5 ms·

Ask HN: How to argue that the invasion of Ukraine is wrong in an absolute sense?

12 points by amichail 5y ago

Given that most countries have benefitted from war, how could one argue that the invasion of Ukraine is wrong in an absolute sense that most Russians would agree with?

verdverm 5y ago
Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Understand the Russian history, self and world view, reasons for their views, why they are concerned with NATO expansion, why they conduct their security as they do. Ukraine is as much a justified defensive strike for them as it is an unjustified attack by most of the world. The public rationale are not the real rational and has been in the works for more than 10 years.
- NoPie 5y ago
  It's completely wrong. Ukraine is an independent nation that is not going to hurt any other country but only tries to improve the lives of their citizens. Russia, or particularly Putin, has ambitions to force Ukraine to follow their lead. This was going to end and that's why Putin decided to attack. But his mental state that sees them as potential danger is wrong. It is a reality but still wrong.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    Was it wrong for the Soviets to invade Poland to fight the German Nazis in WWII? We accept that people have different religious views. Is abortion completely wrong? Is it so difficult to see they have very different world views?
    - NoPie 5y ago
      In the first example you are trying to insinuate that Ukrainians are Nazis. They are not. It is not about different world views but that some of those views are nonsense. As for religious views – yes, it is wrong for one religion to attack another. Crusades are wrong, especially today.
      - verdverm 5y ago
        I'm not saying they are Nazi's but many Russians do believe this. Seek to understand their frame of mind... Every country has more than 0 neo-nazis
        NoPie 5y ago
        I understand that Putin believes that. This view is completely wrong. What else is there to understand?
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      I always though Soviets invaded Poland because they wanted a chunk of it. They had a non aggression pact with the Nazis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
      - verdverm 5y ago
        There were two competing thoughts on how to defend Russia from Germany, simplified... fight on your own territory, fight on someone else's territory, the second won out but failed terribly and they were forced back into their own lands
        TheCoelacanth 5y ago
        That's nonsense. Germany and the Soviet Union cooperated to divide up Poland between themselves. It wasn't until nearly two years later that hostilities between them began.
        verdverm 5y ago
        Our statements are not exclusive, they are both parts of the same story
        gus_massa 5y ago
        Looking at other of your comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30559634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30559634 Is this your real opinion? I think it's interesting to discuss with people I disagree, because they may have a different point of view in some topics. I don't expect to reach an agreement in these topics that have a strong political and emotional charge, but I think it's worth having an honest discussion. If this is not your opinion, the problem is that you may be misrepresenting their point of view. You many be holding a straw man so people takes turns to punch it. And the only takeaway is that anything can be misinterpreted if someone tries hard enough, that is hardly surprising.
- sidibe 5y ago
  This is the purported reason of the Russian leadership and supported by academic "geopolitics experts" in the West, who trade in depicting the world as 2 or 3 powers and a bunch of helpless will-less vassals doing their whims and suffering for it. More likely from what he says Putin's reasons are for returning Russia to some bygone glory. But for the public that supports the war, they are being told it's to fight Nazis. That should be easier to deprogram than the NATO expansion story
  - tanseydavid 5y ago
    How exactly is NATO expansion a "story"?
