President Biden explicitly called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” Wednesday, after weeks of avoiding the term and at a time when his administration is still determining whether that label officially applies."
"Biden watched Zelensky’s 9 a.m. address from the private library of his White House residence, absorbing an emotional plea that invoked both Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 — two deadly attacks on the United States that came from the sky — and beseeched the president to close the skies above Ukraine.
“Our country experienced the same every day, right now, at this moment, every night for three weeks now,” Zelensky said, speaking to lawmakers via video with the help of an interpreter.
The United Nations' top court for disputes between states ordered Russia on Wednesday to immediately halt its military operations in Ukraine, saying it was "profoundly concerned" by Moscow's use of force.
Although the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are binding, it has no direct means of enforcing them, and in rare cases in the past countries have ignored them.
"The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on Feb 24, 2022 on the territory of Ukraine," the ICJ judges said in a 13-2 decision.
I agree, that is the central question. As Blow puts it, "Human suffering is human suffering. It has been a constant in the story of mankind. Sometimes it overlaps with our national interests, and sometimes it does not. But our sense of morality must remain constant, and in it we must find a place for equity."The bigger question is can the US (or any nation) claim to be a “moral leader” without acting as a “world policeman”?
What level of basic human rights violations (anywhere on the planet) should not cause a (self-proclaimed?) “moral leader” nation to act as a “world policeman”?
Biden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’ (WaPo)
World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine (Reuters)
So, now the question becomes, "What do we do about that"?
In my opinion, there is no question that Russia's attack on Ukraine was not only unprovoked, but is part of a pattern of aggressive military action in violation of international law. Moreover, there is little question that tactically the Russian forces are, apparently at the direction of Putin himself, committing "grave breaches" of International Humanitarian Law - war crimes - of the most serious nature. Indeed, it appears the aim is now genocidal, which is unfathomable given the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and its cultural history with Russia.
But, the question remains, "What do we do about that"? Once upon a time, the United States considered itself the "shining city on a hill" and the guardian of democracy the world over. That's the moral stance that it has taken for decades. Notwithstanding the blip that was the Trump administration (that's leaving a stain), it has been the official foreign policy position of the United States since at least the Second World War. Charles Blow of The New York Times asks in his latest column, What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?
As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"
Considering the US's history of coups and creating failed states through "moral interventions" (Middle East), they have no legs to stand on when it comes to espousing democracy and having the moral high groundBiden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’ (WaPo)
World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine (Reuters)
So, now the question becomes, "What do we do about that"?
In my opinion, there is no question that Russia's attack on Ukraine was not only unprovoked, but is part of a pattern of aggressive military action in violation of international law. Moreover, there is little question that tactically the Russian forces are, apparently at the direction of Putin himself, committing "grave breaches" of International Humanitarian Law - war crimes - of the most serious nature. Indeed, it appears the aim is now genocidal, which is unfathomable given the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and its cultural history with Russia.
But, the question remains, "What do we do about that"? Once upon a time, the United States considered itself the "shining city on a hill" and the guardian of democracy the world over. That's the moral stance that it has taken for decades. Notwithstanding the blip that was the Trump administration (that's leaving a stain), it has been the official foreign policy position of the United States since at least the Second World War. Charles Blow of The New York Times asks in his latest column, What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?
As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"
. . . . What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?
As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"
What a stupidly absurd and ironical joke! That's the court against which the US has legislation(see above) and some presidents threatened action against its judges!With the International Court of Justice ruling, the United State and Europe have a legal justification for intervention (the court itself has no enforcement powers), but they still have practical considerations. I think this may allow the release of those Polish MiGs, though.
Biden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’ (WaPo)
World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine (Reuters)
So, now the question becomes, "What do we do about that"?
In my opinion, there is no question that Russia's attack on Ukraine was not only unprovoked, but is part of a pattern of aggressive military action in violation of international law. Moreover, there is little question that tactically the Russian forces are, apparently at the direction of Putin himself, committing "grave breaches" of International Humanitarian Law - war crimes - of the most serious nature. Indeed, it appears the aim is now genocidal, which is unfathomable given the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and its cultural history with Russia.
But, the question remains, "What do we do about that"? Once upon a time, the United States considered itself the "shining city on a hill" and the guardian of democracy the world over. That's the moral stance that it has taken for decades. Notwithstanding the blip that was the Trump administration (that's leaving a stain), it has been the official foreign policy position of the United States since at least the Second World War. Charles Blow of The New York Times asks in his latest column, What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?
As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"
But Russia is far too strong and dangerous and the US&allies will keep their distance and limit themselves to "sanctions" and cheap propaganda.
You can't go a day without suckung some Russian teat.
I think it's more "involved" than that.You can't go a day without sucking some Russian teat.
