Ukraine vs Russia: Who has the moral high ground?

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Yes, when answering the question, I do so based on my moral perspective. I used the word "unequivocally" to emphasize that the answer, from my perspective, is obvious.


Tell me your position, and we can try to construct said bridge.

I stated my position, you must have glanced over it. Hard to see the forest for the trees, I guess.  Here it is again . . .

I chose no sides and offer no judgments or absolutes

My position is to take no position, a third option for the potential of an "or the other" function in this binary arrangement.

Your question . . .

Is Putin's invasion of Ukraine morally right?

You pose this as a yes or no, either or question. This begs for an answer that has the person answering take a side on undefined moral grounds. It also seems to be a little loaded by asking, "Is it right?" rather than "Why is it right or wrong?"
Great way to build those bridges.  

You also claim that you believe that Russia is unequivocally wrong from your moral perspective.

Russia imperialistically invaded a sovereign country. It's in the wrong, unequivocally.

How does the above claim fit into your particular moral framework? 

I ask you now, "What makes it unequivocally wrong for Russia to invade the Ukraine?" Unequivocal, as in an answer that leaves no doubt, is clear, or unambiguous. Your answer will help me understand your question and why you asked it.

[TokenLiberal]

Oh good, history is always important when examining positions.

The thread's opening remark is:


I do believe the correct wording is Special Military Operation, rather than "invasion". (I know I am being picky : )

That's what Putin is calling it. The rest of the world is calling it an invasion. Is whatever Putin says correct in your eyes? Do you dispute that he invaded Ukraine?

The way I read the OP is in regard to morals. Since morals are relative and not absolute, my usual procedure in these things is to look for the moral high ground and the moral low ground. By analogy, the height of the mountain is always relative to the lowlands, if one cannot see the lowlands, one has no idea how tall the mountain is. We need to compare.

I did not say that at all. What I said was:" . . . that alone says quite clearly that the moral lowlands are to the west of Russia." within the context of the two Minsk agreements and the Istanbul agreement. 

As I understand the situation, there were two agreements made to settle the conflict in Ukraine.


. . . and:


As for the Istanbul Agreement, I will quote Sputnik:


It has since become known that it was the Englishman Boris Johnson who stepped in at the very last moment and convinced Ukraine not to sign the agreement.

So we have France, Germany and England stopping peace in Ukraine, and actually admitting that they had no intention of keeping the agreements. All they wanted to do was  supply Ukraine with weapons in the hope of breaking Russia. The manner in which the western coalitions used Ukraine as a proxy battlefield to fight Russia is disgraceful.

My opinion is the collective west and NATO thought they would defeat the Russian Federation. I think NATO has realised that they have lost the war and virtually sent themselves bankrupt  and don't know what to say.

On the other hand, Russia has been very patient and considerate, Russia has not responded in kind to the attacks upon Russia by the Europeans. Keep in mind that Ukraine cannot use the long range German Taurus missiles, the British Storm Shadow, and the American equivalent without outside help. Someone has to put in the target coordinates for those missiles. Guess who? ; )

There you have my thoughts on the moral landscape of the NATO vs Russian Federation conflict in Ukraine.

I don't feel the need to question Putin's morals here.

So maybe you might be correct there, TokenLiberal in saying the Russian Federation is acting in self-defence. After all, Russia IS fighting the USA and NATO in a proxy war.

Ok so you do think Russia is acting in self defense? You think it's protecting itself from NATO aggression? Is it that you think NATO was threatening Russian sovereignty? What exactly is/was NATO's aggressive threat? My understanding is that it's a defensive alliance which exists to protect countries from the very thing Ukraine is now a victim of.

[TokenLiberal]

I stated my position, you must have glanced over it. Hard to see the forest for the trees, I guess.  Here it is again . . .


My position is to take no position, a third option for the potential of an "or the other" function in this binary arrangement.

I didn't see the forest because it's empty. No position is (literally) not a position.

You pose this as a yes or no, either or question. This begs for an answer that has the person answering take a side on undefined moral grounds. It also seems to be a little loaded by asking, "Is it right?" rather than "Why is it right or wrong?"
Great way to build those bridges.  

Yes, the question asks the person answering to take a side. That's the point. The moral grounds are undefined because I want them to use whichever moral grounds they think should apply.

Feel free to rephrase the question however you want, if that means you become able to answer it.

How does the above claim fit into your particular moral framework? 

I ask you now, "What makes it unequivocally wrong for Russia to invade the Ukraine?" Unequivocal, as in an answer that leaves no doubt, is clear, or unambiguous. Your answer will help me understand your question and why you asked it.

