Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.

[oggsmash]

   It seems they are at least talking with diplomats meeting one another.  I suspect a deal will be made in a week or two.   One where both guys can come off looking as good as a bad situation allows.

[jhkim]

It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

The question was to Mistwell, but for my two cents, I think it's obvious that morally there is a single standard for all countries.

The rule for invading another sovereign nation are simple. Don't do it. If country A invades country B, then they are wrong - and country B is entitled to fight back. Further, country C and country D are justified in helping country B defend itself.

Lots of countries have engaged in unjustified wars of aggression in history - including Russia, Iraq, the U.S., Britain, France, etc. None of that makes it right when another country does it.

[Shasarak]

How do people imagine we even get Countries in the first place?

[Pat]

How do people imagine we even get Countries in the first place?

God bequeathed a Map of All the World and the Proper and Approved National Boundaries to his only xir.

[Mistwell]

It doesn't matter that the West says 'we have no ambitions'. The issue is that Russia thinks those ambitions are there. Regardless of the reality of things.

And that doesn't even get into the U.S.'s overseas adventurism.

   Well, I do not believe what US (and lets be honest, the USA is NATO, without the USA NATO would dissolve) says about much of anything anymore.  I can understand where Putin may not believe them either.

Because Putin has done anything to earn your benefit of the doubt? And don't whataboutism that question just answer it directly.

  I am not giving him benefit of the doubt.  I think there is zero trust on both sides of that discussion, and I can see why on both sides.  I am not making a whataboutism of anything, If the USA is the leader of the free world, the shining moral example to be followed, I just miss understanding why they shit their pants when some other country follows their example.

  People screech whataboutism  on some things where it does not apply.  This is a cause and effect situation.  You do enough things, there are going to be effects.  We are seeing effects.

We ask for an end to whataboutisms for the very reason you just demonstrated. I asked you a question about why you appeared to be giving Putin the benefit of the doubt. And I appreciate you answering it but you just couldn't help in the very next sentence mentioning what about the U.S.. For fuck's sake man, how can you not see why whataboutisms make conversations impossible when you cannot even answer that simple question without throwing one in there for no good purpose?

      It is not a whataboutism.  It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

This ISN'T ABOUT THE U.S.. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they felt the Iraq invasion was unjust. That in no way is their stated or implied justification for this. You want to make it about the U.S. when even Russia doesn't think this in any way is about the U.S. or anything the U.S. has done in the past. If the U.S. has behaved in an unethical, immoral, illegal, or whatever manner in the past that still plays zero role in justifying or not justifying this event. You're raising it to avoid talking about this event in some weird form of moral relativism acting like if any nation has sinned in the past then all nations can sin and not be judged for it. Which, again, makes conversation about pretty much any topic under the sun impossible.

[yancy]

I'd like Putin a shit-ton better if he decided to bomb Chatsworth instead of Kiev. One can only hope those mothballed nukes still got what it takes :/

[Mistwell]

A long but interesting and informative interview with a genuine Russian expert about this topic that's worth reading. From Politico, "Yes, He Would': Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes"

[KingCheops]

How do people imagine we even get Countries in the first place?

Faerie dust and unicorn farts.  Every country on the planet has existed in its current, immutable state from the dawn of time except for those in the New World and Australia/New Zealand.  Those were "stolen" from the conquerors, slavers and rapists who stole it from the people who came before them.

Don't argue with science bro.  You some sort of nazi?

[jhkim]

How do people imagine we even get Countries in the first place?

Faerie dust and unicorn farts.  Every country on the planet has existed in its current, immutable state from the dawn of time except for those in the New World and Australia/New Zealand.  Those were "stolen" from the conquerors, slavers and rapists who stole it from the people who came before them.

So the Ukrainians shouldn't get upset over being invaded - because it's just the normal way that countries get made, and it's no big deal? 

I don't think that will go over big with them. Yes, lots of invasions have happened in history, just like lots of murders have happened and many other crimes - but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable.

[SHARK]

Russia has legitimate security concerns. That is the first thing we need to acknowledge. If this had been accepted 8 years ago we would not be in the current situation.

Russia is a fucking nuclear power with a massive military. No one is threatening to invade and conquer Russia - certainly not Ukraine. And if Russia were invaded, it doesn't have to defend itself by deploying troops on foot along its border like in the 19th century.

