Standing with Ukraine is also a stand against imperialism, colonisation, chauvinism, russian exceptionalism, as well as rape, civilian murder, marauding and genocide as a military doctrine. It is also a standing with the rule of law, and with trust that countries can get better. Standing with Ukraine is indeed a moral stance.
There are, of course, those who maintain that standing with Ukraine is standing with the US arms industry; and that, if not engineered, the Russo-Ukrainian War has been pounced upon, as was 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and, now, some say, Gaza, to further the aims of arms manufacturers. Which is why I restrict my own analysis to ONLY the moral aspects.
For my morals are well within my ken. Those of others are not. "I have no window to look into the conscience of another man." You know who said that.
I am not one for conspiracy theories, and thus think it far more likely that the arms industry, be it American, South Korean, European or whathaveyou is enjoying the uptick in orders, rather than having conspired to cause them.
Also, I would caution on using the term "russo-Ukrainian war", as it might be construed as imparting moral parity on the two parties. I tend to use "russia's war against Ukraine", or "russia's war against all in Ukraine".
I'll stick with the balanced view taken by other outlets. It's a war between Russia and Ukraine. I prefer not to take sides based on impulse that I may later require to regret. My circle of friends is correspondingly tight. It's just who I am.
"Conspiracy theory" can be an aggressive dismissal of something that could actually be right, but for which there is little evidence. Can be, but I'm sure it's not in your case.
It's a term that can be used in order to obviate the duty to inquire into the theory as propounded, and then evaluate it on an unbiased basis for its feasibility, if not its likelihood. Perhaps you'd like to make inquiry on this Substack blog for another viewpoint: https://chrishedges.substack.com/. My knee-jerk to Mr Hedges is, "Whoa, there!" But he writes things that raise questions. And what's most concerning is not what he writes but that he feels constrained to write them.
If it be accepted (note the subjunctive) that major industries have the power to influence high-ranking politicians, and that major industries have seen whistleblowers reveal how, for instance, the US arms and oil & gas sectors work hard to burnish their reputation and downplay negative PR - if that be so - then it is not beyond contemplation that politics can be complicit in feathering industrial nests in which they have also laid a cuckoo. That's feasibility.
Likelihood is another matter. Mr Hedges simply ups that a tick.
Standing with Ukraine is also a stand against imperialism, colonisation, chauvinism, russian exceptionalism, as well as rape, civilian murder, marauding and genocide as a military doctrine. It is also a standing with the rule of law, and with trust that countries can get better. Standing with Ukraine is indeed a moral stance.
There are, of course, those who maintain that standing with Ukraine is standing with the US arms industry; and that, if not engineered, the Russo-Ukrainian War has been pounced upon, as was 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and, now, some say, Gaza, to further the aims of arms manufacturers. Which is why I restrict my own analysis to ONLY the moral aspects.
For my morals are well within my ken. Those of others are not. "I have no window to look into the conscience of another man." You know who said that.
I am not one for conspiracy theories, and thus think it far more likely that the arms industry, be it American, South Korean, European or whathaveyou is enjoying the uptick in orders, rather than having conspired to cause them.
Also, I would caution on using the term "russo-Ukrainian war", as it might be construed as imparting moral parity on the two parties. I tend to use "russia's war against Ukraine", or "russia's war against all in Ukraine".
I'll stick with the balanced view taken by other outlets. It's a war between Russia and Ukraine. I prefer not to take sides based on impulse that I may later require to regret. My circle of friends is correspondingly tight. It's just who I am.
"Conspiracy theory" can be an aggressive dismissal of something that could actually be right, but for which there is little evidence. Can be, but I'm sure it's not in your case.
It's a term that can be used in order to obviate the duty to inquire into the theory as propounded, and then evaluate it on an unbiased basis for its feasibility, if not its likelihood. Perhaps you'd like to make inquiry on this Substack blog for another viewpoint: https://chrishedges.substack.com/. My knee-jerk to Mr Hedges is, "Whoa, there!" But he writes things that raise questions. And what's most concerning is not what he writes but that he feels constrained to write them.
If it be accepted (note the subjunctive) that major industries have the power to influence high-ranking politicians, and that major industries have seen whistleblowers reveal how, for instance, the US arms and oil & gas sectors work hard to burnish their reputation and downplay negative PR - if that be so - then it is not beyond contemplation that politics can be complicit in feathering industrial nests in which they have also laid a cuckoo. That's feasibility.
Likelihood is another matter. Mr Hedges simply ups that a tick.