AlexL

This is nothing but an ad hominem and an argument from intimidation. OK, then show : where is the ad hominem in the above quote, that is what @whYNOT's argument did I answer by an attack on his person? same for the alleged argument from intimidation.

Yes, this is an Ayn Rand fan-forum, but it is practically unmoderated (the nominal moderator is @dream_weaver). As a consequence, @whYNOT does not consider having an obligation to back up his claims with facts, even if asked to. Also, he is approvingly referencing and quoting Putin's Russia governmental media and non-Russian commentators working for these media, which also don't back up their claims with facts, or back them up with fake "facts". You may follow my debate with @whYNOT in this "About the Russian aggression of Ukraine" one year old thread. It is very long, so that you have to be quite motivated... Pay attention to his constant anti-Western, particularly anti-Western media stance. He sees the generally pro-Ukraine position of the mainstream Western media as being a result of the activity of a centrally-driven propaganda machine - a conspiracy, IOW. He sees no other possible explanation. The tactics I am using with him is to challenge him to prove his claims with facts. He never does, thus confirming his irrationality, but this doesn't bother him, nor does it bother the moderator... So yes, @whYNOT is an Ayn Rand fan, but only in the sense that he quotes her from time to time, with no visible understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics/politics. Maybe this happens only with the subject Putin vs Ukraine... His current defense of Israel's right to exist and defend itself is not based on principles, it is a whim: as I already said, even a broken clock is right twice a day.😁

Was driven? More like a PR coup, than anything significantly meaningful. Joining a military block - a PR coup? Rather unusual... But... why not?😁 Do you have evidence that this was the reason? And that's a slur against her? ... For "peace", so long as they are not pacifists against self-defence Is Agnes Hellström for self-defence? Some evidence? In Israel's case, for example?

Well, this is not quite exact. More precisely, it is quite INexact: Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), added by the Lisbon Treaty, states: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States." IOW, it includes a caveat that this obligation does not prejudice the security and defense policies of any members that have a "specific character", like those of neutral countries. Therefore, Sweden and Finland did not end their neutrality status by joining the EU. Besides, while Article 42(7) does create an obligation of mutual assistance between EU members in the case of armed aggression, it leaves significant flexibility in how that assistance is provided. Implementation of EU mutual defense clause is left to the discretion of individual member states. Responses could include diplomatic, economic or humanitarian aid rather than direct military force. Not even the NATO Treaty's Art. 5 does commit members to an obligation to fight !

Neutral Sweden was driven into joining up by Putin's aggression of Ukraine. Agnes Hellström is a "peace activist"... OTOH it is true that even a broken clock is right twice a day... as you were right about Israel😁

What exactly do you mean by "a STRONG neutrality. A neutrality that wasn't worth challenging"?

Our subject was voluntary vs conscription-based army. A standing army may be voluntary, or conscription-based, or mixed. US army is a standing army, but is relying solely on volunteers without conscription. Standing armies, conscription-based: North Korea, Belarus, Iran, Cuba Standing armies, mixed model (some positions are filled by volunteers, while others are filled via conscription): ex. South Korea and Israel. No, they don't. They rely on NATO. The subject was not on what/whom they rely for their defense, but what kind are their OWN armies

Thank you for the reference. 1. "Yaron calling Israel's conscription "evil"" a. This is not all that Yaron ever said about conscription, the Israeli one in particular. In general, Yaron has called for the abolition of mandatory military conscription in all countries. He believes that voluntary militaries are (a) more efficient and effective, and (b) that they respect the individual's right to self-determination. b. Yaron: 2. UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Netherlands and Denmark all rely exclusively on volunteers without any element of conscription currently.

🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣

I go by facts, not by phantasy. Thanks for your - involuntary - compliment ! I understand: you mean the objections are too good to be mine. 😁 No, the objections are mine, but the facts are not mine. Do you want to change from yours to mine? No, mine doesn't hire stupid and immoral bastards.

