[brabel]

> I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on.

My point is simple: Ukraine should've done what Sweden is doing and strategically make sure its territory is safe while at the same time avoiding direct confrontation with other nations. Ukraine and NATO failed to do so and we're now seeing the result of their miscalculation. Of course Russia is to blame as well, as they're the ones that Ukraine was trying to defend against, I'm not claiming otherwise.

Even though the NATO-Ukraine story goes back to 1992, let's look at the events leading up to the war:

On 8 June 2017, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada passed a law making integration with NATO a foreign policy priority (https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/427216.html).

On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations... ).

09 Feb 2021 - Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed during Prime Minister Shmyhal's visit to Brussels that Ukraine is a candidate for NATO membership (https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/premyer-ministr-ta-gensek-nato-o...)

24 March 2021 - Ukraine announces measures to take back Crimea from Russia (https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-e...)

25 March 2021 - Russia starts military operations near Ukraine's border (which would lead to the war, almost one year later).

It's also relevant to notice that the Euromaidan protests in early 2014 were sparked by the then Pro-Russian Governement in Ukraine decision to move away from NATO and the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan) under pressure from Russia... that Russia had strongly opposed NATO membership by Ukraine should be crystal clear. That the new Ukrainian Government's decision to antagonize Russia and pursue as strongly as possible membership of NATO should also be crystal clear... hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression, ironically, while trying to prevent exactly that.

[somethingwitty1]

So nothing in your examples justifies an invasion of another country (and coincidentally, leaves out all the acts of aggression by Russia). This feels a lot like the "she shouldn't have worn that" arguments. You appear to feel Russia is justified for attacking and committing war crimes because Ukraine had the audacity to want to strengthen their alliances and protect their territory. Something, ironically, you say they should be doing, just not in a way that would protect them from the threats they are facing...because...Sweden!?. It is an interesting stance to have; though not one rooted in the reality of the situation and threats Ukraine faces(d), which are nothing like Sweden's (pull up a map to see the most obvious reason they are in different situations). But since you brought it up, Sweden actively participates in NATO initiatives, are members of NATO's PfP ("track that will lead to NATO membership") and currently have troops deployed helping NATO initiatives. So they are not likely a good example for your case of how Ukraine could have avoided instigating Russia.

[nybble41]

> hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression

Or in fewer words, your blaming of the victim. Don't act as if it wasn't entirely Russia's choice to invade, without any comparable provocation. It's not Ukraine's job to placate Russia. Avoiding Russian aggression is Russia's job. There is no guarantee that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway even if Ukraine didn't pursue NATO membership. (The threat of this is why they wanted to join NATO in the first place.)

[brabel]

> Or in fewer words, your blaming of the victim.

Well, yes. Who is to blame for the sanctions being applied on Russia now? Russia, the victim maybe? Can I blame the victim sometimes when their actions directly lead to a terrible outcome that's bad for everyone?

[somethingwitty1]

It is a strange equivalence you are trying to build here. But to answer you directly: the people responsible for the sanctions are the people that enforced them. Full stop. Just like Russia is responsible for attacking and committing war crimes. Full stop.

