AlexL

It is not the case for you to exult. Here is why: On the subject of Minsk Accords you repeated dozens and dozens of times that Ukraine did not abide by it. I offered to discuss this subject and, because it is you who made such claims, I invited you to summarize its provisions (Minsk II specifically), and how well or badly both parties abode to it. You did not, as usual. If you had, you would have found out that none of the parties abode to it. I would have encouraged you to find out what arguments pro and contra were advanced, not the most ridiculous ones, but the best, i.e. the most plausible ones, as objectivity demands. You would have learned, in particular, why Putin categorically refused to let the elections in the separatist regions to be held after the Kiev military secures the border with Russia. And why this sequence (together with the provision that a new Constitution should give the separatists an important number of sits in Kiev's government), would guarantee that Ukraine's foreign policy will be dictated by Russia and it will never be able to adhere to the European Union. That is: loose its independence and sovereignty. The Minsk II was signed after the Ukrainian's military debacle in Debaltzevo (Feb. 2015) and under the strong pressure from France (Hollande) and Germany (Merkel) The signature of this accord was met with big protests in Kiev (dozen of thousands), and in Parliament. The then Ukrainian President, Poroshenko, was afterwards accused of high treason. In his defense he came (in April 2022) with the excuse that, although the Accord he signed was awful, it gave Ukraine time to rearm. Which is a half-lie : Ukraine was, by February 2022, not sufficiently rearmed, and it was only saved by the courageous President (who was offered by Biden to be extracted from Kiev for an exile in Poland, but refused categorically) by its highly motivated and inventive military, by the stupidity of Russia's officers and apathy of the soldiers. [Zelensky proved to be a bad peace-time president, but his war-time determination rehabilitates him - in part.] Merkel and Holland also had something to be forgiven for: for the blindness vis-à-vis Putin, for having pressured Ukraine into the potentially disastrous Minsk II, for having amplified Germany's energetical dependency from Russia. All this had contributed to the current political and economic crises in Europe, but not only. As a consequence, Merkel, and now Hollande, took over the older Poroshenko's excuse. And also implicitly praised themselves how far-sighted, prescient politicians they were... The strongest argument you came with in favor of Minsk is that, once the accord was signed, it must be observed - whatever the consequences might be. This is not so: the Roman Law already, and also the Public International Law practice, provide for an wise escape clause: one does not have to keep a promise if this is fatal - but the standard for this is very strict.

Russia's military casualties are comparable with Ukraine's, so that the dark humor is easily reversible. Chances are that Zelenski will outlive the secluded dwarf (Putin) as president...

Wishful thinking. There are no signs that Russia is winning, only hopes based on mechanically counting and comparing the potential assets, like GDP or population. And ignoring: the motivation of the Ukrainian military, the Western weapons, Western sanctions, depletion of some important armament stocks, their lower quality, Russians' avoidance of recruitment, and so on. The race is far from being run... (I almost never watch or read CNN, but this linked analysis is similar to the Institute's for the Study of War, a source I found with time to be quite reliable.)

I don't think he's sarcastic... Yes, I am shocked, he did confirm this. I thought that @whYNOT, @Jon Letendreand @tadmjonesare marginal here, on this Objectivism forum, but it seems that they are here more mainstream then I thought... I guess they think of themselves as some kind of courageous nonconformists, while being of the worst kind of conformists.

And that is why you "now fully support Russia's cause in the Ukraine operation" ??

Yup. But how do you know "solid"? Who says? I decide for me what is a solid fact. No, this will not tell what is essential - the cause of this war. And who should have done the aversion.

I go by solid facts.

Sarcasm ?

I implied no such thing, I accurately quoted what Musk wrote in a tweet. You all by yourself imagined Musk or I was claiming it to be original to Musk. Then why mention precisely Musk in connection with that saying? The subject was not Musk, and that saying was quoted elsewhere by thousands of other people !

Are you a troll? In an Objectivist forum one expects to see good arguments. An argument for what? As I announced from the very beginning, about 8 months ago, I will question your numerous claims about facts by asking you to justify them and I will abstain from making myself such claims. I did indeed ask you to justify about a dozen of specific claims, you justified none, not s single one. Your opinions are based on nonexistent facts; they are provided by the sources where you find the pro-Putin opinions. Argument in support of what? Of my claims? I make none, to your desperation ! However, a few times I posted, as exceptions, my opinion pieces and brought evidence whenever I was asked to, and even if I wasn't. For example: you claimed that Putin mentioned in his February 24 war declaration that Ukraine's failure to abide by the Minsk accords as one of the reasons for his war. I asked you to prove it. You gave me some links where some commentators believed this was one of Putin's motives, w/claiming Putin did say this. Although it wasn't my duty, I checked the official President's Kremlin site for the transcript of Putin's declaration, and the word "Minsk" was missing... Your claim was disproved. Your reaction? A deafening silence... signaling a profound dishonesty. Another example: I posted a piece about Putin's deep motivation of the war against Ukraine (started in February 2014) as part of a long range plan reestablish Russia's "greatness". Your reaction? "Putin's "plans", imperialism - rationalist nonsense derived form texts". And that's about all ! Conclusion: you are incapable of and you evade a rational debate.

Don't you worry: I do also read the Russian propaganda (in Russian), as well as exiled Russian anti-Putin media (publications and analysts/commentators).

The purpose of arguing is NOT to convince - this will (almost) never happen. The purpose is to compare arguments. "You may never convince the other guy, but it's often worthwhile to keep arguing for the effect it has on bystanders. Especially his allies. L. Neil Smith" Another interesting observation: "Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.” ― Frantz Fanon (alas!!)

