You don't have to defend Russia's military, you just have to know NATO engineered this situation and the main victims are poor and working class people caught in the crossfire.
They’re a capitalist army fighting for nationalist reasons. It’s not really defensible.
It’s just that this conflict was obviously provoked by the West, so any fallout falls heavily on them. (This is why they try so hard to pretend that this is a new Hitler, because it absolves them of the responsibility of avoiding a preventable war.)
Eh, rates of civilian casualties seem surprisingly low given the intensity of the conflict and all the missile strikes. I remember back in like October, there was a giant missile strike involving the better part of a hundred missiles all across Ukraine and the civilian death toll, at least what could be confirmed in the hours and days after, was like 10 people. And it was this whole thing where Ukraine didn't know whether to be like "Russia killed TEN people! An entire TEN WHOLE CIVILIANS! That's like, 0.001% of a genocide!" or "Haha, see! Russian missile technology is so inept that they can't even kill people right!"
But honestly I think even if Russia's military was the most saintly army in history and only targeted things when it was absolutely, unequivocally, 100% sure that it would result in no civilian casualties - which is literally not possible in war - then people would still find many reasons to oppose Russia. Like, you're fighting an underlying hatred of Russia and what they're doing (put there by propaganda or personal experience or whatever), and the reasons people give are just disposable, and even if you epically disprove them by saying "Well, if you look at these civilian casualty figures collected by the UN from February 2022 to November 2022..." then at best they'll just stop replying and then come back the next day making the same, disproven argument. So you're effectively on an endless treadmill of arguments, and I stopped bothering with that in this war like a few months after it started.
And the whole concept of "defending" Russia or "justifying" the conflict is only relevant if you're constantly getting in arguments with people about it, which I don't think is even vaguely productive unless you have a position of power in your real-life community. I think all I would do if probed on Russia is give all the context I can, ranging back to 2014 with the Maidan coup and then the 1990s with the fall of the USSR and NATO's promise that they wouldn't go one inch eastwards, and if you think that that's enough justification, then good for you; if you don't think it's enough and Russia is still the bad guy, then who really cares? All we can do is try and survive the maelstrom.
deleted by creator
You don't have to defend Russia's military, you just have to know NATO engineered this situation and the main victims are poor and working class people caught in the crossfire.
They’re a capitalist army fighting for nationalist reasons. It’s not really defensible.
It’s just that this conflict was obviously provoked by the West, so any fallout falls heavily on them. (This is why they try so hard to pretend that this is a new Hitler, because it absolves them of the responsibility of avoiding a preventable war.)
Eh, rates of civilian casualties seem surprisingly low given the intensity of the conflict and all the missile strikes. I remember back in like October, there was a giant missile strike involving the better part of a hundred missiles all across Ukraine and the civilian death toll, at least what could be confirmed in the hours and days after, was like 10 people. And it was this whole thing where Ukraine didn't know whether to be like "Russia killed TEN people! An entire TEN WHOLE CIVILIANS! That's like, 0.001% of a genocide!" or "Haha, see! Russian missile technology is so inept that they can't even kill people right!"
But honestly I think even if Russia's military was the most saintly army in history and only targeted things when it was absolutely, unequivocally, 100% sure that it would result in no civilian casualties - which is literally not possible in war - then people would still find many reasons to oppose Russia. Like, you're fighting an underlying hatred of Russia and what they're doing (put there by propaganda or personal experience or whatever), and the reasons people give are just disposable, and even if you epically disprove them by saying "Well, if you look at these civilian casualty figures collected by the UN from February 2022 to November 2022..." then at best they'll just stop replying and then come back the next day making the same, disproven argument. So you're effectively on an endless treadmill of arguments, and I stopped bothering with that in this war like a few months after it started.
And the whole concept of "defending" Russia or "justifying" the conflict is only relevant if you're constantly getting in arguments with people about it, which I don't think is even vaguely productive unless you have a position of power in your real-life community. I think all I would do if probed on Russia is give all the context I can, ranging back to 2014 with the Maidan coup and then the 1990s with the fall of the USSR and NATO's promise that they wouldn't go one inch eastwards, and if you think that that's enough justification, then good for you; if you don't think it's enough and Russia is still the bad guy, then who really cares? All we can do is try and survive the maelstrom.
Well said. Honestly need to save this post for future use
Kinda hard to criticize Russia for killing civilians when Ukraine has been using them as human shields since the start of the war.