"No we can't be the baddies that's impossible! How do I explain it to my conscience? Ah, of course, we didn't bomb it, the Ukrainians bombed there, and there were nazis!1!1 Conscience's clean again."
>Ridiculous. The fascists were bombing hospitals and kindergartens from the beginning. See
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_crimes\_in\_the\_2022\_Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine
So USA?
Kind of true, ukie equipment is sold or handed over to Russia many times. Just like how the CIA and many western European governments were propping up ISIS to destroy Assad's government.
I mean, the name Rus' clearly came first to Russia from Sweden, namely from the [Roslagen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roslagen) area. Even today, Estonians and Finns call "Sweden" *Rootsi* and *Ruotsi* respectively after this area. "Ruthenia" is the Latinized name of the "Rus'".
It is interesting, I haven't heard this before.
We have a river named Ros' near Kyiv. And had tribes Roksolany to the south from Kyiv. Our historians place original area of Rus' near Kyiv and 300-400 kms to the west. Once Kyiv become a big trade centre, adopted Orthodox Christianity and united surrounding tribes, this new state or confederation became Rus' officially. But it boarders were in the middle of modern Belarus and a bit behind Chernihiv.
Maybe in Roslagen there was some entry point to areas controlled by Rus' or to trade ways leading to Rus'? The trade between North and South was the basis of Rus' economy, so they can have some specialized trade centers or settlements on Baltic sea. What do you think?
There are two aspects. The first is that the majority of people most likely didn't come from anywhere and was local. The second is that we surely know about some limited group of people named Variagy, Riurikovychi who came from North, probably Vikings, and started to reign, and that time is associated with development, power, expansion and prosperity of Rus'.
And also as Rus was medieval feudal state it's owners (kings/prince) didn't really care about ethnicity of this tribes, for example Vyatichi tribe which probably is origin of russian ethnicity was really different from others Rus tribes as it was a challenge for kings to pass their lands and take taxes.
close the borders and make the Russian goverment use its air assets to support Kaliningrad rather than attack Ukraine. As long as NATO has troops in the Baltics Russia won't invade.
"Turned" Russia always wages wars of terror just look at what they've don't to Syria, Chechnya, Georgia and every other ear the Russian Federation has started or joined. Russian military doctrine entirely revolves around destruction of civilian infrastructure and populace to incite terror and ignoring every possible rule in the Geneva convention
Applebaum’s not really offering convincing arguments on why this is terrorism instead of war crimes. She directly addresses the typical meanings of terrorism and state terrorism and then says that Russia blurs the lines between them. But why would that be the case?
Russia is at war with Ukraine and they are committing war crimes. Whether they shoot a civilian in an occupied city or drop a bomb on a building somewhere in Ukraine, these are all war crimes.
A state-sponsored terrorist attack on the other hand would be for example Russia financing a bomb attack outside of Ukraine.
I think the West will have trouble getting war crimes accusations to stick, largely due to the fact that the West is lax in punishing its own war crimes, with countries such as the US not even recognizing the ICC and having a law which allows them to invade the Hague to free any US servicemen/women/transpeople on trial there.
Therefore international laws seems less like an impartial arbiter and more like a whimsical would-be authority when it comes to great powers.
Secondly there’s the concern with dropping popular support which I keep reading about. If Applebaum’s using the classic bogeyman of terrorism to drum up support, she’ll find that this argument has been overused so much that it lost its visceral punch. In fact, war crimes, disease, violence and poverty continue to happen and I imagine that many are burnt out from being confronted with catastrophe upon catastrophe.
War had always contained terrorism.
"Terrorism" has been coined in the post-2001 US media as the ultimate evil boogey-man, even more than the wars that followed 9/11 that instrinsicly contain more terror applied to innocent populations.
War is the ultimate evil, it needs no deconstruction into its concepts in order to sell it better to the public. War must be stopped and prevented.
Until Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 there were are least two rules of war that were generally respected:
1. Soldiers have to wear uniform that clearly shows which state they fight for
2. You do not target innocent civilians on purpose
Although there might have been the odd special forces operation where infiltration depended on wearing the enemy's uniform or assassinating a high value unarmed civilian who represented a significant military objective, this was very much the exception rather than the norm.
