Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that it was “inevitable” that “war” would come to Russia after authorities there were forced to temporarily close a busy Moscow airport following an overnight drone attack on the capital.

  • darthfabulous42069
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How holding to the same standards is making an equivalency? By which definition?

    It’s pretty intrinsic that you can’t hold different things to the same standards. You don’t treat apples and bananas the same despite the fact that they are both fruit. Just like you don’t hold a bully and a victim to the same standards even though they’re both human.

    We judge people not based on what species they’re in but by the content of their character as displayed through their actions, and for good reason. This is why we do not hold Ukraine to the same standards we hold Russia toward, because they are playing fundamentally different roles, and that is what matters, not what species they’re in. Treating people differently based on their actions is by definition where someone’s humanity comes from. Where justice comes from. That’s what justice means. Not being born into homo sapiens sapiens. That’s reductive and overly simplistic.

    How, taking a single episode, there is no qualitative similarity?

    Because Russia is the invader and Ukraine is the victim.

    Yeah, indeed it is, but this doesn’t mean that a missile on a building is a missile on a building.

    Yes it actually does, because there is a mountain of detail, context, and consideration you’re purposefully leaving out to dishonestly frame Ukraine’s actions as a negative and the more you speak, the more it comes off as intentional on your part. War is war and it may not be pretty or palatable to you, but it is a fundamental part of not only the human experience but life in general, and those distinctions matter to us. That’s why people don’t bat an eye when a Russian airport is attacked by a drone but do when a Ukrainian city is leveled into dust.

    That’s what you’re missing – we judge the morality of situations based on actions and on the context of those actions, among many other factors. We don’t judge them solely by an arbitrary set of commandments with no real connection with or basis in the reality of a situation devoid of context or meaning. That’s just not how life works.

    I repeat that this is a false reasoning.

    I repeat that it is perfectly valid and in keeping with the reality of what we have witnessed over the past year and a half.

    If Ukraine tomorrow started dissecting children it would be up to you to demonstrate that this is necessary for survival, as I wouldn’t morally justify.

    And if we felt it was, then we would. Others have already categorically explained to you why a drone strike on an airport is a common act of war and why an airport is an important military target, and how and why Ukraine was even given drones in the first place, but it’s clear you’re just ignoring them because you feel angry, and your anger is directed at the wrong target. Ukraine is exercising its fundamental right to self-defense and protecting its own people at any cost, which they have the categorical right to do, and no one else disagrees with that but you.

    Of course is not the same, as this was not implied anywhere. Also, it is not Moscow airport (I explicitly mentioned that I would actually support attacks on infrastructure).

    Well, let’s read the article:

    Russian officials said three Ukrainian drones attacked Moscow early on July 30, injuring a security guard and forcing the temporary suspension of traffic at Vnukovo airport, one of four major facilities serving the capital.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry called it an “attempted terrorist attack” and claimed that one drone had been shot down and two others jammed, leading them to crash into Moscow’s prestigious Moskva-Citi business complex.

    I don’t even think you read the article. I’m not sure most people here did… the whole incident was an accident and those drones were intended for the airport, but crashed into another building, rendering the basis of your complaint moot.

    And honestly, that, and this:

    I think that’s because most of people are trying harder to find an enemy to disagree with than actually reading and understanding other people ideas. This is not surprising, is the regular war propaganda result.

    Makes it pretty clear you’re arguing in bad faith. What propaganda? Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years? Do you deny that they wrongly invaded a sovereign nation, committed brutal human rights violations against its victims, kidnapped hundreds of thousands of children, purposefully targeted and executed citizens in the street, leveled entire cities, committed mass rape against thousands of Ukrainian women, destroyed one of Ukraine’s largest dams leading to trillions of dollars in economic damage, took over a nuclear power plant and set it to blow, and threatened other countries with nuclear war if they tried to stop them?

    I think it’s pretty clear the others were right to accuse you of arguing in bad faith with the specific purpose of undermining Ukraine. It’s strange that you are condemning Ukraine’s actions on deontological grounds, categorically rejecting attacks on civilians while ignoring Russia’s atrocities and even implying it’s just propaganda – and that line in and of itself is often a dog-whistle for those on the right wing who support Russia and condemn Ukraine.

    I don’t think we even need to continue. You are very sus and I don’t think you’re a legitimate user. I think you’re here astroturfing to defend Russia.

    • sudneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t treat apples and bananas the same despite the fact that they are both fruit.

      And yet you can say that each one of them can be rotten, or spoiled, or ripen (or not), etc. Not sure what your point is. Also it seems you are trying to make an argument that two different agents cannot do comparable actions, which for me is completely absurd.

      This is why we do not hold Ukraine to the same standards we hold Russia toward

      We are talking the lowest possible standard: the war crime standard. We are not talking about wearing white gloves.

      Because Russia is the invader and Ukraine is the victim.

