Why is Russia being held to a higher standard than the US

[Staples]

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Double standards much?

Obviously. Holding double standards is a key to power. You couldn't do it without a double standard.

[BlueOak]

9 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

I never heard such a claim, they simply want their sphere of influence, never heard them wanting to murder Europe. If they say it now, it is irrelevant because they got banned since 2022. What did they say before 2022?

Are you British by any means? I have noticed that British are the most anti Russian people in Europe, much more than the French or German or Italian and I wonder why

Lastly, Israel has murdered Europan kitchen aid staff, has arrested and detained dozens of European citizens in their flotillas in an illegal act of piracy yet no ban for Israel. FIFA some days ago said "We wont ban Israel because we dont solve geopolitical problems". Well apparently to FIFA invading a country and taking 20% of a country is worse than a genocide.

What about Azerbajan taking land from Armenia in 2022. No bans for them. Armenia is as European as Ukraine is

It seems to me they are stuck in a cold war mindset where Russia=Bad and whatever Russia does is much worse than when other countries do similar things (like USA or Israel or Azerbajan).

This  pushes Russia to become more nationalistic as well. Never forget Putin wanted to join NATO in early 2000s and was rejected. Then turned towards nationalism and started seeing Europe and the West in general as an adversary.

Now it is too late but they should have made Russia an ally in early 2000s

Its more than weekly their state threatens various countries in europe so I am surprised you've never heard of it.
Perhaps because they threaten the UK on a regular basis? I see myself more as European than British. But in the UK we don't take well to threats.

Maybe you missed the last several years of direct and indirect threats somehow? if so I suggest investigating a bit more. But are you seriously unaware of all the drones and Russian aircraft flying over airports and shutting them down? The direct military exercises Russia conducts to simulate the invasion of Europe? The nuclear threats and energy/food blackmail that have occurred for three years? The movement of Russian missiles to the Belarusian border, Belarus arming itself with nukes? The spy networks inside Europe uncovered? The assassinations? All the cyberattacks? All the swastikas they paint over Europe, the meddling in Polish, Romanian, and Moldovan elections, the Kaliningrad electronic attacks? Flooding migrants into Europe to destabalise it, so much so Poland shoot them on the border. On and On this list can go.

This is why we live in two different worlds and you are surprised when what is to me the obvious happens. If we go to war with Russia, Russia has provoked the hell out of NATO. To the point, I think them cowardly for not responding to the constant provocation over their own skies. Did Russia really deserve this. YES. This is a fraction of what they deserve.

A country that is under threat from Russia is not going to treat them normally. 

Eurovision.
Swift
Olympics inside Europe

It seems to me you bury your head in the sand as to what Russia does. I'm not even speaking of the constant rhetoric out of their diplomats, or Putin's veiled threats, or anything inside Ukraine either which to me makes America look like pale by comparison. The day I saw a Russian tank on camera firing directly at old man walking down the road from about 50 feet away, that is a good picture of the Russian army. Their entire strategy has been one of terror. - People say to me oh that sounds Russophobic, and I feel utterly gaslit. They literally have fire missiles into civilian infastructure and apartments for the entire war and kill or imprison anyone who speaks out against it. 

They pardoned all their war criminals, giving them medals, Putin directly has said anything goes. - That is the difference with America, they arrest theirs.

When they are telling me 5 years from now Russia wasn't that bad i'll be losing my mind.

Edited Saturday at 07:19 AM by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

Dude, trump literally wants to call the golf if Mexico, the golf of America haha

That's why Trump is bad.

[Lyubov]

Annexing land is not right.

Toppling states clearly isn’t right either.

I don’t see any point in comparing.

The USA is land annexed from native people by the way. 

How about instead of trying to determine who is worse we all try to do better instead? 

[Apparition of Jack]

I’ve been thinking about this a bit more, and this the conclusion I’ve come to:

The Iraq War was bad because it implies that there are international rules, but the most powerful countries are above them.

The Ukraine War is bad because it implies there are no international rules at all.

Both are bad but for different reasons. But I suppose in some sense it’s still splitting hairs - I doubt your average Iraqi family affected by the US invasion slept more comfortably knowing that their country was “only” being invaded because the US was powerful enough to get away with it. 

However, this doesn’t make Putin’s invasion of Ukraine any less ridiculous. Like I said, other Western nations criticised the US for the Iraq War at the time (France famously refused to join in), whereas afaik none of Putin’s “allied” states (if he has any true allies at all) have condemned his invasion of Ukraine. At most China seems to have taken a neutral stance on the conflict, but that’s more out of selfish geopolitical interest rather than any true commitment to international law.

