"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't see this as intentionally insulting or a public spectacle. I think it really is to help Russian families identify whether their children have been captured or killed while serving. I don't think Russian soldiers want to kill Ukrainians. I don't think Ukrainians want to kill Russians. I think regular people from both countries have been forced into the awful situation of shooting each other, and they're navigating the human toll.
Seeing this site really made the war hit home for me.
In fact some of them are made to call their family in some of the videos circulating.
The right and human thing to do is following the Geneva Convention. You'll have to make a pretty amazing case if you want to argue it should be disregarded in this case.
It should be obvious there's better ways to inform families of these POWs, not just because a less public/propaganda way is more respectful, but also because a more direct route is more likely to reach them.
But that's obviously not the point. This is pretty standard as propaganda goes and fits neatly with the other narratives that are spun.
That can be understood and accepted, but it definitely shouldn't be celebrated.
> The right and human thing to do is following the Geneva Convention.
What legal precedent do you have that these alleged acts violate international law, norms or customs?
I am very familiar with jus ad bellum, jus in bello, war crimes under the Rome Statute and ICC case law, but I am unfamiliar with any legal precedent/case law in support of a position that Russian POWs are being mistreated in violation of any international laws.
Assuming you could find some case law on point, I doubt you will, I believe it was Russia themselves who told the United Nations and the UN Security Council that this wasn’t a war but a “special operation.” I’m not exactly sure how Russia would seek application of the laws of war by the international community while simultaneously telling the international community this is not war.
I couldn't care less what Russia says it's doing. I care about not mistreating prisoners, POWs or not.
Figuring out legalities is something that happens over years after the fact.
During the actual war, you'll have to keep your arguments short, preferably steering towards moral right - few have time for legalities.
The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum, and regardless of whether some country agreed to be bound by it, few would disagree with the lines it draws.
> The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum
It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs.
If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it, no one is going to entertain someone who makes this argument on the basis of moral superiority when they don’t seem to understand the law nor the history from which the law was derived.
Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
> It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs.
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity."
Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two?
If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that.
> If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it,
No. I am trying to say that they should be treated better than what they are treated like right now. I am not arguing for anyone being tried for war crimes at some later date. Once the harm is done, that's for others to figure out. I'd rather no harm was done in the first place.
My argument isn't "look they're breaking the Geneva Convention", my argument is "what they're doing sucks, even the Geneva Convention has something to say about it". If that came across differently at some point, my bad.
> Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
You might want to try that in a place that cares about these things. I heard people typically put their credentials on their Twitter bio, so maybe that place is a better fit?
My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention. In fact it says the same thing when I look it up in other languages I speak.
> "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity."
>Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two?
No mental gymnastics required. The writers of this weren’t thinking of youtube or even newspapers, this is about parading your prisoners through the streets and exposing them to hostile crowds.
And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected.
> And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected.
You cannot be serious. Does anyone even need to point out the gaping holes in this argument? Even if I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? Everyone they might interact with too? You think that stuff won't turn up when their future employers, spouses, friends, whoever, Google their names? In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. You think this will not affect them, that they will magically never learn of it?
As... enlightening as arguing with two throwaway accounts was, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" at this point. This is going nowhere fast.
> Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two?
I asked you for legal precedent or interpretation supporting your interpretation, that is how law works it’s not mental gymnastics.
Taking photos and video of POWs is commonplace since WWII, including recording their surrender, medical treatment, statements, etc….
What makes this a violation of the Conventions while the practice is generally accepted? The mental gymnastics is thinking without any support your authority should prevail on the basis you have a command of the English language.
>If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that.
You don’t seem to have any experience with law or the Geneva Conventions you are trying to interpret, you don’t seem to be familiar with the history, realities and atrocities of war.
It’s an insult to POWs throughout history to pretend recording them reading their names is the greatest public spectacle you can think of. Please take the time to talk with a veteran of any war.
> My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention.
Here is a legal analysis written by an Army Officer/lawyer and head of International Law at the Red Cross, hopefully it gives you an elementary understanding of the photographing/recording POWs vis-a-vis the Geneva Conventions:
I’m sure your first reaction will be to skim it and look for a sentence or two you can twist into support for your position (ie mental gymnastics), please try to refrain and only reply if you can support your position with actual legal precedent where similar acts have been found to violate the Conventions.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
Care to quote the Geneva Convention on the topic of waging unjust wars of aggression on one's neighbors? Don't pretend like morality is black and white.
