Russia is simply redistributing wealth through force according to its ideas of what belongs to whom.

Given this forum's political leanings one might expect a lot more understanding for this course of action.

Proves nothing more than you have no idea what you’re talking about.

What we must acknowledge when comparing other wars with this one, even ones as recent as the Iraq war, is the rapid change of our world. The amount of information the average person has access to in the Russian-Ukraine war is staggering. War crimes are committed and days later the world hears about them. Dozens of websites have been made for the sole purpose of documenting details of this war, from troop movements to logistics, recording both the direct human cost and unintended consequences. Also, related political events, the views of different world leaders and so much more. One can get access to constant updates on social media, watch analysis videos done on youtube or fb, and get access to all kinds of perspectives with only the desire to do it. This state of things did not exist in 2003 during the Iraq War, let alone wars preceding it.

The world is a very different place today than it ever was before, the Ukraine war is unique in these ways. We must include this in our analysis or it will lead to incorrect conclusions. Yes, some things don't change but much has and more change is a given. This talk of what happened 50-400 years ago is stupid, start looking around you instead of backwards. I don't think Putin is as interested in history as he makes it out, I believe these are useful tools for stoking nationalism and creating scapegoats and threats. But even if he was, that is Putin's prerogative, it doesn't make it right. The past, and also the present is filled with examples of being super flawed. We've got new tools now that allow the vast majority of people to have a different and previously unattainable perspective. Better to make use of that and do something new.

Russia is simply redistributing wealth through force according to its ideas of what belongs to whom.

Given this forum's political leanings one might expect a lot more understanding for this course of action. — Tzeentch

If they would redistribute with the welfare of everyone in mind, they would be our heroes.

What I did say, very clearly and repeatedly, is that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

I also said that (1) this must be applied on the merits of each particular case, (2) no one says it must be applied by force of arms, and (3) nor can force or threat of force (or violence) be ruled out.

In other words, the principle should be applied if, when, and to the extent that, it is feasible. — Apollodorus

What a load of bullshit.

:up:

And because basically started this war in 2014, there wasn't any strategic surprise, which would had to be had to pull this special military operation in the first place.

What exactly makes you think it’s OK for Britain and Russia to invade and divide Iran in 1941, but not for Germany and Russia to invade and divide Poland in 1939??? — Apollodorus

Hmmm...

I don't think anybody here thinks it was OK to invade Iran.

Yet neither country annexed Iran. Iran actually later took out the Soviet puppet state.

And oh, not every fifth Iranian died because of the invasion, like what happened to the Polish.

To do so also undermines the fact of the very real and very immoral role the US (and, therefore, NATO) has played in this crime. — Xtrix

Well, not necessarily. If the US and its NATO Empire “have played a very real role”, then they may well have caused the conflict, either partly or wholly.

We mustn't forget that Zelensky was backed by dodgy media tycoons and oligarchs and was a media man himself. If I had the Western media on my side and got zillions of dollars from America like Zelensky has, I would probably have the best and most "credible" propaganda in the world.

The way I see it, the whole point of philosophy – and of common sense in general – is to look beyond appearances. Unfortunately, some seem to be stuck at an a priory level where they allow NATO’s anti-Russian jihadi mythology to shape their perception of reality without making the slightest attempt to look into the truth of it.

One major problem with NATO seems to be that it hypocritically gives its members free hand to deal with their ethnic minorities as they please (see Turkey’s treatment of Kurds), while using minorities in non-NATO countries to create division and conflict as part of established divide-and-rule policy (see Albanians in Yugoslavia).

That’s exactly what the West has been doing in Ukraine and even in Russia where it has encouraged separatism and opposition to the central government for decades.

So, arguably, the Ukraine conflict is a logical, and entirely predictable, consequence of US-NATO expansion and meddling in other nations’ affairs.

The Pope himself has said that the danger is that we only see what is on the surface and “not the whole drama that is unfolding behind this war, which was perhaps in some way either provoked or not prevented. And I register an interest in testing and selling weapons. Basically, this is what is at stake".

Ukraine war 'perhaps in some way either provoked or not prevented,' says Pope Francis – CNN

IMO the Pope seems to understand political philosophy, and philosophy in general, much better than the pro-NATO political activists on here.

In any case, he’s got a degree in philosophy and is highly respected by millions around the world. His views shouldn’t be uncritically dismissed on a philosophy forum.

What a load of bullshit. — creativesoul

Something isn’t “bullshit” just because you say so. Perhaps you’ve run out of arguments. If you had any in the first place, that is. :wink:

not every fifth Iranian died because of the invasion, like what happened to the Polish. — ssu

The issue wasn't "how many died" but the legitimacy of the invasion!