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      Easy, NATO expansion is a consequence of Russia's imperialist intentions. Reality corroborates this world view. You could hardly call a neighborhood watch a ill-intentioned alliance against the poor thief. Also, Russian security concerns lie: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the_russian_security_concerns_lie/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the...
- liamwestray 5y ago
  Bullshit. Putin has stated he wants to reunite former Soviet states. Ukraine becoming more democratic and wanting to join western systems like the EU and NATO make that impossible for Putin. Putin cannot afford a large successful Slavic democracy to be a direct comparison to the authoritarian regime he’s built. If democracy and free markets succeed in Ukraine, no amount of Putin’s propaganda will protect him from long term instability and potential overthrow by the people that have been under Russia’s corrupt yolk for 30 years.
  - amichail 5y ago
    Putin is old though so why would he care about what happens after he dies?
    - verdverm 5y ago
      His legacy
- jstx1 5y ago
  Paroting a tyrant's excuse isn't "seeking to understand". Assuming that Putin's statements are representative of the Russian people is clearly incorrect. Invading another nation isn't "conducting security". You can use your line of reasoning to justify any action however evil or wrong as long as the person taking it is giving a reason in the meantime.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    It's not my line of reasoning, it's the russo line of reasoning. Putin has more supporters than you likely think he does. Their world view is very different from the west's
    - jstx1 5y ago
      Okay, I genuinely don't understand if you even have a point that you're trying to make. OP: How to argue that invading Ukraine is wrong? You: Here's what Putin and his supporters think. Sure, he's made public statements about this, I don't get how they're relevant here given his position. Every tyrant and aggressor in history has had a bullshit excuse and a group of supporters. That doesn't make their position equally good to the people they're opposing - and that's what I thought you were saying with your previous comment.
    - NoPie 5y ago
      This is bullshit. Their world is exactly the same. Before this war you could go to Russia, at least in the biggest cities, and the life was exactly the same as in any other European country. The beliefs are due to propaganda. Most Russians have close ties to Ukraine and would never think of waging war for no reason.
PaulHoule 5y ago
The west has set a bad example in many ways making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism an appealing defense for the Russians just as it was in Soviet days.
webmaven 5y ago
Probably the strongest argument is that annexing Ukraine only moves the Russian border toward NATO rather than maintaining a buffer, and that's the best case scenario. The second strongest is that Ukraine could never join NATO as long as it had a territorial dispute, so Russia had a cheap option to prevent that which was working just fine.
retrac 5y ago
It's likely going to severely damage Russia's reputation and power long-term. And bombing the heart of Russian civilisation is a strange way to show their pride in their history and love for their Ukrainian brothers.
NoPie 5y ago
In this war it is very clear who is the aggressor. Attacking another country just to increase the potential of your own country is wrong. There will be no benefit from this war. If Russia wins, it will be isolated for a very long time bringing down its economic and human potential. If the war wouldn't be started both countries would have further developed successfully. Now there will be millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, maybe more millions injured and maimed, destined to poverty and traumatized generation. There is nothing good that this war achieves.
nine_zeros 5y ago
It's simple. Killing people and uprooting lives just for the sake of politics from some random Presidential palace is abhorrent. A few people's political agenda is not good enough for a full scale war. War has never resolved anything and American war expeditions are the textbook example to learn from. The resentment from war continues for generations. Ukrainian people and Russian people used to view themselves as closely related but after this war, they won't.
