Russia's at it again

In international affairs, whataboutism is legitimate because people don't forget the actions of (other) states. It isn't a fallacy to investigate the motives of one state which is criticizing another state (perhaps belligerently). You make a rod for your own back. You can't criticise a nation for transgressions in one country if you yourself are responsible for the same sort of transgressions in another country.

It's particularly not a fallacy in relation to the world's dominant state which practices exceptionalism as a core component of its foreign policy. You can't claim exceptionalism if you've done worse than your opponents.
 
Ubik said:
From my perspective, this isn't being used to say "man how nasty are Russia, interfering with the election!", it's more the worry that they'd be going to such lengths to back Trump in the first place and what that means for the world in the next few years.

Like, just think about the "America did it first" counter and what the implications of that are. What were America trying to achieve with their meddling? A stake of control over those regimes.
Click to expand...

I doubt the US even invented it so if anyone argues "America did it first" they would most likely be wrong.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
In international affairs, whataboutism is legitimate because people don't forget the actions of (other) states. It isn't a fallacy to investigate the motives of one state which is criticizing another state (perhaps belligerently). You make a rod for your own back. You can't criticise a nation for transgressions in one country if you yourself are responsible for the same sort of transgressions in another country.

It's particularly not a fallacy in relation to the world's dominant state which practices exceptionalism as a core component of its foreign policy. You can't claim exceptionalism if you've done worse than your opponents.
Click to expand...

Which then leads us back around to pretty much nobody can complain about anything any country does since well others have already done it. There's very little or really nothing new going on here, the methods or technology may change but we can back through history and see other nations/people/groups attempting to influence everything from the line of succession in a monarchy to who the next pope will be to trying to back one party over another in a national election.
 
JustAFan said:
Which then leads us back around to pretty much nobody can complain about anything any country does since well others have already done it. There's very little or really nothing new going on here, the methods or technology may change but we can back through history and see other nations/people/groups attempting to influence everything from the line of succession in a monarchy to who the next pope will be to trying to back one party over another in a national election.
Click to expand...
With the US, it only sounds hypocritical when discussing foreign aggression. It might even be right, but I'm always skeptical.

On the other hand, the US has a great platform for discussing human rights, freedom of the press, meritocracy, and things of that nature. It isn't perfect, but the record of the United States (internally) is probably better than any other state you care to mention. Externally, this isn't true though.
 
JustAFan said:
So you see how frustrating the attitude can be.

@Organic Potatoes spells it out nicely.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Though I'm not sure it deserved the response from both you and Raoul. You assumed I'd know that Kaos does it often, then tried to be clever with the responses, when in reality I was unaware of him using that as a point scoring method. Either of you could have simply pointed that out first.

That kind of attitude can also be frustrating.
 
JustAFan said:
Basically it makes everything okay since there probably are not any new wrongs somebody could commit. Oh you robbed a bank, that's okay other people have done that also. Oh you are a serial killer, well so was Arthur Shawcross no big deal. Oh you invaded another country, well it's okay history is full of that stuff. and on and on we could go.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make it ok but your logic jump does not work either.

A fairer comparison would be a bank robber complaining about a bank being robbed.

Not that the act itself is fine.
 
DFreshKing said:
It doesn't make it ok but your logic jump does not work either.

A fairer comparison would be a bank robber complaining about a bank being robbed.

Not that the act itself is fine.
Click to expand...

No in the whole scheme of CE it does work because people have used as an excuse for a wide range of things the fact that some other nation has done the same thing. Oh you just annexed part of an independent nation, no biggie lots of other nations have done it also.
 
JustAFan said:
No in the whole scheme of CE it does work because people have used as an excuse for a wide range of things the fact that some other nation has done the same thing. Oh you just annexed part of an independent nation, no biggie lots of other nations have done it also.
Click to expand...

I agree that does not work, but on the other hand if the nation complaining has annexed you can see the dilemma no?
 
It's twofold, though. People shutdown discussion of Assange and Wikileaks based on the exact same whataboutism. The revelations about the DNC/Clinton were met with complaints about lack of coverage of Republicans/Trump. If we were serious about avoiding fallacies, Wikileaks' lack of coverage on Russia/GOP wouldn't be relevant in their coverage of the DNC/Clinton. It's only relevant if you want to look for a motive to discredit them -- which is the definition of tu quoque.
 
