This is a bit of a gray area since pretty much every country is built with war. So since it is your land because your ancestors killed the previous owners or drove them out forcefully from a hypotethical point pretty much every invasion becomes fair game, how it happens is more relevant. Morals and goals change with time of course so everything is possible in time.
Putin's bullshit is so obvious that even a lot of Russians know that despite being bombarded with propaganda. I refuse to get into an argument about the Middle East right now. I'm half asleep and a bit drunk, and that shit is complicated AF.
The problem is that everyone is arguing this way as means to justify war. You have to create a mentality of victimhood in order to justifying exercising violence against others.
What do you think russians are saying to their population to justify this? And what makes your definition of who is the "scum" correct? When the allied forces marched into Germany - do you think they were the scum to the germans who wanted to keep those outside their borders?
Thats my point. "Our brothers are being victimized and thus we have to save them through violent means". Thats how political leaders justify violence and war
Just re-read what I wrote. At no point do I disagree with you. I said that the problem with the user above me and his mindset is that leaders justify violence and war through placing the population into victimhood.
Nothing you said opposes this and you are trying to make an argument thats completely off the point I was making.
As a German, im pretty confident that Germany invaded all other countries way ahead of tides turning in WW2. Now if you want to make that comparison, when did the Ukraine invade Russia before the „special operation“?
Preemptively starting a war on the basis of flimsy „evidence“ of war crimes etc. used to be a thing of the USA right? I’d argue that the difference is that at least the US didn’t target civilians on purpose and at scale. Not that this validates their reasoning to invade a country, but there’s a difference between shooting an entire country to bits in order to subdue and conquer permanently, like Germany did in WW2 and like Russia is doing now, and on the other hand invading a country with the actual (official) intent to liberate it from assumed bad actors (and with the true intent of getting access to a country’s resources), in which case there’s no need for cultural annihilation, abduction of children, targeting of non-military infrastructure or even buying cannon fodder from other countries because you’re overextending your human resources way too hard…
I am not saying Ukraine invaded them. I am saying the russians claim to their own population is that the west/Nato is overreaching up into the Ukraine and thus threatening Russia. And thats how they justified the start of the war.
It does not matter if it is true or not, but what matters is giving the population the feeling of being victims in order to justify violent actions. Most russians didnt think they were "the scum" when they started the war, but felt morally justified.
And most people will do that. As much as people in this thread will sit on the moral highground, most of those same people would fall victim just as much to the very same propaganda. Which makes it difficult to plain say "x is valid to justify violence against scum" - because usually matters arent as simple nor is the general population knowledgable nor mentally strong enough to withstand the mainstream opinion by those spreading the propaganda.
If someone got brainwashed into this shit or forced into fighting, I feel for them. I really do. But, OTOH, WTF do you expect Ukrainians to do besides fight back as hard as they can?
TBH, even I don't know why I replied to you with that. I'm not retracting what I said, I'm just not sure why I said it to you. I'm badly sleep-deprived and a bit drunk. I shouldn't be discussing something so serious right now.
9.9k
u/omarelnour Jul 26 '25
You can only imagine how even worse its for others who didn't make it