4 ms·

It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". Also, re your initial reply to my comment: it's not like P

It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". Also, re your initial reply to my comment: it's not like Pakistan had a fully-functioning democratic government and suddenly the Army staged a coup because of American pressure. For many decades now, any civilian leader in Pakistan has occupied the position only so long as the Army at least tolerates them. The military in Pakistan has a range of interests, and it only wants to strengthen ties with the US insofar as it feels that suits its purposes and those of the country more broadly. The Army should not be absolved of its responsibility here, and the US doesn't deserve scorn for pursuing its interests abroad through this kind of strong arm diplomacy. The moral approbation should be saved for things like drone strikes.

rayiner 3y ago
> It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". It is, and is the result of politics around Trump. A decade ago the idea was a punchline. In 2012, Obama zinged Romney for having a “1980s foreign policy” for saying Russia was a threat. Did that change in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea? Nope, it was still a punchline: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/20/flashback-obamas-debate-zinger-on-romneys-1980s-foreign-policy https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/.... Why do we suddenly care about Putin now, when China is still brutally occupying Tibet and rounding up Muslims in camps? Hint: it’s not because anyone can find Ukraine on a map.
- catlover76 3y ago
  I think it's fair to say Obama was wrong and Romney was right. That's the conclusion I thought everyone drew. This framing of like "people didn't care about it then, so they are somehow wrong or disingenuous to care about it now" is bizarre and unwarranted to me. And yes, the fact that Russia put some real effort into messing with an American election is a factor in people's perception of the threat the country poses--as it should be. Ultimately though, the fact is that Russia invaded a country and is killing innocent civilians and animals. > Why do we suddenly care about Putin now, when China is still brutally occupying Tibet and rounding up Muslims in camps? Hint: it’s not because anyone can find Ukraine on a map. You can't care about both? I can. News cycles might not, and yes, I think it's largely because Ukrainians are White (at least nowadays) and Tibetans and Uighurs are Asian (on top of which the latter are Muslim). Not to mention the economic reliance on China, which I would say, btw, is a greater threat than Russia for sure. But this notion that unless people are somehow dedicating the same mental and emotional effort to all oppressed and persecuted people then they shouldn't be devoting such energy to any such people is morally unsound and unrealistic. But believe me, I think there is a lot of hypocrisy and moral depravity re: Uighurs. You see a lot of random Russians abroad cancelled at events and such as if they are pro-Putin stooges, while Netflix happily produces films based on books by a Chinese author who publicly defends the genocide.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > Did that change in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea? Nope Completely ignorant of recent history. The US started sanctions on Russia because of that.[0] That was the resounding turn of relations with Russia, for good reason. The bellwether was what they did to Magnitsky, and thus the US Magnitsky Act, in 2012.[1] And like the other poster: > It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". Yes, morally dense is a very polite way to put your view. Every day, for the past year and a half, Russia has tried to march further and further into Ukrainian territory, in order to annex it, shelling and shooting humans who stand in their way, as they take more land and cities. It is reprehensible to support that, far far more than condoning a diplomat saying they disapprove of Pakistani leadership. Lawyers really do have a reputation as a shite ethical bunch, eh? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act

rayiner 3y ago

> It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". It is, and is the result of politics around Trump. A decade ago the idea was a punchline. In 2012, Obama zinged Romney for having a “1980s foreign policy” for saying Russia was a threat. Did that change in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea? Nope, it was still a punchline: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/20/flashback-obamas-debate-zinger-on-romneys-1980s-foreign-policy https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/.... Why do we suddenly care about Putin now, when China is still brutally occupying Tibet and rounding up Muslims in camps? Hint: it’s not because anyone can find Ukraine on a map.

catlover76 3y ago
I think it's fair to say Obama was wrong and Romney was right. That's the conclusion I thought everyone drew. This framing of like "people didn't care about it then, so they are somehow wrong or disingenuous to care about it now" is bizarre and unwarranted to me. And yes, the fact that Russia put some real effort into messing with an American election is a factor in people's perception of the threat the country poses--as it should be. Ultimately though, the fact is that Russia invaded a country and is killing innocent civilians and animals. > Why do we suddenly care about Putin now, when China is still brutally occupying Tibet and rounding up Muslims in camps? Hint: it’s not because anyone can find Ukraine on a map. You can't care about both? I can. News cycles might not, and yes, I think it's largely because Ukrainians are White (at least nowadays) and Tibetans and Uighurs are Asian (on top of which the latter are Muslim). Not to mention the economic reliance on China, which I would say, btw, is a greater threat than Russia for sure. But this notion that unless people are somehow dedicating the same mental and emotional effort to all oppressed and persecuted people then they shouldn't be devoting such energy to any such people is morally unsound and unrealistic. But believe me, I think there is a lot of hypocrisy and moral depravity re: Uighurs. You see a lot of random Russians abroad cancelled at events and such as if they are pro-Putin stooges, while Netflix happily produces films based on books by a Chinese author who publicly defends the genocide.
reducesuffering 3y ago
> Did that change in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea? Nope Completely ignorant of recent history. The US started sanctions on Russia because of that.[0] That was the resounding turn of relations with Russia, for good reason. The bellwether was what they did to Magnitsky, and thus the US Magnitsky Act, in 2012.[1] And like the other poster: > It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". Yes, morally dense is a very polite way to put your view. Every day, for the past year and a half, Russia has tried to march further and further into Ukrainian territory, in order to annex it, shelling and shooting humans who stand in their way, as they take more land and cities. It is reprehensible to support that, far far more than condoning a diplomat saying they disapprove of Pakistani leadership. Lawyers really do have a reputation as a shite ethical bunch, eh? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act