[ClassyJacket]

So, just to be clear, you think any country that's invaded should just immediately surrender?

So if I invade the US tomorrow with a sharpened stick, they have to hand their country over because any kind of defence is immoral?

[maronato]

This comment is just disingenuous. You know that isn’t what they meant.

[cwkoss]

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/16/ukraine-must-i...

"A controversial Amnesty International report asserted that Ukrainian military tactics put civilians in danger. Video footage has since been published suggesting that Ukrainian troops may have executed surrendering Russian officers in the town of Makiivka. Back in 2019, the International Criminal Court (ICC) determined that Ukrainian forces committed possible war crimes against Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine.

To be clear: none of these allegations draws moral or legal equivalency between the acts of Ukrainian and Russian forces. Any alleged crimes committed by Ukrainian officers pale in comparison to the aggression and barbarity Russian forces have demonstrated in Ukraine. But all atrocities must be accounted for, not just those of one’s enemies."

[Svoka]

Oh. Aljazeera and Amnesty International Nice combo

[cwkoss]

Yeah, they are both organizations with very high integrity and credibility...? Kind of perplexed what your worldview even is.

[Svoka]

By the way. Crimes agains humanity/war crimes are on different scale. Like perpetrating genocide, stealing children, etc.

Individual crimes are prosecuted as well, but Zelensky hasn't much to do with regular war crap, if it is not systemic and/or basically formalized and encouraged, as is the case in russia.

Russian playbook includes in every occupied town to set up torture/rape station where they put anyone suspicious. You can guess what happens next.

[aguaviva]

Crimes against humanity/war crimes are on different scale.

You're getting way too cerebral for this thread. The people who say "they're all equally guilty" don't care about such considerations. They're just trying to make a blanket moral relativism argument.

Which basically goes: "They're all bad to some degree, therefore they're all equally bad, or at least we can stop focusing on the one that's obviously much worse than the others."

It's not an argument at all really, but more like an emotional appeal.

[Svoka]

Makes sense. Such views seemed always so reductionist to me that they are basically nonsensical and arrogant. You are correct.