jstx1 5y ago
It's unprovoked killing of innocent people. That should be enough.
- verdverm 5y ago
  That was the same reason the US used for the Afghan war. If the people believe that there are bad people killing and Russia is going into Ukraine under similar special operations, would the people think this is a good thing for Russia to be doing?
  - jstx1 5y ago
    Maybe you misunderstood what I meant or I'm missing your point. What I'm saying is that what Russia is doing is unprovoked killing of innocent people (which is enough for me to label is as wrong). I don't get the parallel with US/Afghanistan or why it's relevant here.
    - verdverm 5y ago
      > Russia is doing is unprovoked killing of innocent people While I agree, this is a matter of perspective. Many Russians believe they are only killing bad guys. Once civilians take up arms, they become part of the bad group killing "our people" (to the Russians, a subset anyhow) It's more complex because they each have relatives in the other country, Russia is trending towards a North Korean like state, and that there are very different histories told between the east and west. "He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, defines the past." > I don't get the parallel with US/Afghanistan or why it's relevant here. The terrorists killed innocents, then the US invaded a country, using the first as justification, then the US killed civilians, and in response civilians were "radicalized" and fought back. It's meant more as an example where perspective defines who's innocent and "justified"
      - jstx1 5y ago
        > The terrorists killed innocents, then the US invaded a country, using the first as justification, then the US killed civilians, and in response civilians were "radicalized" and fought back. I mean some of the words are the same ("innocent", "invade"). That's about all the credit I can give to your analogy.
serverlessmom 5y ago
"If you say that this invasion is wrong in an absolute sense, then all invasions are wrong" "okay, all invasions are wrong" "Wait if all invasions are wrong, then even border disputes are wrong, and so conflicts over territory are wrong" "okay, conflict over state 'territory' is immoral" "Wait wait wait, if you say that ALL state conflict over territory, then the violent enforcement of borders is wrong" "okay, border enforcement is wrong" "Now we're really off track: if enforcing borders is wrong then state control of lands is wrong, and states need to control lands and territory to enforce property" "okay, the ownership of land is wrong" "So you're saying that no one should get a piece of paper saying they own property? That charging rent and violently enforcing ownership is wrong? Gosh that would mean the whole state system was based on immoral feudal concepts, that it's a preservation of an oligarchy that has sin at its very core!!" "okay."
- mikewarot 5y ago
  "No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise," Winston Churchill observed in 1947. "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." So, you have a Democracy being overturned. You have death and degradation of human life. So much suffering and misery. So much destruction of property and materiel. Clearly, it is wrong. To top it off, the cause is so unjustifiable. This is all so that one Autocrat can fulfill his dream of being the person who restored the Russian Empire. He has failed, already. There's no winning for him now, even if Ukraine falls, he can't hold it.
yesenadam 5y ago
It seems most Russians do think the invasion is very wrong, ethically. Putin goes on about what Russia wants and needs as if that's super-important and everyone should listen and really care and respect his words, while he totally ignores what Ukraine wants and needs, as if it doesn't exist except as a tool/resource for Russia. It's the way bullies, psychopaths and serial killers treat people. Most people would like things in life, but realize other people are people too, and don't just treat them as resources to be exploited/abused/killed. People who treat others that are locked up, usually for a long time.

