A few things – for one, nothing is stopping Ukraine from negotiations with Russia. It’s their choice, and I support whatever they decide. No other country should be interceding on their behalf. It would be incredibly patronizing, imperialistic, and confirm Putin’s flawed casus belli that Ukraine has no true sovereignty. Now, if Ukraine were to directly ask the US or other countries to negotiate for them, that’s a different story.
Genocide is the appropriate term to use here. The atrocities in Mariupol speak for themselves. Additionally, Putin’s speech before the invasion insisted that Ukraine was historically Russian territory and that Ukraine had no strong independent cultural identity. Finally, Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children – and freely admitted to it. Administrators in RT have suggested drowning the children. All of these fall under genocide: indiscriminate civilian violence and mass graves in Mariupol, insisting Ukraine has no true culture nor national identity or sovereignty, and kidnapping Ukrainian children.
As for the endgame, how the war ends, and what should happen to Russia – I don’t know. I truly don’t. I strongly value the notion of sovereignty and that countries deserve to have self determination. Any resolution must respect that, and since Russia is denying that Ukraine should have that, I don’t see an easy end to the war. The Russian invasion force being repelled back into Russia is the most likely situation I think, which ends up causing the end of Putin’s regime, one way or another. And personally, I don’t think Donbas or Crimea or etc should be bargaining chips in a negotiation either. After the war, all Ukrainian and Russia soldiers need to retreat from the areas, while UN peacekeepers observe the vote for independence from Ukraine. I would support whatever was decided.
Not to mention, if Russia walks away with a benefit from the war, it rewards them for their invasion. That cannot be the case.
Genocide is the appropriate term to use here. The atrocities in Mariupol speak for themselves.
No it’s fucking not. The word genocide was created in the 50s as a response to the holocaust. It was invented to create a specific method of opposition to ethnic cleansing. The misuse of it by liberals who clearly have no idea what it means or how important it is to victims of the shoah helps holocaust deniers by diluting its meaning, hence why you are a soft holocaust denier in your misuse of it. I STRONGLY urge you to look up Raphael Lemkin who coined it, and its origins.
Atrocities are atrocities. Horrible things that happen. But genocide is VERY specific and refers to the aim to annihilate an ethnicity and we MUST keep that meaning to be sure that legislation we have won in the past preventing genocides does not become diluted to the point that this legislation gets removed for its antiquation.
Finally, Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children – and freely admitted to it.
This is one of those things that’s a mess. Moving children out of the fighting zone was objectively necessary. Would you prefer they not have been? What this has done however is create a narrative that can be used to maintain the “genocide” bullshit because it’s a pivotal pillar of the mindset liberals need to be kept in to maintain their support for the war.
Put it this way. If you did not believe genocide was occurring, then you would immediately have to reckon with the fact that the sooner this war stops the sooner people stop dying. It’s the cornerstone on which liberals maintain their hawkish support for more bloodshed, by convincing themselves they’re opposing a genocide by doing it they can maintain the belief that these hundreds of thousands of people would be killed by the Russians anyway if they did not fight.
This is nonsense of course. The war started in 2014, and Russia didn’t want anything to do with Donbas then. Ukraine had no army in 2014, when Russia took Crimea and could happily of taken Donbas without opposition. Ukraine having literally zero army back then is the reason the volunteer nazi battallions of Azov and Right Sector were the frontline against the Donbas rebellions at that time. Had Russia wanted this land, or to do genocide (for what purpose?) then would have been the time to do it. Instead what they engaged in was attempts to keep it Ukrainian while giving some political independence to the region (something like a devolved government, similar to Scotland as being part of the UK but also governing itself). They spent 8 years pursuing that before the war. You’ve read the Minsk agreements right?
The word genocide was created in the 50s as a response to the holocaust. It was invented to create a specific method of opposition to ethnic cleansing.
Not really.
The Polish jurist Raphaël Lemkin invented the term “genocide” in a book published in 1944 - not to describe what was later called the Holocaust, but to present the grievances and claims of exiled national groups [6]. Although some of these groups called themselves “governments in exile”, their status in 1940-45 was dependent on the Allies. In particular, the US and the USSR had the military power to re-allocate territory in Europe, and did, in 1945. Some nations disappeared in 1945: others might have. Lemkin’s evident political concern was to establish the permanent existence rights of nations, and to redirect the horror at Nazi atrocities into support for nationalism in Europe. That is propaganda: nationalist propaganda, substituting pro-nationalism for anti-fascism.
The term populicide would be better and less ambiguous when referring to a series of massacres against the same people. Unfortunately, it’s a much less common term.