Now, if you want to go down the more philosophical road, people tend to be more morally ok with not feeling for Russia (IE: not calling them a "victim") over the sanctions because the sanctions were in response to attacking a nation and committing war crimes (though, if you read, many are feeling for russian citizens as many oppose the actions of "their" government). The reason most people see Ukraine as a victim is because they were doing what a nation should be doing (trying to build alliances to protect themselves against hostile forces). And when most people look at those two situations, they can easily understand how they aren't the same thing. Signing a piece of paper != bombing a hospital. Your argument is trying to take away that there is meaning and nuances to actions. We could say, "Ukraine did A, so Russia did B in response after threatening to not do A" is the same as "Russia did B, and NATO did C in response after threatening to not do B". And thus if "Russia is 'to blame' in C, then it reasons that Ukraine is 'to blame' in B". That is effectively your stance boiled down. And you can live in that world and no one can take you out of it. But the reality of the world isn't that simple and I certainly don't want to live in one where we decide that victims of atrocities and unspeakable acts "are to blame" because they tried to find peaceful ways to protect themselves. You are also completely avoiding the reality of how it could have been avoidable. Russia has no reason, NONE, to do what they are doing. You try to paint Ukraine responsible because they could have just given in to the threats (which makes no sense, given the reality of the situation), but for some reason completely ignore that Russia could have much more easily just not threatened. They could have been an ally to Ukraine. Putin and company decided they were the more powerful party and wanted to swing it around. So no, Ukraine's actions did not "directly lead to a terrible outcome". Russia's actions did. So no matter how you want to do your math, you are fundamentally wrong for victim-blaming in this situation.

[brabel]

The way your argument falls squarely into the same fallacies you attempt to accuse me of falling is quite interesting.

Examples to try to help you find your own biases:

> But the reality of the world isn't that simple and I certainly don't want to live in one where we decide that victims of atrocities and unspeakable acts "are to blame" because they tried to find peaceful ways to protect themselves

The reality of the world is that a big power gets to dicate what smaller countries can do around them. I don't like that either, but that's how it is and you can find multiple examples of that in the world throughout history. The USA has applied this same kind of doctrine the Russians are trying to impose on their smaller neighbours for over a century[1]. You live in a world where this is how things work and if you pretend you don't , you can cause a lot of suffering to your own people.

> Russia has no reason, NONE, to do what they are doing.

So you get to tell Russians what they can do or not and what reasons are acceptable for them to motivate themselves? Well, then perhaps Russia can tell Ukraine that their reasons to join NATO are not acceptable either?

> They could have been an ally to Ukraine.

They were for a long time.... when they attempted to join NATO, a Russia-hostile alliance whose creation was almost entirely motivated by the desire of Western powers to keep Russia in check, they absolutely signaled to Russia that they see Russia as their enemy.

> So no, Ukraine's actions did not "directly lead to a terrible outcome". Russia's actions did

We can't agree on that, obviously... you believe that anyone should have the right to do what they want without consequences to themselves because there should be no aggression from others. What a nice world it would be if that was the case, but unfortunately, just like Cuba can't have nuclear weapons pointing to the USA, so can't Ukraine have NATO bases within striking distance of Moscow... because both the USA and Russia think that they must protect themselves against the enemy and that their right to do that supersedes the rights of Cubans and Ukrainians to join whatever military alliances they want to. Until that changes, things like this will continue to happen... if Brazil tried to develop nuclear weapons, for example, we know all too well what would happen - because that actually happened and we know how it went - they stopped under enormous pressure from the USA - if they had pushed forward and said to the world "we have the right to peacefully defend ourselves against the american enemy by developing weapons that are as strong as the enemy's", I have no doubt the situation could have escalated to the point where American bombs would've be exploding in Brazil - but luckily brazilians realized that and bowed to the pressure. The problem in Iran was very similar and it was very, very close to being bombed by the USA (and it's still very possible that they will eventually invade).

[1] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine

[somethingwitty1]

> The reality of the world is that a big power gets to dicate what smaller countries can do around them. I don't like that either, but that's how it is and you can find multiple examples of that in the world throughout history. The USA has applied this same kind of doctrine the Russians are trying to impose on their smaller neighbours for over a century[1]. You live in a world where this is how things work and if you pretend you don't , you can cause a lot of suffering to your own people.

This has nothing to do with what I said. So "ok"!? Thank you for explaining that strong countries swing it around because they can. I'm not sure if you are trying to convince me that people do that [we are talking about someone doing that right now] or it somehow justifies it as ok [yes, that is what we are debating]? I can point to multiple points in modern times and history where people were persecuted because of physical attributes. That doesn't suddenly make it ok. I'm not sure what fallacy you are trying to point out or argument you are trying to prop up.

