What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Yeah, no. You are focusing on one detail out of many.
It’s the most important detail in this discussion. I’ll grant you your entire argument, and more: a 2014 U.S.-instigated coup, Russian culture bans, nefarious NGOs, CIA bunkers, broken pacts, NATO membership, Nazis, Nazi-lovers, mother-rapers, father-stabbers, father-rapers and litterers.
Given all that going on in Ukraine — do you, peace-loving nan, clarion voice for the lives of Ukrainians, invade with an army?
This seems a more promising avenue. Or at least a different one. My hand hurts, and I'm not going to win the Triple Crown.
I would be interested in hearing Nan be more explicit about her criteria for a just war (Nan, I would be interested in hearing you be more explicity -- trying not to talk about you in the third person, but the grammar gets a bit weird in these indirect mention posts).
I'll say that for myself, if I take DaveSchmidt's exercise above, I don't find they justify Russia's decision to go to war, and I wouldn't if the U.S. were facing the same conditions.
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria. I'll just focus on ius ad bellum here. And I'll focus on when Russia escalated its war against Ukraine in 2022 with its invasion of Ukraine beyond Crimea by its regular army, ignoring the fact that Russia actually began its war in 2014.
Competent authority -- I'll mostly give Russia this one. Putin is the head of the Russian state. He has the necessary authority to take Russia to war. The argument might be different if we were discussing the separatists Putin armed in the Donbas from 2014-22, but as I already noted, I'm focusing on 2022 for now.
Probability of success -- I grudgingly have to give this one to Putin as well. Like most people, I was shocked when the Ukrainians successfully fought off the initial Russian assault. I can't blame Putin for believing he had a high chance of success.
Last resort -- Here Putin very clearly fails the meet the criteria. There were active negotiations happening between Russia and Ukraine and its allies, most significantly with the United States. Further, the action Putin chose -- a massive invasion on a scale not seen in Europe since World War II -- was ridiculously out of proportion to the alleged threat. If, as DS suggests, we accept for the sake of argument all of Nan's premises, one struggles to see how such an invasion was remotely proportional. Was Putin afraid of CIA bunkers? As he's amply demonstrated, Russia certainly has the air power and missile arsenal to have sent strikes against specific target. Was he worried about NGO influence? As Nan has argued, laws such as Russia's FARA can server to defang nefarious international meddling.
Though I've asked repeatedly, Nan has not been able to point to any direct attack by Ukrainians on Russian soil or Russian personnel prior to Putin's invasion. The "existential threat" is the "coup" in 2014 and, if were being very generous, remarks by Zelensky regretting Ukraine's lack of a nuclear deterrent. For the latter, I'll note that Nan and I probably agree that it would be unjustified, for instance, for the United States to invade and occupy Iran despite the fact that it has far more nuclear weapons making potential than Ukraine does. I'm skeptical it would even be justified to bomb Iran. By those criteria, Zelensky's remarks certainly do not justify Putin's invasion. And the existence of a government hostile to Russia and supposedly installed and run by the CIA makes an even weaker justification for such a massive, premature response.
Just cause -- Nope. The fact that Ukraine's government was hostile to Russia is not in itself cause for war, anymore than, for instance, the fact that Cuba under Castro being hostile to the U.S. justified things like the Bay of Pigs (an action, I'll note, of far smaller scale than Putin's invasion of Ukraine). Nor does "concern" over NGOS being CIA fonts remotely rise to a just causus belli.
Nan has given two other arguments -- protecting Russian speakers, and de-nazification. Again, let's assume for the sake of argument that Nan's premises are true. The presence of far-right groups isn't sufficient cause for war -- if it were, then one could justifiably declare war against the United States, against Germany (where the AFD has real, and growing, electoral power), against Hungary, against Russia itself.
