Do you think the invasion of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was legitimate too?

A 'yes' or 'no' should suffice. — Olivier5

The Germans were encircled on all sides by France, Russia, and the British Empire. Stalin had started war preparations against Germany back in 1926, long before Hitler came to power. Stalin's Communist International (COMINTERN) aimed to create a Soviet-controlled United States of Europe. Invading Poland was the logical step toward invading Russia in a defensive war. — Apollodorus

I take that as a yes.

If an invasion is necessary as part of a defensive war, then of course it is legitimate. Germany felt threatened by Stalinist Russia. To attack Russia, the Germans needed to pass through Poland. What else do you expect them to have done? Jump over it, maybe??? :grin:

Besides, in 1941 Britain and Russia invaded Iran and divided it between themselves.

What exactly makes you think it’s OK for Britain and Russia to invade and divide Iran in 1941, but not for Germany and Russia to invade and divide Poland in 1939???

Plus, you keep forgetting that Poland itself had invaded and divided Ukraine earlier!

As I said, under Polish-Lithuanian occupation, Ukraine was heavily colonized with Poles. That was exactly why the eastern half of Ukraine asked to be incorporated into Russia in the 1600's. The western half was taken by Russia from the Poles in the following century. Without Russia, Ukraine wouldn't even exist today. It would be divided between Poland-Lithuania, Austria, and Turkey.

And anyway, how does Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 amount to “proof” that it is wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022???

You make no sense whatsoever.

Australia belonged to its indigenous Aboriginal inhabitants for 60,000 years. Then the Brits invaded in the 1700’s, massacred most of the natives and stole their land.

Recommended reading:

Massacres, human ears and a 'head collector': white atrocities against Australian Aborigines - Daily Mail

Australia continues to destroy the Aboriginals and their culture (in 2020!):

An ancient Aboriginal site was blasted away by a mining company. Here’s why that was allowed – Australian Geographic

To cover up their crimes, some Australians have apparently converted to Buddhism and are calling Putin a “malevolent spirit” to deflect attention from themselves.

IMO the reality is that the true malevolent spirit is the spirit of British Imperialism that is now animating sections of the American establishment and its client-states including Australia and England ....

What's clearly needed is the much more firm, down-to-earth explanation that he's been possessed by the ghost of a long dead dictator. Much more reasonable. — Isaac

I read 's comment as witty, I guess not everyone did.

To cover up their crimes, some Australians have apparently converted to Buddhism and are calling Putin a “malevolent spirit” to deflect attention from themselves. — Apollodorus

Who are they?

Anyway, Putin has aired his thinking, not really new or anything, has already been suggested in this thread a few times.

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense.
— baker

You seem to think making shit up and acting as if someone else has said it counts as an appropriate reply, and that name calling counts.

You're arguing with your own imaginary opponent. I've got better things to do. Have fun. — creativesoul

*sigh*

An example:
Already when I was little, the Christians around me considered me their enemy. Because I was not one of them. They unilaterally declared me their enemy. I felt no hostility toward them, I didn't consider them my enemies, but they didn't care about that. I also know they took a measure of pride in "peacefully coexisting with their enemy, ie. me". To this day, I don't consider myself their enemy, but they still insist that I am. They don't care about what I think. In their eyes, I am whatever they say that I am. Beyond that I don't exist for them.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters.

People who can in fact "peacefully coexist" are not enemies to begin with.

I don't think I've declared myself a Buddhist on this forum, — Wayfarer

You said as much. But the exact quote of yours is too hard to find, since the keywords are too common.

although I have a strong interest in Buddhism, and would appreciate not being stereotyped.

Not stereotyped, but held accountable. This could be your last chance.

Anyway - Putin himself invoked the spirit of the tsar Peter to rationalise his invasion. His actions and murderous disregard for human life are in keeping with the spirit of Josef Stalin also.

You really enjoy saying such things, huh? You're willing to posit the existence of a soul, a selfhood, just so that you can enjoy in the contempt you feel for someone, and the self-righteousness.

Again the NATO and Nazi things show to be partial rationales (at best), excuses. — jorndoe

The Russians should be more moral than the Americans because [complete the sentence].

I thought... Didn't the thread already establish that everyone is bad, evil, something like that...? — jorndoe

What about the Chinese, the Saudis, the Aussies, the Brunei, and the Dutch?

I read ↪Wayfarer's comment as witty — jorndoe

'A joke explained is a joke lost' :groan:

Already when I was little, the Christians around me considered me their enemy. Because I was not one of them. They unilaterally declared me their enemy. I felt no hostility toward them, I didn't consider them my enemies, but they didn't care about that. I also know they took a measure of pride in "peacefully coexisting with their enemy, ie. me". To this day, I don't consider myself their enemy, but they still insist that I am. They don't care about what I think. In their eyes, I am whatever they say that I am. Beyond that I don't exist for them.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters.

