Ukraine vs Russia: Who has the moral high ground?

[TokenLiberal]

Is Putin's invasion of Ukraine morally right? I put this question to you all because, for some reason, this seems to be a divisive thing nowadays and I'm interested in exploring why this division exists.

[NobodySpecial268]

Is Putin's invasion of Ukraine morally right? I put this question to you all because, for some reason, this seems to be a divisive thing nowadays and I'm interested in exploring why this division exists.

Are we allowed to bring up the Istanbul and Minsk agreements? Because even Angela Merkel admitted that NATO / EU had no intention of keeping those, and the whole idea was to rearm Ukraine.

Just that alone says quite clearly that the moral lowlands are to the west of Russia.

[FCD]

Is Putin's invasion of Ukraine morally right? I put this question to you all because, for some reason, this seems to be a divisive thing nowadays and I'm interested in exploring why this division exists.

Neither.

Ukraine is in it for the money and for the weapons, and Zelenskyy is in it for the power.  Russia is in it because Putin is living in a bygone era, thinking he’s going to reestablish the USSR all over again.  Both Putin and Zelenskyy are crazy.  More correctly, Putin is a professional crazy, and Zelensky is an amateur crazy.  Tens of thousands are dying for absolutely no reason.  And, at the end of the day, regardless of who wins, nothing will change.  That’s the saddest part of all.  They’re fighting for nothing.  Daily life for the common person will be no different than it was before this started.

Zelenskyy is talking about freedom.  Westerners hear this and they think freedom like in the west, but it won’t be like that.  Putin, on the other hand, is stuck in the Cold War era.  He’s worried about NATO on a bordering country, but he already has that.  The whole conflict is senseless.

Think about it.  Putin will win even if he loses in Ukraine.  Russia is not going anywhere, and certainly not because of Ukraine.  The only thing which will change in this whole conflict is the text on a map.  That’s it.  Ukraine, even if they prevail against Putin, will spend the next 50 years rebuilding their country.  It’s not like they’re going to become a super power.  Not today, not tomorrow, and not ever.  If Zelenskyy would just let Putin have what he wants, at least Russia would be on the hook for the rebuilding tab.  If Ukraine prevails, they’ll just look to the west to bail their asses out (at how many more trillions of dollars???).  It makes no sense.  Oh wait…but then Zelenskyy won’t be in power…he can’t have that.  That’s all this is about.

So, in direct answer to your question, this whole conflict is morally wrong. Putin for invading, and Zelenskyy for trying to prevent it.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I require more information, starting with the word morality.  Morals are standards or principles derived from different sources that span entire human cultures and don't necessarily correspond or agree. Whose morals are we to adopt for discussion?

Consider the act of thievery. Modern Western culture believes that stealing things is sinful and criminal. Native Americans, from the time of European contact until they were forced to conform, thought of thievery as "capture" or "conquest", a kind of "finders-keepers" rule applied to people who were careless or didn't keep their things protected.

Then there is "honor among thieves",  not to mention other fraternities, a real thing on the street and in the big house.

I wouldn't want this thread to go off the deep end into the abyss, or off on some crusade, or turn into a Rah-Rah Assembly put on by the Glee Club. Maybe a more specific question could help "nip it in the bud" so-to-speak.

[TokenLiberal]

Are we allowed to bring up the Istanbul and Minsk agreements? Because even Angela Merkel admitted that NATO / EU had no intention of keeping those, and the whole idea was to rearm Ukraine.

Just that alone says quite clearly that the moral lowlands are to the west of Russia.

You're allowed to bring up whatever you want.

So you think Putin is acting in self-defense? Is that an accurate summary of your position?

[TokenLiberal]

Neither.

Ukraine is in it for the money and for the weapons, and Zelenskyy is in it for the power.  Russia is in it because Putin is living in a bygone era, thinking he’s going to reestablish the USSR all over again.  Both Putin and Zelenskyy are crazy.  More correctly, Putin is a professional crazy, and Zelensky is an amateur crazy.  Tens of thousands are dying for absolutely no reason.  And, at the end of the day, regardless of who wins, nothing will change.  That’s the saddest part of all.  They’re fighting for nothing.  Daily life for the common person will be no different than it was before this started.

Zelenskyy is talking about freedom.  Westerners hear this and they think freedom like in the west, but it won’t be like that.  Putin, on the other hand, is stuck in the Cold War era.  He’s worried about NATO on a bordering country, but he already has that.  The whole conflict is senseless.

