amnesty International gets a lot of things wrong too. This organization and others made claims about the Gadaffi regime in Libya that turned out to be false. Claims like these were used as justification for regime change by the USA and NATO members. The destabilization of Libya has caused massive hardship in that country.
It was UK and France with US backup, so not NATO and not primarily the US who were the muscle behind the action in Libya, which as you point out has caused much hardship in that country.
But yet Hillary cackled: “WE came, WE saw, he died”. Why the inclusiveness? If you think the US didn’t have a major say in what eventually happened in Libya, you are a fool.
I do not exclude the idea that the US had major influence in Libya – without the US there would likely have been no action, why would you assume this based on what I wrote.
My only point is that the Libyan action was one conducted by the UK and the French enabled by the US – not NATO.
Because you wrote the US was “backup”. And then you admit there would “likely” had been no action without the US. Seems “backup” is downplaying their role just a tad.
OK I see your point, the US took a back seat – no troops on the ground and not initiating the airstrikes (at least supposedly) and the French and UK were very vocal about being in the lead at the time.
That said I did not wish to imply that the US was not still a major player – my point here was primarily that it was not a NATO action.
NATO began planning and pushing the no-fly-zone in early March of 2011.
The US launched the first strikes (March 18, 2011). France and the UK did not commence strikes until the following day.
NATO took command of all no-fly-zone operations on March 25, 2011, and all military operations on March 29, 2011.
Libya was a NATO operation from beginning to end.
I stand corrected! – thanks for pointing it out in a very balanced and accurate way.
Maybe your only point, but when you called the US a “backup” in that war, I couldn’t help myself.
I acknowledge that it was a poor choice of words.
The point is, it’s disingenuous to report what Amnesty International says only when it makes Ukraine look bad, but never when it makes Russia look bad.
And those links you posted in another comment were from where? When you read those stories about evil Russia, were there stories about evil Ukraine alongside of them?
They were all from Amnesty International’s website. As you’d know if you’d opened them.
The reason I didn’t open them was because they are headlines I’ve seen on the MSM. My bad, but my point stands because there aren’t anti-Ukraine stories running alongside of them.
No, it is not. Most people reading these pages live in western, pro Ukrainian countries. The news of the recipient of support from their governments violating international humanitarian law is more vital, and more relevant, than news of the opponent’s violations. Also, their opponent’s violations get more than ample coverage elsewhere, while there has been almost no coverage of Ukrainian violations.
You are simply wrong. You are either a simpleton, who can’t see beyond “na, na, na, na, na, they did it too!” childish tit for-tat, or you are the one indulging in bad faith disingenousness. Take your pick.
I’ve never heard a reputable news organization use that argument for offering one-sided coverage — – and I spent 14 years in the newspaper industry.
This is not a newspaper nor a “news organization,” it’s an antiwar website. Apples and oranges. The purpose here is advocacy, namely, to oppose war. Which means, in practice, since the readership and authorship is mainly Western, to oppose Western sponsored wars. You spent 14 years in the newspaper industry and yet that elemental distinction is lost on you?
AI is funded by the USA, the UK, and the EU governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International#Funding
…AI has received grants over the past ten years from the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission,the United States State Department, and other governments.
Beyond that, it is funded by the UMC of those countries. Which means that it is funded by pro Ukraine individuals as well. In addition, Western and pro Western institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation also fund it.
Soooo, it is not exactly news, and not all that credible, when AI toes the Western line. It is news, and more credible, when it doesn’t, as here.
Also, anti Russian reporting, including from AI, is easily found throughout the MSM, so there is no need for Antiwar.com to merely repeat all that.
Thank you for the reporting. We need some opposition voices to the mainstream narrative, the “heroic” Ukrainians maybe killing just as many civilians, if not more, than the Russians.
True. But the Ukrainian regime got a head start by shelling civilian targets in Donask and Lugansk for 8’years before the Russians got involved.
The Wagner group and thus the Russians were involved in the insurrection in the Donbas from early 2014 – had they not been involved there is no chance that the separatists would have been able to hold out for that long.
😂 That is pure propaganda straight from the Ukrainian regime. The Wagner group had a total of 1,000 employees as of 2016. And those were almost all in Africa. The truth is the resistance to the regime came from the Ukrainian military deserters after the decrees from Kiev regime efforts to ethnically cleanse that country. The Kiev regime refused to implement the Minsk accords which would have prevented the carnage and left the Donbas as autonomous region within Ukraine. Although the Ukrainian Regime agreed to this compromise the former ((US installed) President of Ukraine Poroshenko has stated that there was no intention of implementing the Minsk accords and was using the time to rebuild the Ukrainian military to be used to crush the resistance to that regimes ethnic cleansing programs.
Clearly you support this criminal regime and use their propaganda.
By the way, the deputy director of Ukraine military intelligence has confirmed that the USA is selecting the targets of all the HIMARS in Ukraine. He confirmed that the positioning and evasion after firing all directed by the US military. You thought it was all the Ukrainian military.😂
See also Jacques Baud Postil magazine an highly qualified observer who was in the Donbas at this time.
That’s it. Your shilling for the regime is wasting my time.
Not really it is pretty much a fact known by everyone who is not just a Putin apologist.
www DOT csis DOT org/blogs/post-soviet-post/band-brothers-wagner-group-and-russian-state
The separatists have themselves have acknowledged Russian ‘volunteers’ helping them and Russian ‘volunteers’ have been bragging about their participation so you are arguing against public knowledge and video evidence of Russians bragging about their participation.
The separatists failed to implement the first steps, which was an election under Ukrainian law and returning control of the external borders to Kyiv – so I think both parties failed to implement the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko was elected and then lost the next election not how the US installed regimes usually works.
Seeing as the separatists failed to implement even the first steps of the Minsk agreement they too had no intentions of implementing it – and there is very little evidence that the Ukrainians were about to crush the separatists.
