4 ms·

I think you're confusing 'being nice to both sides' with 'being balanced'. It is totally balanced to call Russia the aggressor in this conflict, because they es

I think you're confusing 'being nice to both sides' with 'being balanced'. It is totally balanced to call Russia the aggressor in this conflict, because they essentially decided the war would happen when it did. In the same sense, it's balanced to call the US the aggressor in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are, sadly, not many articles that shed light on the situation. That's largely because the situation itself is murky. If you want a more objective take, wait until everything is done, then read academic treatments. Bear in mind that 'balance' is not always a logically coherent thing to look for: there is no such thing as a balanced middle point between 7 and fish. It's still possible for interested parties to deliver sound analysis and to uncover or fairly present facts.

farseer 5y ago
US was the aggressor in Iraq but did not suffer the same repercussions as Russia has mostly because of its economic influence but also because a European theater attracts more eyeballs than killing brown people far off somewhere.
- whythre 5y ago
  That’s one read. There is also the idea that lashing out against real or perceived threats to America was seen as justified in the wake of 9/11. And the US squandered whatever sympathy they had by screwing around in Iraq and conveniently ignoring the likelihood that Bin Laden had fled out of Afghanistan into Pakistan.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  I think the repercussions of Iraq have been slow to emerge, but they have been profound. First, a precipitous decline in the moral authority of the US. Second, a collapse in trust in US intelligence. Third, a collapse in the reputation of the US as a reliable and rational partner. At the time, bear in mind that this was the heyday of liberal interventionism, and people saw Saddam Hussein as a bloody-handed dictator, engaged in sectarian and ethnic cleansing, who was destabilizing the region. The experiences of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia suggested that this problem could be resolved through regime change. It wasn't possible to know at the time how badly this would turn out.

farseer 5y ago

US was the aggressor in Iraq but did not suffer the same repercussions as Russia has mostly because of its economic influence but also because a European theater attracts more eyeballs than killing brown people far off somewhere.

whythre 5y ago
That’s one read. There is also the idea that lashing out against real or perceived threats to America was seen as justified in the wake of 9/11. And the US squandered whatever sympathy they had by screwing around in Iraq and conveniently ignoring the likelihood that Bin Laden had fled out of Afghanistan into Pakistan.
pasabagi 5y ago
I think the repercussions of Iraq have been slow to emerge, but they have been profound. First, a precipitous decline in the moral authority of the US. Second, a collapse in trust in US intelligence. Third, a collapse in the reputation of the US as a reliable and rational partner. At the time, bear in mind that this was the heyday of liberal interventionism, and people saw Saddam Hussein as a bloody-handed dictator, engaged in sectarian and ethnic cleansing, who was destabilizing the region. The experiences of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia suggested that this problem could be resolved through regime change. It wasn't possible to know at the time how badly this would turn out.