Think about it.  Putin will win even if he loses in Ukraine.  Russia is not going anywhere, and certainly not because of Ukraine.  The only thing which will change in this whole conflict is the text on a map.  That’s it.  Ukraine, even if they prevail against Putin, will spend the next 50 years rebuilding their country.  It’s not like they’re going to become a super power.  Not today, not tomorrow, and not ever.  If Zelenskyy would just let Putin have what he wants, at least Russia would be on the hook for the rebuilding tab.  If Ukraine prevails, they’ll just look to the west to bail their asses out (at how many more trillions of dollars???).  It makes no sense.  Oh wait…but then Zelenskyy won’t be in power…he can’t have that.  That’s all this is about.

So, in direct answer to your question, this whole conflict is morally wrong.  Putin for invading, and Zelenskyy for trying to prevent it.

I agree with you about Putin and his motives. But you say Ukraine is in it for money and weapons, and Zelenskyy is in it for power. This I would dispute. 

Most importantly I would dispute your suggestion that Ukraine and Zelenskyy are in this war by choice. They were invaded and are defending. Ukraine did not start this war. It would much rather not be in this war. The same goes for Zelenskyy.

Why do you think Zelenskyy is "crazy"? He seems to be acting like any leader would when their country is invaded.

If Zelenskyy would just let Putin have what he wants,

As Ukraine's leader, you would give Putin what he wants? That would be the end of your country. Imagine if America was invaded by a hostile foreign power. Would you just give them what they want, then, to save money? After all, any rebuilding would then be on their dime. I think when you imagine your own country being invaded, you probably have a sense that there is more at stake than just money. The same is true for Ukraine.

Even if Ukraine started the war, your point about them being in it for the money makes no sense. Ukraine's post-war economy is obviously going to be a whole lot worse than their pre-war economy. This war is costly for both sides, but especially so for the defender. You yourself said they will spend 50 years rebuilding. If anyone is making money here it's weapons producers (the American MIC comes to mind).

[TokenLiberal]

I require more information, starting with the word morality.  Morals are standards or principles derived from different sources that span entire human cultures and don't necessarily correspond or agree. Whose morals are we to adopt for discussion?

I'm asking for your judgment so... your morals. If yours are different from mine, further discussion will reveal that.

I wouldn't want this thread to go off the deep end into the abyss, or off on some crusade, or turn into a Rah-Rah Assembly put on by the Glee Club. Maybe a more specific question could help "nip it in the bud" so-to-speak.

My goal here is to understand why people would think it's morally right, and get to the bottom of why we are divided about it. Because it seems to me a very easy question: Russia imperialistically invaded a sovereign country. It's in the wrong, unequivocally.

[NobodySpecial268]

You're allowed to bring up whatever you want.

Oh good, history is always important when examining positions.

The thread's opening remark is:

Is Putin's invasion of Ukraine morally right?

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

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.

So you think Putin is acting in self-defense? Is that an accurate summary of your position?

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.

What Were the Minsk Agreements?

In February 2014, the democratically elected government of Ukraine was toppled by the so-called Euromaidan coup backed by western powers. The coup sparked a bloody conflict in the country's eastern regions where people who refused to bow down to the new Kiev leadership formed the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR, respectively) and proclaimed their independence.

Attempts by Kiev to quickly bring the newly formed republics to heel via the use of military power failed. The hastily formed DPR and LPR militias, armed with whatever weaponry they could scrounge from local armories, managed to hold their ground against the onslaught of the forces loyal to the new Ukrainian government.
Having failed to secure a decisive victory on the battlefield and with Russia and the European powers calling for a peaceful solution to the conflict, Kiev resorted to negotiations, which were hampered by the fact that the Ukrainian government was reluctant to talk directly with the leaders of the DPR and LPR.

Amid this delicate and precarious situation, the newly formed Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine comprised of Ukraine, Russia, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Normandy Format comprised of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France managed to work out what became known as the Minsk Agreements. They were named so because the talks were being held in the Belarussian capital of Minsk that served as a neutral ground.

Who Violated the Minsk Agreements?

Over the past five years, the Ukrainian side simply refrained from implementing political clauses of the Minsk Agreements, demanding instead that the control of the border between the DPR and LPR territories should be handed over to Kiev first.

