Is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine significantly morally different than America’s invasion of Iraq?

[TheReckoning]

Obviously not.

[TheReckoning]

We also foisted on them an authoritarian government hellbent on destroying their language and culture, and shot anyone and everyone who dared oppose us.

I mean…

[TheReckoning]

A war of conquest is much worse than a war of regime change.

Is there proof Russia literally wants to annex all of Ukraine instead of install some puppet pro-Russia dictator?

Y’know, kinda what the USA did with Iraq?

[TheReckoning]

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is genuinely worse, yes, but also, I opposed and continue to oppose both, as do most leftists of principle and character.

My point wasn’t what was worse. Russia’s invasion was worse, due to conduct of Russian soldiers, trying to impose an inferior version of Ukraine onto the Ukrainian people, etc. It’s rather about if they were fundamentally different. Both the USA and Russia were willing to do immense destruction to a non-offensive country and its people in order to expand their international influence. That’s what makes them not significantly different, even if the Russian invasion is still morally worse.

[TheReckoning]

Regardless, even if we do take it as a question of kind, there is still a morally relevant difference for the reason Antonio gives.

I didn’t move the goalpost. I used the word “different”, and not “worse”, in the title for a reason.

Regardless, I don’t consider causing unnecessary death, destruction, and disruption in the name of spreading democracy (especially when spreading democracy was not the main goal of Iraq) to be fundamentally morally different than causing death, destruction, and disruption when spreading autocracy. Sure, democracy is better than autocracy, but that doesn’t mean we need to stop the world from rotating on its axis to achieve it.