Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Ken]

The languages and cultures are almost identical.

If the language is almost identical- why did the husband of the one couple we knew in ESL know Russian only- he grew up in Ukraine during USSR domination and Russian was only language taught. His wife learned both. His children know both but they speak in Russian to him as he does not know Ukrainian well enough.

Culture the same? From what I read about the time when Stalin starved the Ukrainians - he was trying to wipe out that culture and moved Russians in when so many died from starvation.
And the Ukrainians I know do not agree with what you are saying. I will go with believing them- they are Ukrainian.

Same language?

The Irish and English spoke the same language yet fought over Ireland for centuries.
The American North and South spoke the same language yet fought a devastating four-year war of secession.
The Paraguayan war between Paraguay, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay cost upwards of 500,000 lives and they all spoke the same language and had the same culture.
The Mexican civil war left over a million dead and they all mostly spoke the same language.
Endless wars have been fought in Europe between peoples who spoke the same languages.

Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly (by more than 90%) for independence in 1991 and have existed as an independent state for 31 years. That is actually the same length of time that Russia has existed as an independent state.

This war is nothing more than an imperialist act of aggression by a larger power. To reward it would be to reward and encourage similar acts of aggression everywhere else in the world and send the message that war is the correct answer to international disputes.

[temporal1]

.. whatever you say, ken.

.. This war is nothing more than an imperialist act of aggression by a larger power.
To reward it would be to reward and encourage similar acts of aggression everywhere else in the world and send the message that war is the correct answer to international disputes.

This is the neat+tidy package (instant gratification, no memory, no personal accountability) Americans want.
On this forum, alone, your summation just requires ignoring 40+ pages of honest discussions about “scratching the surface.”

Regarding your “reward” theory, i appreciate what India’s recently retired ambassador (V. Varma) had to say about it. Page 41.
He spoke directly to it, and much more. (An experienced diplomat who appears to understand the meaning of the word.)

The interview is 47 min.

[Ken]

.. whatever you say, ken.

.. This war is nothing more than an imperialist act of aggression by a larger power.
To reward it would be to reward and encourage similar acts of aggression everywhere else in the world and send the message that war is the correct answer to international disputes.

This is the neat+tidy package (instant gratification, no memory, no personal accountability) Americans want.
On this forum, alone, your summation just requires ignoring 40+ pages of honest discussions about “scratching the surface.”

Regarding your “reward” theory, i appreciate what India’s recently retired ambassador (V. Varma) had to say about it. Page 41.
He spoke directly to it, and much more. (An experienced diplomat who appears to understand the meaning of the word.)

The interview is 47 min.

Instead of referencing some 41 minute interview from a retired Indian ambassador, perhaps you can explain in a sentence or two how you think THIS war is justified under international law.

Not that Russia has some grievance against NATO, or that Russia has some historic imperial territorial claim over Ukraine. But that THIS war, happening today, is justified under international law. Hundreds of countries have grievances and territorial disputes of various sorts. Even the US and Canada have unsettled border disputes. Yet we manage to settle them without resorting to war.

[temporal1]

.. whatever you say, ken.

.. This war is nothing more than an imperialist act of aggression by a larger power.
To reward it would be to reward and encourage similar acts of aggression everywhere else in the world and send the message that war is the correct answer to international disputes.

This is the neat+tidy package (instant gratification, no memory, no personal accountability) Americans want.
On this forum, alone, your summation just requires ignoring 40+ pages of honest discussions about “scratching the surface.”

Regarding your “reward” theory, i appreciate what India’s recently retired ambassador (V. Varma) had to say about it. Page 41.
He spoke directly to it, and much more. (An experienced diplomat who appears to understand the meaning of the word.)

The interview is 47 min.

Instead of referencing some 41 minute interview from a retired Indian ambassador, perhaps you can explain in a sentence or two how you think this war is justified under international law.

i decline.
his overall interview is too helpful, too valuable, to reduce to cherry-picking.
i prefer transcripts, when available.

in this case, his demeanor, delivery, his measured response to difficult and emotional questions is well worth the time.
for critical, acute reasons.

[nett]

THIS war is justified under international law.

International Law is a liberal fantasy. There is no higher court to appeal to. International law amounts to whatever the most power nation says it is.

In reality, "All is fair in love and war"

[Ken]

THIS war is justified under international law.

International Law is a liberal fantasy. There is no higher court to appeal to. International law amounts to whatever the most power nation says it is.

