10 ms·

Doubling Down on Double Standards

81 points by k1m 5y ago

Mikeb85 5y ago
Fun fact, Ukraine is the largest democracy to ever be invaded by a foreign power. Just saying... Edit - no downvoters want to provide a counter-example? Of a country that was a democracy and had a larger population at the time of invasion?
- taway3245 5y ago
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Pakistan is a US ally... How do you figure that's an invasion?
- adolph 5y ago
  France 1939. Continental pop is about the same as 2022 Ukraine pop estimate, with colonies over double. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Not including overseas colonies France 1939 was 40 million, Ukraine population 2021 (edit - and apparently 2022 as well) was 43.5 million. And IMO overseas colonies don't count as they weren't invaded and also weren't included in the democratic process back then. Also bigger is bigger. But the fact that the next biggest was France in WWII is a great example of how significant the invasion of Ukraine actually is...
    - adolph 5y ago
      Indochina was invaded by Japan.
      - Mikeb85 5y ago
        Indochina wasn't a democratic country. Being a vassal of a democracy with an appointed government != being a democracy.
stareatgoats 5y ago
I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. But I can't help hope that it will - it lays bare some of the "other side" that most people have no inkling of. We're so used to see the world in black and white, us against them, that we have not yet realized that peace is in everyone's best interest - a new arms race is not. That said, if and when these viewpoints serve to minimize the Russian atrocities as it has on several of these alternate news sites that I follow then it crosses a red line.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  There is a fundamental problem that this kind of thing, while critical that it is heeded, is presented exactly for its relevance to current events, and so, despite the author in this case explicitly stating that nothing here diminishes Putin's crime, the article's topic is inherently used as a tool for doing exactly that, in practice. E.g. I have already seen somebody use this article (not on HN) in an argument that Russia's actions are justified (I doubt they read the whole thing). Imagine how often writeups that are not so holistic are used this way. There are, very broadly, two closely related topics: 1. X, Y, and Z past events, vs the current attitude toward Russia, are specific examples of, more or less, hypocrisy in the West. More charitably, they are evidence of a cultural disconnect and inability to sympathize that has badly needed bridging for all of human history, but is especially relevant right now. 2. The West are hypocrites and therefore should not oppose, neither with words nor with actions, the idea of Putin attacking Ukraine's capital to coerce them into surrendering their land. I think if it's clear the article is not making the case for #2, we should really try not to bar them from rational discourse, despite their inevitable misuse in promotion of item #2.
- lifthrasiir 5y ago
  It seems to me that Media Lens is mostly known for the Assange trial in HN---the submitter has been very passionate about that if you look at the records. So my bet is slightly more positive. I agree to your last paragraph though. It helps that Media Lens does have a consistency; consistency matters in the modern society because other qualities are much harder to verify.
- car_analogy 5y ago
ouid 5y ago
implicitly drawing an equivalence between Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad and the government of Ukraine is an absurd place to start an analogy, regardless of your thesis.
- unmole 5y ago
  So, because Saddam was bad, the death and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people was justified? Saddam was terrible. But do you know who was worse? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
  - krzyk 5y ago
    You can't predict the outcome. Good intentions can have bad results. Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him?
    - unmole 5y ago
      > You can't predict the outcome. Everyone from Henry Kissinger to Joe Biden is on record saying NATO expansion would lead to a confrontation with Russia. As for Iraq, it takes a special kind of wilful ignorance to think that deposing a strongman, leaving a power vaccum and excluding the existing power structure would lead to anything but chaos. > Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him? Either the people of Iraq supported Saddam, in which case the justification of liberating Iraq was BS. Or the majority did not support Saddam, in which case there is absolutely no justification for the suffering inflicted on them.
      - krzyk 5y ago
        Russia can GTFO from any country foreign policy. If they would control it how would it be different from the old soviet grip on East European countries? Russia has to beat into submission so it is no longer a threat. Just like it was done with Germany in WW2, Stalin did get away from that.
        5y ago
bena 5y ago
Everyone agrees double standards are bad. No one believes they have double standards. This is like when people post trite aphorisms as if it's some sort of mic drop moment. As if the aphorism can't possibly apply to them as well. No, they're the chosen one, elected by the self to bring the wisdom to the sleeping masses. No Billy, you're not some warrior poet bucking the system, you're a fucking dipshit who barely graduated high school who services vending machines.
nineplay 5y ago
There's something very 'woke' - or maybe 'concern trolling' - about the various attempts to chastise the West for caring about Ukraine more than <name your international conflict>. Look I'm not afraid to own it, I feel more of a kinship with Europoeans than with other global citizens. Ukrainians watch the same superhero movies, they play the same video games. They are all over reddit, not just on the news reddits but also posting to r/shittyfoodporn joking about their war-zone meals. I don't feel the same kinship with Iraquis or Yeminis. You can call it racism or a double standard, but it’s human nature. You may as well say I have double standards for caring about my family more than yours.
