4 ms·

Before responding: please note that I do not believe Ukraine bombed itself, or that I diminish the suffering and casualties that have happened since the war. T

Before responding: please note that I do not believe Ukraine bombed itself, or that I diminish the suffering and casualties that have happened since the war. This site allows you to select a number of streets and see a before/after picture. The site does not allow you to select the many streets that are entirely unchanged, or of which the changes are minimal or even positive (if those even exist). Propaganda exists in every war, and comes from both sides. The intelligence test isn't to chose which side is right, it is to discern which bit of information is taken out of context, blown out of proportion, or factually incorrect. Is Russia wrong for starting a war? Yes. Is it completely its fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not. Is the Ukraine completely free of sin? Also probably not. War sucks.

kriops 4y ago
Please explain how it could conceivably NOT be completely Russia’s fault that they chose to aggress another country with the casus belli being made up history that wouldn’t pass as legitimate justification even if it were true.
- adolph 4y ago
  Is this a reading comprehension test? The g-parent comment notes “Is Russia wrong for starting a war? Yes.”
  - throwaway8689 4y ago
    Can you address the 'unprovoked' part? Reading comprehension here involves reading a whole paragraph.
    - adolph 4y ago
      There is no need to address “unprovoked”. If it were provoked, would it make the invasion unwrong? Edit: s/we’re/it were/
      - cedilla 4y ago
        There is no such thing as "getting provoked to wage war". "Feeling provoked" is no excuse established in international law.
        adolph 4y ago
        To what comment is this comment directed? That quote does not appear to be from this thread. I think it is fair to say that there are typically reasons for war to occur (even if the chain of causality isn’t reflective in the claims of the belligerents). An example might be the US into Afghanistan after the Taliban did not extradite the leadership of Al Qaeda. Was the attack of 9/11/01 not “getting provoked to wage war?”
- mistermann 4y ago
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ And that's just for starters. Will we now get downvotes, some meme-based dismissals, mind reading, clairvoyance, or the various other common responses? Let's wait and see...please express your experience of "reality" via action, humans...ideally: explaining to me how I "am" "wrong".
  - kriops 4y ago
    I'm assuming you are just a troll. - You're posting unrelated links with no context. There is no actual content in your comment. - The links in question are not relevant to my comment. There is no counterfact there. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, you are probably confused by my use of a negative, and you probably forgot to consider the context in which it was used. - In the spirit of harping on epistomology 101: What facts exists to support the notion that Russia's unjust invasion of Ukraine can be blamed on Ukraine? (Hint: None)
    - mistermann 4y ago
      Hyper confident opinions, stated in the form of facts....shocking. Imagine if people wrote code with the same style of logic and epistemology they practice when discussing metaphysical affairs. Assume whatever you would like, and enjoy assuming that all your assumptions just so happen to be factual...I doubt it will cause much harm to me, though I am less sure the same is true for those you proclaim/perceive to have concern for.
      - kriops 4y ago
        You got one right, by omission: There are indeed no facts supporting the notion that Russia's unjust invasion of Ukraine can be blamed on the latter.
        4y ago
- once_inc 4y ago
