2025 American Political (ob-?)Scene

[Ironduke]

I'm confused by what seems to be his notion that I have to express opinions on another unrelated matter to have the right to form and express opinions on the Russia-Ukraine matter. It's just whataboutism.

It's as if I were to extend condolences to someone whose family member got in a motor vehicle crash, and someone came along and said, "well, what about the other 30 million people who have been injured and hundreds of thousands who have died since the year 2000 in the United States in car crashes? You never sent your condolences to any of them! And what about those who were injured or killed in France? South Africa? I didn't hear you express your condolences to any motor vehicle crash victims in India! How dare you! What a hypocrite!"

I haven't really followed any news or developments in the latest Israel-Gaza war since soon after it happened. I really don't have the mental bandwidth to focus on or pay attention to every single thing going on in every corner of the world. Nobody does. It's such an intractable, endemic issue, I personally became weary and numb on the subject long ago.

The notion though I have to focus on subject matters of another's choosing, form and express opinions about them, before I can even proceed to have thoughts in my own mind on yet another matter, well whoever thinks that, they can get lost. Not going to play someone's whataboutist games.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

So 120 years ago there were 10-15x as many Karelians (a Finnic people) in Russia than there are today. A gradual policy of assimilation via the suppression, outlawing, disfavoring of the cultures and languages of conquered peoples is still genocide. Just not as shocking or readily recognizable as Nazi-style acute, wholesale extermination. For centuries, Russia did this in Ukraine. In fact, Kursk, Belgorod, much of southern Russia was originally Ukrainian. Kazakhstan was subject to colonization, settlement, and pro-Russian policies that saw the titular ethnic group become a minority in their own lands. The same would have happened to the Baltics if not for independence in 1991. Even now there are large number of Russians who remain there, that the Soviet Union settled there to help secure their control, and the Russification would not have abated if Russia had retained control of these territories. The Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians would have ended up like the Karelians did. Putin wants to do the same to Ukraine today.

One could say perhaps when Russia does genocide, to quote Neil Diamond, maybe they do it with a kinder, gentler machine gun hand. Just because it's more gradual, and doesn't rely as much on wholesale slaughter and extermination, just more piecemeal slaughters, decimation in the original Roman sense of the word, repression, deportations, coerced assimiliation, and colonization (and all of these things are happening in Ukraine since 2022), doesn't make it not so.

Nitpick all you want on differences in method, the result is the same.

I get what you're saying but a cursory google put your Karelian reference in doubt. There's 30K Karelian in Russia but only 10K in Finland. You would think the Finns would reward immigration of a Finnish people and offer protection but from wiki, I get the impression that Karelians are under the same pressure as the Tibetans, North American First Nations, Basques, every minority facing the pressures of the i-phone and the i-phone has very little to do with Russia, China, or Washington. The majority of the Tibetans no longer consider the Dali Lama as a living god and that has nothing to do with Beijing but more with TikTok.

Is it Russian genocide or a society unable to withstand modernization?

 

[Ironduke]

Is it Russian genocide or a society unable to withstand modernization?

Even if I'm off base with just that particular example, is the deportation of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia, settlement of Russians from Russia in the occupied parts of Ukraine, coercing Ukrainians to abandon their passports and take Russian ones to be even be able to get the basic necessities to sustain life, suppression of the Ukrainian language, is this just a mark of a society unable to withstand modernization? Does it have something to do with the pressures of the iPhone?

Was the mass settlement of ethnic Russians in the Baltics also this? The Kazakhs a minority in their own lands by 1989 was also just the mark of a society unable to withstand modernization? When Russia disproportionately uses its ethnic minorities and empties its prison to use as human ammunition, is this an iPhone/ forces of modernization thing? Or is there some kind of deliberate policy at work?