- cm2187 5y ago
  Also Europeans have not only reacted because they relate to Ukrainians, Russia has become a direct military threat to Europe, and I think is the primary reason why the European reaction has been that strong. In fact many of the measures taken (providing weapons to Ukraine) will make Ukraine a prolonged war-zone and goes against the life and safety of the Ukrainian citizens. But 1) Putin needs to be stopped, 2) the Ukrainians seem to be willing to pay that price for freedom.
  - krzyk 5y ago
    And also this is a classic David Goliath fight, or for more modern example: Star Wars Empire vs Rebels.
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    > Also Europeans have not only reacted because they relate to Ukrainians, Russia has become a direct military threat to Europe Not only a direct threat, but also a recent history (Poland 1939, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and others).
    - xdennis 5y ago
      Finland, Romania, and pretty much every eastern European country in WW2.
- 5y ago
duxup 5y ago
Different wars, different feelings. A despot starting a war of choice vs a democracy is very compelling… for good reason. Violence /= all violence. Patrolling how people feel and finger waving will not result in progress.
- guilhas 5y ago
  That's the classic Our politics honest. Our country good. Our military righteous. Their politics corrupt. Their country bad. Their military evil. Every side thinks the same
  - elforce002 5y ago
    Well, "History is written by the victors".
  - duxup 5y ago
    > Every side thinks the same Does that matter?
    - guilhas 5y ago
      Yes because from the Russians perspective the USA is the fake democracy ruled by despots, too morally corrupt to criticize them Obama and Biden in 1 single year dropped 26k bombs in 7 different countries https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/americ... Obama apologises for Afghan hospital bombing - ITV News https://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-10-07/obama-apologises-for-afghan-hospital-bombing/ https://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-10-07/obama-apologises-f... So every country is the same, everyone invades for a "good" reason, and all violence is the same. Every invaded country suffers the same, and people live worse after
      - duxup 5y ago
        I’m sure everyone has their reasons, I don’t really care, there is right and wrong. Someone’s justification doesn’t make it right or wrong.
Traster 5y ago
Putin is a totalitarian dictator who is waging a war against Ukraine to conquer it and bring it under his control because he doesn't like how their democratically elected government is behaving. That is not the same thing as the US and UK invading and overthrowing totalitarian dictator Saddam Hussein. The idea that people should pretend the merits of these two things are the same is dumb, or atleast it's dumb if you value democracy or freedom over totalitarian dictatorships. It's also the case that right now, the UK, EU and NATO are in the right. They're standing up for a democratic country's right to self-determination and independence, and the right for Ukraine's citizens to live free lives. And since that is the case, making the argument "Well you guys invaded Iraq 20 years ago" is a dumb argument - let's concede you're right, the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq (a position most people probably actually agree with right now), Fine. What the hell has that got to do with what's happening now? Should the West not stand up for Ukraine now? Don't be absurd. This article is written as if the invasion of Iraq is happening today, a fiction which is pretty transparent.
- unmole 5y ago
  > That is not the same thing as the US and UK invading and overthrowing totalitarian dictator Saddam Hussein. Either violation of a nation's sovereignty is a crime or it isn't. If being an authoritariann dictatorship is the criteria when is Saudi Arabia getting invaded? > Should the West not stand up for Ukraine now? Don't be absurd. Can you point to where TFA makes this argument?
  - Traster 5y ago
    >Either violation of a nation's sovereignty is a crime or it isn't. If being an authoritariann dictatorship is the criteria when is Saudi Arabia getting invaded? Violation of the sovereignty of a free and open democracy isn't the same as violation of the sovereignty of a brutal dictatorship, and pretending that Putin's regime is somehow as legitimate as a free open democracy is absurd and it's not difficult to see how people come to the conclusion that people pushing that idea are carrying water for Putin. It's also just straight up ignorant to pretend that the US actions in Afghanistan look anything like the straight carpet bombing conducted in Syria. It's also not particularly difficult to see how you would be strategic about where you would intervene. >Can you point to where TFA makes this argument? To quote the article I'm "reading between the lines". We're not stupid, when Russia invades a sovereign nation and you spend time talking about everything bad the west has done in the last 30 years, we're going to point it out. When people try and manufacture false equivalencies between what the west has done and what Russia is doing, we're going to point it out. This article, frankly picks out a tonne of quotes to try and paint the west as some massive war mongering groupthink, but the truth of it is that there has been huge criticism of the western interventions in the middle-east and it's ridiculous to cherry pick war hawks and pretend that's a homogenous view from the west. The truth is that even by 2008 Obama was running against the Bush-era wars, and there have been massive campaigns from both sides of the the aisle in the US to take the US out of foreign wars.
