Jump to content

Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Fell asleep around two am, woke up at five. And my Twitter feed is pretty hot right now. Going to be intense pressure on and questioning of world leaders today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Unfortunately, in the context of a terrible war, where life and death is the ultimate score, you fight with the weapons you have and morality takes a back seat. This was an attack directed an enemy. There are other methods often used in war more indiscriminate, and thus less moral. 

Yes, I accept that. I don’t expect the people in the war to moralize over their actions.

50 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So are you asking if killing in self defense is always morally wrong?

no, I’m not asking that either. I didn’t say anything about self-defense as a circumstance, I didn’t say what circumstances I thought made killing morally right or wrong (in fact I questioned if only these two categories are in existence), and I most certainly didn’t once use the word “always”. The only thing I say is that these are moral dilemmas that don’t have a straightforward and easy answer.

These are the kind of situations we would discuss in a philosophy or psychology class, which I had always been a sucker for so I can’t keep my mouth shut when such topic arises even though I absolutely should.  Because I suppose I must express myself particularly poorly and this thread is always incredibly emotionally heated. Which is no wonder. And it’s tragically sad that the ideas I used to enjoy learning about and discussing became the reality and everyday lives of people.

So perhaps it’s disrespectful or insensitive of me to theorize about decisions these people are forced to make and live with on an everyday basis. I can see and agree with that. But it’s not like I don’t empathize and sympathize with them, it’s not like I support the aggressor or condone its aggression. It just means that I don’t see the world in black and white and I think it’s a dangerous direction, as is the polarization we see today everyday everywhere. I believe in moderation, balance and 360 degree view, because I’m an incorrigible idealist who hates conflict in every way shape or form but loves to understand and analyze things. So I’m not the right person when hard and quick decisions/action or change is necessary. But it doesn’t make me a monster who has no sympathy for the suffering or stands with the dark side. And the fact that I feel the need to say this does not indicate only my character flaws, but also the point that we shouldn’t see the world in absolutes because only the sith do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

Yes, that is and has been precisely my point. It’s understandable, but whether it’s moral  should at least be up for a debate. A debate, that would include all the “if”s of the circumstances. I was not judging their actions from my comfy war-less home, I was judging our quick and simple judgements about their actions in our comfy war-less homes. 

The "if"s here are quite finite, aren't they? Let's say two, five or ten at most. Therefore insisting "we should consider "if"s" as if it was the answer, and then not considering them at all is just a self-comforting null position to take, no? It might be comfortable and feel deceptively insightful to say it, but it is just a convenient void of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, a free shadow said:

The "if"s here are quite finite, aren't they? Let's say two, five or ten at most. Therefore insisting "we should consider "if"s" as if it was the answer, and then not considering them at all is just a self-comforting null position to take, no? It might be comfortable and feel deceptively insightful to say it, but it is just a convenient void of words.

I mean… who said they weren’t finite? Who said that one shouldn’t pass judgment or make a decision once they looked at the circumstances? Or are you talking about me in particular? And miss my inspection of the circumstances of the particular case and then my judgment? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like the Bucha Massacre has moved the needle for foreign support. France and Israel, who have been lowballing criticism of Russia so far, have condemned the attack and it looks like Eastern European countries are now sending Russian-built tanks into Ukraine to replenish their forces. Dozens of T72s, at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

no, I’m not asking that either. I didn’t say anything about self-defense as a circumstance, I didn’t say what circumstances I thought made killing morally right or wrong (in fact I questioned if only these two categories are in existence), and I most certainly didn’t once use the word “always”. The only thing I say is that these are moral dilemmas that don’t have a straightforward and easy answer.

I would never blame you for feeling uncomfortable with any or all deaths in Ukraine.  The people who deserve no sympathy are far from Ukraine.

But looking at any part of war from a moral point of view is very difficult.  Every life lost is a tragedy but you can't blame Ukrainians for fighting back against every Russian solider on their land.  Rather than focusing on every tragedy, I just hope that civilian life can be spared as much as possible but it's not happening in Mariupol or Bucha or this...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60972180

The world should weep.

