arkhangelsk2021

You can go to the map and check that dot. Generally, I give weight to the geographical positions of the dots. Note how far that dot is from the estimated controlled area of the Russians. So the Ukrainians eventually stopped some Russian column, at least for now, but not before they managed to make significant headway. But you can certainly share with us your interpretation of that dot.

Oh how about the rights to conscience and the rights to freedom of expression. If you can't even choose not to speak up, you have neither. And anyone that thinks measly compensation can really do more than take the worst bite off a firing is just kidding himself. But let's try it this way, how OK would you be if an American company ordered one of its employees to denounce the Iraq War, or else. That would at the very least be very controversial. Hong Kong, to be exact, but yes, China. "One-China" and all that, after all (unless, of course, it's to complain about the US failing to recognize HK as a separate customs zone to the WTO )

Looks like the Belarussians are going to try another tack in using the airborne forces - elite light infantry rather than units of operational significance.

Normally, rights are protected by people achieving self-restraint. If rights are protected in court, by this analogy Ukraine should go to court and get a ruling saying that the Russians' actions are illegal. Don't be stupid. The primary line of defense for rights is always the front line - from individual to individual, bosses to subordinates, or one step removed the local official versus the private citizen. Courts are only a better than nothing remedy. And sorry @Doc844 , got a bit carried away answering points there. Returning to the main topic: The good news for the Ukrainians is that they stopped the Russians, but it seems the Russians have managed to make progress again.

Did you miss the part that even before 2014, people were already objecting to the law, even though objectively it said nothing objectionable? And again, those little People's Republics are only so little ethnic Russians, not just Ukrainians, decided to place their bet on Ukraine. Whether you think of this as a rights issue or simply the pre-natural rights thought of rewarding the loyal, do you not see a problem with stripping them of rights they were already given?

Search for the below text in the article: And don't give me free-to-fire logic. "At-will" employment is American that doesn't have play in Europe. In Europe, for better or worse, workers have rights, and you can only fire for cause. Refusing to do express a stance in a subject clearly not work-related does not cut it.

I don't expect you to drip in sympathy. I expect you, as a Westerner purporting to uphold rights, to uphold this guy's right to at least choose silence as his response. The article does not say he's singing the praises of Putin or anything of that sort. It's when we have to defend the rights of those we might not like very much, to resist the urge to punch those we don't like, or maybe even suffer a real penalty from upholding them, that we demonstrate our commitment to rights. In this instance, the Russians have certainly displayed the limitations of their ability to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. However, as I point out, their ability to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in the face of adversity is not zero either. It's just not as high as you like, and perhaps not as high as objectively should be. And if you can't even defend the right of this guy just for inconveniencing the West to the extent that they can't use his testimony as a propaganda, how can you reasonably and fairly expect anyone else to value the rights of other entities, when your own ability to do so is so near zero?

No they didn't. They declared war against Ukraine. The West chose to interpret it as an "open war" against them. They can say it defies everything the West believes in, but even if that's so, that's still a choice of the West. It's not the part where they booed. Perhaps you felt it not cost-effective to read the entire (short) passage, but most people at least read the headlines.

Look at how easily a Russian's rights get sidelined. Sigh. Just FTR, I know that people are trying to paint up the Ukrainians as angels and the Russians would have been just fine under the Ukrainians. Well, there's something to be said about all this: So, in the Yakunovich era, something like this was passed. It seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Where there are a significant minority, their language gets to be used as well as Ukrainian. Ukrainians are so accepting of diversity... oh wait. Really? Let's look at Article 10: Do you see any obvious conflicts? They didn't do anything while Yakie was seated, but as soon as he left... well ... at least the new President is a mature person, but Really? By the way, these are the same people that legalized Yakie's ouster despite it objectively not meeting the criteria of Article 111: The percentage was seventy-three percent. You might rationalize it as quite high, but the line was set high in the first place for a reason. Constitutional Court nevertheless OKed this. Let me have a few questions on their legal qualities. Anyway, after this, first let us agree that we can at least distinguish between Russians living in Ukraine and Russian attackers or even ethnic Russian separatists in Ukraine. These Russians sided with Ukraine. If they did not side with Ukraine, DPR and LPR would be much bigger. Watch how they were rewarded: In June 2019, the law ""On provision of the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language" Though its provisions were softened versus an even harsher early version, even Ukrainian sources were unable to resist but comment as follows: So how does this work out in practice. Consider the testimony answering this Quora question: https://www.quora.com/In-Western-Ukraine-and-Kiev-is-it-now-taboo-to-speak-Russian-in-public Compare the answers before 2019 and those in 2020. not bad. Right? Now let's look at the answers from 2020: Do you note a change in the tenor of the answers? Yes, it's slow. It's subtle, but it is happening - the status of Russians in Ukraine is progressively being reduced. One step at a time, and this is reflected in both the official law and testimonies.

