Seems like most people who have replied to my comments want justice over saving millions of people's life. Fine by me, but the assumed and voiced moral superiority is baffling.
To have done "the same", he would have needed to force Russian citizens living in occupied Kursk to pick up guns and throw their lives away fighting other Russians. Which he didn't.
Russia did force people from occupied territories to fight in Ukraine.
You are taking a side though. Your position that absence of violence is more important than justice means that you expect Zelensky to just roll over and give Russia what it wants, which basically means a complete annexation of Ukraine.
You accused others with having a voice of moral superiority, but your "I did not pick a side" is just that.
There are only two possible outcomes to this war. Either Ukraine still exists as a sovereign nation, or it doesn't. The first will require continued fighting. There is no possibility for Ukraine to remain sovereign without violently kicking Russia out of its land.
What you described is black and white thinking, however, and there is much more to it than just "either Russia wins or does not win", pretty sure there can be a compromise, you know, a middle path, that is good enough for both parties and consequently there will be less deaths.
If people want to die for justice, so be it. Up to them, but:
Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Because Russia is the invader. It lied about the troop movements being a prelude to invasion. It lied about the reasons for invading. It has committed, and continues to commit, war crimes. It has made nuclear threats to dissuade others from helping Ukraine defend itself. It has threatened Finland for daring to join NATO.
> pretty sure there can be a compromise
Why do you think this?
Russia can stop their unlawful invasion of a sovereign country any time they want. That they have not done so ought to be a QED that they don't want to stop.
> Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Would you talk about the invasion of your own country in the same vein?
I don't know where you live. USA? Imagine Russia had in 2014 annexed Alaska the way they've annexed Crimea, and in 2022 started trying the same on the states of Washington and Montana, and briefly had control of the I-90 as far as Chicago before being repelled.
If that happened, would you say "pretty sure there can be a compromise"?
The "compromise" Zelenskyy is offering Putin is: "get out of my country that you've illegally occupied, and I won't keep shooting drones into your oil refineries".
The "compromise" Putin is offering Zelenskyy is: "Be our puppet or die".
Nothing about Russian state behaviour looks like they're willing to behave. Not the military action, not the broad-daylight assassinations (not only in Ukraine, but also in Germany and the UK and Turkey), certainly not the war crimes.
Right now, the Russian government is acting, and talking, as if Ukraine isn't even a real country.
Would you have protected Iraq against its invasion by the West, knowing it was based on lies and led to massive destruction, loss of life, and destabilization? What about Lebanon right now, with Israel's ongoing actions - shouldn't we ask the same question about justice and sovereignty there, too? And here's another tough one: would you speak about suicide bombers the same way? They often claim they're acting for justice - perhaps not your justice, but justice nonetheless. Does that justify their actions, or do we make distinctions between subjective and objective justice? Just because someone believes their actions are justified doesn't mean they're morally acceptable.
In summary, the question of whether boundaries or human lives matter more is a complex one. The dilemma is whether compromising sovereignty for the sake of peace or minimizing deaths is truly just, or if it's more just to stand firm for a nation's right to self-determination - even at the cost of more suffering. The comparison to Iraq, Lebanon, and suicide bombers underscores how subjective "justice" can be. What one side believes to be justice doesn't always align with what is objectively right according to international law or human rights principles (more about it later).
The core issue here is how we define justice in conflict situations: is it about preserving borders and sovereignty, or about protecting human lives? It's a deeper, more nuanced question that forces us to reflect on the values we prioritize in these difficult circumstances.
