I am willing to bet international outrage grows over Western governments hypocrisy. — FreeEmotion

I am not counting on it.

For one thing, I do not accuse governments --ours, the Russian, the Indian, Chinese, or North Macedonian to be consistently truthful and never to be dissemble. Sovereign states are not individuals, and they cannot operate with very much transparency. So, The US can criticize Russia, even though our own foreign policy has often been backed up with brutal warfare, and visa versa. War is, after all, the conduct of diplomacy by 'other means'.

Hypocrisy is a feature of human behavior, and everyone, and every institution we create, employs it periodically.

Better to save our outrage for what we see (or about which we have reliable reports). Russia invaded Ukraine. It doesn't matter much to me whether they are hypocrites, racists, sexists, imperialists, or anything else. They probably want to acquire some nice real estate, and maybe they want to control Ukraine's politics and economy, for their own convenience of course.

Well man, I mean, not too long ago Saudi Arabia was a member of the Human Rights section in the UN. The Council on Human Rights (?) or something like that.

That's extraordinary. I agree with @Bitter Crank that hypocrisy is a built in feature of people and states, but, even here, some examples are quite baffling.

It's best to be an equal opportunity offender when it comes to foreign policy, meaning, call out each state for the crimes it does, while not discounting that some states do much more harm, because they have much more power.

One thing's certain, there are no saints in international relations. There are victims and aggressors, but states all have heavy criminal components.

You don't travel enough.

There's plenty of anti-Americanism going around and hypocrisy is one of the first thing spoken about. How can they complain about human rights abuses when they had their renditions, water boarding and torture, Abu Ghraib? How can they complain about aggression when we had aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Thanks Manuel, but going back and forth when there are too many quotes to comment on and little/scattered spare time to dedicate is unpractical to me. So before commenting, I often copy the entire target post somewhere else and then I comment inline whenever I have time.

True, I probably don't travel enough. Why don't you take me on a whirlwind tour of Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and SE Asia? You can introduce me to all sorts of people who are pissed off about America. I am shocked (shocked!) to hear that we are not universally loved and admired.

Hypocrisy is easy to complain about because whoever the target is, they are guilty (except me and thee, and even thee has spoken out of both sides of your mouth on one occasion). People are pretty much alike, and your righteous European sneering at American hypocrisy, is able to overlook their own and their own government's and nation's hypocrisy. What! Holland has hypocrites? No!

We great powers also are pretty much alike. Whether it was the British in their Empire, the French, Belgians, Russians, Germans or Americans, we generally exercise power similarly. We have the wherewithal to off-shore our requirements for a temporary torture chamber; we can pull off an invasion of Ukraine, Iraq, or Afghanistan if it suits their current needs. Taiwan, beware. The Netherlands can not. Neither can Denmark, Latvia, or North Macedonia, fine places though they may be. If you all want to get to the bottom of something in a hurry, you have to deploy the thumb screws and waterboards yourselves, which helps you avoid hypocrisy. BTW, when is the Netherlands finally going to invade Lichtenstein?

Victor Satzewich writes:

Analysis: The Russian diaspora isn’t showing much support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Mar 17, 2022)

your righteous European sneering at American hypocrisy, is able to overlook their own and their own government's and nation's hypocrisy. What! Holland has hypocrites? No!

We great powers also are pretty much alike. Whether it was the British in their Empire, the French, Belgians, Russians, Germans or Americans, we generally exercise power similarly. We have the wherewithal to off-shore our requirements for a temporary torture chamber; we can pull off an invasion of Ukraine, Iraq, or Afghanistan if it suits their current needs. Taiwan, beware. The Netherlands can not. — Bitter Crank

This was not always the case. The Netherlands had an oversea empire in South Africa and Indonesia. They invented the apartheid system to rule it, primarily to avoid inter-racial sex and marriage. Their very long war against the independent-minded Acehnese became a war of extermination. Dutch troops wiped out entire villages and murdered civilians by the thousands. That's how they 'won'.

