This is a good overview. But I do not understand this statement:
Russia’s invasion was illegal, immoral, and indefensible
You have just argued for all the reasons why Russia's actions were defensible but state they are and were not. As to illegal, I forget the number of the UN Regulation but I did read long ago that a State intervening to protect, in this case, ethnic Russians, is legal and justified.
If as you have explained, Russia's actions are not surprising and no different to how any great power, including the US would react, then surely they are defensible. As to immoral, all war is immoral to lesser and greater degrees. It is immoral totally to do what Israel does and commit genocide to maintain colonial occupation, but it is far less immoral to invade an enemy country which actively threatens your security.
We both know if either Canada or Mexico had done what Ukraine did, and enter into a military alliance with a known enemy who has stated the goal is to bring down the Government and break up the country, in other words, destroy it, that the US would invade in an instant and probably refuse to give any of either country back.
Now, applying civilized principles we could say none of that is defensible or moral but it is the reality of our world and human nature and the nature of great powers, which Russia still remains.
And since the Americans have set a precedent for complete immorality, i.e. wars against Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, we can safely conclude that morality does not come into it and so condemning the Russians is a tad, shall we say, hypocritical.
Thank you for a kind words and valid points. I wasn’t arguing that Russia’s actions were “defensible”, but that they were understandable, and provoked (if not encouraged). I agree completely with your points about how America would react if Canada or Mexico did what Ukraine did (and said as much in the essay, and also condemn the morality of every American war you mentioned. I’ve done so in numerous other essays, but didn’t have time to do in this one (aside from the hinting reference to Iraq). I should also use another essay to delve deeper into the “illegal, immoral, and indefensible” comment, since I can see how that could be confusing. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.
My view is when you criticize Russia for doing what America would have done in an instant and not nearly as patience as Russia. Russia is not an enemy of the U.S. Frankly Russia was the reason Hilter was defeated. Furthermore, you comments single out Russia as "evil" with no indictment at the same time for the "evil" America has done and the regimes overthrown worldwide. Frankly, if you would be truthful - the real "evil" in the World sits right here in Washington in the Good Ol' USofA.
Ok - what do you think most readers would infer when you say "illegal, immoral, and indensible"? Seriously, you call Russia that and think people will not consider that "evil"? What rock are you living under?
I didn’t call Russia “illegal, immoral, and indensible". I was referring to the invasion. Just as I’ve often referred to actions of the U.S. government in terms that are at least that harsh. But I don’t think either country is “evil”, which is why I never said it.
Geez.........seriously JD? Just take your "hit". The vast majority of your readers passed writing in 8th Grade. Splitting hairs? Really? I didn't say "exactly" that? You aren't a naif nor are your readers. Please stop.
It would certainly be useful if you explained what you consider was illegal, immoral and indefensible about Russia's actions since you admit they were understandable.
And as I suggested, if we judge Russia's actions by the precedents established by other nations, particularly the US, by what standards or behaviour or legality was the invasion of Ukraine illegal, immoral and indefensible?
When you say you were not arguing that Russia's actions were defensible, the fact remains that you presented a coherent case for Russia's actions being understandable as you have admitted.
If actions are understandable then logic would say, that there are reasons, valid, facts-based, sensible reasons for the actions and that alone makes the actions defensible, or at least, defended as understandable in the circumstances.
If someone has valid reasons for their actions, i.e. a retaliation against someone who threatens them, then any court of law would count that as mitigating factors, which means to lessen the gravity of an offence. In other words, there are legal grounds on which the actions can be defended. That does not mean the actions are condoned but it does mitigate them so they cannot be argued to be as bad as they might otherwise be, i.e. illegal and immoral.
The precedents established by the U.S. are also illegal, immoral and indefensible, as I’ve written in countless essays (and suggested throughout this one). But someone commits an illegal or immoral act doesn’t mean we can’t understand why they committed it.
Ron Paul has always talked about the golden rule, the idea of living in a world of we would feel if it was happening to us? Can you imagine applying the Golden Rule to nation states, esp the US? We, the US, have much to learn in that department of our war mongering, regime changing ways across the globe. Thank you for your good thoughts above!
Invading a sovereign country is immoral and illegal, as it was when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Manila, and Manassas. Or when Israel attacked Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, or Gaza. But Russia had more justification than the U.S. or Israel did for any of those outrages.
