Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Triceron]

Who determines this. Almost the entire USA was "OWNED" by another country or group. Like I said before almost EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY was "owned" by another country or group in it's history. Who is the rightful owner?

That is why there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely a difference of beliefs between different parties.

Like the whole Israel debate. There is no 'Right' answer on who actually holds claim to the territory. Both sides have their own legitimate reasons to hold claim to their land. Neither side's beliefs are inherently considered Right or Wrong.

Any attempt at determining a right or wrong answer involves applying subjective bias; such as expressing an opinion.


This is like answering which religion is the Right Abrahamic One God belief system? Christianity, Judaism or Muslim faith? There is no Right or Wrong answer here. The answer is no one universally determines this. It can only be discussed in the realm of subjective opinion, and subjectivity does not dictate what is universally Right or Wrong, only expressing a certain perception of it being right or wrong.

[Gigantique]

And yet he says:

"I wouldn't boil it down to either side being right or wrong. It's not a simple binary situation where there is a legitimate right or wrong answer."

If he keeps saying that "none of this makes it justifiable", then wtf is he trying to argue here?

That's on whether those territories are more Russian than Ukraine on a cultural/ideological level which is fair. Anyone is free to think whatever they think that culture "is" as long as they still respect that practically, until it secedes on its own merit democratically, it's currently Ukrainian.

Unfortunately Putler's thoughts on that directly translates into actual military action which is IN NO WAY OKAY.

I can argue that some territory on the border of Norway and Sweden should actually be part of Norway because the people there speak Norwegian blah blah blah and that's fair because it's not a binary yes/no when discussing culture etc. But that doesn't justify me rolling my own personal tank that I definitely have to personally make it part of Norway.

This invasion being in any way justifiable is a binary yes/no with anyone not answering a solid no being a garbage patch of a human being. Whether it's culturally or historically more Ukrainian than Russian is subjective, unfortunately Putler follows up his subjective opinion with actual military conflict to force the present world to it. Luckily he's terribly failing at it the little goblin.

[ghotihook]

That is why there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely a difference of beliefs between different parties.

Like the whole Israel debate. There is no 'Right' answer on who actually holds claim to the territory. Both sides have their own legitimate reasons to hold claim to their land. Neither side's beliefs are inherently considered Right or Wrong.

Bullshit, there absolutely is a wrong. If France says "we want half the USA back" and invades, they are wrong. There is ABSOLUTELY right and wrong in Ukraine. Most of the entire world has spoken.

[Relapses]

That is why there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely a difference of beliefs between different parties.

Like the whole Israel debate. There is no 'Right' answer on who actually holds claim to the territory. Both sides have their own legitimate reasons to hold claim to their land. Neither side's beliefs are inherently considered Right or Wrong.

Israel is an apartheid ethnostate. You're correct that there's no right and wrong there -- but only because there's right and "I support ethnic genocide."

[Triceron]

Bullshit, there absolutely is a wrong. If France says "we want half the USA back" and invades, they are wrong. There is ABSOLUTELY right and wrong in Ukraine. Most of the entire world has spoken.

You said it yourself - IF THEY INVADE. And yes, I have made many explanations to say Invasion is Wrong. It is action.

So there's absolutely two parts to what you're saying. If they invade, they are WRONG.

If France just says 'we want Half of the USA back' and does not invade, are they still wrong? I do not believe having that intent is not inherently wrong. If they want to do it through a peaceful means, then they can feel free to take that route. And the US does not have to abide to any of their claims or beliefs. It is a belief, not an action, not a mandate, not an invasion.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel is an apartheid ethnostate. You're correct that there's no right and wrong there -- but only because there's right and "I support ethnic genocide."

Those who have those beliefs would be wrong.

Let's not pretend all Palestinians who want their territory back also believe in genocide. That's a broad generalization that is quite dishonest.

The conflicts that happen may be happening between extremists, but there is still a larger part of that conversation happening outside of terrorism and extremist belief.

Extremist terrorist acts do not fully represent a broader national belief, they are acted upon it in an extreme way. Just like there Neonazis and White Supremists in North America, we should not confuse their beliefs and actions with broader national beliefs. For example, I think it's wrong to label any Republican as 'having Neonazi beliefs' as if they are all represented by extremist beliefs. It's a dishonest application.