Urban war is bound to destroy people and property. It goes with the territory. — Bitter Crank

That's true but let's not trivialize war crimes either. To execute civilians with a bullet in their head, dozens or hundreds of times over, are the kind of things the Nazis were doing.

Maybe this is your kind of thing?
I'm thinking that differentiating socialism and communism is needed. — jorndoe

An Interesting prospect. I'll wait to see if anything arises.

People who are fighting against a puppet governments of some foreign power (as Yanukovych was to the Ukrainians) in defence of their national identity and independence are not fighting against their flag, but for their flag as expression of their national identity and independence. And I find this kind of fight morally defensible. — neomac

Right. Well we'll just have to agree to differ. If you find it morally defensible and I don't, I don't see how much further we can go as there are few arguments that can profitably be brought to bear. The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

fighting over national identity is morally defensible (even through war) because people can morally value things more than their own lives, like national identity and independence and unlike a piece of colored piece of fabric on top of a building or a puppet government. — neomac

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.

knowing that in this war USA and Russia are fighting a proxy war in a piece of land called Ukraine for human and material resources, doesn’t tell me enough to decide whom I have to side with in this war. Knowing who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed, knowing that the oppressed is fighting for something I would value too at his place, knowing that this fight is a conventional war with its toll on civilians and their homes, etc. all this is more relevant for me to decide if one should support America or Russia or neither. — neomac

It's not about 'sides' it's about tactics. It's not possible to support a nation (like Russia, or the US or Ukraine). There are 41 million people in Ukraine and they have different opinions. You can't support them all. You're picking a method and supporting that.

all get’s compromised when parties start from such a position of mistrust as in this case. — neomac

I don't see how. How are you measuring 'mistrust' and why say it's too high here?

At this point partaking is not the problem, because there have been many negotiation sessions between Russians and Ukrainians, but they got stalled. — neomac

I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

Putin’s dictatorial power extends over the last two decades so he could take all his time to prepare for this war and take effective decisions consistent with his goals, meanwhile in the US there have been five different administrations (including a philo-Putinist Trump) in loose coordination with an even greater number of changing and politically divided EU leaders and governments, decided also thanks to a growth of anti-globalist populism that Putin contributed to feed with his money and troll armies. So not exactly the same situation for responsibility ascriptions. — neomac

That assumes the power in America lies in the various ventriloquist dolls chosen to act as mouthpieces for the vast industries which run America.

Sure, then again the West tries to help the oppressed by delivering weapons instead of trying to help the oppressor. — neomac

Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question. Does a supply of weapons help? Is there any evidence that that's even the intention? A supply of weapons certainly boosts the profits of one of the most politically powerful industries in the world. Are you arguing that that's a coincidence?

No idea of the number of victims on both sides. — neomac

Then by what standard are you measuring? You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars). If it's not the numbers of people killed or immiserated, then what? Are Putin's methods just to uncouth? Do you prefer a more sophisticated murderer?

What am I supposed to do with that? What evidence to you have?

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/04/are-ukrainian-values-closer-to-russia-or-to-europe/ — neomac

That's better. I don't see in there evidence that Ukraine clearly has more open views on standards of life than Russia. I see a complex picture. Views on homosexuality, for example.

you just repeated Putin’s demands and related blackmails without considering Ukrainian demands at all. — neomac

I know, that's why I said them. Those are the demands on the table at the moment, so of course they're Putin's. The argument was that they don't push Russian expansionism futher. They are the de facto positions already.

Therefore you do not care to offer an opposing strategy against Russian terroristic expansionism — neomac

Why would that lead from caring more about civilian lives?

Who is us? I didn’t throw anybody under tanks. And the antecedent of that conditional is false. Nothing to explain here. — neomac

I'm dissecting your support. Do you support those who do?