People who can in fact "peacefully coexist" are not enemies to begin with. — baker

Gratuitous assertions won't cut it.

The last statement does not follow from anything preceding it. That's a problem in a philosophy forum such as this one, because we philosopher-types tend to place the utmost importance upon logical well-founded conclusions. That's not one of them.

You've met some immoral people who called themselves "Christian". Not all Christians are like that.

So, assuming sincerity in speech, others used the phrase "peacefully co-existing with their enemies" to talk about you in the ways you clearly described above. Thanks for that, by the way. It helped me to personally be able to make sense out of the responses you've given. But...

Not everyone who uses those words has the same moral/ethical standards(means the same thing when putting the phrase into practice). I cannot blame you for having bad feelings about the phrase or towards those Christians as a result of that. However, if you go back and look, I explained clearly what I meant by "peacefully co-existing with one's enemies".

What I meant is nothing like what those self-proclaimed "Christians" meant.

Because I'm a generally honest person who's led the life I have, you may be interested to know that I can personally relate to you and others who've been subject to inconsiderate treatment by others. It seems you are one of us and I, one of you. Many of those situations and sets of circumstances helped to shape the clay into the man that I am today. To this day, I can still remember many of those events, although the crispness has blurred considerably over the decades. No one ought have to go through anything like what you've described above.

Australia belonged to its indigenous Aboriginal inhabitants for 60,000 years. Then the Brits invaded in the 1700’s, massacred most of the natives and stole their land. — Apollodorus

And thus...

It's just fine if Putin does the same...

:zip:

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters. — baker

Not everyone living in the "west" fits into your preconceived notion of "Westerners".

The sheer number of nations, communities, and individuals around the world that are currently and/or historically guilty of totally unacceptable behaviors exactly as you've described above is far too numerous to cherry pick "Westerners". Humans in general have had to fight for their very lives with other humans throughout human history. Humans were often our own mortal enemies.

We're no longer living in those archaic times. We are interdependent social creatures, and we've no choice in the matter. We know this.

Here's the underlying problem in a nutshell:The obsession of obtaining wealth and an abundance of resources by whatever means necessary is not just a "western problem".

Although, at the heart of it all, I would tend to agree that American culture in general permits, perpetuates, and continues to cultivate treating others with unnecessarily harmful open baseless(tribalesque) contempt, personal inconsideration, and public ridicule, and that is likely an ethical/moral vestige stemming from what you've outlined...

Oh yeah, and I am most certainly not a Christian. I'm agnostic on matters like the origin of the universe.

I am most certainly not a Christian — creativesoul

You spoke of peaceful coexistence with one's enemy, which was understood as a critique of Mr Putin. Hence you must be the enemy, and you deserve to be buried under an avalanche of shitposts.

In cyberspace, parody is indistinguishable from propaganda.

It's just fine if Putin does the same... — creativesoul

Nonsense. Killing a few thousand (most of them in combat) out of 40 million is NOT "the same" at all.

Plus, Ukraine used to be part of Russia. Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine were one country with the capital at Kiev and called "Russian Land" (ро́усьскаѧ землѧ, Rusiskae Zemle) or short, Rus. "Rus" or "Russian" was the ethnonym used by all three populations to refer to themselves (see Wikipedia, Kievan Rus). No resemblance whatsoever to what happened in Australia!

Fact is, Russia’s demands were absolutely clear and IMO legitimate:

To Ukraine:
Recognize Crimea as Russian.
Recognize ethnic-Russian Donetsk and Luhansk as independent republics.
Declare neutrality.

To NATO:
Roll back from Eastern Europe.
Stay out of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s and NATO’s answer was “no”. Therefore, Ukraine and the West consciously chose war. Therefore, they must acknowledge their share of responsibility for the conflict.

IMO, the only thing that remains to be established is how much responsibility the West should acknowledge. Many analysts believe the West bears most of the responsibility, given that the conflict arose from NATO expansion (proposed by NATO in the early 1990’s and promised to Ukraine in 2008).

'A joke explained is a joke lost' — Wayfarer

Agreed. But if it was just a "joke", why did @jorndoe feel a need to offer his services as your lawyer? :smile:



Creativesoul: I'm not a Christian. Therefore, I'm right.

Baker: I'm not a Buddhist. Therefore, I'm right.

Wayfarer: I'm a Buddhist. Therefore I'm right.

