Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Journo's conclusion that Mearsheimer's realpolitik evaluation is an endorsement of injustice is predicated on the noxious practice of split quoting , no ? Feels a little ad homienm-y too .
  3. Today
  4. It really doesn't matter, he's just going to talk about how woke he is about Russia and Ukraine and how blind we are to the real world and victims of propaganda. Anyway, Crimea was part of the Ukraine, notwithstanding that he is skeptical that it really was (insinuating that Crimea was actually part of Russia, therefore Russia wasn't actually invading the Ukraine, but Russia was asserting authority over its own land).
  5. Yesterday
  6. You brought forward a whole lot of - purported - arguments and evidence for calling Journo's analysis "disingenuous". I did not refuse to consider your arguments and evidence. I simply asked you to chose yourself 2-3 from the multitude, the ones you consider fundamental to your verdict, so that I can concentrate on these, make a reasoned argument of my own, and see, at the end, if your evidence is true and your verdict is correct. I am trying to avoid the situation when, if I eventually succeed in refuting your arguments, you will then raise other arguments ("but what about this, what about that"), and this will never end. So: please read carefully what I wrote and tell me what do you decide about the path I propose. At this point you can simply say that you do or do not agree. The I will decide about my next step. I believe this is a fair proposal, and I explained why it is fair.
  7. You have not been able to make a reasoned argument of your own, therefore I do not recognize your second handed "challenge" on someone else's argument. I've been clear about my stance and found evidence for it, show me what you've got.
  8. Last week
  9. Quantum Entanglement between Black Holes – another theoretical, mathematical-physics advance (nothing yet experimental) in black hole physics and quantum vacuum field theory physics (via Feynman path integrals, not string theory) “Black Holes, Wormholes and Entanglement” Ahmed Almheiri (Scientific American, Sept. 2022)
  10. Four Lists 1. Maarten Dalmijn heads his list of "11 Laws of Software Estimation for Complex Work" with the following admonition: "Wrong estimates aren't your fault, but they are definitely your problem." Yes. After a brief story about a complex project, Dalmijn states each law and elaborates on it in turn. In my ... estimation ... the seventh one is the most important: The biggest value in estimating isn't the estimate but checking if there is a common understanding. Image by Drew Beamer, via Unsplash, license.2. In the same field, but in a humorous vein, Carl Svensson offers a small collection of "Short Thoughts on Computers and Programming," which he tells us are not quite aphorisms. My favorite of the lot is the last: The future was better in the past. 3. It's a rabbit hole containing nuggets of good advice: Alison Green of Ask a Manager fame recently held "speed rounds" at her blog, in which she answered as many short questions as she could in two hours. She hit eighty last time, and has posted them in Q&A form. No. 78, my favorite of the ones that caught my attention, contained advice I could have used at a younger age: I like telling people who are being weird that they are being weird. As in: "It's weird that you're so fixated on this." 4. In the realm of travel advice an ordinary person might not think of, we have "10 Hotel Safety Tips from a Former Intelligence Officer" at Security Magazine. Some of these will seem cumbersome or borderline paranoid to people whose travel experience is all in the United States, but the author gives his reasoning, which makes them easier to remember and apply -- and might make you think again about some of your own practices. Even if you don't use this advice every time, it's good to know about it. Hotel safe, I'm looking at you. -- CAV Link to Original
  11. I expected you to concentrate on what you consider to be Journo’s most fundamental 2-3 errors of fact and or logic. Your last comment is anything but this. It is a diatribe blaming Journo for not blindly swallowing Putin's view about facts of the matter. Just tell me if you do intend to accept my challenge - to select Journo’s most fundamental 2-3 errors of fact and or logic, or not. I already explain why is this the only way to have a conclusive debate.