> So you get to tell Russians what they can do or not and what reasons are acceptable for them to motivate themselves? Well, then perhaps Russia can tell Ukraine that their reasons to join NATO are not acceptable either?

Again, I made no claims as to what I'd say to Russia or Russians or where I said I'm against people/countries speaking their minds. But we can go down this path...because it doesn't end up where you probably thought. I literally stated that Russia is absolutely free to say to Ukraine they don't agree with them trying to join NATO. My quote to you: "Russia is free to voice their concerns". You just restated what I previously said. So...not sure your point here or "fallacy" you are pointing out. Does that mean you are agreeing I'm right, since your rebuttal was paraphrasing me and not a list of reasons I'm wrong? I'm happy with dialogues and people speaking their mind. I'm not ok with war crimes and attacking others.

> They were for a long time.... when they attempted to join NATO, a Russia-hostile alliance whose creation was almost entirely motivated by the desire of Western powers to keep Russia in check, they absolutely signaled to Russia that they see Russia as their enemy.

The inaccuracies of statements about NATO's mission aside (I'm happy to concede, since it doesn't really change anything), the Ukrainian people certainly don't think so and history doesn't really show that. But even if we pretended they were an ally up until just weeks ago...they aren't much of an ally if they invade...so...I'm not sure your point here. it certainly doesn't counter my argument that Russia could have been an ally and supported Ukraine better. Now, with that out of the way, we can delve a little into history...rewind a bunch of years... I'd say pushing your troops into someone's country and stealing part of their territory isn't what an ally does. But wait, isn't your whole argument about accepting consequences and thus it becomes your fault for what someone did to you? Could a consequence of stealing part of someone's country be that they might not see you as an ally and want to try to build an alliance with countries that could help defend them against you!?!? By your own logic, that would make Russia responsible, so through your own reasoning, Russia is to blame, right? I know you like to avoid mentioning this event when you talk about your timelines (perhaps because your arguments fall flat otherwise), but are happy to link to Ukraine saying it is a goal to get their territory back (so you clearly are aware of the actual history here). So even if you decide to change your argument that "knowing the consequences makes you at fault" to say Russia isn't to blame, the reality is Ukraine didn't wake up one day and say, "We should be part of NATO despite Russia being our BFF." History is not on your side here.

> We can't agree on that, obviously... you believe that anyone should have the right to do what they want without consequences to themselves [...USA...]

I don't recall making any statements about the US anywhere. I don't recall making any statements that the US is an example to hold up to. I don't know if you are trying to say one wrong justifies another..or perhaps something else? The statements again don't speak to anything I said. So the best I can surmise is you are trying to say that Russia isn't to blame because look, someone else has done things. If that is the case, you are literally affirming my argument from above...not showing a fallacy in it. But this whole part fails to even refute what I said. You instead threw out a basic strawman argument that I somehow believe there are no consequences in the world. If saying that a country peacefully negotiating to form an alliance after multiple threats and an invasion of their country from someone, who you claim is an "ally", doesn't justify that country invading them again...then yes, I don't believe it justifies it and I don't believe that makes the attacked country responsible for the other country attacking. I just refer back to my actual argument that you failed to address or refute if you want more reasons as to why.

At the end of the day, you failed to point out any fallacies in my arguments. Or really respond to any of them other than what seems like shifting your argument to: Russia is big and strong. Big and strong countries get to do what they want and that is ok because <history>.

It seems like I've distilled down your argument correctly, and if so, there isn't much to debate there, since that simply confirms my argument from above. So I guess, thank you for agreeing my arguments are correct, but it is unfortunate you have no inclination to change your mind. Which is a position one can take, but not one for fruitful conversation. I sincerely wish you the best and hope you are able to find a way to identify and empathize with victims, rather than blame them someday.