The rationale of “well HE attacked first! so any former and further arguments are nullified!” is baby brain shit. I want to insult it by calling it liberalism, but I’m struggling to force the triangle into the square on that one. I really want to though.
It’s the same bullshit right wingers, including liberals of course, have played with the DPRK since the war. The US and its puppets were very obviously and clearly escalating with intent to invade the north and forcefully put down the communist forces led by Kim. But they knew invasion was a bad look, so they took that classic Roman tactic of push and push and push until your enemy finally says “fuck it” and attacks first so you get to say “wow! he attacked! that’s bad! hey everyone, this Kim guy is bad!” then anything goes and you can justify all kinds of insanity.
Unlike Kim though (whose “invasion” (unification attempt) I support) I don’t really support Putin’s actions. But to dismiss the very clear and obvious history of NATO and what it’s been doing to the USSR and now Russia is so dishonest and playing into the same tired, shitty playbook.
It IS liberalism. It ignores the material conditions leading to the conflict and reduces it to a mere question of who started - allowing the liberal to feel like they have the moral high ground and therefore allow any and all possible response, no matter the consequences. After all, the material reality doesn’t matter, only how the already existing can be made to fit into the ideal they want - even if it is, as you said, forcing the triangle into the square.
The rationale of “well HE attacked first! so any former and further arguments are nullified!” is baby brain shit. I want to insult it by calling it liberalism, but I’m struggling to force the triangle into the square on that one. I really want to though.
It’s the same bullshit right wingers, including liberals of course, have played with the DPRK since the war. The US and its puppets were very obviously and clearly escalating with intent to invade the north and forcefully put down the communist forces led by Kim. But they knew invasion was a bad look, so they took that classic Roman tactic of push and push and push until your enemy finally says “fuck it” and attacks first so you get to say “wow! he attacked! that’s bad! hey everyone, this Kim guy is bad!” then anything goes and you can justify all kinds of insanity.
Unlike Kim though (whose “invasion” (unification attempt) I support) I don’t really support Putin’s actions. But to dismiss the very clear and obvious history of NATO and what it’s been doing to the USSR and now Russia is so dishonest and playing into the same tired, shitty playbook.
It IS liberalism. It ignores the material conditions leading to the conflict and reduces it to a mere question of who started - allowing the liberal to feel like they have the moral high ground and therefore allow any and all possible response, no matter the consequences. After all, the material reality doesn’t matter, only how the already existing can be made to fit into the ideal they want - even if it is, as you said, forcing the triangle into the square.