I think "no wars of conquest" is a bright line that was crossed by Russia, that hasn't been crossed by other nations in a long time. And I think it's important for the whole world to take a stand on that, not just the nation that was invaded. It's not a "random stand."

>"no wars of conquest"

how about "no wars of genocide"? you know, like the one the collective West had enthusiastically supported for a while now?

I find it much easier to take a strong stand on Russia/Ukraine than on Israel/Palestine. The history of Israel/Palestine is much more of a gray area. Palestine has used plenty of aggressive actions and rhetoric that make Israel's actions more understandable (if not justified).

Example of actions: Gaza invaded Israel and killed, raped, and kidnapped civilians on October 7. Ukraine had no such triggering event that caused Russia to invade.

Example of rhetoric: Gaza's political leaders have said they want to destroy Israel. I don't think anyone in power in Ukraine has said they want to destroy the Russian state.

Plenty of people boycott Israeli goods and there's an increasing trend of moving away from reliance on American services also.

I am amused by my (unpopular and downvoted by now) comment by the scourge of "whataboutism" sparked a discussion, where comments begin with "how about" :-)

That is exactly my point! Saying "but what about" is akin to saying "you shouldn't do anything, because there is another unrelated $thing happening elsewhere". I refuse to follow this line of thinking.

did you just "but what about X" to the previous comment which is the whole point of this thread?

"enthusiastic support"

https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/52279-net-favour...

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/10/03/how-american...

etc etc....

I'm not sure what collective West you're referring to; but apparently it excludes every major Western European nation, America, and Canada.

Doing something is literally the opposite of doing nothing. This is complete gibberish.

It's "doing nothing" because it's rationalizing keeping the status quo. Avoiding Kagi is doing nothing; using Kagi is doing something.

> Why this particular stand?

First, any stand is better than whataboutism and just sitting there doing nothing.

Second, this stand results from my thoughts. It is my stand. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Third, in the history of the modern world there were very few black&white situations where there was one side which was clearly the aggressor. This is one of them.

> First, any stand is better than whataboutism and just sitting there doing nothing.

I definitely disagree with this. There are many cases where you might take the wrong stand, especially where you do not have detailed knowledge of the issue you re taking a stand over.

It's still better to take a stand even when there is a risk of being wrong because there is always a risk of being wrong. Don't let fear of being wrong or not knowing everything (which is impossible) stop you from standing up for your beliefs. Instead, stand up for what you believe, but be open to having your mind changed. If new information comes to light which changes your position that's perfectly acceptable.

It's a lot easier to live with yourself when you act according to your best understanding of the situation than when you allow fear to paralyze you into inaction at a time when you should have done something.

> wrong stand

But that's the whole point, isn't it? What is "wrong"? You decide.

You see people in a peaceful country getting invaded and being bombed, shot, raped and tortured? You decide if this is "wrong". I'm just saying that you should decide, rather than say "but what about something else".