German here. I am fairly pro-US. Had a discussion yesterday with my neighbor. He argues that Russia invading Ukraine (and putting a pro-Russian government in its place), it is the same as USA invading Iraq. In his view, both of these invasions where motivated by own interests: Russia is motivated by their own interest to unite old Soviet Union again and USA was motivated to secure their resource interests (oil). How do you defend against this?
I argued that both conflicts cannot be compared. USA was reactive (against the threat of 9-11), whereas Russia is proactive, invading an independent country with shallow arguments (Nato is a defense alliance that would never invade Russia, yet Putin calls Nato a threat).
Mostly it's a belief of the propaganda of Russian supporters (there's a few here too). Here's how to spot them.
The strongest argument they can make is one based on the hypocrisy of the west. (But there is a lot of truth there that's why it's strong and they use it)
It boils down to "they did it, so we should too".
It doesn't have any morality and say it's good or has any claim to noble acts. There's no positive arguments in support only negative against their enemies.
The west has the freedom mythos for people outside to believe in. Russia only had an internal facing fatherland idea. Russia does not appeal to freedom for all in its propaganda, indeed they will attack the idea of freedom as false through examples of western hypocrisy.
It's also defended, for example, by the claim that the entire world except Russia, is lying via media, corporations etc.
If you think that USA's invasion of Iraq was reactive, then go read up about the thinktank "Project for the New American Century", and compare their goals and their list of members against that of the GWB administration.
This may look like a made-up conspiracy theory, but everything was public, in the open on their official web site at the time (link at the bottom to copy on archive.org).
(Oh boy, am I going to get downvoted for this ...)
The worst thing about the US invasion of Iraq is the civilian casualties of the war, occupation and political instability that followed. But the 2nd worst thing about the US invasion of Iraq is that it is indefensible. This weakens the US position on other conflicts, where the US position is just.
Anyway, any German that is in favor of the Russian border moving closer to Germany is an idiot, and possibly too stupid and ignorant to be helped.
I basically agree, except the US invasion of Iraq is far more defensible than the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The USA got rid of a really bad dictator in Iraq. Ukraine's government was democratically elected and much better.
The USA did not annex Iraq (directly or by proxy), take Iraq's oil or establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Putin has explicitly said he sees Ukraine as part of a new Russian empire.
Let's assume the US had better intentions toward Iraq than Putin has towards Ukraine. But the people of Iraq are not thankful for the results of the US invasion. It did not bring peace and prosperity to Iraq.
They are both imperialist moves, and I do think they are comparable, so there's no need to sugarcoat it. But there's empires and empires: I'd much rather live in a US democracy rather than a Russian dictatorship.
Also, you can't really compare Saddam to Zelenskyy.
I don't think there's a need to defend against it. You can acknowledge that the US has done some fucked up shit. The invasion of Iraq was, as far as I understand it, based on outright lies from the Bush administration about evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Just say, yeah, the invasion of Iraq was fucked up. This invasion of Ukraine is also fucked up. We should condemn both.
There are probably nuanced arguments to be made about which is worse. You could maybe argue that attacking a NATO-aligned country is more dangerous for world peace than attacking Iraq was (at least from a western perspective). You could point to the fact that there's no reason to believe Putin will stop after Ukraine if that attack goes well; his "excuse" for invading Ukraine applies to most former Soviet countries. But you don't have to defend US invasions, you can accept that at least some US invasions are bad even if you generally prefer US hegemony to Russian or Chinese hegemony (which I also do, FWIW).
That is pretty good summary of the sentiment of most people (US and Europe) and I cannot say my sentiments are very far off from this (we speak about high level outlook, not the details of war crimes perpetrated in Iraq, and elsewhere under US aggressive wars).
However, objectively, one cannot with the same breath claim and act as if there are no other world views and values and interests (China, Russia, Middle East, etc), which is dismissed apriori or even vilified.
I wonder whether my own leanings are not just a results of the easy life (materially) which is an end result of wealth extraction by US and EU from the poorer countries (assured by policies of economic or military). When I talk to friends from the Middle East or Africa who live or lived on the other side which is used to extract wealth for the west, have very different opinion/view. One might be surprised to learn what ME average person think about a westerner (as an abstraction).
In summary, living under hegemony in prosperity (and a future assurance of it) it is easy position to defend and take security in it (and its values). However, being or living on the other side of this equation one is confronted with different view.
Kenya's representative to the UN made a very strong statement against Russia invading Ukraine.
Non-Western non-superpowers are no more excited about being kicked around by Russia and China than Western ones. Western hegemony hasn't been all good for them, but it beats the amoral free-for-all that self-loathing Westerners wish for.
It is important to remember that there were two Iraq wars, that the first was aiming at the wrong party (Iraq had no hand in 9/11), and that the second was based on either faulty or fabricated intelligence.