  12. The essay is apologism for Ukraine and NATO. Laying the FULL moral culpability at Putin's door. The arguments are based on innuendo and suppositions and prejudice, portraying Putin the tyrant with imperial ambitions (unproven, non-apparent and unrealistic) and Ukraine's Govt. the innocent victim. (The Ukraine citizens Journo rightly points out to be victims worthy of sympathy, but as usual no acknowledgment of the 8 years of citizens suffering Kyiv's attacks: that tells of double standards). As such, the piece follows the conformist media narrative. It is a weakly argued objective, moral case. For example, missing the point with a strawman: "Though NATO has added new member states since the end of the Cold War, none exhibits ambitions for territorial expansion toward Russia". Well, of course. Whoever claims that any individual member state - in and by itself - has showed "ambitions for territorial expansion toward Russia"?! Has Poland or Latvia etc., done so? It has been NATO as an entity which expanded its membership drive towards Russia, without clear purpose or explanation... and there's the problem. Elan Journo does not question the morality of western influences changing the political and military "balance of power" within Ukraine. a.) Funding and abetting the overthrow of a ¬democratically¬ elected Govt. b.) helping to build up a powerful Army. That's for several years PRIOR TO Putin's invasion - and - logically, why he would demand the "demilitarization" of Ukraine. So much for this "liberal democracy" where any regime change is possible at whim. So NATO faces reasonable accusations of giving Ukraine "de facto" membership in NATO for NATO's long-term strategy. (None, for Ukraine's benefit). Any nation or President would be remiss in not objecting to those interventions within a neighboring country - in politics and armed forces - by any agency. He'd have every right to insist on the security of his country. He'd want to know: What for? He'd give notice that he would not allow it to continue, by force if necessary. The answer was obvious and has become more apparent since the war started. This was earlier a covert and now overt assault on Russia's existence. But beginning with the media-fed premise that Putin/Russia are inherently evil and inferior, and Zelensky/Ukraine perfect and 'good', moral judgment fails - unjust and sacrificial actions and policies follow logically.
  13. In my comment I challenged you to refute Journo’s analysis in a structured and systematic manner, by identifying a couple of his most fundamental errors, that is the ones which invalidate his conclusions. Instead, you answered my challenge by 3 or 4 (!) separate comments, containing of a lot of remarks and objections, from futile to questionable to irrelevant. Therefore: do you intend to accept my challenge – to concentrate on what you consider to be Journo’s most fundamental 2-3 errors of fact and or logic - or you don’t? If you do, I will then discuss these. For example “assurances made to Gorbachev”, or „part” vs „parts” [of Crimea], IF you will consider these as being fundamental. Letting you identify your few essential objections and enabling me to concentrate on them is the only way to have a conclusive debate (vs. an interminable one of “whataboutisms”).
  14. The electromagnetic radiation from Sagittarius A* that we receive at earth today departed from Sagittarius A* when our ancestors were in the last of the Paleolithic (last of the Old Stone Age). They could do some weaving, make nets, and make ceramic pitchers. They could make figurative cave paintings and they could make figurines. They could not write. Perhaps they made music, for they made flutes.
  15. The supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy is in the constellation Sagittarius. It is about 27,000 light years from earth, its mass is four million times the mass of the sun, and the humans have taken a picture of it in 2022, shown here. This object is known as Sagittarius A* (Sagittarius A star). From earth it lies in the strip of sky known as Sagittarius A. The diameter of its event horizon is roughly equivalent to the planet Mercury's orbit around the sun. From earth that diameter is 52 micro arc seconds, which is as viewing from earth a donut lying on the moon. The event-horizon diameter matches what is predicted by general relativity for a black hole of that mass. Sagittarius A* is orbited by a diffuse gas of electrons and protons. That matter is being pulled from the atmospheres of stars orbiting it. Only 1% of the surrounding matter is being pulled into its event horizon in the era of its light reaching present earth. In that era, the brightness (luminance) of Sagittarius A* is only 100 times the brightness of the sun. There is evidence that as recently as 60 years ago, Sagittarius A* was not on a diet, but a feeding frenzy.