  I will explain my reasoning behind "Is [the war] completely [Russia's] fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not." On the 21st of March 2014, the European Union signed an association treaty with Ukraine. This treaty was seen by many as a first step for Ukraine to join the EU. Note that the treaty itself doesn't mention this, nor does it actually do this. It is a clear indication of the preference of Ukraine to 'belong' to the EU, and break away from under the former USSR's blanket though. Russia clearly stated that it was very much opposed to the treaty, and the concept of Ukraine joining (even just in spirit) with the EU. This objection goes back to negotiations between the UN and the then-newly-formed Russian state directly after the cold war ended. Russia wanted a buffer between its border and that of the UN. The position of Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus were deemed to be part of that buffer, and UN agreed to this demand (verbally, not in writing, a crucial detail). Russia has since repeatedly noted that it was very unhappy with the position of Ukraine, and the fact that the government switch in the Maidan revolution was endorsed by EU representatives. It perceives the association of the Ukraine with the EU as a breech of its demands of a buffer zone between it and the UN. It has clearly articulated this in repeated sessions at meetings and slowly escalated the rhetorics in those speeches/meetings. It is never another country's fault when you attack it, but you cannot claim it is unprovoked; Russia's claims regarding the buffer states have been clear since the end of the cold war, and their demands were well known to both the UN and the EU. They poured oil on a simmering fire, and now the house is on fire...
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > It is never another country's fault when you attack it, but you cannot claim it is unprovoked; Russia's claims regarding the buffer states have been clear since the end of the cold war, and their demands were well known to both the UN and the EU. They poured oil on a simmering fire, and now the house is on fire... These countries are not "buffer" states for Russia to toy with, they are countries that have every right to join whatever alliances they want. And you must see how unsurprising it is that they all want to join NATO when Russia views them not as their own countries but as buffer regions for Russia.
  - kriops 4y ago
    I thank you for taking the time to explain your statement. My rebuttal to your devil's advocate points in support of the Russian position: Ukraine is a soverign nation. Furthermore, every inhabitant of Ukraine have basic human rights. Of course, neither of those points matter to someone whose ethical system boils down to realpolitk. Some well-known corollaries include: - Might makes right. - Rules for thee, but not for me. - A ruler should prioritize the preservation of power and stability over morality. - Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger. If the defence of a pruported Russian casus belli is that they are inconsistent with any consistent notion of rights, then it is self-defeating. And if the defence is Russia arbitrarily getting provoked, then there is not a rational argument to be had. Anyways, I digress. As a soverign nation, Ukraine has the right to enter into any agreement they wish - with the obvious caveat that they may not compromise the soverignty of another nation or the human rights of their inhabitants. Trade agreements and defensive alliances are trivially within the bounds of such constraints. As a soverign nation, Ukraine is not the property of Russia, so Russia has no business deciding its fate. In summary, I acknowledge your position is similar to Bill Burr's bit on domestic violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ, but like him I don't think "a reason" entails a marginally or otherwise valid justification.
oneshtein 4y ago
> Is it completely its fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not. This is a case of victim-blaming. Russia has been responsible for the deaths of citizens of other nations for decades, yet no one was willing to go to war over it. Prior to the conflict in 2014, no Russians had been killed, so they fabricated a narrative about a "Nazi regime in Ukraine" in order to justify starting the war. Once the war had begun, talk of provocation became meaningless. Ukraine has every right to defend itself by any means necessary, including weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons.
- sneak 4y ago
  Thankfully Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, and further thankfully they have no allies willing to provide them with same. Nobody sane wants any nuclear weapons used in a conflict involving Russia. Full stop.
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
> Is Russia wrong for starting a war? Yes. Is it completely its fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not. Is the Ukraine completely free of sin? Also probably not. So tell me exactly, what was the grave sin that Ukraine committed that would justify the invasion and all the atrocities that followed?