12 points by amichail 5y ago

Given that most countries have benefitted from war, how could one argue that the invasion of Ukraine is wrong in an absolute sense that most Russians would agree with?

verdverm 5y ago

Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Understand the Russian history, self and world view, reasons for their views, why they are concerned with NATO expansion, why they conduct their security as they do. Ukraine is as much a justified defensive strike for them as it is an unjustified attack by most of the world. The public rationale are not the real rational and has been in the works for more than 10 years.

NoPie 5y ago
It's completely wrong. Ukraine is an independent nation that is not going to hurt any other country but only tries to improve the lives of their citizens. Russia, or particularly Putin, has ambitions to force Ukraine to follow their lead. This was going to end and that's why Putin decided to attack. But his mental state that sees them as potential danger is wrong. It is a reality but still wrong.
- verdverm 5y ago
  Was it wrong for the Soviets to invade Poland to fight the German Nazis in WWII? We accept that people have different religious views. Is abortion completely wrong? Is it so difficult to see they have very different world views?
  - NoPie 5y ago
    In the first example you are trying to insinuate that Ukrainians are Nazis. They are not. It is not about different world views but that some of those views are nonsense. As for religious views – yes, it is wrong for one religion to attack another. Crusades are wrong, especially today.
    - verdverm 5y ago
      I'm not saying they are Nazi's but many Russians do believe this. Seek to understand their frame of mind... Every country has more than 0 neo-nazis
      - NoPie 5y ago
        I understand that Putin believes that. This view is completely wrong. What else is there to understand?
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    I always though Soviets invaded Poland because they wanted a chunk of it. They had a non aggression pact with the Nazis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
    - verdverm 5y ago
      There were two competing thoughts on how to defend Russia from Germany, simplified... fight on your own territory, fight on someone else's territory, the second won out but failed terribly and they were forced back into their own lands
      - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
        That's nonsense. Germany and the Soviet Union cooperated to divide up Poland between themselves. It wasn't until nearly two years later that hostilities between them began.
        verdverm 5y ago
        Our statements are not exclusive, they are both parts of the same story
        gus_massa 5y ago
        Looking at other of your comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30559634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30559634 Is this your real opinion? I think it's interesting to discuss with people I disagree, because they may have a different point of view in some topics. I don't expect to reach an agreement in these topics that have a strong political and emotional charge, but I think it's worth having an honest discussion. If this is not your opinion, the problem is that you may be misrepresenting their point of view. You many be holding a straw man so people takes turns to punch it. And the only takeaway is that anything can be misinterpreted if someone tries hard enough, that is hardly surprising.
sidibe 5y ago
This is the purported reason of the Russian leadership and supported by academic "geopolitics experts" in the West, who trade in depicting the world as 2 or 3 powers and a bunch of helpless will-less vassals doing their whims and suffering for it. More likely from what he says Putin's reasons are for returning Russia to some bygone glory. But for the public that supports the war, they are being told it's to fight Nazis. That should be easier to deprogram than the NATO expansion story
- tanseydavid 5y ago
  How exactly is NATO expansion a "story"?
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    Easy, NATO expansion is a consequence of Russia's imperialist intentions. Reality corroborates this world view. You could hardly call a neighborhood watch a ill-intentioned alliance against the poor thief. Also, Russian security concerns lie: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the_russian_security_concerns_lie/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the...
liamwestray 5y ago
Bullshit. Putin has stated he wants to reunite former Soviet states. Ukraine becoming more democratic and wanting to join western systems like the EU and NATO make that impossible for Putin. Putin cannot afford a large successful Slavic democracy to be a direct comparison to the authoritarian regime he’s built. If democracy and free markets succeed in Ukraine, no amount of Putin’s propaganda will protect him from long term instability and potential overthrow by the people that have been under Russia’s corrupt yolk for 30 years.
- amichail 5y ago
  Putin is old though so why would he care about what happens after he dies?
  - verdverm 5y ago
    His legacy
jstx1 5y ago
Paroting a tyrant's excuse isn't "seeking to understand". Assuming that Putin's statements are representative of the Russian people is clearly incorrect. Invading another nation isn't "conducting security". You can use your line of reasoning to justify any action however evil or wrong as long as the person taking it is giving a reason in the meantime.
- verdverm 5y ago
  It's not my line of reasoning, it's the russo line of reasoning. Putin has more supporters than you likely think he does. Their world view is very different from the west's
  - jstx1 5y ago
    Okay, I genuinely don't understand if you even have a point that you're trying to make. OP: How to argue that invading Ukraine is wrong? You: Here's what Putin and his supporters think. Sure, he's made public statements about this, I don't get how they're relevant here given his position. Every tyrant and aggressor in history has had a bullshit excuse and a group of supporters. That doesn't make their position equally good to the people they're opposing - and that's what I thought you were saying with your previous comment.
  - NoPie 5y ago
    This is bullshit. Their world is exactly the same. Before this war you could go to Russia, at least in the biggest cities, and the life was exactly the same as in any other European country. The beliefs are due to propaganda. Most Russians have close ties to Ukraine and would never think of waging war for no reason.

PaulHoule 5y ago

The west has set a bad example in many ways making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism an appealing defense for the Russians just as it was in Soviet days.

webmaven 5y ago

Probably the strongest argument is that annexing Ukraine only moves the Russian border toward NATO rather than maintaining a buffer, and that's the best case scenario. The second strongest is that Ukraine could never join NATO as long as it had a territorial dispute, so Russia had a cheap option to prevent that which was working just fine.

retrac 5y ago

It's likely going to severely damage Russia's reputation and power long-term. And bombing the heart of Russian civilisation is a strange way to show their pride in their history and love for their Ukrainian brothers.