Western leaders have moral reasons to contrast Putin offensive expansionism the best they can, as long as they can. — neomac

Again, it's methods, not reasons. Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

Concerning “methods”, I simply claimed they have moral implications and therefore I take them into account: a stick and carrot strategy (a mix of incentives and deterrence) may be morally more defensible than a full blown-war as in this case. — neomac

Yes, but that's why the US's tactics in Yemen matter, because you're claiming to "take them into account". Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too? So wherefore the moral justification for choosing their methods over Putin's?

Andrew Levi co-led a UK diplomatic crisis response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. I’m not sure what he’s done recently, but is occasionally interviewed in the media on the motives and ideology of Putin.
He arrived at his view of Putin during that mission and tried to warn the British government about Putin at the time and was largely ignored.

What I’m interested in is how this interpretation might inform an assessment of what Putin will do as the war escalates (if it does). I was thinking that if Putin is essentially a mafia boss, he is less likely to press the button than if he is a mad man, or a megalomaniac. But will retreat while claiming victory, justification and victimhood in relation to the enemy. That his primary motivation and goal is to remain in power and autocratic control of Russia. That invading his neighbours is part of that strategy

I said nothing of that, that's your words. — Christoffer

I see. So from what non-western source did you anticipate this 'education' coming. Which textbooks of say, Senegalese, origin were you thinking of?

So you mean that critical thinking, the process of being able to be unbiased and rational in reasoning is not part of a quality education? — Christoffer

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking?

you seem to miss that philosophy is pretty much built upon methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases — Christoffer

No. Again, I disagree that philosophy is built on methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases.

What actual knowledge in psychology do you really have to propose that "thinking" requires nothing? — Christoffer

Well I'm a professor of Psychology - so there's that.

Thinking in of itself, even with a high intellect means nothing without the knowledge of how to structure such thoughts into reasonable and logical arguments. — Christoffer

And your evidence for this would be?

Education enables tools of thought for examining one's own pre-existing concepts and ideas, it enables you to realize just how little you know. The way you're describing it is extremely naive and excludes every basic knowledge of how psychology in sociological terms works. — Christoffer

Well, if it's so naive then there's something very wrong with the recruitment strategy of England's major Universities.

limiting the ability to gain access to tools of thought that make you able to think critically. — Christoffer

By claiming that native education methods limit this access you are claiming that these 'tools' only exist outside of these cultures. That is the racist element. Why do these tools only exist outside of these cultures?

Chernobyl was a globally known incident — Christoffer

Known to you. I know about Liverpool's chemical waste dump.

If "western" is just America I would agree with a shitload of what you say, but it's become a strawman for your arguments so I can't take it seriously. — Christoffer

Of course America is not the sole representative of 'the West', but it is a significant power. So when you say 'westernise' that could lead either to Sweden or America. What prevents one route and promotes the other? Not 'western' values clearly - they're represented by both.

if I say "quality education", I mean neutral education, I mean free of propaganda, even western propaganda — Christoffer

Right. So what Senegalese thinkers were included in your oh-so-non-westernised education?

What exactly do you disagree with in that text?? That good quality, neutral education, that enables people to see unbiased facts, different perspectives, concepts of how to think with deduction and induction... is not giving someone the tools to think critically and without bias? — Christoffer

Yes. That's exactly what I disagree with.

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit? — Christoffer

Yes. Again, that something seems to you to be the case does not mean it actually is the case. Your incredulity is not an argument.

Are learning facts a universal human constant of gaining knowledge? — Christoffer

Yes.

Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom? — Christoffer

No.

Is wisdom not needed to be able to internally pitch different perspectives against each other to induce a probable truth? — Christoffer

Yes.

you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically. — Christoffer

I perfectly well understand it. I disagree with it.

when I see children in schools funded by charities, when I see the hope in their eyes of getting doors opened to do things in their life and not just be victims of poverty and politics, then I feel hope, because the actual people of the country gain the knowledge to do something and not just have to wait for whatever political problems that is going on or whatever political boot the west push down on them. — Christoffer

Since education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes...all tend to go hand-in hand. I don't see how you could present any evidence that it was the education that did it.

