Russia Attacks Ukraine

[Diogenes]

For the first time since 1939 a major European power, Russia, has attacked another country in Europe, Ukraine. We have not seen an analogous situation since Germany attacked Poland setting off World War 2. Surprisingly we have Neville Chamberlain like appeasement/isolationist responses from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Besides the 180° turn from traditional Republican politics, to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

[AgnosticBoy]

And because there is no armed resistance. It's not a coincidence that BOTH statements are true.

Shelling noncombatants is a war crime regardless of how many of those statements are true or false.

Actually, some of that is debatable when it comes to human shields, especially voluntary human shields.

Voluntary human shields may be considered "direct participants in hostilities", if they shield targeted personnel or properties.

Source:Wikipedia

47 Nevertheless, there are a number of jurists who do take the view that acting as a voluntary human shield – that is, deliberately trying to ward off an attack on a military objective – is indeed tantamount to taking direct part in hostilities.48 It follows from this that voluntary human shields lose their protection as civilians because they are taking direct part in hostilities.49 According to this analysis, human shields are acting in exactly the same way as anti-aircraft defence systems, only more effectively.50 The High Court of Justice of Israel took a similar position in a recent judgment on targeted killings of ‘terrorists’, in which it examined the question of what the law is regarding civilians serving as a ‘human shield’. The Court found that ‘if they do so of their own free will, out of support for the terrorist organization, they should be seen as persons taking direct part in the hostilities’.51 Others do not share this view, claiming that it would be incorrect to state that people who place themselves voluntarily in front of a legitimate target are taking direct part in hostilities.52 Hostile acts do not necessarily involve the use of weapons and taking direct part in hostilities includes ‘attacks’.53 Attacks include offensive and defensive acts.54 It would therefore be possible to consider that voluntary human shields who place themselves unarmed in front of military objectives in order to ward off an attack, in other words to defend it, are taking direct part in hostilities.

Source: An analysis on international law from the Red Cross... (refer to pages 893 to 894)

In a civilian only area, the Russians would occupy it and not attack it.

You're justifying the leveling of residential areas based on a claim made by Russian officials that have been demonstrated to be lying about the war.

Saying that the Ukrainians are wrong in some cases, does not mean that Russia is right. In this case, BOTH are wrong and I've said that in my previous posts (e.g. post #170).

I think it's apparent that your assessment is biased. I tend to bring up people's biases because they can lead to unreasonable thinking/conclusions just as much as logical fallacies do. When someone is only interested in looking at the wrongs of ONE side, which is what you've done when it comes to this conflict, then you can't blame me for suspecting a clear bias on your part.

Even your own argument doesn't rely on military units intermixed with civilians, only that they're in the same city. If there were no defense of the city, they wouldn't be shelling civilians? That's exactly the argument behind total war.

Actually, I pointed to a clear case where civilians were hiding with armed resistance in an confined area, i.e. the steel plant areas in Mariupol. Either way, you should be questioning if this was observed as required under international law:

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.

Source: The Geneva Conventions

Again, armed men should NEVER locate themselves near civilians because of the very fact that it increases the risk for civilians to get caught in the crossfire. The steel plant in Mariupol should've been left to Ukrainian military alone, and the fact that it wasn't, is a wrong on Ukraine. Your counter that the Russians would've killed all civilians anyways is a faulty conclusion (it ignores international law), AND the fact that I've presented evidence of Russians not attacking civilian only areas.

In areas containing both civilians and armed resistance they would attack it because it is not a strictly civilian area when there is fighting or threats of it in the area.

How large is this area containing both? In order for your claim to be justified, troops must be intermixed with civilians across the entire city in a way that they cannot be meaningfully separated. Is that your claim?

I can only speak for the cases where there is evidence of civilians hiding with or near military personnel. In those cases, the Ukrainians military is in the wrong. I can't speak on the extent to which that is happening since I don't have all of the evidence.

Let's even look at this theoretically. If the Ukrainian military were stationed among civilians while having the choice to do otherwise, would that be a wrong on Ukraine? Or perhaps an even more basic question would if you believe that the Ukrainians capable of doing any wrong.

That's why I suggest that Ukrainian civilians shelter in areas AWAY from Ukranian fighters to increase their chance of surviving (not 100% guarantee but it's better than standing right next to a guy that's a target for Russian forces).

Again, that would be meaningful if the Russians weren't indiscriminately shelling residential areas already. They have been.

