The Ukraine has its own rich history of dishonesty.
The first day of war: Ukraine says that Russian warship killed with missiles all Ukranian border guards on the Zmeiniy island. Everyone is shocked by this senseless cruelty.
Russian MoD says that guards are taken prisoners. Nobody believes.
Two weeks later: Ukrainian Defence Minister gives medals to the border guards safely returned to Kiev.
maybe, maybe not. Two things are for sure, though:
1. there is no such thing as "The Ukraine" anymore, only Ukraine, as in the independent country with internationally recognized borders [including Crimea]
2. given russia's long history of dishonesty in their claims (e.g. 'we won't attack Ukraine, that's just western propaganda', 'we are the victims and not the aggressors', 'we aren't raping children in Ukraine'), the truth is, by default, most likely to be the opposite of what russia says (but of course, subject to dispute if russia actually has reliable verified evidence of their claims)
again, it's simply the bayesian prior at this point; the null hypothesis
It means what you say might be true, or it might be false, but either way it has no bearing on russia's long history of dishonesty, and thus has no bearing on my comment
indeed, whataboutism itself is a form of dishonest debate which was invented, and is used to distract from russia's long history of dishonesty (here for example).
So you don't bother to google and check if the Ukraine has a habit of lying too, and prefer to believe anything coming from Kiev only because Russia says the opposite.
The word 'whataboutism' is a form of dishonest debate and used to distract from critique of double standards.
"guess who invented it? russia, of course."
I'd say it was invented during Cold War by some American in search of rhetorical device to distract from their double standards.
Theres no evidence it hit anything, other then that of the Russian government who has shown itself in this conflict that it is incapable of doing anything but lying. In fact people found where it was doing deployed and theres not even any scorch marks, everything points to the thousandeth Russian lie in this war more then anything else.
> Even the US says there was 'minimal damage'. [0]
Yes, minimal damage from flying debris from something, but it's clear from that satellite imagery nothing hit any part of an actual patriot.
> There is no evidence to the number of Kinzhals launched and to the number of Kinzhals intercepted.
Exactly, no evidence of anything but minimal damage to a patriot either. Kinda pathetic given the size of the attack that Russia cannot even take out one air defense system that they clear know where is.
the flaw in your logic is that things (!russia) does don't affect the high probability that russia is lying, which is, again, the bayesian prior
only the changing behavior of russia can change russia's history of behavior, and it can choose to change in a more honest direction anytime (but has not done so)
you're thinking about it wrong, they don't have any effect on each other, even if you think you can use one to reason about the other
if russia says A, we can assume !A due to russia's history of dishonesty, literally with no other information necessary
someone else being dishonest, even if true, doesn't make russia more honest, so we can still assume !A
indeed, because russia's history of dishonesty is so long and strong, we can stop right there, unless russia proves its probable lies are actually truthful (such is the fate of a liar)
if they don't like it, they can start being honest and keep it up for a few decades to show they've changed
Well, I equally distrust American, Ukrainian and Russian governments. All of them showed themselves as serial liars just like lots of other governments.
When two governments give mutually exclusive statements, you can't just pick one country and say this one is always lying because that would mean that you think that another habitual liar is always telling the truth. Or you can, but that just makes you a russophobe.
> I equally distrust American, Ukrainian and Russian governments.
given such a false equivalence, and even more whataboutism, it is then good that that opinion is not the opinion of most countries in the world (by UN vote)
after all, fewer than 3% of countries, representing fewer than 3% of people in the world, were willing to go on record saying they trust russia's claims and excuses when they said the same thing
> When two governments give mutually exclusive statements, you can't just pick one country and say this one is always lying
I didn't say they're always lying, I pointed out that's simply the default state until russia PROVES its claims.
can we do that? it depends: is one of them russia, a country with a long history of lying more often than telling the truth on matters such as this?
if so, then you totally can treat it as the default, because again, and for the third time: X being dishonest doesn't make russia honest, only russia being honest makes russia honest
meanwhile, you can't just ignore russia's dishonesty by resorting to whataboutism and finger pointing and 'but america/Ukraine/the west...': you must address russia's dishonesty directly.
> that just makes you a russophobe
does it though? That doesn't seem to actually be the case.
indeed, calling the world's totally normal reaction to russia's history of dishonesty "russophobia" seems a little defensive and russophilic
Only two countries voted against the Russia-proposed resolution condemning rehabilitation of nazism. Can you guess which countries? Right. The Ukraine and the US.
> Only two countries voted against the Russia-proposed resolution condemning rehabilitation of Nazism.
51 in the most recent iteration of Russia’s annual hollow ritual, that has gotten extra hollow as it has become the main current implementor of exactly the things for which the Nazis are generally condemned, from aggressive war to genocide:
hmm this isn't the entire story, >50 Nations voted against it this year and Canada and the US have consistently voted against it for 10 years.
> Only two countries voted against the Russia-proposed resolution condemning rehabilitation of nazism. Can you guess which countries? Right. The Ukraine and the US.
>> Canada and the United States (the only country to have consistently voted against these resolutions for the past 10 years) justified their opposition to this draft resolution, believing that it aimed to "legitimize a discourse based on disinformation."
fewer than 3% of countries, representing fewer than 3% of people in the world, were willing to go on record saying they trust russia's claims and excuses when they said the same thing
The first day of war: Ukraine says that Russian warship killed with missiles all Ukranian border guards on the Zmeiniy island. Everyone is shocked by this senseless cruelty. Russian MoD says that guards are taken prisoners. Nobody believes.
Two weeks later: Ukrainian Defence Minister gives medals to the border guards safely returned to Kiev.