A hundred times what you have. Going by your demands from me for "evidence" you don't do any independent research. I am asking you for evidence for YOUR claims. I don't HAVE to research (although I sometimes do) and prove YOUR claims, only MINES, if asked to. If you research your claims a hundred times what I have, then why don't put here the results, that is the evidence? Because you are a zombified liar.

No, it isn't. Yes, sorry, you are correct, it doesn't seem to be by Mark Twain, according to Snopes. But it is certainly not by Elon Musk, contrary to what you implied.

Very well said - by Mark Twain.

This propaganda movie, co-produced in 2016 by Putin's admirer Oliver Stone is perfectly visible also on YouTube, not only on the Internet Archive is perfectly visible on YouTube also in the US It is a propaganda movie because, as remarked by reviewers on IMDB:

You want me to get caught in your "whatabout" game - by multiplying the subjects, but never justifying the claims I've asked you to justify. If you would have done it, we could have covered by now Minsk, Merkel and many other subject - which you never researched.

I am capable of entertaining any possibility in the sense that I am open to to examine the evidence for any claim. The problem is with you: you make dozen of claims about facts, but never present, upon request, real evidence, although you should, and you know it. And dishonesty and hypocrisy are, in your case, not slurs, but exact characterizations. PS: contrary to your claim, there is no Geneva Convention regarding mines; PPS: "[OSCE] not known to be impartial". Well, the Russian Federation considered it impartial enough from 21 March 2014 to 31 April 2022 (when, for the first time after 8 years, it vetoed its extension for another 12 months.) And our discussion was about this period of time.

You accepted?! As if it was me who brought up this reference !!! No, it is your source and it was trustworthy enough for you till yesterday. Now suddenly, when I presented a fragment that you overlooked (or hoped I won't notice) and you didn't like it, your source became, literally overnight, un-trustworthy. Such an hypocrisy! I said yesterday "let's take them [your claims] one after the other". The first point : Reuters/OSCE about Kiev targeting civilians. You were caught lying that Reuters/OSCE negated the evaluation that Kiev was NOT targeting civilians. So: where is the evasion?? Do you have something to add about this first point?

Below some of the unambiguous Reuters piece again. What don't you understand? <long, boring rant> Then: "OSCE reports surge in number of explosions in east Ukraine" Reuters MOSCOW, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Two regions in eastern Ukraine where government and separatist forces have been fighting since 2014 were hit by more than 1,400 explosions on Friday, monitors for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said, pointing to a surge in shelling. ... 0. The account you said OSCE (as reported by Reuters) negates, is this: "there was no identifiable pattern of targeting civilians and, therefore no genocide perpetrated by Ukraine in Donbass". 1. The subject was the claim about targeting civilians. Surge in shelling does not mean surge in targeting civilians. 2. From the Reuters article you omitted the very part which was relevant for the subject - the number of victims of these more than 1,400 explosions. Writes Reuters: One civilian causality after more than 1,400 explosions doesn't look like civilian were really targeted, does it? Therefore, the OSCE/Reuters account refutes your claim above. As well as the other one: "No genocide perpetrated" is disingenuous by the OSCE and UN. You've been caught lying again...

Which is why when you don't have the time to collect all the facts [...] you use likelihoods instead that take into account your lack of knowledge. No, you abstain from having an opinion on the subject.

OK, let's take them one after the other. I suppose that, before making all your claims to me, you carefully checked them out, knowing that I will ask for evidence. "OSCE negates this account, as reported in Reuters." Is it this account "that there was no identifiable pattern of targeting civilians and, therefore no genocide perpetrated by Ukraine in Donbass" ? Please put here the reference to the corresponding OSCE document, or at least to the Reuters account. A direct reference, not to the Russia Today's account of it. Then we'll see.

Strictly speaking, when it comes to many actors with various intentions, motives, and values, the conclusions you will draw from the facts can only be best guesses and approximations. Then one should abstain from drawing conclusions and wait for more facts to come up.

Elon Musk is wrong. We should evaluate various explanations considering the facts which were presented in order to justify the various explanations.

"The idea...is laughable Kremlin propaganda"... Unreal - a regional war in Europe was hidden for 8 years. Confirming my suspicions, a true conspiracy by the West to invite Russian retaliation - naturally, for no justification or provocation (that the public heard of and still haven't, going by your protest). Here are some - credible - numbers about "those 8 years", the Russian propaganda meme [repost from here]: ============================= About the figure of "14,000 pro-Russians dead": 14,000 is the number of the total conflict-related deaths in Ukraine in 2014-2021, civilian and military, as reported by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (see the January 2022 Report here). UN and OSCE had about 1,000 observers in the Donbass region. Considering the putinist propaganda about an alleged genocide perpetrated by Ukraine in Donbass, it is interesting to look at the numbers in more detail, by distinguishing between civil and military deaths. total: : 14,200-14,400 (estimated) military: 4,400 Ukrainian forces, 6,500 members of armed groups [incl. 4-500 Russian military] (estimated) civilian: at least 3,404 civilians (including the 298 deaths on board Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014) The civilian death represent 20% from the total; this suggests, and OSCE and UN reports confirmed, that there was no identifiable pattern of targeting civilians and, therefore no genocide perpetrated by Ukraine in Donbass. The first two years of conflict (2014-15) account for 90% of victims, the last three (2019-2021) for 2%. Therefore, propaganda claims that the Russia's February 2022 attack on Ukraine was designed to stop an ongoing genocide is ridiculous. It is one of the excuses, beside an alleged imminent NATO-sponsored Ukrainian attack, US bioweapons laboratories, nuclear weapons program and so on. =============================