Have you not even had the thought that if there's a western boot pressing them down and not enabling them to rise up against it, a quality education, neutral education that grants them the knowledge to act against that boot might just be the solution to getting rid of that boot? — Christoffer

How? Explain the mechanism. We have the 'boot' of trade tariffs, pecuniary aid terms, environmental pressures, military power imbalances, arms sales to oppressive governments, political power being abused for financial gain, TNCs exploiting cheap labour... then you give the children of the country a good Western education and then...? What? How does knowing about Plato sort all those problems out? Talk me through the process.

Giving access to ... methods of unbiased thinking, which is my core point. — Christoffer

Exactly. Why didn't they already have access to methods of unbiased thinking from their own rich cultural heritage? What was wrong with them, that they didn't come up with these 'methods' already? They certainly didn't need any specialist technology. They had more time than we had. So explain to me, in non-racist terms, why these cultures (which have had longer to think about it than we have) don't already have these 'methods of unbiased thinking'?

if I teach someone how to do proper deductions, that has nothing to do with anything other than logically fine-tuning thinking itself to better reach valid conclusions. That is a universal method for human beings to bypass bias and is critical for anyone wanting to reach beyond set ideas. — Christoffer

If it is universal, then why is it not already part of their culture? Why is it not already passed down from parent to child, or cultural leader to children?

If they are in a dire position, if they are suffering, if there's something fundamentally broken with their government that makes them suffer, then we shouldn't give a fuck. That's your argument. That's your simple conclusion to all of this. — Christoffer

How? You've suggested education. I disagree, so suddenly I'm saying we should do nothing? How on earth have you arrived at the conclusion that anything that isn't education is 'nothing'?

If I present an actual real-world solution, right now, as a pragmatic and practical thing that can actually be done; — Christoffer

You haven't. You've just vaguely waived about the words 'education' and 'westernised'. I could counter by vaguely waiving about the terms 'socialism' and 'worker's revolution'.

Here's my suggestion for westernized Russia. Implement social democracy, write a constitution with a strong focus on the protection of people's right to free speech, implement laws that protect independent media, and have state media be just funded by taxes, but ruled by constitutional law to be a critical entity of the government, free from any capitalist biases. Have a great form of welfare, either direct or through basic income, and have active organizations for anti-corruption work, much like Ukraine has had and successfully reduced corruption with. Outside of that, let them have a free market in order to engage internationally if they want. — Christoffer

Right.

My suggestion is exactly the same without the so-called 'free' market, and with worker-owned means of production.

What's on offer right now is none of the things we actually agree on and just the one we disagree on. What's being offered to Ukraine is western financial support in return for a reduction in social welfare, an increase in elite ownership over the means of production, and an opening up of markets.

Andrew Levi co-led a UK diplomatic crisis response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. I’m not sure what he’s done recently, but is occasionally interviewed in the media on the motives and ideology of Putin.
He arrived at his view of Putin during that mission and tried to warn the British government about Putin at the time and was largely ignored. — Punshhh

So he's never met Putin but feels qualified to make a psychological profile. Got it. Sorry man, I just can't appreciate a guy who tweets in 10 different language that there can be no peace with Russia unless it changes fundamentally. We could say the same thing about the US. There can't be peace in the world until the US changes fundamentally. And of course it is bullshit and nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's treat Russia like an enemy because I made my mind up that they are an enemy.

It's also neither here nor there. If we want peace, if we want to stop the killing now, we need to go through the Russia that is now and the way it is under Putin. And secretly of course the wish for "fundamental change" is for Russia to roll over and accept US hegemony and pretend it doesn't have any interests or rights other than those that exactly align with what the UK/US want them to be.

