"Ukraine Veteran"

[Debater Slayer]

If you are against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as I believe we all should be, then it follows that you are probably also against praising or glorifying those fighting on Russia's behalf. Many are conscripts who are forced to be there, but opponents of the war most likely won't excuse their killing of civilians and Ukrainian forces on those grounds.

This brings me to the main point of this thread: if the Russo-Ukrainian war ended tomorrow, how would calling a Russian soldier or officer a "Ukraine veteran" or thanking them for their "service" be much different from doing the same to someone who fought in other unnecessary wars of aggression like the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars? Would or should it be acceptable in either case?

Does recognition of the fact that many soldiers are forced to be in wars they don't agree with entail praising or glorifying the actions they took while under military coercion or thanking them for partaking in said actions?

 

[Rival]

I would certainly praise the Ukrainians for defending themselves.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would certainly praise the Ukrainians for defending themselves.

I would too, but I'm talking about praising a former Russian fighter, calling them a "Ukraine veteran," or thanking them for their "service" during the invasion of Ukraine.bIs it any less problematic to do so when talking to or about people who fought on the side of invaders in other wars of aggression, such as the ones in Vietnam and Iraq?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Dosent matter. Soldiers are soldiers.

There has been and is mutual respect and recognition givin for service and bravado even among enemies.

 

[Rival]

I would too, but I'm talking about praising a former Russian fighter, calling them a "Ukraine veteran," or thanking them for their "service" during the invasion of Ukraine.bIs it any less problematic to do so when talking to or about people who fought on the side of invaders in other wars of aggression, such as the ones in Vietnam and Iraq?

That would wholly depend on what one thought of the intentions behind the war. I would argue what the US did in Vietnam was horrific and not praiseworthy, but someone else might think otherwise. I wouldn't be praising any Russian soldiers for anything, but that's my ideology.

 

[exchemist]

I would too, but I'm talking about praising a former Russian fighter, calling them a "Ukraine veteran," or thanking them for their "service" during the invasion of Ukraine.bIs it any less problematic to do so when talking to or about people who fought on the side of invaders in other wars of aggression, such as the ones in Vietnam and Iraq?

Who would be doing the praising and thanking, though? Only Russians, I imagine. Why do you think this is an issue for us?

 

[Debater Slayer]

That would wholly depend on what one thought of the intentions behind the war. I would argue what the US did in Vietnam was horrific and not praiseworthy, but someone else might think otherwise. I wouldn't be praising any Russian soldiers for anything, but that's my ideology.

I agree with your position on this. The only thing I would be praising a Russian soldier for in this situation would be if they somehow worked to protect civilians and minimized their harmful actions as much as they could under the circumstances of military coercion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Who would be doing the praising and thanking, though? Only Russians, I imagine. Why do you think this is an issue for us?

I'm drawing a parallel between the Russians who do that for Russian forces and those who do the same for American forces or other forces who fought in Vietnam or Iraq, among other wars. Is it any more acceptable to be doing such thanking or praising for the latter than it is for the former? If so, why?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Dosent matter. Soldiers are soldiers.

There has been and is mutual respect and recognition givin for service and bravado even among enemies.

Do you give respect to Russian soldiers even if they kill Ukrainian civilians and soldiers merely defending their land from invasion?

 

[exchemist]

I'm drawing a parallel between the Russians who do that for Russian forces and those who do the same for American forces or other forces who fought in Vietnam or Iraq, among other wars. Is it any more acceptable to be doing such thanking or praising for the latter than it is for the former? If so, why?

I think Russians may do that, as it is their own conscripts sent off to face death and injury. You can't expect an individual soldier to refuse to serve. No army can work that way and if the refuse they get punished so they have no choice in the matter. So I think it is wrong to try to shame individual soldiers for fighting under orders. It is the generals and political leaders that deserve to be blamed. Of course, if these soldiers commit war crimes while on active service, that is another matter entirely.

My grandmother played the piano, in a trio of expats in Canton, in the 1920s and 30s, with two men, a violinist and a cellist I think, who discovered they had fought on opposite sides at Verdun! They were able to respect each other and laugh about it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you give respect to Russian soldiers even if they kill Ukrainian civilians and soldiers merely defending their land from invasion?

In context.

Remember the Red Baron?

Depends on a person's behaviors and rules of engagement.

