4 ms·

From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Just like in many US states: if you and

From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Just like in many US states: if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. You created the situation that led to the end result.

Dabphil 3y ago
[flagged]
helpfulContrib 3y ago
That is a slippery slope argument that can be equitably applied by the Russians who believe this war was started by the West in 2016. Be careful with the ease by which you can adopt this perspective. It doesn't actually serve you to adopt such fallacies. Evidence is important - faith in the world institutions that will act on that evidence, just as important. Literally nothing in your position will have a positive effect on those institutions.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  > Russians who believe this war was started by the West in 2016. Why 2016? Putin first sent his troops to Ukraine in 2014. So from his point of view it would make sense to convince his citizens he was "forced" to do it earlier, not later.
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    For context, I live in middle-Europe, very close to the war, and as a result of my volunteer work with refugees, I have had extensive contact with both Ukrainian refugees, as well as Russian citizens entangled in this heinous mess. The Russians I have spoken to about this consider that the West started aggressively arming Ukraine for this war in 2016, which was when official, overt US policies were put in place to allow it. They identify this year as the point of no return, as "the West started officially arming Ukraine for conflict in 2016", a fact that can be observed in the US' 2016 Section 655 Report by the Dept of State. This is when US weapons first made it to the front lines. I'm not here to argue for them - I would suggest you seek out Russian citizens and engage them on the topic, if it interests you what the other side have to say about this. I relay this merely to give context to this discussion; not because my opinion aligns with any of this.
    - petre 3y ago
      Then: "We were forced to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they wanted free elections." Now: "We were forced to invade Ukraine, the US gave them weapons to defend themselves and they won't have our man as president." The US, UK and now the rest of NATO are doing the right thing arming Ukraine. The US ia doing the right thing approving weapons sales to Taiwan and Korea.
      - helpfulContrib 3y ago
        "The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. The USA, which arms well known fascist totalitarian-authoritarian dictators engaged in actual genocide, is doing absolutely the wrong thing. US' arms exports are a significant cause of war and calamity across the globe - not safety and security. War, and calamity. If the US were building roads and water treatment plants across the globe, instead of bombing them - then your claim that it is doing the right thing might have some substance. But, it isn't. The only thing the US builds on foreign nations' soils, is illegal dark CIA torture bases. You see, this line of thinking works both ways ..
        hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
        > "The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. Yet, in spite of massive attacks on civil houses and infrastructure, there is nothing comparable on the part of Ukraine. They attacked very few targets on Russian soil, and as far as I can tell, these were only military targets, and attacked only after Russia started the war. One would have to be either delusional or paranoid to think Ukraine wanted to attack Russia. The only thing these folsk wanted is to stay as far away from the Russian regime as possible. Unfortunately, they weren't allowed to.
        helpfulContrib 3y ago
        >This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. When you consider yourself a minority and you are convinced you will be wiped out and are thus desperate, it is not uncommon for highly courageous acts to be made. There are no hard black/white lines in this spectacle. >They attacked very few targets on Russian soil I challenge you to differentiate between attacking a nation, and attacking a nations citizens, and justify those legislative positions which allow this difference to be attained, across a spectrum of international sovereign nations' own laws on the protection of their citizens. It is specious to assume, for example, that the USA are the only nation that would bomb other countries in order to protect their citizens' interests. Other nations do it, too.
xg15 3y ago
> From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Are you talking about the war at large or about the specific question who blew up the dam? I'd agree with the sibling comment here. In war, morality is always crystal clear for the parties that are at war - we are the good guys, the others are the bad guys. I'd go out on a limb and say this is almost a requirement to be able to fight a war in the first place: If you didn't think you are in the right, how would you even motivate your own troops to risk their lives for your cause? Usually, when historians look back at the war later, they find the actual morality to be anything but clear. > if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. You created the situation that led to the end result. This isn't how it works. In this case, you have two separate crimes - robbery and murder - with two different perpetrators - the burglars and the homeowner. The homeowner has a good chance that his charge will be dropped as a case of self-defence - but in no way would the robbers suddenly end up with a murder charge against themselves because they are "obviously" the bad guys. (And by the way, the homeowner might in fact be prosecuted for murder if it turned out there was no self-defence situation and he just shot the robber out of rage. You can use this to counter the russian argument too, btw: Even if you assume, for the sake of the argument, that Russia was threatened by an expanding NATO and by a militarized Ukraine, is it still "self-defence" to invade - and keep invading - a country, annexing land, attacking power stations and grain storage sites?)
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  I think it's hard to imagine a future historical context in which Russia is the goodie here.
  - xg15 3y ago
    Then you should ask a few people from South American or African countries.
    - rich_sasha 3y ago
jrmg 3y ago
in many US states if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. This isn’t actually true, is it?
- lisper 3y ago
  Yes, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule IMHO it's a defensible position.

