[OldFatCactus]

This both sides rhetoric kinda breaks down in the face of there being a very clear aggressor/invader to this conflict. A dam was destroyed because it was occupied by an invading force. The invading force was there because the invadee would not join the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia did not choose diplomacy.

[geoka9]

> Most people who die in wars do so in “boring” ways like collateral damage, shrapnel from firefights, or even starvation. That is what happened in Bucha...

This passage alone is why the OP shouldn't be taken seriously.

[EGreg]

On the contrary, the “boring” deaths should be taking very seriously, there is nothing light or humorous about pointing out that most people die not from sensationalized ways that make good headlines, but from avoidable conflicts.

For example four US State Department employees killed in Benghazi Libya got wayyyyy more coverage than the millions of Libyans living in a violent failed state, including the thousands who were just killed in a Kakhovka-like dam disaster directly attributable to NATO’s invasion in 2011.

Or for example one Kashoggi got wayyyy more coverage than the millions facing starvation in Yemen. YCombinator even mused aloud whether they can take Saudi money BECAUSE OF KASHOGGI. This is obscene! What about the other people, do they count? Did millions of dead Afghans count? Bengalis?

As for Bucha — yes of course there were war crimes which should be fully investigated and prosecuted, and dozens of people were killed in gruesome ways. But FAR MORE people in Bucha were killed in the way I said — shrapnel during a firefight - fleschettes indiscriminately hitting civilians including with neutral white armbands:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/24/dozens-bucha-c...

That should not be surprising. You should look past media’s hunger for sensationalism… I spoke to ACTUAL PEOPLE who went through Bucha afternath, I heard eyewitness accounts from people from Kyiv who were there and saw the holes in top floors ripped by tanks, firing at fighters that have RPGs. And even the Azov battallion had people in Bucha, deployed to fight agains the tanks…

https://mronline.org/2022/04/06/questions-abound-about-bucha...

…and ALL of it could have been avoided, including while the tanks were going to Kyiv in a comically slow plodding way, with stops along the way “running out of fuel”. Here is the Israeli PM in his own words saying he negotiated a truce in principle between the two presidents, but was blocked by USA and UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs

There are real solutions, starting with a push for greater transparency that our public can do. Transparency in governments would have prevented all of these wars: https://community.qbix.com/t/transparency-in-government/234

[LudwigNagasena]

Surely those facts don’t make the distinction between a proximate cause and a distal cause irrelevant.

[OldFatCactus]

Much of what I have personally (anecdotally) seen around proximate cause seem to point to Russian sabotage. I find arguments like this to be pointless though as we will all have our pet theories and research we want to believe as we are not likely to find definitive proof. It is easier to just point out that the side that gains the most from this and bears ultimate responsibility for this is Russia as that is irrefutable

[EGreg]

In every conflict in the world, one side always says it’s the other’s fault completely. And that the other side didn’t engage in diplomacy in good faith. But many of them are proxy wars between large imperial interests, that topple governments and undermine democracies. For example in Yemen, the Sunnis say that Iran is completely at fault for fomenting a Houthi revolution and and all the blame falls squarely on them. While Iran would say that they simply gave moral support to Houthi rebels and that the Sunni hegemony and Saudi coalition has been committing war crimes for decades and Yemenites are fed up with it.

Depending on if you were Sunni or Shiite, Jewish or Arab, you’d often be so biased that any hint of additional context or nuance would sound preposterous. But as rational people we should avoid one-sided narratives, whether it is in Niger, Armenia, etc. Usually the same patterns repeat and sectarian violence happens in the aftermath of the fall of an empire (Ottoman, British, Russian, etc.) It happens in much the same way, and each side blames the other (eg Pakistani Muslims vs Indian Hindus). We as imperial countries simply take sides and our public is told what to think (“we were always at war eith eastasia”.)

Conflicts always have multiple sides. When you live inside one empire or another (Russia, China, USA), the mainstream media’s rhetoric is always one-sided. But the rest of the world outside the bubble (billions of people) see both sides.

As usual, most of these conflicts could have been avoided, in dozens of ways, if cooler heads prevailed at any point for decades.

I collected all context you are probably missing in one place, so you can better understand the conflict from other sides: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397

[OldFatCactus]

Ultimately one side invaded another and chose violence instead of diplomacy as you pointed out in your original comment. This party has a history of such violence. Any other extrapolations are mostly moot and pointless

[pseg134]

I, for one, am thankful that throughout the whole of history the good side has always won.