[Jastall]

That is why there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely a difference of beliefs between different parties.

Like the whole Israel debate. There is no 'Right' answer on who actually holds claim to the territory. Both sides have their own legitimate reasons to hold claim to their land. Neither side's beliefs are inherently considered Right or Wrong.

Any attempt at determining a right or wrong answer involves applying subjective bias; such as expressing an opinion.


This is like answering which religion is the Right Abrahamic One God belief system? Christianity, Judaism or Muslim faith? There is no Right or Wrong answer here. The answer is no one universally determines this. It can only be discussed in the realm of subjective opinion, and subjectivity does not dictate what is universally Right or Wrong, only expressing a certain perception of it being right or wrong.

The right answer seems to be following what the Russians and Ukrainians had done since the 60's; Ukraine being its own territory with Crimea included. No one in the West, or Ukraine alone, made this decision, the leadership of Russia's predecessor State did. Much like both States made the decision that Ukraine would keep Crimea but grant Sevastopol itself back to Russia. Which only became a problem once Ukraine stopped licking Russia's boot.

And Sevastopol is all that matters here. Crimea itself only has value insofar as it being the place that allows easy access to Russia's only deep water port in the region, which they deem vital to their interests. Remove that and they absolutely wouldn't give a shit about it much like they don't give a shit about all the semi-contested territories around China and Mongolia because most of it is a pile of strategically worthless rocks and sand.

This is not an affair of principles. It's an affair of strategy and power projection.

[Relapses]

Those who have those beliefs would be wrong.

Let's not pretend all Palestinians who want their territory back also believe in genocide. That's a broad generalization that is quite dishonest.

The conflicts that happen may be happening between extremists, but there is still a larger part of that conversation happening outside of terrorism and extremist belief.

Last I checked, US and Canada still has Neo Nazis. Should we count them towards representing national belief as a whole?

Israel's genocide isn't extremist. It's state-sponsored and funded by American taxpayers because we value the tactical benefits of a "strategic ally" in the middle east over the condemnation of human rights violations. (Oh, and it's anti-Semitic to even imply they don't have a right to do what they're doing.) By turning a blind eye to it, you're letting them continue doing what they're doing.

[Gabriel]

That a belief does not need to be acted on, and if it is acted on then the 'right' or 'wrong' needs to be attributed to the action, not the belief.

Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King shared the same core beliefs, but took different actions. Martin Luther King's actions were considered justified, Malcolm X's actions were considered dangerous and generally condemned. These are not problems with the beliefs themselves, but the actions that were taken.

Trotsky and Stalin shared the same core Communist beliefs, but took different actions. We all know what happened there. Yet it's not as simple as painting all of Communism as bad; it is generally the actions that were taken and the system being exploited in its name that was the core problem. There is nothing inherently 'evil' about communist belief, rather it's always been a problem of the actions that have been taken in its name.

Same can be said about Religious belief and all the horrible things taken up in its name. We can separate the belief from the atrocity. We simply don't do that with social paradigms, because there's still quite a large stigma being perpetuated for the sake of politics. It's easier to rally the people against a 'common enemy', and so it's continued to be used as a means of fear-mongering to unite the people. We're still living with Cold War beliefs, essentially.


If someone says 'Putin is wrong' implying any belief that Russia should have claim to historic parts of territory is inherently wrong, I would disagree on principle. People SHOULD be allowed freedom to believe that if they want, but they shouldn't be using violence to obtain that goal. Sometimes the belief may not be realistically plausible, but it doesn't make the belief itself wrong. In this case, it is not an inherently dangerous belief.

Even historically, we have seen some of these things handled peacefully. Reunification of Eastern and Western Germany. India regaining its independence from British rule. The ideal of 'wanting our territory back' is not inherrently evil.

- - - Updated - - -



The belief for having territory returned to 'its rightful owner' is not inherently wrong or evil.

The action to invade, kill and destroy is. Invasion is not belief, it is action. Putin does not outwardly ever talk about his belief in invasions, he simply acts on it. And that is where I will say he is wrong.

But to simply say 'Putin is wrong' implying that his beliefs are also wrong, should be distinguished separately.



It is his actions that are wrong.

You wouldn't say Gandhi's beliefs were wrong for wanting his country/territory back, would you? What is right and wrong is the actions taken by the individuals. Not the core beliefs that are stated. The belief of wanting territory returned is not inherrently dangerous.