As expected, the usual suspects have completely misinterpreted my post.

As suggested, my reference to the US doing the same isn't a justification of this alleged Russian interference. But rather a bemusement as to how previous occurrences of the US intervening in a similar and more open manner garners no outrage.

Matter of fact, in the presidential election thread I referred to a leaked cable showing how Hillary Clinton had openly suggested rigging the Palestinian elections, and funny enough the very same posters criticising me here dismissed that story as a non-issue and laughed it off like it was a completely normal thing to do in world affairs. I just find it incredible how this suddenly becomes a serious issue when the country most guilty in intervening abroad is for once at the receiving end. Go figure.
 
DFreshKing said:
I agree that does not work, but on the other hand if the nation complaining has annexed you can see the dilemma no?
Click to expand...

But again look at world history very few of us live in an area that has not at one point or another in it's history not been itself guilty of invading some neighbor or as part of some predecessor not been involved. So really nobody has a right to complain about any nations actions then. Then you get the issue that maybe not everyone from one nation has been in support of the activities of their own government, so then what? Take the whole mess in Syria, from the start I said I wanted my government (the US) to stay the feck out of it, I even got a few people here in the CE telling me how wrong it was to have that attitude that the US had some sort of responsibility to act. Yet now you can bet if I were to post any complaints about anything some nation other than the US was doing in Syria that there would be those whose first response would be "well what about......" which of course does not make the act of the other nation right.
 
JustAFan said:
But again look at world history very few of us live in an area that has not at one point or another in it's history not been itself guilty of invading some neighbor or as part of some predecessor not been involved. So really nobody has a right to complain about any nations actions then. Then you get the issue that maybe not everyone from one nation has been in support of the activities of their own government, so then what? Take the whole mess in Syria, from the start I said I wanted my government (the US) to stay the feck out of it, I even got a few people here in the CE telling me how wrong it was to have that attitude that the US had some sort of responsibility to act. Yet now you can bet if I were to post any complaints about anything some nation other than the US was doing in Syria that there would be those whose first response would be "well what about......" which of course does not make the act of the other nation right.
Click to expand...

But you seem to be making up a basic argument here that pointing out someone else commited that same act is the same as justifying it.

If Kaos does that all the time, then fine. But that doesn't mean everyone else is doing it.
 
Redlambs said:
But you seem to be making up a basic argument here that pointing out someone else commited that same act is the same as justifying it.

If Kaos does that all the time, then fine. But that doesn't mean everyone else is doing it.
Click to expand...

Well look at his comment, what was the point of it? There really was not except to have a dig and yeah he does do it quite a lot along with a few others.
 
JustAFan said:
Well look at his comment, what was the point of it? There really was not except to have a dig and yeah he does do it quite a lot along with a few others.
Click to expand...
There you go:

Kaos said:
As expected, the usual suspects have completely misinterpreted my post.

As suggested, my reference to the US doing the same isn't a justification of this alleged Russian interference. But rather a bemusement as to how previous occurrences of the US intervening in a similar and more open manner garners no outrage.

Matter of fact, in the presidential election thread I referred to a leaked cable showing how Hillary Clinton had openly suggested rigging the Palestinian elections, and funny enough the very same posters criticising me here dismissed that story as a non-issue and laughed it off like it was a completely normal thing to do in world affairs. I just find it incredible how this suddenly becomes a serious issue when the country most guilty in intervening abroad is for once at the receiving end. Go figure.
Click to expand...
 
JustAFan said:
But again look at world history very few of us live in an area that has not at one point or another in it's history not been itself guilty of invading some neighbor or as part of some predecessor not been involved. So really nobody has a right to complain about any nations actions then. Then you get the issue that maybe not everyone from one nation has been in support of the activities of their own government, so then what? Take the whole mess in Syria, from the start I said I wanted my government (the US) to stay the feck out of it, I even got a few people here in the CE telling me how wrong it was to have that attitude that the US had some sort of responsibility to act. Yet now you can bet if I were to post any complaints about anything some nation other than the US was doing in Syria that there would be those whose first response would be "well what about......" which of course does not make the act of the other nation right.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit simple to say that two wrongs don't make a right (or something to that extent) when a poster in this case correctly argues that when the biggest interferer (i.e. the US) interferes in another state's affairs nobody batters an eye lid. I think everybody agrees that Russia has a rogue leadership. But imo it's impossible to discuss Russia's interference in another states internal affairs for their own benefit without referring to the US continuously doing more a less the same thing.
 
