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

[Shrieking Banshee]

I think if we stick to two binary moralities then you would have: Oughtism and Practical

This was a generalization.

[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.

You are welcome to one standard or many, whichever suits you. It has fuck-all to do with this topic but you're free to pick your standard and apply it as you will. I am sure you're very comfortable in your theory crafting hole, but we're all commenting on actual events happening now and it would be nice if you expressed an opinion which was more than that of a philosophy professor.

  What is YOUR standard.  Its not what suits me.  I have one stand regarding war, and I have made it crystal clear.  I am curious as to yours.  It has a whole lot to do with the topic.  So is your answer your standard is whatever suits you?

For WHAT? I have not argued the U.S. should intervene militarily. I am saying Russia should not be invading Ukraine over them doing literally NOTHING to Russia, and are not accused of doing anything to Russia or harboring anyone who did anything to Russia or Russian citizens. Every war event should be individually analyzed on it's own merits and there isn't some one-size-fits-all standard for everything, but on this one the reasons for the invasion are incredibly weak and it's not justified and appears to be purely opportunistic.

      I asked you before if every nation should adhere to the same standards the USA uses before taking military action on foreign soil.   It is a pretty clear question.  It is a yes or no question.  That said, I agree 100 percent (as I have said pages ago) Russia is in the wrong here.

And I have said consistently there is no single standard and you don't get virtue signaling points for claiming you have some philosophical one-size-fits-all standard which addresses all conceivable circumstances for war. So yeah, they should be held to the same standard, which is "Judge each event on it's own merits and circumstances."

I know the Vatican has tried to develop a Just War single standard. I'd say they have mostly failed to truly succeed in that effort. It seems like every time a war breaks out and they try to apply the standard it comes right back to the standard I just articulated. It's at best a wishy-washy vague standard.

  The United States does have a standard though.  It boils down to a reasonable belief that actors in that foreign nation pose a risk to national security.  It is vague, and easily used to allow missiles to launch into Syria or dictators to die in Libya.  That standard was even used for a massive invasion of Iraq. Toss in shitloads of outright meddling in other countries with giving "freedom fighters" (terrorists) guns, that is not the point here though.   If we use that standard Russia could try to make a case.  There should be no standard that allows a case for what Russia has done.   
       
     As for me and my personal position, it is not a virtue signal.  It is just my opinion to which I am entitled.   Just as you are fully entitled to what I assume is a Neocon position on war.
     

[oggsmash]

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.

I feel this is mixing up personal stance with international standards. You have your personal standard of "no foreign wars" - but no one actually sticks to that - certainly not the U.S. I have my stance of purely defensive wars against an aggressor, but again, countries don't abide by it. If I had a magic wand to have my way, I would enforce it on all countries including the U.S. - but I don't.

---

As for what the international standard for war is in practice... Since WWII, the standard to be seen as tolerable/legitimate is that the target is seen as an aggressor in general (though they aren't necessarily invading) or "rogue state", and there be at least a broad coalition on one side, and no coalition on the other side. For example, there were people against the 2003 Iraq War (like you and me), but it was broadly accepted because:

(1) Hussein had twice engaged in aggressive wars against his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait).
(2) There were about a dozen countries signed on to invade Iraq, and no allies of Iraq.

Contrary to some claims, the Iraq War was not authorized by the U.N., but most wars haven't been. I don't like this as an international standard, but it's better than pure free-for-all like in the 19th century.

By this standard, the Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't fit. Ukraine is not a rogue state, and has not invaded its neighbors. Its government has been accepted even by Russia - who had previously recognized the Zelensky government as the legitimate government and they had diplomatic ties with. Russia made no attempt to build a coalition against Ukraine.

    What I want personally is never going to happen in this country as a justification for war.  The USA's standard is essentially a reasonable belief that actors in a foreign nation could pose a threat to national security.  That is thin.  Your revision of history regarding Iraq leaves out lots of key details.  Such as the support of the USA for Iraq to fight Iran.  The massive financial support from Kuwait to Iraq to pay for fighting Iran (this was where Kuwait started angle drilling to steal Iraqi oil, as they said it was debt money and they were entitled, which irritated Iraq since they did all the fighting and dying to keep Shia Iran from running all over Sunni Kuwait), as well as the massive majority of support for the war in Iraq was leveraged behind 9/11.   The Coalition you speak of, well come on man, a group of countries that relies heavily on the USA for trade, foreign aid, protection, and arms sales decided the USA was right?  Wowzers.

[Pat]

The news has gotten truly weird. Most of the initial stories about heroic Ukrainian resistance, like the beauty queen taking up (Airsoft) arms, the Ghost of Kyiv (video game footage), and Snake Island (not dead), are now discredited. A lot of the reports of things like bombing children now appear to be bullshit. Fact checkers are saying things are both true and untrue (did Russia oil imports double? Headline yes, body of the text no). As a result, there's been a wave of social credit style sanctions, technical arguments are being made to try to dismiss Russia from the UN Security Council (the seat was for the USSR, not Russia), and the EU now has a resolution for admitting the Ukraine. On the counter side, they're focusing on things like a member of the Ukrainian parliament who said on Twitter she's fighting for a "New World Order", or how the president of the Ukraine made what appears to be a communist salute in a Zoom meeting with the UN.