Putin’s war is still incredibly dangerous too because it sets a precedent that if he wins, nations can now just invade other nations to settle disputes. If Putin wins, what’s stopping North Korea from invading South Korea to reunite the peninsula? Or Bolivia invading Chile to regain its Pacific coast? Or, hell, even Britain invading Ireland to put the Northern Ireland question to rest? 
 

International rules exist to prevent human bloodshed and to encourage diplomatic solutions to geopolitical grievances. If all nations could just declare war on any other for any reason, the world would become a much darker and more violent place in general.

[BlueOak]

@Apparition of Jack

This is a significantly more useful way to look at it, if a comparison has to be made. As it's set in a global context. Rather than a 'why is europe not liking Russia' context. Which is what the Eurovision, Olympics, etc are about.

Both countries have been disastrous for world order and stability. As has been repeatedly pointed out, most people (and countries) in Europe, and much of asia would rather sit at home and not get involved if given the choice.

China has put a lot of material and money into Russia, they recently signed another infrastructure agreement, which is in practicality one-way. China is buying up Russia bit by bit to keep it running and many asian countries are now being asked to settle labor there (as Russia is chewing through its own people). China is honestly benefiting the most out of this conflict, a bit like how Russia's oil or weapon exports benefit when the Middle East is ablaze, and that's why it's giving arms to Hamas. Peace doesn't benefit Russia at all there. China do supply Russia with munitions; some of this has been caught on camera but more directly in the munitions themselves when captured, such as weapon components. It is believed but not proven that these are moved through North Korea to Russia.

Edited Saturday at 09:55 AM by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's why Trump is bad.

But Israel and Azerbajan for taking land from others are apparanetly not bad which is why they are not banned from anything  

It is bad when Russia does not but not when others do it  

Which is the whole purpose of this thread

 

Edited Saturday at 01:04 PM by Karmadhi

[Karmadhi]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Its more than weekly their state threatens various countries in europe so I am surprised you've never heard of it.
Perhaps because they threaten the UK on a regular basis? I see myself more as European than British. But in the UK we don't take well to threats.

Maybe you missed the last several years of direct and indirect threats somehow? if so I suggest investigating a bit more. But are you seriously unaware of all the drones and Russian aircraft flying over airports and shutting them down? The direct military exercises Russia conducts to simulate the invasion of Europe? The nuclear threats and energy/food blackmail that have occurred for three years? The movement of Russian missiles to the Belarusian border, Belarus arming itself with nukes? The spy networks inside Europe uncovered? The assassinations? All the cyberattacks? All the swastikas they paint over Europe, the meddling in Polish, Romanian, and Moldovan elections, the Kaliningrad electronic attacks? Flooding migrants into Europe to destabalise it, so much so Poland shoot them on the border. On and On this list can go.

This is why we live in two different worlds and you are surprised when what is to me the obvious happens. If we go to war with Russia, Russia has provoked the hell out of NATO. To the point, I think them cowardly for not responding to the constant provocation over their own skies. Did Russia really deserve this. YES. This is a fraction of what they deserve.

A country that is under threat from Russia is not going to treat them normally. 

Eurovision.
Swift
Olympics inside Europe

It seems to me you bury your head in the sand as to what Russia does. I'm not even speaking of the constant rhetoric out of their diplomats, or Putin's veiled threats, or anything inside Ukraine either which to me makes America look like pale by comparison. The day I saw a Russian tank on camera firing directly at old man walking down the road from about 50 feet away, that is a good picture of the Russian army. Their entire strategy has been one of terror. - People say to me oh that sounds Russophobic, and I feel utterly gaslit. They literally have fire missiles into civilian infastructure and apartments for the entire war and kill or imprison anyone who speaks out against it. 

They pardoned all their war criminals, giving them medals, Putin directly has said anything goes. - That is the difference with America, they arrest theirs.

When they are telling me 5 years from now Russia wasn't that bad i'll be losing my mind.

I am aware of all the bad things Russia has done since the war started

However until March 2022 I do not think Russia was problematic in that way

I do not support the Russian government nor endorse their actions

I am not their friend nor apologiest

I wish Russia had a more progressive liberal government instead of the current nationalistic one

So lets clear this out please to avoid missunderstandings

Regarding war crimes. I totally agree Russia has behaved in many cruel war crimes.

However, all the things you said about tanks shooting at civilians, worthshipping war criminals etc Israel has done 10x more (way more civilienas and kids dead in Gaza than Ukraine per capita) yet UK hosted Herzgog as a friend. The same Herzog who said "there are no uninvolved in Gaza", a place where 50% are under 18.