Rams said:
I think it's a bit simple to say that two wrongs don't make a right (or something to that extent) when a poster in this case correctly argues that when the biggest interferer (i.e. the US) in another state's affairs nobody batters an eye lid. I think everybody agrees that Russia has a rogue leadership. But imo it's impossible to discuss Russia's interference in another states internal affairs for their own benefit without referring to the US continuously doing more a less the same thing.
Click to expand...

Why can't you be critical of one without always having to mention the other? Why not bring up all the other ones that have taken place in history? What does it really prove about it?

Let's say tomorrow China invades Vietnam. Do we have to have page after page discussing every single invasion that has ever taken place or to go back over the US involvement in Vietnam in the 60's and early 70's? Or could we just discuss China's invasion and whether it, on it's own , is right or wrong?

Or can a German or German government ever for the rest of history point out that an act of genocide is wrong without having to spend time talking about the Holocaust? I think we can all agree genocide is wrong, but if (or more likely when) another one occurs can we not just talk about that genocide as wrong without having to go over all the other genocides that have happened in history?
 
JustAFan said:
Why can't you be critical of one without always having to mention the other? Why not bring up all the other ones that have taken place in history? What does it really prove about it?

Let's say tomorrow China invades Vietnam. Do we have to have page after page discussing every single invasion that has ever taken place or to go back over the US involvement in Vietnam in the 60's and early 70's? Or could we just discuss China's invasion and whether it, on it's own , is right or wrong?

Or can a German or German government ever for the rest of history point out that an act of genocide is wrong without having to spend time talking about the Holocaust? I think we can all agree genocide is wrong, but if (or more likely when) another one occurs can we not just talk about that genocide as wrong without having to go over all the other genocides that have happened in history?
Click to expand...

The US (and the UK) invaded Iraq on the basis of a cock & bull story about WOMD's and the catostrophic consequences of the US and UK's actions are felt today (Aleppo for instance). So when the title of the thread reads "Russia's at it again" I think it's more than sensible and justified to point out that Russia are not the only country to meddle in another sovereign state's internal affairs in order to put Russia's actions into perspective.
 
JustAFan said:
Why can't you be critical of one without always having to mention the other? Why not bring up all the other ones that have taken place in history? What does it really prove about it?

Let's say tomorrow China invades Vietnam. Do we have to have page after page discussing every single invasion that has ever taken place or to go back over the US involvement in Vietnam in the 60's and early 70's? Or could we just discuss China's invasion and whether it, on it's own , is right or wrong?

Or can a German or German government ever for the rest of history point out that an act of genocide is wrong without having to spend time talking about the Holocaust? I think we can all agree genocide is wrong, but if (or more likely when) another one occurs can we not just talk about that genocide as wrong without having to go over all the other genocides that have happened in history?
Click to expand...

You're more than welcome to express your outrage, and rightly so assuming the Russians have been intervening.

Just don't get precious when others refer to the fact your country is doing it too, to a much larger and broadened scale. This isn't a justification of Russia's actions, but rather an invitation to discuss to the issue at large, regardless of who's culpable and who's at the receiving end. Perhaps the next time the US decides to forcibly intervene in another nation's affairs, we can finally take that discussion seriously?

This isn't a personal attack on you necessarily, but a reminder to certain posters (I think they know who they are) who'd previously ridicule me everytime I'd bring up a story about the US intervening in a country's affairs, either because it was a 'non-story' or on the account of my alleged 'Anti-American' outlook, downplaying the actual issue at hand. Suddenly they've decided foreign intervention in elections is a serious and immoral matter.
 
