Russia Attacks Ukraine

[Diogenes]

For the first time since 1939 a major European power, Russia, has attacked another country in Europe, Ukraine. We have not seen an analogous situation since Germany attacked Poland setting off World War 2. Surprisingly we have Neville Chamberlain like appeasement/isolationist responses from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Besides the 180 turn from traditional Republican politics, to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

[Jose Fly]

Do you disagree with something I wrote? It would help to know what it was.

I've already explained.

No, you've simply complained and failed to quote a single sentence I wrote.

My position Jose is that the situation in Ukraine is simply not news when judged by the standards of the press and media and how they report on other equally barbarous military assaults.

Your position is noted.

[Sherlock Holmes]

why are you running cover for Putin's invasion and the deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians?

Come on... it's not as if he's celebrating every Russian take over of Ukranian cities. Sherlock is just being critical of the West. Also consider this observation in my last post...

But from reading information on this site and elsewhere, it's apparent that we can't paint everyone as anti-democracy Putin lovers just because they're not on the Western bandwagon as much as the majority might be. While some are praising the West for whatever harm they can inflict on Russia, others see hypocrisy. To the latter group, it's hard to cheer for the West when it engages in some of the same wrongdoings that it accuses Russia of doing.

I can just see it in 1939....as Hitler invades sovereign European countries, some folks are like "Yeah but, what about how the US killed all those Native Americans?"

That's a terrible response, Yemen is going on now, today, it is concurrent with Ukraine. My primary concern is the biased press, that's the thrust of my arguments here, all powerful governments kill and bomb but they don't all get reported equally in the West.

[Jose Fly]

That's a terrible response, Yemen is going on now, today, it is concurrent with Ukraine. My primary concern is the biased press, that's the thrust of my arguments here, all powerful governments kill and bomb but they don't all get reported equally in the West.

Seriously? Your only objection to that analogy is "but they're not concurrent events"? Fine....

I can see it in 1939....as Hitler invades sovereign European countries, some are like "Yeah but....what about how the US treats its black population?"

In both cases someone is engaging in apologetics for an atrocity. If you want to be on that side, that's your choice.

[Jose Fly]

Come on... it's not as if he's celebrating every Russian take over of Ukranian cities. Sherlock is just being critical of the West.

It's called "whataboutism" and it's a form of apologetics (in this case, apologetics for Putin's invasion and slaughter of civilians).

Also consider this observation in my last post...

But from reading information on this site and elsewhere, it's apparent that we can't paint everyone as anti-democracy Putin lovers just because they're not on the Western bandwagon as much as the majority might be. While some are praising the West for whatever harm they can inflict on Russia, others see hypocrisy. To the latter group, it's hard to cheer for the West when it engages in some of the same wrongdoings that it accuses Russia of doing.

So we can't condemn and oppose invasions of sovereign countries and the slaughter of civilians unless we're perfect? Guess we just have to stand aside and let Putin do whatever he wants, kill as many people as he wants, etc.?

As I noted earlier, most of the rest of the world is pretty united on this issue. But if you and SH want to be in league with the likes of N. Korea and Syria, that's your choice.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's a terrible response, Yemen is going on now, today, it is concurrent with Ukraine. My primary concern is the biased press, that's the thrust of my arguments here, all powerful governments kill and bomb but they don't all get reported equally in the West.

Seriously? Your only objection to that analogy is "but they're not concurrent events"? Fine....

Well they are not and your analogy misses that fact, Yemen and Ukraine are going on now, today and millions of people in each case, are being impacted.

I can see it in 1939....as Hitler invades sovereign European countries, some are like "Yeah but....what about how the US treats its black population?"

I said no such thing of course.

In both cases someone is engaging in apologetics for an atrocity. If you want to be on that side, that's your choice.

Pointing out other examples of state sanctioned mass murder is not being an apologist Jose.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Come on... it's not as if he's celebrating every Russian take over of Ukranian cities. Sherlock is just being critical of the West.

It's called "whataboutism" and it's a form of apologetics (in this case, apologetics for Putin's invasion and slaughter of civilians).

Also consider this observation in my last post...

But from reading information on this site and elsewhere, it's apparent that we can't paint everyone as anti-democracy Putin lovers just because they're not on the Western bandwagon as much as the majority might be. While some are praising the West for whatever harm they can inflict on Russia, others see hypocrisy. To the latter group, it's hard to cheer for the West when it engages in some of the same wrongdoings that it accuses Russia of doing.

So we can't condemn and oppose invasions of sovereign countries and the slaughter of civilians unless we're perfect? Guess we just have to stand aside and let Putin do whatever he wants, kill as many people as he wants, etc.?

As I noted earlier, most of the rest of the world is pretty united on this issue. But if you and SH want to be in league with the likes of N. Korea and Syria, that's your choice.

More name calling, more insults, more outraged ranting, not a word about Saudi Arabia, not a word about victims in Yemen, not a word about sanctions on Saudi Arabia, I wonder who the real apologist is here Jose?

[Jose Fly]

That's a terrible response, Yemen is going on now, today, it is concurrent with Ukraine. My primary concern is the biased press, that's the thrust of my arguments here, all powerful governments kill and bomb but they don't all get reported equally in the West.