As all too often, Westerners don't believe in Russians having rights: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/feb/28/denounce-putin-or-lose-your-job-russian-conductor-valery-gergiev-given-public-ultimatum

I see. They've also bombarded a place called Horizont in the past hour... so, they are bombarding this line? https://www.google.com/maps/dir/49°56′N+36°25′E/Shopping+Mall+Ekvator,+Moskovs'kyi+Ave,+256б,+Kharkiv,+Kharkiv+Oblast,+Ukraine,+61000/@49.9445886,36.3728188,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m12!4m11!1m3!2m2!1d36.4166667!2d49.9333333!1m5!1m1!1s0x41270bbf25cb4e4d:0x5038f9e7192e96e2!2m2!1d36.3619766!2d49.9563432!3e0 That they are bombarding this sector also suggests that the Russians "living forces" are not too far behind, close enough they might be inside Kharkiv again.

Frankly I think that's one thing that won't happen. Whether in ideological terms or practicalities, the "correlation of values" between taking a pro-Russian or pro-Western stance is roughly even as far as China is concerned, which explains their ambivalent attitude till now. That extends to even the censored webspace in the "Normal Administrative Region".

This hour is filled with cheery news for Ukraine: https://t.me/spravdi/867

I gave you a lot of hints, Steve. Why would Saudi Arabia have an interest in Taiwan? Did Saudi Arabia ever make an attack on United States Forces, let alone with entire armies? When I say that Ukraine aggressed Russia in the 1991-2013 period, I at least pointed out specific instances whose general facts are uncontested, not vague, abstract references to bribes or poison. Doesn't forgive any torts they conducted at the present. If you are a victim, should people give you an immunity from theft?

In fact, right now, I happen to live in a country that the United States happen to be very "philic" with. That country has gotten away with launching a full blown surprise attack with multiple armies on American troops executing a UN mandate and suffered no more than some sanctions, breaking the precedent that a surprise attack on American forces is awarded with nukes. That country has attacked four countries yet has received surprisingly little condemnation globally. That country was even accused of genocide (by Western authorities) ... yet overall surprisingly little happened to it. In my jurisdiction, I have seen the penalties for a peaceful gathering increase to over nine months, even a year, when a few years back it would have been community service. We are now under risk for saying the "wrong things", so I hope you can forgive me for not answering Aragorn's question re Taiwan. Don't worry too much about Ukraine, though, the country's position is sufficiently ambivalent that both sides are safe. In comparison, Russia is almost starting to look decent in human rights. 15 days administrative offense is not a lot compared to 10 years criminal sentence. Except this analogy does not represent it. Suppose we had a bad marriage so after some time, I agree we can divorce. I even send you some aid beyond whatever is legally mandated and give you some business as a forwarder (which is an indirect way of giving you even more aid). You react by being as unfriendly to me as possible and even embezzling the stuff I've entrusted you to forward, causing me to lose reputation with my customers. Do you think the judge might at least be inclined to consider the circumstances if one day I lost my temper and hit you? It's a memorandum. it's not legally binding, and if anything, the Americans were the one that put a hole in it first by making a distinction between "government" and "people" and justifying it in terms of "human rights". Like a war, sanctions might be targeted at the government, but it's the people that suffer. But let's discuss the essence of the situation. Suppose I make the promise not to hit you. Normally, you'd expect that promise to hold. How much should you expect that promise to be impenetrable if you stole my stuff or you start breaking laws yourself?