[slibhb]

I agree that NATO and the US made decisions that led to the war in Ukraine.

But that's a causal question, there's nothing moral about it. It's like saying someone who walked through the bad part of town and got mugged made a bad decision. But morally speaking the mugger is in the wrong, Russia is in the wrong. Ukraine, a sovereign state, is allowed to flirt with joining NATO or enter trade agreements with the EU. Besides, somewhat ironically, Ukraine would have no reason to join NATO if the Russia wasn't an ever-present threat to Ukrainian sovereignty.

People are just talking past each other. Realists aren't making moral prescriptions and moralists are worried about right and wrong, the violations of sovereignty and the body count. Both perspectives are necessary. Moralism can't guide foreign policy completely but it can't be totally absent. Reasonable people can disagree about the right mix.

Like the grandparent poster noted, it is strange and irritating that realists are being shouted down as "Russian agents" by mindless moralists.

[psyc]

I think it's a lot harder to explain this to people after they've had it hammered into them that "victim blaming" is really bad, and you must never do it or appear to be doing it. There's a context in which it is. But there's another in which that line of thinking falls apart. For the purposes of the victim during the attack, the attacker might as well be a zombie. They're not your fellow human that you can have a chat with and teach them to empathize with you, at least not in that time and place. You could also shout at them during the attack, "This is your fault, not mine!" but I don't see what good that does.

I actually used to think this when I was four years old. That if a burglar broke in, I would simply talk to them and explain what they're doing is wrong.

[rayiner]

I think this is all correct.