Ask HN: How to argue that the invasion of Ukraine is wrong in an absolute sense?
Given that most countries have benefitted from war, how could one argue that the invasion of Ukraine is wrong in an absolute sense that most Russians would agree with?
"okay, all invasions are wrong"
"Wait if all invasions are wrong, then even border disputes are wrong, and so conflicts over territory are wrong"
"okay, conflict over state 'territory' is immoral"
"Wait wait wait, if you say that ALL state conflict over territory, then the violent enforcement of borders is wrong"
"okay, border enforcement is wrong"
"Now we're really off track: if enforcing borders is wrong then state control of lands is wrong, and states need to control lands and territory to enforce property"
"okay, the ownership of land is wrong"
"So you're saying that no one should get a piece of paper saying they own property? That charging rent and violently enforcing ownership is wrong? Gosh that would mean the whole state system was based on immoral feudal concepts, that it's a preservation of an oligarchy that has sin at its very core!!"
"okay."
So, you have a Democracy being overturned. You have death and degradation of human life. So much suffering and misery. So much destruction of property and materiel.
Clearly, it is wrong.
To top it off, the cause is so unjustifiable. This is all so that one Autocrat can fulfill his dream of being the person who restored the Russian Empire.
He has failed, already. There's no winning for him now, even if Ukraine falls, he can't hold it.
There will be no benefit from this war. If Russia wins, it will be isolated for a very long time bringing down its economic and human potential. If the war wouldn't be started both countries would have further developed successfully.
Now there will be millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, maybe more millions injured and maimed, destined to poverty and traumatized generation. There is nothing good that this war achieves.
Understand the Russian history, self and world view, reasons for their views, why they are concerned with NATO expansion, why they conduct their security as they do.
Ukraine is as much a justified defensive strike for them as it is an unjustified attack by most of the world. The public rationale are not the real rational and has been in the works for more than 10 years.
Ukraine is an independent nation that is not going to hurt any other country but only tries to improve the lives of their citizens.
Russia, or particularly Putin, has ambitions to force Ukraine to follow their lead. This was going to end and that's why Putin decided to attack. But his mental state that sees them as potential danger is wrong. It is a reality but still wrong.
We accept that people have different religious views. Is abortion completely wrong? Is it so difficult to see they have very different world views?
As for religious views – yes, it is wrong for one religion to attack another. Crusades are wrong, especially today.
Every country has more than 0 neo-nazis
fight on your own territory, fight on someone else's territory, the second won out but failed terribly and they were forced back into their own lands
Is this your real opinion?
I think it's interesting to discuss with people I disagree, because they may have a different point of view in some topics. I don't expect to reach an agreement in these topics that have a strong political and emotional charge, but I think it's worth having an honest discussion.
If this is not your opinion, the problem is that you may be misrepresenting their point of view. You many be holding a straw man so people takes turns to punch it. And the only takeaway is that anything can be misinterpreted if someone tries hard enough, that is hardly surprising.
Right now, I'm spending time gaining as many points of view as possible to gain understanding where I lack it. But it is obvious that there are many very different world views between the countries of the world and the generations of citizens in each.
Putin has stated he wants to reunite former Soviet states.
Ukraine becoming more democratic and wanting to join western systems like the EU and NATO make that impossible for Putin.
Putin cannot afford a large successful Slavic democracy to be a direct comparison to the authoritarian regime he’s built. If democracy and free markets succeed in Ukraine, no amount of Putin’s propaganda will protect him from long term instability and potential overthrow by the people that have been under Russia’s corrupt yolk for 30 years.
Assuming that Putin's statements are representative of the Russian people is clearly incorrect.
Invading another nation isn't "conducting security".
You can use your line of reasoning to justify any action however evil or wrong as long as the person taking it is giving a reason in the meantime.
OP: How to argue that invading Ukraine is wrong?
You: Here's what Putin and his supporters think.
Sure, he's made public statements about this, I don't get how they're relevant here given his position. Every tyrant and aggressor in history has had a bullshit excuse and a group of supporters. That doesn't make their position equally good to the people they're opposing - and that's what I thought you were saying with your previous comment.
The beliefs are due to propaganda. Most Russians have close ties to Ukraine and would never think of waging war for no reason.
A few people's political agenda is not good enough for a full scale war.
War has never resolved anything and American war expeditions are the textbook example to learn from. The resentment from war continues for generations. Ukrainian people and Russian people used to view themselves as closely related but after this war, they won't.
The second strongest is that Ukraine could never join NATO as long as it had a territorial dispute, so Russia had a cheap option to prevent that which was working just fine.
While I agree, this is a matter of perspective. Many Russians believe they are only killing bad guys. Once civilians take up arms, they become part of the bad group killing "our people" (to the Russians, a subset anyhow) It's more complex because they each have relatives in the other country, Russia is trending towards a North Korean like state, and that there are very different histories told between the east and west.
"He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, defines the past."
> I don't get the parallel with US/Afghanistan or why it's relevant here.
The terrorists killed innocents, then the US invaded a country, using the first as justification, then the US killed civilians, and in response civilians were "radicalized" and fought back.
It's meant more as an example where perspective defines who's innocent and "justified"
I mean some of the words are the same ("innocent", "invade"). That's about all the credit I can give to your analogy.
Also, the US invasion was not unprovoked. There was an attack on the US that killed thousands of civilians by someone in Afghanistan who was being sheltered by the defacto government of Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
an appealing defense for the Russians just as it was in Soviet days.
Putin goes on about what Russia wants and needs as if that's super-important and everyone should listen and really care and respect his words, while he totally ignores what Ukraine wants and needs, as if it doesn't exist except as a tool/resource for Russia. It's the way bullies, psychopaths and serial killers treat people.
Most people would like things in life, but realize other people are people too, and don't just treat them as resources to be exploited/abused/killed. People who treat others that are locked up, usually for a long time.