"What is the difference between the Allied 'liberation' of France and Hitler's 'liberation' of France? They both deserve an equal voice!"
If you're wading int moral relativism, then what is the point, really?
The West mostly acts in good faith (not always), and, bad information mostly is marginalized though definitely available.
For example, we suppress some kinds of bad information about health, and definitely suppress things like 'how to make nuclear weapons' etc. though generally, it's available if you really try. We don't completely shut down pirate bay.
RT.com is a propaganda outlet, designed to spread falsehoods and to undermine civic integrity.
If RT.com was 'in every home', a large swath of Europeans would come to believe things that are not true, and likely undermine important efforts, specifically around security.
Stalin controlled 17% of the Bundestag during the Wiemar Republic through direct control over the Germany Communist party. He used information, thugs, violence, populism to try to overthrow the Social Democrats (center left) many times, in an attempt to spread his tyranny. He even worked with the far right (aka nascent Hitler) during that time, as they were considered fools. The far right used the legitimacy of Soviet intervention as a means for violent populism. They lied themselves about various things in order to gain power. Mass destruction ensued.
The Russians ironically initiated the spread of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' a pretty good example of 'misinformation' which has seriously dire consequences.
30% of Americans believe that 'Joe Biden Stole the Election' which combined with events on Jan 6 which was a clear and direct attempt to dismiss valid votes in lieu of political 'votes' to overthrow the government, has very real consequences. None of that could have happened of only, say, 1% of Americans believed the election stolen. And that's in a media system where most mainstream outlets did not directly promulgate the lie (Fox News didn't sufficiently question the lies about election integrity, but they didn't usually directly support the lie either).
The issue matters, greatly.
I have access to RT in North American and I don't think it's a big deal, but collectively it is, much more so in Europe where there are Russian sympathizers.
For example, RT was pulled form regular broadcast, which is rational.
Someone noted above that 'Vodafone' blocked them from RT.com, which I think is fine so long as there is some way to conscientiously get around that arbitrary blocking.
Finally, you'll note that Russians do have access to tons of information from outside the censors, but they don't access it, or even care to, which denotes how kind of 'lazy' most of us plebes are - we tend to watch what is in front of us, and believe what we want to believe.
Go ahead and watch Russia 1, i.e. Russia's main TV broadcast for a bit, translated into English. It's utterly shocking, now contemplate that 50% of the country believes most of what is beings said because of how they are being fed information.
This idea that 'the truth' rises to the point is worse than naive, it's extremely dangerous because it's absolutely false. The most engaging ideas that appeal to our impulses are those that 'rise to the top' to become 'truth'.
It's a serious issue. Though again, Europeans should be able to access RT by jumping a few small hoops.
Serious points, well thought and written. Why would someone downrate it, is beyond me.
I share your views. I'm reading all comments here and many of them are so naïve. Propaganda doesn't harm - that kind of thinking is really flabbergasting. Try living in Russia for a change, and experience the (dis-)informational torrent there.. you'll come back a changed man, I can promise you that. And then tell me that it is harmless..
(For the record, I'm not from Russia, I just happen to live near it and see all the dirty tricks it does first hand)
>>What will happen if West would allow it? Will it collapse? If not, why censor it? If it will, what's the difference between West and Putin? Both will collapse without censorship.
>If you're wading int moral relativism, then what is the point, really?
It's neither moral relativism nor whataboutism to ask for the principle that divides our "good" censorship from their "bad" censorship.
Once that mechanism for censoring RT is in place, what is the principle that will keep bad actors who gain the reins of power from censoring inconvenient truths or political opponents?
The mass adoption of some terrible idea by the populace in history nearly always accompanies control of information or censorship.
Unfettered access to all ideas, even bad or nutty ones, will lead to some bad or nutty people adopting those ideas, but collectively people understand what's true.
This is why it's shocking that Europe is adopting the tactics of control that dictators use.
Not just that, but if RT lies, it would be easy to prove it's all lies, and show the truth or other media outlets. If you just censor RT, people will believe them even more, because of the distrust in western media and governments.