Thanks, yes, this seems like a good stance. I am pro-US because I believe in the values communicated - these values apply globally, if you want to believe in it (and I want), even if you're not US citizen. I don't see any values for outsiders in Russia's system.
> He argues that Russia invading Ukraine (and putting a pro-Russian government in its place), it is the same as USA invading Iraq.
Typical Putinist deflection. Watch some talk shows on Russian TV involving him from the past decade. Whenever people question or criticize his actions, he does not answer and instead start raving on about the US this and the west that. Even if the action has nothing to do with the US or the west. It's a simple tactic to try move focus from whatever he's doing to whatever evil he thinks the west has done. He's always doing everything to paint the west in bad light; he wants people to think the west is evil, and in doing so, he's supposed to get a free pass.
I used to watch (English) Russian propaganda channels on youtube. They're all full of this. Obviously a lot of people buy it.
The reality is that whether the war in Iraq was justified or not is a completely separate discussion, and the US going to war with Iraq (whether justified or not) is not a justification for Russia going to war with Ukraine.
You can draw parallels, but that is no justification. And vague "self-interests" is no justification. Anyone who thinks USA waged war for oil is probably also condemning that war.
For another example of self-interest, Finland (together with Nazi Germany) attacked the Soviets in Continuation War in order to regain lost territory and to annex East Karelia. You can argue that's self-interest but it does not justify invasion, and I think most people condemn that offensive.
> The reality is that whether the war in Iraq was justified or not is a completely separate discussion, and the US going to war with Iraq (whether justified or not) is not a justification for Russia going to war with Ukraine.
This. If all we do is justify our current actions with the past, then every country can find some historic argument for invading another country. So yes, US in Iraq means nothing for Russia attacking Ukraine, it is a red herring by Putin propaganda. It is just hard or impossible to convince those who believe in it.
> Objectively speaking, it's justified from Russia's point of view
That is such absurd wording. It almost sounds like you're trying to make an argument but you aren't really.
You can always put it like that. "I see Russia as a security concern. Objectively speaking from my point of view Russia is a threat and we should pre-emptively nuke Moscow. It's justified from my point of view."
You can ask how effective the US's invasion was; they spent two TRILLION in various wars in the middle east, I don't believe for a second the oil was worth it, and (from a distant armchair observation) the US had no lasting effects in their favor in the middle east; they've instead made a generation of people growing up under the Americans pissed off. To the point where I wouldn't be surprised if Russia makes a move south again.
I saw this on reddit too, it is true that a lot of main countries lied their ways into wars in the past. Here were my few points:
Hussein was actually a dictator (zelensky is .. so far .. not)
US underlying reason was more access to oil than increasing territory, it stays at the economical layer.
US freedom narrative was easier to swallow than Putin's (less poisoning of opponents, less nuclear threats)
Russia feels more corrupted and dictatorial than US ? (a bit like the point above)
Hard to get any objective evaluations, but yes - anyone who would argue against your points is too far in for conspiracy theories to argue with at all.
They were both part of a larger struggle between democracy, human rights and the like and murderous dictatorships. The US wanted to overthrow the murderous dictator in Iraq and bring democracy, even if that didn't go totally smoothly. Putin wants to overthrow democracy in Ukraine and install an extension of his own murderous dictatorship. So they have similarities though as a human rights fan I think one was more well intentioned.
Even if that _was_ true: From your neighbor's point of view, why can't the USA and Russia both be "the bad guys"? This argument can in no way be used to justify Putin's actions. And it's bullshit, but I wouldn't discuss this with an anti-american person.
So killing Russians for 8 years by openly Neo-nazi forces is pro-active. Glad to know it. 15000 civilians have already died in the conflict. I condemn that Putin has supported Donbass military ambitions because for me speaking Ukrainian is better than being dead and shelled every day. But if we consider culture of significance, the argument is not shallow.
I also condemn him for not doing it earlier because this indecisiveness has been the main cause of people deaths. You either go to war or don't.
The whole fighting Neo-nazis argument seems false when they are currently using it to overthow a democratically elected jewish former comedian.
Also some documentary makers went to interview the oppressed russian speaking 'freedom fighters' in Donbass and the main guy was a Russian coronel from Moscow who theoretically had quit the Moscow millitary before becoming a 'rebel' but seemed still pretty much loyal to and funded by Moscow.
I am not sure if the civillians that get currently killed by Putin's invasion would agree to your Neo-nazi argument. How can killing other civilians rectify the killing of another 15000 civilians (if your number is to be believed)?
I argued that both conflicts cannot be compared. USA was reactive (against the threat of 9-11), whereas Russia is proactive, invading an independent country with shallow arguments (Nato is a defense alliance that would never invade Russia, yet Putin calls Nato a threat).