So, captured... I had been wondering, with all these recent developments, just a practical question if I may? When there's really combat on the streets, involving armed civilians, what do they do when they capture opposing troops? There's no process or infrastructure to lock them up?
Keep them detained and call the cops/military, wait for them to come pick them up. Loads of videos of this happening if you want to see the practical events of a detention.
At 200, it’s really not much trouble. Civilian police has probably seen little impact and could easily hold them.
It’s a country of 40 million people. Vast swaths of the countryside haven’t seen any fighting. This is a non-issue for now. And if it ever becomes an issue, the war will likely be over.
They take their body armour and weapons and then lock them in a room. The captured Russians dont want to escape just to give back to the front lines, easier to stay captured and wait out the war.
Having known Russian people on and off all my life, and having read numerous stories of conscription, this is not only the smartest but the most humane thing Ukraine could do right now.
>conscription, this is not only the smartest but the most humane thing Ukraine could do right now.
I agree, it's "positive propaganda". Along with videos of deceased soldiers and blown up machinery, showing the borderline brainwashed and naive the consequences of their actions may put a stop to this before it gets...more out-of-hand.
The word propaganda means public messaging intended to influence a population, and did not originally connote trickery. The word is roughly a synonym of 'public relations'.
Such messaging is often misleading, which has led to common negative connotations.
The only information you are getting from either side right now is just psyops and disinformation. As expected, it is an actual war, after all.
Russia claimed they had zero losses after the first day. then Ukraine comes out and claims they killed 2000 russian soldiers on the very first day, with like 100 tanks and 500 APCs. All in one day, lol.
All sorts of other wild claims from both sides, and I'd expect this one is too.
One of them is now claimed to be fake by the other side. Alikhan Dasaev is supposedly a long time resident of Kiev and a Ukrainian citizen of 20 years. Allegedly, the video was made soon after Chechens allegedly dispatched 10,000 spec op troops to Ukraine in order to storm Kiev. Chechens are renowned to be fearless fighters, but what an incredibly overstated number, why not one billion gazillion of navy seals?
There might be a bit too much optimism right now, but I’m enjoying how the Ukrainian PR runs circles around Putin. At least for a moment, they are riding this wave where everything seems to work.
Most countries expected Putin to overrun Ukraine by now - not being close to do it is big news. The biggest news though is just how incredibly low Russian morale is.
The Russian army should still be able to win, but I'm not sure it really can. Can Putin afford being remotely truthful about casualties? Or firebombing cities he was supposedly 'liberating'? If the army cannot be inspired to sacrifice and cannot use full (illegal) force, how does Putin expect to win? Even dictatorships need some motivated people. Putin's propaganda apparently can make Russian apathetic, but not get them to work effectively for his cause.
IMHO, the smart play for Putin is to forget about Kyiv, take what he can, then beg for negotiations. That he may still be able to do.
it’s not ukraine though. it’s the whole west against russia. the only thing the west is not doing is sending soldiers. they do everything else: cyber ops, propaganda, sending intelligence, etc
To anyone wondering about the site name - it's American equivalent would be something like "foldedflagus.com"
'Gruz 200' is a universally understood term in the former USSR after the Afghan War:
> Officially, the term Cargo 200 is military jargon to refer specifically to the corpses of soldiers contained in zinc-lined coffins for air transportation
Look at the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars and euros that are pouring into weapons. Germany just approved 100 billion (!!!!) military budget for this year.
JUST IMAGINE what would have happened if the west would have supported the ez Soviet Republics after 1991.
Great western foreign politics at work.
FUCK WAR. Fuck propaganda. Fuck the double standards that we Europeans have, applauding drone bombings and American invasions, but bringing a country of 150 million people to fall now.
This is an article by an American newspaper reporting on an American investigation of an American attack. How exactly does this pertain to European support?
- German government defense spending for 2021: 46.8 * 10^9€ [0]
- German government defense spending for 2022: >=100 * 10^9€ [1]
quote from [1]: "Scholz said that the German government would allocate €100 billion earmarked for the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, in the 2022 budget. "From "From now on, more than 2% of our GDP will be invested in our defense," Scholz said.
Germany has previously been criticized for devoting less than the 2% mark on defense spending called for by NATO membership rules.
The €100 billion will be allocated into a "special fund" for the German armed forces."
> Look at the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars and euros that are pouring into weapons.