And, of course, you just "happen" to forget to count how many Ukrainians died as a result of Polish invasions and occupation. You also "happen" to forget that it was the Ukrainians that asked to be incorporated into the Russian Empire to escape the Poles .... :grin:

We've got new tools now that allow the vast majority of people to have a different and previously unattainable perspective. Better to make use of that and do something new. — Judaka

I think that's much easier said than done. And, funny enough, it's the pro-NATO camp that keeps bringing history into it by constantly equating Putin with Stalin, Hitler, or when that fails, with the Czars.

But when the other side mentions history, all of a sudden it's "Oh, no, you can't do that!"

Plus, in order to determine the legitimacy or otherwise of territorial claims, for example Crimea, you can't avoid looking at the history of it. No rational person would turn to Twitter or TikTok to decide on matters of this kind. :smile:

This discussion needs some direction.

What are we discussing really?

Who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys'?

What international law says about this?

What the best courses of action are for both sides?

What are the most likely outcomes?

Ethical principles?

This thread is an unconstructive mess.

What are we discussing really? — Tzeentch

See the OP. It's a general discussion on the crisis. Yes, that makes it very messy. On the positive side, the mess is pretty much limited to this thread. As for unconstructive, welcome to pretty much every political discussion ever, unfortunately.

https://mronline.org/2022/06/14/u-s-president-confirms-deployment-of-troops-in-yemen/

So in addition to having sent troops to Somalia to protect their precious oil assets, the US now continues to deploy troops in Yemen to help the Saudis continue their genocide. I wonder - what will be the final ratio of countries invaded by the US compared to Russia by the time the war in Ukraine ends, if it does end? We're at - at least - 2:1 right now. Maybe 5:1 for the final tally?

I guess if we count US troops fucking around in Syria with their ISIS pals, we could call the ratio 2.5:1.

I wonder if the number of people these American troops will murder - that is all they exist for - will ever be reported for the sake of the kind of atrocity porn that Westerners so lavishly lap-up in the case of Ukraine.

This thread is an unconstructive mess. — Tzeentch

Maybe this thread is a constructive mess, or as constructive as a mess can be. A number of positions have been thoroughly argued for and against. Not in philosophical terms so far, that is true, and with a lot of anger in the conversation. But you are welcome to chip in and help better define the terms of engagement.

The issue wasn't "how many died" but the legitimacy of the invasion! — Apollodorus

Nobody else but you are giving legitimacies over invasions and annexations. Neither the invasion of Poland or the invasion of Iran is legitimate. It's very rare that we can argue that some invasion was legitimate.

And, of course, you just "happen" to forget — Apollodorus

...to refer everything that has happened in history. Right.

In my mind history isn't at all ethical. And those seeking justifications for starting wars or defending them can go to hell.

What international law says about this? — Tzeentch

Let me pick just for example this. @Baden is totally right, pretty much any political discussion is as messy as this.

How about starting to answer your question with the UN charter, article 4:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

see Charter of the United Nations

So you can try to talk about what the international law says about this, and I think I know what the response will be: counterarguments on other events / issues / countries and accusations that you're hypocritical by ignoring these, because you are focusing on a thread about the Ukraine war on the war in Ukraine.

That's what makes this thread "messy".

We're humans before we're citizens of any nation. And humans are always killing each other over things like territory, ideology and resources and making up all kinds of justifications for it. Your error is thinking that sometimes it's okay, that sometimes two wrongs make a right. All European nations have a history of wrongdoing, but as I said, the world is changing at an unbelievable rate. It's not that what Russia is doing is worse than what other nations have done or are doing, it's that this type of war, in this type of era, is going to be condemned worse than wars in previous eras ever could be. You can point out what other nations have done X decades/centuries ago and say it's not worse and be correct, but you're not talking about the most important factor which is that this war is happening in 2022 and those events did not.

I'm not telling you that you can't talk about history, as though it's immoral to do so or something. I don't know why others bother to engage with you on this kind of historical tit-for-tat, I've got no interest in that. If one person gets away with murder, should the next person accused be automatically acquitted? These are all different subjects, if you want to make a tier list of horrible wars then go ahead but they're still all immoral, don't think it has much to do with this topic.

My point is these are all very different questions to ask, the possible answers to which are all being hopelessly conflated.

We can't have a debate if one person is discussing ethics, another is discussing law and yet another is discussing practical steps to get out of this mess, and each engages with each other's arguments from entirely different view points.

Lumping everything together into one abomination of anger in text certainly isn't helping to turn these discussions into something productive.

