At the person... fail!

I am a Noam Chomsky 'fan'. For whatever that's worth around here.

For whatever that's worth around here. — creativesoul

Nothing, apparently.

It is amazing that the US can literally lie, fuck-up, and cause untold destruction in literally every war and foreign policy intervention it has ever been involved in since the beginning of time, and people will still be like "it's different this time I swear bro".

Well, I'm not even going to attempt to defend most of our foreign policy decisions during my lifetime. Ukraine begged for help. Russia clearly seems the aggressor. Yes, the US does not have a stellar history of supporting duly elected leaders unless those leaders are the ones who are 'friendly' to the US and it's financial interests. So...

The claim of 'standing up for democracy' rings hollow.

Yes, the US does not have a stellar history of supporting duly elected leaders unless those leaders are the ones who are 'friendly' to the US and it's financial interests. — creativesoul

It's not history, it's happening right now, and will continue to happen. Russia is the aggressor. The US just did everything in its power to ensure this would be the case.

The US just did everything in its power to ensure this would be the case. — Streetlight

Spell this out in a bit more detail...

you seem to be talking about the fact that some countries are more pleasant to live in than others, rather than their moral standing.

Just because the US policy has a sorted history of hidden agendas and not so honest means, it does not follow that every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means. — creativesoul

So, we just give them the benefit of the doubt, every time? What is it about their behaviour that makes you think they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

If someone has a long history of racism and they discriminate against a black person in a job interview, do you assume the discrimination was racially motivated, or do you assume it was, just this once, a fair judgement?

We're not in a court of law here. The US aren't about to be executed if we find them guilty of unfair influence, presumption of innocence does nothing here but continually excuse their actions.

A pragmatic political approach assumes each actor will act roughly according to their recent past behaviour, why would we not?

So, we just give them the benefit of the doubt, every time? What is it about their behaviour that makes you think they deserve the benefit of the doubt? — Isaac

Ukraine chose to build financial and diplomatic relations with the west, against the wishes of Russia and it's leaders.

Sure, there are agendas held by the west. There are benefits for the west. There were benefits for Ukraine as well. Call US diplomatic relations and NATO a protection racket if you like, though I think that's a bit too strong a language choice given that the US was the one paying the most for it.

All I am saying is that not all mutual benefit and agendas are nefarious.

It seems to me that this is how you think of it. I mentioned human rights, which can be unpleasant to protect, so in my view pleasantness is not a criterion. The common good is more like it. One must tolerate a lot of unpleasantness to live in society, but if we spread this unpleasantness around equitably, then it becomes a fair, and hence tolerable, social contract.

Spell this out in a bit more detail... — creativesoul

There are 264 pages of discussion about this for you to read about this topic. In lieu of that, here is one single discussion among millions of others:

https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia?s=r

Worth noting, that, contrary to the story-tale that Ukraine 'chose' to deal with the West, the West couped Ukraine exactly at the time at which it choose to stop dealing with the West, as outlined in the article.

---

A basic rule of thumb for assessing world politics: assume the worst about US intervention overseas, and the truth will be roughly twice as murderous and disgusting as that.

Thank Cthulhu you're no longer a mod. — Noble Dust

Street was a mod once?

I hear he's considered very smart around here, which says a lot about this place.

Unless we are Russian (and even then it's hard, given the current regime in Russia) we can't do much about it. And merely saying how horrible Russia is, over and over, is convenient moralizing.

I draw exceptions with people living next to Russia, but besides that, its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. But, people wave flags, for good and ill. — Manuel

And yet you started this discussion about a "Ukraine crisis" - events in which the main participants are Russia and Ukraine (in that order, since Russia initiated the crisis and, being the more powerful actor, commands more initiative and holds more responsibility). If your position is that people should only discuss the goings-on in their home countries, then why did you open this discussion in the first place? If you only want to talk about how bad the US is (a perfectly legitimate topic) then why do this under the pretense of discussing something else?

@Manuel's idea could be summarized as follows:

IFF you are Russian, then you would have good moral grounds to criticize the Russia government, but unfortunately you are not allowed to do so. And IFF you are not Russian, then criticizing the Russia government is morally fraudulent, although legally permissible.

So when it is moral to criticize the Russian government, it is illegal; and when it's legal, then it's immoral.

Nice catch 22, isn't it?

Ukraine chose to build financial and diplomatic relations with the west, against the wishes of Russia and it's leaders. — creativesoul

As @Streetlight has already mentioned, this is simply not true.

We obviously have a fuzzy definition of sorts - technically one 'chooses' to follow the demands of the person with a gun to your head, but we don't normally call that a choice.

Ukraine were about to make a choice one way, the US (and parts of Europe) intervened in a very substantive manner to reverse that decision. That level of interference is not what we'd normally call a free choice.

All I am saying is that not all mutual benefit and agendas are nefarious. — creativesoul

Perhaps not, but it remains the case that most are, it therefore remains the case that a least biased default would be to assume this one was (in the absence of evidence to the contrary), and it remains the case that there's little to no such evidence to the contrary.

As such, the most rational position would be that this decision was not made as a free choice.