What of atrocities against Russia speakers -- perhaps carried out by these same far-right groups? Here I think we have to look at the "competent authority" and "last resort" criteria. Though I earlier said I think Putin meets "competent authority," in this case he would not -- nation states do not, on their own, have sufficient authority to unilaterally intervene in cases of suspected genocide. Did Putin attempt to go to the UN or other international organization with his claims? No -- which is also a deficiency in the "last resort" criteria. Had he been able to make a convincing claim to an international body, and if armed intervention were authorized, then the intervening force may very well have been majority Russian, but not exclusively so. And its scope and mission would have been restricted to preventing the claimed genocide -- certainly there would have been no room for annexations and rigged referendums, or missile barrages on Ukrainian energy grid.. but now we're slipping into discussing ius in bello, which I said I'm not doing in this post.
On "Just Cause" -- realized I missed the last post of yours, Nan:
nan said:
The Russians did not invade because of the Nazis. They invaded because they were provoked by the West. The west arranged for the Nazis to attack the people in the Donbas. So getting rid of Nazis is part of it but the real reason is because Ukraine refused to declare neutrality and was letting itself be used as a client state of the West. Countries will not allow enemies in their sphere of influence. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was talk of that and their army was getting trained and armed to NATO specifications. The Russians were provoked.
I disagree that maintaining "spheres of influence" meets the criteria of just cause for war.
PVW said:
I'll say that for myself, if I take DaveSchmidt's exercise above, I don't find they justify Russia's decision to go to war, and I wouldn't if the U.S. were facing the same conditions.
By answering with a qualified “hopefully not,” nan positions herself to the right of others in this discussion who, like you, would give a hard no.
PVW said:
On "Just Cause" -- realized I missed the last post of yours, Nan:
nan said:
The Russians did not invade because of the Nazis. They invaded because they were provoked by the West. The west arranged for the Nazis to attack the people in the Donbas. So getting rid of Nazis is part of it but the real reason is because Ukraine refused to declare neutrality and was letting itself be used as a client state of the West. Countries will not allow enemies in their sphere of influence. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was talk of that and their army was getting trained and armed to NATO specifications. The Russians were provoked.
I disagree that maintaining "spheres of influence" meets the criteria of just cause for war.
You like history. Here is some history. I know you hate videos but it's only six minutes and I'm too tired right now to find the print version (which I've posted before). Putin made it clear over ten years ago that Ukraine being in NATO was a declaration of war. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was lots of talk and the weapons and training were getting them NATO ready. I'm sure you will say this still did not justify the invasion but you are wrong because at a certain point you have to protect your country and the West had made it clear they were not going to listen and were just going to keep provoking. As we saw from articles I posted, there were plans to get Putin out.
Idiotic - more guys making excuses on behalf of Putin - instead of listening to what Putin and his media are actually saying (and doing), they're just cherry picking what ever they feel like with a big BLAME AMERICA banner. I can't go down the Mersheimer rabbit hole again - such an idiot. He pretty much said nothing in this video - bizarre. I didn't hear him quote Putin once from any recent speeches. I didn't hear about the important campaign to denazify Ukraine. I didn't hear him say how Putin didn't care about Finland joining Nato. I didn't hear about how bad the death toll has been on young Russian conscripts. I didn't hear how Putin has claimed Ukraine as part of the motherland for years. I didn't hear about Putin's personal neo-nazi Wagner army and their presence in Ukraine for many years.
nan said:
Putin made it clear over ten years ago that Ukraine being in NATO was a declaration of war. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was lots of talk and the weapons and training were getting them NATO ready. I'm sure you will say this still did not justify the invasion but you are wrong because at a certain point you have to protect your country and the West had made it clear they were not going to listen and were just going to keep provoking.
From George W. Bush’s 2002 National Security Strategy:
“The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”
nan said:
You like history. Here is some history. I know you hate videos but it's only six minutes and I'm too tired right now to find the print version (which I've posted before). Putin made it clear over ten years ago that Ukraine being in NATO was a declaration of war. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was lots of talk and the weapons and training were getting them NATO ready. I'm sure you will say this still did not justify the invasion but you are wrong because at a certain point you have to protect your country and the West had made it clear they were not going to listen and were just going to keep provoking. As we saw from articles I posted, there were plans to get Putin out.
Putin made it clear over ten years ago that Ukraine being in NATO was a declaration of war.