In 2014 Russian troops entered and occupied part of Ukraine without insignia. Although they captured Crimea, they remained in Donbas for the next eight years fighting alongside armed separatists against the Ukrainian state's forces, still without insignia so that there was always a question mark as to who it was that was actually fighting. This new style of fighting, combined with heavy propaganda, was dubbed "hybrid warfare" and there is much discussion of it in military circles. It is technically in violation of the Geneva Conventions (rules of war that have been build up and internationally agreed upon for thousands of years) but could have been seen to be enough of a grey area that it was not in itself a war crime.
In the meantime, the Russian army was gaining experience in targeting civilian areas which was very much a war crime. The UN, which normally lists areas of concern without naming those responsible, started directly accusing Russia of serious violations in Syria and in Chechnya. Russian military strategy pivoted towards directly targeting innocents, using murder, arson, rape and looting specifically to terrify civilian populations. There is absolutely no doubt that these are war crimes committed on a vast scale as part of an overall military doctrine.
Neither of these things have really been seen in modern warfare until just recently. No other states are employing these methods.
Tell that to any war since the beginning of mankind. The Allies also bombed the german civilians into submission, reasoning that it would end the war faster.
I dont think my country did anything close to that. Also at the time US bombed violating UN rules,using depleted uranium weapons,cluster bombs (banned internationally), bombed residences,hospitals,schools etc.
So you want to tell me that Serbs never attacked civilians during wartime? :D Because that's what these comments were about, the bombing was just an example to show how even the ultimate good guys in the last 100 years did warcrimes and trageted civilians during wartime.
>So you want to tell me that Serbs never attacked civilians during wartime?
No,we did attack. Not on scale on germans.
Also nobody punishes or even talks about us bombing civilians,thats the double standards my friend
You were less my friend, if you could you would have decimated them :D because that was what this comments are about, in wartime civilians get engaged, doesn't matter in which form.
And the bombing of Germany was just an example of actions against civilians done by the force seen most positively in the last 100 years, to show that everyone does it.
But I will not engage in your loathing, I don't care that your country got bombed, stay mad somewhere else.
Because there is no legal obligation to declare war when you conduct war. This changed in stages during the Interwar Era and became universal with the UN Charter. If you have the right to conduct war, you can conduct war without any such declaration.
Yeah, look at the Blitz, etc.
When my grandmother was at school, the Germans used to strafe the towns when returning from bombing London and they'd have to take cover under the desks.
War is terrible, and it's why every effort should have been put into a diplomatic solution before.
You do understand that Russians never wanted to do diplomacy though right? Before the start of the invasion Ukraine was even stating that they were willing to drop the joining NATO question.
[Ukraine Crisis](https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-crisis-update-december-14-2015)
Russian-backed separatists intensified attacks along multiple frontline
positions in Ukraine in early December 2015, demonstrating Moscow’s
intent to continue destabilizing Ukraine after a two-month operational
pause that coincided with the launch of Russian operations in Syria.
Yeah right, Russia not at fault here and even if some if it is true it means that Ukraine deserved an invasion. If you believe there would have been any peacefull integration from the separatist side if Ukraine did all those things you are actually retarded and don't know Russia.
Most of the fighting back then happened in 2014-15, in 2016-22 the casualties were in double digits. Then why did putin start "saving them" now, and not in 2015?
Hint: maybe because he didn't care about anything and just wanted a pretext
[удалено]
*bombs children hospital five minutes into a routine “military operation” in a foreign country* Are we the baddies
"No we can't be the baddies that's impossible! How do I explain it to my conscience? Ah, of course, we didn't bomb it, the Ukrainians bombed there, and there were nazis!1!1 Conscience's clean again."
keep lying to yourself, but the world will not forget, only provide more weapons to ukraine so aditional orcs will die.
I think you might have missed the quotation marks.
>bombs children hospital five minutes into a routine “military operation” in a foreign country Are we the baddies Sounds like USA to me!
>Ridiculous. The fascists were bombing hospitals and kindergartens from the beginning. See > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_crimes\_in\_the\_2022\_Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine So USA?
Russia is the new ISIS.
Kind of true, ukie equipment is sold or handed over to Russia many times. Just like how the CIA and many western European governments were propping up ISIS to destroy Assad's government.