In summary - the US usually interfere to limit the choices of nations who might oppose them, they had ample opportunity to do so here, there's no evidence to show they didn't. So why would we assume they didn't?

lol. I am not even disagreeing with the idea that we should be more concerned with that which we can influence, or at least that which can influence us - and for the most part, that's how it plays out anyway. Within reason, such natural tendencies to be more concerned with and feel more responsible over that which is closest to you are a good thing*. But, as with everything, things can get ugly or ridiculous in excess. Parochialism driven to excess leads in some cases to selfish indifference to suffering and injustice, and in others - to obsessive, hateful conspirology, in which the object of obsession obscures everything else in sight.

* Italians have a cosy term for this - campanilismo (campanilism)

If your position is that people should only discuss the goings-on in their home countries, then why did you open this discussion in the first place? — SophistiCat

No one's position is that we should only discuss the goings-on in our home countries.

The position being espoused is that we should primarily concern ourselves with the actions of those actors over which we have some influence (our own governments and their allies). Those actions may well (as here) take place in a foreign country.

But then I suspect you knew that already, which just shows the paucity of your argument against the actual position that you had to devise such an obvious straw man to knock down.

The reference to la lingua di Dante is much appreciated. :-) Campanile (it) = clocher (fr) = church tower (en). Campanilismo = esprit de clocher = parochialism.

I appreciate the rooted nature of all cultures but to me, the most interesting place is between cultures, and what happens there, on the margins of one's culture, in that no man land.

A lot of posters here seem deeply parochial to me; anglo-saxon to be precise; unaware that the world is a big and complicated place; and quite sneering about anything that comes from beyond the confine of their little world.

I like you tho. :love:

Parochialism driven to excess — SophistiCat

Well, at least your rhetorical tactics have risen above the level of a high school debating class. This one I like. Set up your objection as categorical (@Manuel categorically should not have started an OP about Ukraine if he only wanted to talk about the actions of the US), then change your objection to a qualitative one (the complaints are too parochial), and hope no one notices during the switch that you've avoided making any argument for how to measure what is too parochial.

unaware that the world is a big and complicated place — Olivier5

Brilliant. You don't disappoint. So now your argument that "Russia is evil, Ukraine are good, and America are just benevolent bystanders" is the worldly and complex one!

Well. That's cheered up my lunchtime.

Your petty mind and your constant lies should really fuck off.

I'm not going to comment on the geopolitical situation, but it should be well-established by now that the professionalism of the Russian military is eroding. The conduct of their ground forces has been abysmal between murders and rapes, and this will likely have the unfortunate consequence of sparking anti-Russian prejudice. The real problem isn't with the Russian people, but with Russian institutions, namely the military culture. When institutions erode and a kleptocracy uses its youth as cannon fodder it's no wonder we see this type of behavior. Unfortunately many people won't see this and I suspect we'll see a bump in anti-Russian prejudice as war crimes continue.

Institutions mold people. I write as a veteran.

Brilliant. You don't disappoint. So now your argument that "Russia is evil, Ukraine are good, and America are just benevolent bystanders" is the worldly and complex one! — Isaac

The 'complexity' argument on the side of people who are like "everything is exactly as the US news media portrays it and anyone who says different is a Putin sympathiser" is wild.

sparking anti-Russian prejudice — Moses

Hatred would be a better word here. The Ukrainians and Russians used to be brothers; now they will positively hate one other for generations.

Yep. A minute ago considering the US's role in this was overly complicating a simple issue, now doing so is excessively simplistic and parochial. What a shame we missed it when it was just right!

Agree. I don't think a lot of people realize how rotten the Russian military is as an institution. There's been frequent reports of serious hazing problems with junior enlisted, and that kind of thing gives rise to a culture of rule-breaking and nihilism where regulations no longer matter. Everyone wants to be an officer in Russia so the enlisted, the ones who frequently carry out mission execution, get neglected. One of the nice things about the US military is how they pay special attention to their enlisted. I just don't get the sense that the Russian enlisted trust their officer corp to have their best interest in mind.

There's been frequent reports of serious hazing problems with junior enlisted — Moses

Yes, seen that. It's often an ultra violent environment, apparently. So no wonder they kill people for fun, if that how they themselves are treated by their superiors.

My favourite one is when literally every shill was on board with "omg it's not a proxy war Ukranian aGeNcY" only for Biden to be like "yes we are trying to get rid of Putin" on national TV and people just... pretended it didn't happen, much to the delight and relief of Lockheed and Boeing not to mention the entire German and Swedish arms industry. It's so nice of the Ukranians to drop dead for American interests, real nice of them.

The real problem isn't with the Russian people, but with Russian institutions, namely the military culture. — Moses

We can't say that the Russian people aren't the problem either. The support for Putin (celebrated as a great leader like Stalin) and his war is pretty high in Russia and I doubt this is only due to the regime propaganda (propaganda seems so effective because Russians may be predisposed to it due to historical anti-Western feelings ingrained in their culture). Western people are a problem too: in the West there is great polarization toward this war, there are many pro-Russian or anti-NATO/WEST/EU/(NEO)CAPITALIST/GLOBALISATION whatever you want to call them.

The western Putinistas are a small minority in most countries, tho a vocal one.

right, but I wouldn't underestimate their impact on a larger scale: indeed they are very vocal also because they have gained support also from mainstream media and politicians too (both in the US and in the EU see Italy & Salvini).