First of all, that statement does not describe the video. In the video, Mearsheimer says that Angela Merkel said that Putin would consider it a declaration of war. Your depiction, therefore, is worrisome.
But anyway...
Does saying something make it so?
(it's like your claim of existential threat, which you still haven't explained, and I expect you never will)
And how does saying something that did not describe the state of things (Ukraine was not in NATO) make it so?
What do you think your post proves?
here's a good counter to Mearsheimer and the whole "NATO expansion was a threat to Russia, justifying Putin's invasion" premise.
I see we're back to the "Ukraine was dressed provocatively" defense of Putin's violation of its sovereignty.
nan said:
PVW said:
On "Just Cause" -- realized I missed the last post of yours, Nan:
nan said:
The Russians did not invade because of the Nazis. They invaded because they were provoked by the West. The west arranged for the Nazis to attack the people in the Donbas. So getting rid of Nazis is part of it but the real reason is because Ukraine refused to declare neutrality and was letting itself be used as a client state of the West. Countries will not allow enemies in their sphere of influence. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was talk of that and their army was getting trained and armed to NATO specifications. The Russians were provoked.
I disagree that maintaining "spheres of influence" meets the criteria of just cause for war.
You like history. Here is some history. I know you hate videos but it's only six minutes and I'm too tired right now to find the print version (which I've posted before). Putin made it clear over ten years ago that Ukraine being in NATO was a declaration of war. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was lots of talk and the weapons and training were getting them NATO ready. I'm sure you will say this still did not justify the invasion but you are wrong because at a certain point you have to protect your country and the West had made it clear they were not going to listen and were just going to keep provoking. As we saw from articles I posted, there were plans to get Putin out.
"At a certain point you have to protect your country" -- and what point is that? The purpose of a framework such as just war theory is to help answer that. In just war theory plans -- especially vague, ill-defined plans -- are neither an actual nor imminent threat, and responding to them with a 200,000 person invasion is not an act of last resort and is far out of proportion to the alleged threat.
Of course, the fact that a framework exists doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. Mearscheimer offers a different criteria, and while he would probably disagree, I find it boils down to little more than "might makes right." Your criteria likewise are very permissive when it comes to justifying war. As DaveSchmidt notes, that puts you to the right of most people on this thread.
Another implication of Mearscheimer's argument -- which I'm sure I raised early on, when he was first cited (but I'm too lazy to go find the posts now):
If Russia's motivation is maintaining its sphere of influence, then all these arguments over whether the CIA was involved in Euromaidan are irrelevant. The ouster of Yanukovych meant Ukraine leaving Russia's sphere, something it could not tolerate. Whether we posit 100% CIA involvement or 0%, the result is the same, and unacceptable to Russia.
I actually think Mearscheimer is correct in this. I disagree heartily that this justifies Russia's actions, as unlike Mearscheimer I'm not big on imperialism.
nohero said:
Russia uses its nuclear weapons every day to keep western countries in fear of an attack by Putin.
[Edited to add]
Well, historically, at least during the Cold War, Russia's military power rested on two pillars, its conventional forces, which it could use to bully and frighten both neighbors and satellite countries. And its nuclear forces, which it could use to keep the United States and the West from attacking Russia, or escalating any conflict that Russia might start. Since the end of the Cold War, the conventional military has been under great pressure.
They had very little money. They were months in arrears for pay during the '90s. That the conventional force fell apart, basically. And so they only had one pillar left to lean on, and that was the nuclear one. And they leaned on it. They said, well, there's an old joke about the two officers. And the American says, "You know, my nuclear weapons cost all this money, and they sit in a silo, and I don't use them at all." And the Russian officer says, "I use mine every day."
And what he meant was that they're leaning on those to guarantee their security.From: Is it time to take Putin's nuclear threats more seriously? | On Point (wbur.org)
Update - "Russia said on Monday that it would hold military exercises with troops based near Ukraine to practice for the possible use of battlefield nuclear weapons, ratcheting up tensions with the West after two European leaders raised the prospect of more direct Western intervention in the war."
