mvgulik wrote:and lets face it that war is in essence the total breakdown of abiding by any rules
A common misconception, but no. Modern warfare is just a violent extension of diplomacy. It is highly organized, is often started on command and always ends on command. The days of tribes bashing each others' heads in until one is annihilated are long over. The real battle is fought at the negotiation table; the moment 'victory' is achieved in peace talks, the violence ends. Any movement on the battlefields (and suffering caused thereby) happens only to give negotiators an edge to secure a better deal.
And war is completely legal when considered justified. It's a concession needed to make international diplomacy work. That said...
mvgulik wrote:I for one have seen little to no talk of punishment for the fact that Putin started the war
Many do claim Putin's invasion to be illegal.. They're trying to prosecute Putin for it, but this kind of stuff is hard to prosecute in practice.
MadNomad wrote:of course there might be something bad happening in Ukraine but they will always stretch it out to something it isn't
MadNomad wrote:recently the only thing in those channels that was true was maybe inflation
Bucha was absolutely real. And just in case you were implying that, the war itself is also very real. It's just the things happening during it that often get reported inaccurately.
Procne wrote:Western countries had their revolutions and broke out of the despots' rule.
For some reason this remains a popular thought, but history disagrees. People especially point to the French Revolution as the wonderful start of democracy, and in history class I too was taught to see it in a positive light, but you know what the French Revolution actually led to? It first led to the
Reign of Terror, was followed by
a short-lived warmongering government that further destroyed the economy, which was overthrown by a coup bringing to power
a violent dictator who invaded most of Europe. After his eventual defeat,
things briefly went back to what they were like before the Revolution, and France prospered for the first time since the Revolution. After that followed a long time of great instability during which governments were repeatedly overthrown. Democracy gradually evolved during that time until the modern system was established in 1958, 159 years after the start of the French Revolution.
Similarly, the United Kingdom never experienced a revolution for democracy, but it evolved gradually from its system of monarchy. Similarly, over here in the Netherlands we haven't had any revolutions other than Belgium separating from us; the transition form monarchy to democracy was gradual. This is generally true for most of Europe.
There was a revolutionary wave across Europe in 1848 which likely accelerated the transition, but it was never the turning point.
If anything, the communist revolution likely delayed the transition to democracy, as
the country was actually heading in that direction, increasingly preferring proper representation until the communists popularized central leadership and eventually under Stalin a strong cult of personality (the echoes of which can be found in how Putin is perceived in Russia nowadays). As such, 'just start a revolution' is not a simple solution to transition to democracy. It can be a step towards it, but it may very well instead be a step away from it. Short-term it never accomplishes democracy.
Procne wrote:I mean, who else can change anything?
Only two people: Putin and Zelensky. Once they agree on a peace treaty, the war is over. No sooner, no later. All either party has to do is accept the other's demands. The reason why the war is still going on is because Russian negotiators and Ukrainian negotiators can't come to an agreement. Theoretically you could try replacing either of the two leaders with someone else, but that has a significant chance of only further delaying a peace treaty.