Outside self defense-Is War ever justified?

[PLATO]

And isn't it immoral not to step in when heinous murdery **** is going down you could put a stop to?

-You might gather that I'm ambivalent...

Yes, I think you could argue that. BE's example of Yemen and the example of Rwanda clearly show that he is right that Nation States don't act out of morality. It appears that it is proximity of threat and National Interest that cause nations to act. Now, I guess, the question becomes..."When is stopping genocide in a Nation's Interest?"

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Again, sometimes for diplomatic reasons beyond those you cite, like Yugoslavia...

[PLATO]

Again, sometimes for diplomatic reasons beyond those you cite, like Yugoslavia...

Yes, but I would consider diplomatic reasons to be in the "National Interest" category

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

It's an indirect interest, more-or-less - the world is a lot smaller these days, and everything everywhere matters, but as you pointed out what's going on with a next-door neighbor is more important to us...

[N35t0r]

I think your own question includes the answer and it is a very cynical one despite your no doubt good intentions.

There were and are genocides happening all over the planet. Yemen for example.
You (we) focus on ukraine because it is in our elites' best interests to focus on ukraine.

The so called interest is nothing more than a cold calculation of the benefits an intervantion will or will not bring to the interested parties.


So genocide in Yemen (by saudi arabia which does not have nuclear weapons and so could be averted easily), well yes it is so very sad....


"Genocide" in ukraine where the weaknening of russia fulfis some geopolitical interests, oh god we must act.

There is absolutely no morality on nations. On people yes but on nations no

It's still better to stop one genocide than to not stop any, but I'm weird like that.

Also, the US will never lift a hand against Saudi Arabia to help other 'ragheads'. There's no popular support, and little chance to drum it up

Compare to Germany right now. The government is doing almost anything it can to avoid sending significant help to Ukraine, but they're almost forced to do so due to popular support for it.

[PLATO]

Compare to Germany right now. The government is doing almost anything it can to avoid sending significant help to Ukraine, but they're almost forced to do so due to popular support for it.

Hard to fathom what the German government is hoping to achieve by their stance. Is it all about gas supply? Their finance minister and unions sure are against any gas boycott.

[PLATO]

Also, the US will never lift a hand against Saudi Arabia to help other 'ragheads'. There's no popular support, and little chance to drum it up

And there you have it. Ukrainians are white people and not "brown" people so the West cares. Governmental racism at its best.

[N35t0r]

For the US, sure.

For Europe is more understandable, it's right here.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Heck've a coincidence otherwise, isn't it?

[N35t0r]

For Europe, not really. I could drive to Ukraine in 15 hours, it's right next door.

It's also why Europe also pushed for intervention in former Yugoslavia.

Maybe the question to be asked is why don't Yemen and Rwanda have a large bunch of neighbors who value human rights and are willing to intervene to stop genocide?

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Good question.

[N35t0r]

Hard to fathom what the German government is hoping to achieve by their stance. Is it all about gas supply? Their finance minister and unions sure are against any gas boycott.

I'm not sure exactly what Scholz wants to achieve. Germany cutting the gas is political suicide, and not really that important in the grand scheme of things. If Russia cuts it from their side, that at least will polarize a lot of the population and measures to avoid the worst of the crisis will be easier to make. The government probably wants to avoid this, but I don't think it is that likely.
I think it's mostly fear, and several decades of a very strong anti-war message (also remember that anyone over 40 has clear memories of this being two different countries). This is in line with the SPD being the most reticent, since they are one of the traditional parties with more 'old guard' politicians. The greens, which are part of the governing coalition and generally much younger; initially wanted to severely curtail the shipment of German weapons worldwide (and it's the nation reason why initially Germany only sent helmets and body armor to Ukraine), are now fully in favor of sending heavy weapons and are heavily pressuring the Chancellor.
.

[Geronimo]

It seems the 121,000 Ukrainian children being forcibly sent to Russia to be 'adopted' by Russian families represent another damning line evidence that Russia is already engaged in genocide.