Failing to distinguish the moral difference between actions like the German Imperialism and literal holocaust i.e. murdering millions of people in chambers, and the Allied liberation of the Continent - and especially gaslighting those that point out that obvious difference between the two by calling them 'children' and 'war pigs' - has to be one of the most repulsive things one can possibly do in writing, so no, f&&k you.
This whataboutism is exactly why RT is currently suppressed: the Russians have painted Ukrainians as a 'non people' who do not have an identity and do not deserve to exist, with rampant cultural Nazism embedded in the society, in order to justify their invasion, conquest, mass murder - and they want to the world to see it this way as well.
A large swath, possibly the majority of Russians, believe in this incredulous repulsive lie, and are happy to see Ukranian citizens mass killed, just hop on Telegram to see what is in 2022, something you didn't believe modern people would ever say.
This is the effect of RT and 'Russia One' TV, where every day Russians are subjected to hours and hours of beyond pale insanity.
Literally on this day, Russians have murdered about 50 prisoners near Donetsk by blowing up a prison camp, while blaming their repulsive crimes on Ukrainians themselves. This is likely to destroy evidence of a crime committed just yesterday, whereby Russians cut off the testicles of a Ukranian soldier, put them in his mouth, shot him, tied him to a car and dragged him through the streets. [1]
Literally on this day, on Russia One, ex-Russian General and Duma member is calling for Russia to 'bomb Berlin' into the Dust - in front of millions of Russians. Every few days they yell about 'Nuking London and the entire UK'. They do this for three hours every day, on the 'primary' TV Channel, of course state-backed. [2]
From an 'information perspective', this matters, because apparently, about 10-20% of people 'in the West' will just 'believe' these utterly repulsive lies (akin to Hitler blaming the death of the Jews on the 'invading Americans') - which is why we suppress this information.
Thousands of random Telegrammers (such as Олег Царёв - follow the links in his feed) perpetuate horrific propaganda, in some ways much worse than anything apparently the Nazis were doing at least in public, for millions of Russians to be elated. Again, obviously a concern about how information is propagated - it elicits people into a bloodthirsty fervour.
Surely Hitler had a few legit complaints about the Versailles agreement, fair enough, but we still would not have wanted to broadcast his speeches live to the entire world in the name of 'free expression'.
And so, don't want this repulsive Russian ultra-fascism on our airwaves. If someone really wants to find it - they can.
Moral absolution is never black and white, it's often close enough.
You can have principled and ethical standards for judging historical events and characters without regressing to the juvenile act of moralizing.
Western establishment media constantly moralizes the Ukraine conflict because the reality is much more nuanced and not aligned with Washington's foreign policy goals in the region.
It's much easier to say "Putin bad" than deal with the decades of ugliness involving the Budapest Memorandum, Orange Revolution, Pinchuk's YES campaign, Kolomoyskyi's propaganda drive, Maidan coup, Sevestapol, etc. and Washington's often direct involvement in all of the above.
"without regressing to the juvenile act of moralizing."
? It's not 'juvenile' to call a murderer, a murderer.
It's juvenile to contemplate otherwise with whataboutery.
Putin is a mass killer, absolutely, within the historical realities of "Budapest, Maidan, Orange Revolution, Donbass - and even 'Washington's Involvement'"
It's juvenile (or maybe 'in bad faith', or 'dumb', or 'evil')to hide under their propaganda and hold it at face value.
Putin has been interfering in Ukraine since it gained independence, he poisoned Yuschenko (and of course poisoned and killed so many of his other opponents), he has his GRU thugs all over Ukraine corrupting, bribing etc. trying to gain control, trying to turn Ukraine into a vassal, exactly along the lines of Belarus, where has that living fart Lukashenko do whatever he wants.
He bribed and played 'both sides' of the 2014 Donbas conflict and lies blatantly all the time about supposed NATO concerns etc..
Putin is a Russian Imperialist Fascist who is 100% responsible for the war, mass murder, suppression within his domain (Russia, Belarus etc.) in the same vein as innumerable leaders before him.
