It'd be more like if the US were fighting a civil war and substantial fighters on the government side were part of neo-Nazi paramilitaries that had swastikas as their flag.
Oh and also if the US government started banning other languages then english.
None of this justifies Russian imperialism, but I think we get too caught up in war and can often brush the crimes of the side we agree with under the rug.
> They expected to win quickly and easily - and are shocked it did not happened.
Very possible, but neither you nor me are in the position to know that.
> Holodomor, which is still debated whether it counts as genocide or not.
For that matter, historically, Russia holding punches was not exactly the thing. Not even toward Russians.
The Holodomor was clearly a completely orthogonal issue to this as it wasn't a military conflict.
> Not even toward Russians.
What are you referencing in terms of conflict? Probably not chechens, because that would only go in favor of GPs point.
> War in Syria did not started by indiscriminate bombing of cities. It got there through series of escalations when rebels refused to give up.
> The idea that this will stop punches now that they are refusing, purely because both are white, is something only Americans can think.
The domestic opposition in Russia over killing far fewer people is already much larger than it was to the intervention over Syria which killed far more civilians early on.
It is not something "only Americans can think" that Russians care more about the lives of people of close ethnic relation to them as compared to Syrians.
Perhaps not explicitly, but I could easily see courts ruling that it is. To me, it seems covered by the ethnicity portion, although I get they are not the exact same concept.
> the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves
That's not necessarily even true of many killings by order, nor is it the morally relevant part.
If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. Your claim is that if the person I threaten kills the other person, I am not morally culpable because I didn't actually engage in the retaliation I threatened and the threatening was just speech. Absolutely asinine.
I have better things to do than argue with libertarians all day, but honestly, all of these objections have been incredibly weak - it's as if you're taking the hardest possible route to defend freedom of speech.
> "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions
I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holocaust weren't morally culpable for the deaths of 11 million if they didn't personally kill someone themselves.
No, I think I am. Your comment actually misses my entire point and instead just explains climate change?
My point is that a common sentiment I see articulated in response to someone saying that the biosphere soon might not be able to support humanity is "Good, humanity is a cancer on this planet and we've shown we don't deserve it."
I think that statements like that should get a comparable amount of social ire to someone blithely stating that the Holocaust was good population control. It is unacceptable to view the death of millions or billions (after a long period of extremely impoverished living) as a good thing to me.
Oh and also if the US government started banning other languages then english.
None of this justifies Russian imperialism, but I think we get too caught up in war and can often brush the crimes of the side we agree with under the rug.