At the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse, I'd just like to share my own twopence worth, which y'all are free to ignore, retort, or whatever -
Look, by now I know that there are many evidently absolutely close-minded writers here who believe that everything from their
favorite propaganda sources (likely Chinese or Russian) must be true and everything from their hated propaganda sources
(likely American or British) must be false. In countless Anglophone forums, the opposite prejudice prevails.
No one there is even allowed to cite any Chinese or Russian sources and be taken seriously or treated respectfully.
I have been banned for citing American scholarly sources to prove the existence of US war crimes, which are denied, of course.
But many people here seem no less prejudiced.
The difference, of course, is that you don't get banned for posting Western/Anglo sources on here as you apparently do over there with Sino/Russo sources like you profess... That is, not unless you use them to ridicule and attack members on here with opposing views from some manner of self-professed pedestal of moral probity which, to be clear, I'm not implying that you do.
I think the fact that you're free to defend your position, as can others of theirs, on here is quite evident of the openness and tolerance of this board as a
forum for expression of views that are first and foremost thoughtful, insightful, and respectful.
Regarding the war in Donbas (2014-present), I believe that it's most likely that there have been war crimes on both sides.
Citing 'anecdotal evidence' of some alleged Ukrainian war crimes against ethnic Russians in Donbas falls far short of
proving the existence of any 'genocide', as claimed by Russia and echoed by some writers here. But some writers here
regard this evidently fabricated 'genocide' as a full justification for Russia to invade and conquer Ukraine.
As for Donbass, don't take any of our word for it, least of all the Russians'. There're still good, independent journos out there doing incredible work, like Anne-Laure Bonnel, who'd actually spent time on the ground, in Donbass, as the bombings happened, that continue to this day.
I'd encourage you and others to take a gander at her report and subsequent documentary -
Bonnel: "13.000 dead in Donbass since 2014."
Donbass - 2016. Documentary Anne-Laure Bonnel (subtitles EN FR SPA ITA)
I won't even attempt to argue what justifies war, and certainly not the morality of it, so I'd just like to present some perspective -
All we have are examples by our forebears to look to for guidance. No need to look at ancient history, just the wars and conflicts that had happened/are still happening in our generation, how many times wars had been fought over much less?
Not to diminish the tragedy the Americans had suffered, but one saw it justified to not just squash the perpetrators, but invade the entire country over 3,000 American deaths from a pair of crash planes, with overwhelming support domestic and abroad, mind;
Or bomb a country back to the 18th century over 8,000 Bosniak deaths whose suffering wasn't even their own, nor anywhere near their territories;
Or roll over a country over oil disputes between two neighbours 7,000 miles away on the other side of the world;
Or crush a country that wanted to reclaim its offshore island that was taken away by another island 8,000 miles away on the other side of the ocean;
On what "moral authority" can one then claim Russia is not 'justified' to war over 13,000 Russian deaths happening right next door?
The morality of war is a tiresome topic and wholly unconstructive, and to argue it is a fool's errand best left to the philosophically inclined who, as they debate and bicker with great fervour, wars continue to be waged and innocents suffer, because one's "moral standing", "idealism", "ideological legitimacy" and the "justification" thereof, and the political expedience and convenience derived are somehow more important than pragmatism and proactiveness in diffusing tensions and conflicts that culminate in the actual wars.
That is to say, all of that comes down to a simple word - Hypocrisy.
Some are more susceptible to it than others, but neither side is innocent of it.
At the end of the day, you do what you think is right for those under your care/rule, and you use your
might to check that of your opponents to make sure your
right comes out on top. In matters of survival, as all wars are, no axiom is more true and
relevant than "action speaks louder than words".
