Russia has halted an unprecedented wartime deal that allows grain to flow from Ukraine to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia where hunger is a growing threat and high food prices have pushed people into poverty.
I do believe that this was a terrible move by the kremlin, but there are some rules that must be followed even between enemies. If we all do petty thing, whats the difference between us and them.
I think a better argument is that Russia is holding a few more cards here than we do. If we want to get petty, they have explosives planted in a nuclear reactor that they could just blow up.
If we want to go in and kick their asses, we risk global war.
There’s a lot of reasons that this is bad, but there are a lot of really smart people working on these problems.
“What’s the difference between us and them” not only is an emotional appeal, it dehumanizes them, which weirdly makes your argument the same as theirs.
Also, the US is still occupying Puerto Rico, Hawai’i, Virgin Islands, France has the Guyana in South America, you only care when white people get fucked, you sleazy piece of racist.
Okay che, remind me where I said the atrocities committed by the USA were totally cool? I’m just against wars of aggression and conquest. Take that as you will.
Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having a different set of standards for oneself and ones adversaries. It’s not a serious argument. The west has positioned itself as having some sort of a high ground while doing the same and worse that it accuses Russia of doing. This isn’t about vindicating anything, it’s about having a consistent set of morals.
The answer to the paradox of tolerance is usually “the one fighting for peaceful coexistence is in the right”.
I mean, every action a police officer takes in any country parallels to some of the worst crimes imaginable. An armed person saying “You are not allowed to leave” is a felony in my country punishable by up to life imprisonment. While people argue about problems with police behavior or severity of criminal penalties, it is generally agreed upon that an arrest of a suspected violent offender is always less severe than civilian kidnapping.
And perhaps outside of the police, for every person I’ve met who is so anti-cop they consider arresting even a serial-killer unacceptable, I have found common ground of some severe behavior they feel is only rightly done by the party trying to find a peaceful coexistance.
Now I agree that there must be some method of repercussions for weaponizing food, however this is an unideal world. Holding assets’ hostage will only lead to a migration from western assets to maybe Chinese ones, and as a south-east Asian, I can guarantee you that’s the last thing the world needs tight now. Similarly, brash actions using the hegemony of the dollar will only lead to increased scepticism over it and the rise of yuan.
I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying, but I have a point we should agree on. Your previous discussion point spoke to ethics or morality, to “rules” even between enemies. Your current rebuttal is instead one of pragmatism.
I agree it may not be pragmatic to respond fully to Russia as would be entirely just. The Nuremburg trials were entirely just (at least in my view), but nobody doubts there are hundreds of rulers that get handshakes instead of a death conviction based entirely on the unreasonable cost, paid by innocents, of doing the right thing.
The rules at this point suggest Putin should have been stripped of all power and prosecuted by Ukraine. Military conquest is simply unacceptable on the world stage, and that does (or should) apply to all governments at this point. But rules are often only followed when possible and best for everyone
Yes so I brought up the idea of rules to be followed because in my opinion pragmatism is the only enforcer of said rules. When we talk about using the dollor as the world’s reserve currency pretty much everyone knew USA could freeze assets unilaterally but trusted them not to. Similarly I feel that there are certain untold rules built on trust that simply should not be broken.
As for idea that military conquest itself is a crime and must lead to Putin’s prosecution. I do not agree with this arbitrary enforcement of this law only because this time around there is a lot of internet awareness over the war. There have been several instances in modern history where a large, supposedly imperial power has invaded a smaller country without the permission of the UN over self interest. I’ll try not to call whataboutism but justice half served is no justice at all.
I do believe that this was a terrible move by the kremlin, but there are some rules that must be followed even between enemies. If we all do petty thing, whats the difference between us and them.
I think a better argument is that Russia is holding a few more cards here than we do. If we want to get petty, they have explosives planted in a nuclear reactor that they could just blow up.
If we want to go in and kick their asses, we risk global war.
There’s a lot of reasons that this is bad, but there are a lot of really smart people working on these problems.
“What’s the difference between us and them” not only is an emotional appeal, it dehumanizes them, which weirdly makes your argument the same as theirs.
(Not) invading / annexing your neighbor, to name one.
US currently occupies a larger percentage of Syria than Russia is occupying of Ukraine.
Whattaboutisms don’t vindicate Russia.
Whattaboutism don’t vindicate the US.
Also, the US is still occupying Puerto Rico, Hawai’i, Virgin Islands, France has the Guyana in South America, you only care when white people get fucked, you sleazy piece of racist.
Okay che, remind me where I said the atrocities committed by the USA were totally cool? I’m just against wars of aggression and conquest. Take that as you will.
Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having a different set of standards for oneself and ones adversaries. It’s not a serious argument. The west has positioned itself as having some sort of a high ground while doing the same and worse that it accuses Russia of doing. This isn’t about vindicating anything, it’s about having a consistent set of morals.
The answer to the paradox of tolerance is usually “the one fighting for peaceful coexistence is in the right”.
I mean, every action a police officer takes in any country parallels to some of the worst crimes imaginable. An armed person saying “You are not allowed to leave” is a felony in my country punishable by up to life imprisonment. While people argue about problems with police behavior or severity of criminal penalties, it is generally agreed upon that an arrest of a suspected violent offender is always less severe than civilian kidnapping.
And perhaps outside of the police, for every person I’ve met who is so anti-cop they consider arresting even a serial-killer unacceptable, I have found common ground of some severe behavior they feel is only rightly done by the party trying to find a peaceful coexistance.
Now I agree that there must be some method of repercussions for weaponizing food, however this is an unideal world. Holding assets’ hostage will only lead to a migration from western assets to maybe Chinese ones, and as a south-east Asian, I can guarantee you that’s the last thing the world needs tight now. Similarly, brash actions using the hegemony of the dollar will only lead to increased scepticism over it and the rise of yuan.
I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying, but I have a point we should agree on. Your previous discussion point spoke to ethics or morality, to “rules” even between enemies. Your current rebuttal is instead one of pragmatism.
I agree it may not be pragmatic to respond fully to Russia as would be entirely just. The Nuremburg trials were entirely just (at least in my view), but nobody doubts there are hundreds of rulers that get handshakes instead of a death conviction based entirely on the unreasonable cost, paid by innocents, of doing the right thing.
The rules at this point suggest Putin should have been stripped of all power and prosecuted by Ukraine. Military conquest is simply unacceptable on the world stage, and that does (or should) apply to all governments at this point. But rules are often only followed when possible and best for everyone
Yes so I brought up the idea of rules to be followed because in my opinion pragmatism is the only enforcer of said rules. When we talk about using the dollor as the world’s reserve currency pretty much everyone knew USA could freeze assets unilaterally but trusted them not to. Similarly I feel that there are certain untold rules built on trust that simply should not be broken.
As for idea that military conquest itself is a crime and must lead to Putin’s prosecution. I do not agree with this arbitrary enforcement of this law only because this time around there is a lot of internet awareness over the war. There have been several instances in modern history where a large, supposedly imperial power has invaded a smaller country without the permission of the UN over self interest. I’ll try not to call whataboutism but justice half served is no justice at all.