Putin (and his allies) can take responsibility for every Russian soldier that is killed, injured or poisoned.  I hope the lost lives can get justice some day but I fear not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

Yes, I accept that. I don’t expect the people in the war to moralize over their actions.

no, I’m not asking that either. I didn’t say anything about self-defense as a circumstance, I didn’t say what circumstances I thought made killing morally right or wrong (in fact I questioned if only these two categories are in existence), and I most certainly didn’t once use the word “always”. The only thing I say is that these are moral dilemmas that don’t have a straightforward and easy answer.

These are the kind of situations we would discuss in a philosophy or psychology class, which I had always been a sucker for so I can’t keep my mouth shut when such topic arises even though I absolutely should.  Because I suppose I must express myself particularly poorly and this thread is always incredibly emotionally heated. Which is no wonder. And it’s tragically sad that the ideas I used to enjoy learning about and discussing became the reality and everyday lives of people.

So perhaps it’s disrespectful or insensitive of me to theorize about decisions these people are forced to make and live with on an everyday basis. I can see and agree with that. But it’s not like I don’t empathize and sympathize with them, it’s not like I support the aggressor or condone its aggression. It just means that I don’t see the world in black and white and I think it’s a dangerous direction, as is the polarization we see today everyday everywhere. I believe in moderation, balance and 360 degree view, because I’m an incorrigible idealist who hates conflict in every way shape or form but loves to understand and analyze things. So I’m not the right person when hard and quick decisions/action or change is necessary. But it doesn’t make me a monster who has no sympathy for the suffering or stands with the dark side. And the fact that I feel the need to say this does not indicate only my character flaws, but also the point that we shouldn’t see the world in absolutes because only the sith do that. 

Snivelry. What do you think a Ukrainian, in Ukraine today, would say if you poo poo'ed their initiative to resist a foreign occupier from a land that has historically mass murdered their people on casual whims?

I weep, literally weep (sometimes, not every time), for the Russians who do not deserve to be hated and feared for the actions of their tyrant. Those men didn't ask to fight Ukraine. Basically none of them volunteered to do so, or volunteered at all. And they're still getting blowed up and shot to pieces and suffering at all moments here, though none of them will ever benefit personally from this horror.

But what you've done here is distilled an opportune action against a foreign oppressor into a flag on which to proclaim your ethical philosophy. You're a real hero. You should go to Ukraine and explain to these people the theories you came up with in class and in this thread. That you aren't condemning the poisoning, but that those dumb unenlightened Ukrainians haven't considered the morality of resistance and might want to take a few days to get online and educate themselves about the philosophical implications of using violence. You could save them from their own actions, which might save their physical flesh from the cruelties of the occupier but will corrupt the heart of goodness and friendlieship in all of Equestria!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

It’s quite understandable, likely legally permissible, as peace time law was overwritten by war, and it benefits their war effort. But is it moral? I don’t think that’s an obvious yes, it’s certainly a moral philosophy debate at least. If it’s not even a debate, that has very interesting implications for our society in countless aspects. 

I think it’s legitimate self-defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were I Ukrainian, I hope I would show the same courage that their soldiers and so many of their civilians have shown.

And I would have no qualms about killing Russian soldiers by any means at my disposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There are new migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border: Ukrainian refugees
A handwritten list offers a glimpse into those who have decided to leave Europe, hoping for new lives or temporary respite in North America"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/02/with-no-direct-pathways-united-states-hundreds-ukrainian-refugees-are-gathering-us-mexico-border/

Quote

 

By Saturday morning, the list had more than 1,200 names on it. Dozens more Ukrainians were arriving every hour. A van was shuttling them between the Tijuana airport and the tent where the yellow legal pad was kept.

“The list,” people began calling it in Tijuana, which required no elaboration.

The United States last month committed to accepting as many as 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, but it has yet to establish a way for them to arrive directly. There are no resettlement programs or visa pipelines. That has left Ukrainians in growing numbers to book flights to Mexico. They arrive at the U.S. border on foot, many pushing kids in strollers and dragging suitcases behind them.

On social media platforms and messaging apps, groups with thousands of members now explain the process in the Ukrainian language: From major European cities, fly to either Cancún or Mexico City. Ukrainians don’t need visas to enter the country. From there, take another flight to Tijuana.