This assumes that the Ukrainian fighters weren't positioned among civilians. In cases where there's an entire city, I find it possible that Russia could occupy small amounts of city without resistance, and progress through the city until all resistance has ceased. I'd want to hear the Russian and Ukrainian side and then look at the evidence. That's what any honest investigator should do, otherwise that doesn't help international relations.

To satisfy your standard I'll just say that the Russians are shelling civilian areas to encourage capitulation of Ukranian fighters in those same areas.

The Russians are saying that, too.

What does that prove?

Now, of course, that doesn't support your original claim that the Russians are trying to kill civilians just as much as Ukrainian fighters.

The indiscriminate shelling of residential areas doesn't support my claim that the Russians are trying to kill civilians? I respectfully disagree no matter how many Russian officials tell me otherwise.

Then your assessment is biased for obvious reasons. Completely ignoring the Russians will not help international relations. I approach these matters as a NON-partisan.

Also, if this starts to become a Twitter style (trying to take sides or show that something is not popular) debate, then I respectfully decline to participate with you any further until it can be brought back to the better standards that I've enjoyed on this site.

Then we can just say that they are trying to get the Ukrainian fighters to stop resisting.

Shelling civilians to do so is a war crime.

I totally agree.

Again, that doesn't support your original claim about the Russians wanting to wipe out all of the unarmed populations just as they are doing with the armed populations.

Is that what my claim is now?

When you take issue with my claim that the Russians would not treat a civilian only area the same way that they would an area mixed with civilians and military or even just military, then I can only conclude that your claim is just as I stated it as. I'm not even claiming that my scenario works 100% of the time, but it would still reduce the chances of civilians getting killed. I'm open to the idea that Russia may even become more barbaric and even resort to using WMDs. I've brought up that scenario here and elsewhere.

It's not a civilian area if there are armed people there fighting against the Russians.

You haven't supported that the Ukrainian military is fighting from within residential areas. The Russian claim you repeated was that civilians were sheltering with troops.

I have supported my claims. To the contrary, you haven't supported that they are not fighting within residential areas in all cases. These things need to be established with independent investigators.

These fighters should not be anywhere near unarmed civilians, like children.

And yet you keep defending their actions as justified.

Are you trying to paint me as being a Russian supporter, perhaps to make me unpopular? My position has consistently been that I don't support any part of Russia's invasion.

[Diogenes]

A valid point that I hear from Russian officials is that some Ukranians officials/soldiers are positioning themselves amongst civilians. That seems to be true in Mariupol since there are reports of children hiding with Ukranian fighters. If so, then not only is this a wrong on Russia if the civilians die, but it should also the Ukranians should be held accountable.

Listening to Russian officials are we? These are the people who have invaded another country, lied about it constantly, claiming they're rooting out Nazis while Putin follows in Hitler's footsteps, and you want to blame the few remaining Ukrainian civilians for hiding with troops when they can't escape after their entire city has been bombed? No, your little "I'm not siding with the Russians" doesn't hold. You're repeating Russian propaganda.

Civilians died simply for the accident of where they lived, including those sheltering in a bombed theater with the word “children” painted across its front courtyard in a failed attempt to warn off Russian fighter jets.

The near-total leveling of a city has evoked the sieges of Aleppo, Syria, in the 2010s and Grozny, Chechnya, in the 1990s — but also the destruction of European cities from an age thought buried in the ashes of World War II....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... last-days/

When you have T. Carlson and others on Fox repeating Russian propaganda, this is understandable. For example:

Watching Fox News can be like entering an alternative universe. It’s a world where Vladimir Putin isn’t actually that bad, but vaccines may be, and where some unhinged rightwing figures are celebrated as heroes, but Anthony Fauci, America’s top public health official, is an unrivaled villain.

Given the steady stream of misinformation an avid Fox News consumer is subjected to, the viewers – predominantly elderly, white and Donald Trump-supporting – are sometimes written off as lost causes by Democrats and progressives, but according to a new study, there is still hope.
Rupert Murdoch. According to Burns and Martin, Jor Biden ‘assessed’ the media mogul to be ‘one of the most destructive forces in the United States’.
Biden finds Murdoch ‘most dangerous man in the world’, new book says
Read more

In an unusual, and labor intensive, project, two political scientists paid a group of regular Fox News viewers to instead watch CNN for a month. At the end of the period, the researchers found surprising results; some of the Fox News watchers had changed their minds on a range of key issues, including the US response to coronavirus and Democrats’ attitude to police.
....
Polls have previously shown that viewers of Fox News, the most-watched cable news channel in the US, are far more likely to believe the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen than the average American, and are more likely to believe falsehoods about Covid-19.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... -cnn-study

[AgnosticBoy]

A valid point that I hear from Russian officials is that some Ukranians officials/soldiers are positioning themselves amongst civilians. That seems to be true in Mariupol since there are reports of children hiding with Ukranian fighters. If so, then not only is this a wrong on Russia if the civilians die, but it should also the Ukranians should be held accountable.

