Just war, Russia-Ukraine, and horrible framing by Cécile Fabre

Meduza, where Kevin Rothrock, whom I follow in Twitter, is the managing editor, had an "interesting" interview about the Russia-Ukraine war and "just war" with French philosopher Cécile Fabre.

First, the issue of "just war" in the modern west still ultimately traces back to Augustine. And, given that Fabre opens her book "Spying through a Glass Darkly" about the ethics of espionage with a pair of biblical quotes means she's probably coming from there. Related? The fact that the CIA, yes them, posts a generally highly favorable review of the book makes me more skeptical yet.

First, there is the issue of bad framing. I mean, the piece ignores entirely the eight years from the Maidan to the war, ignores the Minsk Accords, and their violation by both sides, and per Angela Merkel, the use of Minsk to deliberately string Putin along. So, to that matter, Putin did, arguably, try diplomatic negotiations, and, whether or not he fully knew it at the time of the invasion, he was getting "used."

Related is the issue of how long one goes down "Road X" before war is the last choice. And, it seems to be that she's saying, the consensus of the international community says so. But, isn't that a version of a tyranny of the majority?

Then, there's her books, beyond the review of one linked above. "Economic Statecraft" appears to justify much of the sanctions regime. But, that would seem to directly conflict with her twist on just war (considering sanctions as war by other means) in "Cosmopolitan War," where she says all individuals deserve equal treatment and just war should be based on individualist and not primarily communitarian angles. (That also sounds pretty naive."

Then, per her website as well as this piece, there's her focus on retributive justice. And, per Walter Kaufmann's "Without Guilt and Justice," I question the overarching validity of the whole idea. I also question the idea of "just war" from this angle as well. And, related to Kaufmann, I believe many things are not either 100 percent moral or immoral. Something can be 90 percent "black," but not 100 percent.

Color me not highly impressed with either her reasoning or its background.

And, when I followed him, despite Media Bias Fact Check calling Meduza "left," I didn't realize that Rothrock was connected to the (Woodrow) Wilson Center. I mean, the Wilson Center? Despite claims to be scholarly, Nick Adams, yes, THAT Nick Adams, the Aussie-American MAGA-racist piece of shit, is on its board of directors. (And, per that Wiki link, that's not his real name.)

And, the Unz Report (yes, take that with a grain of salt) has a scathing piece on him. The likes of Mark Ames follow him for his stupidity, I guess?

And, with that, I can see why he cherry-picked Fabre.

And, that's the first real "ding" I have on Media Bias.