The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[personaldesas]

Why are some references to some historic events are looked down at as “whataboutism”?

Comparing an event or process/consequences to some other event is a rather analytical tool. In this case, for example, the response to “the wealthy ignore, while the poor bear the burden of war” was “sounds like Vietnam, so nothing new” (quotation marks do not indicate direct quotes, fyi). Which is just an observation, to which I could, for example add, or, perhaps, expand, and say this is how wars work in general. Is that a whataboutism? Not really. I am sure a discussion could follow if the parties were interested to continue. Otherwise, I think it is a valid observation.

I don’t have anything against comparisons or historical analogies per se, they can be useful analytical tools if they actually explain *why* the comparison matters and *what* it helps us understand about the current situation.

My issue is more specific: simply pointing to a vaguely similar event elsewhere, in a very different context, without spelling out the relevance or the mechanism, isn’t really analysis. It’s just name-dropping an analogy. When pressed on *why* it applies or what insight it adds, the answer too often stops at “it’s obvious, you're just not smart enough” which doesn’t move the discussion forward.

It’s also hard not to notice that these references tend to recur in similar contexts, often involving an external comparison (for example, when Russia is the subject, the comparison is frequently to the US; when the West is the subject, it is often to Russia), and sometimes in ways that shift focus away from the primary actor’s agency rather than clarify the situation at hand. That doesn’t automatically make them wrong, but it does raise the question of whether the comparison is meant to sharpen the analysis or simply deflect.

If the relevance is made explicit and the limits of the analogy are acknowledged, I’m all for it. Otherwise, I don’t think it adds much.

 

[rsemmes]

KipPotapych

I think you should take his (p_desas) "whataboutism" with a pinch of salt; or irony.

 

[rsemmes]

"If Russia considers that Ukraine's NATO's membership is a threat, it is a threat.

...to Russia. Did I need to say that?
If I consider my neighbour's dog a threat, it is a threat to me. I doesn't matter what he thinks or what my/his second cousin thinks.

 

[personaldesas]

It actually wasn’t easy his time, lol. I read numerous accounts of capable geolocators struggling to find the match.

In this environment they are very likely to be scrutinized and eventually disproven, something the soldiers making them should reasonably expect.

Why? Who knows. Why did the Ukrainians post an AI-generated video in front of the Pokrovsk sign not that long ago? And it was done by one of the most capable units to boot, the post quickly debunked and deleted. Is it whataboutism on my part? Laughing.

My question was why "soldiers" do this, not why "Russian soldiers" do, just in case you missed it.

The 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine means Kyiv will be able to go on another two years.
No surprise Putin's puppets tried to stop it from happening and, now that it is done, say its "ridiculous" and "not serious".

Yesterday was a great day for Politisches Europa. Could have been even better, but its a strong signal. Now it's Russia's turn to go on another 2 years.

The fact that the loans ought to be returned only if Russia one day pays reparations to Ukraine makes it very much look like a grant rather than a loan.

Are you intentionally citing as an example one of the Baltic states where the violation of the rights of the Russian-speaking minority is part of national policy?

Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, if this is the perception in russia, it’s understandable why the baltic countries would worry about being a potential next case under a Russian “Heim ins Reich” type rationale.

It's quite admissible that the Venezuela issue was raised in Anchorage and likely is part of the deal. In Russia, surprisingly restrainedly they comment on the US aggression against a neighboring state.

I doubt that. Russia is, in practical terms, a regional power focused on its immediate neighborhood, with limited ability to influence outcomes in the Americas. It doesn’t really matter on this issue in a way the US would have to worry about.

 

[rsemmes]

Is this a justification to start a war?

Yes, of course it is. Each country will start a war based on its own justifications, or excuses, in case that looks more familiar to you.

Edit.
Btw, US is a threat to UK's and EU's economy. Actually, not a threat, actively acting against. (And spied Airbus so Boeing could win a contract.)

 

[personaldesas]

...to Russia. Did I need to say that?
If I consider my neighbour's dog a threat, it is a threat to me. I doesn't matter what he thinks or what my/his second cousin thinks.

Who would’ve thought this thread would drift into epistemology

 

[rsemmes]

The 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine means Kyiv will be able to go on another two years.
No surprise Putin's puppets tried to stop it from happening and, now that it is done, say its "ridiculous" and "not serious".

Yesterday was a great day for Politisches Europa. Could have been even better, but its a strong signal. Now it's Russia's turn to go on another 2 years.