I don’t even read their propaganda and I’m opposed to all wars of territorial conquest as should any decent person be. You on the other hand…
I believe he has said that the US has veto over the targets, but as the US very likely provides the satellite photos I would not be surprised if they also pointed out the obvious targets.
No I said that the HIMARS were manned by Ukrainian crews and nothing said by the Ukrainians or the US has contradicted this – if you have proof of anything otherwise provide links.
He is a Putin apologist so hardly a trustworthy source.
😂😂 You reveal yourself once again. Your use of the term : “Putin apologist” along with your Ukrainian puppet regime talking points.
says it all. A Russian phobic mouthpiece. Apologist for failed US hegemonic foreign policy.
Logical fallacy: “everyone knows”.
our “facts”are wrong: 19 March, the first act of NATO allies to secure the no-fly zone began by destroying Libyan air defenses when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.[86]
Your “facts” are wrong. Even Wikipedia got some of the Libyan war right “In the weeks that followed, US American forces were in the forefront of NATO operations against Libya. More than 8,000 US personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[87] The US air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri in the continental United States.[88] The support provided by the NATO air forces contributed to the ultimate success of the revolution.[89]”.
Yeah, sure NATO wasn’t involved in Libya.😂
Same goes for the other countries. Doesn’t take much to find these things out. But when you can only use deep state and the Ukrainian puppet regime talking points you’re pretty limited. When you use logical fallacies? Just not too bright.
Your threshold of what constitutes revealing anything is at conspiracy level so congratulations.
Made no apologies for the US hegemony, only said that it is currently the preferred evil to Russian hegemony (or Chinese).
If Wikipedia says this then it is just wrong – NATO was not party to this, individual NATO countries were
I did not say that the US was not involved just that they took a back seat especially compared to their usual position – you are now arguing against your strawman – I have not indicated that the US was not involved.
Do you see any evidence of German, Italian, Spanish or any other of the main NATO members taking part in any way? The Italians did not even allow planes to take off from Italian bases – so clearly not a NATO action, but the action of some NATO countries – learn to differentiate.
Really????
Then please do – so far you have only shown things that I have not denied i.e. US involvement.
When you start insulting people it is evidence that you are losing the debate based on actual arguments.
How many wars have the Chinese launched? Ok u can use the arguments they just haven’t gotten the chance but go look at their history they don’t launch wars of conquest unlike us that is killing people non stop since it’s founding. I read somewhere it was not involved in some form of war for less than 20 years over it’s existence(let’s go 50for safety) and all the wars of conquest China undertook were under Mongol rules so yeah I would rather have Chinese hegemony than the bloody us one. No , any action China undertakes with regards to it’s historical territory is not part of my equation. I personally would have supported Taiwanese independence if the Chinese didn’t offer the one country two system or even the option of keeping the status quo with Taiwan just keeping things frozen instead of refusing to pay lip service that Taiwan is part of China while maintaining full sovereignty in all but name
one with Vietnam in what we may call the relevant period, but why is this relevant?
Is that the US? If so then the US has not launched wars of conquest since the end of the cold war, probably not since 1946.
I would not use the history of any nation against them if the acts in question are more than 100 years ago. So I’m perfectly willing to accept that the Chinese are very unlikely to invade, well pretty much any foreign nation, my issue is that Taiwan is not a foreign nation to the Chinese.
That you prefer the hegemony of a totalitarian state is probably likely to be down your particular preference for what freedoms are important to you. I’m not particular eager to embrace that kind of future but then preferences are allowed to be different in most states while we are under US hegemony 🙂
Yes that is how the Chinese see this, and I am prepared to accept that they do have far better justification for their claim – that however does not necessarily mean that I think it is a great idea to have the Chinese invade Taiwan.
Chinese don’t involve themselves in other countries affairs so I don’t care about China being totalitarian regime because they won’t impose their will in my country while us will impose it’s hegemony everywhere without giving s… about whether the targeted country is a democracy or not. Us carried out coup in multiple countries with democratically elected leaders like in Chile and recently in Venezuela and Honduras (not talking about the kleptrocracy of Maduro but the democratically elected chavez regime)
The method of conquest has changed 800 bases around the world is how conquest is carried out. U don’t need to set up settler colonial outpost to carry those out now a days.
And no us does not allow different preferences if they can help it. Multiple countries have been destroyed by the us because they tried to chart their own path.
Funny that you say that China does not involve themselves in other countries affairs, if a country even just fail to stop protesters calling out the Chinese when they visit the consequences can be quite dire.
So I guess freedom of speech is not high on your wish list. I have to admit that being Mexican in the Trump years could be quite bad – but what other democracies have the US bullied to the extent that it curtailed the freedom of their citizens?
I probably should say that I do not care for accusations against Russia based on the behavior of the USSR nor do I want to waste a lot of time blaming the US for most of the events before the end of the cold war – suffice it to say they did not behave in any way acceptable.
So if we restrict the debate to post 1990, I would concede that the US has tried to oust Chavez – (without luck!?) but I do not know which coup in Honduras you are talking about, if it was the one in 2009 then even the US condemned that and along with the OAS and EU applied sanctions to the coup makers.
en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
These bases do not include the nationals of the states nor do they exploit natural resources so not a conquest of the territory of the state – and just how many of these states have protested against the establishment of such bases?
We have a US base on Greenland – I can only tell you that we were handsomely compensated and preferred that ever so much to the Russian ‘base’ on Bornholm though the Russians stayed but a fraction of the time the US did.
You can voice your opinion as much as you like, the US will not try to have you persecuted for your opinion – the Chinese are not that lax about what you say in public – has this fact really escaped you?
Go look at Clinton statement it was clear us pentagon and state departments were in on it
Chinese take away their business oh so diabolical and yet it is us wars led to the death of millions in Iraq Syria Libya and those were after the cold war
Chinese don’t like u they take their business away us don’t like u they bomb and starve u to death ask Iraq and Afghanistan
the Chinese are pressuring democratic governments to act like totalitarian ones – that is why we in Europe by and large vastly prefer US hegemony over Chinese.