Listening to Russian officials are we?

When their points are corroborated with evidence, yes. I don't automatically assume anyone is correct based off of what they say.

These are the people who have invaded another country,

True.

lied about it constantly, claiming they're rooting out Nazis while Putin follows in Hitler's footsteps

Very True, but that doesn't mean that everything they say and do going forward will be wrong. I go on a case-by-case basis. That's fair and reasonable.

and you want to blame the few remaining Ukrainian civilians for hiding with troops when they can't escape after their entire city has been bombed?

I blame the Ukrainian military for hiding out amongst civilians. If there were ONLY civilians at the industrial area in Mariupol, then the Russians would not be attacking it.

Interestingly, you put the onus on the Ukranian civilians, but I put it on the Ukrainian military. Instead of hiding with civilians (which goes against international law if you expect there to be fighting) they should come out and fight and that would spare a lot more lives than fighting AMONGST civilians, including kids. Do you agree?

No, your little "I'm not siding with the Russians" doesn't hold. You're repeating Russian propaganda.

Calling out the Ukrainians when they are wrong, does not make me a Russian supporter. If anything I'm an independent. I don't automatically take anyone's side unlike some here. The only way I'm willing to take a side on a particular issue, whether it be from Russia, China, the West, or anyone else, is when logic and evidence supports that side or a particular issue.

[Diogenes]

I blame the Ukrainian military for hiding out amongst civilians. If there were ONLY civilians at the industrial area in Mariupol, then the Russians would not be attacking it.

Among other problems, you have your facts wrong. Russia has repeatedly attacked civilian targets. They are waging a war where their very strategy is to terrorize the population. Mariupol has been virtually entirely destroyed. The last bastion of a holdout is a steel plant used by the military, and stocked with munitions before the Russian invasion. IF civilians fled there when there was no other refuge, or if it was the safest refuge, neither Ukrainian civilians nor their military should be blamed.

On the other hand, if the military is going to hospitals and schools to use civilians as shields, you would have a valid point, maybe.* But that would be an extremely stupid strategy since from the start, Russia has shown they do not avoid civilian targets.

“Civilians are being killed and maimed in what appear to be indiscriminate attacks, with Russian forces using explosive weapons with wide area effects in or near populated areas,”

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113782

OTOH, IF you can document how the Ukraine military is routinely firing at Russian invaders from schools, hospitals, and other strictly civilian areas, please do so.

_______________________________
* I say 'maybe' because Russia is the invader, violating international law and another countries sovereignty AND committing war crimes. In your scenario if Russia invaded and killed civilians in Canada or the U.S, or Finland, would you still blame the military and civilians because sometimes they are killed together? Russia is totally in the wrong and you egregiously miss the point when you direct your ire against the victims.

[AgnosticBoy]

I blame the Ukrainian military for hiding out amongst civilians. If there were ONLY civilians at the industrial area in Mariupol, then the Russians would not be attacking it.

Among other problems, you have your facts wrong. Russia has repeatedly attacked civilian targets. They are waging a war where their very strategy is to terrorize the population.

Yes, there were reports that they've attacked hospitals, schools, but what I'd want to know is if those areas were also being used by Ukrainian military. I've also shown that the Russians have not attacked civilians where there is no armed resistance involved, an example is the city of Kherson.

Mariupol has been virtually entirely destroyed. The last bastion of a holdout is a steel plant used by the military, and stocked with munitions before the Russian invasion. IF civilians fled there when there was no other refuge, or if it was the safest refuge, neither Ukrainian civilians nor their military should be blamed.

I'd want to know the conditions before the bombing started, and it's not to excuse Russia (as I said Russia is responsible for civilian deaths no matter what) but rather, it's to bring in my point about the Ukrainians also being responsible for civilian deaths because of their proximity to civilians. So far I've been able to find reports of civilians witnessing street to street battles in Mariupol, which indicates that Ukrainians soldiers were likely near civilians areas in some cases, which again is against international law.