I don't think Putin would survive the profound isolation Russia would face for using a nuke (small comfort to the multitude who would die immediately and in the toxic aftermath). No way China would stand for it, much less friend-foes like India.
PVW said:
I don't think Putin would survive the profound isolation Russia would face for using a nuke (small comfort to the multitude who would die immediately and in the toxic aftermath). No way China would stand for it, much less friend-foes like India.
The problem is that, while "everyone" would be very upset if Russia used a nuke, nobody seems terribly upset at the threat to use one.
Now I'm imagining an Aaron Mate book club discussing "The Handmaid's Tale" where they argue that, actually, Gilead is the good guys.
PVW said:
"At a certain point you have to protect your country" -- and what point is that?
Points don’t get any certainer than Feb. 24, 2022, but nan hasn’t been too keen on that national defense.
PVW said:
On "Just Cause" -- realized I missed the last post of yours, Nan:
nan said:
The Russians did not invade because of the Nazis. They invaded because they were provoked by the West. The west arranged for the Nazis to attack the people in the Donbas. So getting rid of Nazis is part of it but the real reason is because Ukraine refused to declare neutrality and was letting itself be used as a client state of the West. Countries will not allow enemies in their sphere of influence. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was talk of that and their army was getting trained and armed to NATO specifications. The Russians were provoked.
I disagree that maintaining "spheres of influence" meets the criteria of just cause for war.
Let's be honest here. Nan's claim about Putin's fear of Ukraine moving away from Russia's sphere of influence was the concern. Putin desired Ukraine as a client state (or even being absorbed into Mother Russia). If Ukraine could move away, and the "Russian" population there saw that it turned out to be a good thing, that would be an existential threat to Putin as actual Russians might realize that there is no good reason for them to live in an authoritarian kleptocracy.
Ok, thanks to MOL Groupthink, I think I can answer the last dozen or so posts with one responding to the major shared complaints and most of the minor ones too.
First some general remarks: I love how Jaime called John Mersheimer, the REALIST, an idiot, while spewing forth with his usual fairy tale about Vlad the big bad Russian wolf. Also got a chuckle out of DaveSchmidt & PVW trying to say my remarks made me more to the “right” and PVW said my criteria for judging war was “too permissive" which sounds kind of hippy dippy leftish to me. Meanwhile, as I have mentioned before, notions of “right” and “left” have been tossed out the window as both parties embrace endless war and censorship. I can no longer depend on the neocon loving Democrats and I never liked the Republicans. I can only align myself with specific individuals on specific topics. Sometimes those individuals are Republicans/Democrats. Usually, though, they are neither. So, the distinction of right and left is false, but the majority opinion on Democrat MOL has been support for a “fight to the last Ukrainian” so we don’t have to fight them directly proxy war–which I am dead set against and don’t consider an opinion that belongs on the left (if there still was a left). .
Moving on we have Dave Schmidt’s posting of war criminal George W. Bush’s support of preemptive action, which I guess means DaveS is trying to compare this excuse to rationale for the Russian invasion. The big difference is that Bush’s invasion was based on a lie and Putin had real concerns from 2014 onward with the US backed Ukraine government coup escalated more over time. He knew the goal was to overthrow him and to probably re-do the 1990s vulturous assault. This was right in his plain sight, not like the Iraq lies hidden in the volumes of NYTs propaganda.
Then we have the usual drummerboy whine that some minor detail was not presented exactly as stated (summarization seems to be a skill that evades him). As if the Russians had not made it VERY CLEAR from the get go (for decades) that NATO moving within their sphere of influence was unacceptable and they were not kidding. Angela Merkel worked closely with Putin–they both speak German, so I’m sure she got the message because she was the one who talked him into Minsk II when he was losing it over Minsk I not being implemented. Anyway, he went for MInsk II and they screwed him over again so there was yet another option the West closed off to avoid war. Because the nutty neocons wanted war and they never get enough of the stuff.
