At this point, there is very little room for a discussion that hasn’t already been settled though. Anyone who doesn’t see Ukraine as the victim and Russia as the complete aggressor is already a fool (who if they haven’t understood by now, will they ever?) or a troll.
I don’t think the issue for criticism is whether they’re a victim of Russia’s aggression, they were clearly invaded. The issue is why they, as a victim in this context, benefit from the full weight of western support, whereas other victims are basically ignored, or even explained away as something expected and “unfortunate.” If you sincerely support Ukrainian people you have to realize they are not being supported by the west simply because they are good deserving people, else we’d have sent weapons to many other groups in even more dire situations, the names of which aren’t even in our public conscious. If you truly support victimized people you have to go far beyond the messaging from western governments, and it will extend far beyond borders and national/religious identities. Just look at the way Kurds were symbolized in the war against ISIS, and what eventually happened there. People had the Kurdish flag on their social media profiles, they were the moderate independent democratic state in the midst of extremists, then they were no longer a useful political tool in this context.
The reason propaganda has been so successful in this war, is that any criticism of the western powers is taken as criticism of people in Ukraine and akin to support of Russia. Even though, as we we’ve seen time and time again, these institutions change their tune and we can expect western Ukrainian regions to at some point becomes yesterday’s news, just like Crimea was in 2014.
” If you sincerely support Ukrainian people you have to realize they are not being supported by the west simply because they are good deserving people, else we’d have sent weapons to many other groups in even more dire situations
its pretty clear though the reasons for ukraine support in the west isnt purely because ukraine is our best mate, its because of the implications if they were to fall, pretty sure even ukraine is well aware of this. its simply an outcome that needs to be avoided at all costs other wise europe is going to be in for a hell of a decade
I think it’s pretty obvious but I also see a lot of social media and discussions in the news media that basically focuses on displaying that you personally support Ukraine, westerners adopt slogans to identify themselves online as part of the good side as a sort of moral branding. It’s not that this in inherently bad but it doesn’t acknowledge why they support Ukraine, and not for example, subjugated populations everywhere around the world. It’s like your identity with regards to the war in Ukraine is seen as a symbol, however the only reason why it’s so important in the present day context is because of the broader implications that you mention. These broader implications are not linked to or require the presence of Ukrainian flags on a percentage of people’s social media profiles for instance, or frequency of “Slava Ukraine” comments online. So I think the line here is blurred between strategic and geopolitical implications, and people’s own moral support of the war, with the latter being viewed as inherently related to the former when it’s actually decoupled from it.
The heart of your inquiry is why does Ukraine get such aid and support while others don’t? To me the answer goes beyond the, “well there’s got to be something in it for us” cynical perspective and boils simply down to just how clear-cut the righteous side is from the wrong side.
In Syria, there was the FSA, sure. But this was muddied with the risk of supporting more radical factions. Additionally their factions were more or less headless, too. The world knows Zelenskyy and what he stands for, precisely.
So if you can give me a scenario where (a) The line between right and wrong are this clear and (b) The conflict is to the massive scale that is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, then I’m all ears.
In that respect there is discussion to be had, I suppose. But does this change anything? Even you agree Russia is still 100% in the wrong, that we should support Ukraine. What irks you is alleged inconsistency which I think is beyond the scope of what we’re talking about here.
It is logical to identify as “whataboutism” criticism of “Western Powers” for actions unrelated to Ukraine in the context of a discussion about Ukraine, simply because the only thing about what’s being discussed in such a take is the saying bad things about the allies of one side.
Maybe it is whataboutism, or maybe that was not the intention of the person making that criticism in that context, but it’s logical to deem it so because it’s the explanation that makes most sense for a person making such a comment in such a context.
However such criticism is most definitelly warranted and makes sense in plenty of other contexts.
Also sometimes there really are no other contexts in which to point something out: as somebody has pointed out elsewhere under this post, in the West (including Lemmy, which seems to mainly have users from the “West”) there is quite a skewed and uneven coverage of the plight of Ukranians versus other plights right now in the World, and you hardly have a good context to talk about that when there are no discussions about that (it would be nice if we had some discussions about just how decayed Journalism in most of the Press is, which would lend itself to point such things out)
I don’t really agree with “whataboutism” because it can be applied to dismiss any inconvenient comparison and paint the one who raised it as a bad actor, even if it’s a valid point, without having to explain why it’s not a valid comparison. Comparing one thing with something else and noting the differences is a valid method of criticism.
Sure, merelly saying “whataboutism” is often used as you describe, mainly because like so many other words its meaning has been seriously mangled through misuse.
It does, however, make sense to ponder on the logic of pulling something wholly unrelated to the actual situation being discussed and posting it: since such “arguments” by association do not make sense in that context, it’s logical for those on the other side to then consider further elements seeking a reason until finding one that does make sense, which is typically an attempt at holding a position in a discussion after having exhausted actual logical arguments, something which itself would indiciate that the person using such “arguments” doesn’t really hold that position on logic.
You don’t need to label it as “whataboutism” to recognized an argument by association as the falacy it is, it’s just that using the word “whataboutism” is (or, maybe, used to be) a good shortcut instead of all the text above I just used to explain the rationalle behind the use of the argument by association falacy.
