Point taken.

However, I've given much thought to the principle of "Might makes right" and while fundamentally, ideologically and personally opposed to it, fear it is something escapable only through hypocrisy and denial. No government exists without an underlying body of force to obtain or sustain it. Nearly all borders are defined/redefined through a history or influence of either indigenous displacement (colonization), conquest, conflict or allegiance/concession to sources thus affiliated. Every government has a military or body of force, directly or by proxy. Otherwise, if they have anything of value, they become victims or at least insecure. The US is partially built on Native genocide and a brief history of slavery. We've rallied for the persecution of Assange for exposing the terror of unnecessary civilian casualties (see: Collateral Damage). We find such causalities in Yemen perfectly tolerable. We lose no sleep over those in Iraq or anywhere. Depleted uranium is no big deal. We happily benefit from Paperclips. It's confusing, but the hypocrisy is clear with little indication of a plausible core change in values - but rather, positional, circumstantial adaptations it seems. We've got our loot, now we'll be the good guy.. until we want something else. I've seen no discussion of how we'll mitigate the consequences of our sanctions on, eg food supplies, eg in Africa. But much bellicosity. And if we find our efforts in half-ass weaponizing Ukraine for a futile fight ends essentially how it could have been avoided, we'll forget about the dead in good time. I think Zelensky himself said that it must be either full support or failure. What the fuck are we doing? One side of the media informs us that the Russians are losing, so we run head-on with it, based on our own specially requested limited information.

Most nations (or their territories) are established through might. But who is right, who was right? A pestiferous question with uncomfortable answers. Might is often insidious too, not always displayed through war. Corruption, oppression and rule contrary to the citizenry is common. In the case of the US, how many foreign coups have been instigated by our intelligence agencies? How many interest-based wars euphamized as 'operations' or simply classified? Does the US throw its weight around, especially among small peoples? Has NATO never been abused? Perhaps such actions were wise and farsighted. Perhaps not. Opinions will vary. The fruits of conquest are seldom abstained from regardless, given short time and fair distribution.

I suppose what concerns me and possibly influences some odd or seemingly stupid statements by myself, is a compulsive aversion to hypocrisy - especially when widespread and threatening mass fervor. I've seen AskHN posts suggesting to remove from Wikipedia all accomplishments by Russians. I've read stories of banning the study of Dostoevsky and a prohibition on dead Russian composers. What next?, I ask myself. A slipslope through the tulips to a posthumous prosecution of Carl Sagan for editing the work of Iosif Schklovsky and collaborating with the enemy, conspiring in unamerican activities? A Great Western Firewall? Nuclear fireworks?

We've already arrived at a point where a discussion of Ukraine's history is taboo, and any dialog of its struggles with corruption suspended. Propaganda is now desirable, depending on the origin. I understand the sentiment, but not the impulse. We should wait to go full retard until we're officially at war. Then, as has been said, as a fist strikes hardest when closed, so does the mind. That might help in actual war, but not the prelude to the possibility.