Drummerboy’s anti-Mershimer screed makes me wonder if Drummerboy just googled “article that hates John Mersheimer on Ukraine” and posted the first one. I think this one has been posted before. The guy has a weak argument, which Drummerboy should know from discussing the article he did not read on MOL–namely that Ukrianians were divided about joining NATO in 2008 and under a US installed anti-Russian government in 2014. The author is like Jamie – completely ignores Western interference and thus is able to conclude that Putin is an imperialistic fiend. His examples of successful toleration of security threats with blocks is a joke. Does this guy do contract work for the Atlantic council? It sure sounds like it. His thesis seems to boil down to “I hate the Russians and you should too.”
Ok, enough about that and let’s go to the confounded, bewildered, and confused nohero alleging reuse of the “ "Ukraine was dressed provocatively" defense of Putin's violation of its sovereignty” Such an offensive and inadequate analogy given that Ukraine had a pro-western installed government (being paid by the NGOs), scores of CIA social control projects, tightly controlled anti-Russian media and confiscation of the opposition party leader (later jailing him), Far-right nazis goon squad on the payroll for “crowd control,” receiving massive amounts of western weapons and training, refusal to negotiate, and 12 CIA Bunkers on the borders. There is probably more that I’m forgetting to list. Anyway, Ukraine was more like a gargantuan venus flytrap, than a provocative young lady.
In another short-sighted nohero post he discusses what he considers Russian saber rattling. Has he kept up with the news lately where Macron has been talking openly about sending French troops to Ukraine and there have been hints in the US media as well (and perhaps way more after the election). It’s really NOT just Russian unprovoked responses, really! I worry way more about the US using a nuke than the Russians. Many, many nations stand with the Russians by the way. We annoy the crap out of most of the world.
Continuing, I present the WTF? award to this PVW statement:
“If Russia's motivation is maintaining its sphere of influence, then all these arguments over whether the CIA was involved in Euromaidan are irrelevant. The ouster of Yanukovych meant Ukraine leaving Russia's sphere, something it could not tolerate. Whether we posit 100% CIA involvement or 0%, the result is the same, and unacceptable to Russia.”
I actually think Mearscheimer is correct in this. I disagree heartily that this justifies Russia's actions, as unlike Mearscheimer I'm not big on imperialism.
Russia’s motivation is not imperialism or “maintaining it’s sphere of influence like people on TikTok. Russia has basic needs for security and wants to survive without a redo of the 1990s when many people died and major Russian assets were sold for pennies on the dollar to foreign vultures. The Russians went through many Ukraine elections without a problem. They were understandably concerned when the West backed a coup in their backyard with their sights set on chucking him.
In another post, PVW, mistakes Aaron Mate for a fiction writer rather than the world class journalist he is. Mate truthfully records facts that have come to light after being suppressed by the people/publications that PVW THINKS do real journalism but who, in reality have become characters/institutions straight out of Margaret Atwood’s vision of the future (I've read most of her books).
Of course PVW, like almost everyone else on this board does not think anything anyone can think of justifies this war. When the war happened I felt the same. But, over time, as I learned more about the root causes, and the way the West had spit on the Minsk accords and rejected negotiations, I don’t see what else they could have done to keep their country safe. I’d like to hear what others would suggest other than just ignoring what was going on in Ukraine; which I guess will be impossible to do if you are in denial of that so why do I even bother to ask?
So that’s a wrap for me now I have no other excuse to stop me from doing some critical organizational tasks I would rather ignore. Maybe I’ll make a cup of tea first. .
nan said:
Continuing, I present the WTF? award to this PVW statement:
“If Russia's motivation is maintaining its sphere of influence, then all these arguments over whether the CIA was involved in Euromaidan are irrelevant. The ouster of Yanukovych meant Ukraine leaving Russia's sphere, something it could not tolerate. Whether we posit 100% CIA involvement or 0%, the result is the same, and unacceptable to Russia.”