> It's much easier to say "Putin bad" than deal with the decades of ugliness involving the Budapest Memorandum, Orange Revolution, Pinchuk's YES campaign, Kolomoyskyi's propaganda drive, Maidan coup, Sevestapol, etc. and Washington's often direct involvement in all of the above.
I dunno it’s kinda easy to say that the guy commanding his army to exterminate an entire country is “bad”.
This is less moralising and more that the world has decided maybe Russia shouldn’t be raping Ukrainians?, executing citizens?, committing genocide?.
There’s no amount of meddling that should make the above justifiable. This is evidenced by Russia constantly changing their reasons for invading, they know there’s no valid reason.
> the guy commanding his army to exterminate an entire country is “bad”
If this were true, why did Moscow not simply cull the entire population of Kiev with a thermobaric carpet bombing on day 1? Why have civilian deaths so obviously been minimized?
When you start from this outrageously false premise, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting other motives, you concede any chance of accurately diagnosing this conflict.
> If this were true, why did Moscow not simply cull the entire population of Kiev with a thermobaric carpet bombing on day 1?
Because they want to capture the people too.
> Why have civilian deaths so obviously been minimized
I didn’t knowing that lunching anti aircraft carrier weapons at shopping malls was considered “minimising civilian deaths”.
Russia uses civilian deaths as a weapon of war. They also use forced deportation and filtration camps (which are used to torture and kill civilians) as a weapon of war.
Russia in way minimises civilian deaths in fact they try and maximise them.
> When you start from this outrageously false premise, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting other motives, you concede any chance of accurately diagnosing this conflict.
https://youtu.be/qciVozNtCDM
No one forced Russia to invade, no one forced Russia to rape, no one forced Russia to commit genocide. The decision to do and support these actions lies solely with Russia itself
I’m kinda interested how you explain away the Russian embassy saying that legitimate Ukrainian POW’s should be executed?, war crime, but then again Russia seems to be trying to tick off every war crime it can.
Frankly, it's not even worth replying to this disingenuous goalpost-moving and "firehose of falsehoods" tactic. I've linked an informative resource above for anyone interested in factual debate on this topic.
> Frankly, it's not even worth replying to this disingenuous goalpost-moving and "firehose of falsehoods" tactic. I've linked an informative resource above for anyone interested in factual debate on this topic.
You're not responding because there's no response. The Russians are killing, raping civilians and committing genocide in Ukraine.
There is no reason for Russias war of aggression other then because they want to capture a country that they claim doesn't even exist.
There's insurmountable evidence that the Russians aren't avoiding civilian casualties and that they are using them to inflict a terror campaign on Ukraine as a whole.
There is no goalpost moving, there is only the truth.
I will admit I haven't seen Russia's supporters accuse other people of using the "Firehose of Falsehood" before, but then again it was only a matter of time really as Russia and its supporters accuse others of doing what they/it does.
>There is no reason for Russias war of aggression other then because they want to capture a country that they claim doesn't even exist.
False. The expansion of NATO to the east, 2014 anti-russian coup in Ukraine, the refusal to follow to Minsk agreements(guaranteed by western leaders, who failed them too) and militarization of Ukraine were the major reasons of the events.
Another false: Putin never claimed Ukraine doesn't exist.
> False. The current actions are not genocide by any means.
Despite popular belief genocide is not what the pro Russians want it to be, and Russias actions clearly fit within the UN's well defined definition of genocide.
>> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>> Killing members of the group;
>> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
We already have evidence of many of these individual things (of which any constitutes genocide).
The Russians have already been forcibly deporting children and sending them to Russia, so point 5 is met.
The Russians are on video castrating Ukrainians so we have point 4 met.
The Russians have been indiscriminately bombing civilians so we have points 1 and 2 easily.
> Even raping of civilians is unproved.
I see you avoided the whole indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which Russians are already in jail for.
It seems like you wouldn't be satisfied without video evidence of these crimes, but don't worry the Russians the will answer for their war crimes in time.
