Russian Anti-War Activist Sentenced To Six Years In Prison For Internet Posts
A court in the Russian city of St. Petersburg sentenced anti-war activist Olga Smirnova to six years in prison on August 30 on a charge of spreading fake news about the armed forces.
I disagree that the previous government was a puppet government.
Of course you do, that's my point.
Tankies will support whichever government aligns with a power that is not the US. Even if that power is a capitalist oligarchy like Russia.
The US has a long history of installing far-right governments, has an atrocious record of human rights, and violates sovereignty left and right
They do, but the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Specially when you take into account what Russia has done. They have a long history of erasing East European cultures (i.e. Russification), and genocide. So I do not trust them when it comes to Eastern European affairs, and neither do native people from those countries, most of support for Russia in those areas comes from Russian minorities (I wonder how they got there).
Of course you do, that's my point.
Great argument.
They do, but the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Of course they're not, and I don't consider them as such. They are, however, the enemy of my enemy. Ideally, once the US is dealt with, Putin can get the wall next.
They have a long history of erasing East European cultures (i.e. Russification), and genocide. So I do not trust them when it comes to Eastern European affairs, and neither do native people from those countries
The US has a much worse historical record with genociding native people, so maybe Russia should support some landback movements in the US. Afaik they never did anything to the Native Americans.
I'm not sure what genocide you're referring to in any case. But I'm sure you can dig up some skeletons in the closets of any two historical neighbors if you go far enough back. What's funny about your argument is that you seem to be suggesting that people thousands of miles away are better suited to govern a region, since they likely don't have a similar record.
(I wonder how they got there).
Are we just going to ignore the part where the USSR expanded Ukraine's borders to include the disputed regions?
I’m not sure what genocide you’re referring to in any case.
Have fun:
Famines are not genocides lol. Though I suppose you could make the case that the embargo on the USSR caused a lot of excess deaths. Famines were extremely common before the USSR took power because it was a pre-industrial society, the USSR ended that. Also, the USSR is a completely different government from the Russian Federation.
Famines are not genocides lol. Though I suppose you could make the case that the embargo on the USSR caused a lot of excess deaths. Famines were extremely common before the USSR took power because it was a pre-industrial society, the USSR ended that. Also, the USSR is a completely different government from the Russian Federation.
How do you feel about the Irish Famine?
The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should've clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.
I'll note that your own source says in the introduction:
While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute
Likewise, the article on the Kazakh famine:
Some historians describe the famine as legally recognizable as a genocide perpetrated by the Soviet state, under the definition outlined by the United Nations; however, some argue otherwise.
And
The de-Cossackization is sometimes described as a genocide of the Cossacks, although this view is disputed, with some historians asserting that this label is an exaggeration.
The last one I didn't see any mention of genocide though it might be buried deeper in the article, it's pretty long.
The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should’ve clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.
I’ll note that your own source says in the very first line:
While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute
Here's a quote from the Irish Famine (same source: wikipedia)
Virtually all historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide, their position is partially based on the fact that with regard to famine related deaths, there was a lack of intent to commit genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Genocide_question
So you have two options:
My guess is that you'll take the second option.
Or I could... not base my views on history entirely off of Wikipedia articles?
Or I could… not base my views on history entirely off of Wikipedia articles?
So... first you believe Wikipedia, now you don't, based on whichever articles suit your views?
I don't think you understand how this works. You cited Wikipedia asking me to accept it as a source. That means that you accept it as a source, and I may or may not accept it as a source. Given that Wikipedia says that your claims of genocide are disputed, you have to accept that. I don't have to accept Wikipedia as authoritative, because I never claimed it was, I'm just saying that if you accept it, then you have to accept that all your claims are disputed. That's just how citing sources works.
Ipso facto absurdeum you have only two options now.
Checkmate tankie