So, arguably, the Ukraine conflict is a logical, and entirely predictable, consequence of US-NATO expansion and meddling in other nations’ affairs. — Apollodorus

views shouldn’t be uncritically dismissed on a philosophy forum. — Apollodorus

Not only don’t I “dismiss” them, I hold them.

One can’t read everything in such a large thread. But I suggest you go back and read anything I’ve written. To argue I’m in the “pro-NATO” camp is untrue, and lazy.

Notice I’m not dismissing you as “pro-Putin.” That would be equally childish. I take issue with your claim that Russia’s actions were legitimate.

It's very rare that we can argue that some invasion was legitimate. — ssu

That sounds like an admission that some invasions ARE legitimate! :grin:

...to refer everything that has happened in history. Right. — ssu

No, NOT "everything". From what I see, your tendency seems to be to "forget" historical events that undermine your argument, but selectively remember events you think support it.

In my mind history isn't at all ethical. — ssu

No one said history is ethical. My point was that in order to establish the legitimacy or otherwise of an action, you need to look at the past actions that preceded it, i.e. at HISTORY. This is normal practice in national law as much as in international relations

If one person gets away with murder, should the next person accused be automatically acquitted? — Judaka

If many persons get away with murder, then (a) your system can't claim to be consistent or just and (b) you need to explain why you make an exception.

Pakistan invaded Indian Kashmir, China invaded Tibet, Turkey invaded Cyprus, Turkey continues to invade Kurdish territories (with NATO approval!), forty million Kurds continue to have no state of their own, etc., etc. ....

As I've repeatedly said, it looks like the principle governing the current world order is that "might is right" and that something is "legitimate" (or at least "acceptable") by virtue of its serving the interests of America and its EU-NATO empire.

Lumping everything together into one abomination of anger in text certainly isn't helping to turn these discussions into something productive. — Tzeentch

Correct. Some seem to believe that getting angry and calling other people names somehow "proves" that they are "right". As if the proof of philosophy wasn't reason but emotion. "I emote, therefore, I'm right" seems to be the absolute apogee of media-induced (and -approved) thought these days .... :smile:

To argue I’m in the “pro-NATO” camp is untrue, and lazy. — Xtrix

My comment referred to the "pro-NATO camp" in general. Whether you personally belong to it, is a separate issue.

Not only don’t I “dismiss” them, I hold them. — Xtrix

Well, I'm glad to hear that ....

From what I see, your tendency seems to be to "forget" historical events that undermine your argument, but selectively remember events you think support it. — Apollodorus

Heh. This year, June 6 went by, no mention of the Invasion of Normandy. Normally in the time around June 6, national televisions show documentaries about D-Day, the daily film is "Saving Private Ryan", and such. But not this year.

Not everyone living in the "west" fits into your preconceived notion of "Westerners". — creativesoul

*sigh*

Talk about bad faith. You look to interpret my words in such a way as to make them easily dismissable.

I use the term "Westerner" in a cultural sense, not a geographical one. I've explained that more than once.

We're no longer living in those archaic times. We are interdependent social creatures, and we've no choice in the matter. We know this.

Except the Ukrainians and those who support them.

What I meant is nothing like what those self-proclaimed "Christians" meant. — creativesoul

But you do. It's exactly what you do, what the whole anti-Russian propaganda is doing. Long, long ago, they unilaterally declared the Russians to be the enemy.

And those seeking justifications for starting wars or defending them can go to hell. — ssu

How ironic, coming from someone who wishes his country would join an organization that exists for one purpose only: war.

What are we discussing really? — Tzeentch

Basic principles of morality.

I must say that many NATO supporters act like this is the end of history. As though no future generations will look back at this time and view it as negatively as we do of the times preceding ours. This is very wrong, our world is filled with injustices and Western nations are part of it. Humans will indeed look back at this time as backward. If your purpose was to show that Russia is not the only backward nation, I'd support you but instead, you seek to use the backwardness of others to defend Putin.

Look at the Vietnam War, the US public was lied to constantly and misled on every issue, and the Afghanistan war and Iraqi wars are no different. Similarly, the Russian public seems to support Putin because of the effectiveness of his propaganda. This is an unfortunate situation but one day we'll see it change. One can not expect people to have a deep understanding of every war, nor blame them for having an incorrect understanding taught to them by a biased system.

Anyway, you are clearly determined, history is large, and we can point a magnifying glass where we want, to create the stories we want to create. There is no truth and really no value to this kind of talk. Is your goal to call everyone wrong? Or to find a way to call Putin's actions legitimate? Tbh I don't really care, my view on this issue can't be changed by talking about history, because it's seriously out-of-date. This war has the potential to be revolutionary, we will need to see how future major wars are covered but, it is clear that the grip of Western mainstream media and governments is loosening. This will hopefully make wars like the US-Vietnamese or US-Iraqi war more difficult to pull off, and governments will receive the criticism they deserve.

it is clear that the grip of Western mainstream media and governments is loosening. — Judaka

From what can be seen here, I don't think the grip of Western media and governments is "loosening" at all. Quite the reverse, actually.