In my humble opinion, the man is obviously unfit to work as a diplomat.

Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. — Isaac

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents. Russian heads will have to roll now.

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents. Russian heads will have to roll now. — Olivier5

There's plenty of anti-Americanism going around and hypocrisy is one of the first thing spoken about. How can they complain about human rights abuses when they had their renditions, water boarding and torture, Abu Ghraib? How can they complain about aggression when we had aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan? — Benkei

At least there are differences. The most obvious difference between US warfighting and Russian warfighting is simply scale as history has shown. At least the US is officially against attrocities, understands that violence towards civilians is simply counterproductive in a war and even will go as far as court martial it's own soldiers. That doesn't mean that warcrimes don't happen and cannot be just waived of individual incidents when orders haven't been followed (like when taking the disastrous tactic of using body counts as indicators of how well a war is fought in Vietnam). My Lai or the Haditha massacre in the Iraq war are examples done from the US.

On the other hand the Russians have what is called "tactical truth": lying to achieve your objectives, which is totally acceptable. It's not a denial like the Americans would do (usually referring to poor judgement of individual soldiers if civilians are killed), but categorical denial of everything and then a prolonged campaign to tarnish, ridicule and confuse everything about some event. And once there is that confusion, ignorance of the facts (that only later with more accurate historical investigation can be shown), works splendidly. The shooting down of the MH17 in southern Ukraine is an example of this. The facts are quite evident now after a long investigation, but due to ignorance it's easy to voice doubts over who was responsible of the shooting.

One can see it happening here with Bucha:

(TASS) Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov slammed the situation in the Ukrainian town of Bucha as fake attack. According to him, a fake attack was staged there, which Ukraine and the West disperse through all channels and social networks.

And there's enough of useful idiots around then to confuse the issue and go along with the idea that everything was staged. Likely there's going to be the argument that Ukrainians staged this in order to get more sanctions put at Russia and to get more aid.

The Russian doctrine of heavy use of firepower and the absolute lack of care about the Russian soldiers by the Russian armed forces also lowers moral of the soldiers creates the situation where civilian casualties are high and attrocities can happen. Starting from things like the soldiers being drunk. The rhetoric of fighting against Nazis doesn't help this or the fact that the Russian forces have sustained a lot of casualties themselves. The use of excessive firepower in urban warfare is a way to minimize own casualties, yet it brings far more destruction than different strategies would cause.

How high the death toll in Mariupol will be remains to be seen.

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents. — Olivier5

You're right.

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea.

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea. — Isaac

When you are killed as an Ukrainian nazi, A Chechen islamist terrorist or a Syrian jihadist... or a supporter of them, you don't choose yourself that "national" identity. The guy who shoots you has decided that on behalf of you.

When you are killed as an Ukrainian nazi, A Chechen islamist terrorist or a Syrian jihadist... or a supporter of them, you don't choose yourself that "national" identity. The guy who shoots you has decided that on behalf of you. — ssu

None of those are national identities. They're all choices to join certain groups. I'm English, but I'm not going to commit others to war just to remain that way. I'll be Russian instead.

The point was simply that the 'national identity' argument doesn't have any moral force. There's no moral element to wanting to be Ukrainian instead of Russian.

The facts are quite evident now after a long investigation, but due to ignorance it's easy to voice doubts over who was responsible of the shooting.

One can see it happening here with Bucha: — ssu

You self evidently can't.

You just don't seem to get it, you don't see your role in this. You are one of the useful idiots.

1. Commit atrocity
2. Tell the world you didn't, and everyone who says you did is lying, western propaganda.
3. People like you point out that the (weak) evidence of their atrocities should always be taken at face value, any discussion of it is 'conspiracy theory' and dispute nothing but apologetics for the perpetrators.
4. The perpetrators say "see, look at the propaganda methods they're using"

Your attitude just serves their agenda.