> False. The expansion of NATO to the east, 2014 anti-russian coup in Ukraine, the refusal to follow to Minsk agreements(guaranteed by western leaders, who failed them too) and militarization of Ukraine were the major reasons of the events.
Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?.
None of these are "reasons for these events", what all these are is Russias excuses to try and dominate another country and eliminate their statehood.
> Another false: Putin never claimed Ukraine doesn't exist.
`When it came to Ukraine, Putin flared up. Addressing Bush, he said: "You understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, and some, and significant, are donated by us!"`
Everything you said is false, is true, strange that.
> Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?
Maybe because giving up the nukes wasn't the only condition for the sovereignty of the state that USSR (and Russia as a successor) granted to your leaders on peaceful terms in 1991? Remember, your country didn't have to fight a war for its sovereignty, the peaceful transition of a regional power was one of the greatest achievements of that generation.
Maybe the modern Ukrainian elites and the current president shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of joining a military bloc [1]. Maybe they shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of obtaining nukes either [2], maybe they shouldn't have been saying that "The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism".
Your leaders should have known that your foundational documents predate the Budapest Memorandum, and they outline all conditions under which your sovereignty was guaranted [3]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce, and not to acquire nuclear weapons."
> Maybe because giving up the nukes wasn't the only condition for the sovereignty of the state that USSR (and Russia as a successor) granted to your leaders on peaceful terms in 1991? Remember, your country didn't have to fight a war for its sovereignty, the peaceful transition of a regional power was one of the greatest achievements of that generation.
Tonnes of other soviet block countries joined NATO with no issues whatsoever only reason Russia took issue with Ukraine is that they thought they could win a war against them, if only they didn’t drink their own Russian strong too much they might of won instead of having their military destroyed for the next 10 years.
Russia tried to keep its influence over Ukraine and ban anyone from trying to free them from Russias grasp. This was never going to work because we all know Russia never keeps its promises anyway.
> Maybe the modern Ukrainian elites and the current president shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of joining a military bloc [1]. Maybe they shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of obtaining nukes either [2], maybe they shouldn't have been saying that "The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism
Ukraine has made it obvious to all post soviet states that the only way to protect themselves from Russian wars of aggression(of which their are many) is by strong military alliances or perhaps nukes.
You cannot stamp your feet and be surprised when someone tries to protect themselves from their neighbour who has a habit of invading and annexing people just like you.
> our leaders should have known that your foundational documents predate the Budapest Memorandum, and they outline all conditions under which your sovereignty was guaranted [3]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce, and not to acquire nuclear weapons."
Ukraines founding predates Russia itself. Ukraine is sovereign and no amount of feet stamping by the Russians will change this.
But if you think Russia is justified in its war go ahead and believe that but know that the vast majority of non dictatorships disagree with you.
Btw I’m not Ukrainian so they aren’t “my leaders”, i merely support them in their struggle for sovereignty against their neighbour who has conquered them once before and is once again trying to genocide them out of existence.
> Tonnes of other soviet block countries joined NATO with no issues whatsoever
Because they had their own terms and circumstances. Ukrainian SSR had its own terms and circumstances too, they compiled and signed the declaration in 1991. If the leaders didn't want to stick to the internationally recognised founding documents they shouldn't have signed it. One either follows the legal procedures or not, and if procedures are not followed and if the new government feels like violating the previously signed documents, then it's a bit odd to expect that the country wouldn't have a separatist movement within its borders.
> Ukraine has made it obvious to all post soviet states that the only way to protect themselves from Russian wars of aggression(of which their are many) is by strong military alliances or perhaps nukes.
They definitely made a good point about dangers of armed coups against democratically elected presidents that didn't break laws and were supposed to represent half of the country until the upcoming elections. Kiyvites didn't care much about legitimacy of their actions from the perspective of Eastern Ukrainians in 2013-2014. No referendum felt necessary when the coup had been decided and executed.
> Ukraines founding predates Russia itself.