A couple questions for you. Just trying to better understand here, as it seems to me that it was always our war ( which is why Graham, McCain were over there behind the scenes before the 'invasion') We, via the horrible Nuland et al, set up the conditions in '14 coup for the ongoing provocation and also nullifying of Minsk agreements, and, as Sachs has ably informed us broke all promises of NATO advancement Eastward surrounding them for decades.
Q1: how can we make a case that it was immoral and illegal to invade when those 2 provinces were being shelled for years by their own Ukraine government ( 15k or more deaths) and one of the 1st things Putin did was protect them from that. And, I thought I read where they ( the 2 provinces in Ukraine,) had rightfully petitioned to go back to Russia previous to this action.
I guess I can make an equal argument that he rescued those people from harm as well.
Q2: Victoria Nuland, told Congress acknowledging under oath ( when she wasn't lying) that the BioLabs were OURS, and that if the Russians get to them first they will be responsible for "gassing innocent people". Putin did get to them
and deactivated those labs and possibly saved more humanity as well.
Sounds not right but we know the first casualty in war is the truth. And, I no longer trust the information from my own government. So, somewhere the truth is in the middle of all this. There are no good guys here but Putin got pushed in a corner and had to act for many reasons.
Yes, one could make a case for it being immoral and illegal and thank you for describing context. It would be a better world however if such standards were held by most instead of almost none.
And the fact Russia tried to prevent war and the US and Europeans made it impossible for it not to invade Ukraine diminishes the illegal and immoral as you suggest.
You should have included Palestine in your list of immoral and illegal actions because Israel was created when Zionists and Jews invaded the sovereign country of Palestine. Palestine may not have been a State or released from occupation but it was still a sovereign country.
You have a deeper understanding of Central European history than most.
From what I understand the Ukraine always has been and probably always will be a disputed and bloodstained land.
War is a profitable business. Do not expect the war hawks to release the prey in their talons easily. Expect blow back...
This is excellent analysis and I hope to God that the powers that be read it, because like you, I have zero desire to be vaporised or for that matter, for anyone else to suffer that fate.
Great history lesson spanning centuries. Very educational. It would have taken me weeks and weeks to produce anything close to your expose
The last part of it, however, suggests the US is responsible for Russia deciding in exasperation that Ukraine must be forceably amalgamated with it.
Hard to believe that our master strategists wouldn't foresee this possibility, especially since Russian forces began occupying and defending the Donbas region of Western Ukraine 15 years ago.
These strategists were no doubt inculcated with the savior mindset that made the US post-WW II the only force able to protect and to promote democracies and to foster worldwide trade by protecting ocean transit.
My take-away: Putin could have achieved his goal of absorbing Ukraine without destroying Russia's labor force and by isolating it from the world of trade and commerce for who knows how long
All he had to do was "Let the Flag Follow Trade."
Had he done so, mutually beneficial prosperity would have occurred; Europe would being buying more and more Russian energy; the Hryvnia and the Ruble currencies would be interchangeable and all the MacDonald shops in Russia would still be doing a thriving business
Thank you JD for a quick little history lesson on foreign affairs! Back home here, we had our new president give one of the greatest speeches of our time. Not only did he speak about the incredible achievements in his first month, but brought out the true colors of one of the most disgusting, anti-American group of thugs and thieves. A most immoral and despicable group of mentally disturbed swamp creatures only the democratic cult could produce. A most disturbing display of 💩. I want to thank those, unfortunately elected representatives, for showing America what happens when a mentally and morally bankrupt citizenship are given authority. It could have been a picture out of One Flew Over The Cuckoo Nest, or any of our past mental institutions, but unfortunately, it was in America’s house. These same creatures that support wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to siphon back money to their own pockets at the expense of real human lives and the threat for a nuclear exchange is reprehensible. Watching the freakish little actor in our White House the other day just confirms how sick these globalist are and how pathetic is their cause. America won with President Trump and may even have hope of being Great Again 🙏🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
This is a good overview. But I do not understand this statement:
Russia’s invasion was illegal, immoral, and indefensible
You have just argued for all the reasons why Russia's actions were defensible but state they are and were not. As to illegal, I forget the number of the UN Regulation but I did read long ago that a State intervening to protect, in this case, ethnic Russians, is legal and justified.