Russia has the gross national product of Spain. Over the last 500 years it has been attacked by Westerners almost a dozen times. Perhaps their current fears are unfounded, but they are not afraid of legions of Ukrainians pouring over their indefensible borders. They are afraid of a unified Europe pouring over their indefensible borders. Ignoring history, and ignoring our enemies motivations, concerns, even irrational fears... is foolish IMHO.

I've known a lot of Russians, and none of them gave any indication of being afraid of an EU military invasion. Based on what I know, I simply don't buy your claim that the Russians are irrationally afraid of being invaded by Europe.

Some of these may feel Russia is being shut out of resources unfairly. There may be some who think they are fighting for the well-being of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk. But fearing invasion is not on their mind.

As far as what the Russians are hearing and believing, I thought this piece by a Bulgarian acquaintance of mine was interesting. Apologies for phrasing as it is auto-translated from Bulgarian.

I want to bring your attention to an interesting paradox.

For nearly ten years, Putin's propaganda has been using the images and myths of the Second World War against power in Ukraine. Uses highly busy meaningful symbols, rhetoric and interpretations aimed at creating and maintaining specific strategic narratives, to shape the perception and emotional response to certain actions and events throughout the continuous process recalling the Great Patriotic War: the Ukrainian government was represented as "fascist", the Ukrainian army - as "executors" or "banderovts", a annexation of Crimea - as "the third defense of Sevastopol". The mythology of the Great Patriotic War is extremely powerful, it will always challenge the feelings and moods of a large part of the people living east of Berlin. The Soviet ideological machine carefully built and maintained this mythology for decades, planted it in the minds and hearts of the peoples of Eastern Europe, in places not quite successfully, in places partially, but in their own territorial borders - perfect.

The mythology of the Great Patriotic War is a shared mythology for Russians and Ukrainians, that is why it worked so well in the hybrid war. However, to a huge surprise to the Russian command, it seems that it works even better in the real war. Shared mythology is a two-blade knife. Didn't Putin's strategists predict this, didn't they expect it? Ukrainians studied history in the same textbooks, also read "Young Guard", cried at "A dawn is quiet here", marched in line with "Get up a huge country, get up on a deadly fight with a fascist force dark, with a cursed horde", taught and they are going to play the guitar with "Here Birds No they sing, trees do not grow, and only we grow shoulder to shoulder in the ground here. Just like the rest of us. Should not surprise us at all that they have risen up for a "holy war" against "racists" as they already call them on Twitter.

Therefore, contrary to all Putin's plans and expectations, Kyiv has not yet been taken over. Because Kyiv is not Kabul, Kyiv is "Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol... and they will defend him to the last person with radical, almost absurd gestures of heroism and sacrifice. So a boy self-exploded himself on a bridge to stop the military column, and one grandfather obstructed the way of the tanks with his tarot. Westerners don't quite understand similar meaningless gestures of sacrifice, but we understand them much better because we've watched the same movies, because we've read the same books, because we know what it means - "we need one victory, one for all - we're for there is no price."

Ukrainians are currently waging their Great Homeland War.

Greetings!

Jhkim, thank you for providing your Bulgarian friend's commentary on the war going on in Ukraine. That commentary is very interesting, and even inspiring.

I hope that Ukraine stands strong in these terrible times. I read about a former Ukrainian beauty queen and current model, some girl about 28 years old, evidently she has quit her job and other involvements, and has volunteered to serve in the Ukrainian military to fight against the Russian invaders. She told her followers in a message on IG (I think*) that the Russian invaders will all die on Ukrainian land! She held up an AK rifle at a shooting range, and says she has volunteered to be sent to the front lines.

I heard an interview with an elderly Ukrainian man that said he isn't going anywhere, and is ready to fight the Russians, and will kill them with his knife if he must.

Many Ukrainians are likewise inspired by President Zelensky's heroic speeches, actions, and commitment to fight the Russians to the end. President Zelensky said he isn't fleeing anywhere, flying out by helicopter, to escape. No, he has a helmet on and a rifle, and said he is staying right there in the streets of Kiev with his soldiers by his side and his people, to resist the Russian invaders.

Fucking Awesome! Zelensky is really showing his true quality by going through the trial of fire.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[oggsmash]

It doesn't matter that the West says 'we have no ambitions'. The issue is that Russia thinks those ambitions are there. Regardless of the reality of things.

And that doesn't even get into the U.S.'s overseas adventurism.

   Well, I do not believe what US (and lets be honest, the USA is NATO, without the USA NATO would dissolve) says about much of anything anymore.  I can understand where Putin may not believe them either.