It's a trend, especially since 2001 and especially since the past decade, that all major countries around the planet are reinforcing their border and military, reinstating various forms of military service, outlawing criticism of the Nation State, appropriating or otherwise securing crucial/strategic resources in former/current colonies...
I agree with you it's disastrous. And i'm all in favor of dismantling military institutions worldwide without waiting, but it's hardly a european problem. Fascism is on the rise on every continent (Brasil, France, India, Japan, Russia, China) so framing the problem as a european problem is not helping. Although of course it's important to point out the ethnocentrism at the heart of european discourse: https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/72c71a0e-04f6-4337-b9ff-261d8d...
What can help is reviving the internationalist/pacifist movement. A few decades ago when i was a kid we had millions of people marching down the streets against the cold war and against all forms of colonialism, and i do mean against both sides of the conflict (third-worldism). Popular solidarity goes beyond borders as long as we don't let nationalism and its arbitrary borders taint our hearts. And please note that i don't mean "peaceful" when i say pacifism: i'm all for blowing up military installations and Nation States, and reaching world peace and social justice "by any means necessary".
We need to dismiss propaganda from corrupt western "democracies" as well as modern autocracies. But that does not mean we shouldn't condemn a neo-fascist State (Russia) for invading its former colony (Ukraine).
If you know people from Russia, or you are in groups where are Russians please tell them that this is a war in Ukraine, ask people to go on the streets and protest. People in Russia simply don't know what is going on in Ukraine, they are misinformed and trust in their propaganda - which is complete lie. Nobody is waiting for Russians in Ukraine, people hate Russians and will never forgive and forget for what are they doing.
There are a lot of russians outside of russia and they are busy trying to convince their friends and family back home that this is Putins fault but the propaganda has been strong the last 50 years so it's hard. But a lot is coming around and starting to open eyes. This will cost Putin a lot.
Tell them if they don't fight Putin, they will be fighting the rest of the world.
The only way to prevent full out war is if the Russian people rise up. Putin is not considering their future at all. He is old and going out with a bang and taking the whole country with him, and Europe is done appeasing. Kicking Russia out of Swift has the direct implication that many European nations are now war-time economies. Basic things like heating will require dratistic government interventions. Defense spendings are going up drastically over night. Europe is effectively mobilizing in the background. And how could we not? He is not going to stop at Ukraine. He is coming for us all.
WWIII has started and the only thing that can stop it is if the Russian people prevent it. If they stand up. Otherwise, my safety, your safety, the safety of your friends and families is not garantueed. Otherwise it becomes a choice of a whole continent enslaved by one man -or- a whole continent destroyed.
Europe does not believe he will stop at Ukraine. Consider the implications, please. Tell your family & friends. His behavior is too erradic. The basic assumption is that war is inevitable.
We are many sharing this view. It's just a question of time before someone high enough takes care of him. Noone wants a nuclear war ever. Even high up former russian generals are saying that this war is wrong and when he has lost even the generals, it will end fast.
"British political scientist Richard Sakwa writes that Azov's founding member Andryi Biletsky, leader of the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly (SNA) made statements about a "historic mission" to lead the "white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival ... a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen", an ideology he traces to the National Integralism of 1920s and 1930s"
I highly respect how Ukraine and their officials are handling this.
Putin makes personal accusations such as "Nazi's and drug addicts". When you look at the Ukrainian president, he is always very positive, towards his own people, towards Russian citizen. He doesn't throw random insults at Putin.
Bandera wasn’t a Nazi he was a Ukrainian (“ultra”) nationalist he did tried to work with the Nazis to secure Ukrainian independence however he was arrested by the Gestapo and sent to a bloody concentration camp.
He was a way justifies the means type of guy he fought against the Polish to secure Ukrainian independence then against the Bolsheviks and Communists.
Branding him as a Nazi is honestly insulting both to him and to anyone who actually suffered under actual Nazis.
Jacobin is a rag I wouldn’t rely on a single word they print.
95 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] thread-- Article 13 of the Geneva Convention
Seeing this site really made the war hit home for me.
I will add one more:
-propaganda value for local, international and regular Russians cannot be overstated here
Ok, it's low on the war crime scale, but you are in or out on the Geneva Convention.
Talking on the internet is easy.
This is a genuinely useful resource for them and their families, a means for parents of Russian soldiers to be able to get on phone with their kids.
