The Debrief with Briahna Joy Gray, April 8, 2022. Source: Transcript: Question: How much of a similarity maybe do you see between the kind of… the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the way …
While I don't agree that they have the right to do so, I have been going back to essentially this line of thinking. It makes sense even if it is still morally wrong. End of the day we treat nation states as these inherent and god-given things, with no regard to the arbitrariness of them most of the time.
It is an argument worth making and working through because it sure as heck is one various nations are going to come to themselves. I don't find the amount of Soviet dead to be a good argument though, it gives good context for the Russian mindset and population's legit worries about Ukrainian nazis. However it doesn't give a right.
What i think is salient is the Sadat comparison, his core point is that if treaty after treaty is broken, and even legal recourse is subverted, does the illegal action in reaction to those acts count as criminal? I would say it does, but I do think de facto it doesn't matter much. He is not saying Russia has a preordained right to invade Ukraine, his point is specifically that the refusal of treaties and litigation for 20 years created a casus belli for Russia. So to cry about a criminal invasion after doing all that is not just hypocritical, but worthless when dealing with the logic of nation states as actors
edit: also holy shit calling what happened to the USSR the "decomposition of the Soviet Union" is perfect and I am stealing that
If you accept that the nationstate is a totally cool and fine thing that should totally exist, then I think you have to accept that Russia is almost effectively acting in self-defence. Hence why this should be a moment to realise that we should be refuting the premise to start with.
While I don't agree that they have the right to do so, I have been going back to essentially this line of thinking. It makes sense even if it is still morally wrong. End of the day we treat nation states as these inherent and god-given things, with no regard to the arbitrariness of them most of the time.
It is an argument worth making and working through because it sure as heck is one various nations are going to come to themselves. I don't find the amount of Soviet dead to be a good argument though, it gives good context for the Russian mindset and population's legit worries about Ukrainian nazis. However it doesn't give a right.
What i think is salient is the Sadat comparison, his core point is that if treaty after treaty is broken, and even legal recourse is subverted, does the illegal action in reaction to those acts count as criminal? I would say it does, but I do think de facto it doesn't matter much. He is not saying Russia has a preordained right to invade Ukraine, his point is specifically that the refusal of treaties and litigation for 20 years created a casus belli for Russia. So to cry about a criminal invasion after doing all that is not just hypocritical, but worthless when dealing with the logic of nation states as actors
edit: also holy shit calling what happened to the USSR the "decomposition of the Soviet Union" is perfect and I am stealing that
If you accept that the nationstate is a totally cool and fine thing that should totally exist, then I think you have to accept that Russia is almost effectively acting in self-defence. Hence why this should be a moment to realise that we should be refuting the premise to start with.