Ukraine War

[SKJ 1322]

19 hours ago, Hermanator said:

At this point the overwhelming evidence shows it's human nature. Our soldiers did the same in Vietnam and other conflicts when the leadership faltered. Same as soldiers from every army around the world going back as far as history is recorded and most likely since the dawn of mankind. Humans as a species are wired fucked up and probably due to the evolutionary demands of survival in a truly hostile world.

Oh... so it's okay then? 

Shut the fuck up you fucking rape apologist

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, SKJ said:

Oh... so it's okay then? 

Shut the fuck up you fucking rape apologist

Wow,  Is my sar-caz-o-meter 2000 on the fritz ?

[Nivek 17415]

Wow,  Is my sar-caz-o-meter 2000 on the fritz ?

Probably, everyone knows it’s all Snarkcasam 5000 up in this place. It’s got ball bearings.

[Hornius Emeritus 12806]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Wow,  Is my sar-caz-o-meter 2000 on the fritz ?

I don't think your sarcasm meter is on the fritz. I think skj is being serious and that he really believes that Hermanator was apologizing for rapists.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Hornius Emeritus

[Nivek 17415]

On 4/9/2022 at 8:07 AM, TwiceHorn said:

This is an interesting topic.
James Jones' The Thin Red Line is not only taken from a Kipling poem but is an allusion to the temporary psychopathy of the combat soldier (they cross the thin red line between sanity and insanity) that underlies much of the novel, based on Jones' combat experience.
I'm not sure the Russian character or even the rabble that may be Russian conscripts necessarily leads to atrocities.  But I am sure the lack of NCO leadership does.  Additionally, rape is about power, according to all the psychologist types, and not about sex.  I imagine that being a Russian conscript is about as powerless as it gets.

I actually wonder if it is encouraged within the Russian military. The attacks on children or ramping up abuses and mass killing seems to be coordinated and intended.

It really is strange they would leave their dead almost as doctrine while they make moves  to use heavy equipment to mass bury Ukrainians.

This might not be in the Soldiers manual, but rather just part of the unnamed rules and rituals that are engrained and passed down.

Combined with the coordinated looting and efforts to mail home spoils is pretty fucked up. I understand nicking a watch and some jewelry, but stealing appliances seems way over the top and a total waste of Russian resources. But I guess without structure you mentioned, they are a bit lawless and there is no incentive to remain any humanity within their armed forces and quite possibly the opposite is true.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Nivek

[SKJ 1322]

21 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

The Thin Red Line was the first realistic war novel I ever read. It's fantastic. From Here to Eternity probably was the mythical Great American Novel prior to the end of WWII IMHO. It's a novel of so much more breadth than the very good movie made of it.

ps Forgot to mention that I didn't know the thin red line reference other than Kippling. Thanks for that.

Journey to the End of the Night was my favorite war novel.  I would highly suggest it. 

[SKJ 1322]

12 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I don't think your sarcasm meter is on the fritz. I think skj is being serious and that he really believes that Hermanator was apologizing for rapists.

In my defense,  I was a little drunk last night.  

I absolutely thought he was serious.  

My bad. 

[Sawbonz 28229]

12 hours ago, Caponata said:

 

The Russians could withdraw unilaterally 

[Sawbonz 28229]

War is peace

 

am I doing that right?

[Hermanator 7674]

7 hours ago, SKJ said:

Oh... so it's okay then? 

Shut the fuck up you fucking rape apologist

I'm speaking about psychology here, something I've devoted my professional life towards. Humans as a species were designed in a fucked up way, or evolved in a fucked up way, most likely to achieve survival of the species in a world and environment that is hostile towards them. Things like rape, murder, and other horrific acts aren't the design or the desired traits of human evolution but are instead unwanted byproducts from traits necessary to survival of the species such as aggression. 

So no, I wasn't condoning the acts. I was explaining that they're not an issue of Russian genes as the poster I responded to asked. They're a byproduct of human evolution and have been present throughout every army in all of human history and require strong and moral leadership and harsh punishment to curtail. When moral leadership isn't present, as in the case with this Russian army, these atrocities will always occur. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Hermanator

[jimmyjazz 47221]

18 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

So no, I wasn't condoning the acts. I was explaining that they're not an issue of Russian genes as the poster I responded to asked. They're a byproduct of human evolution

How would you weight the "nurture" aspect (nature VS nurture)?  The seeming ease with which Russian soldiers rape and torture could be learned, no?

