How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you start with "people have fundamental individual rights that should not be violated" and "initiation of the use of force is bad"

...then it follows that Ukrainian defence of their rights against the Russians, who initiated the use of force against them, is a good thing that should not be allowed to be extinguished simply because the Russians have the strength of numbers and strength of arms to do so.

By the Ukranians,.

Which leads us inexorably to "someone should help Ukraine to defend itself against Russia", and thence "we should help Ukraine to defend itself against Russia", via the principle of 'if not me, then who?'.

If you want to go help, then you go help. Why don't you?

So, do you think that the NATO nations, who have the capability to help Ukraine defend its rights against the Russian aggression, should intervene? If not, then what part of my reasoning from your premises do you take issue with?

A government is tasked with the duty of protecting the people under the care of that government. The US government is supposed to protect the US. The UK government is supposed to protect the UK. The French government is supposed to protect France. I hope you see where that is supposed to lead.

If you come across a big bully robbing some weedy kid, and you have the means and the skills to defend the victim, you have a duty to do so. Seeing that scene and saying "It's not my place to get involved, but I am appalled at the robber's initiation of the use of force and shall tut very loudly as I walk away" would make you an arsehole, not a libertarian.

Bad analogy is bad.

Every time I say "don't get involved" people say I support Putin or Russia. That is a straw man. I have been very clear about my non-interventionist position, but people who either can't or won't read insist that it means I support the opposite side from their side.

Reminds me of a certain quote by Rev. Niemöller.

Hello Godwin's Law.

Non-interventionism and neutrality is a myth in cases like Ukraine. A person feels good to say it is all. But it doesn't wash. It's like witnessing a murder and not wanting to get involved.

Cool story bro.

Non-interventionism and neutrality is a myth in cases like Ukraine. A person feels good to say it is all. But it doesn't wash. It's like witnessing a murder and not wanting to get involved.

Nicely put.

That is a very well stated fallacy.

 

[marc]

I know. Libertarians, the extreme right, and the extreme left all live in a fantasy reality that does not and can nor exist given us humans as we are.


The extreme libertarians think they are are a kingdom to themselves in their home owing nothing to anyone. Some reject paying taxes for emergency services. The John Wayne cowboy movie image.

Unless you are living alone in the wilderness without anything from civilization you are always dependent on the larger group.

Collectively, libertarians are a parasitic subset of society. In some ways they serve as a counterbalance to the hyper-organization that pervades modern existence. But even that meager redemption doesn’t apply to the libberpublican faction, who would preserve their Marlboro Man image for themselves while imposing law’n order on everyone else.

Definitely parasitic. Wanting all the advantages of a free society while ignoring all the responsibilities/duties that come with it.

In the manga series Vinland Saga, the author notes his take on the Vikings idea of 'freedom'. To me it sounds not that different from what some right wingers idea seems to be:

Spoiler: Author's Notes

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know. Libertarians, the extreme right, and the extreme left all live in a fantasy reality that does not and can nor exist given us humans as we are.


The extreme libertarians think they are are a kingdom to themselves in their home owing nothing to anyone. Some reject paying taxes for emergency services. The John Wayne cowboy movie image.

Unless you are living alone in the wilderness without anything from civilization you are always dependent on the larger group.

Collectively, libertarians are a parasitic subset of society. In some ways they serve as a counterbalance to the hyper-organization that pervades modern existence. But even that meager redemption doesn’t apply to the libberpublican faction, who would preserve their Marlboro Man image for themselves while imposing law’n order on everyone else.

Definitely parasitic. Wanting all the advantages of a free society while ignoring all the responsibilities/duties that come with it.

You can't have a free society with all the "responsibilities/duties" that you favor that destroy freedom. There are responsibilities and duties to freedom, such as not enslaving others, not stealing from others, not killing others, etc. Those aren't the ones you are talking about.

In the manga series Vinland Saga, the author notes his take on the Vikings idea of 'freedom'. To me it sounds not that different from what some right wingers idea seems to be:

Spoiler: Author's Notes

View attachment 38351

Argument ad manga. That's a new one.

