Russia has invaded Ukraine

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Don't be fooled, Putin is a facist and he does not care how many innocents he kills. He is evil by anyone's definition. It really is that simple.

So are those in Ukraine who trade in Children.

This is my whole point we are getting drummed into us Russia Bad Ukraine Good and it just is not as simple as that

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

So are those in Ukraine who trade in Children.

This is my whole point we are getting drummed into us Russia Bad Ukraine Good and it just is not as simple as that

My favourite piece of propaganda was the so-called “Ghost of Kyiv”, lapped up and regurgitated by western media and it turns out didn’t exist at all. A complete myth.

I think you’re definitely right to hold a healthy scepticism for western media lines - media who have demonstrated themselves to be effective state apparatus by peddling misinformation under the guise of “journalism”.

In the 1970s you’d have found many parroting the benefits of arming the mujahadeeen in Afghanistan. It’s no surprise given there’s no appetite for the spilling of western blood following the embarrassment of surrendering Afghanistan that the USA are now outsourcing it’s wars to unsavoury groups.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

So are those in Ukraine who trade in Children.

This is my whole point we are getting drummed into us Russia Bad Ukraine Good and it just is not as simple as that

It’s rarely helpful to talk in moral absolutes, however I’m not convinced that’s what we’re seeing happen here. There is much talk of innocent Ukraine and wicked Russia, but to infer these are absolute judgments on their societies is absurd.

Ukraine is a democratic country with a government and borders recognised by the UN and by the entire world, with the recent exception of Russia. It has the right to have its territorial integrity respected and its civilian population has the right to life, even in the event of enemy invasion. These are matters of international law to which Russia is a signatory. Yet Russia has invaded and is ravaging great swathes of the country with no regard for the civilian population.

Unless you’re prepared to stand up and say that Russia is God’s chosen instrument for the judgment of a wicked society, then pointing to Ukraine’s moral failings as an attempt to sound even handed in debate is equivocation of the worst kind.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

In fairness, we don’t care how many he kills either. That’s why we have taken the women and children over here and are leaving the men to be fodder in a proxy war with second hand weapons. The military industrial complex profits go up as NATO rearms itself replacing the weapons donated to Ukraine.

A harsh & cynical take. We (as in the UK populace) do care how many he kills. Also, we are not leaving the men behind, the Ukrainians decide who can leave and who has to stay.

The reasons behind the choice of weapons sent are complex: the risk of sending the latest tech is self-evident plus the training prereq for the more advanced weaponry is also a barrier.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s rarely helpful to talk in moral absolutes, however I’m not convinced that’s what we’re seeing happen here. There is much talk of innocent Ukraine and wicked Russia, but to infer these are absolute judgments on their societies is absurd.

Ukraine is a democratic country with a government and borders recognised by the UN and by the entire world, with the recent exception of Russia. It has the right to have its territorial integrity respected and its civilian population has the right to life, even in the event of enemy invasion. These are matters of international law to which Russia is a signatory. Yet Russia has invaded and is ravaging great swathes of the country with no regard for the civilian population.

Unless you’re prepared to stand up and say that Russia is God’s chosen instrument for the judgment of a wicked society, then pointing to Ukraine’s moral failings as an attempt to sound even handed in debate is equivocation of the worst kind.

You are incredibly judgemental for a man of your position Chris.

Ukraine had a democratic government that had alliances with Russia overthrown and replaced with a democratic government with alliances with the west and now the West are backing them against Russia. Funny that so you not think?

You only have to do a little search to see what has gone on in Ukraine people trafficking and child sex trafficking and the right wing aspects to see it is not as clean a nation as the West are making it out to be.

I am leaving God out of my discussions on the forum due to how you treated me last time Chris so please do not try to draw me into conversations on such matters

Originally Posted by jfman

My favourite piece of propaganda was the so-called “Ghost of Kyiv”, lapped up and regurgitated by western media and it turns out didn’t exist at all. A complete myth.

I think you’re definitely right to hold a healthy scepticism for western media lines - media who have demonstrated themselves to be effective state apparatus by peddling misinformation under the guise of “journalism”.

In the 1970s you’d have found many parroting the benefits of arming the mujahadeeen in Afghanistan. It’s no surprise given there’s no appetite for the spilling of western blood following the embarrassment of surrendering Afghanistan that the USA are now outsourcing it’s wars to unsavoury groups.

