Le dimanĉo, 27-a de februaro 2022, 14-a horo kaj 51:08 CET Jean Louis a écrit :
> * Alexandre Garreau <galex-713@galex-713.eu> [2022-02-27 14:52]:
> > And I believe (if that can help) in the end the main and maybe
> > almost only responsible is Putin, everyone else was lied to or
> > threatened.
>
> I don't think so. Political situation in Ukraine is more complicated
> then what you state. It would be good if we could just accuse Putin to
> be the cause. But it is not cause.
I can imagine the sole willingful responsible is not putin, so like some high officials, generals, etc. must be responsible as well (on the other hand, i have the hidden hope many russian militaries, both low and high in hierarchy, purposedly act less competent in order to save lifes). But as I cannot know who is threatened by Putin or not (he perfectly looks like the type), I don’t judge, and limit to «Putin and the absence of democracy».
It is always «more complicated», but it doesn’t mean the stance has to be.
> You have to review history of Ukraine and how Germany installed
> organizations back in time, history of anti-semitism in Ukraine,
> including history of Ukrainian Nazism.
I know it’s kinda worse than here, but everytime I speak to ukrainians about it, it looks like it isn’t. So I guess this must be more complicated than that, up to the point it’s not that relevant anymore.
> I do not condone ANY war. I am against any wars.
but saying that is not sufficient when in contrast with the context you seem to
> > That’s likely right, but asking people sacrificing to people far
> > away is difficult, especially when a such war would have been
> > difficult to predict in advance, and totally ununderstandable once
> > it happened… it’s totally useless shit… Putin has just got mad.
>
> It was maybe for you individually difficult to predict. It was planned
> and manipulated since many years by West in order to minimize power of
> East. Ukrainian Nazis have been sponsored by US congress. Why would US
> congress sponsor Ukrainian Nazis?
Because they are stupid, they also sponsored daesh to get rid of war with alqaida, alqaida, nazis and talibans to get rid of communists, etc. and each time it turned back against them. «Why would they» is no proof, mere help to imagination of new hypothesis. Keep in mind Hanlon’s razor.
> I see and take US presidents, US congress, Western politicians and
> Putin; all together;
All together with south america, whole europe and great parts of Asia. Not forgetting almost no countries support the war, they mostly stay neutral or ignore the situation, for the rest.
> More references for people to get better understanding of recent
> history in Ukraine:
Azov bataillion is one batailion. It is a shame it has been officially tolerated and integrated, but in times of war of aggression even I wouldn’t be picky about support. and a mere batailion is no excuse for attacking kyiv. not for taking so many cities. and certainly NOT for bombing. Bombing necessarily is the risk of killing civilians (i have friends who had friends killed by a mere shockwave from a different building), and cannot be seen as a mere «attack under the bad guys», it is necessarily an indirect attack on a whole country. If you advocate to care for civilians, you never bomb inside cities. If you advocate to spare innocent lives (for instance conscripted, internship or young soldiers) you don’t bomb places with any human around.
There have already been bombing and killed civilians, so you’d need a really really really obvious and enormous justification for that, and you have none.
> > Also I believe to suffer standing for freedom is somewhat easier
> > psychologically than sitting in despair giving up… Ukrainians are
> > showing great pride and attachment to their freedom, although in
> > front of nato lack of help it would have been more logical to
> > surrender in front of a higher power…
>
> Majority of Ukrainians DO NOT WANT criminals such as terrorists of
> Azov Battalion operating in their country.
Before the conflict I would say «right», since the rise of far right I would say «idk», since beginning of war I’m pretty sure they totally don’t care.
> Thus "freedom" is related
> to peace,
Actually I disagree. Freedom, such as democracy, best operates in continuous (but nonviolent) conflict.
> Now Putin comes to "save people" -- what is there so much different
> than what US did in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, and many other countries?
None, and it is not hard to find people, even in US, opposing those wars of the US.
Btw it is already a sad and hard fact more russians have now been killed than over 5 years in syria, this is a good metrics they were lied to, and that ukrainians are not welcoming them. it’s not only azov that did that.
> > i don’t understand why nato doesn’t take the risk being bombed to
> > help ukrainians.
>
> Russia as country does not attack Ukrainians. Definitely not. There
> are innocent victims and I do not approve of that.
that’s a normal consequence of bombing, if they didn’t want that they wouldn’t bomb
> Their families are intertwined.
that’s why it’s so hard and painful
> I never was
> thinking of Ukrainian people as being so much different from
> Russians. It is very hard for me to think that "Russia" attacks
> "Ukrainian" for reasons of being Ukrainian.
it is putin’s army who attack the ukrainians that putin told to attack, based on lies
> What I see is that Russia is concerned for crimes in Ukraine not being
> handled by Ukrainian themselves; now they have military intervention.
>
> That Uganda has sent recently troops in Congo to fight rebels is very
> similar situation; one could simply say that Uganda occupied parts of
> Congo with purpose to exterminate rebels;
but the question is always «is congo officially fighting back against uganda?».
also no consent has ever been asked to russians for this war, and most of russians are against it. that’s largely sufficient alone to be against it.