Ukraine is on the verge of bankruptcy. The International Monetary Fund estimates that it will require a total of 137 billion euros ($160 billion) in 2026 and 2027.

EU leaders prepare to take unprecedented steps to help Ukraine at a high-stakes summit

European Union leaders are about to attempt something unprecedented

www.independent.co.uk

Or not.

 

[rsemmes]

Who would’ve thought this thread would drift into epistemology

And Philosophy.

 

[rsemmes]

Putin is looking towards Trump for a peace deal. On the military side and with the ongoing Ukrainian attacks into Russia I doubt that Putin will achieve a victory in 2026. So Putin needs the pressure by Trump onto the UA.
But I don´t think that the Ukraine can continue the fight for 2 more years without proper military aid.

Would you care to compare with attacks into Ukraine?
A country "on the verge of bankruptcy", maybe, shouldn't be "in the fight" for 2 more years. Even if its "friends" want to keep it there.

 

[rsemmes]

the comparison is frequently to the US

The British Empire hasn't been invading many countries lately. US and USSR are the easiest examples (Saudi Arabia and Yemen?) about (pun intended) how we, conveniently, keep our mouth shut.

“It’s obvious, you're just not smart enough”
To be fair, I actually said: 'Don't "want" to do a search.' Looking at the level of some of the posts, Economy, for example, that would make no sense at all; me, having less that a basic knowledge about it.
Yes, in a way, I think that everyone posting here should have an idea of History and Military History. Using his knowledge to contradict his ow opinion is a completely different matter...

 

[personaldesas]

The British Empire hasn't been invading many countries lately. US and USSR are the easiest examples (Saudi Arabia and Yemen?) about (pun intended) how we, conveniently, keep our mouth shut.

I can think of quite a few wars in this century that involve neither, but that’s beside the point. I’m not arguing that there are no other wars to point to. The issue is how the comparisons are used. No one here compared a Russian action to the USSR, or a US action to a previous US action. Instead, historical analogies are selectively introduced only when the other side is being discussed, as a way to deflect from the substance of the case at hand. That is precisely what distinguishes comparison from whataboutism.

 

[rsemmes]

Instead, historical analogies are selectively introduced only when the other side is being discussed, as a way to deflect..

Neither my intention, nor my POV.

"Selectively" because no one has been pointing at something that hasn't been done before. "The other side" because of a certain tendency to "forget" what Ukraine does (or has already been done by us or by a country that we "like"; most fingers tend to point at Russia. Not to "deflect", but to emphasize that the same thing has been done before, by us, probably.
So, I have to wonder if some one is pointing his finger just to feel better (like from a high horse) or because he doesn't want to see. If I call it "whataboutism", I don't have to check my confirmation bias.
I cannot see anything different/new in this war. (The massive use of drones.)

 

[Hoover]

A country "on the verge of bankruptcy", maybe, shouldn't be "in the fight" for 2 more years. Even if its "friends" want to keep it there.

And? Does a country which is invaded by another country no right to defend their land, even it is bankrupt? Did UK didn´t had the right to fight the Nazis in 1940 even they only survives by the help of the US?
Would you surrender, hand over 25% of your country and accept, that hundreds of thousand citizens fell under the terror the occupier?
Or would you try to stop the invaders to save your land and your people?

Again, only because Russia feel itself threatened by NATO or anybody else, it may be a justification für Russia, but it is not a justification for Ukraine.
In your opinion NATO has the right to attack Russia, USA have the justification to attack Venezuela etc.
No.

 

[personaldesas]

Neither my intention, nor my POV.

"Selectively" because no one has been pointing at something that hasn't been done before. "The other side" because of a certain tendency to "forget" what Ukraine does (or has already been done by us or by a country that we "like"; most fingers tend to point at Russia. Not to "deflect", but to emphasize that the same thing has been done before, by us, probably.
So, I have to wonder if some one is pointing his finger just to feel better (like from a high horse) or because he doesn't want to see. If I call it "whataboutism", I don't have to check my confirmation bias.
I cannot see anything different/new in this war. (The massive use of drones.)

I think we can leave it at that. Just as a final note: The pattern I was pointing to shows up across the spectrum, regardless of side.

 

[rsemmes]

Does a country which is invaded by another country no right to defend their land

Only that no one mention anything about the "right" to do so; nor about (the joke of) International Law.

Exactly my point, it is enough justification for Russia; no country needs anything else. Not my opinion, not right, just justification; the real world.