Sure. They're just being uploaded to YouTube with comments enabled.
4chan's /pol/ already found the Facebook profiles of some of these POWs and are messaging their friends and relatives for fun.
I'd rather be paraded down a street.
In fact some of them are made to call their family in some of the videos circulating.
The right and human thing to do is following the Geneva Convention. You'll have to make a pretty amazing case if you want to argue it should be disregarded in this case.
It should be obvious there's better ways to inform families of these POWs, not just because a less public/propaganda way is more respectful, but also because a more direct route is more likely to reach them.
But that's obviously not the point. This is pretty standard as propaganda goes and fits neatly with the other narratives that are spun.
That can be understood and accepted, but it definitely shouldn't be celebrated.
If you support the Russian government, then sure.
You are being incredibly disingenuous. In fact you are doing your whole argument a disservice with a comment like that.
Those who don’t want war in Europe should absolutely cheer for this.
I'm glad we now both agree on what this actually is.
Of course this is psychological warfare, but it’s also the right thing to do. Both can be true at the same time.
What legal precedent do you have that these alleged acts violate international law, norms or customs?
I am very familiar with jus ad bellum, jus in bello, war crimes under the Rome Statute and ICC case law, but I am unfamiliar with any legal precedent/case law in support of a position that Russian POWs are being mistreated in violation of any international laws.
Assuming you could find some case law on point, I doubt you will, I believe it was Russia themselves who told the United Nations and the UN Security Council that this wasn’t a war but a “special operation.” I’m not exactly sure how Russia would seek application of the laws of war by the international community while simultaneously telling the international community this is not war.
Figuring out legalities is something that happens over years after the fact.
During the actual war, you'll have to keep your arguments short, preferably steering towards moral right - few have time for legalities.
The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum, and regardless of whether some country agreed to be bound by it, few would disagree with the lines it draws.
It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs.
If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it, no one is going to entertain someone who makes this argument on the basis of moral superiority when they don’t seem to understand the law nor the history from which the law was derived.
Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity."
Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two?
If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that.
> If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it,
No. I am trying to say that they should be treated better than what they are treated like right now. I am not arguing for anyone being tried for war crimes at some later date. Once the harm is done, that's for others to figure out. I'd rather no harm was done in the first place.
My argument isn't "look they're breaking the Geneva Convention", my argument is "what they're doing sucks, even the Geneva Convention has something to say about it". If that came across differently at some point, my bad.
> Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
You might want to try that in a place that cares about these things. I heard people typically put their credentials on their Twitter bio, so maybe that place is a better fit?
My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention. In fact it says the same thing when I look it up in other languages I speak.
>Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two?
No mental gymnastics required. The writers of this weren’t thinking of youtube or even newspapers, this is about parading your prisoners through the streets and exposing them to hostile crowds.
And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected.
You cannot be serious. Does anyone even need to point out the gaping holes in this argument? Even if I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? Everyone they might interact with too? You think that stuff won't turn up when their future employers, spouses, friends, whoever, Google their names? In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. You think this will not affect them, that they will magically never learn of it?
As... enlightening as arguing with two throwaway accounts was, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" at this point. This is going nowhere fast.
This is not something the Geneva convention is supposed to protect soldiers from.
> In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now.
Their families are also not protected by the Geneva convention.
I think it’s a bit hilarious to expect protections beyond the Geneva convention while fighting a war of aggression.
I asked you for legal precedent or interpretation supporting your interpretation, that is how law works it’s not mental gymnastics.
Taking photos and video of POWs is commonplace since WWII, including recording their surrender, medical treatment, statements, etc….
What makes this a violation of the Conventions while the practice is generally accepted? The mental gymnastics is thinking without any support your authority should prevail on the basis you have a command of the English language.
>If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that.
You don’t seem to have any experience with law or the Geneva Conventions you are trying to interpret, you don’t seem to be familiar with the history, realities and atrocities of war.
It’s an insult to POWs throughout history to pretend recording them reading their names is the greatest public spectacle you can think of. Please take the time to talk with a veteran of any war.
> My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention.
Here is a legal analysis written by an Army Officer/lawyer and head of International Law at the Red Cross, hopefully it gives you an elementary understanding of the photographing/recording POWs vis-a-vis the Geneva Conventions:
https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0...
I’m sure your first reaction will be to skim it and look for a sentence or two you can twist into support for your position (ie mental gymnastics), please try to refrain and only reply if you can support your position with actual legal precedent where similar acts have been found to violate the Conventions.
