So who's still agitating for war?
The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
That blockade of course was an agressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be agressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule. (The UN is toothless.) If a country's leaders adhere to an unenforceable rule and insist on other countries doing the same, that will on average lead to more death and less prosperity for the world than if each country's leaders rationally pursues their country's interests IMO.
Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.
We did try to assassinate Castro several times, so not exactly.
> That blockade of course was an aggressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be aggressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule.
Practically speaking yes, but there are enough treaties in place at this point that if someone invades someone else they are at least breaking some of their own rules. Think of it like a credit system for countries, the more you break rules you laid down for yourself, the less credibility you have going forward. Decentralized global governance of sorts.
> Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.
I didn't intend to imply it wasn't complicated when you zoom out, but it is very un-complicated when you zoom in. The guy who throws the first punch is the aggressor. Sling words, make agreements, talk a big game, but the first one to violate the sovereignty of another government is indeed the aggressor.
Historically, this has never been true. Countless wars were started when the balance of power was threatened, even by such a small thing as marriage (can’t they marry “who they wish”?)
There's some set of [reason] the 'west' wants Ukraine to join NATO, and in theory, there's no issue with that right?.... but in reality, the consequences could be severe. It's silly to ignore the consequences when you've been informed upfront.
Most people wouldn't have any idea that it has anything to do with NATO, since the media is doing a wonderful job of misinforming. It's being pitched as 100% unprovoked aggression.
Oh wow, that's what I call thinking about the world as you wish the world were, rather than as the world actually is.
At the height of Soviet power, the USA were willing to fight enormous wars on the other side of the planet to stop a country voluntarily aligning with the USSR (dropping more bombs on it than all of WWII countries did combined, killing millions). They helped coups in countless countries and helped even genocidal regimes with the sole purpose of stopping USSR expansion, even when doing so was actually economically detrimental to themselves.
And the USA is far from alone in meddling with other countries' affairs. China, Russia, obviously, even not-so-big powers like Australia (ask New Guinea) and the UK (who loved doing that all over the world when it had the power to do so) will absolutely engage in whatever they can to make sure their interests are not compromised or even threatened.
The current actions are great marketing for NATO and for increased defense spending in Europe. For some time there was hope that Europe would be heading towards a peaceful time and it was harder to justify increases military expenses. This will change all that for a long time.
Russia is going to go to war with Ukraine if Ukraine does things Russia doesn't want them to do. And they told everyone they would ...
How is that not agitating for war?
>Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it.
Which one is it?
>The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
The massive troop build up along Ukraine's border and in Belarus?
You're spreading Russian propaganda.
You: I want do to X.
B: If you do X, I will do Y.
You can try to convince B not to do Y if you do X...
but if B is prepared to do Y, and is showing you he's prepared to do Y...
and you can't convince him not to...
then you have to consider, that if you continue trying to do X, that You are the one agitating.
"Keep me from taking your purse" and "shoot you" we condemn B as a mugger.
"Leave me and meet someone new" and "shoot both of you" and we condemn B as a domestic abuser and potential murderer.
"Return a library book late" and "charge you $0.10 a day as a fine" and we condemn A lightly.
I would contend Russia's current actions fall squarely in the first two examples.
A: I want to take your purse.
B: If you take my purse, I will kill you.
If A continues to try and take the purse, A is obviously the agitator.
A: I want to leave you.
B: If you leave, I will kill you.
We agree B is a monster here, and this is a police matter, not global politics.
Maybe we can create a better example...
A: Hey B I want to nail your cousin.
B: I will not allow that to happen. Bro I will ruin your world. Literally, armageddon. Don't do it.
If A continues trying to nail the cousin, clearly the agitator.. no?
And I like how the only example you can think of where the word "agitator" flows well is when someone is trying to stop two consenting adults from having sex. Because clearly the person B on your last example is an asshole who is wrong, and you're using "agitator" to just mean "willing to ignore overt threats"
I think your own weak example highlights how you know you're wrong on this issue.
B isn't trying to take something from A. A is trying to woo (something near B) and B is promising consequences.
It no longer has anything to do about who is right, or what is right... that black and white right and wrong are no longer relevant.
If B is willing to back up the claims, A has to seriously consider their choices.
It's pretty close to the same in my example with the cousin... It doesn't matter if B is an asshole or is wrong, what does that have to do with anything?
The funny thing is, I don't think I'm even taking a position on the actual argument... I just think there's so much narrative control that many aren't even capable of considering alternative explanations.
Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum where they committed to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.
While it seems to be fashionable to make excuses for a murderous dictator like Putin, Putin’s intentions are clear and include at the very least regime change in Ukraine to install a puppet regime.
If you call massing hundreds of thousands of troops at two borders, invading two parts of a country and staging massive war games at another puppet state nearby ‘zero evidence’, your denial of reality is chamberlainesque. I hope you accept you were deeply wrong about this if Russia does invade again.
The insane media drum beats are exactly like before Afghanistan and Iraq. It is so depressing how absolutely nothing has changed.
Do you still feel this way?
Putin. Putin is agitating for war.