Even if civilians had no choice but to flee to the industrial steel plant areas, but then the Ukrainian military should be at the forefront fighting instead of hiding AMONGST civilians. You never responded to that point, but instead you keep trying to put the burden on civilians.

On the other hand, if the military is going to hospitals and schools to use civilians as shields, you would have a valid point, maybe.* But that would be an extremely stupid strategy since from the start, Russia has shown they do not avoid civilian targets.

“Civilians are being killed and maimed in what appear to be indiscriminate attacks, with Russian forces using explosive weapons with wide area effects in or near populated areas,”

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113782

OTOH, IF you can document how the Ukraine military is routinely firing at Russian invaders from schools, hospitals, and other strictly civilian areas, please do so.

Part of my conclusion is based on my inference of civilian-only areas that aren't attacked. That alone supports my point that the Russians (for the most part) are attacking areas where there is resistance.

Here's some documentation from a Washington Post article published on March 28, 2022... Ukranian military equipment placed by apartment builidings...

“If there is military equipment there and [the Russians] are saying we are launching at this military equipment, it undermines an assertion that they are attacking intentionally civilian objects and civilians,” said Richard Weir, a researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis and conflict division, who is working in Ukraine.

Over the past month, Washington Post journalists have witnessed Ukrainian antitank rockets, antiaircraft guns and armored personnel carriers placed near apartment buildings. In one vacant lot, Post journalists spotted a truck carrying a Grad multiple rocket launcher. Checkpoints with armed men, barricades of sandbags and tires, and boxes of molotov cocktails are ubiquitous on city highways and residential streets. The sound of outgoing rockets and artillery can be heard constantly in Kyiv, the capital, the squiggly white trails of missiles visible in the sky.

“Every day, it’s like this,” said Lubov Bura, 73, standing outside the apartment building where she lived that was destroyed two weeks ago. Moments later, as the building was still burning, the sound of outgoing Ukrainian rockets was heard again. “Sometimes it sounds closer, sometimes it seems far. We think about it and, of course, we are worried, especially in the night.”

The Ukrainian military has “a responsibility under international law” to remove their forces and equipment from civilian-populated areas, and if that is not possible, to move civilians out of those areas, Weir said.

“If they don’t do that, that is a violation of the laws of war,” he added. “Because what they are doing is they are putting civilians at risk. Because all that military equipment are legitimate targets.”

* I say 'maybe' because Russia is the invader, violating international law and another countries sovereignty AND committing war crimes. In your scenario if Russia invaded and killed civilians in Canada or the U.S, or Finland, would you still blame the military and civilians because sometimes they are killed together? Russia is totally in the wrong and you egregiously miss the point when you direct your ire against the victims.

First off, Russia is totally at fault here because they were not justified in invading. When it comes to blaming anyone else, it's not just simply because civilians being killed along side Ukrainian troops, but rather it is that the Ukrainian troops were also in proximity to civilians. That is a violation of international law and that increases the risk of civilians being shot, including the Ukrainians accidentally shooting their own citizens on accident.

[historia]

When someone is only interested in looking at the wrongs of ONE side, which is what you've done when it comes to this conflict, then you can't blame me for suspecting a clear bias on your part.

I look at this rather differently.

If we all agree that the Russians are ultimately in the wrong here -- and, from what I can tell, the major participants in this thread do all agree on that -- then whatever wrongs the Ukranians may or may not have done while defending themselves simply pale in comparison to the much more serious wrongs being committed by Russia.

I just don't see the point, then, in nit-picking how the Ukranians are defending themselves, as you have above, my friend. It's like critiquing how a rape victim was dressed or how she defended herself during the assault.

Focusing on the attacker rather than the victim is not "bias," it's perspective.

[AgnosticBoy]

When someone is only interested in looking at the wrongs of ONE side, which is what you've done when it comes to this conflict, then you can't blame me for suspecting a clear bias on your part.

I look at this rather differently.

If we all agree that the Russians are ultimately in the wrong here -- and, from what I can tell, the major participants in this thread do all agree on that -- then whatever wrongs the Ukranians may or may not have done while defending themselves simply pale in comparison to the much more serious wrongs being committed by Russia.

I just don't see the point, then, in jumping onto an Internet message board to nit-pick how the Ukranians are defending themselves, as you have above, my friend. It's like critiquing how a rape victim was dressed or how she defended herself.

Focusing on the attacker rather than the victim is not "bias," it's perspective.

