12 Apr 22
@sonhouse saidThis person is intentionally distorting everything I say.
@EintaluJ
Are you saying Putin is not responsible for war crimes destroying hospitals and train stations filled with civilians? You seriously propose that was say, fake actors placed on streets by Ukrainians to make just LOOK like those poor misunderstood Russians would do that?
The problem with that POV is sat images showing those bodies lying in the streets for WEEKS a ...[text shortened]... ou hear of who don't even give a crap about their own soldiers?
How can you defend such atrocity?
@eintaluj said😢
This person is systematically slandering me.
Your posting like a Russian troll, excusing every atrocity that Putin commits by blaming anyone but Putin.
I’m not slandering you I’m challenging your false perspective on the horrors that are being visited upon the Ukrainian people including gang rape and the cold blooded murder of civilians.
If you cannot handle being challenged restrict your lies to the Russian blogosphere that way you can avoid reality and people who disagree with you altogether.
13 Apr 22
@sonhouse saidI do not understand, in what sense the question "Do you support Putin" is a "philosophy of war"?
@EintaluJ
I thought you had a Phd in philosophy, I want to know YOUR philosophy of war, do you support Putin or not? You MUST know he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire.
Are you ok with that?
You also fail to explain how this question is relevant to my initial post. It rather seems that you have not read it altogether.
It is also not the case that I MUST know that "Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire". Because I CAN NOT know this.
There are different plausible explanations of the Russian leadership's motives for starting a war against Ukraine.
The explanation that Putin and his strategists want to rebuild the Soviet empire is endorsed in Western propaganda. This explanation, however, is not very plausible.
The other explanation is that Russia's motives are explicitly expressed by Russia itself. Anyway, if you want to know someone's motives, then one important source is what that person itself is talking about one's aims. These aims were expressed in Russian proposals to the US/NATO, and have been several times expressed in Putin's speeches and the speeches of other Russian leaders. According to these declarations, one of the main aims of Russia is to stop the expansion of NATO near Russian borders because of Russia's security concerns. Third, they have also formulated the aim to stop the Ukrainian genocide of ethnic Russians in Donbas.
There is no such thing that I MUST know that the explanation of Russia's behaviour suggested by the Western propaganda is the only possible one.
Finally, my original post has nothing to do with the questions above. It is simply not the case that the sports organization is authorized to decide what war is justified and what war is unjustified. It is also not the purpose of the international sports organization to punish the sportsmen for the behaviour of their governments. My main argument, however, was that as well, the chess organization could punish the US. But they have never done this.
@eintaluj saidThat is what it looks like.
The International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) is about to change its Statute and then apply the Amendments retrospectively to suspend the Belarus Federation and Russian Federation.
The ICCF has announced an Extraordinary Congress without explicitly explaining the reason.
https://www.iccf.com/Proposals.aspx?id=76
Online voting begins on April 27 and ends ...[text shortened]... national sports organization and choosing the side — but only in the current international conflict.
And besides the basic point you’re making, I don’t know if it’s wise to lose connection with people and non-military organisations.
That’s only going to seperate them further from a general message, isolate them and lead to more friction.
One would image that such organisations would try to remain inclusive; draw people ever further from the edge, etc.
14 Apr 22
@shavixmir saidI agree.
That is what it looks like.
And besides the basic point you’re making, I don’t know if it’s wise to lose connection with people and non-military organisations.
That’s only going to seperate them further from a general message, isolate them and lead to more friction.
One would image that such organisations would try to remain inclusive; draw people ever further from the edge, etc.