  16. I'm glad to see that John Stossel has written about Sri Lanka's centrally-planned "organic" farming debacle. This is first and foremost because the story has gotten much less attention than it deserves, even as some Western countries are getting ready to make the same mistake. Many more people need to know about this. On top of that, the fact that this story isn't all over the place doesn't mean that the left isn't busy crafting a narrative to cover its tracks, as Stossel notes and addresses in this exchange with Michael Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never:Mother Jones has been spreading manure about manure since Sri Lanka's collapse. (Image by Malene Thyssen, via Wikimedia Commons, license.)"Why can't we just make more organic manure?" I ask. "It takes twice as much land to produce all the cows that you need to get the manure," he explains. "Synthetic fertilizers are a friend to saving nature because they reduce how much land we need." Now the environmental purists make excuses for Sri Lanka. Mother Jones said it's "ridiculous to single out [the fertilizer ban] as the 'underlying' cause, as Shellenberger did." Others say that Sri Lanka just needed time to adjust to organic farming. "You might be able to become poorer over five or 10 years, rather than over six months," replies Shellenberger. "But the result will be the same." I push back. "There were other causes of the problems: higher oil prices, COVID, other stuff happened." "But those same problems affected other countries where the economies did not collapse," he replies. "What made the difference in Sri Lanka was its fertilizer ban."Sri Lanka came up recently in a conversation, and, although I think I did an okay job giving some of this background, I found myself wishing there were a short, clear piece about it that I could refer others to. Now there is one, and as a bonus, its clear example of a respected left-wing outlet running interference for a failed policy will also be instructive for thinking, persuadable adults. -- CAVLink to Original
  17. John Mearsheimer and Walt of the realism school. Good chat:
  18. I think that different nations are at different stages of their (call it) "political evolution" - many are not badly oppressed autocracies , and the inhabitants aren't necessarily unhappy with that system allowing personal (but less) political liberties, not when they see democracy's sometimes difficulties and divisiveness elsewhere. Sure, some countries will enter into liberal democracy by popular agreement, eventually, while some could backslide. One upshot of 'realpolitic' I think is to avoid bringing pressure and intervention on any - politically, militarily or economically- which artificially accelerates the country's development beyond many or most of the present citizens. People widely don't take kindly to being (as they see it) patronized by greatly evolved and powerful countries, although initially the promise of increased wealth and better living conditions and being accepted internationally, will be attractive. But their (often) corrupt governments or fraudulent elections will disillusion many when the promises are unfulfilled. Also, most humans need to retain their original character, ethnic identity, cultures, etc. so contradictions and conflicts will arise. Like some people in Ukraine's bigotry against ethnic Russians, one incitement of the war. Simply put, the moral thing is to mostly leave nations alone to determine their own way. It's not the duty of the great nations to uplift them into liberal democracy before they're ready.
  19. Journo: "In his 2014 essay “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” Mearsheimer makes a revealing assertion. When “great powers get into brawls with weaker states,” talk of “abstract rights” such as “self-determination” — presumably including a sovereign nation’s goal of avoiding foreign despotism — is “largely meaningless.”4 This endorsement of injustice is a necessary consequence of Mearsheimer’s amoralist framework." Mearsheimer from his essay/article: "ne also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to pre vent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when power ful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine's interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor." Journo's editing of the paragraph imputes a level of injustice endorsement that Mearsheimer's ordering of the words/idea don't carry. While Mearsheimer's realpolitik doesn't allow for a moral condemnation of Putin based on his regime, his pragmatic/practical/'amoral' assessment doesn't necessarily negate a normative response to aggression eg "sad truth that often might makes right when great-power politics are at play" Journo's analysis about the nature of NATO also doesn't explain or bolster a claim of moral action qua nature of NATO as a defensive league. Ukraine not being a member state to the organization means direct military by NATO is not required and as Mearsheimer points out in his 2014 essay the US and European allies didn't consider a defense of Ukraine as a core strategic interest by the fact that when the Crimea was annexed they did not pursue direct military action. Mearsheimer futher argues that Russia is a declining power and will weaken with time and that the western influence and push for the Europeanization of Ukraine was/is the main driver of Putin's aggression aimed toward keeping Ukraine out of NATO and more strongly aligned with the EU.
  20. Where was there a rigorous effort by nations and international organizations to make Ukraine stop its lengthy war against the Eastern separatists? (As negotiated). When did those nations/orgs by any urgent means - threat of heavy sanctions, the withholding of cash, aid and weapons, etc. - on Russia AND on Ukraine, to force them to come to a diplomatic and peaceful solution before or even after the invasion? Before things escalated as any fool would predict. None and none. They are "facts". Whatever NOT done is also factual. Making peace then, was not an option and that's the crucial fact. It tells you all you need to know of what has followed. This anticipated conflict mustn't be interrupted. (The greatest cynic might find that hard to stomach, war preferred over peace by advanced *western* civilisation). Evidently the West had and has 'designs' on Russia. (Using Ukraine's position and population to do so). Which then means Putin's invasion has been vindicated as preemptive self-defense.