That is not to say that we think the US is great – Julian Assange just to mention one case. That you would prefer Chinese hegemony is likely just down to the difference in preferences between us.
I have Palestinian friends – I can easily understand that they too have very different preferences.
The US did not like EU – especially in the Trump years – we are here debating what to expect if your country is a democracy – that was the starting point of this debate.
If you ask the population of Iraq now you are actually likely to get a larger part of the electorate saying that they are content that the US ousted Saddam Hussein than saying that they would have preferred to live subjugated by him.
I think you might just get the same result in Afghanistan, naturally provided that you allow women to vote – but I’m less certain about them.
Nothing u said invalidated my statements.
Trump years🤣🤣🤣 Biden is continuing every Trump policy
As i said Chinese do soft power and us does hard power and since eu doesn’t have to face that u will always prefer the us as at the end of the day Whites can’t stand some yellow ni….s tell them off it’s just unnatural isn’t it?
And at the end Chinese r not pursuing hegemony they r pursuing a multipolar world order with China being the strongest among then all they see it something that will happen without any use of violence whereas the us is determined to protect the unipolar world order by killing millions.
What other country launched mulple wars of choice?
Come on!!!! U r equating wanton violence with strongly worded statements, sanctions and military drills!!!!
Us during Trump years initiated certain sanctions that prevented Iran from getting covid vaccine that is how benevolent us is.
Yes, any sane person will concur with my preferences.
U keep saying don’t judge someone by past action us hasn’t taken a break from killing people.
That is perhaps because I do not think your statements invalid – if you read my comment closely you may see that I acknowledge that preferences may differ – is that a new idea for you?
Is he still applying pressure to the Mexican government to pay for a wall that he is no longer building? If not then you have your answer.
Color does not enter into it, the preference is to do with personal liberties – it would appear that this is a foreign concept to you – Contemplate the Uyghur situation in China and you may get an idea as to why many of us are not thrilled if that is to be the new normal.
I actually believe that you are right in that China is realistic about the limits to their reach – I still believe that the Australians would prefer US hegemony over the Chinese dominating them forcing them to penalize people comparing Xi to Winnie the Pooh.
Russia – but I am no issue with saying that the US is quite the outlier when it comes to this ‘sport’ – that does however not change the idea that if we ask in most nations that have had the ‘pleasure’ of hosting such invasions – the ones that have been occupied by the US much more often have a less hostile attitude to their erstwhile enemy – than those that have been occupied by the Russians – which is why most of us in Europe prefer US hegemony.
No I’m not, I’m simply pointing out that the nations of Europe have a high preference for US hegemony over even the dominance that China exerts at present – as in they would like to put Xi back in his box.
If you read what I write you will see that I perfectly understand why your preferences may be very different if you are e.g. an Arab – or likely also if you live in Africa. If you happen to live near China you are much less likely to have very different preferences.
What have I written that makes you think that I have ever thought the US is benevolent?
Which should make you wonder why so many millions disagree with your preferences (in Europe and in the South China Sea) – all I have been trying to do is to show you the case for why so many people prefer US hegemony – not that the US is nice or benevolent, just that people living in those countries many having tried to live under less freedom like they do in China, do have a different preference to you.
Have I indicated that I do not judge the US based on what they are doing???
If you insist on reading things into what I write that I have not expressed then having a debate gets very difficult! I acknowledge that the US is killing people in a wide selection of countries and that they are not at all benevolent – all I have said is that we prefer to live with them than to live under Putin or Xi.
You apparently have a different preference – might I inquire as to where you have lived?
The bought and paid for uighurs of us r not representatives of Xinjiang. The genocide is a lie manufactured by the us.
The uighurs r perfectly happy within the China otherwise there would be wide spread insurgency and no amount of surveillance and mass incarceration would’ve prevented that and taliban that fought over 20 years against a superpower for their belief wouldn’t have wanted to develop a relationship with China if there was an actvie pogrom going on against fellow Muslims
U lack arguments so r involved in sophistry like mentioning the wall… Biden kept all the immigration based directives of Trump very recently approved expanding the Trump wall in two places.
No one likes the superpower next door that’s true for usa Russia China or even regional powers like India Iran or Israel that means nothing. What matters is in most places in Asia and the entire African continent China is looked on as a shining example.
U r DEFINITELY in the minority in being happy with the current situation, the Russia Ukraine war proved it beyond doubt. This was clearly a war of aggression yet only the us client states and Europe imposed sanctions and the countries with large populations have generally abstained from even voting for resolutions condemning Russia. Go look at the number of counties abstained from the 3 resolutions regarding Ukraine and the population breakdown.
Thank you for the last paragraph, that proves u prefer a white hegemony even though it’s much more devastating than to live within a world order that is inherently more just than the current order because u r not directly affected the carnage so what is there to debate?
Final thing before I stop the only war that Russia unleashed is the current escalation of the Ukraine war and this wouldn’t have happened if us didn’t launch a coup in 2014( make no mistake I m totally against this war and I put the blame of this current escalation on Russia) all other wars,Russia was involved in after the colapse of ussr were not wars of choice.
Well if you believe the US capable of this, then I understand that you prefer Chinese domination to US hegemony – most of the rest of us do not believe the US capable of this, that may explain why our preferences differ.
I thought this was a debate on how the US treated other democracies bad – are you now changing the topic?
Since 1993, I think the Canadians have very few (serious) issues with the US – and Mexico also had few serious issues with the US before Trump.
Not in India, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan, Australia or Indonesia AFAIK – but in Africa sure.
Where am I in the minority????
The Chinese have just about halved their export to Russia – in general though these countries did not vote for sanctions they are not violating the sanctions as they apply to exports of technology to Russia.
Nor did they vote for Russia, so I think it would be more balanced to say that they are on the fence regarding this issue and not taking any risks.
Did you see the Kenyan UN ambassadors’ speech? Not sure you can claim that these countries are supportive of Russia.