      This is not a valid argument, from my point of view. Being invaded does not automatically guarantee you the (moral) right to do absolutely anything, without restrictions to the population of the invading country.

      That’s why people don’t bat an eye when a Russian airport is attacked by a drone but do when a Ukrainian city is leveled into dust

      Again dishonesty. The reason for that is that one is an offensive action, the other is a defensive action. This has nothing to do with attacking people who are outside the conflict.

      I don’t even think you read the article. I’m not sure most people here did… the whole incident was an accident and those drones were intended for the airport, but crashed into another building, rendering the basis of your complaint moot.

      So, the drone was meant for the airport (according to Russian sources, which apparently now we trust), and reached a building. What’s the big problem here. Also, who cares about this particular episode, it’s a fucking empty office. I am talking about the whole principle of people cheering that a random building got attacked as a success on itself. Not “a failed attack on an airport”. I am talking about the whole point that some people -like you- see it acceptable to do attacks on civilians, because Ukraine is defending itself, in general, not this episode (which is unclear, was the office a target, was it not, etc.) in particular.

      What propaganda? Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years?

      To make an example of propaganda, the one that pushes for collective responsibility. You can see many examples in this very same thread. It’s a common war propaganda strategy where people are made guilty by association, to completely dehumanize the enemy, and by enemy I mean everyone, innocent people included. I totally understand it from Ukrainian side, because this is often needed to unite the population, but this doesn’t make it reasonable, in my opinion.

      Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years?

      You need to be really in bad faith even suggesting that.

      I don’t think we even need to continue. You are very sus and I don’t think you’re a legitimate user. I think you’re here astroturfing to defend Russia.

      Ta-da. Russian bot.

      I mean, you build your own imaginary arguments, then you use it to build a base for your own conclusions. What can I say, if this is not the result of the propaganda I don’t know what is, where in less than 10 comments we go from “war crimes are bad” to “you are a russian bot that is used to condemn Ukraine”.


      I asked 2 questions, which are the core of the discussion here, and you dodged them, because having a fucking conversation on topic is too hard, better to talk about made-up arguments and ad hominem. I repeat them for your benefit:

      1. I think that any military target, outside or inside Russia, that can help win the war is a fair and justifiable target to attack. I think that civilian targets, that by definition are not involved in the war, are not. Do you disagree?
      2. Do you think the principles stated in the Geneva convention are wrong and outdated? Do you think that people not involved, or not anymore involved, in a conflict should not be treated humanly and constitute targets for attacks?
      3. [bonus] You are accepting by default that any action is justified a-priori, I think instead that defending yourself is absolutely your right, but this does not automatically removes any restriction to what you can (morally) do. Specifically, I think that upholding the Geneva convention is still a reasonable constraint, even when Russia is constantly violating it. Do you disagree?

      That’s it, this is all what this conversation should be about.

      If you want to simply make up arguments, go on. If you want to actually attempt to have an actual conversation without resorting to cheap rethoric, these are the questions that you should answer so we can actually confront other point of view. You are surgically dodging these very same points for a while now.

      • darthfabulous42069
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We are talking the lowest possible standard: the war crime standard.

        With all due respect, we are not talking about anything. I told you in no uncertain terms that you’re clearly just astroturfing for Russia – and it’s pretty apparent you are – and therefore there’s no point in continuing, yet here you are. I guess that’s my fault for forgetting to simply block you earlier.

        There’s no way to have a conversation with someone who is projecting their own behavior by slinging accusations of dishonesty while acting that way for the entire day, with someone who dismisses good points outright, who makes absurdist arguments to justify morally repugnant positions, and who expects to be able to do all of that and not be called out on arguing in bad faith. Which is what you’re doing.

        By your logic, everything the Allies did in WW2 would have constituted a war crime and no reasonable person accepts that interpretation of international law because unlike you (or whoever’s paying you to do this, or whoever converted you), other people apply reason, circumstance and common sense to their moral calculus, which – at least for Ukraine – you reject offhand. And there’s no way to have a conversation with someone like that. Even if we pretend for a second that you’re speaking in earnest, you’re just wrong morally. We consider the morality of actions based on the circumstances and considerations of the actors, situation and zeitgeist of the action, not on an arbitrary declaration pulled from nowhere. The Geneva Convention is not a bible and most countries don’t even adhere to it anymore, and there’s good reason for that: the world simply realized such things didn’t make sense and has moved on from it.

        Whether it’s moral or not is irrelevant anyway because Ukraine’s survival, indeed the survival of any country, is more important than morality. Indeed, if morality cannot serve that basic fundamental purpose of all life, then morality as you define it is useless. Our morality explicitly allows for it, so it’s ours we follow, not yours.

        And that’s the big and small of it. You’re just wrong. What you’re advocating is not only wrong but harmful and dangerous for humanity. You’re just a pro-Russia troll and your words here are woefully misguided at best.

        You are wrong. And it is as simple as that.