To me it's very simple. The basis of my moral judgment here is my belief in the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination and their state's sovereignty. Russia violated these with their aggression. Because it's so simple, the answer is obvious and "unequivocal".

Imagine Russia had invaded the US instead. Would you think the question is easy to answer, then?

[NobodySpecial268]

That's what Putin is calling it. The rest of the world is calling it an invasion. Is whatever Putin says correct in your eyes? Do you dispute that he invaded Ukraine?

Haven't you noticed that Putin is very careful in his language? Keep in mind that Putin is a legal expert, having studied law when younger. He is a trained lawyer, so the general use of the word "invasion" could be considered a means to add an illegitimate context.

You ask me: Is whatever Putin says correct in your eyes?

Well now, what do you take me for - a teenage girl looking up at her pop idol? Oh really TokenLiberal . . .

Do you dispute that he invaded Ukraine?

See my remark above on the SMO vs invasion : )

Ok so you do think Russia is acting in self defense? You think it's protecting itself from NATO aggression? Is it that you think NATO was threatening Russian sovereignty? What exactly is/was NATO's aggressive threat? My understanding is that it's a defensive alliance which exists to protect countries from the very thing Ukraine is now a victim of.

Ummm, I think I will let Tucker Carlson answer the question of NATO being a nonaggressive defensive alliance.

.

I think now even Trump appreciates that at the core of the Ukraine conflict is NATO expansion. Russia simply does not want NATO on its doorstep, they have said this publically often enough.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis? The USSR put missiles in Cuba because the USA put nuke weapons in Turkey.

So who are the bad neighbours here?

[TokenLiberal]

Haven't you noticed that Putin is very careful in his language? Keep in mind that Putin is a legal expert, having studied law when younger. He is a trained lawyer, so the general use of the word "invasion" could be considered a means to add an illegitimate context.

You ask me: Is whatever Putin says correct in your eyes?

Well now, what do you take me for - a teenage girl looking up at her pop idol? Oh really TokenLiberal . . .

Well if it's factually an invasion, and you insist on correcting that to the thing Putin is calling it in his attempt to justify it to the world, you certainly sound like a member of the Putin fanclub (which has some prominent members including Donald Trump and... Tucker Carlson).

See my remark above on the SMO vs invasion : )

Right, so you don't think it's an invasion because Putin says it isn't and he chooses his words carefully so it must be true. Here's where this line of reasoning goes wrong: You assume that, because Putin chooses his words carefully, he must be telling the truth. You forget that people can lie carefully. Putin knows exactly what he's doing when he calls this a "special military operation". He's avoiding the word invasion, even though it accurately describes what he did, because it makes him look like the bad guy.

Ummm, I think I will let Tucker Carlson answer the question of NATO being a nonaggressive defensive alliance.

The US' at the time said that the Yugoslav wars were a risk to regional stability, and since there were NATO countries in the region, that this justified intervention. I agree that this is dubious. It probably shouldn't have been done under the NATO flag. But it was a humanitarian mission, not an act of aggression. It doesn't prove NATO is not a defensive alliance.

I think now even Trump appreciates that at the core of the Ukraine conflict is NATO expansion. Russia simply does not want NATO on its doorstep, they have said this publically often enough.

Even though the threat of NATO invading Russia is completely imagined, I get that Russia doesn't want it on its doorstep. But does that justify an invasion? Ukraine doesn't want Russia on its doorstep. Trump doesn't want Mexico on his doorstep. Many countries have other countries on their doorstep they don't want. That doesn't mean they can invade their neighbors. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, Russia can complain about it all they want but it's ultimately Ukraine's decision.

Why do you think Russia should get to decide which alliances Ukraine joins? This seems to be completely ignoring the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I didn't see the forest because it's empty. No position is (literally) not a position.


Yes, the question asks the person answering to take a side. That's the point. The moral grounds are undefined because I want them to use whichever moral grounds they think should apply.

Feel free to rephrase the question however you want, if that means you become able to answer it.


To me it's very simple. The basis of my moral judgment here is my belief in the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination and their state's sovereignty. Russia violated these with their aggression. Because it's so simple, the answer is obvious and "unequivocal".

Imagine Russia had invaded the US instead. Would you think the question is easy to answer, then?

Even if you decide to take "no position", that is still a decision. I'd rather not be caught in an "either or" dilemma when there are always other choices.

I actually gave you a hypothetical that you totally ignored, and I suspect you did that because it gave you little ground for an argument. It is also Satanic reasoning, probably the lowest of the low moral ground, and yet still no response to that. Such low-hanging fruit, and yet no one took a bite from the fruit of that tree. That alone is interesting . . .

