Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that it was “inevitable” that “war” would come to Russia after authorities there were forced to temporarily close a busy Moscow airport following an overnight drone attack on the capital.

  • sudneo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m sorry but yes, you are drawing a false equivalency between Russia and Ukraine by holding them to the same standards and insisting there is a “qualitative similarity”, and they are not the same.

    How holding to the same standards is making an equivalency? By which definition…?

    is a “qualitative similarity”, and they are not the same

    How, taking a single episode, there is no qualitative similarity? How a building in Moscow (a civilian one - not necessarily this one) is different from one in Kyiv or Lviv? How the Vinnytsia missile in the park is different from the missile in Taganrog?

    and the situations they are in, are inherently different and to disregard that is to be unjust, and you might not want to hear it, but you really are being unjust by doing that.

    Yeah, indeed it is, but this doesn’t mean that a missile on a building is a missile on a building. Even a person shot is the same thing, but of course I don’t consider a Russian invading being killed the same as an Ukrainian defending being killed, similarly to how I don’t consider a fascist killed in 1945 the same as a partisan killed. The difference is that when you are killing people who are outside the conflict, the nuanced difference of the role that each plays in the context is lost. This is my opinion, and I don’t think that being born/living in a country that is invading another makes you less of an innocent than living in a country which is being invaded.

    Ukraine launching a drone attack on a Moscow airport simply is not the same as Russia invading and committing genocidal acts against a sovereign nation

    Of course is not the same, as this was not implied anywhere. Also, it is not Moscow airport (I explicitly mentioned that I would actually support attacks on infrastructure).

    That’s why the others are upset at you, I think

    I think that’s because most of people are trying harder to find an enemy to disagree with than actually reading and understanding other people ideas. This is not surprising, is the regular war propaganda result.

    then we have to judge it on the founding principle of all human rights: self-defense, and you are violating Ukraine’s right of self-defense by insisting it limit its military options, which Russia has proven it can and will exploit and take advantage of to harm Ukraine even more.

    You are being dishonest here. Not attacking civilians objectives, i.e. not attacking people who are outside the conflict by definition, is not limiting military options. It has nothing to do with self-defense, unless you really want to claim that the random civilian is a threat - by existing - to Ukraine. I feel this is a crucial point of disagreement that needs to be solved, so let me be clear: I think that any military target, outside or inside Russia, that can help win the war is a fair and justifiable target to attack. I think that civilian targets, that by definition are not involved in the war, are not. Do you disagree? If that’s the case, you need to explain to me how that is helping winning the war and also why you think the Geneva convention is wrong.

    Yes you are, because the result of what you are asking for, ultimately, boils down to them either committing Act A or accepting death, and in this war among many others, yes, that is exactly what’s happening.

    No, I think you are creating a false dichotomy to help your argument. I think (and hope) Ukraine can win the war without attacking civilian objectives. So far I still need to understand from you why do you think this is instead necessary, and the alternative of not doing this is to surrender.

    You might not have been watching the news, but the rest of us have, and Russia is actively trying to commit genocide against Ukraine.

    I appreciate the attempt to patronize, but as I said in another comment, my fiance’ is Ukrainian and her whole family is there. I am well aware of what’s happening.

    It is obviously a choice between doing everything possible to ensure one’s own survival or accepting imminent death.

    I repeat that this is a false reasoning. If Ukraine tomorrow started dissecting children it would be up to you to demonstrate that this is necessary for survival, as I wouldn’t morally justify. I took an extreme example intentionally to convey the point, but the idea is the same. You are accepting by default that any action is justified a-priori, I think instead that defending yourself is absolutely your right, but this does not automatically removes any restriction to what you can (morally) do. Specifically, I think that upholding the Geneva convention is still a reasonable constraint, even when Russia is constantly violating it.

    I don’t think you’d be willing to tell your family to accept imminent rape and murder from burglars because of your extremist views on gun control, for instance.

    This is again the result of the flawed dichotomy, it’s in no way a representation of my stance.

    Well, in this case, you have to, not only because it is a tactic that has been very effective throughout all of human history, but because it’s what your opponent believes and you’re not adequately addressing their concerns.

    Is it? I thought that World War II was a good enough example of how that doesn’t work. And isn’t this very same war an example of that? Did Ukrainian people surrender once they were attacked or they united in the face of the enemy? Could you make some example of how that’s an effective tactic and why this effectiveness should prevail over the common principle of not doing, stated in the Geneva convention?

    in this case, you have to […] By refusing to

    Thankfully I did that too, suggesting two possible arguments for that. I see you completely ignored that though, I guess it was more important debating the possibility of developing connections.

    And over the past 70 years, things changed completely. Now we have advanced technology like drones, and cluster munitions, and F-16s, and nuclear weapons.