 

[Ironduke]

The Institute for the Study of War which has effectively become the mantle for establishment media reporting on the Russia-Ukraine War as far as battlefield developments and I read their daily updates every evening. Their coverage of the Israel-Gaza and Israel vs. other Middle East states conflicts was laughably terrible

ISW has people that fund them that probably dictate how that funding gets used, and their funders almost certainly have a significantly higher opinion of Israel than they do Russia. So ISW's positions are based on their bottom line, knowing their audience the same way social media influencers do, and staying open as a nonprofit think tank. If they want to have bias and not apply the same thought to all conflicts, fine, just don't tell me they have consistent principles that we're seeking to uphold globally.

Here's an odd story.

Think tanker altered Ukraine war map before big Polymarket payout

The Institute for the Study of War disavowed the edit, removed the employee, but is staying quiet, raising questions about the credibility of ISW and prediction gambling

responsiblestatecraft.org

The person writing this blog has a Russian bias but I don't find much to disagree about in his very longform autumn update on the conflict. (I think he's too optimistic about the 2026 "banana" operation in Donetsk, although analysts I've read think Russia just intends to encircle "the banana" versus take it head-on, so maybe that's what he means.)

........ He goes heavy in a Jomini style of explaining Ukraine's logistical problems created by Russia's southern front advances the past year and how in his opinion Western war reporters miss the importance of what they deem "secondary theaters" for its overall effects on Ukraine's force posture (this is pretty much pointed at ISW, who has defined primary and secondary theaters for as long as they've been covering the war).

I've noticed now, three times in separate threads, on separate dates, you've attacked the credibility of ISW. Between that and the whataboutism, forgive my suspicions, I just can't help but wonder if you have some sort of agenda. Or are you just another American doomscrolling Russian milblogger telegram channels?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Even if I'm off base with just that particular example,

Speaking as a former UNPROFOR Officer, it is hard enough to document real war crimes without adding in frivolous actions that are not war crimes not involving the direct populations involved.

is the deportation of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia, settlement of Russians from Russia in the occupied parts of Ukraine, coercing Ukrainians to abandon their passports and take Russian ones to be even be able to get the basic necessities to sustain life,

According to the rules of the UN, each case must be documented; each child must be identified; each passport surrendered highlighted; each demand for Russian documentation for basic necessity be documented. All of that must be done to qualify charging the Russians of war crimes. Have no need to add in the Karelians which is more work for nothing.

suppression of the Ukrainian language, is this just a mark of a society unable to withstand modernization? Does it have something to do with the pressures of the iPhone?

School curriculum is not a war crime no matter how much you wish it were.

Was the mass settlement of ethnic Russians in the Baltics also this? The Kazakhs a minority in their own lands by 1989 was also just the mark of a society unable to withstand modernization?

Legal population migration is also not a war crime.

When Russia disproportionately uses its ethnic minorities and empties its prison to use as human ammunition, is this an iPhone/ forces of modernization thing? Or is there some kind of deliberate policy at work?

Maybe but they're not war crimes.

 

[Ironduke]

Where in my posts did I speak of war crimes?

I spoke of genocide. Which Russia is currently doing in Ukraine. Which they've done elsewhere in the past in the 20th century.

Sure, war crimes can occur during a genocide. Genocide can also occur in the absence of a state of war. There is some Venn diagram relation overlap between them. While it may be a related issue, it's not the issue of which I was speaking.

I found your response oblique. Did you want to have a conversation about war crimes specifically?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Genocide has a very specific war crime meaning within the diplomatic/military circles. It forces military actions when declared. Hence, for the longest time, the US refused to acknowledged Rwanda as a genocide.

It is within that context that I responded. We can/must act when genocide is declared but it is a very careful deliberation to when it is declared. In the meantime, other war crimes contributing to the genocide have a much lower threshold that we can act on.

 

[Ironduke]

I never sought to make any point regarding, or make a call advocating for, "official" declarations of a genocide, nor did I advocate direct Western military intervention on this basis.

I merely observed, it is happening. Which it is.

