20 thoughts on “Good Luck With That”

  1. Ukrainian propandist alleges Russian war crimes. Nobel Peace prize winner. That should tell you all you need to know.

    1. “…alleges Russian war crimes.”

      Gee, do you think all those Ukrainian civilians in Bucha, Kherson, and Kharkiv tortured themselves and also shot themselves in the back of their heads?

        1. dig deeper, find out what really happened.

          Western propagandists no doubt parachuted behind Russian lines and generated false flag operations for fake news.

          How about we do this? You clearly have dug deeper, right? Link to the results of that digging and we can determine how serious you really are.

        2. No deep digging needed. The mass graves are pretty shallow.

          I’m a bit surprised you’ve shown up here again. Previously, it was massive Russian losses and Ukrainian victories that we were supposed to disbelieve. How’d that work out for you? Now, you’ve graduated to war crimes denial. Dig all the way to China if you would – the truth is still the truth.

          1. If you had bothered to dig rather than make snarky remarks, you could have found out those were ukrainian soldiers killed on the battlefield that the retreating Ukies didn’t pick up.

          2. that the retreating Ukies didn’t pick up.

            Sounds like an interesting narrative there. For me, the big war crime is the Russian invasion itself with incredibly flimsy and changing rationalizations and no attempt made to negotiate. But there’s also the massacres and destruction of civil infrastructure. Finally, there’s the sham referendums. Those will never be a legal pretext for annexation.

            But of course, let’s talk about some slanted interpretation of a single complaint as if that dismisses the whole of Russia’s war crimes.

          3. If you had bothered to dig rather

            Why are others required to confirm your vague, anonymous, and unsupported assertions? If they choose not to, then why does that imply the truth of what you assert? And why do you assume with certainty that someone who has a different viewpoint did not “dig”, and because of that, they found information that refutes your assertions?

            If your goal is to persuade, then it is up to you to present your information and sources and then require others to rebut that information and discredit those sources. That you cannot provide even a minimum of support leads people who are not inclined to think as you do to that you have no such information. (And Gnostic “secret knowledge” is “useless knowledge”.)

  2. Any justice Ukraine wants will have to come on the battlefield, as is tradition. Indignities forced on the other side come through the ability to enforce them.

    1. Russia has the “Nuke Veto”, like Mainland China, and threatening them with ‘War Crimes’ is a non-starter because they don’t care.

      1. All of which of course, belies the joke that “Nuclear Non-Proliferation” is.

        One interesting approach I once heard proposed was to ban the existence of all nuclear devices and their stockpile but instead preserve the means to produce them. Then if a war broke out the belligerents could race back to making them in order to avoid surrender. To me, this only would make nuclear war MORE likely because you’ve effectively removed the deterrent, made the world safe for WWII again, right up until the first nation to obtain nukes then deploys them and wins. Why would you want to repeat WWII?

        Nuclear deterrence demonstrates daily the morality of immorality.

    2. I suspect if we gave the Ukrainians a few long-range rockets and allowed them to target matching Russian infrastructure that tactic would end in a hurry.

      1. Or give them the means to target the military locations in Belarus and Russia where Russia is launching those attacks. Those are legitimate military targets.

  3. Great! Lets start with Bill Clinton, who traded the Ukrainians nuclear weapons for the US’ assurance we would forever defend them from Russia.

  4. You lot are still ridiculously one-sided on this topic. Russia BAD, Ukraine good. There have been great wrongs done but Ukraine was never the innocent victim. How about holding them responsible for all of their crimes?

    1. Ukraine is not an innocent victim nor is it a nuclear power, and it pays that price daily. Maybe a prosecution by the ICC after the war is over? Serbia was forced to pay that price too, Croatia? Not so much.

      1. Ukraine is not an innocent victim nor is it a nuclear power, and it pays that price daily.

        I think there’s a huge misunderstanding of what “innocent” means. Legally, it’s always in context of an accusation of wrongdoing. A murderer falsely accused of mugging is innocent of mugging even though they are guilty of murder.

        Here, we have yet to hear what Ukraine supposedly is guilty of that justifies even slightly this war. It doesn’t matter that they’re corrupt or have neo-nazis. That’s irrelevant to the war. This lack of justification along with Russia’s refusal to attempt sincere negotiation before the war and the breaking of treaty where Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity are the chief Russian war crimes – entering into unlawful war.

        1. To say that the unlawful war itself is the chief war crime is to diminish all of the violations of Geneva and human rights abuses in which Russia has been engaging since the illegal war started. It could have started an illegal war without the destruction of critical infrastructure, torture, kidnapping, and murder of civilians.

          1. To say that the unlawful war itself is the chief war crime is to diminish all of the violations of Geneva and human rights abuses in which Russia has been engaging since the illegal war started.

            Only if those crimes were greater. They are not. All those crimes come from the fundamental decisions to invade Ukraine (both in 2014 and present).

            It could have started an illegal war without the destruction of critical infrastructure, torture, kidnapping, and murder of civilians.

            War crimes really need a war. My take is once the shooting starts some war crime such as what you describe follows, if only from opportunity and expedience. Here, can you really say that what present, heinous, conscious choices Russian leadership has made to encourage war crimes is worse than the fundamental harm of a massive war on Ukraine territory? We’re still talking a floor of hundreds of thousands of deaths, massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, global disruption of trade and food supplies, and occupation of Ukraine territory.

Comments are closed.