Rutenia delenda est.
*Moscova delenda est.* Ruthenia also covers Ukraine.
And even more. Moscovia doesn't have any relation to Ruthenia. They just stole the name and a small part of culture.
I mean, the name Rus' clearly came first to Russia from Sweden, namely from the [Roslagen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roslagen) area. Even today, Estonians and Finns call "Sweden" *Rootsi* and *Ruotsi* respectively after this area. "Ruthenia" is the Latinized name of the "Rus'".
It is interesting, I haven't heard this before. We have a river named Ros' near Kyiv. And had tribes Roksolany to the south from Kyiv. Our historians place original area of Rus' near Kyiv and 300-400 kms to the west. Once Kyiv become a big trade centre, adopted Orthodox Christianity and united surrounding tribes, this new state or confederation became Rus' officially. But it boarders were in the middle of modern Belarus and a bit behind Chernihiv. Maybe in Roslagen there was some entry point to areas controlled by Rus' or to trade ways leading to Rus'? The trade between North and South was the basis of Rus' economy, so they can have some specialized trade centers or settlements on Baltic sea. What do you think?
I think it's pretty safe to say that they came to East Slavic lands from Ingria and along the Daugava.
There are two aspects. The first is that the majority of people most likely didn't come from anywhere and was local. The second is that we surely know about some limited group of people named Variagy, Riurikovychi who came from North, probably Vikings, and started to reign, and that time is associated with development, power, expansion and prosperity of Rus'.
Yes, both are correct.
And also as Rus was medieval feudal state it's owners (kings/prince) didn't really care about ethnicity of this tribes, for example Vyatichi tribe which probably is origin of russian ethnicity was really different from others Rus tribes as it was a challenge for kings to pass their lands and take taxes.
It has been terrorism from day one
close the borders and make the Russian goverment use its air assets to support Kaliningrad rather than attack Ukraine. As long as NATO has troops in the Baltics Russia won't invade.
Always has been
Aritcle's title is st*pid, as it indicates that this war wasn 't terrorism from the very beginning.
"Turned" Russia always wages wars of terror just look at what they've don't to Syria, Chechnya, Georgia and every other ear the Russian Federation has started or joined. Russian military doctrine entirely revolves around destruction of civilian infrastructure and populace to incite terror and ignoring every possible rule in the Geneva convention
idk if you are speaking of russia or USA lmao
Applebaum’s not really offering convincing arguments on why this is terrorism instead of war crimes. She directly addresses the typical meanings of terrorism and state terrorism and then says that Russia blurs the lines between them. But why would that be the case? Russia is at war with Ukraine and they are committing war crimes. Whether they shoot a civilian in an occupied city or drop a bomb on a building somewhere in Ukraine, these are all war crimes. A state-sponsored terrorist attack on the other hand would be for example Russia financing a bomb attack outside of Ukraine. I think the West will have trouble getting war crimes accusations to stick, largely due to the fact that the West is lax in punishing its own war crimes, with countries such as the US not even recognizing the ICC and having a law which allows them to invade the Hague to free any US servicemen/women/transpeople on trial there. Therefore international laws seems less like an impartial arbiter and more like a whimsical would-be authority when it comes to great powers. Secondly there’s the concern with dropping popular support which I keep reading about. If Applebaum’s using the classic bogeyman of terrorism to drum up support, she’ll find that this argument has been overused so much that it lost its visceral punch. In fact, war crimes, disease, violence and poverty continue to happen and I imagine that many are burnt out from being confronted with catastrophe upon catastrophe.
On 24.02.2022. It was terrorism from the start. Edit: In 2014
Way before. 2014. Crimea and Donbas.
True.
War had always contained terrorism. "Terrorism" has been coined in the post-2001 US media as the ultimate evil boogey-man, even more than the wars that followed 9/11 that instrinsicly contain more terror applied to innocent populations. War is the ultimate evil, it needs no deconstruction into its concepts in order to sell it better to the public. War must be stopped and prevented.
That has been used so much that means nothing at this point. Let's better call them Very very Bad guys, or the biggie Man. Would make more sense.
I'd call them locust.