foxfluff 5y ago
I think this is an important topic to discuss, but not right now, if only because whataboutism and deflecting criticism of Russia's aggression to aggression by the US has been part of Putin's rhetoric for a long time now. Releasing such an article at this time is a good way to get people to roll their eyes and dismiss it as yet another mouthpiece of Putin's trolls. It's also borderline insensitive. At this moment, the western world doesn't want to hear these complaints, there's something more pressing to deal with.
chmod600 5y ago
Yes, there are different standards for western powers vs totalitarians. Because the former are mostly good (at least about as good as you can generally expect from flawed humans) and the latter are bad. Yes, the West does all kinds of bad stuff and I'm not excusing that. But sitting on the sidelines is not always an option -- unless you are covered by U.S. military power. It's like being in a gated community with private security and criticizing police. If you follow moral equivalence far enough, it's self-defeating. Because the totalitarians and tyrants don't bother with such nonsense. That being said, it's good to reflect once in a while to make sure you haven't become the enemy. But we shouldn't sit in front of the mirror all the time and never bother to look out the window.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
commandlinefan 5y ago
> a war of aggression on Iraq, Libya, Syria While I'm sure there's more to the Russia/Ukraine conflict than most of us can understand or appreciate, it's more than a little disingenuous to compare Russia's attempt to forcibly annex Ukraine to America's efforts to push out terrorist-supporting dictatorships.
- voidr 5y ago
  How is it disingenuous to compare? According to Russia they are fighting neo-nazis, which is same as the US saying that they are fighting terrorists. It's only disingenuous to compare if you fully believe one side, if you look at it critically, you would be hard pressed to not see them as the same thing. You have to be quite naive to believe that the US spends money attacking countries out of the kindness of their hearts and not to protect their interests(not other's), which sometimes means killing a "few" civilians or wrecking a country or two. Just look at all the horrible stuff China did and the Myanmar mass killings where the US didn't even bat an eye, because there was nothing to be gained.
  - rat87 5y ago
    Because Russian claims about fighting neo nazis are ridiculous on their face. I don't claim the US doesn't take its interests into account when taking action or judging other countries but that doesn't mean they don't take humanitarian concerns to heart as well. Even on massive fuckups like the invasion of Iraq
    - voidr 5y ago
      > Because Russian claims about fighting neo nazis are ridiculous on their face. It's only ridiculous if you believe one side fully and become fully ignorant at the other one and if you look a little bit, you might find some ethnic cleansing done by the Ukrainians. It is at least as strong as the USA's reasons for attacking other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Ukraine's_2017_Education_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Ukr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes As an actual European who happened to grow up 20km away from the Ukrainian border, I find it frustrating to see all these western media outlets talk like they know anything about the situation while being barely able to even find these countries on a map. > but that doesn't mean they don't take humanitarian concerns to heart as well They don't, just look at how happy they were to feed the Afghan people to the Taliban(I'm talking about not giving them a chance to evacuate). They even left some weapons for the Taliban. You can also look at the fact that the US causes problems and doesn't really take in refugees, it just lets Europe deal with the mess they started. Please name a single country which became better after the US troops went in with their "democracy", if making the world a better place would be the goal for the US military they would be the biggest screwups in the universe.
beloch 5y ago
1. This is a very American-centric piece of navel gazing. Much of the world was strongly opposed to several of the conflicts mentioned here, including the invasion of Iraq. This is what-about-ism. The fact that some of the countries now opposing Russia have spotted pasts does not justify the largest invasion on European soil since WWII. 2. The Yemen war, as deplorable as it may be, has not posed the risk of global thermonuclear war. 3. Yes, the Ukrainians are using some propaganda and disinformation, just as the Russians are. They are in a war for their nations survival and are using all the tools they have at their disposal. 4. The argument that Russia is invading Ukraine because it wants "space" around its borders to separate it from NATO is hogwash. This invasion, if successful, will accomplish precisely the opposite. If Ukraine had joined NATO, Russia would have 1 more NATO country on it's borders. After taking over Ukraine Russia will gain all of Ukraine's NATO neighbours as it's own and potentially drive Finland and Sweden into NATO as well. 5. A big part of why the EU has enjoyed peace since WWII, even if other parts of the world EU members have become embroiled with haven't, is because European countries do not invade European countries anymore. The UN, NATO, and the world's economy are all designed to bring about this stability. If Russia manages to profit from this invasion, that order is overturned. The problem with this is that there are multiple nuclear states in Europe. A move away from defined, stable borders risks the entire world's fate. The stakes are higher in this invasion than in any since WWII. 6. The opposition to Russia, aside from Ukraine, is trying to use non-violent methods to force Russia to abandon the invasion. It's debatable if they will work. Economic sanctions haven't worked in the past, but we haven't seen economic sanctions like these before. Targeting oligarchs directly in particular is an interesting play. Self-flagellation, navel gazing, and moral relativism all have their place in Western society, but one must hope that we apply adequately firm will to bring the World back from the brink of nuclear war that Putin seems so willing to casually flirt with. The real double standard here is, in truth, a nuclear one.