A massive propaganda campaign including complete fabrications, and extreme partisanship and virtue signaling, all "balanced" by conspiracy theory nonsense, means there's a decided lack of objective reporting. I'm not sure the land war matters anymore, this war is being fought in social media.

[3catcircus]

The news has gotten truly weird. Most of the initial stories about heroic Ukrainian resistance, like the beauty queen taking up (Airsoft) arms, the Ghost of Kyiv (video game footage), and Snake Island (not dead), are now discredited. A lot of the reports of things like bombing children now appear to be bullshit. Fact checkers are saying things are both true and untrue (did Russia oil imports double? Headline yes, body of the text no). As a result, there's been a wave of social credit style sanctions, technical arguments are being made to try to dismiss Russia from the UN Security Council (the seat was for the USSR, not Russia), and the EU now has a resolution for admitting the Ukraine. On the counter side, they're focusing on things like a member of the Ukrainian parliament who said on Twitter she's fighting for a "New World Order", or how the president of the Ukraine made what appears to be a communist salute in a Zoom meeting with the UN.

A massive propaganda campaign including complete fabrications, and extreme partisanship and virtue signaling, all "balanced" by conspiracy theory nonsense, means there's a decided lack of objective reporting. I'm not sure the land war matters anymore, this war is being fought in social media.

It's *all* political theater.  How come we don't see all those Ukie and Russkie troops masked up and social distancing? How is it that both Zelenskyy and Putin are members of the WEF?

The same assholes who were virtue signaling about BLM and covid jabs are the same ones urging the west into fighting.  The same ones who want to take away my 2A rights are cheering the arming of Ukrainians.

Fuck all of them - every single politician, "expert," pundit, opinionated celebrity, oligarch - they should all be thrown into one massive bonfire.

[Shrieking Banshee]

How is it that both Zelenskyy and Putin are members of the WEF?

While there are NWO members in the WEF, not each WEF member is part of it.

A massive propaganda campaign including complete fabrications, and extreme partisanship and virtue signaling, all "balanced" by conspiracy theory nonsense, means there's a decided lack of objective reporting. I'm not sure the land war matters anymore, this war is being fought in social media.

The most I got is aquantances on the ground and its mostly hiding in fear of explosions. There are most certainly some people dying, some things exploded, and some people scared.

From the upper middle class perspective on the groun in russia its also panic and fear. Because of the sanctions and the unpersoning of Russian people.

[DocJones]

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the West behind

You do have a point.....

But on the other hand...
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout.

[DocJones]

A massive propaganda campaign including complete fabrications, and extreme partisanship and virtue signaling, all "balanced" by conspiracy theory nonsense, means there's a decided lack of objective reporting. I'm not sure the land war matters anymore, this war is being fought in social media.

I think the whole thing is a "Look there's a squirrel" operation. 
The Brandon administration pointed at this squirrel for two months, until it became real. 
Wish fulfillment for a failing administration.

[Shrieking Banshee]

The Brandon administration pointed at this squirrel for two months, until it became real. 
Wish fulfillment for a failing administration.

Brandon gets to raise oil prices and fund more boondoggle alternate energies. Im not against them if they work, but they are often boondoggles.

[FelixGamingX1]

In the beginning of all of this Ukraine was just some random country in Europe. But now, they are teaching the world we can still learn a thing or two.

[Shasarak]

I think if we stick to two binary moralities then you would have: Oughtism and Practical

This was a generalization.

I think we can agree that a ternary morality system is superior.

[Pat]

A massive propaganda campaign including complete fabrications, and extreme partisanship and virtue signaling, all "balanced" by conspiracy theory nonsense, means there's a decided lack of objective reporting. I'm not sure the land war matters anymore, this war is being fought in social media.

The most I got is aquantances on the ground and its mostly hiding in fear of explosions. There are most certainly some people dying, some things exploded, and some people scared.

From the upper middle class perspective on the groun in russia its also panic and fear. Because of the sanctions and the unpersoning of Russian people.

I don't doubt people are dying, and the fog of war is terrifying to anyone involved. But we're also being fed a lot of carefully curated nonsense.

Though it is really bizarre seeing the anti-gun left celebrating the arming of Ukrainian civilians. I suppose I should be used to hypocrisy at this point, and the complete lack of consistent principles, but apparently not.

[Pat]

"Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he'll never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people."
-- Biden, State of the Union Address

[Jaeger]

"Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he'll never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people."
-- Biden, State of the Union Address

Let the record show that on March 1st 2022 everything was completely under control...

[Ghostmaker]

"Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he'll never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people."
-- Biden, State of the Union Address

How much does a pound of Ukrainian people go for these days?