These demands, however, were rejected by DPR and LPR authorities and by Moscow, who suspected that once Ukrainian forces got control of the border and effectively cut off the republics from the outside world, Kiev may then attempt to crush all opposition there through the force of arms.

The DPR and the LPR authorities, as well as Russia, have also repeatedly accused Kiev of illegally occupying settlements in the buffer zone and deploying heavy military equipment there.
The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that the European powers repeatedly turned a blind eye to Kiev's blatant refusal to adhere to the Minsk agreements, while at the same time constantly berating the DPR and LPR for the alleged violations of the very same accords.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recalled that both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko openly said that they were not going to implement the Minsk Accords.

The remarks came after Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned Ukrainian authorities for effectively killing the Minsk Agreements, stating in late February that the document stopped existing long before Russia decided to recognize the DPR and the LPR.

Putin signed a decree to recognize the Donbass republics – which later became a part of Russia - as independent states on February 21, 2022, in a move that came amid escalating shelling, sniper and sabotage attacks against the LPR and the DPR. The decree was followed by the Russian president announcing the beginning of a special military operation in Ukraine on February 24.

Source: Sputnik - The Minsk Agreements Explained

. . . and:

Germany is demanding that Russia guarantee Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but such a deal was previously signed, only to be “killed” by Berlin and Paris, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“When [German Chancellor] Olaf Scholz demands that Russia should be compelled to sign an agreement granting Ukraine guarantees of territorial integrity and sovereignty, all his attempts are in vain. There was already such a deal – the Minsk agreements – which was killed by Berlin and Paris. They were shielding Kiev, which openly refused to comply,” he wrote in an op-ed for the Russian newspaper Izvestia.

Russia, Germany and France brokered the 2015 Minsk agreements between Ukraine and Donbass, which were designed to put an end to hostilities. But according to Lavrov, Berlin and Paris failed to ensure Kiev’s compliance.

The Russian foreign minister noted that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko admitted the Minsk agreements meant nothing for Kiev, and Ukraine used them only to buy time.

“Our task was to stave off the threat... to buy time to restore economic growth and create powerful armed forces. This task was achieved. The Minsk Agreements have fulfilled their mission,” Poroshenko said in June.

Source: RussiaToday - Germany and France ‘killed’ Minsk agreements – Russia

As for the Istanbul Agreement, I will quote Sputnik:

. . . the security guarantees outlined in the Istanbul agreements for resolving the Ukraine conflict were "extremely serious," almost on par with Article 5 (principle of collective defense) of the North Atlantic Treaty. However, Kiev decided at the last moment to make "minor" amendments to the section dedicated to military exercises with foreign participation, which became a sign that someone might have prohibited the negotiations, Lavrov stressed.

Source: Sputnik - Lavrov's Insight Into Istanbul Deal: Glancing at Russia's Olive Branch Towards Ukraine

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.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I'm asking for your judgment so... your morals. If yours are different from mine, further discussion will reveal that.


My goal here is to understand why people would think it's morally right, and get to the bottom of why we are divided about it. Because it seems to me a very easy question: Russia imperialistically invaded a sovereign country. It's in the wrong, unequivocally.

Moral relativity isn't a given in your question, even though I believe it is in the big picture. You start from the point of a particular moral standard based on your perspective, and you qualify that with the word "unequivocally". I chose no sides and offer no judgments or absolutes, so please don't make the assumption that the following statements are my personal moral code.

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". 

If I were to do that, I could propose that Russia is justified to kill or enslave the males, rape the females, and take all resources including their land. In the end, there would be one surviving culture that would be the strongest and most worthy to procreate and increase in numbers until the next baddest M..... F..... comes around to kick their asses off the map.

I do hope you find a way to bridge the divide between the various moral high grounds, otherwise I fear your endeavor may only create more division.

[TokenLiberal]

Moral relativity isn't a given in your question, even though I believe it is in the big picture. You start from the point of a particular moral standard based on your perspective, and you qualify that with the word "unequivocally".

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.

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".

If I were to do that, I could propose that Russia is justified to kill or enslave the males, rape the females, and take all resources including their land. In the end, there would be one surviving culture that would be the strongest and most worthy to procreate and increase in numbers until the next baddest M..... F..... comes around to kick their asses off the map.

I do hope you find a way to bridge the divide between the various moral high grounds, otherwise I fear your endeavor may only create more division.

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