Seriously? Your only objection to that analogy is "but they're not concurrent events"? Fine....

Well they are not and your analogy misses that fact, Yemen and Ukraine are going on now, today and millions of people in each case, are being impacted.

I can see it in 1939....as Hitler invades sovereign European countries, some are like "Yeah but....what about how the US treats its black population?"

I said no such thing of course.

In both cases someone is engaging in apologetics for an atrocity. If you want to be on that side, that's your choice.

Pointing out other examples of state sanctioned mass murder is not being an apologist Jose.

Whataboutism

"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument."

[Jose Fly]

More name calling, more insults, more outraged ranting

None of that was in my post.

not a word about Saudi Arabia, not a word about victims in Yemen, not a word about sanctions on Saudi Arabia

Whataboutism

"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument."

I wonder who the real apologist is here Jose?

I'm done here. We have entered "too stupid to argue about" territory.

[AgnosticBoy]

why are you running cover for Putin's invasion and the deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians?

Come on... it's not as if he's celebrating every Russian take over of Ukranian cities. Sherlock is just being critical of the West. Also consider this observation in my last post...

But from reading information on this site and elsewhere, it's apparent that we can't paint everyone as anti-democracy Putin lovers just because they're not on the Western bandwagon as much as the majority might be. While some are praising the West for whatever harm they can inflict on Russia, others see hypocrisy. To the latter group, it's hard to cheer for the West when it engages in some of the same wrongdoings that it accuses Russia of doing.

I can just see it in 1939....as Hitler invades sovereign European countries, some folks are like "Yeah but, what about how the US killed all those Native Americans?"

I assume that you don't agree since you're being sarcastic. But then again, I also assume that you don't believe that the West is always right and perhaps you might see some validity in what I'm claiming.

Consider a more recent case like when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Sherlock has brought up Israel's (which the US supports) conflict with the Palestinians. Another example would be NATO expansion and the US not agreeing to keep Ukraine out of NATO while having a problem with Cuba housing Russian weapons (i.e. the Cuban missile crisis). Here is pre-Ukraine invasion where Russia tried to get concrete deal for NATO not to expand, especially to include Ukraine...

Last month, Russia set out several main demands to the West on Ukraine, among other security matters, in a draft security pact.

In the document, it demanded that the U.S. must prevent further eastward expansion of NATO and must not allow former Soviet states to join the alliance.

Russia also demanded in the draft pact that the U.S. "shall not establish military bases" in the territories of any former Soviet states that are not already members of NATO, or "use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them."

Source: CNBC

The US does not accept Russia's demand, leaving the door open for Ukraine to join NATO:

For their part, the U.S. and NATO have already described demands that Ukraine not be admitted to NATO, or that it roll back NATO deployments in Eastern Europe, as "non-starters" in the words of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who led the U.S. delegation in talks with Russian officials in Geneva on Monday.

Source: same as above...

Again, all of this took place pre-Ukraine invasion. Is it hypocrisy for the US to not want missiles in Cuba, but won't agree to deal to keep NATO out of Ukraine? Had the US agreed to the deal to keep Ukraine out, would this have avoided the Russia-Ukraine war? And again, I don't support Russia invading Ukraine because of the prospects (perceived or actual) of Ukraine joining NATO.

...............

With every NATO expansion, we risk a scenario similar to the one below:

In a TV address on October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy (1917-63) notified Americans about the presence of the missiles, explained his decision to enact a naval blockade around Cuba and made it clear the U.S. was prepared to use military force if necessary to neutralize this perceived threat to national security. Following this news, many people feared the world was on the brink of nuclear war. However, disaster was avoided when the U.S. agreed to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchevs (1894-1971) offer to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for the U.S. promising not to invade Cuba. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Source: https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war ... ile-crisis

[Sherlock Holmes]

You also missed much of what I said earlier in the thread Jose.

I argued that NATO or Ukraine could have simply agreed that expanding to include Ukraine could be reasonably perceived as a threat to Russia and a treaty on Ukraine remaining outside of NATO be drafted and signed.

That would have very likely avoided this invasion, yet every NATO member insisted on Ukraine being a viable future NATO member, Ukraine's Zelenskyy openly showed contempt for Russia's concerns, the entire narrative was a provocation.

NATO (the North Atlantic Council) decide on membership not Ukraine and (as stated in the documents I showed you) James Baker made it clear that NATO would not expand eastwards after the unification of Germany, Russia even hinted back then, that it was prepared to mass troops along the border and site tactical nuclear weapons, it said it would do this IF NATO expanded, and what did NATO do? it expanded!!!

I asked people what could Russia have done beside invade? I really would be interested in some answers here. They are increasingly surrounded by states that have US nuclear weapons, what else could they do to prevent NATO ever incorporating Ukraine? Remember for Russia this an existential concern just as the Cuban crisis was seen by the US.

In plain English the Russians were told "Screw you, we will expand as we see fit when we see fit and your concerns about us having nuclear weapons around you border are nothing to us, we don't give a damn".