Even if that were true, if the intention was not to follow the founding documents they shouldn't have been signed in their current form. But it isn't true, sorry. Ukraine founding does not predate Russia, because no reputable historian is able to draw a clear line between historical periods of Kievan Rus' (not Ukraine) and Tsardom of Rus' (not Russia), as it was ruled and disintegrated by the members of the same dynasty of Ruriks over a long period of time).
> Ukraine is sovereign and no amount of feet stamping by the Russians will change this.
Surely it is sovereign. When you say that something is sovereign, you usually reference the corresponding legal founding documents. The corresponding legal founding documents in case of Ukraine start with the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine of 1991, which all subsequent delcarations and memorandums reference to. You can check it yourself, the current Constitution of Ukraine, including the amendments of 2004, reference the declaration on its Preamble section on the very first page [1]. The declaration states clearly that non-military bloc status and absence of nukes are the foundational principles of the sovereign state of Ukraine.
> But if you think Russia is justified in its war go ahead and believe that but know that the vast majority of non dictatorships disagree with you.
I only mention this to bring clarity on the respective roles of the current Ukrainian elites and the government (including the president) in this conflict. They did everything to intentionally reject diplomacy, and it's the opposite of what they were paid for by the citizens.
>Because they had their own terms and circumstances. Ukrainian SSR had its own terms and circumstances too, they compiled and signed the declaration in 1991. If the leaders didn't want to stick to the internationally recognised founding documents they shouldn't have signed it. One either follows the legal procedures or not, and if procedures are not followed and if the new government feels like violating the previously signed documents,
I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all. Seems like your entire premise that Ukraines founding document is predicated on a lake of nukes and military neutrality has no basis in reality.
> then it's a bit odd to expect that the country wouldn't have a separatist movement within its borders.
Funny that these Pro Russian separatist movements keep appearing in post soviet states its like the FSB and GRU funds them, and even sends soldier to arm them. I mean its not like the leaders of the LPR and DNR where literally FSB officer right?.
> They definitely made a good point about dangers of armed coups against democratically elected presidents that didn't break laws and were supposed to represent half of the country until the upcoming elections. Kiyvites didn't care much about legitimacy of their actions from the perspective of Eastern Ukrainians in 2013-2014. No referendum felt necessary when the coup had been decided and executed.
I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. Since then they have had many elections and power has changed hands multiple times unlike Russia.
> I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all.
I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, *and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine*, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]"
When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state.
> I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia.
The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.
> the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia.
against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it.
> I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]"
When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state.
Can you link to the document that you claim states this?. It’s annoying to have to chase your references to things you claim exist.
> The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.
The difference is not double standards it’s the meaning of the word. In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament, in the USA the people trying to coup the government where looking to subvert the government with violence and install their own leader.
> against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it.
Ukraine wanted to join the EU this was already decided; Putin decided this would make Russia weaker so got his puppet to subvert that choice, which lead to him being over thrown.
> One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.
I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.
> In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament
That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence.
Again, the event doesn't look democratic to me. In fact it looks random at best and suggests a case for an opportunistic power grab at worst. One cannot simply declare that the vote in parlament was legal and the due process respected because the subject had to flee the country ("self-remove") to save his life. There are many places in the world where leaders have to self-remove without due process, and we don't call these places democracies.
> I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.
Neither is your apologetic stance on the events of early 2014 that tore a thin fabric of a democratic society. It is fine to be upset on country leaders that break their political promises, but it's extremely irresponsible to suggest that "self-removing" those leaders for their promise-breaking yet non-crime legitimate decisions is a proper reaction for the upset part of the society.
It does appear to exist, and mention what you say. But it appears to not refer to the country of Ukraine but to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a country which ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The modern basis for the sovereignty of Ukraine, is the Ukrainian constitution that was ratified on 28 June 1996. The same constitution that explicitly mentions (through amendments) that Ukraine's goal is to join NATO and the EU.
> That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence.
It doesn't matter if it was a "convenient" as long as it was constitutional, and it appears that it was constitutional, the president of the country was unable to perform his duties so it was voted that he be removed.