- blisterpeanuts 5y ago
  Just regarding your point #4: actually, the Russians are opposed to Ukraine joining NATO and that is probably their main reason for invading. Were Ukraine to become a full NATO member, it would be forever immune from Russian aspirations of reconstituting the old USSR empire which of course included Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakstan, and several others. Furthermore, if Ukraine joined, Georgia might be next, constituting a ring of NATO military installations right on Russia's western and southern flanks, and in the heart of what they consider the "near frontier". From their point of view, this would be unacceptable, and the few remaining Russia experts in the U.S. government and in western Europe are surely aware of this. This is not to say the Russians are justified in their very violent action in Ukraine, but it's important to understand their motivations if they are to be countered on any level short of all-out conventional war or, God forbid, nuclear armageddon. I do agree with your point #6, that "firm will to bring the world back from the brink" is required here. I don't think the various "cancel culture" sanctions will do anything useful -- might put pressure on the oligarchy, or might not. Does a billionaire care that Portugal (or whoever) has impounded his $20m yacht? Or that suddenly his UK bank accounts are frozen? I don't really know. But it's important to keep in mind human nature. Pushing the Russians too hard, e.g. cutting off Visa/Mastercard/Paypal, boycotting Russian athletes, etc., may backfire and create more sympathy for Putin's stance, thus prolonging the conflict and maybe escalating it disastrously.
mdoms 5y ago
In which the author of an article is shocked (SHOCKED!) that acts of aggression are covered differently when they're "friendly" versus "enemy" acts.
emilfihlman 5y ago
I'm hugely disappointed by the comments here. I expected better of HN. As the article extremely rightly points out, this is _the_ time to examine these issues. We cannot allow the West to begome complacent we-do-no-evil-to-others we-see-no-evil-in-us we-hear-no-evil-from-us. If something leads to dystopia, it's what we are doing to ourselves.
- rat87 5y ago
  This article is full of untruths and whataboutism. It doesn't deserve such close examination
  - voidr 5y ago
    If it's full of "untruths" and "whataboutism", then point them out, it should be easy because you said there are so many, provide sources etc. Your comment actually makes this article more believable, because it makes it look like people who hold your viewpoint don't have a leg to stand on.
- lesuorac 5y ago
  Is it? The special military operations (US didn't declare war anytime in the past 3 decades) that the US has done are not popular. People have wanted out of Afghanistan, Syria, etc for a long time now. Sure some TV anchor thinks its cool how missiles look when they kill non-europeans but the actual population of the US did not. It's time now to figure out how to not have these issues in the future. We don't need to re-examine the past anymore to convince gen. pop. it was wrong; they know.
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Except the West isn't doing anything wrong at the moment! Helping arm a non-aggressive country to defend itself from an invader, taking in refugees, pushing back non-militarily are all objectively right things to so. This right-wing/tankie nonsense is exhausting.
Sporktacular 5y ago
Rambling, nearly interminable and staggeringly one-sided screed. Victim blaming Ukraine with the "she was asking for it" by flirting with NATO defence. The usual "Only Western Imperialism Is Bad" appeasement talking points, spurious comparisons to other scenarios to 'expose' Western hypocrisy, apparently Putin is the real victim being treated unfairly and that we're here because it's the West's fault: - Mentions US interference in Ukraine, ignores Russia's - Calls the resulting protests violent while ignoring Russian demands to shoot the protesters before Yanokovic was ousted - Quotes Mearsheimer, a realist who admits he doesn't consider the moral dimension to helping Ukrainians determine their own future - Apologises for the annexation of Crimea by stating Putin's speculated fears for Sevastopol naval access - set against and ignoring Ukrainians ACTUAL fears of being invaded - Complains Corbyn et al being reprimanded by their party for falsely equivocating Russian invasion to NATO expansion, calls it a loss of their 'freedom' to criticism NATO again all in contrast to the literal loss of actual freedom of Ukrainians And on and on. This is pro-imperialist apologia. YES the West is hypocritical and self-interest too, obviously. YES Western governments have behaved despicably and should be scrutinised more. YES the media is biased toward laziness and sensationalism. YES it hasn't written this week about the few hundred nazis fighting for Ukraine. YES the public has a short memory and has forgotten Syrians on the other Polish border. Yes to all of that. NONE of that exonerates Putin as this tries to suggest. Framing it this way, at this time, is done to blunt the criticism of and excuse a brutal, corrupt, aggressive, nuclear armed dictator whose ambitions beyond Ukraine are not yet clear. That is the priority. This is the news now. Two or three actors can be simultaneously bad. Sorry it doesn't conform to your world view.
Sporktacular 5y ago
Authors just don't get that it's okay to be opposed to imperialism in all it's forms, simultaneously and regardless of its practitioners. They say they do, but then implore us to 'look over there'.

