re: The US overthrew the Yukanovych government in 2014

quote:

---

. They have different “facts”

---

quote:

---

If you believe someone is about to murder your family is it logical and moral to kill them?

---

That depends on what the actual facts are and which of those facts you know for certain.

But that's a silly exercise as I clearly stated above that morality is the only ambiguous factor.

quote:

---

I’m simply saying you have to understand their perspective to understand their actions.

---

And I'm saying their perspective is ancient, barbaric, illogical, illegal, and possibly insane.

To use your morality question above: does a person experiencing a schizophrenic episode, who perceives my family is about to kill him, have the moral standing to kill them? No. Would his actions be logical? No.

This whole "muh perception" meme is a sockpuppet on the level of "I'm just asking questions". It allows people to, at best, straddle the fence and say "I don't agree with Putin, but you have to understand that it's possible for this behavior to be OK, and I totally don't believe any of this stuff...but I'll still use my time and energy to explain it 20 times a day to random people."

quote:

---

By conquered, I’m assuming that you mean absorbed into Russia

---

Yeah that's what "Conquer" means

quote:

---

or controlled via a puppet government.

---

That's a bit more grey.

quote:

---

given the history of the region, it is quite logical.

---

When has NATO ever attacked Russian soil?

quote:

---

That article, again, doesn't address the current government and the Russian response.

---

oh, cant read, huh

quote:

---

Well I'm not a neocon

---

Define the term as you think it applies to my hypothetical scenario.

I personally, would be proactive. I would apply diplomatic measures. And if that didn’t work, I would use coercion (economic sanctions etc.).

Lastly, I would nut up and do what needs to be done.

Just my .02.

quote:

---

An Article 5 invocation doesn’t require the aggressor state to physically border the victim state.

Al-Queda attacked the US and, by any reasonable estimation, Al-Queda was a paramilitary arm of the Taliban that harbored them.

The US was attacked by another state, which is basically all you need to trigger a NATO response.

I don’t see what’s so hard to get about this.

---

None of that even matters. NATO going into Afghanistan was at the request of the UN, which had full UNSC support, which included Russia and China. This "Afghanistan" canard is less relevant than the 2014 coup in Ukraine.

quote:

---

This whole "muh perception" meme is a sockpuppet on the level of "I'm just asking questions". It allows people to, at best, straddle the fence and say "I don't agree with Putin, but you have to understand that it's possible for this behavior to be OK, and I totally don't believe any of this stuff...but I'll still use my time and energy to explain it 20 times a day to random people."

---

You still don’t get it.

You are trying to be judge, jury, and executioner. You are trying to act like some superior moral power that can judge right and wrong.

That’s great. I’m strictly talking from a standpoint of avoiding word war 3.

We can use your approach and know that we did “the right thing” while we all sit in nuclear ash, or we can understand that other sides in a conflict have different perspectives and respect them. We don’t have to let Putin run wild but we do have to understand what will provoke him to action.

quote:

---

Define the term as you think it applies to my hypothetical scenario.

---

Saying you get to invade other countries for "national interest" is literally the neocon playbook

"National interests" or "national security" is the "Racism" of the neocons

quote:

---

You are trying to be judge, jury, and executioner.

---

Well...yes.

quote:

---

You are trying to act like some superior moral power that can judge right and wrong.

---

Again...yes.

quote:

---

I’m strictly talking from a standpoint of avoiding word war 3.

---

I'm not arguing for US intervention in Ukraine, but, if this escalates, it's 100% on Russia. There is no grey area.

quote:

---

We can use your approach and know that we did “the right thing” while we all sit in nuclear ash,

---

What are you talking about?

quote:

---

or we can understand that other sides in a conflict have different perspectives and respect them.

---

frick respecting a totalitarian barbarian who may be losing his mind. Seriously. frick that.

I don't respect the perspective of Jihadists or Communists, either.

Some behaviors/mentalities are so immoral/toxic and dangerous that they have no place in a civilized society and no respect should be given.

quote:

---

what does 2014 have to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022?

---

Everything.

The 2014 coup removed a government that had declared its intent to join the Eurasian Economic Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan for one that had declared its intent on joining the EU instead. This would put Russia's only warm water port in EU and potentially NATO control. This threat to a major strategic asset was unacceptable to Putin.

Crimea has not historically been a part of Ukraine, and was only transferred by Khrushchev in 1954. In 2014 Putin effectively reversed that transaction as the politics of the region had clearly changed since 1954, and re-took control of the port at Sevastopol as well as the entire peninsula.

Crimea gets its freshwater supply from the Dnieper River via the North Crimean Canal. After the 2014 coup, and the seizure of Crimea by the Russians, Ukraine severely restricted the amount of water Crimea received ostensibly for Russia being in arrears on charges for the water. That year crops in Crimea failed.

During 2015 and 2016 Russia invested in upgrading the farming practices and sought alternate water sources in Crimea. But then in 2016 Putin had a stroke of luck when one of his business associates became president of the United States. As long as Trump was President, Ukraine would not join NATO.

However, once Trump was ousted and Biden installed, Putin saw Ukraine's old buddies from the Obama administration back in charge. This didn't bode well for Ukraine as a neutral interest, and the potential to have Crimea cut off again, this time by a NATO power was again completely unacceptable to the Kremlin.

As far as the current Ukrainian government being "legitimate", we can't even agree that our own government is legitimate, how can we judge those on the other side of the planet? Can we say that the elections of 2019 were fair and representative? I can't.

I truly believe this whole thing is about securing strategic assets in Crimea, and developing economic assets in Ukraine. For years Russia profited from the corruption in Ukraine, suddenly it was the West who was profiting from it.

To appeal to some sense of 'morality' or 'legality' is naïve and totally misses the mark. It's practical. The international community doesn't operate on universal laws or morals, it's gangsterism, pure and simple. That's a system that Putin can understand.

quote:

---

You keep saying this like it matters.

---

The current regime is the one being invaded on 2/27/22, so yes it matters on 2/27/22.

quote:

---

All that matters to Putin is that the regime is willing to join NATO and we are willing to allow it.

---

This speaks more about Putin than any other actor in this situation.

As stated earlier, if Putin is scared of a country gaining status where NATO would only respond if he invaded that country, then the problem is on Putin's side of the aisle.

This makes his invasion even more immoral and illegal.