Because Putin has done anything to earn your benefit of the doubt? And don't whataboutism that question just answer it directly.

  I am not giving him benefit of the doubt.  I think there is zero trust on both sides of that discussion, and I can see why on both sides.  I am not making a whataboutism of anything, If the USA is the leader of the free world, the shining moral example to be followed, I just miss understanding why they shit their pants when some other country follows their example.

  People screech whataboutism  on some things where it does not apply.  This is a cause and effect situation.  You do enough things, there are going to be effects.  We are seeing effects.

We ask for an end to whataboutisms for the very reason you just demonstrated. I asked you a question about why you appeared to be giving Putin the benefit of the doubt. And I appreciate you answering it but you just couldn't help in the very next sentence mentioning what about the U.S.. For fuck's sake man, how can you not see why whataboutisms make conversations impossible when you cannot even answer that simple question without throwing one in there for no good purpose?

      It is not a whataboutism.  It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

This ISN'T ABOUT THE U.S.. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they felt the Iraq invasion was unjust. That in no way is their stated or implied justification for this. You want to make it about the U.S. when even Russia doesn't think this in any way is about the U.S. or anything the U.S. has done in the past. If the U.S. has behaved in an unethical, immoral, illegal, or whatever manner in the past that still plays zero role in justifying or not justifying this event. You're raising it to avoid talking about this event in some weird form of moral relativism acting like if any nation has sinned in the past then all nations can sin and not be judged for it. Which, again, makes conversation about pretty much any topic under the sun impossible.

  So I will ask again, is there one standard for everyone, or is there not?   I do not have to avoid it, as I said 3-4 pages back Putin is clearly in the wrong.  I would just like a point of view from you as to if the USA and everyone else all have the same standard.

[oggsmash]

Russia has legitimate security concerns. That is the first thing we need to acknowledge. If this had been accepted 8 years ago we would not be in the current situation.

Russia is a fucking nuclear power with a massive military. No one is threatening to invade and conquer Russia - certainly not Ukraine. And if Russia were invaded, it doesn't have to defend itself by deploying troops on foot along its border like in the 19th century.

Russia has the gross national product of Spain. Over the last 500 years it has been attacked by Westerners almost a dozen times. Perhaps their current fears are unfounded, but they are not afraid of legions of Ukrainians pouring over their indefensible borders. They are afraid of a unified Europe pouring over their indefensible borders. Ignoring history, and ignoring our enemies motivations, concerns, even irrational fears... is foolish IMHO.

I've known a lot of Russians, and none of them gave any indication of being afraid of an EU military invasion. Based on what I know, I simply don't buy your claim that the Russians are irrationally afraid of being invaded by Europe.

Some of these may feel Russia is being shut out of resources unfairly. There may be some who think they are fighting for the well-being of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk. But fearing invasion is not on their mind.

As far as what the Russians are hearing and believing, I thought this piece by a Bulgarian acquaintance of mine was interesting. Apologies for phrasing as it is auto-translated from Bulgarian.

I want to bring your attention to an interesting paradox.

For nearly ten years, Putin's propaganda has been using the images and myths of the Second World War against power in Ukraine. Uses highly busy meaningful symbols, rhetoric and interpretations aimed at creating and maintaining specific strategic narratives, to shape the perception and emotional response to certain actions and events throughout the continuous process recalling the Great Patriotic War: the Ukrainian government was represented as "fascist", the Ukrainian army - as "executors" or "banderovts", a annexation of Crimea - as "the third defense of Sevastopol". The mythology of the Great Patriotic War is extremely powerful, it will always challenge the feelings and moods of a large part of the people living east of Berlin. The Soviet ideological machine carefully built and maintained this mythology for decades, planted it in the minds and hearts of the peoples of Eastern Europe, in places not quite successfully, in places partially, but in their own territorial borders - perfect.

The mythology of the Great Patriotic War is a shared mythology for Russians and Ukrainians, that is why it worked so well in the hybrid war. However, to a huge surprise to the Russian command, it seems that it works even better in the real war. Shared mythology is a two-blade knife. Didn't Putin's strategists predict this, didn't they expect it? Ukrainians studied history in the same textbooks, also read "Young Guard", cried at "A dawn is quiet here", marched in line with "Get up a huge country, get up on a deadly fight with a fascist force dark, with a cursed horde", taught and they are going to play the guitar with "Here Birds No they sing, trees do not grow, and only we grow shoulder to shoulder in the ground here. Just like the rest of us. Should not surprise us at all that they have risen up for a "holy war" against "racists" as they already call them on Twitter.