    The advancement of weapons if anything should enable the possibility to carry out war in a more precise way, with less “collateral damage”. I don’t know why I feel that your argument is instead the opposite?

    and you’re doing it indirectly by condemning Ukraine by using means it was given by the same countries that made the Geneva Conventions and other treaties in the first place, with their blessing to use against Russia to save itself.

    Eh? There is nothing wrong with using drones to attack. Why you are mixing tools and targets? Let me be clear. Do you think the principles stated in the Geneva convention are wrong and outdated? Do you think that people not involved, or not anymore involved, in a conflict should not be treated humanly and constitute targets for attacks? I would like at this point for you to say it clearly, because there is no need to beat around the bush. I think that is a right principle, disregard the modern weapons we might have, and I think it is still right to apply it today.

    to condemn Ukraine

    I did not “condemn” Ukraine. I raised concerns about the people celebrating this as a victory. Again, you are projecting on me a boxed set of opinions that are easier to attack for you.

    And the rest of the world has decided that it is moral for Ukraine to use those drones to do such a thing. The gavel has been swung and not in your favor, I fear.

    And…? Who is “the world” and who “ruled” already? And why would it matter for what I think? The very same fact we are having this conversation is proof that this is not so clear cut.

    Then you clearly haven’t been paying attention, because that is what has been happening.

    You keep using these sentences that somehow are supposed to be self-evident. I mean, no. You have to support your claim that if you don’t attack civilians you have the nuclear annihilation and the genocide can’t be stopped. You can’t simply cut any part where you need to support your claims with “you haven’t been watching news”, “you haven’t been paying attention” and the like.

    Russia lost any benefit of the doubt or meaningful consideration it would have otherwise had because of its actions, and if we are to make a fair and just world, you and people like you must accept that.

    What does this have to do with ANYTHING? What is “Russia” in your sentence? The government? The country? The entire population? Should I go and shoot to my Russian colleague living in Portugal because he is making a genocide? Rather than grand abstract sentences I would appreciate more clarity.

    • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How holding to the same standards is making an equivalency? By which definition?

      It’s pretty intrinsic that you can’t hold different things to the same standards. You don’t treat apples and bananas the same despite the fact that they are both fruit. Just like you don’t hold a bully and a victim to the same standards even though they’re both human.

      We judge people not based on what species they’re in but by the content of their character as displayed through their actions, and for good reason. This is why we do not hold Ukraine to the same standards we hold Russia toward, because they are playing fundamentally different roles, and that is what matters, not what species they’re in. Treating people differently based on their actions is by definition where someone’s humanity comes from. Where justice comes from. That’s what justice means. Not being born into homo sapiens sapiens. That’s reductive and overly simplistic.

      How, taking a single episode, there is no qualitative similarity?

      Because Russia is the invader and Ukraine is the victim.

      Yeah, indeed it is, but this doesn’t mean that a missile on a building is a missile on a building.

      Yes it actually does, because there is a mountain of detail, context, and consideration you’re purposefully leaving out to dishonestly frame Ukraine’s actions as a negative and the more you speak, the more it comes off as intentional on your part. War is war and it may not be pretty or palatable to you, but it is a fundamental part of not only the human experience but life in general, and those distinctions matter to us. That’s why people don’t bat an eye when a Russian airport is attacked by a drone but do when a Ukrainian city is leveled into dust.

      That’s what you’re missing – we judge the morality of situations based on actions and on the context of those actions, among many other factors. We don’t judge them solely by an arbitrary set of commandments with no real connection with or basis in the reality of a situation devoid of context or meaning. That’s just not how life works.

      I repeat that this is a false reasoning.

      I repeat that it is perfectly valid and in keeping with the reality of what we have witnessed over the past year and a half.

      If Ukraine tomorrow started dissecting children it would be up to you to demonstrate that this is necessary for survival, as I wouldn’t morally justify.

      And if we felt it was, then we would. Others have already categorically explained to you why a drone strike on an airport is a common act of war and why an airport is an important military target, and how and why Ukraine was even given drones in the first place, but it’s clear you’re just ignoring them because you feel angry, and your anger is directed at the wrong target. Ukraine is exercising its fundamental right to self-defense and protecting its own people at any cost, which they have the categorical right to do, and no one else disagrees with that but you.

      Of course is not the same, as this was not implied anywhere. Also, it is not Moscow airport (I explicitly mentioned that I would actually support attacks on infrastructure).

      Well, let’s read the article:

      Russian officials said three Ukrainian drones attacked Moscow early on July 30, injuring a security guard and forcing the temporary suspension of traffic at Vnukovo airport, one of four major facilities serving the capital.

      Russia’s Defense Ministry called it an “attempted terrorist attack” and claimed that one drone had been shot down and two others jammed, leading them to crash into Moscow’s prestigious Moskva-Citi business complex.