Actually I think a lot of the myths are being generated by Ukraine itself. Zelensky recognised quite early on that Western nations wouldn’t pour their weapons into the country just for them to be captured by Russia. Ukraine has fought an epic propaganda war to show itself worth betting on. Western media laps it up because that’s just what it does.

We live in a society conditioned by blockbuster sci fi and superhero films where it’s difficult for the masses to think in terms more complex than ‘hero’ and ‘villain’. That means we tend to extend the black-and-white judgment far further than we ought to. Ukrainians aren’t angels just because they’ve been invaded. The simple matter is that the rules-based international order that has held more-or-less steady since 1945 relies on countries not doing what Russia is doing right now. Coffee house debates over the relative moral standing of the two nations involved in this war shouldn’t be allowed to obfuscate that.

---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

You are incredibly judgemental for a man of your position Chris.

Ukraine had a democratic government that had alliances with Russia overthrown and replaced with a democratic government with alliances with the west and now the West are backing them against Russia. Funny that so you not think?

You only have to do a little search to see what has gone on in Ukraine people trafficking and child sex trafficking and the right wing aspects to see it is not as clean a nation as the West are making it out to be.

I am leaving God out of my discussions on the forum due to how you treated me last time Chris so please do not try to draw me into conversations on such matters

Jay … seriously, don’t post on a discussion forum if you don’t want your views challenged. Debate and wise judgment is healthy, but it also requires a willingness to be disagreed with. Jfman is about to disagree with me. That’s fine. Frustrating at times, but fine. This is just how it works.

As for sex trafficiking, well Russia isn’t the sex trafficking police so far as I’m aware. There are ways of dealing with such things; flattening Mariupol with artillery and raping women in Bucha after shooting their husbands in the head aren’t it.

The rights and wrongs of this war have nothing to to with the moral state of either country. Ukraine’s borders should be respected.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

May I ask you where you think believing things gets us anyway?

It gets us to the same place you think we're being led with propaganda. What information forms our understanding of the world is important as that's what leads us all to make the decisions we make.

Ultimately what you and I believe on this isn't important in the grand scheme of things but I am talking of the wider principle that when there are conflicting narratives of an event it isn't wrong to come to your own understanding of what is happening in the world. It's possible for example to believe Ukraine has far-right elements within it, no one is disputing that, but that has very little to do with the Russian invasion of a democratic nation.

I know I am allowed to believe what I will same as I am allowed to distrust anything I want also.

Yes? But you're posting on a forum so we're debating it.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Chris

Jay … seriously, don’t post on a discussion forum if you don’t want your views challenged. Debate and wise judgment is healthy, but it also requires a willingness to be disagreed with. Jfman is about to disagree with me. That’s fine. Frustrating at times, but fine. This is just how it works.

As for sex trafficiking, well Russia isn’t the sex trafficking police so far as I’m aware. There are ways of dealing with such things; flattening Mariupol with artillery and raping women in Bucha after shooting their husbands in the head aren’t it.

The rights and wrongs of this war have nothing to to with the moral state of either country. Ukraine’s borders should be respected.

Chris seriously where did I say anything about not challenging my views. I simply asked you not to try and draw me into religious discussions as I do not wish to discuss such matters with you after last time.

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

It gets us to the same place you think we're being led with propaganda. What information forms our understanding of the world is important as that's what leads us all to make the decisions we make.

Ultimately what you and I believe on this isn't important in the grand scheme of things but I am talking of the wider principle that when there are conflicting narratives of an event it isn't wrong to come to your own understanding of what is happening in the world. It's possible for example to believe Ukraine has far-right elements within it, no one is disputing that, but that has very little to do with the Russian invasion of a democratic nation.



Yes? But you're posting on a forum so we're debating it.

TBH I know I have no influence on what goes on in the grand scheme of things so am quite happy to go on oblivious to most things and just get on with my life. Works pretty well for me. TBH if it was not for the tech side of things and the entertainment section of this forum I would not be posting on here at all and to be quite honest I wish I could go back and not have posted what I did about the 2 sides the other day

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually I think a lot of the myths are being generated by Ukraine itself. Zelensky recognised quite early on that Western nations wouldn’t pour their weapons into the country just for them to be captured by Russia. Ukraine has fought an epic propaganda war to show itself worth betting on. Western media laps it up because that’s just what it does.

