Yes, it appears the Russians are not bombing civilians indiscriminately like the US did early in the war. Of course warfare tech has improved since then, but also Russia has an interest in preserving Ukraine, and simply getting rid of its racist, puppet government.
Russia has been indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian and humanitarian infrastructure since day 1 of invasion. There are mountains, and mountains of evidence.
I'm guessing your American "news" outlets, CNN and MSNBC, are telling you it's important to wave the American flag and bless this war in Ukraine. Zelenskyy isn't a neo-Nazi, but nice diversion. A lot of Ukrainians, and Eastern Europeans in general, are nationalists and even neo-nazis, and for good reason: as a response to the horrors of communism via the soviet union and the American hegemony's exploitation, they can't find much else to agree on. Just like how Donald Trump's MAGA movement gained so much power in response to Democrats & Republicans rape of the middle class and warmongering.
Look up these terms: Manufacturing Consent and the Propaganda Model[0], and Useful Idiot [1].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Do you believe that there are moral principles that apply universally? If so, I’m interested in hearing a consistent set that makes Russia invading a country wrong but it’s ok when the USA does it.
Sadly I think most people’s moral reasoning here is TV man says Russia is the bad guys and USA is the good guys. Bad guys always bad good guys always good.
I mostly don't believe in universal morality, I just try to find my own moral meaning.
I think Iraq and Ukraine are both examples of a (military) superpower curbstomping a smaller nation under a flimsy, false, pretext.
I think Ukraine is also different because it's a democracy, and they're outright bombing hospitals and leveling cities, and Putin is threatening to nuke the world if he doesn't get his way.
So they're both bad, but I see Ukraine as genuinely worse.
> I mostly don't believe in universal morality, I just try to find my own moral meaning.
I'm trying to steel-man here, but this reads to me as "I am mostly morally unprincipled" in the sense that you do not require consistency in your own moral meaning, whatever that is. Most people probably aren't satisfied with a moral system that's "whatever sterlind feels like today."
Here's a thought experiment: imagine if the powers that be in the West were fully aligned with Russia for whatever reason. As a result they deploy the full force of traditional and social media message control along with all the other measures taken to sway public opinion in favor of Ukraine. In that scenario, do you believe the vast majority of people in the West would be just as enthusiastic about the "special military operation" as they are about Ukrainian resistance today? Do you think your opinion would be different? Why or why not?
I try to follow my own moral principles consistently, though sometimes I fail because I am weak. My principles are mainly empathy, truthfulness, being a good friend and respecting autonomy. Those are what make me feel like I'm doing the right thing.
I don't have an ultimate basis for those principles other than they "feel right." I'm not Kant. I don't think Kant was on the right track. That's what I meant by not believing in absolute morality - I just follow my heart, and admittedly judge others against what my heart says.
Well there were many reports of hospitals being bombed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention Vietnam where there was 3x as many bombs dropped as in whole WW2 on all sides, nuts!
You're attacking a straw man. No one is saying the invasion of Iraq was justified.
One major difference is the motivation for the war. Putin wants to return to USSR borders, which is a motivation of conquest. The US did not want to conquer Iraq. It is not the 51st state.
Another is the regime that existed. Ukraine was a peaceful democracy. Iraq was not. Hussein killed many thousands of Iraqis, too.
The invasion of Iraq was a series of war crimes that should never have happened, but Bush was not nearly as authoritarian as Putin and Hussein is not Zelensky.
The invasion of Iraq took place over weapons that did not exist. The invasion of Ukraine is happening because of non-existent neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government. Not identical, but there are parallels.
Is it fair to compare which war was worse? The suffering is same anywhere, or do you mean that brown peoples lives are less important? If that is the case then this is really fucked up.
I am brown, so you can take your insinuation that I'm a white supremacist elsewhere. Try to address what I actually said instead of putting words in my mouth.
I'm not arguing about it on a humanitarian basis. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent forever-war is a huge humanitarian disaster that Putin may or may not beat.
I'm arguing about whether Putin invading a peaceful, democratic country in order to expand his borders is more or less justified than the US invading a hostile, murderous dictatorship.
I'm sorry but Ukraine was not peaceful before the invasion. There was extensive fighting in the east over years. External entities where funding various factions and the previous government was a puppet.
You paint Ukraine as some peaceful and stable European place when it just factually wasn't. If Russia invaded Finland I would agree with you but nut Ukraine.
The puppet government and fighting in the east were also because of Russia. You're just arguing that this war started in 2014 or earlier, and I agree with you.
The Iraq invasion and Afghanistan were far worse and unjustified. NATO has killed more than Putin ever will. Russia is attacking Ukraine with geostrategic cause. Whether or not you agree. Ukraine was falling into NATO hands.