81 points by k1m 5y ago

Fun fact, Ukraine is the largest democracy to ever be invaded by a foreign power. Just saying... Edit - no downvoters want to provide a counter-example? Of a country that was a democracy and had a larger population at the time of invasion?

taway3245 5y ago
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  Pakistan is a US ally... How do you figure that's an invasion?
adolph 5y ago
France 1939. Continental pop is about the same as 2022 Ukraine pop estimate, with colonies over double. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  Not including overseas colonies France 1939 was 40 million, Ukraine population 2021 (edit - and apparently 2022 as well) was 43.5 million. And IMO overseas colonies don't count as they weren't invaded and also weren't included in the democratic process back then. Also bigger is bigger. But the fact that the next biggest was France in WWII is a great example of how significant the invasion of Ukraine actually is...
  - adolph 5y ago
    Indochina was invaded by Japan.
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      Indochina wasn't a democratic country. Being a vassal of a democracy with an appointed government != being a democracy.

stareatgoats 5y ago

I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. But I can't help hope that it will - it lays bare some of the "other side" that most people have no inkling of. We're so used to see the world in black and white, us against them, that we have not yet realized that peace is in everyone's best interest - a new arms race is not. That said, if and when these viewpoints serve to minimize the Russian atrocities as it has on several of these alternate news sites that I follow then it crosses a red line.

happytoexplain 5y ago
There is a fundamental problem that this kind of thing, while critical that it is heeded, is presented exactly for its relevance to current events, and so, despite the author in this case explicitly stating that nothing here diminishes Putin's crime, the article's topic is inherently used as a tool for doing exactly that, in practice. E.g. I have already seen somebody use this article (not on HN) in an argument that Russia's actions are justified (I doubt they read the whole thing). Imagine how often writeups that are not so holistic are used this way. There are, very broadly, two closely related topics: 1. X, Y, and Z past events, vs the current attitude toward Russia, are specific examples of, more or less, hypocrisy in the West. More charitably, they are evidence of a cultural disconnect and inability to sympathize that has badly needed bridging for all of human history, but is especially relevant right now. 2. The West are hypocrites and therefore should not oppose, neither with words nor with actions, the idea of Putin attacking Ukraine's capital to coerce them into surrendering their land. I think if it's clear the article is not making the case for #2, we should really try not to bar them from rational discourse, despite their inevitable misuse in promotion of item #2.
lifthrasiir 5y ago
It seems to me that Media Lens is mostly known for the Assange trial in HN---the submitter has been very passionate about that if you look at the records. So my bet is slightly more positive. I agree to your last paragraph though. It helps that Media Lens does have a consistency; consistency matters in the modern society because other qualities are much harder to verify.
car_analogy 5y ago

ouid 5y ago

implicitly drawing an equivalence between Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad and the government of Ukraine is an absurd place to start an analogy, regardless of your thesis.

unmole 5y ago
So, because Saddam was bad, the death and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people was justified? Saddam was terrible. But do you know who was worse? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
- krzyk 5y ago
  You can't predict the outcome. Good intentions can have bad results. Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him?
  - unmole 5y ago
    > You can't predict the outcome. Everyone from Henry Kissinger to Joe Biden is on record saying NATO expansion would lead to a confrontation with Russia. As for Iraq, it takes a special kind of wilful ignorance to think that deposing a strongman, leaving a power vaccum and excluding the existing power structure would lead to anything but chaos. > Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him? Either the people of Iraq supported Saddam, in which case the justification of liberating Iraq was BS. Or the majority did not support Saddam, in which case there is absolutely no justification for the suffering inflicted on them.
    - krzyk 5y ago
      Russia can GTFO from any country foreign policy. If they would control it how would it be different from the old soviet grip on East European countries? Russia has to beat into submission so it is no longer a threat. Just like it was done with Germany in WW2, Stalin did get away from that.
      - 5y ago

bena 5y ago

Everyone agrees double standards are bad. No one believes they have double standards. This is like when people post trite aphorisms as if it's some sort of mic drop moment. As if the aphorism can't possibly apply to them as well. No, they're the chosen one, elected by the self to bring the wisdom to the sleeping masses. No Billy, you're not some warrior poet bucking the system, you're a fucking dipshit who barely graduated high school who services vending machines.

nineplay 5y ago

There's something very 'woke' - or maybe 'concern trolling' - about the various attempts to chastise the West for caring about Ukraine more than <name your international conflict>. Look I'm not afraid to own it, I feel more of a kinship with Europoeans than with other global citizens. Ukrainians watch the same superhero movies, they play the same video games. They are all over reddit, not just on the news reddits but also posting to r/shittyfoodporn joking about their war-zone meals. I don't feel the same kinship with Iraquis or Yeminis. You can call it racism or a double standard, but it’s human nature. You may as well say I have double standards for caring about my family more than yours.

