• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World Policeman or Moral Leader?

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
23,376
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Biden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’ (WaPo)​

President Biden explicitly called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” Wednesday, after weeks of avoiding the term and at a time when his administration is still determining whether that label officially applies."

"Biden watched Zelensky’s 9 a.m. address from the private library of his White House residence, absorbing an emotional plea that invoked both Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 — two deadly attacks on the United States that came from the sky — and beseeched the president to close the skies above Ukraine.

“Our country experienced the same every day, right now, at this moment, every night for three weeks now,” Zelensky said, speaking to lawmakers via video with the help of an interpreter.

World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine (Reuters)​

The United Nations' top court for disputes between states ordered Russia on Wednesday to immediately halt its military operations in Ukraine, saying it was "profoundly concerned" by Moscow's use of force.

Although the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are binding, it has no direct means of enforcing them, and in rare cases in the past countries have ignored them.

"The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on Feb 24, 2022 on the territory of Ukraine," the ICJ judges said in a 13-2 decision.

So, now the question becomes, "What do we do about that"?

In my opinion, there is no question that Russia's attack on Ukraine was not only unprovoked, but is part of a pattern of aggressive military action in violation of international law. Moreover, there is little question that tactically the Russian forces are, apparently at the direction of Putin himself, committing "grave breaches" of International Humanitarian Law - war crimes - of the most serious nature. Indeed, it appears the aim is now genocidal, which is unfathomable given the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and its cultural history with Russia.

But, the question remains, "What do we do about that"? Once upon a time, the United States considered itself the "shining city on a hill" and the guardian of democracy the world over. That's the moral stance that it has taken for decades. Notwithstanding the blip that was the Trump administration (that's leaving a stain), it has been the official foreign policy position of the United States since at least the Second World War. Charles Blow of The New York Times asks in his latest column, What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?

As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"
 
The bigger question is can the US (or any nation) claim to be a “moral leader” without acting as a “world policeman”?

What level of basic human rights violations (anywhere on the planet) should not cause a (self-proclaimed?) “moral leader” nation to act as a “world policeman”?
 
The bigger question is can the US (or any nation) claim to be a “moral leader” without acting as a “world policeman”?

What level of basic human rights violations (anywhere on the planet) should not cause a (self-proclaimed?) “moral leader” nation to act as a “world policeman”?
I agree, that is the central question. As Blow puts it, "Human suffering is human suffering. It has been a constant in the story of mankind. Sometimes it overlaps with our national interests, and sometimes it does not. But our sense of morality must remain constant, and in it we must find a place for equity."

With the International Court of Justice ruling, the United State and Europe have a legal justification for intervention (the court itself has no enforcement powers), but they still have practical considerations. I think this may allow the release of those Polish MiGs, though.
 

Biden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’ (WaPo)​


World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine (Reuters)​



So, now the question becomes, "What do we do about that"?

In my opinion, there is no question that Russia's attack on Ukraine was not only unprovoked, but is part of a pattern of aggressive military action in violation of international law. Moreover, there is little question that tactically the Russian forces are, apparently at the direction of Putin himself, committing "grave breaches" of International Humanitarian Law - war crimes - of the most serious nature. Indeed, it appears the aim is now genocidal, which is unfathomable given the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and its cultural history with Russia.

But, the question remains, "What do we do about that"? Once upon a time, the United States considered itself the "shining city on a hill" and the guardian of democracy the world over. That's the moral stance that it has taken for decades. Notwithstanding the blip that was the Trump administration (that's leaving a stain), it has been the official foreign policy position of the United States since at least the Second World War. Charles Blow of The New York Times asks in his latest column, What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?

As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"

The difference is neither the Hutu militias not the Serbs were a near peer opponent with nuclear weapons pointed at American cities.
 
Ethically I think we (along with all other countries) should intervene in some way in all humanitarian crises. If all nations behaved as ideal moral actors grave breaches of human rights would be met with some sort of international response universally.

The ethical action to take I think would vary quite a bit based on the situation. In Ukraine direct military and humanitarian support makes sense. But for example the civil war in Ethiopia that's going on right now both sides have committed grave war crimes. There isn't really an established power structure in place to support that would lead to any good outcomes. So in situations like that humanitarian aid to displaced civilians seems appropriate.

When it comes to situations like China and the Uyghurs I think it comes the most messy. It is often said Hitler could have gotten away with the holocaust if he had just stayed in Germany. I think there is some truth to that. When it comes to trying to weigh the cost and suffering of military force to the benefit of ending a genocide it is nearly an impossible calculation. With where China is at right now I don't necessarily even think the human cost of sanctions is worth it. But I do believe some action is warranted, I'm just not sure what.