And I agree, war crimes should be acted on.

 

[Porfirio Diaz]

Where are all the descendants of George Washington?. The Jeffersons? The Roosevelts? The Adams, the Monroes, The Polks, The Grants, the Eisenhowers, the Fords, the Taylors?. The Maddisons? Franklins? Where are these descendants? We need them more than ever to lead our country.

 

[Monash]

Answer? They're all swirling around in the gene pool. Looking backwards and expecting the descendants of your past hero's to solve America's problems today is a pointless exercise. All the people you've named? Were just as flawed, compromised and struggling as today's politicians. The only difference? They just didn't have modern media and the internet shining a spot light on every decision they made and every single thing they did (public or private) like politicians do today.

 

[rj1]

I'm confused by what seems to be his notion that I have to express opinions on another unrelated matter to have the right to form and express opinions on the Russia-Ukraine matter. It's just whataboutism.

It's as if I were to extend condolences to someone whose family member got in a motor vehicle crash, and someone came along and said, "well, what about the other 30 million people who have been injured and hundreds of thousands who have died since the year 2000 in the United States in car crashes? You never sent your condolences to any of them! And what about those who were injured or killed in France? South Africa? I didn't hear you express your condolences to any motor vehicle crash victims in India! How dare you! What a hypocrite!"

I haven't really followed any news or developments in the latest Israel-Gaza war since soon after it happened. I really don't have the mental bandwidth to focus on or pay attention to every single thing going on in every corner of the world. Nobody does. It's such an intractable, endemic issue, I personally became weary and numb on the subject long ago.

The notion though I have to focus on subject matters of another's choosing, form and express opinions about them, before I can even proceed to have thoughts in my own mind on yet another matter, well whoever thinks that, they can get lost. Not going to play someone's whataboutist games.

It's not whataboutism if we're in one world system and you apply the same principles to everyone. That is how the concept of law is supposed to work. Law is supposed to be this uncaring established code of conduct and other items that applies to everyone in all circumstances - doesn't matter if you're rich, poor, white, black, Hispanic, who your mom or dad are, etc. Now law when it gets applied, some of those things unfortunately do matter, but if you take an idealized view of law, raping a 14-year-old girl or murdering your spouse should merit equal punishment for everyone regardless of the circumstances of the individual that committed the act. Now extend law to international law which is admittedly a more abstract concept but has to still exist to some extent, otherwise Country X can go commit genocide and technically did no wrong in law terms because there's no international law that applies to the conduct of countries. Whatever you define international law as, if you're an idealist, you apply the same set of rules to everyone, regardless of whether you like the country or not. Even if you're a realist, you still have to have some principles of international law that you apply to items that do not involve you or your interests, otherwise the world becomes one giant free-for-all. Should cluster bombs be used in conflicts? If you say no, it should never be used by anyone and you should condemn any country that uses them. If you allow a single exception, everyone should then be allowed to use cluster bombs I would argue. The U.S. for a long period of time pursued a rules-based order that Biden when he was in charge stated was the reason the Russian invasion was wrong - the rules being since 1945 we don't invade other nations for territory. The benefit of the rules-based order is we could unilaterally change the rules as we saw fit. Israel completely blew a hole into our lip service to a rules-based order because the rules as Americans were defining them were not applying to our ally. For example, the State Department pretty much had to ignore domestic laws regarding usage of munitions sold by the Americans to allow Israel to still get the munitions. If most countries did the same thing, the law wouldn't have been ignored. So does that law exist, is it dead letter, or was the State Department cheating and breaking the law?

Now we're in the middle of the Trump presidency and it's pretty clear the rules-based order is what the American President says goes where even domestic law has become irrelevant. There's no principle in that I can see other than American supremacy geopolitically partly due to our strongest allies the Europeans have become feckless vassal states. This is all going to end in war some day in the future, at which point this will get formalized either for or against. I'm just waiting until we get there.