I actually think Mearscheimer is correct in this. I disagree heartily that this justifies Russia's actions, as unlike Mearscheimer I'm not big on imperialism.Russia’s motivation is not imperialism or “maintaining it’s sphere of influence like people on TikTok. Russia has basic needs for security and wants to survive without a redo of the 1990s when many people died and major Russian assets were sold for pennies on the dollar to foreign vultures. The Russians went through many Ukraine elections without a problem. They were understandably concerned when the West backed a coup in their backyard with their sights set on chucking him.
nan said:
jamie said:
nan said:
Still waiting your comment on these Ukraine Nazi franchise builders:
https://thegrayzone.com/2024/04/07/centuria-ukraines-western-neo-nazi-army/
Yeah - it's pretty similar to the Russian neo-nazi element over the years. Many countries have this element - it's a question of - do you annihilate a country and it's people because of it. Warmongers like you seem to think this is appropriate. You and your grayzone buddies can cherry pick all day long. Can you tell me how many people are part of the Centuria army? And tell how many people and who have they exterminated? How does the Russian army tell them apart from the rest of the Ukrainians.
When you display a banner - Peace without Nazism - this is a green light to commit genocide over Ukraine. I'm surprised genocide isn't used more often these days.
The Russians did not invade because of the Nazis. They invaded because they were provoked by the West. The west arranged for the Nazis to attack the people in the Donbas. So getting rid of Nazis is part of it but the real reason is because Ukraine refused to declare neutrality and was letting itself be used as a client state of the West. Countries will not allow enemies in their sphere of influence. Ukraine was not in NATO but there was talk of that and their army was getting trained and armed to NATO specifications. The Russians were provoked.
I love that nan calls us neocons - while giving carte blanche to the decimation of a sovereign democracy - you can't make this stuff up! every line in the last post has been debunked 5 ways. And again - never uses Vlad's words or links to his media - or has any sympathy for the Russian conscripts being used as cannon fodder - fighting to the last young Russian of that generation. So many dead and it was actually - factually and is still being carried out by Vladimir Putin - no one else has any say in this. And we can speculate until the cows come home that if Y would do X he would stop. Well, you didn't even think he would invade. The only thing that could stop him is if the Russian people could publicly protest - but he's had that in check for some time - they've tried and many are now sitting in jail. Something you will never hear about - partly because there's only Vlad press in russia. nan would never be allowed to criticize Russia if she was in russia - but she hasn't - and seems like she never will - so she'd be fine there - and due to past posts - she sounds anxious to visit.
And you say - I ignore western interference - you ignore Russian interference. I'm the only one on here defending the Russian people. Fortunately most of the Russians I know are out of the country and will not go back. And my friend in Lviv is hanging in there. He is very passionate to not be ruled by Putin, as is many of his countrymen.
jamie said:
I love that nan calls us neocons - while giving carte blanche to the decimation of a sovereign democracy - you can't make this stuff up! every line in the last post has been debunked 5 ways. And again - never uses Vlad's words or links to his media - or has any sympathy for the Russian conscripts being used as cannon fodder - fighting to the last young Russian of that generation. So many dead and it was actually - factually and is still being carried out by Vladimir Putin - no one else has any say in this. And we can speculate until the cows come home that if Y would do X he would stop. Well, you didn't even think he would invade. The only thing that could stop him is if the Russian people could publicly protest - but he's had that in check for some time - they've tried and many are now sitting in jail. Something you will never hear about - partly because there's only Vlad press in russia. nan would never be allowed to criticize Russia if she was in russia - but she hasn't - and seems like she never will - so she'd be fine there - and due to past posts - she sounds anxious to visit.
It’s all well and good that she’s a Putin apologist, but the propaganda she spews on this site is not good. I’m sure the Russian people can easily read her comments because this site is very public. She’s actually giving them more ammunition to use in their propaganda wars. She’s a disgrace to the country, and a disgrace to the Ukrainians living in this country who can easily read her drivel.
I love these repeated blanket statement from nan that come out of nowhere: "Because the nutty neocons wanted war and they never get enough of the stuff."
Some many propaganda gems in one post - here's one:
Of course PVW, like almost everyone else on this board does not think anything anyone can think of justifies this war. When the war happened Ifelt the same. But, over time, as I learned more about the root causes,and the way the West had spit on the Minsk accords and rejected negotiations, I don’t see what else they could have done to keep their country safe. I’d like to hear what others would suggest other than just ignoring what was going on in Ukraine; which I guess will be impossible to do if you are in denial of that so why do I even bother to ask?