[EGreg]

There is no “ultimately” in history, that eclipses everything that led up to it, or since it. Everything has significant reasons that led up to it, and understanding those reasons and legitimate concerns from all parties is KEY to making lasting peace agreements. Click the link above to find out what they are.

Here are more links showing leaders of billions of people, and the polls of the people themselves, seeing more than one side and putting blame on USA and NATO for instance, for backing Russia into a corner like a cornered animal, arming Ukraine, blocking all peace agreements and efforts and goading it to lash out with this horrific pre-emptive invasion, which has been systematically called in the US “unprovoked and unjustified” as a concerted effort to make you not look at the man behind the curtain:

India (most populous nation, 1.5 billion people) https://m.thewire.in/article/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato...

China (second most populous nation, another 1.5 billion people) https://uscnpm.org/2022/04/19/chinese-public-opinion-war-in-...

The Pope (1 billion Catholics): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-14/pope-repe...

Imran Khan (400 million Pakistanis - ousted with US support recently for failing to fall in line) https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cyph...

Brazil (both presidents refuse to condemn Russia alone, call for negotiations) https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/18/russia-ukraine-war-braz...

Even in the centers of the most hawkish anti-Russian sentiment we have leaders warning about all this before it even started. For example Nigel Farage in UK 2014:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9uNsXEu8ljM

Here in the US, dire warnings about NATO expansion were given by every single ambassador to Russia, and every foreign policy expert concurred (including the architect of the USSR containment policy), but were systematically ignored by the Clinton and Bush administrations:

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...

And even last year, US politicians slightly outside the establishment got together and tried to call for peace talks. They were swiftly rebuked by the Biden administration:

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-jo...

Today, most Republicans running for president, and many in Congress, are skeptical of the narrative, and would take steps to usher in peace if they got more power.

So no — ignoring BILLIONS of people, EXPERTS in our own countries whose job it is to study these things, and even political leaders in OUR country, is not reasonable. There is a war hawk “establishment” in imperial countries (USA, Russia, China) that always pushes for more conflict, if it is allowed, and intelligence agencies work behind the topple democracies and make it happen, until the more civilian-level policians (eg State department) get involved once the ground is set: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JoW75J5bnnE

Educate yourself to see why there is more than one side to this.

I gave you a master link to everything, but here are great documentaries also from 2014 when it all went down:

PBS: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/battle-for-uk...

BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY

[OldFatCactus]

No sorry I'm simply pointing you back to your own rhetoric. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm a NATO or America apologist. I just find it laughable the mental hoops that some people will jump through to avoid pointing the finger at the most violent party to this conflict. There was a diplomatic solution to be found, Russia chose violence. They used lies and deceit to justify it as they have in all conflicts since 1991. Ultimately they wage war for the sake of capitalist ambitions just as all of those other governments and institutions you listed

[EGreg]

Well, many people here ARE apologists for USA and NATO, they simply don’t know what they have done, or really anything outside the cherrypicked narrative they have been carefully shown by their domestic maintream media. (Similar to people in Russia and China being conditioned by their governments.)

But what do you mean by mental hoops? Let me reiterate, the view is held by:

Billions of people, and their leaders outside the NATO bubble

EVERY SINGLE ONE of our own ambassadors to Russia and experts have signed group letters warning every administration since the 90s: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...

Heck even the Ukrainian PEOPLE, the Ukrainian public itself was against it:

Pew: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n...

Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/104356/ukrainians-see-more-valu...

You gotta start realizing the role George W Bush played in all this, at the very least — pushing for Ukraine in NATO at the very time when its own public overwhelmingly opposed it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vo...

The mental hoops are for those who continue to repeat the stock phrases

“open door policy”

“purely defensive”

“unprovoked and unjustified”

“weapons of mass destruction”

“hacked the election”

“axis of evil”

“they hate us for our freedoms”

These phrases are carefully tested w focus groups, and dropped if they don’t work (eg “islamofascism” and “crusade” was briefly used by Bush admin before being retired in favor of “weapons of mass destruction” and “axis of evil”.)

[tootallgavin]

You are trying to change people's beliefs.

Historically, even violence and war does not change people's beliefs.

[gilleain]

I feel like you have nuanced yourself into a ridiculous position.

One side in this conflict invaded the other. That is not being 'backed into a corner'.

Yes there are endless examples of Western governments meddling or invading or assasinating etc. Yes that is bad.

No that has no relevance to Russia obliterating Ukranian cities.

You are simply wrong.

[ImPostingOnHN]

that doesn't address the post you responded to, it's just a deflection