Many people in the US were very opposed to the Iraq war (the war in Afghanistan, though stupid, had a more real precedent). It would have been good had the US suffered sanctions for invading Iraq, but sadly the geopolitical reality didn’t support that at the time. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept deeply unethical and wrongheaded behavior from a different country? (It’s also worth pointing out that the invasion of Iraq, while by no means justified, was at least targeted towards a brutal dictatorship, whereas Ukraine is a functional democracy with a free press.)

Interestingly, the political party in the US which most favors Putin - the GOP - is also the most comfortable with the US committing atrocities on foreign soil (and at home TBH). Not a coincidence if you ask me. Looks like there can be messed up people in more than one country!

You claim “this isn’t about the human suffering caused by Russia”. You sure about that? I think most people feel like a primary issue with invading another country is the amount of human suffering it causes.

I'm sure many people in the US were opposed to it. Did they have a choice though? Both of those wars were essentially unanimous amongst the ruling class. There is nothing the average citizen can do at that point. You claim “this isn’t about the human suffering caused by Russia”. You sure about that? I think most people feel like a primary issue with invading another country is the amount of human suffering it causes.

Oh people most definitely do, an I am sure you and I both do. But clearly the countries imposing sanctions, almost every single one of which engaged in a bloody war of agression in the recent past, don't. Actions speak louder than words. >

I think you’re still oversimplifying. NATO countries may have been involved in bloody wars, wars which were varying degrees of bad idea, but at least those wars were fought against regimes which were terrible - brutal and repressive towards their own population. Ukraine is a mostly liberal democracy, which makes invading it even harder to justify.

But sure, US citizens might not have had much say in whether the US invaded Iraq. That doesn’t mean that sanctions wouldn’t have created political pressure which could in turn have made an invasion less appealing to the neocons in power at that time. So while I’m sorry to see average Russians (or at least those opposed to the war) suffer as a result of these sanctions, I can also acknowledge that sanctions may actually put pressure on Putin to de-escalate this conflict, and also warn him of the consequences of future aggression. It’s possible Putin will ignore these sanctions, but doing so risks improving the position of his opponents within Russia.

It's not unlikely that sanctions against USA because of Iraq or Afghanistan would have fueled USssian nationalism to an extent that makes the current right look like a fairy tale. Sure, there would be people protesting against the government because they would want them to reverse course but there would be people who would react in the precise opposite way and they would want to cave in. Pride is a strong human emotion.

The Russian aggression case is much clear cut, but it may not look like it is clear cut if you live inside a different information bubble (especially if you want to believe that your country did nothing wrong, or that it's just "an internal matter", or that "we don't want foreign missiles at our doorstep; the USA wouldn't want Russian missiles at cube why should we accept <insert threat>".

What we're learning in this day and age is that information poisoning cannot be cured by just throwing more information.

Perhaps. But another scenario is that the population, or some not insignificant part of it, is opposed to the war and doesn’t buy the party line. We’re certainly seeing more resistance within Russia than expected. At the very least, sanctions can force leaders to expend resources quashing internal dissent rather than looking outward.

I mean, should we not be imposing economic sanctions on Iran and NK? Sure, they hurt ordinary citizens, but they’re still a strong bargaining chip.

I’d argue that a large number of ordinary citizens would be brainwashed with or without sanctions because of the degree to which dictators like Putin have subverted the media.

>I think you’re still oversimplifying. NATO countries may have been involved in bloody wars, wars which were varying degrees of bad idea, but at least those wars were fought against regimes which were terrible - brutal and repressive towards their own population. Ukraine is a mostly liberal democracy, which makes invading it even harder to justify.

And the point is that you got this information from the ruling class who were for those wars. Or their allies abroad.

And as for Ukrainan democracy, from the Freedom house report in 2019 it sits between Burkina Faso and the Philippines.

Ha, now do Russia.

> Whataboutism would be if they said it's fine for Putin to commit atrocities in Ukraine because the US commits atrocities in various countries. That's not what was pointed out. It was pointed out that the narrative doesn't follow past precedent.

That's just a somewhat deniable -- i.e. more chickenshit -- way of saying the exact same thing.

Ergo: Yes, it's whataboutism.