 

[Rhea]

A government is tasked with the duty of protecting the people under the care of that government. The US government is supposed to protect the US. The UK government is supposed to protect the UK. The French government is supposed to protect France. I hope you see where that is supposed to lead.

This an interesting thing to think about. It seems extremely shallow and undeveloped, though. Because one immediately thinks about what modern society wants or needs for not-homeland places.

It sounds like you are claiming that Libertarians have no need or want of foreign raw materials, supplies, labor or tourism in either direction.

Your description of “government tasked with taking care of its own people” without ever getting involved in the places its people want to visit or do business with is childishly short-sighted.

It reminds me of my 8 year old son when he said, “mommy, I don’t want to go to college if I have to go away and sleep there. Can’t we just build a lab in the dining room?”

It was cute, but childishly naive.

 

[Hermit]

A government is tasked with the duty of protecting the people under the care of that government. The US government is supposed to protect the US. The UK government is supposed to protect the UK. The French government is supposed to protect France. I hope you see where that is supposed to lead.

It leads to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". You see, taking care of one's country involves preserving the country's interests, many of which are located outside its borders, and dealing with real, potential or even just falsely imagined threats from other countries. The US has done that for decades, and it is by no means exceptional for doing so. I explained it to you in this post, but the penny has not dropped yet, so here it is again:

It is US policy that any time any group out there gets cross with any other group out there, we have to figure out which one are the "good guys" and support them.

A more mature perspective is that sometimes, in some conflicts, there are no "good guys".

You are assuming that "good guys" is a criterion by which US foreign policy is conducted. Your naïveté would be touching were it not borne of the fact that you have swallowed propaganda concerning it hook, line and sinker.

The number one criterion of any nation is "What serves our interest best". The number two criterion arises from it: "What can we get away with in order to maximise our advantage?" Number three goes "How can we dress our actions up as being virtuous?"

Sometimes countries do support the good guys, but that only happens when support the good guys coincides with protecting or advancing the supporter's national interest. It may be news to you that the US did not ally itself with Stalin because Soviet Russia was the good guy. It did not provide two or three billion dollars worth of military equipment to the Mujahideen because they were the good guys. The US did not get chummy with Saddam Hussein via special envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld, because Iraq's dictator was a good guy...

The list of supporting sides that were not good guys is a lot longer than the list of good guys the US supported. You really need to re-examine your assumption.

 

[bilby]

If you want to go help, then you go help. Why don't you?

Because I am paying a government to do that on my behalf.

 

[bilby]

A government is tasked with the duty of protecting the people under the care of that government

Sure. And the existence of heavily armed nations led by people without respect for international borders implies that protecting the people of Australia, or Germany, or the USA against the threat posed by Russia is not achieved by failure to intervene in Ukraine.

When a house down the street is on fire, you need to help fight that fire, because if it's allowed to burn uncontrolled, it will eventually burn your house too.

Your intervention may simply take the form of hiring a fire department to deal with the problem. All you need do then is call them and ask them to come and help your neighbour.

Right now, you could ask your government to go and help Ukraine. At the very least, you could stop trying to argue that they shouldn't.

 

[bilby]

Bad analogy is bad.

...just not in any way you can articulate.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A government is tasked with the duty of protecting the people under the care of that government. The US government is supposed to protect the US. The UK government is supposed to protect the UK. The French government is supposed to protect France. I hope you see where that is supposed to lead.

This an interesting thing to think about. It seems extremely shallow and undeveloped, though. Because one immediately thinks about what modern society wants or needs for not-homeland places.

It sounds like you are claiming that Libertarians have no need or want of foreign raw materials, supplies, labor or tourism in either direction.

That's why we have this thing called "trade". You don't need governments waging proxy wars against each other in order to have it.

Your description of “government tasked with taking care of its own people” without ever getting involved in the places its people want to visit or do business with is childishly short-sighted.

If the government is not tasked with protecting the people under that government, what purpose does it have?

A government is tasked with the duty of protecting the people under the care of that government. The US government is supposed to protect the US. The UK government is supposed to protect the UK. The French government is supposed to protect France. I hope you see where that is supposed to lead.

It leads to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". You see, taking care of one's country involves preserving the country's interests, many of which are located outside its borders, and dealing with real, potential or even just falsely imagined threats from other countries. The US has done that for decades, and it is by no means exceptional for doing so.