> The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum
You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The Geneva Convention is not at all a bare minimum, it provides POWs with far more rights than what are usually afforded to regular prisoners.
True in some places, not in others.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
It’s a country of 40 million people. Vast swaths of the countryside haven’t seen any fighting. This is a non-issue for now. And if it ever becomes an issue, the war will likely be over.
I'm a bit rusty but you are supposed to keep personal protection.
Given the chaos on the ground and disruption to communications I'm surprised there are even 29 up on the site.
More on the associated Telegram channel also.
Source code for the bot is available here: https://codeberg.org/CapableWeb/transtel
You are what you do when it counts.
I agree, it's "positive propaganda". Along with videos of deceased soldiers and blown up machinery, showing the borderline brainwashed and naive the consequences of their actions may put a stop to this before it gets...more out-of-hand.
I don't think this meets the definition. It's 100% wartime messaging with a political purpose in mind, but I think it is a poor example of propaganda.
Such messaging is often misleading, which has led to common negative connotations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/propaganda#English
The only information you are getting from either side right now is just psyops and disinformation. As expected, it is an actual war, after all.
Russia claimed they had zero losses after the first day. then Ukraine comes out and claims they killed 2000 russian soldiers on the very first day, with like 100 tanks and 500 APCs. All in one day, lol.
All sorts of other wild claims from both sides, and I'd expect this one is too.
One of them is now claimed to be fake by the other side. Alikhan Dasaev is supposedly a long time resident of Kiev and a Ukrainian citizen of 20 years. Allegedly, the video was made soon after Chechens allegedly dispatched 10,000 spec op troops to Ukraine in order to storm Kiev. Chechens are renowned to be fearless fighters, but what an incredibly overstated number, why not one billion gazillion of navy seals?
source: https://novayagazeta-livejournal-com.translate.goog/16360931...
Current Ukrainian claims of Russian losses may be inflated, but it’s hard to tell from outside: 27 Planes, 26 Helicopters, 146 Tanks, 706 Armoured vehicles, 49 Cannons, 1 Buk missile launcher, 4 Grad missile launchers, 30 Cars, 60 Cysterns, 2 UAVs, 2 Ships/boats, 4300 Personnel. Source: https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1497882874053341185
I would assume the number without publicly available video to be 5–10x higher.
They are more likely to surrender. At the end you are just helping save the life of your own.
The Russian army should still be able to win, but I'm not sure it really can. Can Putin afford being remotely truthful about casualties? Or firebombing cities he was supposedly 'liberating'? If the army cannot be inspired to sacrifice and cannot use full (illegal) force, how does Putin expect to win? Even dictatorships need some motivated people. Putin's propaganda apparently can make Russian apathetic, but not get them to work effectively for his cause.
IMHO, the smart play for Putin is to forget about Kyiv, take what he can, then beg for negotiations. That he may still be able to do.
'Gruz 200' is a universally understood term in the former USSR after the Afghan War:
> Officially, the term Cargo 200 is military jargon to refer specifically to the corpses of soldiers contained in zinc-lined coffins for air transportation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_200_(code_name)
Considering there is nothing on the site itself except some video and Google Tag manager - I highly doubt this isn't just a mockery.
Unsurprisingly the actual content is on the associated Telegram group as is very much normal in these countries.
JUST IMAGINE what would have happened if the west would have supported the ez Soviet Republics after 1991.
Great western foreign politics at work.
FUCK WAR. Fuck propaganda. Fuck the double standards that we Europeans have, applauding drone bombings and American invasions, but bringing a country of 150 million people to fall now.
Double standard bs. I don't want that.
Fuck propaganda? Sure. On all sides of the spectrum.
This game of finger pointing is pointless.
There's enough support that a drone strike can wipe out a family and the military can determine "no wrongdoing".
https://nypost.com/2021/11/03/air-force-watchdog-finds-no-wr...
I think this is what people talk about when they refer to the hypocrisy.
This war is going to be an amazing study in the importance of information warfare. The propaganda machine is running in full force from everyone.
It seems that it was a mistake from EU to be so dependent on Russian gas, and funded their army that is now attacking us.
- German government defense spending for 2022: >=100 * 10^9€ [1]
quote from [1]: "Scholz said that the German government would allocate €100 billion earmarked for the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, in the 2022 budget. "From "From now on, more than 2% of our GDP will be invested in our defense," Scholz said.