If you want to fight against a side using propaganda to cover up crimes, and claiming that you're using propaganda to lie about them don't do exactly the thing they're claiming you do.

And there's enough of useful idiots around then to confuse the issue and go along with the idea that everything was staged. Likely there's going to be the argument that Ukrainians staged this in order to get more sanctions put at Russia and to get more aid. — ssu

As @Benkei (an actual lawyer) has already pointed out, there does need to be some sort of credible investigation, chance for the accused to defend themselves, and, ideally, some sort of impartial trial to determine war crimes, or crimes in general.

Additionally, war crimes by individual soldiers or units (which I do not doubt has happened; it's essentially guaranteed in any war) do not automatically translate to being war crimes of the military or the government. It must be some sort of institutionalised policy or direct order.

However, an additional reason to reserve judgement and not break out the jump to conclusions mat, is the Russians may have exculpatory video evidence.

And the Russian's generally like to present what evidence they do have in whatever legal process it is, such as the evidence about the biolabs at the UN security meeting. The longer false-accusations are made, the more impact exculpatory evidence has, so waiting for the "proper" legal time serves this purpose. Not to say they have exculpatory evidence, just when they do the Kremlin's policy is to reveal it later, as then their accusers (i.e. the West) loses credibility (certainly for the purposes of muddying the waters when they are actually guilty as charged).

It should also be kept in mind that the Ukrainian strategy has been to garner sympathy with civilian casualties by not evacuating them from war zones and even giving them automatic weapons instead. So, it cannot simply be denied that there would be a motivation to create more atrocities if the Russian shelling wasn't enough (which, as horrible as it is, wasn't enough in terms of a no-fly zone). And, there are literal neo-Nazi organisations operating in Ukraine, and I definitely don't put anything past them in terms of treachery and immorality.

What is pause for thought though, is not only Western media automatically interpreting these tied dead civilians as executions by Russians (without any investigation, just circumstantial) ... but when there was many reports and even actual video evidence of Ukrainians executing alleged Russian spies, this was taken at face value as just executing saboteurs to "deal with them".

Why do we not extend the benefit of the doubt to the Russians and simply assume if they did execute all these people, they were spies and saboteurs and could be summarily executive in the same insane process as the Ukrainians have been executing people?

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

What is behind that? Does it come down to anti-American sentiment where any enemy of the US is a friend? If not, then what? Do you have an idea?

At least the US is officially against attrocities, understands that violence towards civilians is simply counterproductive in a war and even will go as far as court martial it's own soldiers. — ssu

They will throw soldiers under the bus when a politician's ass needs to be saved. Other than that I find your optimism misplaced. Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the fire bombing of Tokyo ring a bell? How many were court martialed? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Kosovo? Anything? Torture and renditions? What's Cheney doing nowadays anyway?

And the US' allies are complicit in going along with these farces.

So when the US officially states something we should believe it instead of calling it out for the lies they are but everything out of Putin’s mouth is a lie? How much cool aid did you drink?

Why don't you quote me where I defend him?

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea. — Isaac

It has got something to do with the fact that it's not the Ukrainian government who is killing those children, nor the 'West'. It is Russia. And that they would go as far as killing totally innocent and defenseless people to "apply pressure" on the Ukrainian government (to use a phrase our local mage @boethius likes a lot) says a lot about who they are: they are slaves, used to submit to force, and unable to even understand the concept of revolt against force.

But their use of force against the weakest of the weak is backfiring. They THINK that the more hospitals they bomb, the more submissive the Ukrainians will be, but the opposite is happening: it makes the Ukrainians more angry. And now the Russian foreign minister complains that the Ukrainian side is 'difficult' in those negotiations. Oh yeah? What did you slaves expect?

Why don't you quote me where I defend him? — Benkei

I wasn't attacking you. I'm trying to understand people like you. If you have any helpful hints, I'd appreciate it.