Dabphil 3y ago

[flagged]

helpfulContrib 3y ago

That is a slippery slope argument that can be equitably applied by the Russians who believe this war was started by the West in 2016. Be careful with the ease by which you can adopt this perspective. It doesn't actually serve you to adopt such fallacies. Evidence is important - faith in the world institutions that will act on that evidence, just as important. Literally nothing in your position will have a positive effect on those institutions.

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
> Russians who believe this war was started by the West in 2016. Why 2016? Putin first sent his troops to Ukraine in 2014. So from his point of view it would make sense to convince his citizens he was "forced" to do it earlier, not later.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  For context, I live in middle-Europe, very close to the war, and as a result of my volunteer work with refugees, I have had extensive contact with both Ukrainian refugees, as well as Russian citizens entangled in this heinous mess. The Russians I have spoken to about this consider that the West started aggressively arming Ukraine for this war in 2016, which was when official, overt US policies were put in place to allow it. They identify this year as the point of no return, as "the West started officially arming Ukraine for conflict in 2016", a fact that can be observed in the US' 2016 Section 655 Report by the Dept of State. This is when US weapons first made it to the front lines. I'm not here to argue for them - I would suggest you seek out Russian citizens and engage them on the topic, if it interests you what the other side have to say about this. I relay this merely to give context to this discussion; not because my opinion aligns with any of this.
  - petre 3y ago
    Then: "We were forced to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they wanted free elections." Now: "We were forced to invade Ukraine, the US gave them weapons to defend themselves and they won't have our man as president." The US, UK and now the rest of NATO are doing the right thing arming Ukraine. The US ia doing the right thing approving weapons sales to Taiwan and Korea.
    - helpfulContrib 3y ago
      "The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. The USA, which arms well known fascist totalitarian-authoritarian dictators engaged in actual genocide, is doing absolutely the wrong thing. US' arms exports are a significant cause of war and calamity across the globe - not safety and security. War, and calamity. If the US were building roads and water treatment plants across the globe, instead of bombing them - then your claim that it is doing the right thing might have some substance. But, it isn't. The only thing the US builds on foreign nations' soils, is illegal dark CIA torture bases. You see, this line of thinking works both ways ..
      - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
        > "The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. Yet, in spite of massive attacks on civil houses and infrastructure, there is nothing comparable on the part of Ukraine. They attacked very few targets on Russian soil, and as far as I can tell, these were only military targets, and attacked only after Russia started the war. One would have to be either delusional or paranoid to think Ukraine wanted to attack Russia. The only thing these folsk wanted is to stay as far away from the Russian regime as possible. Unfortunately, they weren't allowed to.
        helpfulContrib 3y ago
        >This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. When you consider yourself a minority and you are convinced you will be wiped out and are thus desperate, it is not uncommon for highly courageous acts to be made. There are no hard black/white lines in this spectacle. >They attacked very few targets on Russian soil I challenge you to differentiate between attacking a nation, and attacking a nations citizens, and justify those legislative positions which allow this difference to be attained, across a spectrum of international sovereign nations' own laws on the protection of their citizens. It is specious to assume, for example, that the USA are the only nation that would bomb other countries in order to protect their citizens' interests. Other nations do it, too.

xg15 3y ago

> From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Are you talking about the war at large or about the specific question who blew up the dam? I'd agree with the sibling comment here. In war, morality is always crystal clear for the parties that are at war - we are the good guys, the others are the bad guys. I'd go out on a limb and say this is almost a requirement to be able to fight a war in the first place: If you didn't think you are in the right, how would you even motivate your own troops to risk their lives for your cause? Usually, when historians look back at the war later, they find the actual morality to be anything but clear. > if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. You created the situation that led to the end result. This isn't how it works. In this case, you have two separate crimes - robbery and murder - with two different perpetrators - the burglars and the homeowner. The homeowner has a good chance that his charge will be dropped as a case of self-defence - but in no way would the robbers suddenly end up with a murder charge against themselves because they are "obviously" the bad guys. (And by the way, the homeowner might in fact be prosecuted for murder if it turned out there was no self-defence situation and he just shot the robber out of rage. You can use this to counter the russian argument too, btw: Even if you assume, for the sake of the argument, that Russia was threatened by an expanding NATO and by a militarized Ukraine, is it still "self-defence" to invade - and keep invading - a country, annexing land, attacking power stations and grain storage sites?)

rich_sasha 3y ago
I think it's hard to imagine a future historical context in which Russia is the goodie here.
- xg15 3y ago
  Then you should ask a few people from South American or African countries.
  - rich_sasha 3y ago

jrmg 3y ago

in many US states if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. This isn’t actually true, is it?

lisper 3y ago
Yes, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule IMHO it's a defensible position.