I don't think I'm making an egregious statement by merely pointing this out, and I think we should reach common ground here if you'd actually read what my argument is about, rather than holding on to a belief that I am some kind of blind Putin sympathizer. I am talking about separating Action from Belief.

"Beliefs can't be judged right or wrong" is the most retarded take I've seen all year.

[Triceron]

The right answer seems to be following what the Russians and Ukrainians had done since the 60's; Ukraine being its own territory with Crimea included. No one in the West, or Ukraine alone, made this decision, the leadership of Russia's predecessor State did.

But that's a social political 'Right' in the eyes of that particular perspective. It is not a 'right' answer, it is merely causal to the agreements that were made at that time, between the leaderships at that time. It is not a universal application of belief.

As I continue to say, there is no right answer, there should be no right answer. It is a matter of different perspectives and beliefs on the matter, that is all.

How we should recognize this as being universally right? We shouldn't. We should recognize the situation is complex beyond a simple right or wrong answer.

- - - Updated - - -

"Beliefs can't be judged right or wrong" is the most retarded take I've seen all year.

I never said beliefs can't be judged.

I'm making the point that the ones being talked about the core beliefs are not inherently wrong, it is the actions being taken in its name.

[The Stormbringer]

Btw, has anyone noticed that this thread doesn't appear in Politics anymore? I only ever see it via Gen-OT and the most recent thread posted in the Politics sub-forum, but if I go into the Politics sub-forum, this thread doesn't exist...? I just have to click on this thread directly from Gen-OT if it's up as the latest Politics thread.

[Gabriel]

Then which is the right religion?

Not being able to discern which one is the right doesn't mean that you can't discern which is wrong, moron.

If I held a belief that all Russians should be glassed with nukes, would you say my belief is valid?

[Jastall]

But that's a social political 'Right' in the eyes of that particular perspective. It is not a 'right' answer, it is merely causal to the agreements that were made at that time, between the leaderships at that time. It is not a universal application of belief.

As I continue to say, there is no right answer, there should be no right answer. It is a matter of different perspectives and beliefs on the matter, that is all.

How we should recognize this as being universally right? We shouldn't. We should recognize the situation is complex beyond a simple right or wrong answer.

- - - Updated - - -



Then which is the right religion?

Well then if there's no right answer, I suppose America belongs to the British because it used to. And surely you can find some people in Britain who actually believe that, thus America being a sovereign State rather than a colony is not a "universal application of belief" and everyone should just accept that nothing is true and everything is permitted.

This isn't wisdom, it's trite contrarianism.

[Triceron]

Israel's genocide isn't extremist. It's state-sponsored and funded by American taxpayers because we value the tactical benefits of a "strategic ally" in the middle east over the condemnation of human rights violations. (Oh, and it's anti-Semitic to even imply they don't have a right to do what they're doing.) By turning a blind eye to it, you're letting them continue doing what they're doing.

I never said they didn't have a right to defend themselves either. But what you're talking about is also a different matter stemming from a different set of beliefs.

What you're still talking about is cultural/actual genocide, not merely core beliefs in territory that is currently in dispute. I'm not interested in having the goalpost shifted.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then if there's no right answer, I suppose America belongs to the British because it used to. And surely you can find some people in Britain who actually believe that, thus America being a sovereign State rather than a colony is not a "universal application of belief" and everyone should just accept that nothing is true and everything is permitted.

This isn't wisdom, it's trite contrarianism.

So you're going to ignore the Native Americans who held claim to the territory before the British too?

Again, it's not a simple matter of 'Right', because your example of British rule isn't 'Right' either. If I am saying there is no right and wrong and you're twisting that to say 'Well that means you're saying British rule was Right' then you missed the whole fucking point didn't you?

Native Americans, British Imperialsts and American Colonists have all laid claim to US at one point in time or another. There is no singular right answer as to who has absolute 'rightful' ownership of the land, because it is ultimately subjectively defined. The only thing outside of that is international recognition; which is still a wavy definition considering it is also prone to social biases, and is in the end also subjectively defined. Like whether Taiwan is an actual country, or a state, is still highly debated even today. There is no 'Right' answer.

Well then if there's no right answer, I suppose America belongs to the British because it used to

If there's no right answer then you shouldn't be supposing any right answer, smart guy.