  21. Amazed how little you know. Why "anecdotal"? This was common knowledge (until NATO's revisionism officially 'groomed' and denied a promise was ever made by Baker). Putin of course followed up several times querying further expansion (specifying Ukraine as the red line). NATO knew this full well, ignored and are exploting his resistance. With bad faith actors, you need to get an assurance signed and documented in writing. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjNwf2wmqb6AhXQS0EAHWbwALMQFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnatowatch.org%2Fnewsbriefs%2F2018%2Fhow-gorbachev-was-misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion&usg=AOvVaw1XvqQbte2oPa0G7AIYNXjb
  22. At The American Mind is a transcript of remarks by Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida to the recent National Conservatism Conference. I regard the Governor as both a likely contender for President in 2024 and a strong candidate. I am still digesting this -- it's just shy of 10,000 words, about a half-hour read -- but it is the best outline I know of of DeSantis's political philosophy, and I highly recommend it for the purpose of evaluating him as a political candidate. In my opinion, the below two paragraphs -- regarding his reaction to how the pandemic affected government schools -- offer a good best-of/worst-of sample of his thinking:Image by the Office of the Governor of Florida, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.We had to make sure that our policies weren't excluding all these important values, just because people with a very narrow-minded view, with some credentials by their name, were telling us that those values didn't matter. And a great example is when we were dealing with the schools, and whether schools should be open. The fact of the matter is, from a perspective of evidence and data, this was not a very difficult decision. But it was a very difficult political decision. Just in terms of the blowback that we got: we were opposed by almost every major health bureaucrat that would go on T.V., or that was on the White House task force, or in different state capitals. But the reality was, we had seen this go fine in other parts of the world. And we were following observed experience. And we put that ahead of what some intellectual elite thought should happen. ... We were one of the first. We were one of the first, if not the first state, to stand up. And this was early in 2021. We were among the first to say, our schools cannot compel students to do a COVID shot. So we got that off the board very early, before it was even available. Because we saw what they were up to. We saw what was coming down the pike. We were one of the first to ban so-called vaccine passports, the idea that you have to show proof of a COVID shot to be able to participate in society. And there were some conservatives that said, "yeah, well, government shouldn't do a vaccine passport. But if a private business wants to do it, what's wrong with that?" Well, I'll tell you what wrong. What's wrong with that is an individual has a right to participate in society. And we're not just going to sit idly by if you're trying to circumscribe people's freedoms. And that's true if it's government; it's also true if it's big business. [bold added]The good, embodied in the first paragraph, is that I think DeSantis's heart is in the right place in terms of protecting the rights of Floridians, and that he will not bow to pressure when the going gets tough. The bad comes in the second paragraph: While I applaud DeSantis being wary of and opposing government-imposed vaccine mandates and "passports," he was wrong to prevent businesses who wanted them to require vaccinations of their employees or customers if that is what their (individual!) owners wanted to do. This is almost blatantly contradictory and indicates that, for his admiration of America's founding principles, he does not understand them appreciably better than most other politicians. DeSantis spends lots of time -- when discussing his opposition to ESG (which I share and which, again, comes from a good place) -- justifying various improper interventions of his against corporations (including, pertinently, his ban on businesses setting their own vaccination policies). These directly contradict his assertion that "I'm not a central planner," and an inappropriate political response to that problem could do a great deal of damage indeed. I will say that in his defense, what to do about ESG isn't straightforward. Again, I'm still digesting this, but I highly recommend it, especially given that DeSantis, whom many will take to be a "Trump Without the Baggage" or "Better Than Trump" GOP candidate, is, as either, a serious presidential contender. -- CAVLink to Original
  23. Your comments of Elan Journo’s analysis are rather anecdotal. For example this: “assurances made to Gorbachev [about NATO expansion]: not an inch past Germany.” Can you please be more structured and systematic, and list a couple of the most fundamental Journo’s errors, that is the ones which invalidate his conclusions. Please remember that, if you cite facts, I expect you to be able to substantiate them.