Therefore, contrary to all Putin's plans and expectations, Kyiv has not yet been taken over. Because Kyiv is not Kabul, Kyiv is "Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol... and they will defend him to the last person with radical, almost absurd gestures of heroism and sacrifice. So a boy self-exploded himself on a bridge to stop the military column, and one grandfather obstructed the way of the tanks with his tarot. Westerners don't quite understand similar meaningless gestures of sacrifice, but we understand them much better because we've watched the same movies, because we've read the same books, because we know what it means - "we need one victory, one for all - we're for there is no price."

Ukrainians are currently waging their Great Homeland War.

Greetings!

Jhkim, thank you for providing your Bulgarian friend's commentary on the war going on in Ukraine. That commentary is very interesting, and even inspiring.

I hope that Ukraine stands strong in these terrible times. I read about a former Ukrainian beauty queen and current model, some girl about 28 years old, evidently she has quit her job and other involvements, and has volunteered to serve in the Ukrainian military to fight against the Russian invaders. She told her followers in a message on IG (I think*) that the Russian invaders will all die on Ukrainian land! She held up an AK rifle at a shooting range, and says she has volunteered to be sent to the front lines.

I heard an interview with an elderly Ukrainian man that said he isn't going anywhere, and is ready to fight the Russians, and will kill them with his knife if he must.

Many Ukrainians are likewise inspired by President Zelensky's heroic speeches, actions, and commitment to fight the Russians to the end. President Zelensky said he isn't fleeing anywhere, flying out by helicopter, to escape. No, he has a helmet on and a rifle, and said he is staying right there in the streets of Kiev with his soldiers by his side and his people, to resist the Russian invaders.

Fucking Awesome! Zelensky is really showing his true quality by going through the trial of fire.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

  So the beauty queen story was complete bullshit.  She posed with an airsoft rifle, and later stated she is not going to be fighting as  she is not military.

[oggsmash]

It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

The question was to Mistwell, but for my two cents, I think it's obvious that morally there is a single standard for all countries.

The rule for invading another sovereign nation are simple. Don't do it. If country A invades country B, then they are wrong - and country B is entitled to fight back. Further, country C and country D are justified in helping country B defend itself.

Lots of countries have engaged in unjustified wars of aggression in history - including Russia, Iraq, the U.S., Britain, France, etc. None of that makes it right when another country does it.

  The USA has a stated standard for getting involved with military force on foreign soil, for legal purposes.  It is extremely thin.  Now I think the standard used is bad, and does not match your, or my moral standard.  You say one bad thing does not justify another...but the reality is if the rules to not apply to everyone, eventually they apply to no one.  I suspect this is why mistwell ducks that question.  We can all pretend Russia happened in some vacuum, but that simply is not the case.  With almost all major world events there is usually a history, a build up, and surrounding behaviors from other nations. 

   I want this to stand out crystal clear, because in the press, internet, social media, everywhere I see a whole lot of what looks like an overtime effort to manufacture consent.  Given how out of pocket some of the talking heads are getting it is for some sort of military actions, like a no fly zone enforced by "nato".  I am a firm no on this or any military action, I am honestly against giving the Ukraine military money or weapons...but compromise....

   The same folks who keep saying Putin is literally darth vader also pretend he is bluffing about using nuclear weapons.   I do not think I care to risk if darth vader is willing to use the death star.

[Shrieking Banshee]

I am honestly against giving the Ukraine military money or weapons...but compromise....

I understand the situation is complex, but don't mince words. If you comprise with someone that takes and doesn't give back: thats called a loss.

Say Ukraine must take its lumps for the sake of international security, but don't call it "compromise".

[oggsmash]

I am honestly against giving the Ukraine military money or weapons...but compromise....

I understand the situation is complex, but don't mince words. If you comprise with someone that takes and doesn't give back: thats called a loss.

Say Ukraine must take its lumps for the sake of international security, but don't call it "compromise".

   I mean in the sense of the actions my fearless leaders are going to take.  Capitulate is a better word, but I like feeling better and calling a turd a rare gem.   I am against any foreign aid for any nation, at least until I see the USA budget running at a surplus, so I get to make lots of mental "compromises".   So I did not mean it in the sense Ukraine needs to get curb stomped as a compromise.