NoPie 5y ago

In this war it is very clear who is the aggressor. Attacking another country just to increase the potential of your own country is wrong. There will be no benefit from this war. If Russia wins, it will be isolated for a very long time bringing down its economic and human potential. If the war wouldn't be started both countries would have further developed successfully. Now there will be millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, maybe more millions injured and maimed, destined to poverty and traumatized generation. There is nothing good that this war achieves.

nine_zeros 5y ago

It's simple. Killing people and uprooting lives just for the sake of politics from some random Presidential palace is abhorrent. A few people's political agenda is not good enough for a full scale war. War has never resolved anything and American war expeditions are the textbook example to learn from. The resentment from war continues for generations. Ukrainian people and Russian people used to view themselves as closely related but after this war, they won't.

jstx1 5y ago

It's unprovoked killing of innocent people. That should be enough.

verdverm 5y ago
That was the same reason the US used for the Afghan war. If the people believe that there are bad people killing and Russia is going into Ukraine under similar special operations, would the people think this is a good thing for Russia to be doing?
- jstx1 5y ago
  Maybe you misunderstood what I meant or I'm missing your point. What I'm saying is that what Russia is doing is unprovoked killing of innocent people (which is enough for me to label is as wrong). I don't get the parallel with US/Afghanistan or why it's relevant here.
  - verdverm 5y ago
    > Russia is doing is unprovoked killing of innocent people While I agree, this is a matter of perspective. Many Russians believe they are only killing bad guys. Once civilians take up arms, they become part of the bad group killing "our people" (to the Russians, a subset anyhow) It's more complex because they each have relatives in the other country, Russia is trending towards a North Korean like state, and that there are very different histories told between the east and west. "He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, defines the past." > I don't get the parallel with US/Afghanistan or why it's relevant here. The terrorists killed innocents, then the US invaded a country, using the first as justification, then the US killed civilians, and in response civilians were "radicalized" and fought back. It's meant more as an example where perspective defines who's innocent and "justified"
    - jstx1 5y ago
      > The terrorists killed innocents, then the US invaded a country, using the first as justification, then the US killed civilians, and in response civilians were "radicalized" and fought back. I mean some of the words are the same ("innocent", "invade"). That's about all the credit I can give to your analogy.

serverlessmom 5y ago

"If you say that this invasion is wrong in an absolute sense, then all invasions are wrong" "okay, all invasions are wrong" "Wait if all invasions are wrong, then even border disputes are wrong, and so conflicts over territory are wrong" "okay, conflict over state 'territory' is immoral" "Wait wait wait, if you say that ALL state conflict over territory, then the violent enforcement of borders is wrong" "okay, border enforcement is wrong" "Now we're really off track: if enforcing borders is wrong then state control of lands is wrong, and states need to control lands and territory to enforce property" "okay, the ownership of land is wrong" "So you're saying that no one should get a piece of paper saying they own property? That charging rent and violently enforcing ownership is wrong? Gosh that would mean the whole state system was based on immoral feudal concepts, that it's a preservation of an oligarchy that has sin at its very core!!" "okay."

mikewarot 5y ago
"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise," Winston Churchill observed in 1947. "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." So, you have a Democracy being overturned. You have death and degradation of human life. So much suffering and misery. So much destruction of property and materiel. Clearly, it is wrong. To top it off, the cause is so unjustifiable. This is all so that one Autocrat can fulfill his dream of being the person who restored the Russian Empire. He has failed, already. There's no winning for him now, even if Ukraine falls, he can't hold it.

yesenadam 5y ago

It seems most Russians do think the invasion is very wrong, ethically. Putin goes on about what Russia wants and needs as if that's super-important and everyone should listen and really care and respect his words, while he totally ignores what Ukraine wants and needs, as if it doesn't exist except as a tool/resource for Russia. It's the way bullies, psychopaths and serial killers treat people. Most people would like things in life, but realize other people are people too, and don't just treat them as resources to be exploited/abused/killed. People who treat others that are locked up, usually for a long time.