Abstaining is not resisting, it is merely not risking.
That is why the Iraqis and even likely the Afghans would agree with me? And you are kind of missing the point that we were very much affected by US and Russian dominance so it is not as if we have not been subject to the consequences.
Georgia?
Georgia fired on Russian troops stationed in the breakaway Georgian regions so no Georgia started it
With regards to countries u mentioned u r dead wrong dutarte was unabashedly pro China yet he left office with high approval ratings and the contenders of Philippines presidential elections that took an anti China policy lost and the guy talking about keeping the dutarte policies with regards to China was the one who won. Pakis love China I don’t know about the others( Australia is NOT part of asia) but seeing how u got these two wrong I m sure u r wrong about the others
Given the extreme power imbalance between Russia and the collective west and knowing the issue in question is kinda easy to support any country that abstained was in fact supporting Russia. Also the 3rd resolution awhich was about kicking russia out of human rights council considering the abstainment, not voting at all (two different things u can look at the voting results if u need clarification)and votes at the negative (alongside two votes of Myanmar and Afghanistan not being cast by the ruling power on the ground so don’t count)More countries voted against it than for it
So when u have no answer u can just say I m changing the topic, ok.
Mexicans cartels have a policy to only sell fentanyl to the us. Latin Americans hate the us that’s why us needs so many coups to get the governments they want.
Kenyan ambassador🤣🤣🤣 this countries ruling evict the masai from ancestral lands yet dare not touch ginormous farms owned by former colonial masters.
Yes ofcourse, needing to deal with high inflation is the same as,getting blown to smithereens.
well if there were Russian troops in Georgian breakaway territory then obviously the Russians started it by intervening in the domestic dispute of Georgia.
Well I have no problem in saying that Duterte admired Xi, what I am slightly in doubt about is whether this translate into a Philippines support for China, especially as they rely upon support from the US if/when their territorial disputes with China becomes problematic.
But I’ll accept that this is all water under the bridge and they have better relations now.
I may have missed out on the friendship struck up between the Philippines and China and I’ll grant you that the Pakistani government is trying to improve relations but they are doing so because there is domestic anger at the Chinese:
eastasiaforum DOT org/2022/06/03/forging-a-new-path-for-pakistan-china-relations/
I’ll accept that seeing as my info on those two were at best outdated I’ll have to find references for the others, or accept your claim that China is popular there too.
Very good point and a point that stands regardless of my response: – the best counter I can think of is that if all these countries see China as a shining example why is it that so few people from there try to migrate to China and so many try to migrate to Europe or the US?
No argument over that vote: I would not take that as evidence that the countries were taking a strong stance.
I’m afraid that I’m not aware what you are referring to here…
not really an argument that the US is bullying them even after Trump – so here you have no answer. As for the Latin American countries hating the US – I’ll happily grant you that, seeing as there is a long history of a very problematic relationship.
So did you listen to what the ambassador said or is the policies of his country such that you do not think he as an individual can have a point?
Being attacked and have part of your country annexed by a neighbor is not just dealing with higher inflation – you said: …all other wars,Russia was involved in after the colapse of ussr were not wars of choice. My response was Georgia – clearly a war of choice on the part of the Russians as they send in troops to what was a Georgian domestic affair.
I do recall “Putin apologist” an insult indeed. That was you, no?
No it was an assessment of your political standpoint – and I think you have fairly clearly here provided apologies for Putin’s war – or are you now claiming that you have or would denounce the war of territorial conquest that Putin has started?
NATO Intervention, Location Year Initiated
Anchor Guard, Kuwait-Iraq 1990
Ace Guard, Kuwait-Iraq 1991
Operation Joint Guard, Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992
Operation Allied Force, Kosovo-Montenegro-Serbia 1999
Afghanistan War, Afghanistan 2003
NATO Training Mission-Iraq, Iraq 2004
Operation Ocean Shield, Somalia 2009
Military Intervention in Libya
Source: World Atlas.
Yeah I know: Putin Apologist. Or something.
Not or something: of these only Kosovo and Libya can be classified as wars of aggression – and the Libyan one NATO took over responsibility for an already ongoing action.
So yes once more you show that you blame NATO for acting aggressively in ways that you believe justifies Putin’s war of territorial conquest – and yes thereby you are providing what is an apology for Putin – how do you not yourself see this?
NATO has been devoted entirely to expansion and aggression since at least as far back as 1991.
Does that make Putin not responsible for Putin’s decisions? No. But it’s a fact of reality and denying it just plays right into the hands of those you (not necessarily always incorrectly) dub “Putin apologists.”
Flat out wrong – NATO has never been devoted to expansion – no nation has been pressured to join or even invited at least not in that period – and to join a nation has to qualify by meeting several goals.
Georgia asked to join and started the process of joining in 2006 – they were not allowed – completely disproving your claim, had NATO been expansionist it would have fast tracked Georgia to membership like it has now done for Sweden and Finland.
Several NATO countries are fairly aggressive and have tried to get NATO involved, usually that has not been very successful as there are most often one or more nations in NATO who objects, so as you pointed out NATO was used in Libya, however that was first achieved once a coalition (of many NATO) countries had already started the conflict.
Thus saying that it is NATO which is aggressive is similar fault (though not as egregious a one) to saying that the UN is aggressive – the these countries also being in the UN and often also getting the UN involved after they have started some aggression.
Good that you at least acknowledge this.
I think we disagree on when a organization becomes responsible for the actions of some of its members, but you tell me do you think the UN is an aggressive organization?
The reason for NATO’s existence (to defend western Europe) disappeared in 1991.
Since then, NATO has doubled in size and participated in (sometimes itself initiating) numerous wars of aggression.
It’s the Axis, only larger, more powerful, and more aggressive.
If you think that only a communist Russia were a threat then I guess you could argue that point however no one in Easter Europe believed this and Putin’s actions kind of proves them right.