      I don’t even think you read the article. I’m not sure most people here did… the whole incident was an accident and those drones were intended for the airport, but crashed into another building, rendering the basis of your complaint moot.

      And honestly, that, and this:

      I think that’s because most of people are trying harder to find an enemy to disagree with than actually reading and understanding other people ideas. This is not surprising, is the regular war propaganda result.

      Makes it pretty clear you’re arguing in bad faith. What propaganda? Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years? Do you deny that they wrongly invaded a sovereign nation, committed brutal human rights violations against its victims, kidnapped hundreds of thousands of children, purposefully targeted and executed citizens in the street, leveled entire cities, committed mass rape against thousands of Ukrainian women, destroyed one of Ukraine’s largest dams leading to trillions of dollars in economic damage, took over a nuclear power plant and set it to blow, and threatened other countries with nuclear war if they tried to stop them?

      I think it’s pretty clear the others were right to accuse you of arguing in bad faith with the specific purpose of undermining Ukraine. It’s strange that you are condemning Ukraine’s actions on deontological grounds, categorically rejecting attacks on civilians while ignoring Russia’s atrocities and even implying it’s just propaganda – and that line in and of itself is often a dog-whistle for those on the right wing who support Russia and condemn Ukraine.

      I don’t think we even need to continue. You are very sus and I don’t think you’re a legitimate user. I think you’re here astroturfing to defend Russia.

      • sudneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t treat apples and bananas the same despite the fact that they are both fruit.

        And yet you can say that each one of them can be rotten, or spoiled, or ripen (or not), etc. Not sure what your point is. Also it seems you are trying to make an argument that two different agents cannot do comparable actions, which for me is completely absurd.

        This is why we do not hold Ukraine to the same standards we hold Russia toward

        We are talking the lowest possible standard: the war crime standard. We are not talking about wearing white gloves.

        Because Russia is the invader and Ukraine is the victim.

        This is not a valid argument, from my point of view. Being invaded does not automatically guarantee you the (moral) right to do absolutely anything, without restrictions to the population of the invading country.

        That’s why people don’t bat an eye when a Russian airport is attacked by a drone but do when a Ukrainian city is leveled into dust

        Again dishonesty. The reason for that is that one is an offensive action, the other is a defensive action. This has nothing to do with attacking people who are outside the conflict.

        I don’t even think you read the article. I’m not sure most people here did… the whole incident was an accident and those drones were intended for the airport, but crashed into another building, rendering the basis of your complaint moot.

        So, the drone was meant for the airport (according to Russian sources, which apparently now we trust), and reached a building. What’s the big problem here. Also, who cares about this particular episode, it’s a fucking empty office. I am talking about the whole principle of people cheering that a random building got attacked as a success on itself. Not “a failed attack on an airport”. I am talking about the whole point that some people -like you- see it acceptable to do attacks on civilians, because Ukraine is defending itself, in general, not this episode (which is unclear, was the office a target, was it not, etc.) in particular.

        What propaganda? Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years?

        To make an example of propaganda, the one that pushes for collective responsibility. You can see many examples in this very same thread. It’s a common war propaganda strategy where people are made guilty by association, to completely dehumanize the enemy, and by enemy I mean everyone, innocent people included. I totally understand it from Ukrainian side, because this is often needed to unite the population, but this doesn’t make it reasonable, in my opinion.

        Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years?

        You need to be really in bad faith even suggesting that.

        I don’t think we even need to continue. You are very sus and I don’t think you’re a legitimate user. I think you’re here astroturfing to defend Russia.

        Ta-da. Russian bot.

        I mean, you build your own imaginary arguments, then you use it to build a base for your own conclusions. What can I say, if this is not the result of the propaganda I don’t know what is, where in less than 10 comments we go from “war crimes are bad” to “you are a russian bot that is used to condemn Ukraine”.


        I asked 2 questions, which are the core of the discussion here, and you dodged them, because having a fucking conversation on topic is too hard, better to talk about made-up arguments and ad hominem. I repeat them for your benefit:

        1. I think that any military target, outside or inside Russia, that can help win the war is a fair and justifiable target to attack. I think that civilian targets, that by definition are not involved in the war, are not. Do you disagree?
        2. Do you think the principles stated in the Geneva convention are wrong and outdated? Do you think that people not involved, or not anymore involved, in a conflict should not be treated humanly and constitute targets for attacks?
        3. [bonus] You are accepting by default that any action is justified a-priori, I think instead that defending yourself is absolutely your right, but this does not automatically removes any restriction to what you can (morally) do. Specifically, I think that upholding the Geneva convention is still a reasonable constraint, even when Russia is constantly violating it. Do you disagree?

        That’s it, this is all what this conversation should be about.

        If you want to simply make up arguments, go on. If you want to actually attempt to have an actual conversation without resorting to cheap rethoric, these are the questions that you should answer so we can actually confront other point of view. You are surgically dodging these very same points for a while now.