[BeBMan]

Hard to fathom what the German government is hoping to achieve by their stance. Is it all about gas supply? Their finance minister and unions sure are against any gas boycott.

IMO it has mostly to do with Scholz party, the SPD. Historically, it's the grand old dame of German politics. It can claim proudly it's been the only party that stood up vs. Hitler in 1938 in the last Reichstag session before he gained absolute powers.

In regards to Russia, the SPD sees the detente politics of the late 1960ies/1970ies with the Soviet Union as a major success. This also marks the start of the German gas deals. Since then, the idea that integrating Russia via trade to increase security would reduce the risk of war became central to German politics.

Not, this was a good idea indeed in the 1960/70ies, and then again after 1990. But it is a complete failure when the circumstances change. And they did with Russia years ago after it became outright revanchist with Putin trying to "undo" what he sees as major humiliation by regaining territory by force.

Having ignored or not realized that is a major failure of the SPD, but also others, since conservative folks like Kohl or then Merkel essentially took the same approach for years.

What Scholz wants? As Nestor writes, there's certainly a fear of a major escalation in the war, and of serious economic losses in case of a full energy embargo (or a Russian stop of deliveries). Plus in case of the SPD it has a very strong pacifist part, which may simply be unhappy with stuff like arms deliveries etc, so Scholz may think he has to keep them onboard.

Scholz himself is also more of the cautious type, which usually works well in German politics, since often it's about finding consensus in coalition governments. Merkel was similar in this regard. But in a situation like this, where we need clear, and fast decision-making it's an obstacle and sometimes a pain to watch.

Bottom line for me: Scholz has declared a major change in regards to security/NATO. In the same speech he also said "Putin must not win" in Ukraine. Now he has to prove that these were more than just verbal declarations and good intentions.

[Egbert]

Justifies by whom?

Back in old days a chief might decide ian attack on a neighbouring state would be a just war. By a "justice" I mean cutting peoples throats and taking their stuff. Off course all of his soldiers who enriched by participating in despoliation, plunder and rapine would be sure to see him as a wise and prudent leader wh could be relied upon to do the right thing.

[Bereta_Eder]

It's still better to stop one genocide than to not stop any, but I'm weird like that.

there is a whole other story there but I'm too beat up to tell it.

suffice ot say that there have been a lot of mistakes

but when someone like the nazi danubbs say tell the grandkids not to support your murderous friends if they don't want to see another grandma blown to pieces by NATO bombs,
that's where I say putin go f them all (figuratively)


oh and yeah also racism

[Bereta_Eder]

although I don't think the west is racist. It will do what serves its interests.

come on. who cared about a bunch of some albanian muslims. Noone. But yugoslavia had to get destroyed.

offensive wars are always dressed in some moralistic veneer.

Doesn't fool anyone. Maybe some carrot heads like danubbs And of course the avergafe american is excused for various reasons. They have an ability to miracusly forget that they cassed hundreds of thousands of deaths and sell themselves like the protectores of human rights.

That's comedy central

Europeans are too f in the head to do anything about it. We're talking about people who rochastrated the death of millions just because they had a different religion.

Do you really expect anything good from those people?


even now, germany italy france, other countries are LITERALY financing putin's war machine with billions each day.

they are blocking one initiative after the other.


and zelensky betrayed his people.


who knows. maybe it's because he serves other interests.

meanwhile orthodox are dying.
oh yeah. he's not

[Bereta_Eder]

not that i see that as orthodox against the world. far from it.
but to have danubs accuse me of being antiwestern like the west is some butterfly is hilarious. He still has to apoligize to the kids that saw their parents die from HIS bombs.

also who resisted the nazis? the belgians the danish

come on serbs and greeks did

the west financed UCK terrorists then serbs got carried away.

hey they remembered what the albanian/ croatian nazis did. Also what the ottomans did.

Now the west had a different opinion?

g f yourself

the west killed serbs and backed muslims as they burned their churchs and killed their people.

They dressed is as "protecting muslims from genocide" but they armed and trained the uck albanian terrorists.

blair and clinton. mass murderers that will never face justice


tell me about putin