As shown NATO only initiated one war that in Kosovo – in all other cases at least one NATO country refused to take part in any action, at least from the start – thus any action was started by coalitions of countries not NATO as was indeed the case in Libya as you yourself have just shown.
Which countries have NATO annexed and outside Kosovo which countries is it that you are say NATO initiated any action against – not just take over partial responsibilities for ongoing actions?
Again the question arises why do you blame NATO for what only some members do and not blame the UN where these members are also represented and where they also from time to time offload the management of the fallout from their aggressions.
Nope. Just pointing out that you were wrong when you claimed NATO didn’t intervene in these countries.
I did not claim that NATO did not intervene in those countries – but hey do not let that disturb you.
me: “Syria. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Kosovo. Yemen. And others. This is what you obviously defend despite your threadbare claims.”
you: “Of those only Kosovo involved NATO and I defend none of these actions ”
you: ” you seem very confused as to what NATO is and blame it for the
actions of any one of its members. ”
You seem to be the one that is confused.
How by condemning the actions of the nations that initiated actions in those countries?
That is exactly the point NATO was not the instigator of these actions, for Kosovo it was, but in all other cases it was involved only after actions had been initiated – like Russia in Kosovo – or are you blaming Russia for starting a war with Serbia over Kosovo?
Syria, Lybia? USA and NATO dominated countries: USA, GB France and Turkey. Local allies of those states: Israel, Saudi Arabia….. All the others were the result of those same countries meddling.
Again you are arguing with your own strawman – I have not even once denied that the US, UK and France are behind a lot of the aggressive interventions in the world – when debating the Kurdish areas Turkey too is in the game.
So just to be clear we agree on the: “All the others were the result of those same countries meddling.” – where we may disagree is if you chose to blame NATO for this – as NATO did not instigate but, much like the UN, NATO have in several of these actions been abused to coordinate aspects of these actions once they were already well under way.
You seem to believe a state owns it’s people. The people of the Donbas own themselves and the land they live in. You seem to believe a government has the right to deny the human rights of its population.
The people of Donask and Lugansk have rejected the rule of the Kiev regime. That regime has its roots in a coup installed by an outside power. They did so after the Kiev regime demanded the population submit to a cultural ethnic cleansing: a clear violation of their human rights.
To sum it up….. you seem to believe in the supremacy of the state over then individual and that the individual must accept that the state must be obeyed.
BTW, I don’t think I have used the name of Putin in this debate. One thing is clear to me is that the US and NATO are clearly the aggressor here. The 2014 coup was also a violation of the
Budapest agreement of 1994. That agreement signed by GB, the USA and Russia banned outside coercion by those countries in Ukraine. A US funded coup is obviously a violation of this agreement.
Nothing I have written should give you that idea – had the separatists not immediately sought Russian assistance and received it so fast I would have been the first to argue that the new Ukrainian government would have to listen to their demands and be flexible.
Not in an election held in good order before a large portion of people had been displaced – some of the people started an armed insurrection and the rest is confused history.
You may call it a coup, but you have not yet demonstrated that this was not a coup with broad popular support nor that outside powers were indeed the main force behind it.
I think it was a language law, but if you can show me the ethnic cleansing bit I would be much obliged.
If you debated me rather than your strawman it would work out better for you.
I do not think you have either, but why is this a point?
Only if you can prove that it was not a popular uprising domestically driven – which you have failed to do, and given the many democratic elections following that coup this would seem to be irrelevant (though that is debatable if it was instigated by foreign powers), but given the time since the legitimate government was overthrown you can no longer argue that the invasion in 2022 is to balance the 2014 wrong.
Where is the proof that the US did this?
The leaked tape from Victoria Nuland is pretty clear. Your response is feeble. Again.
That tape proves only that the US was eager to collaborate with the one or more of the ‘opposition’ figures – that is a very far cry from actually funding or fermenting the overthrow of the legal government – this is about as clear a sign that the US was at most involved in the sense that they were trying to establish contacts to opposition figures.
Russia talks with opposition groups in Europe quite often – that has not brought about any coups in EU. You are here using an incredible low bar for claiming that you have proof of the US initiating or pushing a coup.
Uh huh. And Nuland was on the spot handing out cookies because she is just a nice person. This was another regime change operation.
You see proof where you have but the utterances of one person that do not even amount to anything more than an expression of a desire to be in contact with any potentially well placed opposition candidate.
if you lower the standard of proof/evidence to this level then you now have proof that the Norwegian government hates the Russians:
themoscowtimes DOT com/2022/08/04/norway-consul-shown-the-door-after-i-hate-russians-outburst-a78508
You simply have to do better because by that standard I have proof that Putin wants to invade Poland, the Baltic countries and Finland:
youtube DOT com/watch?v=3Tbcm_sH0_4
Hope that you can see this is just not enough to prove such serious accusations.
So…. the Kiev regime had NATO trainers. Billions of dollars in military equipment from NATO countries all from outside of Ukraine . 250,000 regular troops. Another300,000 reserve troops, SBU agents. internal police And the separatists had a handful of Wagner group and some old retired Russian military volunteers? Thanks once again for making my point. The Ukrainian regime is corrupt, criminal and inept. It would have collapsed BEFORE any intervention without massive aid. This is what you want to support with US taxpayers dollars.
Why? It comes down to Russia, Russia, Russia. Hatred. Irrational. Destructive to the worlds peace and prosperity. The US coup was the source of all this. Time to end this cluster fxxc.
Yes – a bit unsure about the monetary amounts millions sounds more likely than billions but basically yes.
Well a fair bit more than a handful – but essentially again yes, without this support they would not have sustained the insurrection for 8 years as your figures fairly accurately implies.
Sure they were likely inept and corrupt but the Russian support was also more substantial.
That certainly was the assumption in Washington – yet they were still fighting by the time when the additional Western aid started arriving.
No what I want to support is the action to make sure that all countries in the world knows that wars for territorial conquest will not be acceptable and will be completely uneconomic.
No Russia is merely the first to try to test the resolve of our governments.
