We Need to Talk(live.julik.nl)
live.julik.nl
We Need to Talk
http://live.julik.nl/2022/08/we-need-to-talk
39 comments
I posted this because I think it's useful to be reminded of the brutality and senselessness of war. I have no political agenda.
> One of the few working medicines is exposing, shaming, denigrating exactly the tyranny that is raising its head now
Shaming and denigrating as a medicine? Please tell me more about this great discovery in the field of medicine, or is it sociology?
It cracks me up to no end how as soon as a dummy can spot a problem, they assume they know the solution. How convenient. We don't need science and engineering or anything, just ask the dummy - they'll go ahead and tell you what the solution is.
Shaming and denigrating as a medicine? Please tell me more about this great discovery in the field of medicine, or is it sociology?
It cracks me up to no end how as soon as a dummy can spot a problem, they assume they know the solution. How convenient. We don't need science and engineering or anything, just ask the dummy - they'll go ahead and tell you what the solution is.
I read this as medicine === cure
Could be the authors language coming through
From the HN guidelines:
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Could be the authors language coming through
From the HN guidelines:
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
nbzso(5)
Russian population, in substantial numbers, supports this fascism and this neo-colonialism.
I don't think we know this or can know this: gathering anything like accurate information from Russia is impossible. There is likely much preference falsification happening, along the lines described by Timur Kuran: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674707580.
I don't think we know this or can know this: gathering anything like accurate information from Russia is impossible. There is likely much preference falsification happening, along the lines described by Timur Kuran: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674707580.
I don't think it's intended as a statistically accurate statement. It's anecdotal, ie the author's friends and family back in Russia tell him that many Russians support it.
We can't know this per se, but we can estimate it, even from mere anecdotal data gathered all 'round. All of my Russian friends and colleagues claim the same thing about the people they know in the boomer generation and even younger, relatives or not.
This applies to so many countries that it’s hard for me to care at all. Unless you think that the lives of people from for example the Middle East are worth nothing.
This sounds like some mix of whataboutism and willful ignorance of the scale of the conflict and its atrocities, as well as its economic implications. Energy crisis, immigrant crisis, grain crisis, the need to pour in billions in weapons. The fact that a literal army of almost a million is defending, the scale of use of weapons such as cruise missiles by Russia. The amount of people whose grandparents have lived through Nazi invasion or camps, to see same and worse again. The last but not the least is the fact that among all other countries which Russia is trying to disrupt or annex, it has the most interest in Ukraine.
Wars have always been horrifying. This war is no exception. The only difference now vs then is that the general public has Internet & social media. The terrors are now 100 times magnified.
In truth this war is not special in any way. It isn't even the first war of this century (Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Palestine etc). Perhaps the horrors seem more real now because it's at Europe's doorstep but the rest of the world never really experienced peace.
So when I read something like this I am sickened by the one-sided biased view as if the rest of the world hasn't been waging war amongst themselves, as if Russia broke a century long peace. Look at the state of all the war-stricken cities and you'll see the consequences. Why did no one say "We need to talk" then?
In truth this war is not special in any way. It isn't even the first war of this century (Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Palestine etc). Perhaps the horrors seem more real now because it's at Europe's doorstep but the rest of the world never really experienced peace.
So when I read something like this I am sickened by the one-sided biased view as if the rest of the world hasn't been waging war amongst themselves, as if Russia broke a century long peace. Look at the state of all the war-stricken cities and you'll see the consequences. Why did no one say "We need to talk" then?
Uh… they did? And are? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan became extremely unpopular. People were willing to call it what it is — an overall stain on modern American history.
People have always been anti-war. War is rarely a universally accepted option, even if it seems like it is.
If you’re saying there isn’t anything different about the Ukrainian war, I’d assert you’re wrong. Russia, and more specifically Putin, has proven they are willing to be an existential threat to humanity via their nuclear weapons. The US waged a war in Iraq, and despite anyone’s opinions, right or wrong, they never once even hinted at the use of tactical nuclear warfare. Russia is the only country that does this and actually had the capabilities.
Because of this, the threat is far different than wars fought this past century. Russia is one of a handful of counties that possess this power. I don’t think it’s “one-sided bias” to accept this truth and understand the meaning of it in a larger context.
