Indeed, I am very anti-unprovoked massive brutal invasions to annex territory and the wholesale slaughter of civilians, and I am very pro-defending your country when it gets invaded by the hostile autocracy next door run by a maniac with delusions of being a modern czar. I don’t think there’s “another side of the story” when it comes to soldiers raping civilians of all ages, from four to 82 years old.I feel exactly the same way about this war. There's no moral equivalency between Ukraine and Russia. Russia's invasion and the subsequent conduct of their military is a connotative definition of evil.
If you’re looking for coverage with the tone of, “Maybe that Putin fellow has a point, or isn’t such a bad guy, or maybe the invasion is justifiable,” you’re going to be deeply disappointed.
I’m surprised by people who demand neutrality between the oppressor and the oppressed. Wait, did I say “surprised”? I meant appalled.
Despite what commenters on both left and right seem to think, I doubt that there are very many issues in which there's a moral equivalency between actors.
I've claimed in the past that I think the moral argument against supporting Trump is neutralized by the fact that his electoral opponents, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, are no less morally corrupt than he, so on that matter I do agree that there's a moral equivalency, but I do not believe there's a moral equivalency between Ukraine and Russia or Zelensky and Putin. Nor do I believe there's a moral equivalency between Israel and its enemies, or between the United States and any of its historic foes.
In fact, I'll go further and state that in my opinion the "moral equivalency" argument is quite often intellectually otiose. It's often made by people who are unwilling to look at a conflict between persons or nations deeply and objectively.
I hope that that's not an unfair judgment, but that's been my experience which, I admit, is not universal.
