Shikanosuke wrote:As I doubt this is a vague reference to the world, I think you simply mean James and I. I don't believe either one of us really been very (relative) aggressive in this particular thread. As for your latter statement, I disagree.
For the first part - fair enough.
For the second part - what are they? I'm curious, particularly about why one violent revolution (on the Maidan) gets a free pass, while another (in Donetsk and Lugansk) does not.
Shikanosuke wrote:Not being justification for subsequent events, not being 'not justified'. I typically am able to admit when I'm wrong, hypocritical, or applying a double-standard. But I'm also not going to agree that situations are identical either. How do I expect you to react? Not like we're out hunting communists and you're in the line of fire.
Here's the thing. I do not expect anyone to be responsible for a crime, besides the one who actually carries it out. In hostage situations, we don't blame negotiators for hostage deaths, we blame the hostage-takers, yes?
So when the Ukrainian 'army' is shelling mostly civilian targets, that same army is to blame for any related deaths. I don't blame the Ukrainian 'army' for fighting back against armed protesters, but it seems ludicrous to blame armed protesters for civilian deaths which they are not responsible for.
If we are to take your standard that all 'subsequent events' are the responsibility for those who picked up guns in the first place, that the civilian deaths ought to have been foreseen by the protesters in Donetsk and Lugansk, I can see no reason why we shouldn't apply that same standard even more broadly. All of these deaths can therefore be laid at the feet of the Maidan protesters, who ought to have understood that violent confrontation was inevitable when they stormed government buildings, shot and immolated police, and drove out Yanukovych. No?
It just struck me as incredibly weird that you were sort of passing the buck to a certain point and no further. And then the entire language of 'justification', applied in such a broad and unqualified manner, was kind of off-putting. Like I said, I'm not a pacifist - I can see that there are situations where violence can be justifiable; it was wrong of me to come at you with that much suspicion and assumption of antagonism, and I'm sorry about that. I still want to know where you think the line can be drawn, though.
Shikanosuke wrote:I can't speak for all of the West and I have little control over Western media. I don't think I've been ambivalent about calling out Nazis in the new Ukrainian government. I don't think I've been ambivalent about my concern over them. I don't think I've been ambivalent about not wanting to go to war over this. I also think since the discussion began I've even agreed I'd rather see Ukraine serve as a (united) buffer state, part of neither Russia nor NATO.
That said, I think one can be all these things and still have concerns over Russia's actions and intentions. I think one can have those concerns and not be considering Russia is about to blitzkrieg across Europe, that they're evil, or that we need immediate lethal action?
All of which is reasonable enough. I don't want to get into another scuffle over this, so I'm not going to go picking through your prior posts; I'll take your word for it that this is an accurate representation of your views.
But I simply don't share your view of the released NATO photographs as signifying a concerted aggressive action on the part of Russia's government. (I can well believe, however, that there are Russian citizens, veterans and even local government officials who are abetting the funnelling of arms and logistical support into the hands of the Novorussians. But I think Putin, even if he wants to do it, understands that direct involvement would easily blow up in his face.)