Some American GIs in Viet Nam (among other places) have committed similar atrocities.  Those actions have been almost universally criticized by most Americans.

[Nivek 17415]

I'm speaking about psychology here, something I've devoted my professional life towards. Humans as a species were designed in a fucked up way, or evolved in a fucked up way, most likely to achieve survival of the species in a world and environment that is hostile towards them. Things like rape, murder, and other horrific acts aren't the design or the desired traits of human evolution but are instead unwanted byproducts from traits necessary to survival of the species such as aggression. 
So no, I wasn't condoning the acts. I was explaining that they're not an issue of Russian genes as the poster I responded to asked. They're a byproduct of human evolution and have been present throughout every army in all of human history and require strong and moral leadership and harsh punishment to curtail. When moral leadership isn't present, as in the case with this Russian army, these atrocities will always occur. 

I don’t think it is accidental. The Japanese and Germans use of Joy Divisions were not just some evolutionary development but rather a matter of policy and the systematic rape and murder is an act of terror to spread fear not unlike Vlad’s impalements.

It does get pretty sad to read that the first international prosecutions for war rape, was in the 1990s and it was in the late 1940s that the international laws were established.

So none of those bastards were prosecuted for the “comfort women” or joy divisions.

[Foosters 18285]

17 hours ago, Caponata said:

 

Your brain is permanently broken. Good luck with that.

[RomaVicta 30604]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How would you weight the "nurture" aspect (nature VS nurture)?  The seeming ease with which Russian soldiers rape and torture could be learned, no?

Some American GIs in Viet Nam (among other places) have committed similar atrocities.  Those actions have been almost universally criticized by most Americans.

I have now heard military commentators saying that brutality was written into Russia's plan for the war according to US intelligence. I'd heard that alluded to, but I hadn't seen the whole story. That does differentiate this round of atrocities from the policies of most disciplined armies.

As for "universal" criticism of American atrocities, I'm not so sure about that. The My Lai debate in the US had a huge number of Americans arguing justification due to enemy tactics or outright denial. Calley got off remarkably lightly. We were dumping napalm all over the place which is a pretty horrible weapon in an insurgent war.

We don't promote it, and we're not proud of it, but we do atrocious things in war. Look how we rationalize our errent bombings of weddings, suspicious gatherings of automobiles, and the ROE that says anybody within a hundred feet of a targeted terrorist can be considered a hostile. 

I'm not saying we're the same as the Russians now or the Japanese when they conquered Asia. Not by a long shot. But we do let ourselves off the hook a little too easily with the whole American Exceptionalism thing.

[jimmyjazz 47221]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm not saying we're the same as the Russians now or the Japanese when they conquered Asia. Not by a long shot.

Pretty much my point, although I do think it's a reasonable question to ask whether the ease with which broad swaths of infantry are willing to commit atrocities is a product of societal mores as opposed to genetic/hereditary differences.

 

Quote

But we do let ourselves off the hook a little too easily with the whole American Exceptionalism thing.

Absolutely no disagreement there.

Edited April 10, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[immamac 44382]

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I have now heard military commentators saying that brutality was written into Russia's plan for the war according to US intelligence. I'd heard that alluded to, but I hadn't seen the whole story. That does differentiate this round of atrocities from the policies of most disciplined armies.

As for "universal" criticism of American atrocities, I'm not so sure about that. The My Lai debate in the US had a huge number of Americans arguing justification due to enemy tactics or outright denial. Calley got off remarkably lightly. We were dumping napalm all over the place which is a pretty horrible weapon in an insurgent war.

We don't promote it, and we're not proud of it, but we do atrocious things in war. Look how we rationalize our errent bombings of weddings, suspicious gatherings of automobiles, and the ROE that says anybody within a hundred feet of a targeted terrorist can be considered a hostile. 

I'm not saying we're the same as the Russians now or the Japanese when they conquered Asia. Not by a long shot. But we do let ourselves off the hook a little too easily with the whole American Exceptionalism thing.

If we were doing what Russia is doing now to Mexico there would be an all out civil war.

