Is It Really “Whataboutism” To Compare Russian and American Wars?

NATO enthusiasts, journalists, and politicians have spent the last year loudly and repeatedly claiming that it is “whataboutism” to compare Russian wars and interventions with their American equivalents. But is this really true? Let’s analyze the argument from a neutral perspective.

So there can be no accusation of me creating a strawman argument, I’ll quote Michael McFaul verbatim in an article he wrote last month:

Regarding whataboutism, my response is two-fold. The first is to acknowledge American unjust wars, foreign policy mistakes, and immoral actions from time to time.  Just because I’m an American citizen, does not mean I defend everything my government did and does. I criticize U.S. actions all the time. I’ll devote another essay to comparing and contrasting the U.S. versus Russia’s use of military force because it is a big and important topic that deserves its own essay.  That said, I reject the moral equivalency between Putin’s war in Ukraine and American military interventions.  The U.S. has not for many decades engaged in annexation or colonization, does not attack democracies, and does not use terrorism deliberately as a method of war.

But let’s say you disagree; you see more parallels between American and Russian uses of military force than I do. How does that excuse Putin’s barbaric war?  How do American wrongs justify Russian wrongs today? Two wrongs don’t make a right. If a thief breaks into your house, that does not give you a license to break into your neighbor’s house? If you opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, how can not oppose Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? If you oppose Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory, Turkish occupation of parts of Cyprus, or Morocco seizing Western Sahara, how can you not oppose Russian annexation of Ukrainian land? If you are outraged by Saudi methods of warfare in Yemen, how can you not be opposed to Russian methods of warfare in Ukraine[.]

It’s time we finally retire Cold War frameworks and see the universality of the struggle against imperialism and colonization and for democracy, sovereignty, and human rights.  

Now, I’ll break down Mike’s argument one point at a time:

• The first is to acknowledge American unjust wars, foreign policy mistakes, and immoral actions from time to time.  Just because I’m an American citizen, does not mean I defend everything my government did and does. I criticize U.S. actions all the time.

Hey Mike, is this you?

So, in your own words, the (completely baseless) allegation of Russia putting bounties on American soldiers made you feel “outraged” and “angry” – and more importantly – Trump not immediately acting on this allegation made him complicit? But doing that, and much more, in reverse against Russia is completely fine.

Imagine Mike’s idiotic and self-defeating logic in a less serious context. A politician is caught cheating on his wife with a gay lover, and Mike demands that this politician be forced to resign. Okay, fine. That’s not a completely unreasonable thing to demand. But what if many other politicians also have gay lovers? What if Mike himself has a gay lover? In that case, yes, it would be unreasonable to demand that politician resign. This would be a very clear case of a political party inventing an arbitrary moral rule to harm their enemies, and not applying it to themselves. At that point, a rule ceases to be just and becomes simple mafia tactics.

But – just to be clear – I don’t think Mike is deliberately being a hypocrite here. I think he doesn’t understand the things he says, but that never stops him from talking.

• That said, I reject the moral equivalency between Putin’s war in Ukraine and American military interventions.  The U.S. has not for many decades engaged in annexation or colonization, does not attack democracies, and does not use terrorism deliberately as a method of war.

There are a few points, all of them stupid, to unpack here, so I’ll take them one at a time.

First off, what about the continuing American occupation of Syrian territory, and stealing their resources? Isn’t this a textbook definition of colonialism? If it’s not colonialism, then what is it, exactly? This is just a way of throwing words around in a nonsensical and self-contradictory way. Basically, “it’s okay when we do it.”

As for this notion that the USA “does not attack democracies,” that really smacks of Orwellian “war is peace, freedom is slavery.” As typical for Mike, the statement doesn’t withstand any scrutiny at all. So if, say, France, threatened to nuke the USA, American politicians wouldn’t respond because France is a democratic country? Wasn’t Hitler democratically elected, so it was wrong to attack him? If another country poses a realistic threat, of course that would prompt military action and what form of government they have doesn’t enter into the equation. It is stupid, even in hypothetical terms, to claim that the USA wouldn’t under any circumstances attack a democratic country.