I'm using this version [1] to find anything that would explicitly declare "NATO" or "military" with regard to the "bloc" status, and so far I couldn't find it. Can you cite the amendment that mentions it? I'm particularly interested in the military bloc alliances, as EU is a political and economic entity that even the documents of 1990 have no restrictions about.
> But it appears to not refer to the country of Ukraine but to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a country which ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Ukrainian SSR ceased to exist similarly to how RSFSR ceased to eixst after USSR collapse, yet the newly formed respective states and the governments were their legal successors, they paid external debts of USSR and followed all ratified documents with regard to foreign relations. Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 was no exeption to that transition. [1] shows it in its Preambler section (I cite):
> aware of our responsibility before God, our own conscience, past, present and future
generations, guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991,
approved by the national vote of 1 December 1991, adopts this Constitution — the Fundamental Law of Ukraine.
They deliberately include responsibility before the "past generation" to convey the idea of succession (that the new sovereign state doesn't come from a void but from a sequence of historical events and relations), and they make it clear that the principles of that succession are guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991. That's the document we reviewed above, the resolution act that only has a few pages to declare the implementation of the principles of the state sovereignty outlined in the document of July 1990.
It is clear that one can argue that the succession was selective, and that the guidelines do not necessarily include all aspects of the declaration of July 1990, but this is the point where principles cease to exist and the non-aesthetic side of geopolitics takes over. Basically, it's the same place where other side's arguments stem from. Besides, if there was a selective guding on the principles mentioned in the document of 1990 (and I keep referencing it because the doc of 1996 references the doc of 1991 that references the doc of 1990), the document of 1996 should have been mentioning these exceptions explicitly to avoid most of the potential doublespeak, as this is basic jurisprudence 101. Unfortunately, I cannot find such exceptions that would suggest selective guding.
> It doesn't matter if it was a "convenient" as long as it was constitutional, and it appears that it was constitutional, the president of the country was unable to perform his duties so it was voted that he be removed.
Let's take a look at this claim of constitutionality of the events. Did the president break a law when he broke his political promise? I am not aware of such law existing prior 2014. Was armed rioting (you can call it armed revolution instead) constitutional? I am not aware of that constitutional right be granted to Ukrainians by their constitution (the US constitution has that right declared explicitly). But I'm aware that the Article 27 says that "Everyone has the right to protect his or her life and health, the lives and health of other persons against unlawful encroachments".
At this point we've already got armed rioters, while not being granted the right to revolt, being after the president that didn't break a law. The Article 27 of the constitution grants the president the right to protect his life when rioters approach his place of residence. It does not mention the means of pretecting the life so I asume that fleeing the country under a threat to one's life is a legitimate act for the sitting president to have. Now, in order to establish whether a president of any country is able to perform their duty while being away from it, we need to come up with a legal framework that defines "ability to perform president's duty at a distance". I am not aware of that legal framework to exist, but I know it as a matter of fact that presidents of this world do travel outside their respective countries a lot, and that it doesn't affect their ability to perform their duty.
So, what exactly is the difference between a travelling president and the president that had to flee its own country to save his life due to armed rioters chasing him, in terms of their ability to perform their duty? Last time I checked, the ability of the fled party to perform their duty as a legitimate representative of the will of the people was the foundation for Taiwan government's claims of their legitimate successor status of "the China". Would you rather suggest that due to Taiwan governemnt's inability to perform their duty on the mainland territory of China they are no longer able to represent the "One China" principle?
And does it still look democratic to you? To me it looks more like an opportunistic power grab. The whole sequence in terms of principles is similar to an act of violence where a better armed side forces the weaker side to flee before declaring a referendum and the rule of a new law in a newly controlled territory. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
> I'm using this version [1] to find anything that would explicitly declare "NATO" or "military" with regard to the "bloc" status, and so far I couldn't find it. Can you cite the amendment that mentions it? I'm particularly interested in the military bloc alliances, as EU is a political and economic entity that even the documents of 1990 have no restrictions about.
