I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. But I can't help hope that it will - it lays bare some of the "other side" that most people have no inkling of. We're so used to see the world in black and white, us against them, that we have not yet realized that peace is in <i>everyone's</i> best interest - a new arms race is not.<p>That said, if and when these viewpoints serve to minimize the Russian atrocities as it has on several of these alternate news sites that I follow then it crosses a red line.
implicitly drawing an equivalence between Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad and the government of Ukraine is an absurd place to start an analogy, regardless of your thesis.
Different wars, different feelings.<p>A despot starting a war of choice vs a democracy is very compelling… for good reason.<p>Violence /= all violence.<p>Patrolling how people feel and finger waving will not result in progress.
Authors just don't get that it's okay to be opposed to imperialism in all it's forms, simultaneously and regardless of its practitioners. They say they do, but then implore us to 'look over there'.
1. This is a very American-centric piece of navel gazing. Much of the world was strongly opposed to several of the conflicts mentioned here, <i>including</i> the invasion of Iraq. This is what-about-ism. The fact that some of the countries now opposing Russia have spotted pasts does not justify the largest invasion on European soil since WWII.<p>2. The Yemen war, as deplorable as it may be, has not posed the risk of global thermonuclear war.<p>3. Yes, the Ukrainians are using some propaganda and disinformation, just as the Russians are. They are in a war for their nations survival and are using all the tools they have at their disposal.<p>4. The argument that Russia is invading Ukraine because it wants "space" around its borders to separate it from NATO is hogwash. This invasion, if successful, will accomplish precisely the opposite. If Ukraine had joined NATO, Russia would have 1 more NATO country on it's borders. After taking over Ukraine Russia will gain all of Ukraine's NATO neighbours as it's own and potentially drive Finland and Sweden into NATO as well.<p>5. A big part of why the EU has enjoyed peace since WWII, even if other parts of the world EU members have become embroiled with haven't, is because European countries do not invade European countries anymore. The UN, NATO, and the world's economy are all designed to bring about this stability. If Russia manages to profit from this invasion, that order is overturned. The problem with this is that there are <i>multiple</i> nuclear states in Europe. A move away from defined, stable borders risks the entire world's fate. The stakes are higher in this invasion than in any since WWII.<p>6. The opposition to Russia, aside from Ukraine, is trying to use non-violent methods to force Russia to abandon the invasion. It's debatable if they will work. Economic sanctions haven't worked in the past, but we haven't seen economic sanctions like these before. Targeting oligarchs directly in particular is an interesting play. Self-flagellation, navel gazing, and moral relativism all have their place in Western society, but one must hope that we apply adequately firm will to bring the World back from the brink of nuclear war that Putin seems so willing to casually flirt with. The real double standard here is, in truth, a nuclear one.
I'm hugely disappointed by the comments here. I expected better of HN.<p>As the article extremely rightly points out, this is _the_ time to examine these issues. We cannot allow the West to begome complacent we-do-no-evil-to-others we-see-no-evil-in-us we-hear-no-evil-from-us. If something leads to dystopia, it's what we are doing to ourselves.
Putin is a totalitarian dictator who is waging a war against Ukraine to conquer it and bring it under his control because he doesn't like how their democratically elected government is behaving.<p>That is not the same thing as the US and UK invading and overthrowing totalitarian dictator Saddam Hussein.<p>The idea that people should pretend the merits of these two things are the same is dumb, or atleast it's dumb if you value democracy or freedom over totalitarian dictatorships.<p>It's also the case that right now, the UK, EU and NATO are in the right. They're standing up for a democratic country's right to self-determination and independence, and the right for Ukraine's citizens to live free lives. And since that is the case, making the argument "Well you guys invaded Iraq 20 years ago" is a dumb argument - let's concede you're right, the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq (a position most people probably actually agree with right now), Fine. What the hell has that got to do with what's happening now? Should the West not stand up for Ukraine now? Don't be absurd.<p>This article is written as if the invasion of Iraq is happening today, a fiction which is pretty transparent.
