I don't really disagree with what you're saying, but I have a point we should agree on. Your previous discussion point spoke to ethics or morality, to "rules" even between enemies. Your current rebuttal is instead one of pragmatism.

I agree it may not be pragmatic to respond fully to Russia as would be entirely just. The Nuremburg trials were entirely just (at least in my view), but nobody doubts there are hundreds of rulers that get handshakes instead of a death conviction based entirely on the unreasonable cost, paid by innocents, of doing the right thing.

The rules at this point suggest Putin should have been stripped of all power and prosecuted by Ukraine. Military conquest is simply unacceptable on the world stage, and that does (or should) apply to all governments at this point. But rules are often only followed when possible and best for everyone

[–] ScaraTera@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes so I brought up the idea of rules to be followed because in my opinion pragmatism is the only enforcer of said rules. When we talk about using the dollor as the world's reserve currency pretty much everyone knew USA could freeze assets unilaterally but trusted them not to. Similarly I feel that there are certain untold rules built on trust that simply should not be broken.

As for idea that military conquest itself is a crime and must lead to Putin's prosecution. I do not agree with this arbitrary enforcement of this law only because this time around there is a lot of internet awareness over the war. There have been several instances in modern history where a large, supposedly imperial power has invaded a smaller country without the permission of the UN over self interest. I'll try not to call whataboutism but justice half served is no justice at all.