Mike’s moronic statement actually has deeper problems, because this idea that we do not attack democracies implies that it is fine to attack countries that are not democracies. Which literally boils down to “we should invade and kill people for choosing the wrong type of government” – isn’t that a bit undemocratic? This “we do not attack democracies” hype also leaves a pretty convenient war justification on the table, just declaring that a country is insufficiently democratic, whether or not that statement is actually true. This is in fact how the USA justifies every war in recent history.

As for the idea that annexation is bad, well, is it? I don’t think so – but that is a separate topic which deserves its own article at a later date.

The USA “does not use terrorism deliberately as a method of war.” Haha okay, Mike. Isn’t western sponsorship of Kurdish terrorist groups one of the explicitly stated reasons for the Turks stalling on an affirmative vote for Sweden and Finland?

• But let’s say you disagree; you see more parallels between American and Russian uses of military force than I do. How does that excuse Putin’s barbaric war?  How do American wrongs justify Russian wrongs today? Two wrongs don’t make a right. If a thief breaks into your house, that does not give you a license to break into your neighbor’s house? If you opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, how can not oppose Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? If you oppose Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory, Turkish occupation of parts of Cyprus, or Morocco seizing Western Sahara, how can you not oppose Russian annexation of Ukrainian land? If you are outraged by Saudi methods of warfare in Yemen, how can you not be opposed to Russian methods of warfare in Ukraine[.]

Again, notice how Mike dishonestly frames his question. “If a thief breaks into your house, that does not give you a license to break into your neighbor’s house?” Well, no, and that’s Mike’s trademark wide-eyed stupidity. The honest way to phrase that question is “if someone uses force to steal from you, do you have the right to use force to get your property back.” Mike deliberately phrases the question in a stupid way because if he did it in the most forward way, he wouldn’t get the stupid answer he wants. Of course people and groups of people have the right to use force to protect themselves and their property. There’s more to my explanation, but it requires the context of Mike’s closing statement:

• It’s time we finally retire Cold War frameworks and see the universality of the struggle against imperialism and colonization and for democracy, sovereignty, and human rights.  

This is, in a nutshell, a sales pitch for globalism, free trade, and the “rules based world order.” The Russians released their military grip on the other Soviet republics and the Warsaw Pact countries because, simply, the westerners promised such militarism is primitive and not necessary anymore. If your country is lacking in a particular resource, like oil, food, or computer chips, that’s okay because there will never be a situation when your enemies are allowed to cut you off from the global supply lines. You don’t have to annex territory and maintain buffer zones because there will never be another “war in Europe” when you have to fear military invasion. “We’re one race, the human race,” as the saying goes. And really, the idea of world peace promised by globalists isn’t wrong in concept. When there’s no war, oppression, blockades, and embargoes, the necessity of war goes away. Maybe Russians accepted this idea so readily because it closely matches the dream world depicted in Soviet science fiction. Soviet Earth is a garden without wars or borders, and future Soviet people look at such ideas as foolish and barbaric. It’s not so different from Globalist Earth, or at least how Globalist Earth is portrayed in propaganda and empty promises.

But in reality, the “rules based world order” is just a mafia system of one group of people maintaining a monopoly on violence. Anyone who pushes back or resists this supreme order is destroyed with extreme violence. And anyone who points out the obvious hypocrisy in this system is accused of “whataboutism.”

Ian Kummer

Support my work by making a contribution through Boosty

• Facebook
• VK
• LinkedIn

All text in Reading Junkie posts are free to share or republish without permission, and I highly encourage my fellow bloggers to do so. Please be courteous and link back to the original.

I now have a new YouTube channel that I will use to upload videos from my travels around Russia. Expect new content there soon. Please give me a follow here.

Also feel free to connect with me on Quora (I sometimes share unique articles there).

---

---