At this point, there is very little room for a discussion that hasn’t already been settled though. Anyone who doesn’t see Ukraine as the victim and Russia as the complete aggressor is already a fool (who if they haven’t understood by now, will they ever?) or a troll.
I don’t think the issue for criticism is whether they’re a victim of Russia’s aggression, they were clearly invaded. The issue is why they, as a victim in this context, benefit from the full weight of western support, whereas other victims are basically ignored, or even explained away as something expected and “unfortunate.” If you sincerely support Ukrainian people you have to realize they are not being supported by the west simply because they are good deserving people, else we’d have sent weapons to many other groups in even more dire situations, the names of which aren’t even in our public conscious. If you truly support victimized people you have to go far beyond the messaging from western governments, and it will extend far beyond borders and national/religious identities. Just look at the way Kurds were symbolized in the war against ISIS, and what eventually happened there. People had the Kurdish flag on their social media profiles, they were the moderate independent democratic state in the midst of extremists, then they were no longer a useful political tool in this context.
The reason propaganda has been so successful in this war, is that any criticism of the western powers is taken as criticism of people in Ukraine and akin to support of Russia. Even though, as we we’ve seen time and time again, these institutions change their tune and we can expect western Ukrainian regions to at some point becomes yesterday’s news, just like Crimea was in 2014.
its pretty clear though the reasons for ukraine support in the west isnt purely because ukraine is our best mate, its because of the implications if they were to fall, pretty sure even ukraine is well aware of this. its simply an outcome that needs to be avoided at all costs other wise europe is going to be in for a hell of a decade
I think it’s pretty obvious but I also see a lot of social media and discussions in the news media that basically focuses on displaying that you personally support Ukraine, westerners adopt slogans to identify themselves online as part of the good side as a sort of moral branding. It’s not that this in inherently bad but it doesn’t acknowledge why they support Ukraine, and not for example, subjugated populations everywhere around the world. It’s like your identity with regards to the war in Ukraine is seen as a symbol, however the only reason why it’s so important in the present day context is because of the broader implications that you mention. These broader implications are not linked to or require the presence of Ukrainian flags on a percentage of people’s social media profiles for instance, or frequency of “Slava Ukraine” comments online. So I think the line here is blurred between strategic and geopolitical implications, and people’s own moral support of the war, with the latter being viewed as inherently related to the former when it’s actually decoupled from it.
The heart of your inquiry is why does Ukraine get such aid and support while others don’t? To me the answer goes beyond the, “well there’s got to be something in it for us” cynical perspective and boils simply down to just how clear-cut the righteous side is from the wrong side.
In Syria, there was the FSA, sure. But this was muddied with the risk of supporting more radical factions. Additionally their factions were more or less headless, too. The world knows Zelenskyy and what he stands for, precisely.
So if you can give me a scenario where (a) The line between right and wrong are this clear and (b) The conflict is to the massive scale that is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, then I’m all ears.
In that respect there is discussion to be had, I suppose. But does this change anything? Even you agree Russia is still 100% in the wrong, that we should support Ukraine. What irks you is alleged inconsistency which I think is beyond the scope of what we’re talking about here.
It is logical to identify as “whataboutism” criticism of “Western Powers” for actions unrelated to Ukraine in the context of a discussion about Ukraine, simply because the only thing about what’s being discussed in such a take is the saying bad things about the allies of one side.
Maybe it is whataboutism, or maybe that was not the intention of the person making that criticism in that context, but it’s logical to deem it so because it’s the explanation that makes most sense for a person making such a comment in such a context.
However such criticism is most definitelly warranted and makes sense in plenty of other contexts.
Also sometimes there really are no other contexts in which to point something out: as somebody has pointed out elsewhere under this post, in the West (including Lemmy, which seems to mainly have users from the “West”) there is quite a skewed and uneven coverage of the plight of Ukranians versus other plights right now in the World, and you hardly have a good context to talk about that when there are no discussions about that (it would be nice if we had some discussions about just how decayed Journalism in most of the Press is, which would lend itself to point such things out)
I don’t really agree with “whataboutism” because it can be applied to dismiss any inconvenient comparison and paint the one who raised it as a bad actor, even if it’s a valid point, without having to explain why it’s not a valid comparison. Comparing one thing with something else and noting the differences is a valid method of criticism.
Sure, merelly saying “whataboutism” is often used as you describe, mainly because like so many other words its meaning has been seriously mangled through misuse.
It does, however, make sense to ponder on the logic of pulling something wholly unrelated to the actual situation being discussed and posting it: since such “arguments” by association do not make sense in that context, it’s logical for those on the other side to then consider further elements seeking a reason until finding one that does make sense, which is typically an attempt at holding a position in a discussion after having exhausted actual logical arguments, something which itself would indiciate that the person using such “arguments” doesn’t really hold that position on logic.
You don’t need to label it as “whataboutism” to recognized an argument by association as the falacy it is, it’s just that using the word “whataboutism” is (or, maybe, used to be) a good shortcut instead of all the text above I just used to explain the rationalle behind the use of the argument by association falacy.