cm2187 5y ago
Also Europeans have not only reacted because they relate to Ukrainians, Russia has become a direct military threat to Europe, and I think is the primary reason why the European reaction has been that strong. In fact many of the measures taken (providing weapons to Ukraine) will make Ukraine a prolonged war-zone and goes against the life and safety of the Ukrainian citizens. But 1) Putin needs to be stopped, 2) the Ukrainians seem to be willing to pay that price for freedom.
- krzyk 5y ago
  And also this is a classic David Goliath fight, or for more modern example: Star Wars Empire vs Rebels.
- zajio1am 5y ago
  > Also Europeans have not only reacted because they relate to Ukrainians, Russia has become a direct military threat to Europe Not only a direct threat, but also a recent history (Poland 1939, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and others).
  - xdennis 5y ago
    Finland, Romania, and pretty much every eastern European country in WW2.
5y ago

duxup 5y ago

Different wars, different feelings. A despot starting a war of choice vs a democracy is very compelling… for good reason. Violence /= all violence. Patrolling how people feel and finger waving will not result in progress.

guilhas 5y ago
That's the classic Our politics honest. Our country good. Our military righteous. Their politics corrupt. Their country bad. Their military evil. Every side thinks the same
- elforce002 5y ago
  Well, "History is written by the victors".
- duxup 5y ago
  > Every side thinks the same Does that matter?
  - guilhas 5y ago
    Yes because from the Russians perspective the USA is the fake democracy ruled by despots, too morally corrupt to criticize them Obama and Biden in 1 single year dropped 26k bombs in 7 different countries https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/americ... Obama apologises for Afghan hospital bombing - ITV News https://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-10-07/obama-apologises-for-afghan-hospital-bombing/ https://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-10-07/obama-apologises-f... So every country is the same, everyone invades for a "good" reason, and all violence is the same. Every invaded country suffers the same, and people live worse after
    - duxup 5y ago
      I’m sure everyone has their reasons, I don’t really care, there is right and wrong. Someone’s justification doesn’t make it right or wrong.

Traster 5y ago

Putin is a totalitarian dictator who is waging a war against Ukraine to conquer it and bring it under his control because he doesn't like how their democratically elected government is behaving. That is not the same thing as the US and UK invading and overthrowing totalitarian dictator Saddam Hussein. The idea that people should pretend the merits of these two things are the same is dumb, or atleast it's dumb if you value democracy or freedom over totalitarian dictatorships. It's also the case that right now, the UK, EU and NATO are in the right. They're standing up for a democratic country's right to self-determination and independence, and the right for Ukraine's citizens to live free lives. And since that is the case, making the argument "Well you guys invaded Iraq 20 years ago" is a dumb argument - let's concede you're right, the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq (a position most people probably actually agree with right now), Fine. What the hell has that got to do with what's happening now? Should the West not stand up for Ukraine now? Don't be absurd. This article is written as if the invasion of Iraq is happening today, a fiction which is pretty transparent.

unmole 5y ago
> That is not the same thing as the US and UK invading and overthrowing totalitarian dictator Saddam Hussein. Either violation of a nation's sovereignty is a crime or it isn't. If being an authoritariann dictatorship is the criteria when is Saudi Arabia getting invaded? > Should the West not stand up for Ukraine now? Don't be absurd. Can you point to where TFA makes this argument?
- Traster 5y ago
  >Either violation of a nation's sovereignty is a crime or it isn't. If being an authoritariann dictatorship is the criteria when is Saudi Arabia getting invaded? Violation of the sovereignty of a free and open democracy isn't the same as violation of the sovereignty of a brutal dictatorship, and pretending that Putin's regime is somehow as legitimate as a free open democracy is absurd and it's not difficult to see how people come to the conclusion that people pushing that idea are carrying water for Putin. It's also just straight up ignorant to pretend that the US actions in Afghanistan look anything like the straight carpet bombing conducted in Syria. It's also not particularly difficult to see how you would be strategic about where you would intervene. >Can you point to where TFA makes this argument? To quote the article I'm "reading between the lines". We're not stupid, when Russia invades a sovereign nation and you spend time talking about everything bad the west has done in the last 30 years, we're going to point it out. When people try and manufacture false equivalencies between what the west has done and what Russia is doing, we're going to point it out. This article, frankly picks out a tonne of quotes to try and paint the west as some massive war mongering groupthink, but the truth of it is that there has been huge criticism of the western interventions in the middle-east and it's ridiculous to cherry pick war hawks and pretend that's a homogenous view from the west. The truth is that even by 2008 Obama was running against the Bush-era wars, and there have been massive campaigns from both sides of the the aisle in the US to take the US out of foreign wars.