You do realize that "the enemy of my enemy" is not an absolute rule, but an occasional principle that allows alliances of convenience without actual friendship?

Let's see ... US and Saddam were enemies, Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies, so therefore US and Al Qaeda were allies. That makes sense to you.

I explained it to you in this post, but the penny has not dropped yet, so here it is again:

Yeah, that post was idiotic then and it is idiotic now.

The penny has dropped ... through a grating into the sewer. You're still trying to fish it out and present it.

If you want to go help, then you go help. Why don't you?

Because I am paying a government to do that on my behalf.

Cool story bro.

It absolves you of the responsibility of acting on your principles.

Odds are you're going to respond by asking why I didn't join the Russian military, bringing it back to the false dichotomy fallacy I pointed out earlier. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

Bad analogy is bad.

...just not in any way you can articulate.

How much detail do you need for each absurd argument? Then again, you are in favor of foreign intervention ...

 

[bilby]

Odds are you're going to respond by asking why I didn't join the Russian military, bringing it back to the false dichotomy fallacy I pointed out earlier.

Not at all; I don't think you support Russia, and I think you've made that quite clear.

That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to stand up for their victim.

Prove me wrong, I dare you.

What, are you six years old? You dare me? Oh, no! I am so scared!

And of course, you are wrong (as I just proved). Not everyone who disagrees with you holds the exact same opinions. Your critics are legion, and need not be homogeneous and monolithic. Each one is a person just as complex and real as you yourself are.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can't have a free society with all the "responsibilities/duties" that you favor that destroy freedom. There are responsibilities and duties to freedom, such as not enslaving others, not stealing from others, not killing others, etc. Those aren't the ones you are talking about.

Oh mercy. We can't be anything less than perfect so if an action is imperfect it must not be undertaken. This is definitely libertarian parasitism and fantasy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here's a wild radical thought that seems to have received too little attention.

Maybe neither side are the "good guys."

So true. In our eagerness to support Ukraine's resistance to being invaded and annexed by Russia we wilfully ignore the simultaneous invasion and annexation of Russia by Ukraine. We really need to take a more balanced view when looking at both sides. We can do that by supporting Russia, whose capital is currently surrounded and beleaguered by Ukrainian tanks, and protesting against the mass killing of Moscow's civilian population

After you have finished defeating the strawman, go ahead and take a victory lap.

Jason: if you don't like people "strawmanning" you, then stop being so vague and state your position. Vague statements like "neither side is a good guy". What does that even mean? One side is attacking another. One side is imperialistic and wants to conquer land. One side deliberately targets civilians. One side has actively kidnapped thousands of children and forced them to Mother Russia. One side shells the area where the UN secretary is visiting on a peace mission. One side launched a missile within 15 miles of my 10-year-old niece. Should I tell her that the side that is trying to stop the imperialists and save her home are just as bad as the guys that launched that missile?

Every time I say "don't get involved" people say I support Putin or Russia. That is a straw man. I have been very clear about my non-interventionist position, but people who either can't or won't read insist that it means I support the opposite side from their side.

It isn't a straw man to say I don't support Russia even though I say we shouldn't get involved. It is a straw man to say I do support them because I say we shouldn't get involved.

Also, as for "sometimes there are no good guys", I know that noticing that Ukraine has its own problems means I somehow support the other side. It doesn't mean I think Ukraine attacked Russia. If you want to know what problems Ukraine has, don't make up stories about Ukraine attacking Russia, look for actual facts for a change. It will do you good.

First off, thank you for answering my question. But you can't expect posters to know and understand position when you post it once then assume that everyone either read it and or remembers it! I won't straw man your position now that I know what you believe. But I disagree with the "non-interventionist" position. It's where you and I are different. If I someone attacks someone in front of me, I will help. To do nothing, helps the attacker; hurts the victim. You aren't really being non-interventionist; your position is really passively supporting the invaders. Finally, imperialists will only stop when someone stops them. I keep hearing that we should allow Putin a win in Ukraine and then he'll save face and return home. I don't agree. We didn't do a damn thing when he took Georgia and Crimea. We're crazy if we think that Putin will stop after he takes Ukraine. He wants the rest of eastern Europe.