We live in a society conditioned by blockbuster sci fi and superhero films where it’s difficult for the masses to think in terms more complex than ‘hero’ and ‘villain’. That means we tend to extend the black-and-white judgment far further than we ought to. Ukrainians aren’t angels just because they’ve been invaded. The simple matter is that the rules-based international order that has held more-or-less steady since 1945 relies on countries not doing what Russia is doing right now. Coffee house debates over the relative moral standing of the two nations involved in this war shouldn’t be allowed to obfuscate that.

---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ----------



Jay … seriously, don’t post on a discussion forum if you don’t want your views challenged. Debate and wise judgment is healthy, but it also requires a willingness to be disagreed with. Jfman is about to disagree with me. That’s fine. Frustrating at times, but fine. This is just how it works.

As for sex trafficiking, well Russia isn’t the sex trafficking police so far as I’m aware. There are ways of dealing with such things; flattening Mariupol with artillery and raping women in Bucha after shooting their husbands in the head aren’t it.

The rights and wrongs of this war have nothing to to with the moral state of either country. Ukraine’s borders should be respected.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Chris

The rights and wrongs of this war have nothing to to with the moral state of either country. Ukraine’s borders should be respected.

Cough cough Iraq

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually I think a lot of the myths are being generated by Ukraine itself. Zelensky recognised quite early on that Western nations wouldn’t pour their weapons into the country just for them to be captured by Russia. Ukraine has fought an epic propaganda war to show itself worth betting on. Western media laps it up because that’s just what it does.

We live in a society conditioned by blockbuster sci fi and superhero films where it’s difficult for the masses to think in terms more complex than ‘hero’ and ‘villain’. That means we tend to extend the black-and-white judgment far further than we ought to. Ukrainians aren’t angels just because they’ve been invaded. The simple matter is that the rules-based international order that has held more-or-less steady since 1945 relies on countries not doing what Russia is doing right now. Coffee house debates over the relative moral standing of the two nations involved in this war shouldn’t be allowed to obfuscate that.

The origin of the myths are irrelevant if the Western media is complicit in spreading them. You pass this off as “just what it does” as if it’s an innocent bypasser when throughout history Western media is often complicit with Western governments in pushing comfortable narratives and wartime agendas as the basis for intervention.

This case is no different.

The rules based international order doesn’t count for much if the rules only apply to those who aren’t allied to the United States position, and it’s absolute hypocrisy to pretend it should. Tab it up on the agenda for the coffee houses because it’s entirely hypothetical.

In the real world the United States and it’s allies have acted with impunity throughout the world, intervening in civil wars, toppling democratically elected governments and manufacturing evidence along the way so long as it suits it’s own economic ends. The failures of the last couple of decades have emboldened Russia, and likely China. But to fall back on a self-righteous narrative of being the good guys and asking everyone to play nicely under a pretence of meaningful international law isn’t going to work.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Chris seriously where did I say anything about not challenging my views. I simply asked you not to try and draw me into religious discussions as I do not wish to discuss such matters with you after last time.

Here:

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

You are incredibly judgemental for a man of your position Chris.

You’re trying to get me to stop challenging you by accusing me of being ‘judgmental’, which, let’s face it, is an attempt to appeal to the Bible and therefore hard to understand if you really don’t want to open a religious dimension to this discussion.

We all make judgments every day about all sorts of things. Not being judgmental in a Biblical sense has a particular meaning and application. Telling someone on a discussion forum you think they’re wrong about something probably isn’t it.

---------- Post added at 11:24 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

In the real world the United States and it’s allies have acted with impunity throughout the world, intervening in civil wars, toppling democratically elected governments and manufacturing evidence along the way so long as it suits it’s own economic ends. The failures of the last couple of decades have emboldened Russia, and likely China. But to fall back on a self-righteous narrative of being the good guys and asking everyone to play nicely under a pretence of meaningful international law isn’t going to work.

A fair comment, and our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan must be seen as part of the overall backdrop to this. When history is written I expect they will be.

Nevertheless, whataboutery won’t get us anywhere while the war is raging in Ukraine. Russia’s sense of emboldenment does not mean Ukraine should submit, nor does it mean Western nations should not support it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

whataboutery

I’m not sure how being consistently on the wrong side of history can be considered whataboutery as NATO sacrifice the young men of Ukraine fighting a proxy war.

As for getting us anywhere - unless someone has an active military role I'm unaware of - this is just noise on the internet.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure how being consistently on the wrong side of history can be considered whataboutery as NATO sacrifice the young men of Ukraine fighting a proxy war.

As for getting us anywhere - unless someone has an active military role I'm unaware of - this is just noise on the internet.

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.

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.

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?

[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.