Here’s an article about the approved amendments that make it a goal of Ukraine to join NATO
> Ukrainian SSR ceased to exist similarly to how RSFSR ceased to eixst after USSR collapse, yet the newly formed respective states and the governments were their legal successors, they paid external debts of USSR and followed all ratified documents with regard to foreign relations. Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 was no exeption to that transition. [1] shows it in its Preambler section (I cite):
This is all kind of a moot point because if they can amend there constitution to allow it (which they did). It’s not longer a issue is it.
> with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
Is a key sentence here. Your points are invalid because none of these actions(even if they really took place, because you know about them from biased source) were caused by intent to destroy Ukrainians as group.
>I see you avoided the whole indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which Russians are already in jail for.
Because the indiscriminate killing of civilians is a common thing in wars. It's nearly impossible to prove that killing of civilian was indiscriminate. About jailing - of course you can jail prisoners of war, but it does not prove anything. Ukrainian SBU, like Russian FSB is descendant of KGB. They can get any testimony they need, especially from helpless prisoner of war.
>Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?
First, memorandum is not an agreement. These things actually don't oblige you to anything. It's like "we talked, and there are the thing we said".
Second, Putin thinks that US broke the first point of that memorandum by inciting the 2014 coup. Because Ukraine is not sovereign now - it is fully controlled by the West. So old rules are not working anymore.
And third, Minsk agreements were signed after the annexation of Crymea, so Budapest Memorandum was already broken. If you do not intend to follow agreements, you don't sign them or you are liar. You don't say "hey you broke our last agreements so i can broke these".
About this article https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224. It's funny that you brought article from 2008(14 years ago), which clearly states that Putin told Bush that he will attack if Ukraine or Georgia joins NATO. 14 years later he attacked and everyone: "look! Putin is liar!". He told you about consequences 14 years ago!
> Is a key sentence here. Your points are invalid because none of these actions(even if they really took place, because you know about them from biased source) were caused by intent to destroy Ukrainians as group
They all took place, Putins stated goal to remove Ukraine as a state and the idea of being Ukrainian. Russia says this very upfront and blatantly they don’t try and hide it despite how much more work it makes for its propaganda arm.
Let me guess your only unbiased source is Russia?. The same source that believes in Ukrainian super soldiers and Ukrainian black magic battalions because they failed to take city 300km from their border.
> About jailing - of course you can jail prisoners of war, but it does not prove anything. Ukrainian SBU, like Russian FSB is descendant of KGB. They can get any testimony they need, especially from helpless prisoner of war.
You seem not convinced even by a court sentence, what would you even convinced by? At this point in time you seem to require impossible evidence for something that we have clear video and photo graphic evidence for.
Unless you think a shopping centre is a valid military target?.
> Second, Putin thinks that US broke the first point of that memorandum by inciting the 2014 coup. Because Ukraine is not sovereign now - it is fully controlled by the West. So old rules are not working anymore
So because Ukraine decided and ousted their Russian puppet all the way back to Moscow and decided they wanted to have someone pro Europe they don’t deserve sovereignty?.
Btw the only person who calls the 2014 revolution a coup is the Russian puppet who got ousted and his Russian handlers.
> And third, Minsk agreements were signed after the annexation of Crymea, so Budapest Memorandum was already broken. If you do not intend to follow agreements, you don't sign them or you are liar. You don't say "hey you broke our last agreements so i can broke these".
Yes Russia is a liar, that is painfully obvious they never follow any agreements they make (binding or not) and they always shout scream and get their supporters to stamp their feet when others act the same way.
Why should anyone believer anything Russia says or sign or abide by any treaty Russia decides when Russia themselves don’t?.
> which clearly states that Putin told Bush that he will attack if Ukraine or Georgia joins NATO. 14 years later he attacked and everyone: "look! Putin is liar!". He told you about consequences 14 years ago!
Neither joined NATO and he would never attack if they did, it’s why all the former Soviet states try to join NATO because Russia is incapable and unwilling to even blink in the direction of a NATO member.