Rams said:
The US (and the UK) invaded Iraq on the basis of a cock & bull story about WOMD's and the catostrophic consequences of the US and UK's actions are felt today (Aleppo for instance). So when the title of the thread reads "Russia's at it again" I think it's more than sensible and justified to point out that Russia are not the only country to meddle in another sovereign state's internal affairs in order to put Russia's actions into perspective.
Click to expand...
So basically every thrrad about something a country does can just become about other countries that have done something similar. So feck it, do what you want and just deflect all criticism with a "yeah but what about......"

The U.S. and UK were not the first countries to invade another under false pretenses so feck it they are fine we should not even talk about it without bringing all the others into the discussion.

Thing is it is not like you see people saying Russia is the only one who does something and still you get the "yeah but what about......"

It's not like there isn't a thread talking about the horrible invasion of Iraq.
 
Last edited:
JustAFan said:
So basically every thrrad about something a country does can just become about other countries that have done something similar. So feck it, do what you want and just deflect all criticism with a "yeah but what about......"

The U.S. and UK were not the first countries to invade another under false pretenses so feck it they are fine we should not even talk about it without bringing all the others into the discussion.
Click to expand...

In this case it's very relevant (unlike the Vietnam war for example) to mention the fact that Russia aren't the only country to recently meddle in another country's internal affairs. In fact it's not only relevant, it's essential to consider this when observing the actions of the Russians. A lot of what Putin is doing is copying what the US and other superpowers do, always did do and always will do.
 
Rams said:
In this case it's very relevant (unlike the Vietnam war for example) to mention the fact that Russia aren't the only country to recently meddle in another country's internal affairs. In fact it's not only relevant, it's essential to consider this when observing the actions of the Russians. A lot of what Putin is doing is copying what the US and other superpowers do, always did do and always will do.
Click to expand...

too true.
 
Redlambs said:
But you seem to be making up a basic argument here that pointing out someone else commited that same act is the same as justifying it.

If Kaos does that all the time, then fine. But that doesn't mean everyone else is doing it.
Click to expand...
I wasn't thinking of Kaos in terms of what I said earlier; but there is a cadre of people that just love that style of arguing. It's tough being an American in the CE...
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...



The problem with this is twofold. On the one hand claiming Assange not be a trustworthy source and then believing him as soon as he says something that fits your agenda is hard to take seriously.

Secondly the actual content is incorrect, if you listen to the interview he says the exact opposite of what you are implying, again reiterating that Russia was not involved.

The comment thehill has misconstrued was attributed to content leaked to media sources (Thehill being one) not the wikileaks.

Assange was discussing them and their possibility of being a Russian plot, not verifiying Russia's involvement - which he denied again in the very same interview.
 
Rams said:
In this case it's very relevant (unlike the Vietnam war for example) to mention the fact that Russia aren't the only country to recently meddle in another country's internal affairs. In fact it's not only relevant, it's essential to consider this when observing the actions of the Russians. A lot of what Putin is doing is copying what the US and other superpowers do, always did do and always will do.
Click to expand...

The big difference is that whatever meddling was done in the affairs of Iraq was intended to remove a dictator. For all the lack of WMD's, since the Iraq invasion it's abundantly clear that the man (and his family) were fecking monsters. Yes, this coincided with on ongoing strategy to do everything they can to ensure an uninterrupted supply of oil but the best way to do that is by ensuring the region remains as peaceful as possible. There's no moral equivalence between an interventional strategy to try and maintain peace in the ME with Putin's efforts to completely destabilise the US and EU.
 
Humiliated in the Interwar years......this sounds a bit familiar.

 
Raoul said:
Humiliated in the Interwar years......this sounds a bit familiar.

Click to expand...

Did anyone watch Rachel Maddows segment last night on Putin. If she is on point about his wealth and how he amassed it he maybe the most dangerous man alive. If I was a citizen of an Eastern European country I would be very worried right now and Russian tanks rolling through their capitals is a very real possibility, especially if Putin tells the US to stay put.
 
Raoul said:
Humiliated in the Interwar years......this sounds a bit familiar.

Click to expand...


:lol: invoking Godwin seems above you Raoul!

To be fair they were brutally humiliated by the west. They were bankrupt after the communist era and the west did their best to stick the boot in and attempt to keep them down by saddling them with massive debts.

You don't treat your peers like that and it's no surprise they're out for revenge. It's not like we didn't know this about Russia's "personality".
 