In reality, "All is fair in love and war"

Yes, that was the mindset that led to WW2.

Unfortunately too many people still believe that "might makes right." Even here on an Anabaptist forum surprisingly.

[temporal1]

International Law is a liberal fantasy. There is no higher court to appeal to. International law amounts to whatever the most power nation says it is.

In reality, "All is fair in love and war"

hmm. yeah. if there had been “law” maybe there wouldn’t have been NATO expansions over the years?

1994 / “The Clinton-era blunder that set the stage for today’s Ukrainian crisis”
Instead of working toward a new, inclusive European security order, Clinton expanded NATO over the objections of a prostrate Russia.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/ ... an-crisis/

[nett]

THIS war is justified under international law.

International Law is a liberal fantasy. There is no higher court to appeal to. International law amounts to whatever the most power nation says it is.

In reality, "All is fair in love and war"

Yes, that was the mindset that led to WW2.

Unfortunately too many people still believe that "might makes right." Even here on an Anabaptist forum surprisingly.

What are you talking about? I'm not justifying anything. I've been saying the whole time that I can't pick a right or wrong side here, but war is all but guaranteed, and I scoff at all human systems that claim to be able to make war a thing of the past.

After all

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet

[Ernie]

Ukraine was taken over by the Russian Empire through war in the 1700's. Then the Ukrainian Republic that formed after the collapse of that government was defeated through an invasion of the military of the Russian government that eventually became the USSR. Ukraine was never a part of the Russian Federation. What sovereign nation gives up parts of its territory to another, except through military invasion?

The question I posed was whether a group of immigrants have the right to move in and then secede from their host nation and join another, or create a new nation there.

Isn't that what the Europeans did when they moved to North America? Should the Europeans have subjected themselves to the laws of the Native American kingdoms in North America? Or was it ok for the Native Americans to cede land to Europeans such as William Penn with the understanding that all would dwell in peace with each other?

Ukraine goes back a long time. Which kingdom or nation in Ukraine from antiquity holds rights to Ukraine soil?

Again, for the record, I'm not condoning violence in any form or for any cause. I'm simply proposing that Ukraine had options other than violence and that civilizations have ceded land without war.

[Neto]

Ukraine was taken over by the Russian Empire through war in the 1700's. Then the Ukrainian Republic that formed after the collapse of that government was defeated through an invasion of the military of the Russian government that eventually became the USSR. Ukraine was never a part of the Russian Federation. What sovereign nation gives up parts of its territory to another, except through military invasion?

The question I posed was whether a group of immigrants have the right to move in and then secede from their host nation and join another, or create a new nation there.

Isn't that what the Europeans did when they moved to North America? Should the Europeans have subjected themselves to the laws of the Native American kingdoms in North America? Or was it ok for the Native Americans to cede land to Europeans such as William Penn with the understanding that all would dwell in peace with each other?

Ukraine goes back a long time. Which kingdom or nation in Ukraine from antiquity holds rights to Ukraine soil?

Again, for the record, I'm not condoning violence in any form or for any cause. I'm simply proposing that Ukraine had options other than violence and that civilizations have ceded land without war.

Yes. Wrongs were done against the native peoples of North (and South) America. The invaders could have, in a general sense, done a whole lot more to live in peace with their "hosts". (I know, sometimes they were unwilling "hosts".) In another thread, I alluded to the wrongs done against the Ukrainian people, wrongs which were committed, in some sense, on behalf of the Dutch Mennonites who settled in the newly invaded territory. It creates a difficult situation. They were no longer welcome in Prussia, and where could they go? They had already been driven from their own homeland a century or more before, and were not welcome back there, either. The steppes of Ukraine were largely unoccupied at that time, but that was because the native peoples there were mostly nomadic, and that type of life style requires a great deal of land. My people could have also done a great deal more along the lines holy living in how they treated the native Ukrainians, and the nomadic tribes who had lived there before them. But one can also say, and I believe without the evil of excuse making, that the decision to take the land from them was already determined by another power, the Czar of Russia. He was determined to make this new territory productive land, and the Dutch Mennonites from Prussia were one of the tools he chose to implement that plan.

I do not know the answers to all of these questions. But I'll just say that in respect to the land rights in present day Ukraine, that they have lived there for hundreds of years, and should receive first consideration in any attempt to decide who should have use and control over the land. But I'll also add that there are currently large areas that are now empty unused land; areas that were once spotted with Mennonite villages, full of tilled farms and even industry. So there is (was) room there for new settlers, if there were interested parties.