I'm very empathetic, and I appreciate you clarifying your perspective (and the way others might be thinking). Even if "bias" is not the right word but then I would still find fault with a perspective that involves ignoring claims (and Evidence) because of who it comes from or who the wrong is attributed to. I try to approach these issues as a non-partisan. I get the rape analogy (although I think the Ukrainian scenario is more severe because of international law) but I would consider my comments on Ukraine to be wrong in the sense that it's the wrong time to bring it up, but not wrong in terms of validity.

Anyways, I appreciate our communication. : )

[Diogenes]

Even if "bias" is not the right word but then I would still find fault with a perspective that involves ignoring claims (and Evidence) because of who it comes from or who the wrong is attributed to.

We should make a strong distinction between "evidence" and "ignoring claims because of who it comes from."
When we have claimants like Trump and Putin (and their sycophant echo chambers like Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Pravda) who have clear records of outrageously and obviously false, self serving statements on a regular basis, the default position should be to ignore such claims. Statements from wholly unreliable sources should be ignored unless they are supported by evidence.

[AgnosticBoy]

Even if "bias" is not the right word but then I would still find fault with a perspective that involves ignoring claims (and Evidence) because of who it comes from or who the wrong is attributed to.

We should make a strong distinction between "evidence" and "ignoring claims because of who it comes from."
When we have claimants like Trump and Putin (and their sycophant echo chambers like Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Pravda) who have clear records of outrageously and obviously false, self serving statements on a regular basis, the default position should be to ignore such claims. Statements from wholly unreliable sources should be ignored unless they are supported by evidence.

I like to abide by standards that will guarantee that I'll reach truth. For that goal, I tend to go by logic and verifiable evidence. I don't simply accept "claims", whether they be from the US or Russia (i expect evidence, as well).

Your standard of ignoring claims from sources with credibility problems is not a logical standard because ignoring such claims doesn't prove anything one way or another; it doesn't make such claims automatically false (or true). At best, it just proves that they are hard to trust. Instead of dismissing a claim a priori, you could see if there's any evidence to support the claim BEFORE dismissing it, or even ask the claimant to provide evidence. I hope you notice how much more open my standard is and yet it accomplishes the same end goal, getting to the truth. If anything, your standard would probably lead you to not finding as much truth . It's not open to ALL data, but only to data that comes from ONE side.

Getting back to our original debate. I offered a Russian claim. That Russian claim was corroborated by evidence, which included observations from Western journalists. Had I started the claim without mentioning Russia and just said it's from Western journalists, I can imagine that it would've been easily accepted here.

[Diogenes]

Even if "bias" is not the right word but then I would still find fault with a perspective that involves ignoring claims (and Evidence) because of who it comes from or who the wrong is attributed to.

We should make a strong distinction between "evidence" and "ignoring claims because of who it comes from."
When we have claimants like Trump and Putin (and their sycophant echo chambers like Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Pravda) who have clear records of outrageously and obviously false, self serving statements on a regular basis, the default position should be to ignore such claims. Statements from wholly unreliable sources should be ignored unless they are supported by evidence.

I like to abide by standards that will guarantee that I'll reach truth. For that goal, I tend to go by logic and verifiable evidence. I don't simply accept "claims", whether they be from the US or Russia (i expect evidence, as well).

Your standard of ignoring claims from sources with credibility problems is not a logical standard because ignoring such claims doesn't prove anything one way or another

This is where you go wrong: Every year there are billions of claims, many if not most are false. Do you have time to research every one of them? No, of course not. No one does. So when someone like Putin or Trump who have a proven track record of mostly false claims, why listen at all? You'd "logically" [since that is what you claim is your standard] be better off in assuming the truth is the opposite of their claims.

Yes, in a ideal world, we would investigate each of the billion claims no matter who generates them. But since that is impossible, we look for reliable sources, then evaluate them. When the major news sources like the AP, BBC, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS agree on a news story, and Putin, Trump, and Infowars are on the other side, I suggest you are wasting time evaluating proven liars and factual outliers.

It shouldn’t be a surprise to students of history the way authoritarians use lies and manipulation to gather power and justify terrible deeds that destroy human freedom and life.

Yet it is shocking when these cycles repeat historically, and here we are again, listening to a despotic strongman bent on reordering the world and twisting history and truth to do it.
Vladimir Putin has delivered his people and the world a torrent of lies and falsehoods around Ukraine’s history and his decision to invade.
There isn’t any attempt to hide the fact he’s lying. Part of the power is the ever-more brazen way he does it.

https://www.yakimaherald.com/opinion/op ... 64e30.html