Not only that, but Uk has done 0 sanctions on Israel 

Which goes against all their principles and norms as defenders of human rights and international law

UK is technically complicit in genocide both Labour and Tories parties. Many human rights groups have said so unfortunately. 

I am happy the general British public is pretty angry and protesting all the time about this. It shows ordinary Brits have heart. I respect them. But the politicans all seem either bought or deeply biased. When i say "UK" i am talking mostly about the government not the people. I think they are pretty sensible about this entire issue. I am not offending average Brits.

UN and basically every reputable Human rights organization  called it a genocide. For Ukraine they have said tons of war crimes but no genocide. Genocide is worse than war crimes. Which is why to me Israel is worse than Russia. Since Russia is not a friend, neither should Israel be. If Western countries want to actually be seen as supporters of international law they should not ally themselves which countries that basically break them 24/7.

Not to mention Israel has murdered European citizens, detained them illegally as well and also spied in Europe using their software and mendleded in elections. 

I would somehow understand it if Israel had a lot of raw minerals or oil which is needed by countries to function. Like they are somewhat in good terms with Saudi Arabia which is not much better than Russia to me, however I get their POV. However Israel does not have rare earth. You can cut them out and be fine. Russia has way more resources yet they were cut out which shows that principles can indeed topple economical interests when they want. Since they cut out Russia, Israel would not be an issue at all. They re pretty small factor.

I am not saying to cut them out forever or anything like that. If the country reforms and stops the illegal occupation and expansions they can become allies again. Germany went from an enemy to an ally. So things can change with time.

I already made a threat a long time ago about why the West does not cut out Israel and I did not get a non racist, non supremaciest response. 

The only sensible major politican is Jeremy Corbyn, its a shame he was kicked out (not suprised though), he treated Israel as they deserved. Starmer is a pro Israeli shill unfortunately. There are of course MPs or leaders of smaller parties like the Green party that was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan but they are not major players.

Let me not even get started on Tories or Reform...

Edited Saturday at 01:54 PM by Karmadhi

[zazen]

@Karmadhi We all know the double standard is downstream from power. Question becomes how to manage power.

Laws mean nothing if they can’t be enforced. Power, or the perception and threat of it is the ultimate back stop. The abstractness of laws and principles need the realness of power and the material world to be enforced.

If the force of larger nations stops smaller nations from constantly fighting, the issue is then how to stop those larger nations themselves fighting each other? Only diplomacy and proper security architecture.

We must nurture (govern, manage) nature (survival pressures, power dynamics) towards better ends : “civil-isation”. Ukraine and Israel are the macro and micro example of a security dilemma playing out horribly wrong due to a mismanagement of power dynamics (Ukraine) or abuse of power itself (Israel).

Ukraine is a proxy between larger nations (macro) - Russia and the Western bloc, particularly the US, Trojan horsing itself through NATO. Israel is a smaller nation (micro) fighting not even a nation but a people (natives) who are denied one. In both cases - we haven’t nurtured conditions for nature to exist peacefully - within a security architecture. In Israels case, we haven’t even got to the stage of having another state to negotiate a security architecture with.

And in both cases - the underlying issue is Western arrogance getting in the way of diplomacy. Because exceptionalism and arrogance don’t recognise the others concerns as legitimate, or even their existence in the case of Palestine. The wider structural reason for this arrogance is due to the current ''rules-based order'' and their dominant place in it - which bakes in arrogance and impunity as a byproduct of that position.

Can ants ever keep an elephant in check? The problem with a single hegemon is it can abuse its power without consequence. With two elephants at least they can keep the other in check from crushing the ants - unless their diplomacy breaks down and the ants get crushed amidst their fighting anyway.

This is the current systemic and structural problem we have. The lone and all mighty elephant (US) became arrogant and abused its power (giving impunity to Israel - one example among many) and didn’t take any other elephants security concerns seriously (Russia). Now they’re fighting crushing the ants (Ukraine).

You can’t and will never erase power dynamics or survival pressures - only manage them. That requires humility and not arrogance - which unfortunately being a unipolar hegemon provides plenty of by sitting atop the system.

***
As for setting dangerous precendents which both Russia and the US have done, I asked AI about it:

Russia’s precedent: Localized and acute. One regional power invading a neighbor over security concerns with civilizational-nationalist rhetoric. Dangerous for that region. Sets a precedent others might follow.