It’s also probably why Russia tried to force all the post soviet states to not join NATO so they can go pillaging again in the future.
The people of Mariupol are being disappeared by the Russians and don’t have any food or water.
Mariupol was peaceful before the Russians Nazis invaded. You can try and shout about Azov all you want but it might be better to do that in a war where the Russian Nazi PMC (Wagner) isn’t committing war crimes left right and centre.
> It's much easier to say "Putin bad" than deal with the decades of ugliness involving the Budapest Memorandum, Orange Revolution, Pinchuk's YES campaign, Kolomoyskyi's propaganda drive, Maidan coup, Sevestapol, etc. and Washington's often direct involvement in all of the above.
Should’ve started with that, Ivan. Nothing, short of literal genocide, justifies war against other country.
You can bet your ass that I'm afraid that an expanding, violent imperialist dictatorship will continue its historically proven tradition of undermining the political stability of my country and thereby make us much poorer and less free.
It just so happens that I'm not stupid, and am sufficiently worried about this real and imminent risk that I will support quite strong measures to defend against it. One of which is making blatant lies and propaganda from the enemy somewhat harder to access for the population of my country, who collectively have the power to surrender to this attack.
The problem here is that it takes just one case of intolerance to introduce cascading limitations, and after a short while most everyone is pointing guns to everyone else.
Neither Russia nor China are not going to open up their media unless there is reciprocity. But there is no longer any mechanism to source it.
If you're wading int moral relativism, then what is the point, really?
The West mostly acts in good faith (not always), and, bad information mostly is marginalized though definitely available.
For example, we suppress some kinds of bad information about health, and definitely suppress things like 'how to make nuclear weapons' etc. though generally, it's available if you really try. We don't completely shut down pirate bay.
RT.com is a propaganda outlet, designed to spread falsehoods and to undermine civic integrity.
If RT.com was 'in every home', a large swath of Europeans would come to believe things that are not true, and likely undermine important efforts, specifically around security.
Stalin controlled 17% of the Bundestag during the Wiemar Republic through direct control over the Germany Communist party. He used information, thugs, violence, populism to try to overthrow the Social Democrats (center left) many times, in an attempt to spread his tyranny. He even worked with the far right (aka nascent Hitler) during that time, as they were considered fools. The far right used the legitimacy of Soviet intervention as a means for violent populism. They lied themselves about various things in order to gain power. Mass destruction ensued.
The Russians ironically initiated the spread of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' a pretty good example of 'misinformation' which has seriously dire consequences.
30% of Americans believe that 'Joe Biden Stole the Election' which combined with events on Jan 6 which was a clear and direct attempt to dismiss valid votes in lieu of political 'votes' to overthrow the government, has very real consequences. None of that could have happened of only, say, 1% of Americans believed the election stolen. And that's in a media system where most mainstream outlets did not directly promulgate the lie (Fox News didn't sufficiently question the lies about election integrity, but they didn't usually directly support the lie either).
The issue matters, greatly.
I have access to RT in North American and I don't think it's a big deal, but collectively it is, much more so in Europe where there are Russian sympathizers.
For example, RT was pulled form regular broadcast, which is rational.
Someone noted above that 'Vodafone' blocked them from RT.com, which I think is fine so long as there is some way to conscientiously get around that arbitrary blocking.
Finally, you'll note that Russians do have access to tons of information from outside the censors, but they don't access it, or even care to, which denotes how kind of 'lazy' most of us plebes are - we tend to watch what is in front of us, and believe what we want to believe.
Go ahead and watch Russia 1, i.e. Russia's main TV broadcast for a bit, translated into English. It's utterly shocking, now contemplate that 50% of the country believes most of what is beings said because of how they are being fed information.
This idea that 'the truth' rises to the point is worse than naive, it's extremely dangerous because it's absolutely false. The most engaging ideas that appeal to our impulses are those that 'rise to the top' to become 'truth'.
It's a serious issue. Though again, Europeans should be able to access RT by jumping a few small hoops.