- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,793
- Reaction score
- 13,295
Pretty much, I think before this war happened you could make an argument that Putin as evil/authoritarian as he was had shown a good degree of politcal smarts in terms of actions carried out, basically limiting them to situations were the outcome was clearly in his favour and the risks low. Its a BIG reason why I seriously doubted a lot of the hype for this invasion, I thought it was potentially just saber rattling that was being played up as much by our side looking for advantage rather than de escalation. But I think you can see now pretty obviously Putin has lanched a full scale invasion thats obviously morally wrong(not to say less than this wouldnt be wrong either, even Putin'ss own narrative would be highly questionable) and obviously highly risky for him.
If you are looking at moral arguments to be made at this stage that might go against the western media narrative then I think really the big point you raise is really what kind of role negotiation could have? questions over whether moral absolutes like "freedom" are always in the best interests of Ukrainains suffering. Honestly in that area I really don't know where I stand on that and perhaps its simply not our decision to be made although I suspect we would almost certainly play a big part in it.
As well I spose you could be critical of the idea that justifed horror at these events does need to be balanced with a cool head as to what the stakes really could be in terms of direct intervention, if your playing with the risk of nuclear war thats about as high stakes as you can possible play with, billions of deaths and the end of civilisation as we know it and I think obviously demands caution even in the face of what were seeing here, even moreso because as mentioned above Putin is now on much more dangerous ground for him.
I don't consider putin evil personally.. don't consider him good either