U.S. precedent: Global and chronic. The hegemon operating with total impunity, dismissing everyone’s security concerns, proving international law means nothing. Dangerous for the entire system. Makes all future conflicts more likely.

Russia broke a specific rule (don’t invade and annex neighbors) in a specific place.
The U.S. broke the meta-rule (that powerful states should be constrained by law) everywhere and at all times.

One threatens Ukraine, Georgia, maybe Moldova. The other threatens the entire framework that’s supposed to prevent great power conflict.

It’s one thing to set a dangerous precedent that’s localised and acute (Russia invading its proximate neighbour Ukraine). It’s another to hold no others red lines or security concerns as legitimate at a global level - which is global and chaotic (US hegemony).

Edited Saturday at 04:10 PM by zazen

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

It is bad when Russia does not but not when others do it  

 

Says who?
The people doing it? Well yes, that's their propaganda.

Unless you are again meaning the olympics, eurovision and swift, which i've explained above. 

Oh and the UK is not complicit in genocide; it's just unable to do anything about it. Its considerably less powerful than the US, and unable to project power or influence in a way that affects the region.

Edited Saturday at 03:48 PM by BlueOak

[zazen]

12 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Oh and the UK is not complicit in genocide

Technically correct as it hasn't been designated as genocide as yet - only a plausible one. But according to the ICJ's rulings all countries are obligated to put a end to and not be complicit in any way as to turn what is a plausible genocide into a  actual one..when its too late.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-18/debates/C5900243-EC83-4C59-BABA-F3EDEE9D8E60/MilitaryCo-OperationWithIsrael

''Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.''

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/07/uks-surveillance-flights-over-gaza-raise-questions-on-help-for-israeli-military

Edited Saturday at 04:02 PM by zazen

[BlueOak]

@zazen

Interesting, could be genocidal, could be data on military targets.

But needs answering.

*You edited after I posted but this more or less remains the same answer. I may add more to it tomorrow.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:46 PM by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

Americans are jealous of the freedom of the Russian people 

You always hear about the violence, blacks/russians/chinese/arabs/persians/latino mafia/and just about everybody that isn't the us or europe. Even though US and Europe are bred to be violent and always have been. How many people have their empires killed? They lose count of the kill total and then bring up colors of a spiral and think they are so smart but the world is catching onto their dysfunctional trickery 

Putin is daddy, kiss the ring

Edited Saturday at 04:18 PM by Twentyfirst

[BlueOak]

5 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

How many people have their empires killed?
...
Putin is daddy, kiss the ring

If Russia nose dives much further, you'll be pawning that ring in 10 years to buy bread.

To answer your question I asked GPT for the 20 most violent civilisations, ranked.

Top 20 Most Violent Civilizations in History.

1. Mongol Empire (1206–1368) – Total warfare, city destruction, massacres (~40–60 million deaths)
2. British Empire (1600–1945) – Colonial conquest, famines, global wars (~35–50 million)
3. Nazi Germany / Third Reich (1933–1945) – Genocide, world war aggression (~30–45 million)
4. Imperial Japan (1895–1945) – Atrocities in China & Pacific, genocide, experimentation (~20–30 million)
5. Soviet Union (1917–1991) – Political purges, famines, gulags, expansionism (~20–30 million)
6. Roman Empire (27 BCE–476 CE) – Constant wars, slavery, mass executions (~10–20 million)
7. Qing Dynasty, China (1644–1912) – Rebellions (Taiping, Dungan), internal repression (~25–40 million)
8. Spanish Empire (1492–1898) – Conquest of Americas, Inquisition, colonial wars (~20–25 million)
9. Ottoman Empire (1299–1923) – Continuous warfare, genocide, suppression (~10–20 million)
10. French Empire (1600–1962) – Napoleonic Wars, colonial atrocities (~10–15 million)
11. Chinese Warring States / Pre-Qin Era (475–221 BCE) – Near-constant wars and annihilations (~10–20 million)
12. Aztec Empire (1300–1521) – Ritual human sacrifice, conquest (~1–2 million, extremely high per capita)
13. Assyrian Empire (900–612 BCE) – Terror campaigns, deportations, annihilation (~1–2 million)
14. Khmer Empire (800–1431) – Slave labor, brutal expansion (hundreds of thousands)
15. United States (1776–present) – Native genocide, civil wars, foreign interventions (~10–20 million total impact)
16. Arab Caliphates (Umayyad, Abbasid) (632–1258) – Religious wars, rapid expansion (millions)
17. Russian Empire (1547–1917) – Conquest of Siberia, Caucasus, Central Asia (millions)
18. Maya Civilization (2000 BCE–1697 CE) – Inter-city warfare, ritual sacrifice (hundreds of thousands)
19. Zulu Kingdom (1816–1897) – Mfecane wars depopulated regions (~1–2 million)
20. Ancient Egypt (3100–30 BCE) – Forced labor, military expansion, suppression (hundreds of thousands)