I've been vocal in this thread about operation Iraqi freedom being pretty fucked up, but Saddam was an actual proven shitbag, but what we did was all kinds of against every international law. It wasn't good for America and no one looks back fondly at our time in either iraq or Afghanistan. After all the dust settled we didn't bring much more stability to that region, but we sure as fuck got them natural resources and pumped up the war and industrial machine. That was not this. I think it started out very similarly, but the shift in rhetoric to genocide and the provable mass execution and civilian targeting makes this apples and oranges. 

Americans aren't at all innocent of rape, civilian murder and massacres in our history, but it wasn't a circumstance of deliberate eradication of an ethnic group which is an important distinction, not a justification. Americans have also never had to deal with real time reporting of atrocities and most of the ones that have been confirmed weren't even widely discovered until years to decades after the fact, again not a justification, but it's a lot harder to actively protest when it happened 10 years ago. 

[Captainant 28565]

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

If we were doing what Russia is doing now to Mexico there would be an all out civil war.

Counterpoint: if the only news we had in this country was fox and OANN, and the government attacked everything else as fake news and prosecuted those who said anything else, as it is in Russia... I dont think there would be any issue.

The complete strangle hold that putin has on information in the public discourse, and his mechanisms to label and prosecute """fake news""" are enough to manufacture consent. For now, at least.

[immamac 44382]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Counterpoint: if the only news we had in this country was fox and OANN, and the government attacked everything else as fake news and prosecuted those who said anything else, as it is in Russia... I dont think there would be any issue.

The complete strangle hold that putin has on information in the public discourse, and his mechanisms to label and prosecute """fake news""" are enough to manufacture consent. For now, at least.

Not true. Twitter Facebook TikTok telegram all say hi. If you want to argue that there wouldn't be a precursor civil war by repealing the first amendment then that's a whole different "what if" - we just went through 4 years of pretty close to anything not favorable being fake news, including a fair election. Twitter played an ENORMOUS part in how Jan 6th went down, as did surly and hundreds of other sites where people could get real time information. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19307]

50 minutes ago, immamac said:

Not true. Twitter Facebook TikTok telegram all say hi. If you want to argue that there wouldn't be a precursor civil war by repealing the first amendment then that's a whole different "what if" - we just went through 4 years of pretty close to anything not favorable being fake news, including a fair election. Twitter played an ENORMOUS part in how Jan 6th went down, as did surly and hundreds of other sites where people could get real time information. 

Except Putin has shut down access to those and criminalized dissent.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20930]

35 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Except Putin has shut down access to those and criminalized dissent.

He may have criminalized dissent but he has not shut down access to those. He's tried but, of course, it's impossible to actually do so. 

 

[AnTiM 1695]

 

Didn't see this posted, done for Ukraine after he said he would never sing it.

Edited April 10, 2022 by AnTiM

[atomheartbevo 90656]

5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

How would you weight the "nurture" aspect (nature VS nurture)?  The seeming ease with which Russian soldiers rape and torture could be learned, no?

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I have now heard military commentators saying that brutality was written into Russia's plan for the war according to US intelligence. I'd heard that alluded to, but I hadn't seen the whole story. That does differentiate this round of atrocities from the policies of most disciplined armies.

I'd almost say both are equal at this point.  It's definitely a product of Russian/Soviet/Russian society as a whole and while it started out as nurture, there's a point at which it becomes so ingrained in society that it becomes nature for all intents and purposes.  We have a century or Russians/Soviets shitting on each other, reducing various groups (whether defined by political ideology or simply a geographical or ethnic distinction) to almost subhuman caricatures of themselves, to the point where the deliberate starvation of millions was accepted, where assassination or incarceration of various people/groups of people was accepted as the norm.

We saw it on a massive scale in WWII against the Germans.  We saw it in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

We've seen it in recent years in Chechnya and Syria, and we've seen such acts perpetrated by their proxies, such as the Wagoner group, which is headed by somebody who literally has Nazi tattoos.  

