AlexL

Yes, you cited approvingly his ethnicity-based "argument". THIS is "hitting rock bottom" and not "openly discussing such a major event of our times and comments by prominent experienced military figures addressing that event".

"if you look into the ethnic background" With this kind of argument, cited approvingly, this Objectivism(?) Forum truly hit rock bottom. @dream_weaver

I still admire your (only) skill: posting the longest possible URLs😁

Do you have a comment?

Mini street-interviews, in Moscow, 4 days ago.

And the moral judgment - who aggressed whom (and snatched territories) - doesn't matter... Neither does the precedent - for the Europe's security... Pathetic.

Why don't you publish it in a serious, peer reviewed, journal? Contrary to an entrenched prejudice, physicist/scientists are extremely eager to welcome a new paradigm, both out of intellectual curiosity and out of their interest in getting the inevitable golden rain of grants. And you could even win your Nobel Price.

Putin vs Zelensky, Russia vs Ukraine, American Interests | Yaron Brook Show https://youtu.be/3APjwBURoBk?t=106

Pathetic...

Can you please explain? Those who use the terms "egoism" and "profit", operate on the principle that egoism and profit are benevolent and beneficial motivations for human flourishing. No, I was saying that the reconstruction should, legitimately, be a profitable venture. The subject was not about Rand's frame.

You did not answer my question.

From the article from UnHerd you were recommending (which means endorsing), entitled The capitalists are circling over Ukraine: Why should the reconstruction of Ukraine be altruistic and profitless?

A possible military coup against the Russia's leadership by the Wagner Group ? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66005256

Therefore...? Therefore you continue to spread lies on this Objectivism (???) Forum. No, I am convinced that you are not lying, you certainly believe 100%. But this is worse, because you then are one of the so many useful idiots. But you are in good company, because they are often decent and sometimes even outstanding people. Undeservingly so (in good company, I mean), because I don't think you belong to either of these two categories.

A few??? This is a lie.

Life in Russia: 1.5 Years Later, by Setarko, Russia, 27 May 2023 "it's been almost 1.5 years since life in Russia changed dramatically. But today I would like to talk not about the life and prosperity (or decline) of the country, but about the lives of ordinary people in it. There are two points of view. According to the first, people in Russia have lost access to hundreds of services and services, people are leaving the country by the millions, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to survive. According to the other, the country has only benefited from the special military operation that was launched, the people have rallied, import substitution is in full swing, and the next few years will be OUR years. Well, let me, as a really average resident of Russia, try to describe what has really changed in our lives during this time."

Life in Russia: 1.5 Years Later, by Setarko, Russia, 27 May 2023

Yes, the reasons you listed (plus person's reliance on facts and on shared values) do indeed characterize a person's reputability. For exactly these reasons those persons are not reputable. For some this is my own observation. For all - the corresponding Wiki pages (cross-checked with references and the "Talk" pages) show what unsavory characters they are. No, AlexL is not at all engaged in this. You seem to have the need for straw-manning; better leave my argument unanswered, it would have been less shameful. Unfortunately for you, what I wrote is the exact truth, an inconvenient one, it seems.... PS: you did not answer an older question of mine - here. Or you were simply trolling?

OK, and how did you establish that Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.), John Mearsheimer, Ray McGovern, and Seymour Hersh are reliable, that is that you can trust their opinions without doing every time your own research?? Is it because you have established that their facts are right, or is it because you simply like their conclusions? PS: some illustrious names are missing, like William Scott Ritter, John Mark Dougan and other darlings of the Russia's governmental media... For example, in the official Russia's news today: RT на русском, Бывший разведчик США Риттер [Ritter] считает, что Россия нанесёт поражение ВСУ к началу осени

Could you please explain?

Yes, RFK Jr. said that indeed, a lot of publications quoted him. But what are YOU trying to suggest by quoting RFK Jr. here? That his numbers ARE real? That they are NOT real? No comment, @Jon Letendre ?

YouTube channel "1420", Daniil Orain, micro-interviews, April 2023, in Moscow. Question: "How is our war with NATO going?"

Yes, RFK Jr. said that indeed, a lot of publications quoted him. But what are YOU trying to suggest by quoting RFK Jr. here? That his numbers ARE real? That they are NOT real?

YouTube channel "1420", Daniil Orain, micro-interviews, April 2023, in Moscow. Question: "Should we change presidents once in a while?"

Why bring this hyped version of Bennett's interview back again ??? You already put on this forum a similarly hyped version a few months ago. And at that time I wrote, citing Business Insider, : I have also showed what ridiculously LITTLE was Putin offering during the tentative negotiations. Insider notes: One of the social media that participated in propagating this hyped version of Bennett's interview was... the Objectivism Online Forum, care of @whYNOT !!! Besides, Bennett mediation took place: - at the demand of the "warmongers" France, Germany and US (says Bennett: "Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France") and, incidentally, - after more than two weeks into the invasion, after it became obvious that his Blitzkrieg tactics was failing. So, again you post here as facts misrepresentation you gathered from dubious sources, which were credibly debunked.