Three elections later each with a change of the president and by 2019 not even representation of the ultranationalists in parliament – so if it was a coup the people perpetrating it were no longer in power. Even if they were that would still not justify a Russian invasion let alone an annexation of any part of the country.
My man, you are arguing with a bunch of Pro Russia folks here. They love Putin and hate Ukraine and West.
Anything negative about Russia will be met with Russia propaganda playbook answers.
I’m starting to realize that – thanks!
Don thinks anyone who thinks Russia has/had security concerns is a Putin Apologist. I’m one. I’ve also had someone call me a Putin-hater because I spoke of Russia’s draconian laws that will put a young woman in prison for 9 years. So, consider the source of that sound advice.
I do not usually jump to the conclusion that people are this or that, however if they when asked have no way of substantiating what they claim and their claims are very one sided I do ask them if they are indeed not X or Y.
That is not however that I outright dismiss their comments as worthless, here outside Russia, China, North Korea and some other very nasty totalitarian states we are all allowed our point of view.
Usually it is the other party that declines to debate the issue or default to insults.
I concur. Laws that put people in cages that are not a danger to others are not just. The “crime” is disobedience to the state….which is no crime.
Security concerns my ass. Russia wants to re annex the parts of the soviet territory for more power and control. The NATO and Neo Nazi talk are just pretexts. If this blog was antiwar I wouldn’t have an issue with it, instead, it is mainly a pro Russia one. I’m sure you read the same comments I read here.
Right, and the countries that border us would have been able to join the Warsaw Pact with nary a chirp from the US. Your problem, like others here, is that you are trying to pretend Russia didn’t have real concerns before the invasion. I don’t really care if there are mainly pro-Russian or pro Putin comments, that’s not reason to pretend NATO on Russia’s borders isn’t as legit as it gets regarding security concerns.
Good one. So, in turn, you use one from your playbook.
Vice News did a story on this, which can still be found on Youtube, where they could find no evidence of this – all the secessionists they could find were local, and had the credentials to back their story up. I believe there was covert Russian support, but in the main, this was a local movement.
Serious analysts have dug up evidence of their involvement
www DOT csis DOT org/blogs/post-soviet-post/band-brothers-wagner-group-and-russian-state
and several tv stations have visited Russia and met with groups which openly bragged about their participation – not to mention that Vice news have actually also documented this;
youtube DOT com/watch?v=C66mAkS1ZfM
Point being there is no clear cut “finding” in this; the western media “reporting” has been almost exclusively from the Ukrainian side. But clearly, if the DPR and LPR were solely “Russian” creations they wouldn’t have withstood 8 years of Ukrainian attacks. Vice News showed Ukrainian forces meekly turning their weapons and vehicles over to DPR/LPR militia while spectators cheered. There is clearly local popular support for secession.
To further support this; Zelensky’s latest “purge” of “traitors and enemies of the people” in his own government. The myth of “Ukrainian solidarity” is fraying badly.
But there is very clear cut evidence for Wagner group and other Russian groups involvement – a point you tried to refute.
As for Zelenskyy’s purge how is that evidence of anything – you do know that Putin has carried out a very similar purge, so just what is it you think these purges prove?
I’m not familiar with any myth of Ukrainian solidarity, quite the contrary i.e. that there are a substantial number of people in Ukraine who would side with the Russians – is this news to you?
So if t you accept that many Ukrainians prefer Russia to the west you should have no problem accepting that the Donbas secession was a local indigenous movement.
That a significant amount would like to be Russian is a very far cry from saying that they are enough with sufficient experience to sustain an insurrection for 8 years – you should be able to appreciate this.
I’ve seen enough of insurrections in Iraq and Afg over the last two decades to recognize that people, especially when many of them have prior military experience and access to huge stocks of weaponry (which Ukraine had in abundance, from the old Soviet days) are quite capable of organizing a secession without outside direction. And, if the army of the government they are seceding from has split loyalties, or an apathetic approach to combat, which again Ukraine demonstrated, the secession is even more enabled. Many Ukranian units in 2014 went over to the secessionists, or simply disintegrated when faced with resistance – just like Iraqi and Afghan national forces.
Though in no of those cases did the insurrectionists hold on and control large swathes of territory. Under any circumstances this is already a fairly well established point i.e. that there were significant numbers of Russian volunteers.
Perhaps best realized even by you as we have Russians boasting about their participation.
But it’s not “well established”. It’s been faithfully reported that way by western media, but they have no real evidence; they have simply served as a mouthpiece of the Ukrainian government. Just like the statement they frequently make that “Crimea was invaded”; hardly, as Russian troops were always based there and many of the residents were retired Russian military. Crimea didn’t need an “invasion” to secede.
What are you answering to? And if Crimea was not invaded do you maintain that there are no more troops there at any time since 2014 than there was before?
In 2014? No, they wren’t “invaded”. Since they voted for secession, and were annexed, the number of troops is irrelevant as they are part of Russia.
They only voted after the Russians had taken control by invading from their bases, and the vote was not even free in as much as it was the choice between being part of Russia or return to the status of 1993 – i.e. the status of 2013 was not available – you have to wonder why Putin did not even dare to give them a free choice.
Crimea is not part of Russia but an occupied part of Ukraine – that according to the Budapest agreement of 1994.
You’re entitled to your opinion; I disagree. Most impartial reporters have admitted that there is little evidence to suggest the vote was coerced or does not reflect the desire of the Crimean people. But whatever; absent a nuclear war, there is zero chance it will ever revert to Ukraine.
I did not even imply that voters were coerced, only that they simply was not given the choice of the status of 2013, but only that of about 1993 – so no freedom to opt for what they had before the Russians invaded.
I do not say that it will revert to Ukraine, if it does it more likely will be because the Russians decide to abandon it, more so than because they are forced to do so militarily.
They were not annexed by Russia in 2014. They weren’t even officially recognized by Russia until right before the invasion. There are supposedly referendums scheduled for September on requesting annexation.
