@ciaranmak as a pacifist believing in UN charter as a peaceful mean to settle conflicts between countries my position is the same of international and humanitarian law:

Terrorism is always a crime

Invading a country is always a crime

Bombing civilians is always a war crime

The solution:

1) Stop killing (ceasefire)

2) Find a political way to settle the armed conflict

@gubi @ciaranmak

As mastodon allows multiple threads, I'm going to go beside the point:

The historical whataboutism has a poor reputation due to us still being close to 1950s and affected by partisan rhetoric of the time, and we side with the USA.

That being said, USA's rhetoric hinged on the fact that USSR politbyro was technically responsible for everything, while USA had plausible deniability by working through companies and client states.

Which whataboutism tried to point out.

@gubi @ciaranmak

For example Tsechslovakia 1948 was a horror of Soviet control, but Guatemala 1952 was just companies being companies.

Even though it was the same thing: premier of a superpower authorizing a coup in a client state.

@iju oh, no question about that, but to me whataboutism is more about how a given given topic is used in a conversation.

I think there's a crucial difference between:

- just throwing the other complex topic into the conversation;

…and:

- stating one's position *and then* mentioning the other thing.

"What about Palestine" is a completely different thing than "I agree/disagree with you on Ukraine, but wonder what you think on Palestine, then?"

@gubi @ciaranmak

@iju if you state your own position, you become vulnerable to arguments and criticism in a debate.

If you don't, you're just coasting, exploiting the vulnerability of the other person who *did* state their position. You're free to flip-flop, "just ask questions", and use any other kinds of eristics.

So, when I see something like "what about Palestine", which lacks a clear statement about the main topic, that to me looks like an attempt to misdirect, not have a conversation.

@gubi @ciaranmak

@midgephoto
>such uniforms can be bought in any sports shop

I have no desire to argue with propaganda stamps, I want to understand the legal side of the issue and the real danger for Ukraine.

At the time of its creation as an independent country from a Soviet republic, Ukraine committed itself to neutrality and non-aligned status. This was the reason for their giving up nuclear weapons

either we agree on basic facts, or we don't.

One of the basic facts is that in 2014 in Donbas and Crimea there were Russian military, and that Russian military actively supported, including by artillery fire from the territory of Russian Federation, amply documented by Bellingcat:
bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-eur…

If we don't agree on basic facts like these, I don't see why we should continue this conversation. If we agree on such basic facts, it's clear it's not Ukraine at fault.

Putin's Undeclared War: Summer 2014 - Russian Artillery Strikes against Ukraine - bellingcat

Translations:English (UK)Русский (Россия)Download full report  Скачать полную версию доклада  Click here for a one-minute introductory map tour that gives the main findings and context of this report.

^{Sean Case (bellingcat)}

@liilliil @midgephoto so, Russia sent troops there in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, where it promised to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty.

It then stirred up a conflict in Donbas, and then became a "neutral" guarantor of the Minks Agreements.

And then sent more troops into Donbas.

And then began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, almost encircling Kyiv, and broadcasted rhetoric claiming Ukraine is not a real country, Ukrainians are not a real nation, and so on.

Dunno, difficult to say!

@liilliil @midgephoto seriously though, I don't care if it's "maniacal" or whatever else. Kremlin's goal in this war was to make Ukraine into a Russian client state again, one way or another. It's visible in their actions, their words, the narratives they push out into the world.

Again, you may disagree, but by your responses in this thread, you never really engaged with this topic honestly.

I provided plenty of receipts for what I was talking about. I think we're done here.

no, it's not the same name. Just as "Kiev" is not the same name as "Kyiv".

If a person tells you they prefer to be referred to in a particular way, instead of the way you referred to them before, you apologize and comply.

Same with a polity that tells you that they prefer to use their own spelling of their capital city, rather than that of their invader and colonizer.

But that, of course, requires some minimal amount of respect towards the person – or the polity.

@ciaranmak your beef is with @liilliil here, who first brought Georgia up in this thread.

@iju @midgephoto

somewhere else I had linked to Timothy Snyder's phenomenal deep-dive lectures about the history of Ukraine. But I will link to that again, as it is such an amazing resource:
youtube.com/watch?v=nLfFmYWjHt…

And that's one of the main points he's making (and providing ample receipts for).

@liilliil @midgephoto

Timothy Snyder: The Making of Modern Ukraine. Class 23. the Colonial, the Post-Colonial, the Global

How does all this tie together? Class 23 brings the effects of the past century of imperialism into sharp focus.Timothy Snyder is the Richard C. Levin Profes...

^YouTube