3 ms·
The idea that the (in)stability of a nation can legitimize military incursion by another nation is plain absurd. At what point exactly does a war become legitim
by Ruphin 5y ago
The idea that the (in)stability of a nation can legitimize military incursion by another nation is plain absurd. At what point exactly does a war become legitimate? Is it okay to attack a country when they are entwined in civil war? What percentage of the country needs to be involved in the conflict? What if it is an unarmed but still major internal political conflict?
No war is legitimate.
Comparing this incursion to NATO "protecting" their national interests in Syria or Iraq is perhaps defensible, but the only logical conclusion is that these interventions were/are equally condemnable.
- lend000 5y agoNo one said it was legitimate insofar as that means ethical. I am simply curious about the huge wave of groupthink sentiment that makes no attempt to fill everyone in on the context of the situation, and whether this was actually a logical (absence all ethics) move by Russia. One of the replies to my comment offered an interesting perspective. We live in a real world with real events. Just because us westerners have been shielded from war for most of our lives, and because war is immoral, does not mean that it won't happen, or that it isn't interesting to think about it objectively. Makes one wonder if the fact that most Ukrainians are white people living in an industrialized society has anything to do with the scale of the outpouring of emotion on HN and elsewhere.
- pishpash 5y agoThat's the thing. There is a war going on between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and Syria is still festering. Nobody seems to care.