Comment by ImPostingOnHN
3 days ago
> The main reason ww2 is being continued is because it ending in an indisputably favorable way to Germany would be politically devastating to both its Western backers and to non-aryans who would shortly thereafter be out of power
Wow, almost as if opposing the genocide of millions and the invasion of Europe by a hostile invading power is good or something. Sounds like you're saying it's bad, though. Weird.
Framing this as WW2 is the purely Quixotic. This war was a small border conflict that should have ended within a matter of days. It's not WW2, some grand fight against genocide, or whatever other mental 'reframing' one wants to engage in. It's a border war that Russia expected to win in short order. Then the West jumped in expecting to win in short order.
Neither side got their quick victory, but now the war seems to have been effectively decided. It was arguably decided years ago after the major counter-attack yielded nothing but corpses. All that remains now is prolonging the conflict quite pointlessly, with regular efforts to try to escalate it once again that will hopefully go nowhere. Not because I hope one side or the other wins, but because if other countries start actively jumping in then we have WW3, and in a few years every single person alive, which would be substantially less than today, would regret that decision.
I'm not convinced by your two paragraphs consisting entirely of naked assertions, unsupported claims, and personal opinions. russia has genocided Ukrainians before, and have announced war goals which are tantamount to another genocide.
Could you link a reliable source that says international law supports forcefully attacking and annexing other countries to take their land which lies within internationally recognized borders?
The current state is that the vast majority of countries have judged that russia should leave, and the continued conflict is their fault (regardless of what a few in the extreme minority may think).
The UN has no ability to stop actions from powerful nations. For instance according to the UN the various US invasions - most recently of Iran and Iraq were illegal, the NATO invasion of Serbia was illegal, and so on. The votes themselves also mean something different than one might expect, as they're primarily driven by a balance of self interest and external influence, rather than any sort of ideological, let alone ethical, basis.
So that can make them informative, but you need to keep in mind what they mean as well. For instance a vote proposed by Russia to form an independent multinational coalition to investigate the Nordstream sabotage was rejected. Why? Because everybody knew Russia obviously didn't sabotage themselves, and so the investigation would be politically inconvenient, and the US won the influence check - so it wasn't passed. But this also points to something more interesting with regards to Ukraine. There are a total of 193 UN member states and early on there were extreme votes demanding Russia immediately withdraw from Ukraine and more. These passed with 141 nations voting in favor, so your statement was quite accurate.
But as the war has turned in Russia's favor, with consequent geopolitical implications for the future, the things being voted on are now far less extreme, like a call for a ceasefire, yet even that is only garnering 93 to 107 votes. That's not even a simple majority in some cases. It's mostly coming down to the 'global north' versus the 'global south'. Notably, the global south makes up something like 85% of the world's population as well as the majority of its economy as well now. So your statement is certainly no longer true, and verging on misleading given the population issue.