Secondly, I'd agree that there are bad guys on both sides. The Ukrainian soldiers are being mean to the Russians. Very mean. But they are defending. The other side is attacking a sovereign country. If someone broke into my home with the intent to kill, I'd shoot them with glee. You can call that bad if you want. Fine. But the action was caused by the person breaking into my house. Same thing with the Russians. If Russians had not attacked, there would be no war today.

But the group that is really suffering are the civilians. They can say what you want about the Ukrainian soldiers and their government. But the civilians are the ones that are suffering. I'm sorry, but the Ukranian women and children are the good people. They didn't start this fight. There are no Russian civilians suffering.

 

[Rhea]

A government is tasked with the duty of protecting the people under the care of that government. The US government is supposed to protect the US. The UK government is supposed to protect the UK. The French government is supposed to protect France. I hope you see where that is supposed to lead.

This an interesting thing to think about. It seems extremely shallow and undeveloped, though. Because one immediately thinks about what modern society wants or needs for not-homeland places.

It sounds like you are claiming that Libertarians have no need or want of foreign raw materials, supplies, labor or tourism in either direction.

That's why we have this thing called "trade". You don't need governments waging proxy wars against each other in order to have it.

You seem to be implying that “trade” magically happens whenever we want it without regard to whether we have stood by and watched a country be invaded.

That feels weird because it is so obviously not how trade works today. Trade partners have actions and reactions to our behavior. “Trade” says nothing about how safe it is or isn’t for Americans to travel abroad.

So I said that if we stuck to an isolationist policy and had no policies about helping allies, our abiity to get raw materials, supplies, labor or engage in tourism would be harmed. And you replied, “no we have trade.”

That does not even make sense, let alone match reality.

Your description of “government tasked with taking care of its own people” without ever getting involved in the places its people want to visit or do business with is childishly short-sighted.

If the government is not tasked with protecting the people under that government, what purpose does it have?

This is a weird reply. You seem to be thinking that if I say that a government cares about its people outside our borders, that I’m saying it’s not tasked with protecting our people. But that’s not at all what I said. See the word, “without”. Not sure if you did this deliberately or because you didn’t understand it.

I was pretty clear that I was saying the government is tasked with protecting its people AND their ability to get involved with places its people want to go to or do business with. Your description says that a government should only be involved within its borders. USA in USA, France in France. Etc. That the USA protecting people in France is not our job, should not be our job. Except those Americans who want to do business in france or with french people need that market to be safe and protected.

So a government “tasked with taking care of its own people” needs to take care of them at home AND protect a world abroad for them. And it turns out many countries feel the same way and they band together for a common goal that is better achieved together than apart. They protect Ukraine because their people, who they are tasked with taking care of, want to do business with Ukraine.

Also there are morals around watching a crime and doing nothing. I don’t go into that because I gather those are not your morals and you do not feel any compulsion to act if you see someone outside of your tribe being victimized. So I will stipulate that this is not an emotion you feel, and hence my argument is economic.

 

[steve_bank]

You can't have a free society with all the "responsibilities/duties" that you favor that destroy freedom. There are responsibilities and duties to freedom, such as not enslaving others, not stealing from others, not killing others, etc. Those aren't the ones you are talking about.

You are invoking a mythical absolute freedom from responsibility that does not exist. It is like a simplistic child's view of reality. The 10th century western man alone with horse and saddle beholden to none. That image was creted by east coasy pulp fiction writers for east coast consiu,ption.

There is the world as you want it to be and the world as it is with real emotional finicky illogical humans.

The fact that the USA has actually surkvevd for 200 years with the freedoms we do have is a miracle. The fact that the USA and oter stes have developed a history of peaceful transfer of power is historically staggering.

If you have been paying attention to news you would know westernl liberal democracy is under attack in Europe as well as over here with Trump.

Putin is a worse case scenario. In the long run Ukraine may well determine the long term fate of western liberal democracy. I expect the Europeans know that well.

Even given lingering issues from slavery and other issues the freedoms we do have now and especially rule of law is historical.