People have always been anti-war. War is rarely a universally accepted option, even if it seems like it is.
If you’re saying there isn’t anything different about the Ukrainian war, I’d assert you’re wrong. Russia, and more specifically Putin, has proven they are willing to be an existential threat to humanity via their nuclear weapons. The US waged a war in Iraq, and despite anyone’s opinions, right or wrong, they never once even hinted at the use of tactical nuclear warfare. Russia is the only country that does this and actually had the capabilities.
Because of this, the threat is far different than wars fought this past century. Russia is one of a handful of counties that possess this power. I don’t think it’s “one-sided bias” to accept this truth and understand the meaning of it in a larger context.
"we need to talk" is what you say when you're delivering new unwelcome news.
We need to talk. Look, no one want's to say it because we love you and don't want to hurt your feelings, but your breath is really bad. I'm sorry to have to say it but really it's ok just if address it I promise we'll never mention it again and no one holds it against you.
Wars have always been happeneing and happening everywhere, and they've always been exactly as bad as this or worse. It's not new and it's not news. There is nothing uniquely bad about this one, and this article brings nothing to light the way it purports to, and the trivializing "we need to talk" wording is just plain weird.
We need to talk. Look, no one want's to say it because we love you and don't want to hurt your feelings, but your breath is really bad. I'm sorry to have to say it but really it's ok just if address it I promise we'll never mention it again and no one holds it against you.
Wars have always been happeneing and happening everywhere, and they've always been exactly as bad as this or worse. It's not new and it's not news. There is nothing uniquely bad about this one, and this article brings nothing to light the way it purports to, and the trivializing "we need to talk" wording is just plain weird.
I would like to remind you that US is the ONLY country that actually has decimated 2 (not 1) cities using nuclear warheads. So saying that Russia has that capability while America doesn't is simply false.
Did not America threaten to use nuclear warheads in Afghanistan? It literally went into Iraq after the made-up threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
I don't think the West ever spoke out against America when it waged all those wars. Oh it does now but now it has become political. The wars have been waged, cities have been destroyed, civilians are dead, and so these wars become unpopular. No one stood up to stop those wars and I bet no one will stand up again.
So no, Russia-Ukraine war is not different because Russian has nuclear warheads. It's wrong. It's bad. It's consequences will be horrifying. All true. But in this instance, nothing puts it apart from all the other wars.
There's a difference between being anti-war and being silent. Silence is acceptance. And the world remained silent when people were dying in all those war-stricken countries.
Just to put things into perspective: America went into Afghanistan and stayed there for 20 years. 20 years long invasion. How long in Iraq? How long in Vietnam? Now Russia opens a front against Ukraine and suddenly everyone thinks it's different. It's not. It's the same thing in a different country. Big oppressing small. Sending a message etc etc.
Did not America threaten to use nuclear warheads in Afghanistan? It literally went into Iraq after the made-up threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
I don't think the West ever spoke out against America when it waged all those wars. Oh it does now but now it has become political. The wars have been waged, cities have been destroyed, civilians are dead, and so these wars become unpopular. No one stood up to stop those wars and I bet no one will stand up again.
So no, Russia-Ukraine war is not different because Russian has nuclear warheads. It's wrong. It's bad. It's consequences will be horrifying. All true. But in this instance, nothing puts it apart from all the other wars.
There's a difference between being anti-war and being silent. Silence is acceptance. And the world remained silent when people were dying in all those war-stricken countries.
Just to put things into perspective: America went into Afghanistan and stayed there for 20 years. 20 years long invasion. How long in Iraq? How long in Vietnam? Now Russia opens a front against Ukraine and suddenly everyone thinks it's different. It's not. It's the same thing in a different country. Big oppressing small. Sending a message etc etc.
I’ll be honest, I stopped reading after this:
> Did not America threaten to use nuclear warheads in Afghanistan? It literally went into Iraq after the made-up threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
No, America never threatened to nuke Afghanistan.
Also, I never said America doesn’t have the capability. But one country is using it as their lifeline to make sure they aren’t ripped apart by the rest of the world and one doesn’t even bring it up. Be anti-American or whatever all you want, but what’s the point in lying on the internet where information is so easy to simply Google?