I think that is too narrow and parochial a view, frankly. Everyone has clay feet. But, in the main, the US has taken a proactive role more often than not, from the Marshall Plan, forward. I think the geopolitics of the cold war warped the process significantly, as does jingoism from specific US leaders. I also think it is important to distinguish leaders from countries, in this regard. The policies of Reagan and Trump (and the GOP, generally), for example, differ significantly from those pursued by Democratic leaders. In the 1956 Suez crisis, the US did not participate, but in Vietnam it entered on behalf of the colonialists in the erroneous belief that it was "fighting communism".Considering the US's history of coups and creating failed states through "moral interventions" (Middle East), they have no legs to stand on when it comes to espousing democracy and having the moral high ground
The bigger question is can the US (or any nation) claim to be a “moral leader” without acting as a “world policeman”?
What level of basic human rights violations (anywhere on the planet) should not cause a (self-proclaimed?) “moral leader” nation to act as a “world policeman”?
I don't think any of these conflicts are necessarily binary. Indeed, it is the multipolarity which makes them so intractable. There are gradations, nuances, and conflicting interests - even internally - that make consensus difficult to deliver.This era's binary choices are: More destructive industrialism and militarism or the possibility of avoiding more suffering due to Earth's abused and barely hanging on ecosystems collapsing?
Militarism or environmentalism?
Ok, but you agree the US coups in Latin America were wrong and is pretty ironic considering the US's stance on promoting democracy.I think that is too narrow and parochial a view, frankly. Everyone has clay feet. But, in the main, the US has taken a proactive role more often than not, from the Marshall Plan, forward. I think the geopolitics of the cold war warped the process significantly, as does jingoism from specific US leaders. I also think it is important to distinguish leaders from countries, in this regard. The policies of Reagan and Trump (and the GOP, generally), for example, differ significantly from those pursued by Democratic leaders. In the 1956 Suez crisis, the US did not participate, but in Vietnam it entered on behalf of the colonialists in the erroneous belief that it was "fighting communism".
Yes.Ok, but you agree the US coups in Latin America were wrong and is pretty ironic considering the US's stance on promoting democracy.
Ok then I'm fine with your postYes. (Although, with few exceptions, the United States was not directly involved, merely supporting existing conflicts, so calling them "US coups" is overstating the case.)
It damages credibility when a nation pursues actions that contradict its stated positions. For example, the United States has a stated position to support democracy around the globe, yet in 1956 it prevented a free election in Vietnam because it recognized that the communist leader would win. Under Nixon and Reagan (especially), the US supported anti-democratic leaders in Latin America because they foolishly equated laissez faire economic policies with open governments. Jimmy Carter, frankly, was the only US President to express an honest position on the issue.Ok then I'm fine with your post
And since Trump has no filter, he's actually been like the only president to state the unsaid. The US has a lot of people with blood on their hands.It damages credibility when a nation pursues actions that contradict its stated positions. For example, the United States has a stated position to support democracy around the globe, yet in 1956 it prevented a free election in Vietnam because it recognized that the communist leader would win. Under Nixon and Reagan (especially), the US supported anti-democratic leaders in Latin America because they foolishly equated laissez faire economic policies with open governments. Jimmy Carter, frankly, was the only US President to express an honest position on the issue.
On the topic of the Polish MiGs. What is the current rationale for not releasing them? I understand why NATO can't enforce a no-fly zone with NATO pilots, but why is the donation of aircraft so politically sensitive? Are they considered somehow "more deadly" than armed drones, AA guns, anti-tank weapons, or javelin missiles? They are all deadly pieces of military equipment that can be used to kill Russian soldiers. Why would it be considered an escalation when there are presumably thousands of donated NATO rounds buried in Russian equipment and dead soldiers as we speak?I agree, that is the central question. As Blow puts it, "Human suffering is human suffering. It has been a constant in the story of mankind. Sometimes it overlaps with our national interests, and sometimes it does not. But our sense of morality must remain constant, and in it we must find a place for equity."
With the International Court of Justice ruling, the United State and Europe have a legal justification for intervention (the court itself has no enforcement powers), but they still have practical considerations. I think this may allow the release of those Polish MiGs, though.
On the topic of the Polish MiGs. What is the current rationale for not releasing them? I understand why NATO can't enforce a no-fly zone with NATO pilots, but why is the donation of aircraft so politically sensitive? Are they considered somehow "more deadly" than armed drones, AA guns, anti-tank weapons, or javelin missiles? They are all deadly pieces of military equipment that can be used to kill Russian soldiers. Why would it be considered an escalation when there are presumably thousands of donated NATO rounds buried in Russian equipment and dead soldiers as we speak?
The only thing I can think of is the danger of NATO pilots delivering them. Obviously, it is dangerous to put a NATO pilot in a position where he or she could be shot down by Russian weaponry. But if Ukrainian pilots can go to Poland to pick them up, I don't see the issue here.
There have been two arguments put forth for denial of the MiGs.The main objection is not about the MiG jets per se, but about the longevity of the jets. The Pentagon rationale is that every sq foot of Ukrainein airspace is covered by Russian S-400 anti-air systems in Russia, Kaliningrad, and Belarus. Tactically the Pentagon is right. But still, I'd rather have the Ukrainian pilots make the decision on whether or not to fly these birds.
Now Slovakia has offered to give Ukraine their S-300 anti-air system (provided they receive a replacement system). The S-300 is truck mounted (mobile) so it could be rapidly moved, and some models have a range of 200-250 miles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?