However, in a pragmatic sense our interventions are often carried out in extremely immoral ways. States rarely intervene out of the kindness of their hearts. I also don't think intervening for regime change produces good outcomes, nor does nation building. For me to support an intervention from a country like the United States it would have to be a pretty clear cut situation or a non-violent intervention. So for example giving weapons to Ukraine, non strings attached humanitarian assistance, or a truly devastating genocide that is clearly causing more harm than a military intervention would.
 

Biden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’ (WaPo)​


World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine (Reuters)​



So, now the question becomes, "What do we do about that"?

In my opinion, there is no question that Russia's attack on Ukraine was not only unprovoked, but is part of a pattern of aggressive military action in violation of international law. Moreover, there is little question that tactically the Russian forces are, apparently at the direction of Putin himself, committing "grave breaches" of International Humanitarian Law - war crimes - of the most serious nature. Indeed, it appears the aim is now genocidal, which is unfathomable given the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and its cultural history with Russia.

But, the question remains, "What do we do about that"? Once upon a time, the United States considered itself the "shining city on a hill" and the guardian of democracy the world over. That's the moral stance that it has taken for decades. Notwithstanding the blip that was the Trump administration (that's leaving a stain), it has been the official foreign policy position of the United States since at least the Second World War. Charles Blow of The New York Times asks in his latest column, What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?

As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"
Considering the US's history of coups and creating failed states through "moral interventions" (Middle East), they have no legs to stand on when it comes to espousing democracy and having the moral high ground
 
This era's binary choices are: More destructive industrialism and militarism or the possibility of avoiding more suffering due to Earth's abused and barely hanging on ecosystems collapsing?

Militarism or environmentalism?
 

. . . . What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?​


As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"

"America is not the world's policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong." - Barack Obama

President Obama was right. The US cannot (and should not) assume the role of the policemen of the world. It is wrong for other countries to expect the U.S. to do this.
 
With the International Court of Justice ruling, the United State and Europe have a legal justification for intervention (the court itself has no enforcement powers), but they still have practical considerations. I think this may allow the release of those Polish MiGs, though.
What a stupidly absurd and ironical joke! That's the court against which the US has legislation(see above) and some presidents threatened action against its judges!

It's not like the US ever needed any kind of "legal" justification, as it started lots of illegal wars, some on fabricated evidence!

But Russia is far too strong and dangerous and the US&allies will keep their distance and limit themselves to "sanctions" and cheap propaganda.
 

Biden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’ (WaPo)​


World Court orders Russia to halt military operations in Ukraine (Reuters)​



So, now the question becomes, "What do we do about that"?

In my opinion, there is no question that Russia's attack on Ukraine was not only unprovoked, but is part of a pattern of aggressive military action in violation of international law. Moreover, there is little question that tactically the Russian forces are, apparently at the direction of Putin himself, committing "grave breaches" of International Humanitarian Law - war crimes - of the most serious nature. Indeed, it appears the aim is now genocidal, which is unfathomable given the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and its cultural history with Russia.

But, the question remains, "What do we do about that"? Once upon a time, the United States considered itself the "shining city on a hill" and the guardian of democracy the world over. That's the moral stance that it has taken for decades. Notwithstanding the blip that was the Trump administration (that's leaving a stain), it has been the official foreign policy position of the United States since at least the Second World War. Charles Blow of The New York Times asks in his latest column, What Is Our Moral Obligation in Ukraine? Do we, as we did in Rwanda, let it happen and treat the wounds afterward? Or do we do as we did in Kosovo and intervene to end the suffering?

As Blow asks, "When does America have a moral obligation to intervene — particularly for humanitarian reasons — in conflict? And which factors contribute to the choices we make?"

Regarding the highlight:

Why do people continue to display this sort of stupidity in their posts?

Why do you hold this stupidity to be a fact in your uninformed, misguided view of the world?
 
But Russia is far too strong and dangerous and the US&allies will keep their distance and limit themselves to "sanctions" and cheap propaganda.

You can't go a day without suckung some Russian teat.
 
You can't go a day without suckung some Russian teat.

I have been disappointed in the extreme regarding the reluctance of our leaders to display the kind of resistance to Putin that is required to constrain him.

How is that "sucking some Russian teat".
 
Considering the US's history of coups and creating failed states through "moral interventions" (Middle East), they have no legs to stand on when it comes to espousing democracy and having the moral high ground
I think that is too narrow and parochial a view, frankly. Everyone has clay feet. But, in the main, the US has taken a proactive role more often than not, from the Marshall Plan, forward. I think the geopolitics of the cold war warped the process significantly, as does jingoism from specific US leaders. I also think it is important to distinguish leaders from countries, in this regard. The policies of Reagan and Trump (and the GOP, generally), for example, differ significantly from those pursued by Democratic leaders. In the 1956 Suez crisis, the US did not participate, but in Vietnam it entered on behalf of the colonialists in the erroneous belief that it was "fighting communism".
 