And we are now seeing it in Ukraine, with the Russian government trying to reduce the Ukrainians to subhumans by claiming they are Nazis, that there is no such thing as Ukrainians, etc., and this policy is being carried out through the widespread and utter destruction of civilian infrastructure (and civilians themselves).  When a Russian soldier sees his own government trying to kill Ukrainian civilians on a massive scale, it's easy for him to say "fuck it, this person I torture or rape will just be dead soon anyways, killed by a bomb or a missile or an artillery shell, so why not me?  And it's their fault I'm here anyways, they need to suffer."

Edit: And this is backed up by state media claiming that Ukraine does not exist, that there are no Ukrainians, that they are just Russians who hate Russia.

Edited April 11, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

1 hour ago, AnTiM said:

 

Didn't see this posted, done for Ukraine after he said he would never sing it.

Thanks for posting. That was first rate. 

[jimmyjazz 47221]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Thanks for posting. That was first rate. 

It really was.  That song always gets me.  I can't ever decide if it's naive or prophetic . . . or both?

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It really was.  That song always gets me.  I can't ever decide if it's naive or prophetic . . . or both?

I’d say it’s imaginative.

It’s wishful thinking and we’ll never live in that world. Imagining it won’t bring it into existence but it can affect our point of view. Just imagine. 

[Anastasis 23723]

5 hours ago, immamac said:

Not true. Twitter Facebook TikTok telegram all say hi. If you want to argue that there wouldn't be a precursor civil war by repealing the first amendment then that's a whole different "what if" - we just went through 4 years of pretty close to anything not favorable being fake news, including a fair election. Twitter played an ENORMOUS part in how Jan 6th went down, as did surly and hundreds of other sites where people could get real time information. 

good to see you really keeping this thread on topic in a consistent way. 

[immamac 44382]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

good to see you really keeping this thread on topic in a consistent way. 

discussing how real time information makes this conflict completely different and much more transparent for genocide is definitely keeping the thread on topic. Nice try - sorry I didn't derail it by constantly personally attacking people and not addressing questions head on. 

 

[jimmyjazz 47221]

14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’d say it’s imaginative.

It’s wishful thinking and we’ll never live in that world. Imagining it won’t bring it into existence but it can affect our point of view. Just imagine. 

As someone brought up in the church, I see it first and foremost as challenging the idea that religion is the only path to peace.  The older I get, the more I agree.  Make of that what you will.

[Anastasis 23723]

9 minutes ago, immamac said:

discussing how real time information makes this conflict completely different and much more transparent for genocide is definitely keeping the thread on topic. Nice try - sorry I didn't derail it by constantly personally attacking people and not addressing questions head on. 

 

Some context is more relevant than other context. Got it. 

[AnTiM 1695]

When I first heard Lennon sing "Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too", I thought he was a heretic, as did many others.  What I have seen since then changed my mind.

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

As someone brought up in the church, I see it first and foremost as challenging the idea that religion is the only path to peace.  The older I get, the more I agree.  Make of that what you will.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that as you get older you agree that religion is the only path to peace? Or that you agree with the idea that religion is anything but the path to peace? Religion poisons everything. Count me on the side that says religion isn’t a good thing. I also know it’s unavoidable because we’re superstitious people prone to hallucination. The best we can hope for is to get people to think and maybe they won’t take it so seriously. Now that’s wishful thinking.

Speaking of John Lennon, though, I found a link to an interview he did for Playboy in 1980, published in ‘81 a month after his death. It’s pretty good.

http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1980.jlpb.beatles.html

[TwiceHorn 32083]

6 hours ago, Nivek said:

I don’t think it is accidental. The Japanese and Germans use of Joy Divisions were not just some evolutionary development but rather a matter of policy and the systematic rape and murder is an act of terror to spread fear not unlike Vlad’s impalements.

It does get pretty sad to read that the first international prosecutions for war rape, was in the 1990s and it was in the late 1940s that the international laws were established.

So none of those bastards were prosecuted for the “comfort women” or joy divisions.

I suspect that the relative novelty of war crime laws and prosecutions has more to do with the emergence of international treaties and tribunals than much else.  I guess you could argue that that in itself was a "moral epiphany."

Prior to the Geneva Convention and related developments, "to the victor went the spoils," and I don't think victors had much stomach for prosecuting their own soldiers outside of "battlefield justice."

And I think better reportage and publication of reportage of the events of war, along with photographs, starting in the latter 19th century, forced more civilian leadership to confront the horrors and helped spur it all along.

