Of course it has the right to defend itself. Unfortunately it hasn't been a country since the coup in 2014. It is in civil war. So which side is the real Ukraine?

[QUOTE=ownyaah,Nov 25 2022 05:14pm]You are too conservative, war is just another engine for change. The world shouldn't be some static thing, that would be against the dynamic nature of humans.

Only thing I say is that, politics are driven by inherent interests, and war is just an extension of diplomacy. To say Russians or US are inherently forbidden from acting in their perceived interests is a stupid concept. But the most stupid concept which is peddled around here 30 times a day, is boiling politics down to a discussion of selective morality, turning US with millions of kills in the last 25 years into the epitome of morality, and have it be given a monopoly on "end justifies the means". Discuss politics properly or don't do it at all, if you want to talk about your emotional feelings, you can do it with your mother[/QUOTE]

Not all change is good, especially if it involves killing each other over dubious reasons. I know the world isn’t all Kumbaya and shit, but one can be opposed to a blatant military aggression. You don’t get to dictate morality either or what constitutes political discussion for that matter. You can be opposed to this war without it being emotion-driven.

Sure there are separatists in Ukraine, but to use this as a justification to wage war on the entire country (yes it is still a country) makes no sense. If it’s a civil war let the people from the country decide instead of invading it to force a result.

Not all change is good, especially if it involves killing each other over dubious reasons. I know the world isn’t all Kumbaya and shit, but one can be opposed to a blatant military aggression. You don’t get to dictate morality either or what constitutes political discussion for that matter. You can be opposed to this war without it being emotion-driven.[/QUOTE]

I very clearly state "perceived-interests", this leaves leeway for times countries miscalculate (which they do), and even if correct interest the result might backfire (blowback etc). "blatant military aggression" is what essentially every nation is built by, and is a concept every nation has used to further/defend their interests.

Morality does not belong in a dicussion about geopolitics, the moment you do that everything falls apart (you won't understand shit, and every action will be seen as unlawful). But if you wanna have a go at moral-lense in geopolitics, feel free to bend yourself backwards explaining how a democracy like US mass-murdered millions 10000km away in 10+ different countries by 10+ different administrations.

So much for all that came before. You berate Meanwhile for changing the subject and it’s the first thing you do when you hit a wall and can’t think of an answer. All that with insults, top specimen really.

It is not a country. It is two countries fighting to be a country. This is a fact, and no political commentary or opinion of any nation changes that fact. Russia is justified in dealing with a Western created civil war on its borders.

Lets use your words against you then, why has US taken sides in "civil wars" instead of letting them decide? (YPG, KRG, Serbia, Libya)

Or better yet, why did they coup democratic countries (such as Mosaddegh )

Lemme also answer for you, you are a selective moralist dog only capable of producing State-TV-propaganda.

I never berated meanwhile for "changing" subject, or drawing parrarells. The only reason I berate him is because the guy thinks the world is similar to the marvel universe. His understanding of the world is that there is an inherently "good side", and an inherently "evil side", and that the conflicts of the world boil down to Satan controlling the evil side.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 25 2022 04:42pm

Being opposed to mass casualties is not just a question of morality, I think that’s a pretty simple concept to understand why that would be a problem in the long term. Once again you’re the one bringing the aspect of morality into this and my answer stays the same, the US weren’t justified in starting wars in the Middle East either. It led to instability and more problems in the end for everyone involved except those making bank from war. I’m not going to explain how it’s okay, I don’t think it is.

US was justified, in the same sense that Russia is justified. If the results are positive or not to actual inherent results, is another discussion.

If we gonna base "evil" on a methodology of total civilians killed, Russia hasn't even killed 20.000 civilians yet whilst US has probably stacked a few million bodies.

Personally i don't view politics through such a childish point of view. The conflicts in the world are far more grey in nature, and all stem from a world where resources are limited.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 25 2022 04:45pm