> Did not America threaten to use nuclear warheads in Afghanistan? It literally went into Iraq after the made-up threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
No, America never threatened to nuke Afghanistan.
Also, I never said America doesn’t have the capability. But one country is using it as their lifeline to make sure they aren’t ripped apart by the rest of the world and one doesn’t even bring it up. Be anti-American or whatever all you want, but what’s the point in lying on the internet where information is so easy to simply Google?
You must be ignorant as hell. Russia opens a front? Really? Few millions people was forcefully deported. Children are separated from their parents. Filtration camps on occupied territories. Mass executions of civilians in Bucha, Borodyanka, Vorzel and other cities. Child rapes. Everyday’s indiscriminate shelling of civilian infrastructure with a rocket artillery. Latest shelling of the largest nuclear plant in Europe.
Nothing different? Really?
Nothing different? Really?
> I don't think the West ever spoke out against America when it waged all those wars.
Oh for christssake. There were so many global protests against the Iraq war that there’s an entire fucking Wikipedia dedicated to them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_Wa...
You can Google “protest against Afghanistan war” and see that … well, fuck, there is, again, an entire page of Wikipedia documentation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_war_in_...
The only conceivable excuse for your ignorance would be that you were born after 2010.
Oh for christssake. There were so many global protests against the Iraq war that there’s an entire fucking Wikipedia dedicated to them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_Wa...
You can Google “protest against Afghanistan war” and see that … well, fuck, there is, again, an entire page of Wikipedia documentation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_war_in_...
The only conceivable excuse for your ignorance would be that you were born after 2010.
> Russia has now become a fascist state, bent on neo-colonial conquest of everything post-Soviet and post-Russian Empire. Russian population, in substantial numbers, supports this fascism and this neo-colonialism.
I thought 1) Most Russians were against the war (“special operation”), and 2) that Russia is losing this war badly and with the new rocket equipment supplied to Ukraine that they’ll be pushed back, etc.
So which is it?
I thought 1) Most Russians were against the war (“special operation”), and 2) that Russia is losing this war badly and with the new rocket equipment supplied to Ukraine that they’ll be pushed back, etc.
So which is it?
Neither is true;
While sociological data in a dictatorship is to be taken with a grain of salt, the data shows that most Russians support the "special military operation": https://www.levada.ru/en/ Worse, there are a lot of people on Russian social media that are aware of war-crimes and support them, I hope their numbers are small, but unfortunately rulers known for cruelty like Ivan the Terrible, Peter I or Stalin are quite revered, and Putin has drawn parallels between himself and them (most recently Peter the First).
Russia lost the war in the sense that the original intent was to occupy all or most of the country. But Ukraine still has lost 20% of the area and much of the population is under occupation, refugees or mobilized. This is far from victory for Ukraine and the country needs to be helped to win. Ukrainian victory is in everyone's interest because otherwise wars of conquest will become the norm again.
While sociological data in a dictatorship is to be taken with a grain of salt, the data shows that most Russians support the "special military operation": https://www.levada.ru/en/ Worse, there are a lot of people on Russian social media that are aware of war-crimes and support them, I hope their numbers are small, but unfortunately rulers known for cruelty like Ivan the Terrible, Peter I or Stalin are quite revered, and Putin has drawn parallels between himself and them (most recently Peter the First).
Russia lost the war in the sense that the original intent was to occupy all or most of the country. But Ukraine still has lost 20% of the area and much of the population is under occupation, refugees or mobilized. This is far from victory for Ukraine and the country needs to be helped to win. Ukrainian victory is in everyone's interest because otherwise wars of conquest will become the norm again.
Most ethnic Russians in Ukraine support the action too. The crisis in the Donbas has really soured them.
The inevitable outcome is that like with Crimea, Russia will successfully annex the parts of Ukraine that are overwhelmingly populated by Russians who prefer Russian rule.
Please don’t mistake a prediction for an endorsement.
The inevitable outcome is that like with Crimea, Russia will successfully annex the parts of Ukraine that are overwhelmingly populated by Russians who prefer Russian rule.
Please don’t mistake a prediction for an endorsement.