Edited April 11, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

9 minutes ago, AnTiM said:

When I first heard Lennon sing "Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too", I thought he was a heretic, as did many others.  What I have seen since then changed my mind.

And no Heaven or Hell. He wasn’t popular with Christian folk, especially after he made that comment about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus. They had record-burning parties. 

[jimmyjazz 47221]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that as you get older you agree that religion is the only path to peace? Or that you agree with the idea that religion is anything but the path to peace?

Neither.  I'm saying that religion is not the only path to peace.  My faith . . . wanes.

[Hermanator 7674]

7 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

How would you weight the "nurture" aspect (nature VS nurture)?  The seeming ease with which Russian soldiers rape and torture could be learned, no?

Some American GIs in Viet Nam (among other places) have committed similar atrocities.  Those actions have been almost universally criticized by most Americans.

It's a product of both. Morality is a human construct so it's parameters are decided by each civilization. The human nature aspect is present but if a society deems such acts against outsiders by their invading army as morally acceptable then it's army will willingly do them en masse without many moral qualms or dissonance. There will be dissenters but rhey will be in the minority.

If it's neither condoned nor discouraged then you will have groups of people who will commit the acts and others won't but most who don't will turn a blind eye if the leadership is turning a blind eye. 

In order to limit these atrocities from happening  the leadership has to have a strict line against it and display willingness to punish those who commit them. Russia obviously doesn't. I believe it says a lot about Russian culture but it's not unique to Russian culture. 

[Hermanator 7674]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Neither.  I'm saying that religion is not the only path to peace.  My faith . . . wanes.

Religion can be a tool for indoctrination of a moral code on a society but the problem with religion is people throughout history just keep creating new ones, and they have taken on an adversarial existence with each other. Some religions will stress peace and harmony with others outside the religion while others preach indoctrination and violence against outsiders. Without one universal human religion and moral code it's just a giant cluster fuck. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

Look. Executing civilians is wrong. BUT I HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR GAS!

https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/crime/pennsylvania-man-arrested-for-allegedly-putting-antibiden-sticker-on-gas-pumps/ar-AAW4CXs?ocid=sapphireappshare

"A police complaint said Glazewski had to be placed in the police vehicle by force."

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Neither.  I'm saying that religion is not the only path to peace.  My faith . . . wanes.

Religion is just a good way to divide the world into “us” and “them.”

The weird thing about Russian atrocities in Ukraine is that they seem like they’re the same “us.” All war crimes are bad but it’s a little easier to understand how Americans could react to watching their friends getting killed and think of their enemies in Southeast Asia or the Middle East as less than human because they were physically and culturally so different. In Ukraine, I’ve heard it described that that old woman’s babushka looks just like the one a Russian soldier’s grandma wears. Their churches look the same. Their people look the same. In fact Putin’s whole rationale for the invasion is that they’re not separate. So in effect he’s killing who he thinks are his own people. That’s a different animal. 

[jimmyjazz 47221]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Religion is just a good way to divide the world into “us” and “them.”

I don't think you further the discussion one bit by reducing "religion" to a talking point.  You may not understand the role of faith to a believer, but when you diminish it to the point where you are basically calling the believer a fool or (worse yet) a tool, you've already lost.

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

31 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

It's a product of both. Morality is a human construct so it's parameters are decided by each civilization. The human nature aspect is present but if a society deems such acts against outsiders by their invading army as morally acceptable then it's army will willingly do them en masse without many moral qualms or dissonance. There will be dissenters but rhey will be in the minority.

If it's neither condoned nor discouraged then you will have groups of people who will commit the acts and others won't but most who don't will turn a blind eye if the leadership is turning a blind eye. 

In order to limit these atrocities from happening  the leadership has to have a strict line against it and display willingness to punish those who commit them. Russia obviously doesn't. I believe it says a lot about Russian culture but it's not unique to Russian culture. 

I’ll just never understand rape. I just wouldn’t have the capacity to get it up in order to commit an act of cruelty. I guess I’d be like Michael J. Fox in Casualties of War. 

[Hermanator 7674]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’ll just never understand rape. I just wouldn’t have the capacity to get it up in order to commit an act of cruelty. I guess I’d be like Michael J. Fox in Casualties of War. 

