The inclusion of Ukraine's territorial defense does a good job of showing that what really animates these types of discussions is anti-Americanism, not any sort of principled opposition to violence.
One important difference between Kaczynski and political leaders is that Kaczynski acted on his own autonomy. Political and military leaders require others to carry out their violence which defuses the moral stain by making so many others complicit (including the voters in democracies). Even an autocratic leader like Putin relies on his citizenry to carry out his will in such a way that it is difficult to even make sense of how the will of Putin differs from the will of the Russian nation.
I think the indirection is important in that it obscures who is ultimately responsible, but I don't think it actually diminishes the responsibility. It's less that the stain is spread out, so much as the darkest part of it doesn't look as bad in contrast to those around it.
That is, if I hold a gun to your head and tell you to kill your family or else I'll kill you, you are not absolved of guilt if you do so, but you're also not the most evil person in the room. Put another way, its worth asking (in this strawman I've constructed) "would you have killed your family if I hadn't made you?".
The brilliance of strongmen is that they engineer this culture where everyone around them depends on the strongman for protection from worse evils. I've read repeatedly that in Russia, everybody knows that the propaganda issued by the Putin regime is just that, but they are also convinced that every bit of news they hear from the outside world is also propaganda, so its a question of the devil you know vs. the devil you don't. Basically, "if you think Russian oligarchs are bad, let me tell you about American oligarchs..."
Ukraine getting support in defending their territorial integrity from Russian separatists seems really out of place in your list.
The inclusion of Ukraine's territorial defense does a good job of showing that what really animates these types of discussions is anti-Americanism, not any sort of principled opposition to violence.
One important difference between Kaczynski and political leaders is that Kaczynski acted on his own autonomy. Political and military leaders require others to carry out their violence which defuses the moral stain by making so many others complicit (including the voters in democracies). Even an autocratic leader like Putin relies on his citizenry to carry out his will in such a way that it is difficult to even make sense of how the will of Putin differs from the will of the Russian nation.
I think the indirection is important in that it obscures who is ultimately responsible, but I don't think it actually diminishes the responsibility. It's less that the stain is spread out, so much as the darkest part of it doesn't look as bad in contrast to those around it.
That is, if I hold a gun to your head and tell you to kill your family or else I'll kill you, you are not absolved of guilt if you do so, but you're also not the most evil person in the room. Put another way, its worth asking (in this strawman I've constructed) "would you have killed your family if I hadn't made you?".
The brilliance of strongmen is that they engineer this culture where everyone around them depends on the strongman for protection from worse evils. I've read repeatedly that in Russia, everybody knows that the propaganda issued by the Putin regime is just that, but they are also convinced that every bit of news they hear from the outside world is also propaganda, so its a question of the devil you know vs. the devil you don't. Basically, "if you think Russian oligarchs are bad, let me tell you about American oligarchs..."