Thick As a Brick by Jethro Tull

Really don't mind if you sit this one out.
My word's but a whisper, your deafness a shout.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Your sperm's in the gutter, your love's in the sink.

So you ride yourselves over the fields,
And you make all your animal deals.
And your wise men don't know how it feels,
To be thick as a brick.

Nature's horror vacui. It is a forest so full as to be thick as a brick. If that was too far out, try this one. Only the box can be empty.

[NobodySpecial268]

It seems to me that everyone involved in the conflict is abiding by the legal rules of war (maybe not Ukraine). Just because one person uses appropriate legal nomenclature and the others don't, shouldn't be too big an issue. You can call it what you want. I did say I was being picky.

Why do you think Russia should get to decide which alliances Ukraine joins? This seems to be completely ignoring the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination.

Ahem, I see the "self-determination" card is in play.

Well now . . .

Results of Referendums on Joining Russia in Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions.

On September 23-27, the Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, liberated by the Russian forces from the Kiev regime, held votes to decide if they want to join Russia. Sputnik shows the results of the votes, which were held despite Ukraine's threats and shellings targeting civilians.

Source: New Regions Join Russia

Let's not forget Crimea . . .

Back in 2014 Crimea had referendums too.

Over 95 percent of voters in the Crimean referendum have answered ‘yes’ to the autonomous republic joining Russia and less than 4 percent of the vote participants want the region to remain part of Ukraine, according to preliminary results.

Source: 95.7% of Crimeans in referendum voted to join Russia - preliminary results

Let's not forget the 2013 color revolution in Ukraine when the legitimate government was overthrown by the usual villains.

Ten years ago, on November 21, 2013, mass demonstrations erupted in the center of Kiev and other Ukrainian cities, leading to a coup d'etat. Initially, the people were criticizing the suspension of the signing of an association agreement with the EU by the authorities, which later led to a "color revolution."

Subsequently, the mass protests, endorsed by Western states, turned into riots a few months later and culminated in a coup d'etat, which was supported by the West. In February 2014, Viktor Yanukovych, the incumbent president of Ukraine, who was legally elected and recognized by all other countries as the president, was still in power. However, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's parliament) "removed" him from power, despite having no legal basis to perform such an action, thus, violating the Ukrainian constitution. Still remaining as the legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych was forced to leave Ukraine. Later, Petro Poroshenko was elected president.

The Western leaders wholeheartedly endorsed the coup, recognizing Petro Poroshenko as the new president of Ukraine, thus, approving the violation of the Ukrainian constitution and legitimizing "color revolutions" once again.

Source: How It All Began: Euromaidan in Ukraine

How's that for "self-determination"?

[TokenLiberal]

Even if you decide to take "no position", that is still a decision. I'd rather not be caught in an "either or" dilemma when there are always other choices.

I actually gave you a hypothetical that you totally ignored, and I suspect you did that because it gave you little ground for an argument. It is also Satanic reasoning, probably the lowest of the low moral ground, and yet still no response to that. Such low-hanging fruit, and yet no one took a bite from the fruit of that tree. That alone is interesting . . .

Nature's horror vacui. It is a forest so full as to be thick as a brick. If that was too far out, try this one. Only the box can be empty.

I'm not really interested in entertaining hypotheticals unless they further some kind of point. It doesn't get me any closer to understanding your perspective. Does that make sense?

[TokenLiberal]

It seems to me that everyone involved in the conflict is abiding by the legal rules of war (maybe not Ukraine).  Just because one person uses appropriate legal nomenclature and the others don't, shouldn't be too big an issue. You can call it what you want. I did say I was being picky.


Ahem, I see the "self-determination" card is in play.

Well now . . .


Let's not forget Crimea . . .

Back in 2014 Crimea had referendums too.


Let's not forget the 2013 color revolution in Ukraine when the legitimate government was overthrown by the usual villains.


How's that for "self-determination"?

I think first of all we should get on the same page as to which sources to use. The sources you are using are both owned by the Russian state. Do you think that relying on these sources is going to give you an accurate picture of reality?

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Bravo NobodySpecial2!

Self-determination fits in neatly with my previous post quoted below.

However, suppose I take up the position that natural laws drive evolution "by any means necessary" to ensure "survival of the fittest" through the "law of the jungle" that has "might makes right".

Self-determined, but only by the ability of my military might compared to other potentially superior forces. It's only yours if you can protect and defend it against capture when the raiding party comes.

Otherwise, you're asking for it by looking weak and unprepared. You are hapless prey to the wolves at your door and will conform to the natural law of the survival of the fittest.