It also wanted to mention these:

• 21. Khmer Rouge (Cambodia, 1975–1979) – ~2 million killed (~25% of population)
• 22. Byzantine Empire – Centuries of warfare and brutal internal politics
• 23. Persian Empires (Achaemenid & Sassanid) – Massive conquests, enslavement
• 24. Vikings (8th–11th centuries) – Raiding, slavery, local devastation
• 25. Crusader States (1096–1291) – Religious wars, massacres, short duration

Edited Saturday at 09:14 PM by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Says who?
The people doing it? Well yes, that's their propaganda.

Again, I said it many times and you are not giving me an answer.

Why arent Azerbajan or Israel for stealing land banned in anything? Azerbajan took land in 2022 and Israel is taking slowly land in the West Bank since decades now

 

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Oh and the UK is not complicit in genocide; it's just unable to do anything about it. Its considerably less powerful than the US, and unable to project power or influence in a way that affects the region.

UK supplied Israel, they give data and help to Israel. They have not pushed for any sanctions in Israel and they hosted the Israeli president who has made genocidal statements. If not complicit they are pretty indifferent and not caring to it. It is ONLY because of the massive outrage from British citizens than the government actually bothered to recently recognize Palestine (and it was the left wing government). If you think UK is not biased towards Israel look at this

It is pretty clear from this clip UK is not an objective player whose value is truth and human rights and international law regarding the Israel Palestine conflict.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:31 PM by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Again, I said it many times and you are not giving me an answer.

Why arent Azerbajan or Israel for stealing land banned in anything? Azerbajan took land in 2022 and Israel is taking slowly land in the West Bank since decades now

UK supplied Israel, they give data and help to Israel. They have not pushed for any sanctions in Israel and they hosted the Israeli president who has made genocidal statements. If not complicit they are pretty indifferent and not caring to it. It is ONLY because of the massive outrage from British citizens than the government actually bothered to recently recognize Palestine (and it was the left wing government). If you think UK is not biased towards Israel look at this

 

 

I repeatedly gave you answers. 

I'll say it again.

You are speaking about European countries banning Russia from European events for all the Russian hostile actions against them, and then asking me why they haven't banned Israel and Azerbaijan. Neither of these countries is attacking Europe. 

I am fine with the UK favoring Israel in a cold, almost hot world war scenario. I am not fine with them facilitating genocidal responses or actions. So if you are able to prove that the UK is complicit in genocide, I will be standing right there with you. At the moment i've been shown diplomatic rhetoric and a spy plane over a warzone (which needs explanation).

My position on Israel's actions has been posted multiple times. I'll say it again if required: Cartoony Level Villainy. An understandable military action against Russian and Iranian backed groups in a cold/hot war scenario, was carried out like a cartoon villain who is trying to do everything possible to appear as such.

Now my turn to ask a question:

Why haven't you included China in this list? For all the atrocities they've committed. Iran for all the weapons its supplied to kill Ukranian civilians? Turkey or Iran for their actions in Syria? America for its wars? A hundred dictatorships using violence to maintain control. Just curious why that bias on violence exists within you. It doesn't in me, but if we are banning countries that are fighting or using force, we'll be banning most of the world. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.

Edited Sunday at 06:36 AM by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

If Russia nose dives much further, you'll be pawning that ring in 10 years to buy bread.

Aren't Americans broke now?

 

[BlueOak]

7 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Aren't Americans broke now?

 

There is economic pressure globally, as we are an interconnected system. Dismantling Russia is certainly costly in the short term, that's why nobody wanted to do it for years, but they've realised its the fastest way to stop them without direct military intervention or another 10 years of war. Whether that's Russia unable to fight, unable to support itself, breaking up into 12 nations, or entering negotiations with Ukraine. 

This guy has been reasonably consistent:
 

 

Edited Sunday at 11:08 AM by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

@Karmadhi Your points are so unserious that I don't even want to seriously respond.

Edited Sunday at 11:09 AM by Leo Gura

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@Karmadhi Your points are so unserious that I don't even want to seriously respond.

You can insult them all you want, it is a sentiment a lot of people share these days, not a fringe position.

Even the American president candidate Vivek brought it on Piers Morgan interview

Edited Sunday at 12:29 PM by Karmadhi