If as you have explained, Russia's actions are not surprising and no different to how any great power, including the US would react, then surely they are defensible. As to immoral, all war is immoral to lesser and greater degrees. It is immoral totally to do what Israel does and commit genocide to maintain colonial occupation, but it is far less immoral to invade an enemy country which actively threatens your security.
We both know if either Canada or Mexico had done what Ukraine did, and enter into a military alliance with a known enemy who has stated the goal is to bring down the Government and break up the country, in other words, destroy it, that the US would invade in an instant and probably refuse to give any of either country back.
Now, applying civilized principles we could say none of that is defensible or moral but it is the reality of our world and human nature and the nature of great powers, which Russia still remains.
And since the Americans have set a precedent for complete immorality, i.e. wars against Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, we can safely conclude that morality does not come into it and so condemning the Russians is a tad, shall we say, hypocritical.
Thank you for a kind words and valid points. I wasn’t arguing that Russia’s actions were “defensible”, but that they were understandable, and provoked (if not encouraged). I agree completely with your points about how America would react if Canada or Mexico did what Ukraine did (and said as much in the essay, and also condemn the morality of every American war you mentioned. I’ve done so in numerous other essays, but didn’t have time to do in this one (aside from the hinting reference to Iraq). I should also use another essay to delve deeper into the “illegal, immoral, and indefensible” comment, since I can see how that could be confusing. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.
JD
My view is when you criticize Russia for doing what America would have done in an instant and not nearly as patience as Russia. Russia is not an enemy of the U.S. Frankly Russia was the reason Hilter was defeated. Furthermore, you comments single out Russia as "evil" with no indictment at the same time for the "evil" America has done and the regimes overthrown worldwide. Frankly, if you would be truthful - the real "evil" in the World sits right here in Washington in the Good Ol' USofA.
I never called Russia “evil”. Never even used that word.
Ok - what do you think most readers would infer when you say "illegal, immoral, and indensible"? Seriously, you call Russia that and think people will not consider that "evil"? What rock are you living under?
I didn’t call Russia “illegal, immoral, and indensible". I was referring to the invasion. Just as I’ve often referred to actions of the U.S. government in terms that are at least that harsh. But I don’t think either country is “evil”, which is why I never said it.
Geez.........seriously JD? Just take your "hit". The vast majority of your readers passed writing in 8th Grade. Splitting hairs? Really? I didn't say "exactly" that? You aren't a naif nor are your readers. Please stop.
Evil is an emotive word when what is required is a logical and facts-based defense of the use of the terms, illegal, immoral and indensible.
It would certainly be useful if you explained what you consider was illegal, immoral and indefensible about Russia's actions since you admit they were understandable.
And as I suggested, if we judge Russia's actions by the precedents established by other nations, particularly the US, by what standards or behaviour or legality was the invasion of Ukraine illegal, immoral and indefensible?
Roslyn, spot-on! Thank you.
When you say you were not arguing that Russia's actions were defensible, the fact remains that you presented a coherent case for Russia's actions being understandable as you have admitted.
If actions are understandable then logic would say, that there are reasons, valid, facts-based, sensible reasons for the actions and that alone makes the actions defensible, or at least, defended as understandable in the circumstances.
If someone has valid reasons for their actions, i.e. a retaliation against someone who threatens them, then any court of law would count that as mitigating factors, which means to lessen the gravity of an offence. In other words, there are legal grounds on which the actions can be defended. That does not mean the actions are condoned but it does mitigate them so they cannot be argued to be as bad as they might otherwise be, i.e. illegal and immoral.
The precedents established by the U.S. are also illegal, immoral and indefensible, as I’ve written in countless essays (and suggested throughout this one). But someone commits an illegal or immoral act doesn’t mean we can’t understand why they committed it.
I agree but you also have to make a case that it is immoral and illegal.
Ron Paul has always talked about the golden rule, the idea of living in a world of we would feel if it was happening to us? Can you imagine applying the Golden Rule to nation states, esp the US? We, the US, have much to learn in that department of our war mongering, regime changing ways across the globe. Thank you for your good thoughts above!
Invading a sovereign country is immoral and illegal, as it was when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Manila, and Manassas. Or when Israel attacked Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, or Gaza. But Russia had more justification than the U.S. or Israel did for any of those outrages.