A small encampment has sprouted about 1,000 feet from the U.S. border, where families are sleeping in tents and under tarps. It is the same tiny patch that has hosted refugees from around the world in recent years: Central Americans who were part of the caravans in 2018; Haitians and Cubans who arrived during the pandemic; Mexicans who fled a surge in violence this year.

But few refugees have arrived in Tijuana after such a circuitous trajectory of trains, buses and flights. And few are processed as quickly by U.S. authorities. Upon arriving at the border, Ukrainians are granted humanitarian parole for one year. ....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Just to note that there is serious political trouble brewing in Pakistan. PM Khan wants closer ties with the Russia-China bloc, whilst the opposition wants to maintain and strengthen its alliance with the USA. Khan looked like he was about to be removed from power by the national assembly, so it's been dissolved, apparently contrary to the law. The Pakistani Supreme Court is now poised to intervene. And you have to imagine the military is starting to look askance at the situation. This is all against a backdrop of increased tension in Pakistan-India relations (which are never calm anyway), and in particular widespread Pakistani concern over India's closer ties to Russia.

Interesting thing here is it the opposition to Khan appears to be..well, everybody.  Both dynastic parties - the right-leaning PML-N (Sharifs) and leftist PPP (Bhuttos) both want him out, as does the military who basically propped him up in the first place (as the inheritor of Musharraf's Third Way).  Chief of Staff Bajwa is on damage control:

Quote

Pushing back at Khan who has blamed the US both obliquely and directly for all his troubles, Pakistan Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, while calling for dialogue and diplomacy to resolve all outstanding issues including Kashmir with India, spoke of his country’s “long and excellent” strategic relationship with the US and, in the same breath, targeted Russia over its invasion of Ukraine saying “aggression against a smaller country cannot be condoned” – Khan was on a visit to Moscow when the invasion began.

Also should be noted Khan called for "peaceful protests" to try to stop the no confidence vote.  Sounds eerily familiar.  Anyway, I'd caution against linking this to Ukraine or much of anything else really.  Internal turmoil and/or constitutional crises is very routine throughout the entirety of Pakistan's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's time to apply maximum pressure on China. The die is cast.

China is probably gritting its teeth in the background over this as being a completely unnecessary act of brutality, but I think publicly will make no move away from Russia. China's own human rights record is not amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

China is probably gritting its teeth in the background over this as being a completely unnecessary act of brutality, but I think publicly will make no move away from Russia. China's own human rights record is not amazing.

I'll take "understatement of the century" for 200, Alex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

I mean… who said they weren’t finite? Who said that one shouldn’t pass judgment or make a decision once they looked at the circumstances? Or are you talking about me in particular? And miss my inspection of the circumstances of the particular case and then my judgment? 

Well, yes. I miss the point of repeating (at lenght) that we need to look at all the "if"s, without looking at all the "if"s. What is the point?

If you think somebody here rushed in their judgement of the situation, it is dishonest to hide behind platitudes, because honest argument would be to take a position, be ready to hear counterarguments and admit it in case you are wrong.

If it is meant to be an insight in itself that there is always more than one storyline in the story, I am surprised how this can be presented as an insight and not understood as a given.

Now it comes across as the rest of the faux-insightful lines really meant to misdirect the point, in line with "good people on both sides" and "won't you think about the children".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Werthead said:

China is probably gritting its teeth in the background over this as being a completely unnecessary act of brutality, but I think publicly will make no move away from Russia. China's own human rights record is not amazing.

China's human rights failure is not what's being discussed. They've been horrible for decades. This is nothing new. 

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Can’t see China or India changing their stance too much over this, the options for cheap oil and gas are too enticing 

So make it crushing to buy from Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, a free shadow said:

Now it comes across as the rest of the faux-insightful lines really meant to misdirect the point, in line with "good people on both sides" and "won't you think about the children".

To be fair to her, judging by her comment record here and other threads, I honestly don't believe that is what she meant or believes. Judging by comments here and other threads, she has profile of deep compassion and empathy, and struggles to be a just and good person.  Many of us operate by different metrics in judging these matters, and don't necessarily agree with hers. But she is a good person, neither racist nor in favor of mass murder no matter who is the victim, no matter who is the perpetrator.  Just one of the many terrible ways that war is terrible and destroys souls as well as bodies and the environment as well as our beloved homes. :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...