Similarly, the Russian public seems to support Putin because of the effectiveness of his propaganda. — Judaka

Well, that's where you're demonstrating your unexamined anti-Russian bias again!

Russians don't see things differently "because of the effectiveness of Putin's propaganda". They see things differently because they're Russians and have a different history from yours. Russians have always seen Crimea as Russian and Ukraine as a sister nation together with Belarus.

This view is supported by history which shows that Russia proper, Belarus ("White Russia"), and Ukraine ("Russian Borderland"), were one country called Russia or Rus (see Wikipedia, Kievan Rus). They only became separated because of foreign invasion and occupation.

Obviously, this fact is inconvenient to the Western narrative according to which Crimea belongs to Ukraine, Ukraine belongs to NATO, and NATO belongs to America. But to claim that Russians don't have a history and that everything is "Putin's propaganda" (presumably, even Wikipedia articles!) is too preposterous for anyone to take seriously.

This year, June 6 went by, no mention of the Invasion of Normandy. Normally in the time around June 6, national televisions show documentaries about D-Day, the daily film is "Saving Private Ryan", and such. But not this year. — baker

Correct. Zelensky says Russia is “repeating the Holocaust”, the West is saying that Putin wants to “recreate the Russian Empire”, analysts are comparing the fighting in Ukraine to “WW1”, etc., etc.

It doesn't matter that many who know history better than Zelensky disagree with his equating Russia's invasion with the Holocaust:

President Zelensky: Stop invoking the Holocaust - Jerusalem Post

Regardless of reality, history is being reshaped to fit the politically-convenient, media-dictated narrative of the day that justifies, promotes, and glorifies America's imperialist new world order.

Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there's going to be a New World Order out there, and we've got to lead it

Joe Biden talks about 'new world order' in Business Roundtable address - YouTube

And, lest we forget, some would have us believe that Putin is "animated by Stalin's malevolent spirit" .... :grin:

That sounds like an admission that some invasions ARE legitimate! :grin: — Apollodorus

Allies halting at the borders of the Third Reich...because of the sovereignty of Nazi Germany is one of those questions of some invasions. Of course, it is needles to say (except for you), that Germany invaded Poland, which started WW2.

How ironic, coming from someone who wishes his country would join an organization that exists for one purpose only: war. — baker

Well, we don't have a 1340km border with Canada.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Russians have always seen Crimea as Russian and Ukraine as a sister nation together with Belarus. — Apollodorus

Showing that brotherly love now to your sister, right?

Si vis pacem, para bellum. — ssu

Then stop complaining about Russia.

Of course, it is needles to say (except for you), that Germany invaded Poland, which started WW2. — ssu

Of course, it is needless to say (except for you), that Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 has got absolutely nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine in 2022! :rofl:

Plus, you keep "forgetting" Poland's invasion and occupation of Ukraine before that.

And, of course, you "forgot" to answer my point. Are there any legitimate invasions or not???

Showing that brotherly love now to your sister, right? — ssu

You're becoming delusional again. Ukraine isn't "my sister" anymore than it is yours! :rofl:

Plus, you "forget" that Americans didn't treat one another any better in the Civil War. This may be news to you, but in the real world, brothers (and sisters) do fight.

I was talking (a) in historical terms and (b) in response to @Judaka's suggestion that Russia's views of Crimea and Ukraine are shaped by "Putin's propaganda".

What NATO activists and jihadis (and other ignoramuses) fail to comprehend is that Putin's views of Ukraine are shaped by the long-established (and historically-supported) views of the Russian people, not the other way round!

Then stop complaining about Russia — baker

:up:

I don't think Putin is the idiot you make him out to be... someone who cares nothing for strategy, who only wants land because Russia used to own it. Russians both think of Ukraine as a sister nation but accept it's reasonable to invade the country for land? That doesn't make much sense to me. I think you are being silly, but you are clearly determined and I am confident a discussion about this with you will go nowhere. If you want to argue about history and pretend it's all that matters, you may, but with others.

Russians both think of Ukraine as a sister nation but accept it's reasonable to invade the country for land? That doesn't make much sense to me. — Judaka

Well, of course, it wouldn't make much sense to you if (a) you ignore history and (b) you refuse to think your argument through.

Russians do indeed see Ukraine as a sister nation, but one who has joined the West against Russia. In other words, a traitor. It doesn't say anywhere that a sister nation (or its government) can't be seen as a turncoat.