:grin:

Fact is, Russia’s demands were absolutely clear and IMO legitimate: — Apollodorus

It strains credulity to argue Russia’s actions are legitimate.

They’re not legitimate nor moral, nor intelligent for that matter. This was and is a stupid, immoral, illegitimate move on Russia’s part. Regardless of pretext— which every person or state will give to justify their crimes.

I share your view that the West (the US) has greatly contributed to this war. But to go as far as to claim Russian legitimacy is overkill.

It strains credulity to argue Russia’s actions are legitimate. — Xtrix

I don't think there is any law at that level of action. That would require a global government.

I don't think there is any law at that level of action. That would require a global government. — Tate

There is the UN Charter, as well as various treaties and conventions, eg the Geneva conventions.

There is the UN Charter, as well as various treaties and conventions, eg the Geneva conventions. — Olivier5

There's no enforcement of any of that, though. We could say Russia broke an agreement, but would you say they acted illegally?

There's no enforcement of any of that, though. — Tate

Not on victors, you are right, but there is often some enforcement on losers, as was the case in Nuremberg. In this particular case, if Russia loses the war it might well have to pay reparations, if found guilty of starting it by the Hague or some other international court.

Your position can be summed up here nicely.

Throughout history all sorts of nations have wrongfully imposed themselves upon others and stole their shit(including their autonomy), therefore it's okay if Russia does the same to Ukraine or everyone's a hypocrit.

No resemblance whatsoever — Apollodorus

The resemblance of Russia's current actions to others' throughout history is that Russia - like others - are forcing themselves onto another people, and stealing their shit(including their autonomy) against the will of those people.

Your claims of historical Russian boundaries is being used to justify current actions. Arbitrary points in time. Go back farther, use the same logic, and we'd be forced to give the land back to the first settlers.

we'd be forced to give the land back to the first settlers. — creativesoul

Neanderthal ?

There's no enforcement of any of that, though.
— Tate

Not on victors, you are right, but there is often some enforcement on losers, as was the case in Nuremberg — Olivier5

I just think of law as something everyone is subject to. There's no enforcing body in that sense.

I just think of law as something everyone is subject to. There's no enforcing body in that sense. — Tate

No universal one, no.

Omg I can't believe that the White House is full of Putin propagandists omg

As if sanctions have ever done anything else but punish regular people. Same can be said for war of course.

Well, to me, this only demonstrates that you guys have zero interest in objectivity and truth.

If you’re saying that I said countries should be “given back to the Neanderthals”, then that’s a deliberate distortion or lie.

What I did say, very clearly and repeatedly, is that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

I also said that (1) this must be applied on the merits of each particular case, (2) no one says it must be applied by force of arms, and (3) nor can force or threat of force (or violence) be ruled out.

In other words, the principle should be applied if, when, and to the extent that, it is feasible.

I even gave concrete examples: Tibet, annexed by China in 1951, should be returned to the Tibetan people; North Cyprus, invaded and occupied by Turkey in 1974, should be returned to the Cypriots; Kurdistan, occupied by Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, should be returned to the Kurds.

These are very well-known and clear-cut cases that IMO even ignorant and unthinking pro-NATO activists can understand.

Four million Finns have an oversized country to live in. In contrast, forty million Kurds have no state of their own and are being suppressed, attacked, murdered, and jailed by the Turkish government on a daily basis. Yet Kurds that resist Turkish occupation and atrocities against their own people are labeled “terrorists” by the same Western powers, including NATO, that are opposed to Russia taking back Crimea and the Donbas.

Though Tibet’s annexation by China and Cyprus’ occupation by Turkey have never been recognized by the UN, the UN is doing absolutely nothing about it, and even less about Kurdistan. The only UN member that supports an independent Kurdistan is Israel, and even that is limited to Iraqi Kurdistan, leaving out most of Kurdish territory that is under Turkish occupation.

The fact is that the UN, and the US-created world order in general, is not an order based on justice but on self-interest. By definition, it pushes the agenda of those member states that have the most power and influence, from the US down. Those that are at the bottom of the system, e.g. the Kurds, have absolutely no rights and no say.

And nope, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not even remotely similar to Brits taking Australia from the Aboriginals. If anything, the conflict in Ukraine is more like a civil war within what historically has been one country, i.e. Russia.

In any case, your concept of “justice” seems to be worse than risible …. :grin:



:up:

I’m not sure why I was tagged in this response, since nothing I said was addressed. So I’ll repeat what I said, in case you want another chance to do so: to argue Russia’s actions are legitimate is absurd.

To do so also undermines the fact of the very real and very immoral role the US (and, therefore, NATO) has played in this crime.