By Richard Martin
I am frustrated at the obstinacy of Western apologists of Russian aggression, terrorism, and imperialism. This article provides responses to the most common “talking points” excusing Russia’s invasion and destruction of Ukraine and bullying of NATO countries.
I am tired of having to read and respond to uninformed and illogical statements concerning Russia’s destructiveness, aggression, threats, and coercion by individuals who can’t argue a point properly. I just can’t take these people seriously.
I admit it. I lose my cool sometimes, but that’s because claiming “moral equivalence” or spouting “what-about-isms” are a waste of time. Worse, they pollute public dialogue and debate because they are off topic, unethical, and play right into the hands of foreign powers seeking to undermine our national defence, security, and institutions.
Uninformed statements are put forth by individuals trying to debate with serious authors and experts as counterpoints to well-argued and evidenced arguments. The problem is that the so-called counterarguments or debating tactics are nothing more than rehashed talking points from Russia’s lies, threats, and misdirection. Those repeating them have not bothered to read any history by actual historians or reporting by credible, professional journalists. They just assume that what they have heard in a sound bite or a read in a tweet is true and worthy of debate. It isn’t.
For example, there is a popular, but false and uninformed “argument,” that NATO threatens Russia. It’s a pure Russian talking point. Another “debater” stated that the war in Donbas is a civil war. No, it isn’t. It was instigated by Russia in early 2014 in response to the Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine and continues as part of Russia’s invasion and war against Ukraine since then, especially since 24 February 2022. Apparently, that individual had never heard of Russia’s “little green men,” a.k.a. Wagner Group, or the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.
These types of uninformed and false claims are easily refuted by doing a quick search on Wikipedia (or through other online sources, including mainstream media). For example, see Little green men: Russo-Ukrainian War; Russian occupation of Crimea; and War in Donbas (2014-2022).
At the very least, reading such articles should give one pause that the situation and historical background is much more complex than can be encapsulated in sound bites and tweets. Read my articles on why NATO is not the aggressor, but Russia is. I also invite you to read the works of Keir Giles on Russia’s aggression and coercion, specifically, his books Russia’s War on Everybody: And What it Means for You, and Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West. It should also cause someone to think that maybe they don’t have enough background information to make a proper assessment of the soundness of pithy catchphrases and 10-second videos on YouTube™.
But that is apparently too much work for some people. After all, why try to develop a deeper understanding of the historical and political background of a social problem when you can just repeat something that sounds clever and feeds into your pre-existing biases, cynicism, fear, and anxiety about war and conflict? I get it. War is hell, but the fact that you don’t like war and fear it doesn’t make it disappear.
Another false claim I’ve read is that, somehow, “NATO invaded Afghanistan.” It is part of a wider trend of presenting “moral equivalence” statements as serious counterarguments. In logic this is known as the “tu quoque” fallacy: Literally, “so did you!” Anyone who has children knows that the go-to defence after being caught doing something wrong or dangerous is to claim that “He/she/they/you started it/did it too/did it first.” Can we see how puerile that is?
It is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t address the proposition, logic, or evidence that is adduced by the author of the original argument. In simple terms, saying that so-and-so does it too doesn’t counter the logic or content of the author’s position. It merely deflects it to hijack or confuse the debate. What started as a presentation of evidence and logically linked propositions leading to one or more conclusions becomes a discussion over something unrelated to the intent of the original author or one putting forth an argument.
If someone wishes to debate or discuss whether NATO “invaded” Afghanistan or not, or anything else for that matter, fine. Go ahead, state your starting position in your own article or post. Don’t contaminate others’ writings with your sophomoric tactics in an amateurish attempt at debate. Put it on your own website or blog! See if someone will take you up on it. On the other hand, if you wish to engage in genuine dialogue, debate, or commentary on an article or post with its author, you should at least try to be on point.
For instance, say someone wishes to debate the author of an article that provides reasoned arguments, with propositions, logical links, and evidence in favour of his position. The way to do that is to address the content of the text and its logic. If the original author says that Russia invaded Ukraine and provides logical arguments and evidence in favour of that position, the correct way to debate or discuss these is to provide counterevidence and genuine counterarguments. Highlighting the original author’s faulty logic or reasoning is also fair game, so long as one has valid points to make.
But showing a map of Europe that indicates the year that countries joined NATO doesn’t prove or argue in favour of NATO aggression. It may be the case that the expansion of NATO as indicated by the map is evidence of anti-Russian sentiment. But it doesn’t follow that the sentiment proves that the countries involved, or the NATO alliance, are aggressive. The opposite is the case. The eastern European countries and their citizens were and remain so concerned about Russian aggression and coercion that they asked to join NATO and were accepted by consensus of then member nations. Moreover, defensive alliances are specifically mentioned as legitimate and inhering in the right to self-defence in the Charter of the United Nations, which the Russian Federation claims to uphold.
Furthermore, one must weigh any claims within a wider political, economic, and social context. NATO was in Afghanistan to lead the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), under a UN Security Council resolution. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, and could have vetoed it, but didn’t. ISAF was thus the result of a wide international consensus that assistance to the Afghanistan government was needed for a variety of reasons. In addition, there were non-NATO countries that participated in the operation.
But even if that were not the case, even if NATO had “invaded” Afghanistan, that still would not constitute a sound argument in debating someone about Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. That’s simply a “non sequitur,” which translates as “it does not follow.”
The final point I wish to address is about qualifications and expertise. We live in a society where everyone’s opinion on just about any matter seems to be taken seriously. The problem is this: Not everyone’s opinion is valid. There is a psychological phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It states that the less some people know about a topic, the less these same people claim expertise.
The most interesting aspect about the Dunning-Kruger effect is that most people, when learning more about a topic, develop less confidence in their knowledge and expertise. They obviously realize that their initial impressions and reactions were uninformed. Then, as they acquire more and more knowledge and experience, their confidence level rises again, but never to the levels of the ignorant who claim expertise with little or no real knowledge.
Knowledge is a universal acid; it dissolves overconfidence born of misinformation and ignorance. It also gives us humility. Socrates claimed to be the wisest man in all of Greece, not because he knew a lot, but specifically because he realized that he didn’t know everything, or even very much. This type of humility would be valuable to anyone who wishes to debate well-informed experts, who have the knowledge and practical experience to make reasoned judgments.
© 2024 Richard Martin
