-
By attempting to draw a moral equivalence they accept the Kremlin's framing and this amounts - for me - to de facto support for Russian belligerence.
I don't think they were trying to draw moral equivalence so much as provide a picture of the geopolitical history and situation from a perspective that was not generally being reported. That position was politically motivated as they are anti-war/anti-imperialist (whatever they want to call themselves) activists. But that doesn't mean it was an attempt to draw moral equivalence. If you can't address the moral failings on both sides you can't discuss the issues. And, on the flip side, if what they said was inaccurate (or morally problematic) then it should be called out and corrected, not reframed as a political weapon to shut them down/up.
You are reading a single comment by @ and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
I think this is the only bit we really disagree on. Their position of 'neither Moscow nor Washington' works in practice as a framing device to draw moral equivalence between NATO 'expansion' and Russian expansion. Russia expands by rolling tanks into provinces it thinks it should own; NATO 'expands' by democratic consent of the countries involved. There is no moral equivalence between the two. By attempting to draw a moral equivalence they accept the Kremlin's framing and this amounts - for me - to de facto support for Russian belligerence.