A couple questions for you. Just trying to better understand here, as it seems to me that it was always our war ( which is why Graham, McCain were over there behind the scenes before the 'invasion') We, via the horrible Nuland et al, set up the conditions in '14 coup for the ongoing provocation and also nullifying of Minsk agreements, and, as Sachs has ably informed us broke all promises of NATO advancement Eastward surrounding them for decades.
Q1: how can we make a case that it was immoral and illegal to invade when those 2 provinces were being shelled for years by their own Ukraine government ( 15k or more deaths) and one of the 1st things Putin did was protect them from that. And, I thought I read where they ( the 2 provinces in Ukraine,) had rightfully petitioned to go back to Russia previous to this action.
I guess I can make an equal argument that he rescued those people from harm as well.
Q2: Victoria Nuland, told Congress acknowledging under oath ( when she wasn't lying) that the BioLabs were OURS, and that if the Russians get to them first they will be responsible for "gassing innocent people". Putin did get to them
and deactivated those labs and possibly saved more humanity as well.
Sounds not right but we know the first casualty in war is the truth. And, I no longer trust the information from my own government. So, somewhere the truth is in the middle of all this. There are no good guys here but Putin got pushed in a corner and had to act for many reasons.
No easy answers. Thank you for your time, sir.
Good points. Am sympathetic with all of them.
Thank you sir.
Yes, one could make a case for it being immoral and illegal and thank you for describing context. It would be a better world however if such standards were held by most instead of almost none.
And the fact Russia tried to prevent war and the US and Europeans made it impossible for it not to invade Ukraine diminishes the illegal and immoral as you suggest.
You should have included Palestine in your list of immoral and illegal actions because Israel was created when Zionists and Jews invaded the sovereign country of Palestine. Palestine may not have been a State or released from occupation but it was still a sovereign country.
I’ve written about Palestine in other essays. This one already exceeded 2,000 words. I can only cover so much in any one piece.
Fair enough.
I don’t have to do anything.
Very true. Of course you do not have to do anything unless you want credibility.
Let me rephrase, it would be wise to make a case for your charge that it is immoral and illegal.
Hi JD,
You have a deeper understanding of Central European history than most.
From what I understand the Ukraine always has been and probably always will be a disputed and bloodstained land.
War is a profitable business. Do not expect the war hawks to release the prey in their talons easily. Expect blow back...
This is excellent analysis and I hope to God that the powers that be read it, because like you, I have zero desire to be vaporised or for that matter, for anyone else to suffer that fate.
It is time for humanity to grow up.
Great history lesson spanning centuries. Very educational. It would have taken me weeks and weeks to produce anything close to your expose
The last part of it, however, suggests the US is responsible for Russia deciding in exasperation that Ukraine must be forceably amalgamated with it.
Hard to believe that our master strategists wouldn't foresee this possibility, especially since Russian forces began occupying and defending the Donbas region of Western Ukraine 15 years ago.
These strategists were no doubt inculcated with the savior mindset that made the US post-WW II the only force able to protect and to promote democracies and to foster worldwide trade by protecting ocean transit.
My take-away: Putin could have achieved his goal of absorbing Ukraine without destroying Russia's labor force and by isolating it from the world of trade and commerce for who knows how long
All he had to do was "Let the Flag Follow Trade."
Had he done so, mutually beneficial prosperity would have occurred; Europe would being buying more and more Russian energy; the Hryvnia and the Ruble currencies would be interchangeable and all the MacDonald shops in Russia would still be doing a thriving business
Thank you JD for a quick little history lesson on foreign affairs! Back home here, we had our new president give one of the greatest speeches of our time. Not only did he speak about the incredible achievements in his first month, but brought out the true colors of one of the most disgusting, anti-American group of thugs and thieves. A most immoral and despicable group of mentally disturbed swamp creatures only the democratic cult could produce. A most disturbing display of 💩. I want to thank those, unfortunately elected representatives, for showing America what happens when a mentally and morally bankrupt citizenship are given authority. It could have been a picture out of One Flew Over The Cuckoo Nest, or any of our past mental institutions, but unfortunately, it was in America’s house. These same creatures that support wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to siphon back money to their own pockets at the expense of real human lives and the threat for a nuclear exchange is reprehensible. Watching the freakish little actor in our White House the other day just confirms how sick these globalist are and how pathetic is their cause. America won with President Trump and may even have hope of being Great Again 🙏🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