There's no way to get this data but I'd like to know the percentage of Russian soldiers committing these acts. Is it a large percentage? Or is it the normal "deviant" percentage that exists in every society but they're left unchecked by leadership and allowed to run amok? 

There's no consensus on this but I tend to believe humans who desire to engage in aggressively violent sexual acts are less common and fall more under the deviant range. As opposed to physical violence and aggression which every human alive has inside them and most humans if left unchecked could elevate to the level of murder under the right circumstances. 

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think you further the discussion one bit by reducing "religion" to a talking point.  You may not understand the role of faith to a believer, but when you diminish it to the point where you are basically calling the believer a fool or (worse yet) a tool, you've already lost.

Religion poisons everything. Don’t tell me I don’t know the role of faith to the believer. How dare you? You don’t know me or my family. I’ve seen it firsthand, up close and personal.

There’s nothing to win or lose so I haven’t “already lost” and it’s silly to frame it that way. Fuck off with that shit. 

[jimmyjazz 47221]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Religion poisons everything. Don’t tell me I don’t know the role of faith to the believer. How dare you? You don’t know me or my family. I’ve seen it firsthand, up close and personal.

There’s nothing to win or lose so I haven’t “already lost” and it’s silly to frame it that way. Fuck off with that shit. 

Yeah, you lost.  Fuck off with your shit.  I'm out.

[B00M 6734]

On 4/9/2022 at 8:47 PM, Caponata said:

 

Wait this wasn't posted in jest or to highlight her stupidity? You agree with that argument?

[Huckleberry 34684]

10 minutes ago, B00M said:

Wait this wasn't posted in jest or to highlight her stupidity? You agree with that argument?

From the very beginning of Russia's invasion he immediately began questioning any pro-Ukraine propaganda while attempting to spread Russian propaganda. 

The best possibility for him would be that he's just a very, very stupid person. 

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, you lost.  Fuck off with your shit.  I'm out.

Promise?

[Gatorubet 30727]

17 hours ago, SKJ said:

Oh... so it's okay then? 

Shut the fuck up you fucking rape apologist

Surly obligatory:

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Religion is just a good way to divide the world into “us” and “them.”

The weird thing about Russian atrocities in Ukraine is that they seem like they’re the same “us.” All war crimes are bad but it’s a little easier to understand how Americans could react to watching their friends getting killed and think of their enemies in Southeast Asia or the Middle East as less than human because they were physically and culturally so different. In Ukraine, I’ve heard it described that that old woman’s babushka looks just like the one a Russian soldier’s grandma wears. Their churches look the same. Their people look the same. In fact Putin’s whole rationale for the invasion is that they’re not separate. So in effect he’s killing who he thinks are his own people. That’s a different animal. 

There are two layers to this war. There is Russia vs Ukraine on top and bubbling under that a vicious, Balkans-style civil war, just as in the American Civil War, you had some areas like the Appalachians and Bleeding Kansas / Missouri where the rules were different and the war far, far more brutal. 

Also, there is a real vanity of small differences issue with the Slavic people. There was a considerable schism once in the Russian Orthodox church over whether believers should cross themselves with three fingers or two. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

31 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

There are two layers to this war. There is Russia vs Ukraine on top and bubbling under that a vicious, Balkans-style civil war, just as in the American Civil War, you had some areas like the Appalachians and Bleeding Kansas / Missouri where the rules were different and the war far, far more brutal. 

Also, there is a real vanity of small differences issue with the Slavic people. There was a considerable schism once in the Russian Orthodox church over whether believers should cross themselves with three fingers or two. 

This is not civil war. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Civil War is armed conflict within one country with multiple opposing forces fighting for control of that country, that is not what’s going on in Ukraine.

Russia has invaded Ukraine. End of Story.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Onboard 2.0

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19307]

28 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

There are two layers to this war. There is Russia vs Ukraine on top and bubbling under that a vicious, Balkans-style civil war, just as in the American Civil War, you had some areas like the Appalachians and Bleeding Kansas / Missouri where the rules were different and the war far, far more brutal. 

Also, there is a real vanity of small differences issue with the Slavic people. There was a considerable schism once in the Russian Orthodox church over whether believers should cross themselves with three fingers or two. 

Your takes continue to be like warmed over dogshit.  Just stop already.