We are talking about Crimea, not Donbas. And Yes, Crimea was formally annexed by Russia n 2014.
Actually was annexed by Ukraine in 1993. Crimea was an independent oblast in 1991 and voted once again to join Russia which Russia agreed to. So in 2014 Russia took back Crimea which Ukraine had annexed and not the other way round. Brush up on your history.
?? Drop the attitude; and Read the thread and understand, if you can, the context. We were discussing the events of 2014; not “How” Crimea became part of Ukraine in the first place.
Before or after coup?
After Viktor Yanukovych had fled the country.
Right after Putin took Crimea and promised the Donbas Separatists full support and independence. But You already know that.
So, after the coup.
Amnesty does not claim that the Ukrainians are killing civilians, but that they are exposing them to unnecessary risk of being killed by the Russians
Hey Man. Whats sauce for the Goose is also sauce for the Gander
Distinction without difference.
Perhaps if so then it kind of ruins large parts of the Russian justification for invading as the very same tactic was used by the separatists, and led to most of the civilian casualties in the conflict until 2022.
Ground shifting. First, you said, when the Kiev Neo Nazi entity uses civilian shields, it was somehow not “killing” those civilians. What happened to that argument?
Also, and this should be obvious to you and some others (but somehow isn’t), if Russia and Ukraine are equally bad, that undermines and undercuts the whole rationale for the Western proxy war. OK, fine, Russia sucks, the Kiev regime sucks too, the Azov paramilitaries suck, and the separatist militaries suck as well. They’re all war criminals. That being the case, why is the USA and NATO backing one side, rather than adopting a neutral stance? If all sides suck, if “a pox on both your houses” is the rational view, then why is my government sponsoring one of those houses, while demonizing the other? I want the USA to stop backing the Kiev regime. Telling me it is no better and no worse than the Russian and Russian allied regimes doesn’t change that. At all.
But thanks for playing.
Well said, PL!
Well if you start out with a misrepresentation of what I have said then we are going to have difficulties – I have not accused the separatists of using civilian shields – and thus not said that Kyiv is doing this either, but I have said that fighting is going on in urban areas.
This leads to the Russians killing civilians as the Kyivian (and separatists) forces did during the conflict between 2014 and 2022 – as this conflict also involved urban areas.
The justification of the western support for the Ukrainian government is not that the Russians are killing civilians, but that Putin is violating treaties and agreements to respect Ukrainian borders and engaging in a war of territorial conquest.
You seem to think that we in the west could somehow predict the actions of the Russians in places like Bucha before they had happened and before it has been established that the Russians are indeed responsible for them.
That is not the case so your belief regarding the western rationale for supporting Kyiv is just flat out wrong.
None of this is at this stage relevant for neither the western support nor my position on the issues.
Because wars for territorial conquest if not opposed lead to a world of wars and a much higher death toll across the world not to mention poverty and much slower economic growth.
Further to this I believe that we condemned the Germans for planning and carrying out such wars after WWII – and only Putin / the Russians is/are guilty of planning such a war on Ukraine – Zelenskyy and the other presidents before him did not attack a foreign country that they had agreements with and acknowledged.
Hope I have cleared up the issue for you now.
So do you feel that any nation should be free to attack any one of its neighbors to annex it or parts of its territory – or should this right only be extended to the Russians?
Now your shifting ground all over the place. Sorry, sparky, but I didn’t sign up for a full, ramified discussion of the entire crises with you, much less am I going to respond to your canned, lying, BS, one-sided account.
And, by the way, I “misrepresented” nothing. Nor am I afraid of whatever “difficulties” you think you can threaten me with.
Suffice to say, you have either bought into the war mongering, completely dishonest, Western propaganda, or you are a disseminator of that propaganda yourself. Either way, you are trolling on this antiwar site.
So you lost the debate based on the arguments and are now retreating to insults – good stick to the template.
I lost nothing, made no “insults,” and there was no debate. And you are the one who changed the subject, made false accusations, and resorted to threats. Take your “template” and stick it!
So now you are adding being clearly less than truthful to insulting
In case you cant spot an insult in your own comment I have isolated it here below:
.
I guess I should not be surprised you are after all sticking to the template 🙂
That’s not an insult. It has no personal connection to you. Rather, it is an accurate description of your “argument.” Too bad if you don’t like it. That doesn’t make it an insult.
Now, why don’t you quit while you’re behind, you tiresome troll.
Still sticking to the template – very decent of a person who do not think it an insult to call other people liars with absolutely zero proof that they have knowingly deviated from the truth.
Your absurdly one sided, standard Western/USA/NATO/Neo Nazi Kiev regime propaganda, “account” of the Ukrainian crises is an obvious lie. One that has been exposed on these pages, and elsewhere, numerous times. Readers here don’t need a recapitulation of the proof of the obvious correctness of that statement. And, again, I did not sign up to argue about this obvious fact with an obvious troll. Your account was grossly dishonest. It is not a personal “insult” to you to simply point that out, and leave it at that.
Again, why don’t you just run along now, little troll, as no one here is impressed with your nonsense.
If this was the case you should easily be able to find the lies and document that they are lies – so far you have failed to find any lies let alone show any evidence that the things we disagree about are down to me lying.
So just calling me a liar is just an insult.
If you can’t even name that ‘one’ never mind repeating the proof then I can’t be expected to ‘respect’ your conclusion that I’m a liar can I?
Then you are free to stop this your losing fight to lower the level of the debate – at this point you have added innuendo to insults – so still following the template (i.e. when losing an debate on the arguments retreat to insults etc.)
If you had been able to point out where it was dishonest then you might have a standpoint, but as you have not then yes it is an insult.
Adding more insults – or have you a secret cult here since you happen to know that ‘no one here is impressed with your nonsense‘ – I for one am not impressed by your level of debate or your ability to argue your case.
Blah, blah, blah. Last word troll.
Satisfy many clients with that impressive vocabulary?
Done yet?