Ok so… Are you just reinforcing the point I was making then? I can’t read context because the site is doing nothing whenever I click the context button. I literally can’t read up and see what this is about and since it’s like 2 weeks old now I’m just confused.
I’m like mega confused here. My position has always been that the misuse of the word genocide by libs is dangerous to its intended goal of protecting marginalised peoples and preventing another holocaust. I don’t know how exactly we disagree here.
A few things – for one, nothing is stopping Ukraine from negotiations with Russia. It’s their choice, and I support whatever they decide. No other country should be interceding on their behalf. It would be incredibly patronizing, imperialistic, and confirm Putin’s flawed casus belli that Ukraine has no true sovereignty. Now, if Ukraine were to directly ask the US or other countries to negotiate for them, that’s a different story.
Genocide is the appropriate term to use here. The atrocities in Mariupol speak for themselves. Additionally, Putin’s speech before the invasion insisted that Ukraine was historically Russian territory and that Ukraine had no strong independent cultural identity. Finally, Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children – and freely admitted to it. Administrators in RT have suggested drowning the children. All of these fall under genocide: indiscriminate civilian violence and mass graves in Mariupol, insisting Ukraine has no true culture nor national identity or sovereignty, and kidnapping Ukrainian children.
As for the endgame, how the war ends, and what should happen to Russia – I don’t know. I truly don’t. I strongly value the notion of sovereignty and that countries deserve to have self determination. Any resolution must respect that, and since Russia is denying that Ukraine should have that, I don’t see an easy end to the war. The Russian invasion force being repelled back into Russia is the most likely situation I think, which ends up causing the end of Putin’s regime, one way or another. And personally, I don’t think Donbas or Crimea or etc should be bargaining chips in a negotiation either. After the war, all Ukrainian and Russia soldiers need to retreat from the areas, while UN peacekeepers observe the vote for independence from Ukraine. I would support whatever was decided.
Not to mention, if Russia walks away with a benefit from the war, it rewards them for their invasion. That cannot be the case.
No it’s fucking not. The word genocide was created in the 50s as a response to the holocaust. It was invented to create a specific method of opposition to ethnic cleansing. The misuse of it by liberals who clearly have no idea what it means or how important it is to victims of the shoah helps holocaust deniers by diluting its meaning, hence why you are a soft holocaust denier in your misuse of it. I STRONGLY urge you to look up Raphael Lemkin who coined it, and its origins.
Atrocities are atrocities. Horrible things that happen. But genocide is VERY specific and refers to the aim to annihilate an ethnicity and we MUST keep that meaning to be sure that legislation we have won in the past preventing genocides does not become diluted to the point that this legislation gets removed for its antiquation.
This is one of those things that’s a mess. Moving children out of the fighting zone was objectively necessary. Would you prefer they not have been? What this has done however is create a narrative that can be used to maintain the “genocide” bullshit because it’s a pivotal pillar of the mindset liberals need to be kept in to maintain their support for the war.
Put it this way. If you did not believe genocide was occurring, then you would immediately have to reckon with the fact that the sooner this war stops the sooner people stop dying. It’s the cornerstone on which liberals maintain their hawkish support for more bloodshed, by convincing themselves they’re opposing a genocide by doing it they can maintain the belief that these hundreds of thousands of people would be killed by the Russians anyway if they did not fight.
This is nonsense of course. The war started in 2014, and Russia didn’t want anything to do with Donbas then. Ukraine had no army in 2014, when Russia took Crimea and could happily of taken Donbas without opposition. Ukraine having literally zero army back then is the reason the volunteer nazi battallions of Azov and Right Sector were the frontline against the Donbas rebellions at that time. Had Russia wanted this land, or to do genocide (for what purpose?) then would have been the time to do it. Instead what they engaged in was attempts to keep it Ukrainian while giving some political independence to the region (something like a devolved government, similar to Scotland as being part of the UK but also governing itself). They spent 8 years pursuing that before the war. You’ve read the Minsk agreements right?
Not really.
(Source.)
The term populicide would be better and less ambiguous when referring to a series of massacres against the same people. Unfortunately, it’s a much less common term.
Are we really quibbling over 6 years here? Being off by a handful of years on the date doesn’t materially change the point.
My point is that ‘genocide’ was not coined to refer to massacres. It’s become an ambiguous term.
Ok so… Are you just reinforcing the point I was making then? I can’t read context because the site is doing nothing whenever I click the context button. I literally can’t read up and see what this is about and since it’s like 2 weeks old now I’m just confused.
I… never mind.
?
I’m like mega confused here. My position has always been that the misuse of the word genocide by libs is dangerous to its intended goal of protecting marginalised peoples and preventing another holocaust. I don’t know how exactly we disagree here.