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money.

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money. — Olivier5

I meant people like that in general.

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president. — frank

I can't speak for @Benkei but he may have some bizarre legal idea that both sides of a dispute deserve to be heard, which you interpret as defending one side because that side is already guilty without hearing their point of view or verifying any facts.

If Western media is blaring 24/7 their accusations against the Russians, maybe focusing on those as "maybe true" (which, certainly many are "maybe true") serves no further purpose at some point than to repeat propaganda, but that representing the other side of things, indeed even mentioning that it may exist, is required for clear thinking.

Likewise, if the same Western media automatically gives the benefit of the doubt and simply straight up ignores Bush's crimes, many documented without any dispute about the evidence whatsoever and including straight up confessions by the head of state of the US government! ("So we tortured some folks"); so, again, maybe for the principle of fairness the other side of the story should be heard.

You are arguing from a false equivalence that we have already heard each side of the issue, we already know all the facts, and are simply deciding who we support morally without needing to make decisions or formulate policy: i.e. that if "Putin is bad" is one's moral opinion given the undisputed facts that are already established, then repeating that is the terminus of the critical thinking process.

For example, what I am completely convinced of is that children in Ukraine are certainly innocent and do not deserve to be killed, maimed and traumatised. I have mentioned this is and it's my emotional motivation to contribute analysis in the hopes of a resolution and end to the war.

However, if I did no analysis, just repeated "children don't deserve to be harmed or killed" again and again and again ... at some point I am not serving those Ukrainian children's interests but my own emotions and people would just say "yeah, we get it, we don't like seeing children harmed either, but just saying so doesn't end the war." And if I continue and engage in none of the discussions about the military or political situation and decisions different parties can actually make, at some point I'd be accused of virtue signalling by only repeating the innocent and morally righteous case of the children in Ukraine.

can't speak for Benkei but he may have some bizarre legal idea that both sides of a dispute deserve to be heard — boethius

But he wouldn't have that attitude if the culprit was American. He'd happily go in the other direction of being as unfair as possible (I think).

So I don't think it's a matter of valuing fairness.

But he wouldn't have that attitude if the culprit was American. He'd happily go in the other direction of being as unfair as possible (I think). — frank

Because billions of dollars are already spent to make the case to defend the American president, there's zero need to "make it more".

Likewise, the case against Putin is already made extremely loudly and we're all expected to accept the verdict is already in.

Lastly, as Westerners we can affect Western policies, we can't affect much Russian or Chinese policies.

Sure, worse there than here ... but I don't see what I can do about that except through affecting Western policies, which requires scrutiny and criticism of Western institutions and power brokers.

So I don't think it's a matter of valuing fairness. — frank

This is exactly the false equivalence I point out.

The conditions going into a debate are not somehow preordained to be equal and different perspectives already equally heard, and we all have unlimited time to defend each case and develop every possible accusation.

If billions of dollars are already spent defending one perspective, I am not being fair by apportioning my time and energy equally to unequally represented parties.

For example, I say several times I am trying to represent the Russian perspective because the Western media and Ukrainian case is already repeated pretty loudly.

If it was the reverse, that everyone agrees with the Russians and doesn't understand why Ukrainians are fighting, calling them irrational, and cheering the Russians on to crush them, I'd present the Ukrainian perspective instead, try to understand them (their passion to defend their land) in hopes of a diplomatic resolution.

Now, if it's true, Ukrainian righteousness and the decision to fight a good one and it's true that the Russians are evil ... ok, go fight. Get in there NATO.

However, the problem is that even if it is true NATO is not going to fight and Ukrainians aren't going to defeat Russia (impose their conditions on Russia by force).

So ... even according to the Western narrative there is no military solution to achieve Ukrainian's just cause.

Conclusion: either Russia is going to win, or then there will be some diplomatic resolution at some point; the sooner the better, and diplomacy is not possible by only considering one side of an issue.