„[…] that a larger country invaded a smaller country on false pretexts for imperial ambition - and that it’s still happening: we have war in Europe again.“ - isn’t that just one side of the coin? I thought perspective is about perspective.
Hi Marco, I’m not sure where to start. Perspective is part of what we’re about but that doesn’t mean a reflex bothsidesism- in fact doing perspective well means resisting the seductive simplicity of “on the one hand, and on the other hand”. In this case it’s a history rather than a coin (even figuratively speaking) and that history is mostly an imperial one detailed in the Synder lectures I link to above. I have considered the Russian position, including their laments about Nato expansion and concerns for Russian speaking minorities, but on closer inspection it looks like self-serving propaganda. There was no threat to Russia of any significance that could even begin to justify invading Ukraine and all that followed, including bombing of schools and hospitals, stealing children, and displacing millions of people. None of this is to say that it’s a simple battle between good and bad, as the Applebaum quote above says. If you’re interested in the analytical structure of perspective that guides our thinking it’s the shift not just from either/or to both/and but thinking that encompasses *Both both/and and either/or*. In other words it’s not just tribalism but nor is it relativism. It’s about trying to get things in perspective and consider multiple views, but also using your courage and discernment to inform moral commitment, which is what I’ve tried to do in the case of Ukraine.
„[…] that a larger country invaded a smaller country on false pretexts for imperial ambition - and that it’s still happening: we have war in Europe again.“ - isn’t that just one side of the coin? I thought perspective is about perspective.
Hi Marco, I’m not sure where to start. Perspective is part of what we’re about but that doesn’t mean a reflex bothsidesism- in fact doing perspective well means resisting the seductive simplicity of “on the one hand, and on the other hand”. In this case it’s a history rather than a coin (even figuratively speaking) and that history is mostly an imperial one detailed in the Synder lectures I link to above. I have considered the Russian position, including their laments about Nato expansion and concerns for Russian speaking minorities, but on closer inspection it looks like self-serving propaganda. There was no threat to Russia of any significance that could even begin to justify invading Ukraine and all that followed, including bombing of schools and hospitals, stealing children, and displacing millions of people. None of this is to say that it’s a simple battle between good and bad, as the Applebaum quote above says. If you’re interested in the analytical structure of perspective that guides our thinking it’s the shift not just from either/or to both/and but thinking that encompasses *Both both/and and either/or*. In other words it’s not just tribalism but nor is it relativism. It’s about trying to get things in perspective and consider multiple views, but also using your courage and discernment to inform moral commitment, which is what I’ve tried to do in the case of Ukraine.