The bigger question is can the US (or any nation) claim to be a “moral leader” without acting as a “world policeman”?

What level of basic human rights violations (anywhere on the planet) should not cause a (self-proclaimed?) “moral leader” nation to act as a “world policeman”?
This era's binary choices are: More destructive industrialism and militarism or the possibility of avoiding more suffering due to Earth's abused and barely hanging on ecosystems collapsing?

Militarism or environmentalism?
I don't think any of these conflicts are necessarily binary. Indeed, it is the multipolarity which makes them so intractable. There are gradations, nuances, and conflicting interests - even internally - that make consensus difficult to deliver.

I am a great believer in the United States being a moral leader of the world. But that status itself is fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies. We are a major polluter - as an advanced economy - but also a significant producer of green technologies. China, the biggest producer, is also a leading promoter of green technologies. The US has the ability to become the new global leader, but it is being hampered by domestic politics (primarily by one political party, but geographic considerations play a part as well). China has the advantage of being a dictatorship, which, in other aspects is a considerable disadvantage.

In great measure
what is considered "moral" is a matter of perspective. Vladimir Putin explicitly (and dishonestly) couches his invasion of Ukraine as a "moral" conflict, but I think most of the world views "ethnic cleansing" and his prosecution of the war as a moral bankruptcy. But, we do have an international standard, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That, I think, is a good rubric for consideration, Article 2 of which states:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
 
I think that is too narrow and parochial a view, frankly. Everyone has clay feet. But, in the main, the US has taken a proactive role more often than not, from the Marshall Plan, forward. I think the geopolitics of the cold war warped the process significantly, as does jingoism from specific US leaders. I also think it is important to distinguish leaders from countries, in this regard. The policies of Reagan and Trump (and the GOP, generally), for example, differ significantly from those pursued by Democratic leaders. In the 1956 Suez crisis, the US did not participate, but in Vietnam it entered on behalf of the colonialists in the erroneous belief that it was "fighting communism".
Ok, but you agree the US coups in Latin America were wrong and is pretty ironic considering the US's stance on promoting democracy.
 
Ok, but you agree the US coups in Latin America were wrong and is pretty ironic considering the US's stance on promoting democracy.
Yes.

(Although, I have to add that, with few exceptions, the United States was not directly involved, merely supporting existing conflicts, so calling them "US coups" is overstating the case. In one case, the effort was explicitly prohibited by US law and pursued illegally, albeit by government actors.)
 
Last edited:
Yes. (Although, with few exceptions, the United States was not directly involved, merely supporting existing conflicts, so calling them "US coups" is overstating the case.)
Ok then I'm fine with your post
 
Ok then I'm fine with your post
It damages credibility when a nation pursues actions that contradict its stated positions. For example, the United States has a stated position to support democracy around the globe, yet in 1956 it prevented a free election in Vietnam because it recognized that the communist leader would win. Under Nixon and Reagan (especially), the US supported anti-democratic leaders in Latin America because they foolishly equated laissez faire economic policies with open governments. Jimmy Carter, frankly, was the only US President to express an honest position on the issue.
 
It damages credibility when a nation pursues actions that contradict its stated positions. For example, the United States has a stated position to support democracy around the globe, yet in 1956 it prevented a free election in Vietnam because it recognized that the communist leader would win. Under Nixon and Reagan (especially), the US supported anti-democratic leaders in Latin America because they foolishly equated laissez faire economic policies with open governments. Jimmy Carter, frankly, was the only US President to express an honest position on the issue.
And since Trump has no filter, he's actually been like the only president to state the unsaid. The US has a lot of people with blood on their hands.
 
I agree, that is the central question. As Blow puts it, "Human suffering is human suffering. It has been a constant in the story of mankind. Sometimes it overlaps with our national interests, and sometimes it does not. But our sense of morality must remain constant, and in it we must find a place for equity."

With the International Court of Justice ruling, the United State and Europe have a legal justification for intervention (the court itself has no enforcement powers), but they still have practical considerations. I think this may allow the release of those Polish MiGs, though.
On the topic of the Polish MiGs. What is the current rationale for not releasing them? I understand why NATO can't enforce a no-fly zone with NATO pilots, but why is the donation of aircraft so politically sensitive? Are they considered somehow "more deadly" than armed drones, AA guns, anti-tank weapons, or javelin missiles? They are all deadly pieces of military equipment that can be used to kill Russian soldiers. Why would it be considered an escalation when there are presumably thousands of donated NATO rounds buried in Russian equipment and dead soldiers as we speak?