foxfluff 5y ago

I think this is an important topic to discuss, but not right now, if only because whataboutism and deflecting criticism of Russia's aggression to aggression by the US has been part of Putin's rhetoric for a long time now. Releasing such an article at this time is a good way to get people to roll their eyes and dismiss it as yet another mouthpiece of Putin's trolls. It's also borderline insensitive. At this moment, the western world doesn't want to hear these complaints, there's something more pressing to deal with.

chmod600 5y ago

Yes, there are different standards for western powers vs totalitarians. Because the former are mostly good (at least about as good as you can generally expect from flawed humans) and the latter are bad. Yes, the West does all kinds of bad stuff and I'm not excusing that. But sitting on the sidelines is not always an option -- unless you are covered by U.S. military power. It's like being in a gated community with private security and criticizing police. If you follow moral equivalence far enough, it's self-defeating. Because the totalitarians and tyrants don't bother with such nonsense. That being said, it's good to reflect once in a while to make sure you haven't become the enemy. But we shouldn't sit in front of the mirror all the time and never bother to look out the window.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

commandlinefan 5y ago

> a war of aggression on Iraq, Libya, Syria While I'm sure there's more to the Russia/Ukraine conflict than most of us can understand or appreciate, it's more than a little disingenuous to compare Russia's attempt to forcibly annex Ukraine to America's efforts to push out terrorist-supporting dictatorships.

voidr 5y ago
How is it disingenuous to compare? According to Russia they are fighting neo-nazis, which is same as the US saying that they are fighting terrorists. It's only disingenuous to compare if you fully believe one side, if you look at it critically, you would be hard pressed to not see them as the same thing. You have to be quite naive to believe that the US spends money attacking countries out of the kindness of their hearts and not to protect their interests(not other's), which sometimes means killing a "few" civilians or wrecking a country or two. Just look at all the horrible stuff China did and the Myanmar mass killings where the US didn't even bat an eye, because there was nothing to be gained.
- rat87 5y ago
  Because Russian claims about fighting neo nazis are ridiculous on their face. I don't claim the US doesn't take its interests into account when taking action or judging other countries but that doesn't mean they don't take humanitarian concerns to heart as well. Even on massive fuckups like the invasion of Iraq
  - voidr 5y ago
    > Because Russian claims about fighting neo nazis are ridiculous on their face. It's only ridiculous if you believe one side fully and become fully ignorant at the other one and if you look a little bit, you might find some ethnic cleansing done by the Ukrainians. It is at least as strong as the USA's reasons for attacking other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Ukraine's_2017_Education_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Ukr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes As an actual European who happened to grow up 20km away from the Ukrainian border, I find it frustrating to see all these western media outlets talk like they know anything about the situation while being barely able to even find these countries on a map. > but that doesn't mean they don't take humanitarian concerns to heart as well They don't, just look at how happy they were to feed the Afghan people to the Taliban(I'm talking about not giving them a chance to evacuate). They even left some weapons for the Taliban. You can also look at the fact that the US causes problems and doesn't really take in refugees, it just lets Europe deal with the mess they started. Please name a single country which became better after the US troops went in with their "democracy", if making the world a better place would be the goal for the US military they would be the biggest screwups in the universe.

beloch 5y ago

1. This is a very American-centric piece of navel gazing. Much of the world was strongly opposed to several of the conflicts mentioned here, including the invasion of Iraq. This is what-about-ism. The fact that some of the countries now opposing Russia have spotted pasts does not justify the largest invasion on European soil since WWII. 2. The Yemen war, as deplorable as it may be, has not posed the risk of global thermonuclear war. 3. Yes, the Ukrainians are using some propaganda and disinformation, just as the Russians are. They are in a war for their nations survival and are using all the tools they have at their disposal. 4. The argument that Russia is invading Ukraine because it wants "space" around its borders to separate it from NATO is hogwash. This invasion, if successful, will accomplish precisely the opposite. If Ukraine had joined NATO, Russia would have 1 more NATO country on it's borders. After taking over Ukraine Russia will gain all of Ukraine's NATO neighbours as it's own and potentially drive Finland and Sweden into NATO as well. 5. A big part of why the EU has enjoyed peace since WWII, even if other parts of the world EU members have become embroiled with haven't, is because European countries do not invade European countries anymore. The UN, NATO, and the world's economy are all designed to bring about this stability. If Russia manages to profit from this invasion, that order is overturned. The problem with this is that there are multiple nuclear states in Europe. A move away from defined, stable borders risks the entire world's fate. The stakes are higher in this invasion than in any since WWII. 6. The opposition to Russia, aside from Ukraine, is trying to use non-violent methods to force Russia to abandon the invasion. It's debatable if they will work. Economic sanctions haven't worked in the past, but we haven't seen economic sanctions like these before. Targeting oligarchs directly in particular is an interesting play. Self-flagellation, navel gazing, and moral relativism all have their place in Western society, but one must hope that we apply adequately firm will to bring the World back from the brink of nuclear war that Putin seems so willing to casually flirt with. The real double standard here is, in truth, a nuclear one.