There's something very 'woke' - or maybe 'concern trolling' - about the various attempts to chastise the West for caring about Ukraine more than <name your international conflict>.<p>Look I'm not afraid to own it, I feel more of a kinship with Europoeans than with other global citizens. Ukrainians watch the same superhero movies, they play the same video games. They are all over reddit, not just on the news reddits but also posting to r/shittyfoodporn joking about their war-zone meals.<p>I don't feel the same kinship with Iraquis or Yeminis. You can call it racism or a double standard, but it’s human nature. You may as well say I have double standards for caring about my family more than yours.
In which the author of an article is shocked (SHOCKED!) that acts of aggression are covered differently when they're "friendly" versus "enemy" acts.
Rambling, nearly interminable and staggeringly one-sided screed. Victim blaming Ukraine with the "she was asking for it" by flirting with NATO defence. The usual "Only Western Imperialism Is Bad" appeasement talking points, spurious comparisons to other scenarios to 'expose' Western hypocrisy, apparently Putin is the real victim being treated unfairly and that we're here because it's the West's fault:<p>- Mentions US interference in Ukraine, ignores Russia's<p>- Calls the resulting protests violent while ignoring Russian demands to shoot the protesters before Yanokovic was ousted<p>- Quotes Mearsheimer, a realist who admits he doesn't consider the moral dimension to helping Ukrainians determine their own future<p>- Apologises for the annexation of Crimea by stating Putin's speculated fears for Sevastopol naval access - set against and ignoring Ukrainians ACTUAL fears of being invaded<p>- Complains Corbyn et al being reprimanded by their party for falsely equivocating Russian invasion to NATO expansion, calls it a loss of their 'freedom' to criticism NATO again all in contrast to the literal loss of actual freedom of Ukrainians<p>And on and on.<p>This is pro-imperialist apologia. YES the West is hypocritical and self-interest too, obviously. YES Western governments have behaved despicably and should be scrutinised more. YES the media is biased toward laziness and sensationalism. YES it hasn't written this week about the few hundred nazis fighting for Ukraine. YES the public has a short memory and has forgotten Syrians on the other Polish border. Yes to all of that. NONE of that exonerates Putin as this tries to suggest.<p>Framing it this way, at this time, is done to blunt the criticism of and excuse a brutal, corrupt, aggressive, nuclear armed dictator whose ambitions beyond Ukraine are not yet clear. That is the priority. This is the news now. Two or three actors can be simultaneously bad. Sorry it doesn't conform to your world view.
Yes, there <i>are</i> different standards for western powers vs totalitarians. Because the former are mostly good (at least about as good as you can generally expect from flawed humans) and the latter are bad.<p>Yes, the West does all kinds of bad stuff and I'm not excusing that.<p>But sitting on the sidelines is not always an option -- unless you are covered by U.S. military power. It's like being in a gated community with private security and criticizing police.<p>If you follow moral equivalence far enough, it's self-defeating. Because the totalitarians and tyrants don't bother with such nonsense.<p>That being said, it's good to reflect once in a while to make sure you haven't become the enemy. But we shouldn't sit in front of the mirror all the time and never bother to look out the window.
I think this is an important topic to discuss, but not right now, if only because whataboutism and deflecting criticism of Russia's aggression to aggression by the US has been part of Putin's rhetoric for a long time now.<p>Releasing such an article at this time is a good way to get people to roll their eyes and dismiss it as yet another mouthpiece of Putin's trolls. It's also borderline insensitive. At this moment, the western world doesn't want to hear these complaints, there's something more pressing to deal with.
> a war of aggression on Iraq, Libya, Syria<p>While I'm sure there's more to the Russia/Ukraine conflict than most of us can understand or appreciate, it's more than a little disingenuous to compare Russia's attempt to forcibly annex Ukraine to America's efforts to push out terrorist-supporting dictatorships.
Fun fact, Ukraine is the largest democracy to ever be invaded by a foreign power. Just saying...<p>Edit - no downvoters want to provide a counter-example? Of a country that was a democracy and had a larger population at the time of invasion?
Everyone agrees double standards are bad.<p>No one believes they have double standards.<p>This is like when people post trite aphorisms as if it's some sort of mic drop moment. As if the aphorism can't possibly apply to them as well. No, they're the chosen one, elected by the self to bring the wisdom to the sleeping masses.<p>No Billy, you're not some warrior poet bucking the system, you're a fucking dipshit who barely graduated high school who services vending machines.