Your libertarianism will be worthless in a world dominated by Russian and Chinese authoritarianism and suppression of what we take as basic liberties.

So again, you are president and how do yiu respond to Ukraine. This is not hypothetical or academic, it is reality.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Everyone has a slightly different opinion on how to deal with the Ukraine situation. It depends on one's degree of empathy and selfishness. I want a free, democratic Ukraine. If I allow the Orange Hitler or the Russian Hitler to have his way that won't happen. Libertarian Utopia is big on authoritarianism. The problem is that the authority always comes from myself, not the group. Democratic republics solve the problem by voting for representatives. I don't know how libertarians solve their problem except my hacking each other to pieces until the problem is solved or by fantasizing. Show me some libertarian perfection out there in the real world and maybe I'll learn something.

Meanwhile back in Ukraine I read reports of fighting outside Ukraine, in Russia. Very nice. I'd like to see some long range missile strikes occur deep inside Russia against military targets. Bomb the fuckers.

 

[Elixir]

I'd like to see some long range missile strikes occur deep inside Russia against military targets. Bomb the fuckers.

Amen.
Other than going nuclear I don’t think Pootler has anything left - he has shot his wad. It would be good to wake up the Russian public to what is in store for them If they don’t curb their dog.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'd like to see some long range missile strikes occur deep inside Russia against military targets. Bomb the fuckers.

Amen.
Other than going nuclear I don’t think Pootler has anything left - he has shot his wad. It would be good to wake up the Russian public to what is in store for them If they don’t curb their dog.

I don't disagree. The more this war goes on, the further the Russian atrocities that are committed. The latest: it's being reported that the Russians have stolen millions of pounds of grain from Ukraine. These psychopaths destroy towns, kill as many as they can, kidnap their children, and steal their food. Stunning to me that the Finnish and Swedes are taking so long to join Nato! Anyway, if we really want to hurt Russia, we must get off their oil. The west sends a billion dollars a day to Russia. Every effort must be made to bankrupt the Russian death cult until they stop.

 

[barbos]

Everybody forgot Bucha?
Well, I have not been following that story for a while. Apparently it was proven that satellite images were fake. So no 3 weeks old bodies on the road, they are all from April 1. And you need to thank Ukrainian programmer who can determine a date of the picture by analyzing shadows. And then Turkey being a NATO member got real pictures with no bodies.

Plus someone (ukrainians) were using WW1 ammunition (really that old) which is not really banned but frowned upon. Lots of civilians ended up with flechettes in their bodies.

Sorry guys, all these civilians died shortly after or during russian forces leaving, when your nazis shelled the town with WW2 mines.

What do you have to say for yourself?
NATO collectively flat out lied about satellite images, only Turkey said "Fuck it!, we are out!"

 

[barbos]

Also, 90% of population had left Bucha when russian forces entered it.
And this is unconfirmed report from anonymous source in Kiev who left Bucha and talked to neighbors who stayed. So when russians left, the first to enter were the people who tried to loot unoccupied houses but some people did not leave and were shot in the process. I suspect these people could be the people who Zelensky famously gave weapons, basically criminals.
So, Mr, Biden who is a butcher now? Still Putin? Are you sure it's not you?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Everybody forgot Bucha?
Well, I have not been following that story for a while. Apparently it was proven that satellite images were fake. So no 3 weeks old bodies on the road, they are all from April 1. And you need to thank Ukrainian programmer who can determine a date of the picture by analyzing shadows. And then Turkey being a NATO member got real pictures with no bodies.

Plus someone (ukrainians) were using WW1 ammunition (really that old) which is not really banned but frowned upon. Lots of civilians ended up with flechettes in their bodies.

Sorry guys, all these civilians died shortly after or during russian forces leaving, when your nazis shelled the town with WW2 mines.

What do you have to say for yourself?
NATO collectively flat out lied about satellite images, only Turkey said "Fuck it!, we are out!"

Buddy, I'm sorry to tell you but the Russian news is about as reliable as dog shit. No one believes it. And of course Turkey didn't buy those lies either. People in the west aren't so gullible. And deep down, you know that your media is lying to you. Putler controls the Russian media. With all the death and misery that Putler is causing, I don't know how Russians sleep at night.