Anecdotal, of course, and you don't have to believe me, but my family has connection with some military higher-ups in VN and on occasions attend dinners or parties with them.

Anyway, when the wine flows, politics comes up. It's been quite long now, about 7-8 years ago but I still remember them talking about Putin's ambition to rebuild the USSR, specifically regarding Ukraine. Of course, this was also during a period of turbulence on Ukrainian politics that got a lot of coverage on local news. Most of them prefer that outcome too (a resurgent USSR).

So, yeah, not sure if it's actually relevant at all, but I do think the West sometimes catch more heat than they deserve from certain circles regarding their animosity to Russia. The latter's imperialistic ambition is quite real.
 
I'm guessing Obama is going to do something before he leaves next month...

 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Anecdotal, of course, and you don't have to believe me, but my family has connection with some military higher-ups in VN and on occasions attend dinners or parties with them.

Anyway, when the wine flows, politics comes up. It's been quite long now, about 7-8 years ago but I still remember them talking about Putin's ambition to rebuild the USSR, specifically regarding Ukraine. Of course, this was also during a period of turbulence on Ukrainian politics that got a lot of coverage on local news. Most of them prefer that outcome too (a resurgent USSR).

So, yeah, not sure if it's actually relevant at all, but I do think the West sometimes catch more heat than they deserve from certain circles regarding their animosity to Russia. The latter's imperialistic ambition is quite real.
Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at with my moral equivalence stuff, up above. People seem so reluctant to acknowledge the good that the west have done for the world. The massive progress in human rights, for example. Couldn't be more different to the crap that minorities in Russia have to endure. Throw in a load of other underhand crap, like the way someone like Abramovic made his billions or state-sanctioned cheating in competitive sports and any argument along the lines of "oh they're all as bad as each other" just doesn't hold water.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The big difference is that whatever meddling was done in the affairs of Iraq was intended to remove a dictator. For all the lack of WMD's, since the Iraq invasion it's abundantly clear that the man (and his family) were fecking monsters. Yes, this coincided with on ongoing strategy to do everything they can to ensure an uninterrupted supply of oil but the best way to do that is by ensuring the region remains as peaceful as possible. There's no moral equivalence between an interventional strategy to try and maintain peace in the ME with Putin's efforts to completely destabilise the US and EU.
Click to expand...

Yes, there's no moral equivalence betwen invading a sovereign state under false pretences, toppling its government and having its ruler hanged and starting a war that took hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions out of their homes, destabilized the whole ME and gave rise to the worst terrorist organization in history on one hand and whatever horrible crimes Putin is guilty of, on the other.
 
antihenry said:
Yes, there's no moral equivalence betwen invading a sovereign state under false pretences, toppling its government and having its ruler hanged and starting a war that took hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions out of their homes, destabilized the whole ME and gave rise to the worst terrorist organization in history on one hand and whatever horrible crimes Putin is guilty of, on the other.
Click to expand...

Correct. Intent is everything, from a moral perspective.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That's what I was getting at with my moral equivalence stuff, up above. People seem so reluctant to acknowledge the good that the west have done for the world. The massive progress in human rights, for example. Couldn't be more different to the crap that minorities in Russia have to endure. Throw in a load of other underhand crap, like the way someone like Abramovic made his billions or state-sanctioned cheating in competitive sports and any argument along the lines of "oh they're all as bad as each other" just doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
And journalists, and political opponents...
 
antihenry said:
Oh I agree, you have to be extremely dumb to believe Dubya's intention was to locate the WMD in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Well they did shoot at his daddy. I'm quit confident most of the Iraq invasion's finer details were discussed while he was out of the room or after 8:30pm when he was in bed. What a clusterfeck the United States foreign policy has been over the last twenty years and a massive amount of it has in my opinion come about through corporate meddling and the insatiable need to make money no matter the consequences.
 
antihenry said:
Oh I agree, you have to be extremely dumb to believe Dubya's intention was to locate the WMD in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Not as dumb as believing the intention of the Iraq war was to start "a war that took hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions out of their homes, destabilized the whole ME and gave rise to the worst terrorist organization in history". Which seems to be your take on things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.