Sevastopol is not RF's, can't you understand this ??? And RF has no a priory right to the ability to control the Black Sea, to make it its "pond"! Why shouldn't it be Turkey's "pond"? Or Romania's? Or Ukraine's? Or Bulgaria's? Whose "pond" is the Mediterranean? Observing Putin's Russia, I would prefer the Black Sea be NATO's "pond". NATO/US never brought dictatorship to a (semi)free country, but Russia did. Besides, I showed that Putin could have the Black See as his "pond" even without Sebastopol, and even envisaged such a move, but this is an inconvenient truth for you. HOW hungry were NATO etc.? Was there a document, an official statement published/leaked about this? Why isn't it all over the Internet, or at least on the Kremlin site? So: bring out proof and not idle speculations. But this would be an absolute première, so that I am not holding ma breath

I did not write "massively". But a change there has been. No, you didn't write "massively". But you should have, because a few percent of a population "observing, introspecting and changing their minds" does not mean a change in culture or mentality you were taking about as a reality in today's Russia. Therefore, if you still believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it by facts. You mentioned only one: To which I commented: Therefore I am waiting for a true proof of your claim.

Correct. Then, if you believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it.

Character is not (pre)determind and is not innate. Neither is the (dominant) culture.

Israel's War -- Update | Yaron Brook

Breaking News -- Israel Under Attack

Because they and their economy were just beginning to do well. i.e. there was and is a lot more personal freedom than before. 1. Beginning to do better - yes, starting from about 1998 and only some. Russia's economy was stagnating at least since 2012; 2. They were given some personal freedom (first by Gorbachev, by mistake), it did not result from a (mythical) "distaste of fearful obedience to the state". A. Rand had, without being a Racist, a very bad opinion about the Russian mentality and culture of submission and collectivism. If you consider that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively observed, introspected and changed their minds, then prove it.

This jumps out at me: [Not because of NATO expansion], "but because he believed NATO was weak..." Oh, you then DO accept my challenge of showing that at least some of ISW's 40+ claims are factually false ! OK, I am getting my popcorn ready!

OK, be my guest, question it. Based on facts, for once.

Wrong. For the public, the causal order of events has been regularly reversed or neglected by propagandists, here, to make Putin's acts "an illegal annexation". Corrected: An ultra-nationalist motivated and foreign-backed coup -- rendered obsolete Moscow's Lease agreement with Kyiv. Calm down: 1. I did not challenge the termination by Putin of the leasing agreement(s). As Crimea, in Putin's view, no longer belonged to Ukraine, the Leasing Agreement had no object any more. 2. What I wrote is the exact justification Putin provided in the Federal Law "On termination of agreements relating to the stay of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the territory of Ukraine". Here is the relevant part: They say nothing about an ultra-nationalist motivated and foreign-backed coup that rendered obsolete Moscow's Lease agreement with Kyiv. They simply say that the Lease Agreements are obsolete because Crimea does not belong anymore to Ukraine, but to Russia.

It is the concept of ... democracy. Heard of it? People get to choose their political dispensation. Let's specify which concept of yours we are talking about. It is this: And you approve this !!! Well, I am speechless.