kriops 4y ago

Please explain how it could conceivably NOT be completely Russia’s fault that they chose to aggress another country with the casus belli being made up history that wouldn’t pass as legitimate justification even if it were true.

adolph 4y ago
Is this a reading comprehension test? The g-parent comment notes “Is Russia wrong for starting a war? Yes.”
- throwaway8689 4y ago
  Can you address the 'unprovoked' part? Reading comprehension here involves reading a whole paragraph.
  - adolph 4y ago
    There is no need to address “unprovoked”. If it were provoked, would it make the invasion unwrong? Edit: s/we’re/it were/
    - cedilla 4y ago
      There is no such thing as "getting provoked to wage war". "Feeling provoked" is no excuse established in international law.
      - adolph 4y ago
        To what comment is this comment directed? That quote does not appear to be from this thread. I think it is fair to say that there are typically reasons for war to occur (even if the chain of causality isn’t reflective in the claims of the belligerents). An example might be the US into Afghanistan after the Taliban did not extradite the leadership of Al Qaeda. Was the attack of 9/11/01 not “getting provoked to wage war?”
mistermann 4y ago
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ And that's just for starters. Will we now get downvotes, some meme-based dismissals, mind reading, clairvoyance, or the various other common responses? Let's wait and see...please express your experience of "reality" via action, humans...ideally: explaining to me how I "am" "wrong".
- kriops 4y ago
  I'm assuming you are just a troll. - You're posting unrelated links with no context. There is no actual content in your comment. - The links in question are not relevant to my comment. There is no counterfact there. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, you are probably confused by my use of a negative, and you probably forgot to consider the context in which it was used. - In the spirit of harping on epistomology 101: What facts exists to support the notion that Russia's unjust invasion of Ukraine can be blamed on Ukraine? (Hint: None)
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Hyper confident opinions, stated in the form of facts....shocking. Imagine if people wrote code with the same style of logic and epistemology they practice when discussing metaphysical affairs. Assume whatever you would like, and enjoy assuming that all your assumptions just so happen to be factual...I doubt it will cause much harm to me, though I am less sure the same is true for those you proclaim/perceive to have concern for.
    - kriops 4y ago
      You got one right, by omission: There are indeed no facts supporting the notion that Russia's unjust invasion of Ukraine can be blamed on the latter.
      - 4y ago
once_inc 4y ago
I will explain my reasoning behind "Is [the war] completely [Russia's] fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not." On the 21st of March 2014, the European Union signed an association treaty with Ukraine. This treaty was seen by many as a first step for Ukraine to join the EU. Note that the treaty itself doesn't mention this, nor does it actually do this. It is a clear indication of the preference of Ukraine to 'belong' to the EU, and break away from under the former USSR's blanket though. Russia clearly stated that it was very much opposed to the treaty, and the concept of Ukraine joining (even just in spirit) with the EU. This objection goes back to negotiations between the UN and the then-newly-formed Russian state directly after the cold war ended. Russia wanted a buffer between its border and that of the UN. The position of Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus were deemed to be part of that buffer, and UN agreed to this demand (verbally, not in writing, a crucial detail). Russia has since repeatedly noted that it was very unhappy with the position of Ukraine, and the fact that the government switch in the Maidan revolution was endorsed by EU representatives. It perceives the association of the Ukraine with the EU as a breech of its demands of a buffer zone between it and the UN. It has clearly articulated this in repeated sessions at meetings and slowly escalated the rhetorics in those speeches/meetings. It is never another country's fault when you attack it, but you cannot claim it is unprovoked; Russia's claims regarding the buffer states have been clear since the end of the cold war, and their demands were well known to both the UN and the EU. They poured oil on a simmering fire, and now the house is on fire...
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > It is never another country's fault when you attack it, but you cannot claim it is unprovoked; Russia's claims regarding the buffer states have been clear since the end of the cold war, and their demands were well known to both the UN and the EU. They poured oil on a simmering fire, and now the house is on fire... These countries are not "buffer" states for Russia to toy with, they are countries that have every right to join whatever alliances they want. And you must see how unsurprising it is that they all want to join NATO when Russia views them not as their own countries but as buffer regions for Russia.
- kriops 4y ago
  I thank you for taking the time to explain your statement. My rebuttal to your devil's advocate points in support of the Russian position: Ukraine is a soverign nation. Furthermore, every inhabitant of Ukraine have basic human rights. Of course, neither of those points matter to someone whose ethical system boils down to realpolitk. Some well-known corollaries include: - Might makes right. - Rules for thee, but not for me. - A ruler should prioritize the preservation of power and stability over morality. - Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger. If the defence of a pruported Russian casus belli is that they are inconsistent with any consistent notion of rights, then it is self-defeating. And if the defence is Russia arbitrarily getting provoked, then there is not a rational argument to be had. Anyways, I digress. As a soverign nation, Ukraine has the right to enter into any agreement they wish - with the obvious caveat that they may not compromise the soverignty of another nation or the human rights of their inhabitants. Trade agreements and defensive alliances are trivially within the bounds of such constraints. As a soverign nation, Ukraine is not the property of Russia, so Russia has no business deciding its fate. In summary, I acknowledge your position is similar to Bill Burr's bit on domestic violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ, but like him I don't think "a reason" entails a marginally or otherwise valid justification.

oneshtein 4y ago

> Is it completely its fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not. This is a case of victim-blaming. Russia has been responsible for the deaths of citizens of other nations for decades, yet no one was willing to go to war over it. Prior to the conflict in 2014, no Russians had been killed, so they fabricated a narrative about a "Nazi regime in Ukraine" in order to justify starting the war. Once the war had begun, talk of provocation became meaningless. Ukraine has every right to defend itself by any means necessary, including weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons.

sneak 4y ago
Thankfully Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, and further thankfully they have no allies willing to provide them with same. Nobody sane wants any nuclear weapons used in a conflict involving Russia. Full stop.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

> Is Russia wrong for starting a war? Yes. Is it completely its fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not. Is the Ukraine completely free of sin? Also probably not. So tell me exactly, what was the grave sin that Ukraine committed that would justify the invasion and all the atrocities that followed?