This article puts a lot of weight on the phrase “legitimate grievance”, but that just sort of sidesteps the question of justification.
If you say my shirt is ugly, I may now have a “legitimate grievance” because you insulted my clothing, but this would hardly be sufficient justification if I chose to murder you in response. So the fact that it is a “legitimate grievance” is really very meaningless. Likewise, the question of “legitimate grievance” with respect to Russia seems similarly meaningless to me. All of these articles from Russia sympathizers are saying little more than “Yes but you insulted his shirt first!”
All of the articles like this have always left me with the same questions. And these are sincere questions, I know little about this conflict. Does the invasion of Ukraine actually do anything to prevent or rollback NATOs expansion? Does the invasion of Ukraine increase Russia’s security? Does the invasion of Ukraine benefit Russia in a way that outweighs the costs? Does it honestly seem like Russia is in a more secure position now than it was a year ago? If the answer is no, then how is any of this justification relevant?
What is your basis for calling Lemoine a "Russia sympathizer"? What does that even mean? And he explicitly says in the piece that the events he's discussing don't justify the invasion, so I don't see where you're getting the idea that discussing the Russia-NATO history here is supposed to justify anything. The point is just that McFaul is being dishonest about the relevant history in order to downplay any possible fault on anyone's part besides Putin.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This article puts a lot of weight on the phrase “legitimate grievance”, but that just sort of sidesteps the question of justification.
If you say my shirt is ugly, I may now have a “legitimate grievance” because you insulted my clothing, but this would hardly be sufficient justification if I chose to murder you in response. So the fact that it is a “legitimate grievance” is really very meaningless. Likewise, the question of “legitimate grievance” with respect to Russia seems similarly meaningless to me. All of these articles from Russia sympathizers are saying little more than “Yes but you insulted his shirt first!”
All of the articles like this have always left me with the same questions. And these are sincere questions, I know little about this conflict. Does the invasion of Ukraine actually do anything to prevent or rollback NATOs expansion? Does the invasion of Ukraine increase Russia’s security? Does the invasion of Ukraine benefit Russia in a way that outweighs the costs? Does it honestly seem like Russia is in a more secure position now than it was a year ago? If the answer is no, then how is any of this justification relevant?
What is your basis for calling Lemoine a "Russia sympathizer"? What does that even mean? And he explicitly says in the piece that the events he's discussing don't justify the invasion, so I don't see where you're getting the idea that discussing the Russia-NATO history here is supposed to justify anything. The point is just that McFaul is being dishonest about the relevant history in order to downplay any possible fault on anyone's part besides Putin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link