  24. Apparently, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently mass-transported Venezuelan immigrants on our dime to the virtue-signaling "sanctuary" of Martha's Vineyard. In doing so, according to conservatives, he called them on their bluff, exposing them as hypocrites. Maybe they are hypocrites, but if they were, it would hardly be the end of the story, although DeSantis might want you to think so. Get a load of this sample from the column-length dressing-down Newsweek gave the people of Martha's Vineyard:Image by C.S. Imming, via Wikimedia Commons, license.In the island's offseason, 63% of its homes, whose median value is $1.35 million, are vacant. Former President Barack Obama's property alone reportedly has 10 bedrooms. As of this writing, Airbnb offers 355 vacancies. Nevertheless, not one of the Vineyard's residents, nearly 80% of whom voted for Joe Biden, is on record having offered an extra bedroom, guest cottage, pool house, basement, unclaimed rental, gazebo, or tent to accommodate the migrants, who slept in a church hall. Instead, liberal residents congratulated themselves on their "compassion" for providing basic services for less than 24 hours before soliciting donations on the internet and demanding government solutions.Surely the author does not mean to advocate the government commandeering private property for the relief of whatever some official might deem a humanitarian crisis! If he does, his sole complaint is the hypocrisy -- and he should start telling us how he's the real champion of the poor. (I would disagree.) If he doesn't, then he should explain why an offer of assistance and a moral claim on everything one owns are not the same thing; that charity is optional and is virtuous so long as one does not harm oneself or those one has an actual obligation to in the process of helping someone else. As much as I dislike Barack Obama for undercutting capitalism and property rights while he was in office, this is (still) America: He controls his own property. Nor is Obama obligated (perhaps contrary to his own opinion) to house someone else simply because he has shelter and the other person does not. You might say, Expecting conservatives to contest the morality of altruism is a stretch, Gus! Maybe so, but that morality is ultimately behind the welfare state -- which is ultimately behind conservative complaints about immigration, as I wrote long ago when commenting on an anti-immigration proposal in Arizona:SB 1070 deserves only one fundamental criticism: It would fail to protect the individual rights of American citizens -- even if it hermetically sealed our borders and the police never touched a single American hair in the process of enforcing it. This is because the biggest headaches attributed to illegal immigration are not caused by it at all. ... Take so-called social services. In 1986, Congress mandated that emergency care facilities not turn patients away on the basis of an inability to pay. My taxes and part of my personal outlays for medical care are taken from me to help finance that of other people. So what if some of the people I used to pay for in Texas were here illegally? No matter where I am in America today, my pocket is being picked to mend my neighbor's leg although I have done nothing to harm him. What difference does fencing out "freeloaders" make to me if my own countrymen scoff at the very idea of paying to educate their own children, or budgeting for their own medical expenses? Were the educational and medical sectors privately run, we would not attract or encourage freeloaders, and non-citizens who used these facilities would be paying customers. Who could complain about that? [bold added]Rereading this, I notice that one need not even perform a full frontal assault on the idea that self-sacrifice is a virtue to contest the idea of a welfare state, and yet Republicans are just as unwilling to do so now as they were then. Heck, they don't even make the suboptimal argument that more freedom would help the poor better than the welfare state anymore. (That is overall ultimately true in the long run, but that is not why capitalism is better than the welfare state.) Instead, they blame our problems on immigrants, and even embrace the welfare state so as to pull a political stunt: Floridians were pickpocketed to make this happen. But I guess it's easier to do that than to stand up for freedom of movement and for capitalism, or, for that matter, to propose citizenship reform. Both sides are hypocrites here, and the Republicans come off the worse in my eyes, because they stop at that charge, basically accept the same moral premise as the "liberals," and top it all off by failing to offer a positive alternative (capitalism) to the real problem (the welfare state). -- CAVLink to Original
