I thank you for taking the time to explain your statement.
My rebuttal to your devil's advocate points in support of the Russian position: Ukraine is a soverign nation. Furthermore, every inhabitant of Ukraine have basic human rights.
Of course, neither of those points matter to someone whose ethical system boils down to realpolitk. Some well-known corollaries include:
- Might makes right.
- Rules for thee, but not for me.
- A ruler should prioritize the preservation of power and stability over morality.
- Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger.
If the defence of a pruported Russian casus belli is that they are inconsistent with any consistent notion of rights, then it is self-defeating. And if the defence is Russia arbitrarily getting provoked, then there is not a rational argument to be had.
Anyways, I digress. As a soverign nation, Ukraine has the right to enter into any agreement they wish - with the obvious caveat that they may not compromise the soverignty of another nation or the human rights of their inhabitants. Trade agreements and defensive alliances are trivially within the bounds of such constraints. As a soverign nation, Ukraine is not the property of Russia, so Russia has no business deciding its fate.
In summary, I acknowledge your position is similar to Bill Burr's bit on domestic violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ, but like him I don't think "a reason" entails a marginally or otherwise valid justification.
My rebuttal to your devil's advocate points in support of the Russian position: Ukraine is a soverign nation. Furthermore, every inhabitant of Ukraine have basic human rights.
Of course, neither of those points matter to someone whose ethical system boils down to realpolitk. Some well-known corollaries include:
If the defence of a pruported Russian casus belli is that they are inconsistent with any consistent notion of rights, then it is self-defeating. And if the defence is Russia arbitrarily getting provoked, then there is not a rational argument to be had.Anyways, I digress. As a soverign nation, Ukraine has the right to enter into any agreement they wish - with the obvious caveat that they may not compromise the soverignty of another nation or the human rights of their inhabitants. Trade agreements and defensive alliances are trivially within the bounds of such constraints. As a soverign nation, Ukraine is not the property of Russia, so Russia has no business deciding its fate.
In summary, I acknowledge your position is similar to Bill Burr's bit on domestic violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ, but like him I don't think "a reason" entails a marginally or otherwise valid justification.