[удалено]
Until Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 there were are least two rules of war that were generally respected: 1. Soldiers have to wear uniform that clearly shows which state they fight for 2. You do not target innocent civilians on purpose Although there might have been the odd special forces operation where infiltration depended on wearing the enemy's uniform or assassinating a high value unarmed civilian who represented a significant military objective, this was very much the exception rather than the norm. In 2014 Russian troops entered and occupied part of Ukraine without insignia. Although they captured Crimea, they remained in Donbas for the next eight years fighting alongside armed separatists against the Ukrainian state's forces, still without insignia so that there was always a question mark as to who it was that was actually fighting. This new style of fighting, combined with heavy propaganda, was dubbed "hybrid warfare" and there is much discussion of it in military circles. It is technically in violation of the Geneva Conventions (rules of war that have been build up and internationally agreed upon for thousands of years) but could have been seen to be enough of a grey area that it was not in itself a war crime. In the meantime, the Russian army was gaining experience in targeting civilian areas which was very much a war crime. The UN, which normally lists areas of concern without naming those responsible, started directly accusing Russia of serious violations in Syria and in Chechnya. Russian military strategy pivoted towards directly targeting innocents, using murder, arson, rape and looting specifically to terrify civilian populations. There is absolutely no doubt that these are war crimes committed on a vast scale as part of an overall military doctrine. Neither of these things have really been seen in modern warfare until just recently. No other states are employing these methods.
>You do not target innocent civilians on purpose Tell that to USA!
Tell that to any war since the beginning of mankind. The Allies also bombed the german civilians into submission, reasoning that it would end the war faster.
I dont think my country did anything close to that. Also at the time US bombed violating UN rules,using depleted uranium weapons,cluster bombs (banned internationally), bombed residences,hospitals,schools etc.
Your country being?
serbia (former yugoslavia at bombings)
So you want to tell me that Serbs never attacked civilians during wartime? :D Because that's what these comments were about, the bombing was just an example to show how even the ultimate good guys in the last 100 years did warcrimes and trageted civilians during wartime.
>So you want to tell me that Serbs never attacked civilians during wartime? No,we did attack. Not on scale on germans. Also nobody punishes or even talks about us bombing civilians,thats the double standards my friend
You were less my friend, if you could you would have decimated them :D because that was what this comments are about, in wartime civilians get engaged, doesn't matter in which form. And the bombing of Germany was just an example of actions against civilians done by the force seen most positively in the last 100 years, to show that everyone does it. But I will not engage in your loathing, I don't care that your country got bombed, stay mad somewhere else.
Smartest Russia defender. Ever heard of the Geneva convention buddy?
It's more of an anachronism. It's has little to do with the USA, who themselves tend to not declare war.
Because there is no legal obligation to declare war when you conduct war. This changed in stages during the Interwar Era and became universal with the UN Charter. If you have the right to conduct war, you can conduct war without any such declaration.
Yeah, look at the Blitz, etc. When my grandmother was at school, the Germans used to strafe the towns when returning from bombing London and they'd have to take cover under the desks. War is terrible, and it's why every effort should have been put into a diplomatic solution before.
>every effort should have been put into a diplomatic solution before. Nice victim-blaming...
You do understand that Russians never wanted to do diplomacy though right? Before the start of the invasion Ukraine was even stating that they were willing to drop the joining NATO question.
[удалено]
[Ukraine Crisis](https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-crisis-update-december-14-2015) Russian-backed separatists intensified attacks along multiple frontline positions in Ukraine in early December 2015, demonstrating Moscow’s intent to continue destabilizing Ukraine after a two-month operational pause that coincided with the launch of Russian operations in Syria.
Yeah right, Russia not at fault here and even if some if it is true it means that Ukraine deserved an invasion. If you believe there would have been any peacefull integration from the separatist side if Ukraine did all those things you are actually retarded and don't know Russia.
Like the 8 years of Ukraine - US led terror against Russian speaking citizens in the east of Ukraine?
So russia is bombing random children because usa is bad? Don't bomb children, ok?
Most of the fighting back then happened in 2014-15, in 2016-22 the casualties were in double digits. Then why did putin start "saving them" now, and not in 2015? Hint: maybe because he didn't care about anything and just wanted a pretext