As a side note, I find the language you are using strange. I do not know if it's my perspective of the world being different than yours, but I'll try to explain.
In my perspective, genocide is a very, very strong word. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, as he literally wanted them exterminated.
Now, crime is a crime, none should be defended nor downsized. But the primary goal behind that genocide was extermination. Do you claim that Russia is trying to exterminate Ukrainians?
Or you are using it just to point out the war crimes that the Russian army is did?
Not who you replied to, but yes, I am claiming that Russia is trying to exterminate Ukrainians.
From the (admittedly, rambling) speeches of their top command about how Ukraine is not a real country and intentional shelling of civilian structures, to mass murder of civilians being uncovered after russian forces are pushed back and abduction of children, there is no way you can call the goal of russian forces anything but extermination of a nation.
Of course, the official body count is not yet past 6 million, and UN paperwork calling it genocide is not yet signed. So yeah, you're right, it's not genocide, just murder on industrial scale.
For the sake of disclosure, I'm from Latvia, a country that shook off the russian yoke in 90s, and my own mother has chilling memories of red army acting the same animalistic way as what we hear from Ukraine today. "Bias" or "experience" - choose your own label.
Yes, russia is engaged in many actions that make clear that they are perpetrating a genocide, such as:
- literally saying Ukraine should not exist
- saying Ukrainians aren't a real people, just russians
- planning to solve "The Ukraine Question" (yes, phrased by the Kremlin just as another dictator phrased "The Jewish Question")
- planning to end Ukraine as a country and split up the land between themselves and other countries (maps have even been found among russian forces in Ukraine illustrating this)
- mass executions to rid Ukrainian land of Ukrainians (see Bucha for just 1 example)
- mass shelling of civilian targets (homes, etc.) in cities to rid Ukrainian land of Ukrainians
- destroying and stealing grain from Ukraine to starve Ukrainians (russia has a history of doing this in Ukraine, see: Holodomor)
- refusing and attacking international food aid, mefical aid, and rescue to Ukrainian civilians
- announcing Ukrainians who fled the fighting will have their property and homes given to pro-russian fighters in territory russia controls
- shooting and shelling civilians who try to evacuate
- sending Ukrainians in areas russia controls to "filtration camps" where those who show support for Ukraine are executed or forcibly deported to russia or russian controlled land
- destroying Ukrainian cultural landmarks
- forcing Ukrainians in russian controlled territory to not speak Ukrainian
the list goes longer, but russia has not at all tried to hide it, simply watch what the state propagandists and putin himself say and have said of Ukraine as a sovereign state
I am sure You have your rightful reasons for this anger, I am sure a lot of people do. I mean, even when You write 'Russia', 'Putin', You purposefully write without capital letters.
Maybe time will tell that, despite your anger, You are right. But I sure pray to God that You are not, and that it hasn't/won't come to that.
Heya, since HN is a worldwide website, I think language or locale differences may have led you to misunderstand my post.
The post actually does not contain anger, and is a well researched list of things russia actually has done and is doing.
As well, since they are facts, and not emotion, and since those facts together (even 2 or 3 of them alone, much less all of them taken together) constitute genocide, my own rightness or wrongness is irrelevant to the fact that russia is engaging in genocide.
Though Ukrainians are no doubt thankful of prayers for them in the face of russia's genocide, and your sympathy for them is no doubt appreciated, so thank you <3
If you had the all the info, how would you be certain that you are not biased?
I had the unluckiness to be born in a country torched by war. I am still finding out the info about the war, that you won't be able to read anywhere. I am aware that it is not easy for someone that grew up and lives in totally different world to learn and understand all the complexities... But at least take everything with a grain of salt.
> But the US is worse when it comes to CO2 emmited per capita. That means that US should also be taxed.
China - as all nations - has a responsibility based on its population scale (ie its total emissions output), not just its per capita output. The total output matters far more than per capita, as we're dealing with a matter of planetary survival, not whether it's fair that Monaco has higher emissions output per capita than China.
Other nations are not responsible for China having those 1.4 billion people. China bears that responsibility. Other nations are obviously not responsible for the US having its per capita emissions output, either.
Estonia having 4x the per capita emissions output of the US wouldn't pose a terminal risk for the planet. And sure, maybe it's fair to argue a tax to incentivize per capita behavior of high per capita emissions nations. And what to do about China's total output risk, given it's going to destroy the planet (whereas smaller nations do not pose that risk)? The logical thing would be to apply taxes to both, in a way the keeps the planet from getting destroyed: it means China can never be allowed to have parity with smaller nations that have high per capita outputs.
China, with its 1.4 billion people, would pose a terminal risk for the globe if it reaches per capita emissions output parity with the US (actually it's already approaching that risk now, and it's merely half way to parity). Taxes don't mean much if half the planet is wrecked. China has a different responsibility than Estonia does given China can all by itself destroy the world with its emissions. I use Estonia merely as an example to highlight the point, very obviously the US has a responsibility as well based on its scale. Sure, we can focus a tax in on Estonia in that case, however it's by far not our most pressing matter.
China going from ~28% of global emissions to ~45%, is a very pressing matter. The globe can't afford China to increase at all at this point.
If a country had four billion people, it similarly wouldn't be reasonable for it to reach emissions parity with the US: it would kill everyone in doing so.
The equation of fairness must also consider the scale of the threat being posed, as it's also not fair if one outsized population nation gets to destroy the planet because it has 1.4 billion people. One can live in fantasy (where fairness means every nation gets equal emissions output per capita), or live in reality. In reality it matters how many people you have and what their per capita emissions are. Reality is course the dimension where we can all die from the emissions output of a nation the scale of China.
What matters is fantasy when it isn't politically feasible. The only consensus for an emissions regulatory framework is going to be based on per capita. Growing populous countries with the most say will never agree to anything else which is counter to their interests, i.e. China could propose a framework based on de-growth since the PRC population is set to decline to less than 1B by the end of the century, but western countries that rely on growth via immigration would never be up for it even if ultimately de-growth is the more pragmatic solution. Reality is also going to be that emission standards will be based on historic per capita emissions since developing countries will need to catch up on new infra emissions which western nations hide in historic emission data. Reality is global warming is less politically existential than poverty and development for domestic politics for many countries, as long as it kills others more than yourself, even if it ultimately kills everyone. This highlights the even more unpalatable reality that there are climate change winners and losers.
Climate change discussions remind me of covid19 policy wank and panic control but stretched out over decades. Many of us were fairly confident covid19 was going to be a pandemic we’ll have to live with, that’s just reality when most of the world do not have capability to respond properly. There’s a lot of interventions and technologies leading countries can export to mitigate, but ultimately everyone has to come to an understanding that we can’t stop climate change due to political realities.
If you're talking about people who for some reason don't understand European tax laws (which is a lot of people in the mainland and in the US), yeah I'm quite frustrated.
My issue is with people who pay nil significant taxes in Europe gloating ignorantly about how European Healthcare is free, and won't stop shitting on American Healthcare. Yeah, your healthcare is cheaper than the US but it isn't free. There is a whole bunch of middle class folks and upper class folks paying for it. And I'm not even supporting the American model.
In my perspective, genocide is a very, very strong word. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, as he literally wanted them exterminated.
Now, crime is a crime, none should be defended nor downsized. But the primary goal behind that genocide was extermination. Do you claim that Russia is trying to exterminate Ukrainians? Or you are using it just to point out the war crimes that the Russian army is did?