Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Dan Z]

Neither side is great in the Donbas war. Both the Azov battalion and the Russian-backed separatists have a long history of well-documented human rights violations and crimes. The attempt to portray either side in this as the "good guys" is highly problematic to me. The war in Donbas is a horrific, tragic mess, but I also believe that Russia is the aggressor here, by supporting separatist forces in an attempt to take land from Ukraine.

I don't necessarily disagree, but does being the aggressor imply ethical inferiority? What standard of ethics condemns a nation for being proactive, or expansionist?

Declaring war is in itself an ethically dubious act, in that it almost guarantees tremendous human loss and suffering. So, perhaps the more important question is, what standard of ethics justifies the death and destruction brought about by invading a neighboring sovereign country?

[nett]

Of note is that nearly all wars have no “good guy”. America relies a lot on myths that we are the good guys in our wars (Revolutionary War, for example, or the Union in the Civil War). Of course, both sides actually were pretty bad guys on both those conflicts.

This is a good point Josh - war is an ugly occupation all around.

To add to Ken's response, I would add is that it is important to recognize that the cause of some wars are often asymmetrical - and thus immorality is not equally distributed. Sometimes an aggressor starts a war (with its death and destruction) where none would have existed otherwise. Ukraine and Iraq are both examples of such asymmetrical action. It doesn't seem right to declare moral equivalency when one country wantonly and without existential cause invades another. The Ukrainian government and people may not be blameless, but they are certainly being victimized by Russian expansionist aggression.

How can you just memory hole the donbass? I don't understand how you can just ignore people being ethnically oppressed.

[nett]

Neither side is great in the Donbas war. Both the Azov battalion and the Russian-backed separatists have a long history of well-documented human rights violations and crimes. The attempt to portray either side in this as the "good guys" is highly problematic to me. The war in Donbas is a horrific, tragic mess, but I also believe that Russia is the aggressor here, by supporting separatist forces in an attempt to take land from Ukraine.

I don't necessarily disagree, but does being the aggressor imply ethical inferiority? What standard of ethics condemns a nation for being proactive, or expansionist?

Declaring war is in itself an ethically dubious act, in that it almost guarantees tremendous human loss and suffering. So, perhaps the more important question is, what standard of ethics justifies the death and destruction brought about by invading a neighboring sovereign country?

Was Moab a sovereign nation Dan?

[nett]

I don't necessarily disagree, but does being the aggressor imply ethical inferiority? What standard of ethics condemns a nation for being proactive, or expansionist?

Oh there are standards:

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II:

• "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The United Nations has determined that wars of aggression or conquest (without the justification of self defense) are considered to be violations of international law under Article 39 of the UN charter to which Russia (or the USSR) was a signatory.

Pretty sure Russia is claiming self defense here.

[nett]

without existential cause invades another. The Ukrainian government and people may not be blameless, but they are certainly being victimized by Russian expansionist aggression.

I'm not going to defend Russia, or make a moral judgement about their reasons for invading, but so say "without existential cause" is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, sticking out your tongue, and yelling LA LA LA LA.

You can say you don't like their reasons, if you want to be factual.

[ohio jones]

I don't necessarily disagree, but does being the aggressor imply ethical inferiority? What standard of ethics condemns a nation for being proactive, or expansionist?

Oh there are standards:

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II:

• "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The United Nations has determined that wars of aggression or conquest (without the justification of self defense) are considered to be violations of international law under Article 39 of the UN charter to which Russia (or the USSR) was a signatory.

Pretty sure Russia is claiming self defense here.

In much the same way that the neocons sold Iraq as a defensive war in the wake of 9/11.

Creative redefinitions to justify the unjustifiable.

[nett]

Oh there are standards:

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II:

• "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The United Nations has determined that wars of aggression or conquest (without the justification of self defense) are considered to be violations of international law under Article 39 of the UN charter to which Russia (or the USSR) was a signatory.

Pretty sure Russia is claiming self defense here.

In much the same way that the neocons sold Iraq as a defensive war in the wake of 9/11.

Creative redefinitions to justify the unjustifiable.

In hindsight, the justifications given were actually just lies. No WMDS, and toppling Saddam actually led to MORE terrorist activity.

The comparison lacks from parallels. Iraq does not border the US, did not have missiles that could reach the US, was not seeking alliance with a hostile hegemonic global alliance, and did not have a large ethic group of Americans.

Time will tell, but I think Russia has a lot more "reason" for their actions than the US did in Iraq

[Ken]

I don't necessarily disagree, but does being the aggressor imply ethical inferiority? What standard of ethics condemns a nation for being proactive, or expansionist?

Oh there are standards:

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II:

• "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The United Nations has determined that wars of aggression or conquest (without the justification of self defense) are considered to be violations of international law under Article 39 of the UN charter to which Russia (or the USSR) was a signatory.

Pretty sure Russia is claiming self defense here.

No, actually they aren't. Ukraine appealed to the UN and Russia refused to respond with any justification or claims of self defense. That is where they needed to present their claim of self defense under international law. They chose not to.

[Ken]

Pretty sure Russia is claiming self defense here.

In much the same way that the neocons sold Iraq as a defensive war in the wake of 9/11.

Creative redefinitions to justify the unjustifiable.

In hindsight, the justifications given were actually just lies. No WMDS, and toppling Saddam actually led to MORE terrorist activity.

The comparison lacks from parallels. Iraq does not border the US, did not have missiles that could reach the US, was not seeking alliance with a hostile hegemonic global alliance, and did not have a large ethic group of Americans.

Time will tell, but I think Russia has a lot more "reason" for their actions than the US did in Iraq

Yes, there are at least a dozen high ranking members of the Bush Administration who should be serving time in the Hague for war crimes in the instigation and prosecution of the Iraq War. You would get no argument from me there.

[Szdfan]

In much the same way that the neocons sold Iraq as a defensive war in the wake of 9/11.

Creative redefinitions to justify the unjustifiable.

In hindsight, the justifications given were actually just lies. No WMDS, and toppling Saddam actually led to MORE terrorist activity.

The comparison lacks from parallels. Iraq does not border the US, did not have missiles that could reach the US, was not seeking alliance with a hostile hegemonic global alliance, and did not have a large ethic group of Americans.

Time will tell, but I think Russia has a lot more "reason" for their actions than the US did in Iraq

Yes, there are at least a dozen high ranking members of the Bush Administration who should be serving time in the Hague for war crimes in the instigation and prosecution of the Iraq War. You would get no argument from me there.

But again, the American invasion of Iraq doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.