Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
It's easy to say "whataboutism" like it's a dirty word, but we should reflect on the actions of our leaders, and we should hold them to the same standards we hold foreign leaders too, in fact we should hold our leaders to higher standards when it comes to geopolitics. That's what being the guy goods is about... having higher moral standards.
Whataboutism is a dirty word. It's when one collection of bad behaviors are excused because other actors have committed those same bad behaviors in the past. As though a precedent for bad behaviors has been established as a moral guide. It is a bad thing.

If the word whataboutism is used in other contexts / with a different definition, then I'm open to revise my opinion. If we agree that above definition is apt, then I should hope we agree that's some illogical BS.

Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye, but we should be looking beyond ending immediate hostilities and explore the reasons why we got to this point. If we want peace in this region, I think NATO has to stop expanding, or at least agree to not allow Ukraine to host missile systems. NATO need to come to the negotiating table. That shows good faith on our part, and puts the ball in Putin's court. Is this just about NATO? That's one way to find out.
I agree with the sentiment of this.

But I feel it's missing the point that no real peace talks or negotiations can happen while one nation is actively invading the other nation. FFS, while the current peace talks were happening, the Russian offensive increased.

That's what Putin has done in the past. Negotiate at gunpoint. That cannot be allowed on the world stage.
It's abject bullying. It's saying "Fuck you, I'm bigger, so I get to say what's what."

I'm much, much more comfortable having that kind of power divested into a collective. Like the UN or like NATO. Where many interested parties must agree to affect change. Democratic rule may be shit, but it's still better than all the alternatives on the biggest scales.


NATO is a peacekeeping organization. I do not believe NATO has invaded anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong. 9/11 is the only thing close I can find, and I'm certain we can agree that the actual invasion of Iraq was NOT a NATO operation.)
Saying that Russia is threatened by a peacekeeping organization that has never attacked anyone is fucking cause for pause at the very least.

I'm not at all inclined to see any legitimate threat to Russia coming from NATO. The only threat is to Russia's expansion and annexation of other nations against their will. If those nations choose to join Russia, NATO isn't going to stop them. It's only when Russia tries to force a nation to join that NATO engages.

So I'm just not seeing this as a threat the way you do. I see it as definitely uncomfortable for Putin. But his actions this week have shown that the world is perfectly justified in fearing an invasion from him, whereas I'm not seeing anything that justifies his fear of invasion.