> Most ethnic Russians
> in Ukraine support
> the action too
I think the cause and effect are reversed here: people choose the identity to reflect their political views. So, those who still choose the Russian identity often do so because they support Russia; but it's not a static group, their numbers are dwindling.
I believe that a lot of people who used to consider themselves Russians have now embraced Ukrainian identity to distance themselves from Russia.
The 'ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' in Ukraine has much more to do with self-identification than with anything else.
(I have an example of my grandfather. Having born near Khabarovsk, he moved to Lviv when he was twenty-some.
He considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, while all his family that stayed in Russia consider themselves ethnic Russians.
They have the same family history: some of their grandparents emigrated from Ukraine, so it wasn't a made-up identity. But it was a choice: my grandpa, living in Ukraine, considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, and his sister in Kamchatka considers herself ethnic Russian.)
'Ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' are not some stable groups where members of one cannot become members of another. Basically any Ukrainian can claim to be ethnic Russian, and almost any Russian from Ukraine (except perhaps late immigrants — but even those can usually find some Ukrainian roots) can claim to be ethnic Ukrainian.
> The inevitable outcome is that > like with Crimea, Russia will > successfully annex the parts > of Ukraine that are > overwhelmingly populated > by Russians who prefer > Russian rule.
I don't think such parts exist. After 2014, Ukrainians have had a good chance to see what happens in places conquered by Russia, so Russia is fooling no one: no one would look at Donetsk and say 'nice, I want my city to be like this!'.
I think the cause and effect are reversed here: people choose the identity to reflect their political views. So, those who still choose the Russian identity often do so because they support Russia; but it's not a static group, their numbers are dwindling.
I believe that a lot of people who used to consider themselves Russians have now embraced Ukrainian identity to distance themselves from Russia.
The 'ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' in Ukraine has much more to do with self-identification than with anything else.
(I have an example of my grandfather. Having born near Khabarovsk, he moved to Lviv when he was twenty-some.
He considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, while all his family that stayed in Russia consider themselves ethnic Russians.
They have the same family history: some of their grandparents emigrated from Ukraine, so it wasn't a made-up identity. But it was a choice: my grandpa, living in Ukraine, considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, and his sister in Kamchatka considers herself ethnic Russian.)
'Ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' are not some stable groups where members of one cannot become members of another. Basically any Ukrainian can claim to be ethnic Russian, and almost any Russian from Ukraine (except perhaps late immigrants — but even those can usually find some Ukrainian roots) can claim to be ethnic Ukrainian.
> The inevitable outcome is that > like with Crimea, Russia will > successfully annex the parts > of Ukraine that are > overwhelmingly populated > by Russians who prefer > Russian rule.
I don't think such parts exist. After 2014, Ukrainians have had a good chance to see what happens in places conquered by Russia, so Russia is fooling no one: no one would look at Donetsk and say 'nice, I want my city to be like this!'.
> 'Ethnic Russians' and 'ethnic Ukrainians' are not some stable groups where members of one cannot become members of another. Basically any Ukrainian can claim to be ethnic Russian, and almost any Russian from Ukraine (except perhaps late immigrants — but even those can usually find some Ukrainian roots) can claim to be ethnic Ukrainian.
That may or may not be true, but having spoken with some that's not what they think. It's definitely not cut and dried. Even so, if you imagine a rainbow you could think of yellow as being west Slavic Ukrainian and green as east Slavic Russian. Then sure, you have a fair amount of yellow-green in the spectrum, but that doesn't mean yellow and green don't both exist as meaningful categories.
I do agree thought that many, even perhaps most, Slavic people in the region can trace themselves back to Rurik's days and thus have some tie to the various successor states.
> They have the same family history: some of their grandparents emigrated from Ukraine, so it wasn't a made-up identity. But it was a choice: my grandpa, living in Ukraine, considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, and his sister in Kamchatka considers herself ethnic Russian.)
How much of this was due to the founding of Ukraine and the somewhat artificial creation of a new Ukrainian nationality to supersede Ruthenian and whatever else people who lived there called themselves before? I honestly have no idea on this, but from a distance it looks like the standard consequences of a great power coming in and drawing borders without much regard for the ethnic groups living there.