They could have NOT invaded Ukraine. Their country WAS safe - there was ZERO eminent threats. Minsk was broken by Russia too - the neo-nazi Wagner army had a strong presence in the country. Talk about a threat - how would you like a Mexican army within our land who think our land is part of Mexico? And have them claiming Texas is part of our motherland - 20% speak spanish!
Putin has decimated his legacy more than anything else. I hope the Russian people will recover - yes nan i know they're doing amazing, right? How many dead or wounded so far? Is that a good metric?
Since Merkel was brought up - here's some of her thoughts:
"It's an objective breach of all international laws and of everything that allows us in Europe to live in peace at all. If we start going back through the centuries and arguing over which bit of territory should belong to whom, then we will only have war. That's not an option whatsoever."
"Diplomacy isn't wrong just because it hasn't worked," she said. However, she never believed he could be won over by trade promises. "Military deterrence is the only language he understands," she said.
Putin told her that the collapse of the Soviet Union had been "the worst event of the 20th century." Merkel replied that for her, as someone who grew up in communist East Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall meant she could live her life in freedom.
It was obvious already, she said, that there was a "great discrepancy."
Putin, she said, "hated" the Western model of democracy and wanted to "destroy" the European Union.
-----------------------
and back to nan's post - I'm trying to find Vlad's call for a New World Order - that's part of his propaganda that should really be included in your justification for this biggest war in Europe since WWII.
Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the self-refuting rant:
nan said:
Moving on we have Dave Schmidt’s posting of war criminal George W. Bush’s support of preemptive action, which I guess means DaveS is trying to compare this excuse to rationale for the Russian invasion. The big difference is that Bush’s invasion was based on a lie and Putin had real concerns from 2014 onward with the US backed Ukraine government coup escalated more over time. He knew the goal was to overthrow him and to probably re-do the 1990s vulturous assault. This was right in his plain sight, not like the Iraq lies hidden in the volumes of NYTs propaganda.
...
Ok, enough about that and let’s go to the confounded, bewildered, and confused nohero alleging reuse of the “ "Ukraine was dressed provocatively" defense of Putin's violation of its sovereignty” Such an offensive and inadequate analogy given that Ukraine had a pro-western installed government (being paid by the NGOs), scores of CIA social control projects, tightly controlled anti-Russian media and confiscation of the opposition party leader (later jailing him), Far-right nazis goon squad on the payroll for “crowd control,” receiving massive amounts of western weapons and training, refusal to negotiate, and 12 CIA Bunkers on the borders. There is probably more that I’m forgetting to list. Anyway, Ukraine was more like a gargantuan venus flytrap, than a provocative young lady.
Back on the topic of just war criteria, I'll repeat an earlier observation that Iraq would have been unjustified even if everyone was 100% telling the truth.
That's the advantage of a consistent evaluative criteria -- it helps you focus on principles rather than factions or personalities.
vis a vis just war criteria - I would say that if a country was really facing an existential threat, that would certainly be justification.
that's why it's important for nan to explain what exactly she means by existential threat, so that we can see if it's a rational evaluation of a real threat, or if it's just blowing smoke.
I would disregard every post in this thread if it can be shown that Russia faced an actual existential threat. i.e. that the very existence of Russia as a nation was being threatened. If that were true, no other justification would be needed.
The fact that nan hasn't even attempted to define what she thinks it means invalidates everything she's written so far. It's all smoke. She's just throwing words at us. Disregarding accepted meanings in order to be scary. coup, Nazi, existential threat - it doesn't matter. And I don't think she even realizes what she's doing.
To be fair though, not even Mearsheimer actually defines what it means. So maybe we shouldn't expect more clarity from nan than we get from him.
As usual, if you can't argue, just dig up some dirt -- and there is always plenty to find in the mainstream media for anyone who does not support endless war or who dares to consider the Russians intelligent human beings.