blisterpeanuts 5y ago
Just regarding your point #4: actually, the Russians are opposed to Ukraine joining NATO and that is probably their main reason for invading. Were Ukraine to become a full NATO member, it would be forever immune from Russian aspirations of reconstituting the old USSR empire which of course included Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakstan, and several others. Furthermore, if Ukraine joined, Georgia might be next, constituting a ring of NATO military installations right on Russia's western and southern flanks, and in the heart of what they consider the "near frontier". From their point of view, this would be unacceptable, and the few remaining Russia experts in the U.S. government and in western Europe are surely aware of this. This is not to say the Russians are justified in their very violent action in Ukraine, but it's important to understand their motivations if they are to be countered on any level short of all-out conventional war or, God forbid, nuclear armageddon. I do agree with your point #6, that "firm will to bring the world back from the brink" is required here. I don't think the various "cancel culture" sanctions will do anything useful -- might put pressure on the oligarchy, or might not. Does a billionaire care that Portugal (or whoever) has impounded his $20m yacht? Or that suddenly his UK bank accounts are frozen? I don't really know. But it's important to keep in mind human nature. Pushing the Russians too hard, e.g. cutting off Visa/Mastercard/Paypal, boycotting Russian athletes, etc., may backfire and create more sympathy for Putin's stance, thus prolonging the conflict and maybe escalating it disastrously.

mdoms 5y ago

In which the author of an article is shocked (SHOCKED!) that acts of aggression are covered differently when they're "friendly" versus "enemy" acts.

emilfihlman 5y ago

I'm hugely disappointed by the comments here. I expected better of HN. As the article extremely rightly points out, this is _the_ time to examine these issues. We cannot allow the West to begome complacent we-do-no-evil-to-others we-see-no-evil-in-us we-hear-no-evil-from-us. If something leads to dystopia, it's what we are doing to ourselves.

rat87 5y ago
This article is full of untruths and whataboutism. It doesn't deserve such close examination
- voidr 5y ago
  If it's full of "untruths" and "whataboutism", then point them out, it should be easy because you said there are so many, provide sources etc. Your comment actually makes this article more believable, because it makes it look like people who hold your viewpoint don't have a leg to stand on.
lesuorac 5y ago
Is it? The special military operations (US didn't declare war anytime in the past 3 decades) that the US has done are not popular. People have wanted out of Afghanistan, Syria, etc for a long time now. Sure some TV anchor thinks its cool how missiles look when they kill non-europeans but the actual population of the US did not. It's time now to figure out how to not have these issues in the future. We don't need to re-examine the past anymore to convince gen. pop. it was wrong; they know.
Sporktacular 5y ago
Except the West isn't doing anything wrong at the moment! Helping arm a non-aggressive country to defend itself from an invader, taking in refugees, pushing back non-militarily are all objectively right things to so. This right-wing/tankie nonsense is exhausting.

Sporktacular 5y ago

Rambling, nearly interminable and staggeringly one-sided screed. Victim blaming Ukraine with the "she was asking for it" by flirting with NATO defence. The usual "Only Western Imperialism Is Bad" appeasement talking points, spurious comparisons to other scenarios to 'expose' Western hypocrisy, apparently Putin is the real victim being treated unfairly and that we're here because it's the West's fault: - Mentions US interference in Ukraine, ignores Russia's - Calls the resulting protests violent while ignoring Russian demands to shoot the protesters before Yanokovic was ousted - Quotes Mearsheimer, a realist who admits he doesn't consider the moral dimension to helping Ukrainians determine their own future - Apologises for the annexation of Crimea by stating Putin's speculated fears for Sevastopol naval access - set against and ignoring Ukrainians ACTUAL fears of being invaded - Complains Corbyn et al being reprimanded by their party for falsely equivocating Russian invasion to NATO expansion, calls it a loss of their 'freedom' to criticism NATO again all in contrast to the literal loss of actual freedom of Ukrainians And on and on. This is pro-imperialist apologia. YES the West is hypocritical and self-interest too, obviously. YES Western governments have behaved despicably and should be scrutinised more. YES the media is biased toward laziness and sensationalism. YES it hasn't written this week about the few hundred nazis fighting for Ukraine. YES the public has a short memory and has forgotten Syrians on the other Polish border. Yes to all of that. NONE of that exonerates Putin as this tries to suggest. Framing it this way, at this time, is done to blunt the criticism of and excuse a brutal, corrupt, aggressive, nuclear armed dictator whose ambitions beyond Ukraine are not yet clear. That is the priority. This is the news now. Two or three actors can be simultaneously bad. Sorry it doesn't conform to your world view.

Sporktacular 5y ago

Authors just don't get that it's okay to be opposed to imperialism in all it's forms, simultaneously and regardless of its practitioners. They say they do, but then implore us to 'look over there'.