Germany has previously been criticized for devoting less than the 2% mark on defense spending called for by NATO membership rules.
The €100 billion will be allocated into a "special fund" for the German armed forces."
[0] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/cabinet-budget-2...
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-reversal-on-ukraine-weapons-p...
It's a trend, especially since 2001 and especially since the past decade, that all major countries around the planet are reinforcing their border and military, reinstating various forms of military service, outlawing criticism of the Nation State, appropriating or otherwise securing crucial/strategic resources in former/current colonies...
I agree with you it's disastrous. And i'm all in favor of dismantling military institutions worldwide without waiting, but it's hardly a european problem. Fascism is on the rise on every continent (Brasil, France, India, Japan, Russia, China) so framing the problem as a european problem is not helping. Although of course it's important to point out the ethnocentrism at the heart of european discourse: https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/72c71a0e-04f6-4337-b9ff-261d8d...
What can help is reviving the internationalist/pacifist movement. A few decades ago when i was a kid we had millions of people marching down the streets against the cold war and against all forms of colonialism, and i do mean against both sides of the conflict (third-worldism). Popular solidarity goes beyond borders as long as we don't let nationalism and its arbitrary borders taint our hearts. And please note that i don't mean "peaceful" when i say pacifism: i'm all for blowing up military installations and Nation States, and reaching world peace and social justice "by any means necessary".
We need to dismiss propaganda from corrupt western "democracies" as well as modern autocracies. But that does not mean we shouldn't condemn a neo-fascist State (Russia) for invading its former colony (Ukraine).
Just IMAGINE if Russia would have invested less GDP % in military and used it for their own infrastructure and people.
Imagine having oligarchs share a tiny part of their wealth to improve the lives of everybody.
If you know people from Russia, or you are in groups where are Russians please tell them that this is a war in Ukraine, ask people to go on the streets and protest. People in Russia simply don't know what is going on in Ukraine, they are misinformed and trust in their propaganda - which is complete lie. Nobody is waiting for Russians in Ukraine, people hate Russians and will never forgive and forget for what are they doing.
The only way to prevent full out war is if the Russian people rise up. Putin is not considering their future at all. He is old and going out with a bang and taking the whole country with him, and Europe is done appeasing. Kicking Russia out of Swift has the direct implication that many European nations are now war-time economies. Basic things like heating will require dratistic government interventions. Defense spendings are going up drastically over night. Europe is effectively mobilizing in the background. And how could we not? He is not going to stop at Ukraine. He is coming for us all.
WWIII has started and the only thing that can stop it is if the Russian people prevent it. If they stand up. Otherwise, my safety, your safety, the safety of your friends and families is not garantueed. Otherwise it becomes a choice of a whole continent enslaved by one man -or- a whole continent destroyed.
Europe does not believe he will stop at Ukraine. Consider the implications, please. Tell your family & friends. His behavior is too erradic. The basic assumption is that war is inevitable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Neo-Nazism
"British political scientist Richard Sakwa writes that Azov's founding member Andryi Biletsky, leader of the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly (SNA) made statements about a "historic mission" to lead the "white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival ... a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen", an ideology he traces to the National Integralism of 1920s and 1930s"
This one is great too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Assembly
Let's go even further, even.
Let's assume that Ukraine is literally run by a resurrected Hitler.
This does not justify a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The argument, even when bolstered with absolute make-believe, makes zero sense.
However we are not in that hypothetical situation and this is why hypothetical situations suck in arguments.
Putin makes personal accusations such as "Nazi's and drug addicts". When you look at the Ukrainian president, he is always very positive, towards his own people, towards Russian citizen. He doesn't throw random insults at Putin.
This site again shows their humanity and class.
Nothing but respect for them.
One of the main streets in Kyiv was renamed after this very controversial gentlemen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
According to Jacobin, Bandera was a Nazi sympathizer: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalis...
Wild.
He was a way justifies the means type of guy he fought against the Polish to secure Ukrainian independence then against the Bolsheviks and Communists.
Branding him as a Nazi is honestly insulting both to him and to anyone who actually suffered under actual Nazis.
Jacobin is a rag I wouldn’t rely on a single word they print.
i guess not -- as long as you do it to the correct enemies.
Other than having their identities made public. But that's a risk one should expect to take when invading a foreign country.
But the interrogations themselves (while stern) are not humiliating as such.