The only thing I can think of is the danger of NATO pilots delivering them. Obviously, it is dangerous to put a NATO pilot in a position where he or she could be shot down by Russian weaponry. But if Ukrainian pilots can go to Poland to pick them up, I don't see the issue here.
 
On the topic of the Polish MiGs. What is the current rationale for not releasing them? I understand why NATO can't enforce a no-fly zone with NATO pilots, but why is the donation of aircraft so politically sensitive? Are they considered somehow "more deadly" than armed drones, AA guns, anti-tank weapons, or javelin missiles? They are all deadly pieces of military equipment that can be used to kill Russian soldiers. Why would it be considered an escalation when there are presumably thousands of donated NATO rounds buried in Russian equipment and dead soldiers as we speak?

The only thing I can think of is the danger of NATO pilots delivering them. Obviously, it is dangerous to put a NATO pilot in a position where he or she could be shot down by Russian weaponry. But if Ukrainian pilots can go to Poland to pick them up, I don't see the issue here.

The main objection is not about the MiG jets per se, but about the longevity of the jets. The Pentagon rationale is that every sq foot of Ukrainein airspace is covered by Russian S-400 anti-air systems in Russia, Kaliningrad, and Belarus. Tactically the Pentagon is right. But still, I'd rather have the Ukrainian pilots make the decision on whether or not to fly these birds.

Now Slovakia has offered to give Ukraine their S-300 anti-air system (provided they receive a replacement system). The S-300 is truck mounted (mobile) so it could be rapidly moved, and some models have a range of 200-250 miles.
 
The main objection is not about the MiG jets per se, but about the longevity of the jets. The Pentagon rationale is that every sq foot of Ukrainein airspace is covered by Russian S-400 anti-air systems in Russia, Kaliningrad, and Belarus. Tactically the Pentagon is right. But still, I'd rather have the Ukrainian pilots make the decision on whether or not to fly these birds.

Now Slovakia has offered to give Ukraine their S-300 anti-air system (provided they receive a replacement system). The S-300 is truck mounted (mobile) so it could be rapidly moved, and some models have a range of 200-250 miles.
There have been two arguments put forth for denial of the MiGs.

One is that, as you say, tactically Ukraine has not been flying the MiGs they do have, because the airspace is so contested, so they will not be immediately useful. There, I think, the provision of S-300s is more efficacious and should be encouraged.

The second argument is that it would be seen as a provocation. Frankly, I think that ship sailed a LONG time ago. But, the more nuanced concern is that Russia might seek to escalate by attacking the MiGs before they reached Ukrainian airspace. That would necessitate a response from NATO. At present, NATO resupply has been very effective (or so it is reported, and facts on the ground seem to support that conclusion).

I do think that the MiGs should be supplied, and **** Russia. Ukrainian pilots are skilled enough to get them to Ukraine without detection or at least interdiction. Once they are there, they can participate in coordinated attacks in support of the Ukrainian counterattack.

One of the other aspects of this may be disinformation, of a sort. If the Russians are looking for MiGs, they may miss the convoys of other supplies that are being sent overland.

From a moral standpoint, Ukraine is a sovereign nation being attacked - illegally and immorally - by another nation. If that is the legal and moral standard the world community wants to enforce, it should take a much more active role in negotiations and even, if necessary, military enforcement. For example, establishing escape corridors for civilians, and pushing supplies of foodstuffs and medicine to besieged enclaves. That is the international standard. There, I think, the world community is failing, and failing badly.

I have opined elsewhere that Europeans and Americans are operating with their head in the sand. This is WW3, we just don't want to admit it. We did the same thing in the other two wars, delaying our participation because of a reluctance to get involved (from 1914 to 1917, and from 1938 to 1941). I see the pattern repeating itself, but with new actors. Putin, like Hitler before him, is trying to bite off pieces of Europe seriatim on his way to at least regional hegemony. We need to name and shame that approach.

Finally, I think that the world can be even more forceful by cutting off the Black sea to Russian shipments, military and commercial. That would include supplying anti-ship weaponry to Ukraine that has the capacity to disable and sink Russian naval forces in the Black sea and Sea of Asov. Russia has been attacking civilian shipping there. Calls for ‘blue corridor’ to let stranded seafarers leave Ukraine war zone (Guardian). "Hundreds of seafarers on more than 100 foreign-flagged cargo vessels are stranded in Ukrainian waters in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov “in the middle of the line of fire”.

The International Chamber of Shipping and unions are calling for the immediate creation of safe “blue corridors” to enable the ships and their crews to leave without risk of missile or mine strikes. The UN’s International Maritime Organization, which held an emergency meeting last week to address the situation, estimates that up to 2,000 men could be affected, although some may have been repatriated, it said."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
:rolleyes:

Can't say I disagree with any of that, and I agree that the West needs to be more proactive in facillitating Ukraine to defend herself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
Back
Top Bottom