The significant fact of MY comment was that your claim that without Sebastopol proved to be false. It became evident that Russia had indeed alternative options to Sebastopol along its 700 km long Black Sea coastline, with Putin as my witness. Indeed, soon after a Ukrainian President, in or shortly after 2005, declared that the lease would not extend beyond its expiration in 2017, construction began on an alternative military port in Novorossiysk, on Putin's order. In essence, Putin had alternatives to Sebastopol, was aware of them, and immediately initiated preparations for an alternative, with the latest possible target date being 2017. Therefore, the argument that it was inevitable for Russia to permanently lose access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean for naval and trade routes is unfounded. Furthermore, the recent news highlights the importance of the Novorossiysk port, as a dozen major Russian military vessels were urgently relocated from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk due to its perceived safety from potential Ukrainian threats. As for whether Putin regrets or not having stopped the construction in Novorossiysk in 2010, your hypothesis that he halted it because the Ukraine-friendly President Yanukovych successfully pushed for a 25-year lease extension is plausible. However, if this assumption holds true, then Putin made a grave error in 2010. Here's why: Even in your own quote from Wikipedia regarding the 25-year lease extension, it is briefly mentioned that "The agreement... roused much controversy in Ukraine." However, the situation was much more more serious than that. Ratification faced violent opposition, with police having to intervene aggressively to quell protesters outside the Parliament, where up to 30,000 people gathered over several days. Inside the Parliament, "The adoption of the law was accompanied by protests from deputies of opposition parties. A massive fight broke out in the session hall between supporters and opponents of ratification. The Speaker of the Parliament was pelted with chicken eggs..." "Despite the protests and unrest, the Parliament adopted the Law... with 236 deputies voting 'for,' just above the required majority of 226 votes." This means that if just 6 out of the 450 deputies (1.3%) had changed their votes, the extension of the Sevastopol lease to Russia beyond 2017 would not have occurred. Putin was acutely aware that ratification could have easily failed, and he should have drawn the necessary conclusions. If he intended to maintain a substantial military presence in the Black Sea, he couldn't rely on the volatile nature of Ukrainian politics. If he did indeed draw these conclusions, it would have been unwise to halt the expansion of Novorossiysk based on the fragile foundation of a 25-year lease. Therefore, either he made a misguided decision, which seems unlikely, or he already had more ambitious plans in place to mitigate this risk, as mentioned in a previous comment. The context is that, as of March 31, 2014, according to Putin's perspective, Crimea no longer belonged to Ukraine, rendering the Leasing Agreement with Ukraine obsolete.

What are the facts that suggest that Russians have acquired a distaste of fearful obedience to the state? For example, does their (sad) history confirm this?

About the leasing of parts of Ukrainian Sevastopol to Russian Federation you write: I am glad you brought this up. Tell me more about the facts. You seem to know nothing. But you can prove me wrong. For example: Ukraine and Russia signed the first Sevastopol leasing treaty in 1997, valid until 2017. During the presidency of Victor Yushchenko (January 2005 – February 2010) the Ukrainian government declared that the lease would NOT be extended at expiration and that the Russian fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017. What did the Russian President do? Did he kill Yushchenko, the neo-Nazi? Did he invade Crimea? Did he bomb Kiev? Not at all ! He budgeted with several billions the extension of the already largest port at the Black Sea, the port of Novorossiysk. which was on the Russian territory. Thus, in 2005 it was announced that until 2017 two new military naval bases will be created in Novorossiysk, substantially larger than Sebastopol's. The large scale construction project was started. The Black Sea Fleet was to be moved from Sebastopol to Novorossiysk by the end of the leasing. So much about Russia "losing the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time" and having "no other option" than snatch Sevastopol and the entire Crimea immediately! The other option was to build or extend one of the other ports Russia had at the Black Sea along the 700 km coastline. Novorossiysk was probably the best choice, but there were also other ports : Sochi and Tuapse, as well as smaller ones like Anapa, Temryuk and Yeysk. The Novorossiysk project was abandoned : Putin had larger and bolder projects, of geostrategic scope, so that Novorossiysk, a replacement of Sebastopol, was not needed anymore...

So: THIS is your concept of legality !!! It is perfectly stupid (incidentally, it is the opposite to even the Putin's Russia concept of legality - at least for Crimea). Besides being illegal, it is also illegitimate, that is unjustifiable by moral-political considerations. UN observers: UN election observation are often criticized over lack of transparency, inconsistent methodology, and potential political biases in evaluation and endorsement of results. And I doubt that UN will agree to supervise (which implies endorsement) referendums/elections in an country occupied by foreign army which overthrew the previous government... It would mean endorsement also of the overthrow... UN will never do this. Nor any other multinational organization. Not even BRICS or BRICS++ 😁