Don’t think this has been posted - Shift in Beijing’s public position comes after call between Chinese and Ukrainian foreign ministers.
Good-ish news?
China signalled it was ready to play a role in finding a ceasefire in Ukraine as it “deplored” the outbreak of conflict in its strongest comments yet on the war.
Beijing said it was “extremely concerned about the harm to civilians” in comments that came after a phone call between Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba.
“Ukraine is willing to strengthen communications with China and looks forward to China playing a role in realising a ceasefire,” the Chinese statement said on Tuesday.
It seems to blur the line, given that they’re indiscriminately targeting residential areas in Kharkiv, which has a lot of ethnic Russians.
However genocide can also be targeting a nation’s people to destroy that nation, and that seems to apply.
I’ve been calling it genocidal in conversations with friends, I guess it’s up to Amnesty or the UN to call it genocide officially right?
Well I just learned he’s an MSU grad (or at least former student) which is super weird
Oh and if it’s a genocide… it makes me feel really shitty about the west not intervening more to avoid risking a broader conflict
Doesn’t genocide require that intent be defined?
Seems like something that has to be decided years after the event is over in a case like this so the dust can clear.
You are right about that correction contradicting the part I cited. The conversation definitely happened, maybe we were talking about a wrong source like this one pre-invasion.
Currently listening to Fresh Air on NPR. Terry Gross is interviewing journalist/historian Anne Applebaum on Ukraine.
Eyebrow raising moments: Mild mannered Terry asks about the chances of Putin being fed polonium by one of his own people. Applebaum shrugs it off. Later speculates one way Putin might use his nukes is to detonate a tactical device over the Black Sea to scare people.
probably ICC, rather than the UN
I’m not sure, I mean it’s not like Putin is ever going to come out and say yeah I bombed civilians on purpose to kill as many Ukrainian nationals as possible. I do agree it won’t be officially decided for a a while in all likelihood.
I don’t think the west isn’t intervening out of fear of broader conflict in and of itself, I think it’s fear of broad nuclear conflict that basically ends the world. Like the situation facing Biden and the NATO leaders is basically the scenario you hope and pray you won’t face when you become a world leader.
It’s a crime against humanity, but not genocide. Genocide has to be targeted against a specific group.
A quick Googling says that group can be citizens of a nation, though, to destroy the nation. As opposed to people of an ethnic background or race to destroy that group.
I’m not sure if there’s a different accepted definition from the UN or ICC or Amnesty International, though?
I have moved the discussion to its own thread.
Also, maybe avoid using that term. It’s pretty insensitive.
Like the situation facing Biden and the NATO leaders is basically the scenario you hope and pray you won’t face when you become a world leader
Not necessarily. I’m cynical enough to imagine a pro-democracy or just anti-Putin geopolitical evil genius out there feeding strategy to Biden/NATO who sees Putin overreaching and realizes this is a perfect chance to get payback for Putin’s interference in elections and stoking of division in the world. I could leave out the evil genius part but then probably couldn’t get anyone to buy Biden is capable of this on his own.
Edit: tried to clarify the part I was responding to.
But for all of the stories of Russian failure, here is the very bad news: Russia will far more likely respond to battlefield setbacks the way it traditionally has—with overwhelming firepower—than by seeking peace. The history of warfare (including the history of Russian warfare) is replete with examples of early failures and terrible command decisions. But armies tend to be learning organisms. If the fight doesn’t go as they expect, they adjust tactics.
Indeed, as much as Ukrainian resistance has inspired the West, it’s hard to believe that a few days of fighting have chastened Russia or deterred President Vladimir Putin. Much more likely is that he believes he has no choice but to press on to victory. To preserve his power, he has to win. Prediction is a dangerous business, but the likelihood now is that Putin will step on the gas and increase the violence and intensity of his attack. The possibility that he’ll halt his forces in place—to say nothing of retreating from Ukrainian territory—is far slimmer.
Putin can still lose by winning. In other words, the cost of his likely battlefield victory could be so great that it ultimately diminishes Russian power or even destabilizes his regime, but even so, imagining a scenario where Ukraine wins outright is difficult. NATO-supplied weapons may bleed the Russian army, but they seem unlikely to turn the tide on the battlefield. One can hope that the combination of Ukrainian courage, NATO weapons, and low Russian morale can turn the tide, but the odds against Ukraine are long.
Indeed, we don’t possess a great deal of information about Ukrainian casualties and equipment losses. We don’t know how much longer it can go toe-to-toe with Russian invaders. Russia is still a much stronger nation. It still possesses immense firepower. It can choose to go “full Grozny” and turn Ukrainian cities into the most destroyed cities on Earth.
Yes, that would further galvanize world opinion against Putin, but he’s already isolated. He’s already sanctioned, and the Russian economy is already “reeling.” Moreover, it’s still early in the conflict. If the Russians ultimately break through, seize Kyiv, and kill or capture Ukrainian leaders, hope will give way to despair, the people of Ukraine will pay a terrifying price, and true independence will once again be a distant dream.
This is not a movie. There is no script that gives the underdog the victory in the end. NATO’s renewed solidarity is of limited benefit to Ukrainians under fire in Kyiv. Germany’s increased defense budget does absolutely nothing to destroy the miles-long Russian armored convoys now inching down Ukrainian roads.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1498772404843298817
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1498761846395916290
Putin is the head of a transatlantic criminal syndicate, politics and crime go hand in hand in Russia. “It would be a shame if some bombs fell on civilians, know why don’t you abdicate self rule and get back in line before more people get hurt.” It’s the mobsters’ world view that might makes right. He couldn’t care less if his economy implodes, he’s sufficiently insulated that even if he lost the majority of his holdings he’d still be among the richest people on the planet. What’s more terrifying to him is allowing democracy to flourish so close to his empire, to see corruption actually being addressed in Ukraine must be truly horrifying to him. If the Russian people think they deserve the same free will his days in power are numbered. He’s willing to leave Ukraine a cratered, burning ash pit as long as it prevents his people from rising up to oust him.
Putin may have just wanted to take part of Ukraine, but he might feel like he has to take it all now because leaving some sort of rump Ukrainian state will leave a base for guerilla and terrorist activity aimed at Russia.
Russia hasn’t progressed to the “level cities” phase yet, which isn’t the same thing as using artillery on cities. That Kharkov administration building was probably a legitimate target. If Kyiv is leveled, it will be more likely due to protracted urban combat than a premeditated decision.