There are soldiers and there are monsters.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So I think it is wrong to try to shame individual soldiers for fighting under orders. It is the generals and political leaders that deserve to be blamed. Of course, if these soldiers commit war crimes while on active service, that is another matter entirely.

I agree. However, refusing to shame them is a far cry from actively praising their involvement in the war or thanking them for the "service." I don't think a coerced soldier should be shamed for merely obeying the order to fight, but their actions definitely deserve no glorification either.

 

[sun rise]

Does recognition of the fact that many soldiers are forced to be in wars they don't agree with entail praising or glorifying the actions they took while under military coercion or thanking them for partaking in said actions?

There are soldiers and there are monsters.

Yes to @Twilight Hue 's point. Those who rape, torture etc are monsters and should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Many Russian solders apparently did not know they were going to war, did not want to be in Ukraine and did not commit crimes. Some appear to be used as "cannon fodder". Those people should not be discriminated against.

Now in some cases, satirical songs could be appropriate (if you're close to my age you'll understand this):

 

[stvdv]

If you are against the Russian invasion of Ukraine,

as I believe we all should be

Belief is about "each individual is free to believe how he wants". Belief is an individual thing...Freedom of Thoughts

"terminus contradictio" I call what you do

I have seen you do it before "tell us how we should think". Feels like proselytizing to me

Weird, isn't it, this habit, thinking about it?

 

[Heyo]

If you are against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as I believe we all should be, then it follows that you are probably also against praising or glorifying those fighting on Russia's behalf. Many are conscripts who are forced to be there, but opponents of the war most likely won't excuse their killing of civilians and Ukrainian forces on those grounds.

This brings me to the main point of this thread: if the Russo-Ukrainian war ended tomorrow, how would calling a Russian soldier or officer a "Ukraine veteran" or thanking them for their "service" be much different from doing the same to someone who fought in other unnecessary wars of aggression like the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars? Would or should it be acceptable in either case?

Does recognition of the fact that many soldiers are forced to be in wars they don't agree with entail praising or glorifying the actions they took while under military coercion or thanking them for partaking in said actions?

While we contemplate whether to thank the soldiers for their service, I like to thank all who were smart enough and didn't "serve" or who deserted (even though that includes @Revoltingest ). While some are heroes for their country, you are heroes for mankind.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Belief is about "each individual is free to believe how he wants". Belief is an individual thing...Freedom of Thoughts

"terminus contradictio" I call what you do

I have seen you do it before "tell us how we should think". Feels like proselytizing to me

Weird, isn't it, this habit, thinking about it?

People are free to believe or support what they want even if, in my opinion, it's mistaken or unethical--for example, neo-Nazism or invasion of sovereign nations. My view is just that any reasonable and ethical person should oppose such things.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as I believe we all should be, then it follows that you are probably also against praising or glorifying those fighting on Russia's behalf. Many are conscripts who are forced to be there, but opponents of the war most likely won't excuse their killing of civilians and Ukrainian forces on those grounds.

This brings me to the main point of this thread: if the Russo-Ukrainian war ended tomorrow, how would calling a Russian soldier or officer a "Ukraine veteran" or thanking them for their "service" be much different from doing the same to someone who fought in other unnecessary wars of aggression like the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars? Would or should it be acceptable in either case?

Does recognition of the fact that many soldiers are forced to be in wars they don't agree with entail praising or glorifying the actions they took while under military coercion or thanking them for partaking in said actions?

One has the option of refusing to serve.
So serving is a choice, albeit a coerced one.
Russian soldiers....
**** them.
Let them die a quick death.
"Thank you for either resisting or dying."

 

[stvdv]

People are free to believe or support what they want even if, in my opinion, it's mistaken or unethical--for example, neo-Nazism or invasion of sovereign nations

I disagree

My view is just that any reasonable and ethical person should oppose such things

I disagree

 

[Debater Slayer]

I disagree


I disagree

You disagree on what? That neo-Nazism and invasion of sovereign nations should be opposed? Or did you mean to make another point that I missed?

 

[stvdv]

You disagree on what? That neo-Nazism and invasion of sovereign nations should be opposed? Or did you mean to make another point that I missed?

Below part

People are free to believe or support what they want

People doing what they desire, are not free at all, they are bound by the Law of karma

This proves those people have no Free Will