[Kallisto]

Btw, has anyone noticed that this thread doesn't appear in Politics anymore? I only ever see it via Gen-OT and the most recent thread posted in the Politics sub-forum, but if I go into the Politics sub-forum, this thread doesn't exist...? I just have to click on this thread directly from Gen-OT if it's up as the latest Politics thread.

You might need to check to see if you're having issues with the forums as a whole. I'm still seeing it in the Politics sub forum.

[Relapses]

I never said they didn't have a right to defend themselves either. But what you're talking about is also a different matter stemming from a different set of beliefs.

What you're still talking about is cultural/actual genocide, not merely core beliefs in territory that is currently in dispute. I'm not interested in having the goalpost shifted.

...uh, what? I've read this post a couple times and I really don't know what you're trying to say here. At best, you're tacitly fine with genocide and at worst you want to ignore the genocide part so you can make an argument for whether the beliefs which excuse genocide are moral...? I think? I don't know. I really don't want to engage much more in this because you seem woefully out-of-touch and want to debate some weird form of enlightened centrism you've developed instead of what's actually happening in these countries.

[Saradain]

Btw, has anyone noticed that this thread doesn't appear in Politics anymore? I only ever see it via Gen-OT and the most recent thread posted in the Politics sub-forum, but if I go into the Politics sub-forum, this thread doesn't exist...? I just have to click on this thread directly from Gen-OT if it's up as the latest Politics thread.

Appears just fine for me. Unless you put Yuppie to ignore.

[Triceron]

...uh, what? I've read this post a couple times and I really don't know what you're trying to say here. At best, you're tacitly fine with genocide and at worst you want to ignore the genocide part so you can make an argument for whether the beliefs which excuse genocide are moral...? I think? I don't know. I really don't want to engage much more in this because you seem woefully out-of-touch and want to debate some weird form enlightened centrism you've developed instead of what's actually happening in these countries.

Genocide is acted upon, not inherent in beliefs of territorial belief that I'm discussing here. I'm talking territory disputes, and using Israel/Palestine as an example of such. Yes, there is more nuance to those conflicts, which involve religious extremism and potential cultural/actual genocide, but that's not what I'm talking about when I used the example. If this is the point of contention and confusion, then I will merely say it is a 'bad example for lack of examples specific to the Ukraine/Russia conflict'.

I have also made an example that there are those who believe Taiwan belongs to China. Their belief is in the territory and unification of the people. That inherent belief does not equate to 'genocide', it would have to be acted upon. Same can be said of those who wanted India to regain its independence, and there was certainly high tension that involved riots and violent action during that time.

[Shadowferal]

Kremlin insiders are baffled over why Prigozhin was flying around Russia after his failed uprising: 'He's not a fool'

[Jastall]

So you're going to ignore the Native Americans who held claim to the territory before the British too?

Again, it's not a simple matter of 'Right', because your example of British rule isn't 'Right' either. If I am saying there is no right and wrong and you're twisting that to say 'Well that means you're saying British rule was Right' then you missed the whole fucking point didn't you?



If there's no right answer then you shouldn't be supposing any right answer, smart guy.

It belongs to the Natives and the British and the French and bits of it belong to the Spanish as well or perhaps the Mexicans, who also perhaps belong to the Spanish now that one thinks of it. Of course it also belongs to the Americans, since there's no right or wrong and everything is both true and false and it's all just perspective and a sovereign nation's territorial integrity doesn't matter.

Or maybe this is a completely useless argument that I dismissed because the actual causes of the invasion are practical, and not moral at all. But who knows, after all there's no right or wrong.

[Kaleredar]

Well, obviously you and everyone else here does, because his actions are a result of what he's (projected as) thinking what Ukraine is.

The whole reason anyone is in this thread is because of his thoughts being manifested. We all care about his thoughts, because his thoughts become actions, and his actions are dangerous.

And Hitler thought that the Jews were a subhuman race that deserved to be eliminated. “Why” he thought that doesn’t change a single iota about why the holocaust was an atrocity. His belief that the aryans were the superior race does not “justify” his invasion of Europe. The holocaust was wrong and invading Europe was wrong. Why Hitler did it is immaterial to those things being wrong.

And personally no, I don’t care about why Putin thinks anything. He is an invader, plain and simple, who deserves to be beaten back and have his country reminded of its proper place in the world.