I have a Polish buddy whose uncle lives in western Ukraine. The uncle considers himself Ukrainian, but his Polish family all consider him Polish. The Ukrainian he speaks even sounds to them like Polish with funny grammar.
It's nice and all to say people choose their identity, but one observable fact about ethnic conflicts is that your self-identity matters considerably less than how others identify you. Look at the powerful west Slav bias in Poland's refugee acceptance for example.
> I don't think such parts exist. After 2014, Ukrainians have had a good chance to see what happens in places conquered by Russia, so Russia is fooling no one: no one would look at Donetsk and say 'nice, I want my city to be like this!'.
One nice thing about this conversation is we're both making verifiable predictions. So let's see how it shakes out.
That may or may not be true, but having spoken with some that's not what they think. It's definitely not cut and dried. Even so, if you imagine a rainbow you could think of yellow as being west Slavic Ukrainian and green as east Slavic Russian. Then sure, you have a fair amount of yellow-green in the spectrum, but that doesn't mean yellow and green don't both exist as meaningful categories.
I do agree thought that many, even perhaps most, Slavic people in the region can trace themselves back to Rurik's days and thus have some tie to the various successor states.
> They have the same family history: some of their grandparents emigrated from Ukraine, so it wasn't a made-up identity. But it was a choice: my grandpa, living in Ukraine, considered himself ethnic Ukrainian, and his sister in Kamchatka considers herself ethnic Russian.)
How much of this was due to the founding of Ukraine and the somewhat artificial creation of a new Ukrainian nationality to supersede Ruthenian and whatever else people who lived there called themselves before? I honestly have no idea on this, but from a distance it looks like the standard consequences of a great power coming in and drawing borders without much regard for the ethnic groups living there.
I have a Polish buddy whose uncle lives in western Ukraine. The uncle considers himself Ukrainian, but his Polish family all consider him Polish. The Ukrainian he speaks even sounds to them like Polish with funny grammar.
It's nice and all to say people choose their identity, but one observable fact about ethnic conflicts is that your self-identity matters considerably less than how others identify you. Look at the powerful west Slav bias in Poland's refugee acceptance for example.
> I don't think such parts exist. After 2014, Ukrainians have had a good chance to see what happens in places conquered by Russia, so Russia is fooling no one: no one would look at Donetsk and say 'nice, I want my city to be like this!'.
One nice thing about this conversation is we're both making verifiable predictions. So let's see how it shakes out.
> “Your grand-granddad was a torturer for the KGB” should be public knowledge, and it should be to the youths to decide what to do with that knowledge. It is not anybody’s to hedge.
Why though? If the great grandkid isn't torturing anyone, why should they be held responsible for that? They literally were not present and could do nothing to prevent it.
Why though? If the great grandkid isn't torturing anyone, why should they be held responsible for that? They literally were not present and could do nothing to prevent it.
If you are asking why, you are not acquainted well enough with the russian mentality with (dis)respect to the west. Unless somebody rubs the scale of atrocity their ancestors commited into the following generations, they will feel like they got away with it, and perceive the west as soft and weak. Much in the same vein as Russia brazenly buying weapon tech and luxury items and electronics from the west, its rich and powerful spending holidays in and sending their kids to study in EU and US. All the while being a part of the global autocracy club and annexing its neighbors. Oh, and MH17 as a bonus, if you need a reminder.
> If the great grandkid isn't torturing anyone, why should they be held responsible for that?
They shouldn't.
But at the same time, they should take the words of their grandparents about how great Soviet Union was with a grain of salt.
This is not about shaming the grandchildren, this is about having a more realistic picture of the past.
This is especially important because the past is used as a justification for doing things in the present: Putin doesn't think he is conquering a real country, he's just restoring a precious situation. And many Russians would think "well, we did live in Soviet Union together, why not join again" without knowing how much violence was needed to keep Soviet Union together.
They shouldn't.
But at the same time, they should take the words of their grandparents about how great Soviet Union was with a grain of salt.
This is not about shaming the grandchildren, this is about having a more realistic picture of the past.
This is especially important because the past is used as a justification for doing things in the present: Putin doesn't think he is conquering a real country, he's just restoring a precious situation. And many Russians would think "well, we did live in Soviet Union together, why not join again" without knowing how much violence was needed to keep Soviet Union together.