[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s whataboutery if a past wrong is being used to justify or excuse a present wrong. Ukraine should not be invaded. That’s still international law regardless of anything that has happened before. Past wrongs may help explain and understand present wrongs but they do not justify them.

You’re ignoring points where the “past wrong” was being portrayed as the “past right”. This requires us to trust our governments who in the past have taken the approach the ends justified the means and put out disinformation in the process to carry public opinion. But of course this time is always different because <insert reason>. It was forever thus.

I think you’re doing down the internet a bit though. As we live in a democracy, open spaces where we can discuss the things our government does in our name are a good thing, even if they’re open to abuse.

If you can point to a meaningful time any contributor of the CF Current Affairs section changed public policy (or even the mind of another member) I’d like to see it. That said I’m in no way criticising open discussion - I’m merely not under the illusion that any insight offered here is meaningful in the long run or will get “us” anywhere. It’d be delusions of grandeur in the extreme to believe that.

As for the motivations of Western governments in supporting Ukraine, well sure, it’s awfully convenient for them to see Russia’s entire army being gradually blown to pieces in the Donbas. It’s likewise convenient for them to see how their equipment, and Russia’s, behaves in the field. This might just be the biggest alliance of convenience in history. But even if it is, does Ukraine have the right to repel an invasion and live securely within its borders, or does it not?

No more and no less than the rights of people in the disputed areas to have self-determination without interference from Kyiv or NATO. This is the classic western dilemma - it supports the rights of some people but not others on the basis of it’s own interests.