No not even close – with people like you who just enjoys throwing insults at people rather than countering the actual arguments it often pays off to see how much time they like to spend harming their own case by showing that they are willing to spend the time, but just do not have the arguments.
So do you want to keep this going for enough rounds that you even lose the argument that you could not be bothered making a proper argument, or do you want to concede defeat while you still have at least the lazy mans excuse?
Still blithering.
Well as long as you are commenting might you do something of value like document the lies or substantiate just a few of your claims?
Or are you just an empty vessel for Russian propaganda, incapable of contributing anything of value?
Blather.
So you have the time just not the evidence – good that you know when you are beaten!
Sea Lion
http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Amusing this is a case of you conceding the point, I’m happy to be the Sea Lion – and you as the Lady have made accusations without being able to substantiate any of them.
The point
——————
You
You are “happy” to be a badgering, relentless, obnoxious, jerk. Good for you!
The point being that you engaged me directly and called me a liar (as opposed to the Sea Lion in the cartoon) and hence we can conclude that you are happy to throw about unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo and refuse to explain or substantiate these, that being the case there is no way that you can call my replying to your posts badgering – that is just not how debating works – as in you do not get to throw insults at people without risking that they demand you explain yourself.
Ground shift again! Toodles!
The ground always shifts for people like you I guess.
Stop the war! All this (destruction) spending for an ideological vanity project is senseless. Negotiated settlement. Stop the prowar/anti-otherside propaganda. All the lies., half-truths. If Northen Ireland found settlement, so can Russian & Ukranian. Both Slavic peoples. No, open checkbook from the US’s (apparent) uniparty.
Chris, I was recently thinking the same thing…the parallels with Northern Ireland ( or as they say there, Noren Iron).
About time! This has been true from the outset.
I guess AI is doing a little CYA, a little token both-siderism, now that it seems more likely that Ukraine is going to lose.
Well I wonder if us and Israel will grant the same titles to Ukrainian defenders as they do to hamas
MoA gives an excellent sitrep on Ukraine today, which matches what Brian Berletic and Mark Sleboda gave in the video I posted below. Reportedly Ukraine is looking at nearly 200,000 casualties over the last four months. Russia, maybe a tenth of that.
Ukraine SitRep – Casualties Leak – Ukraine Admits Russian Breakthrough – Southern Front Paralysis
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/08/ukraine-sitrep-casualties-leak-ukraine-admits-russian-breakthrough-southern-front-paralysis.html#more
Amnesty is about 100 days late with this.
I believe the truth of that matter if fairly simple. Ukraine knows it will not be able to hold onto these areas and they would rather see them destroyed. Therefore they decided to make Russia destroy these areas. They could have fought from their trenches just as effectively if not more so, but that would have allowed Russia to capture these cities intact. Being forced to destroy these cities or concede defeat, comes with the very heavy cost of rebuilding them. This is why I call this war Operation Pyrrhic Victory. That’s the only point of the continuation of the war and of these types of tactics. They can’t win, therefore they will make Russia pay for every inch of territory.
The one place you never want to be is stuck in the middle of a US proxy war, it never turns out good does it? All this BS about supporting the Ukrainian people is a farce, this is about giving Russia a black eye, in return for the Black Eye that Russia gave the US in Syria. We essentially declared war against Russia inside of Syria when we massively increased aid to the “moderate rebels” once Russia intervened. The US has egg on it’s face in so many nations that we think the only way to “Win” is to make Russia pay an economic price for refusing to buckle under to Western aggression.
Operation Pyrrhic Victory is simply an extension of this policy, our goal is to bleed Russia dry, no matter what it takes or how many Ukrainian lives are lost in the process.
I wouldn’t be so sure who will win OPV, we won the cold war when we were the nation will a booming economy and low debt to GDP ratio. Now half our GDP isn’t even productive, it’s government employees or welfare recipients both corporate and individual who produce Nothing and we are massively over-leveraged when it comes to debt. The idea that we could lose OPV hasn’t dawned on them yet, but it will. And of course the American people already lost OPV, we certainly aren’t “winning” anything, unless you think winning means being the first country to cross the bankruptcy finish line has won something.
I believe you are correct.
Russia has formally accused the USA of spreading Corona and Monkey Pox viruses in Ukraine. The information they recovered in Rubizhne has detailed the testing of civilians in the region.
According to this data the USA is responsible for creating and spreading both viruses. Its time to start crimes against humanity tribunals in the Hague.
Here is Zelenski’s future………….Shot by a US trained Banderite sniper.
The US is getting badly beaten up in the Donbass. This war of attrition is bleeding out US/NATO/EU resources. The sanctions have had the exact opposite effect that was intended.
The US cannot have a legitimate party sign the surrender document. Zelenski is the legitimate party in Ukraine. Its that simple.
“Russia has formally accused the USA of spreading Corona and Monkey Pox viruses in Ukraine. The information they recovered in Rubizhne has detailed the testing of civilians in the region.
According to this data the USA is responsible for creating and spreading both viruses. It’s time to start crimes against humanity tribunals in the Hague.”
Couldn’t agree more.
In other words: Given the given outcome, the Western regimes have decided to pull their support for Zelensky and write off the entire Ukraine debacle.
The former “Saint” Zelensky realizes this too hence his desperate call to China of all places.
Moreover, Zelensky and his hard core Nazi entourage won’t be allowed to escape to their mansions in Miami and Israel to enjoy their ill gotten riches either, they’re stuck and will eventually, if they manage to avoid the gallows, be prosecuted in the war crimes tribunal in Donbass.
I had a nightmare that we had a classified section here: “Neocon apologists in this space. In this position you argue that regime change wars are needed by labeling leaders of other countries as ‘dictators’ if they stand against US/NATO hegemony in their backyard or represent their own people’s interest. We are desperately running out of space to publish neocon material in the MSM and need to make room right here. Antiwar advocates and whomever we deem ‘Putin apologists’ need not apply.” I woke up to see this exchange. Yikes.