  25. A little puzzling by Journo: "This was not the first time Putin's regime has invaded Russia; that was in 2014 when Russia annexed parts of it". "Parts"? He can only mean one part, the Crimea. The Donbass was not then annexed. Not to excuse that (non-violent) invasion/annexation, and unknowing of the international legal status, but was the "administered" Crimea officially part of Ukraine? Republic of Crimea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Republic of Crimea Republic Республика Крым Other transcription(s) • Ukrainian Республіка Крим, Respublika Krym • Crimean Tatar Къырым Джумхуриети, Qırım Cumhuriyeti Flag Coat of arms Anthem: Нивы и горы твои волшебны, Родина (Russian) Nivy i gory tvoi volshebny, Rodina (transliteration) "Your fields and mountains are magical, Motherland" 0:57 Location of the Republic of Crimea (red) in Russia (light yellow) Location of the Republic of Crimea (light yellow) in the Crimean Peninsula Coordinates: 45°24′N 35°18′ECoordinates: 45°24′N 35°18′E Country Russia Federal district Southern[1][2] Economic region North Caucasus[3] Capital Simferopol Government • Body State Council • Head Sergey Aksyonov[4] Area [5] • Total 26,081 km2 (10,070 sq mi) Population (2021 Census)[6] • Total 1,934,630 • Estimate (2018)[7] 1,913,731 • Density 74/km2 (190/sq mi) Time zone UTC+3 (MSK [8]) License plates 82[9][10] OKTMO ID 35000000 Official languages Russian;[12] Ukrainian;[11] Crimean Tatar[11] Website crimea.gov.ru The Republic of Crimea (Russian: Республика Крым, romanized: Respublika Krym, Ukrainian: Республіка Крим, Crimean Tatar: Къырым Джумхуриети, romanized: Qırım Cumhuriyeti)[a] is a federal subject (republic) of Russia. Before its invasion and annexation by Russia in 2014, the territory was administered by Ukraine as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and most countries recognize it as such. The Crimean Peninsula, on which the de facto republic is located, became a part of post-Soviet Ukraine in 1991, upon the latter's independence, by virtue of Ukraine's uti possidetis inheritance of the territory from the Ukrainian SSR, of which Crimea was a part since 1954. Russia annexed the peninsula in 2014, and established two federal subjects there, the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol, a move which was internationally unrecognized.[14] The capital city and largest city within the republic is Simferopol, which is also the second-largest city of the peninsula, behind Sevastopol. As of the 2021 Russian census, the republic had a population of 1,934,630.[6]
  26. Disingenuous. Skirts around the end of NATO's fundamental raison d'etre ("to defend against the Soviet Union " ... "all others will come to its defense") - with the disintegration of that very same Soviet Russia. What 'enemy' was its continuing purpose for existence, afterwards and now? To steadily continue the expansion (despite assurances made to Gorbachev: not an inch past Germany) in these circumstances, NATO has been provocative, indeed. Why would it accept/invite many new members, mostly ex-Warsaw Pact, closing in on Russian borders? One doesn't need to be paranoid to find nothing benign in that. Nor certainly would any free-er, more respectable nation allow such an unexplained, irrational encroachment by any 'organisation' (one which refused its admission too). Conclusion: The isolation, weakening, and regime change by revolution for Russia was intended and planned by think tanks, quite far back. "Imperialistic ambitions"? (Inferred from Putin's essay). As Mearsheimer asked, "Where's the evidence?" - that Putin wanted or realistically could absorb Ukraine - and, *ever* invade deeper into Europe? None, presently deduced. Oddly left out of this account, anything to do with the Russian Ukrainians, their repression by ultra-nationalists, the undemocratic overthrow of an elected Gvt., the right of a nation to be left alone by foreign powers for its self-determination (but wasn't), the ongoing civil war against the East by Kyiv, the Minsk treaties (cynically, signed by Kyiv "to buy time, to build the armed forces") that no 'body', the EU, NATO, UN or Ukraine insisted on being justly implemented. None again, who firmly insisted pre-war or after, that Russia and Ukraine meet diplomatically to avoid conflict. Which can only indicate the war was meant to go ahead. These and more reasons could conceivably give Putin the notion of "an existential threat" to the RF. Not forgotten, the relentless one-sided propaganda war, making publicly and internationally known only what is favorable for the aims of the great powers. How much was, and how many people, can be judged sacrificially "immoral" in all that?
  27. Unfortunately, the link to the full analysis is wrong: it points back to my comment. No-one signaled it... Does it mean that the few people who commented on the analysis did not really read it ? ☹️ Here is the correct link, or explicitly, https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-john-mearsheimer-gets-ukraine-wrong/ An additional fragment from the analysis:
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...