So, I have seen this theme a lot on other media, especially Indian sites that cater to an India audience, but also Chinese sites that do the same…and of course Russia sites and their official line. The narrative goes something like this: Russia is justified in its invasion for a number of reasons. Ukraine was part of Russia since ancient times is the biggest one. Ukraine (and Belarus, and Georgia, and the Baltic States) fall into the Russia sphere of influence, and so should be in that sphere. Russia was promised by NATO that NATO wouldn’t expand into Russia’s sphere of influence, especially into the eastern European countries…and they broke that promise, and by doing so, Russia is correct to take this action. Putin has serious, existential concerns about NATOs deliberate and provocative expansion, and is a direct threat to Russia, and so is justified. The US is the one at fault for this crisis as it provoked Russia and forced its hand. The US has done worse things, invading Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam, and no one cared about that, yet now everyone is ganging up on Russia, showing that the US controls the world and when brave countries try and fight back they are slapped down.
I think I’ve covered all of the bases that I’ve seen…broadly at least. If I missed some feel free to bring them up. Often in the discussions there are a lot more things said about the US, and often the justification for Russia are because of past actions of the US. I thought it would be interesting to explore these. I know there are a few 'dopers who hold with some of this, as I’ve seen a few of these points brought up in the various Ukraine discussions, but mainly they aren’t getting much traction, so I wanted to give them a chance to address these and support them.
No, at least nothing formal. I think it was part of the discussion, and I’ve seen some memos between Russia and the US on this score, but there was never anything formally agreed to.
I recall some of the Russian language sounding like a rephrasing of that used to justify action in ~Yugoslavia. Are we including justifications based on things like claimed ethnic cleansing?
Put in anything you want. I wanted to have an open discussion about this and see what other 'dopers thoughts are, but also other things that they have heard as justifications. I admit, I haven’t seen much on ethnic cleansing as a justification for the invasion, but if you have definitely list that and that can be part of the discussion.
Ah, yes, I recall this being hit on a lot…and, yeah, I think Putin is still using this one, though it’s kind of faded into the background with everything else happening. But yes…Russia is justified in its invasion because the Ukrainians were committing genocide against ethnic Russians and needed to be stopped would be another bullet point on the list.
The Ukraine is a defined territory with a government, and elections. If the people who live in that territory want to have a vote to become part of Russia, fine. People who live in other places, including Russia, don’t get a say. Anything else is purest bullshit.
I don’t really have an opinion on how much aid other governments should be giving to Ukraine in their fight against invasion. But Ukrainians’ right to decide for themselves is morality 101
Putin claims Ukraine was part of old Russia and so Russia is justified in reclaiming it?
Well, for that to be true we really have to examine who the Rus are, where they came, what lands they occupied over….the past 1000 years.
Putin had a bash at this. He gave a talk about it before the invasion complete with maps illustrating Ukraines place in it all.
This sort of argument is a bit silly. The whole concept of a nation state and a national identity are quite recent political constructions. Most states have some sort of creation myth and nationalists like Putin are quite keen to extrapolate their territorial claims based on slender evidence to encompass as wide a sweep of territory as they think appropriate, ignoring rival claims.
In the long and complex history of Europe, borders, where they exist, tend to be very elastic and subject to change. Empires and nations come and go. Some get bigger, some get smaller and some disappear altogether or are absorbed by others.
Nationalists are rather biased in their interpretation of history. They always want justification for expanding their territory. Putin will have some pocket professor to lend some credibility to his claims. You can be sure there will be another professor advising another national leader in Ukraine or another neighbour that will give a completely different interpretation of the historical evidence.
Usually the state with the strongest army wins the argument….until the next time.
Last week, the US embassy in Kyiv tweeted photos of four churches in Kyiv that date from 996 to 1108 versus photos of a forest meant to represent what Moscow looked like at the same time, to show the relative age of the two cities.
While I was reading your post I thought of another. This has to do with the various incursions from Europe that give legitimacy to Putin’s invasion and security concerns. Going from memory, these were the Polish invasion of Russia, the Swedish invasion of Russia, the French invasion of Russia, the several German invasions of Russia (I believe 3 were listed, though the big ones were the two world wars). Coupled with NATOs betrayal, it was clear to the folks pushing this that Russia was absolutely justified in its invasion because it has real security concerns about the expansion of NATO.
No, it’s not a joke at all. Everything I’ve brought up here there are a lot of people who believe this. I’ve even seen a few of these arguments in the various Ukraine threads.
If we were to accept “X was once a part of Y” as an acceptable cause for Y invading X, then nearly every nation on Earth would be justified in invading their neighbours. Some countries like Italy, Mongolia, and Iran would have cause to invade vast swathes of the world.
It’s a ridiculous and completely morally bankrupt justification for war, and should be denounced at every opportunity.
I can see where China would approve of this one, because China uses a similar argument quite often: Anything that’s ever been part of China must always and evermore be part of China.
By the same token, I don’t think the USA should have minded so much the Soviet missiles in the Cuban Missile Crisis, either, but that may be getting off topic.
