Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

whYNOT last won the day on November 13

whYNOT had the most liked content!

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Africa; "Where liberty dwells, there is my country

Previous Fields

  • Country
    SouthAfrica
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    tony garland
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation
    photography,reading,writing

Recent Profile Visitors

12265 profile views

whYNOT's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

218

Reputation

  1. Really, think. a. Was there an 8 year assault on the breakaway East? Yes? b. Was it going to extend into 2022? Well, of course. Why rationally would Kyiv have 'a change of heart', cease fire and suddenly return to Minsk ? c. Were NATO, the Brits and others, not-so-covertly training and arming the UAF, at least documented during 2021 if not before? What FOR? That Kyiv could attack, maybe... Moldava? Romania? OR, the Donbass? who knows, perhaps invading Russian forces, subsequently (- to those devious western minds in charge). Therefore, forget the quibbles about "proof" of a possible greater and concerted attack this year, it's superfluous: the fighting would not stop into year 9 or 10 or until Ukraine had devastated the Donbass. Okay? Without (or with) a fresh assault planned last Spring, the danger to those inhabitants was imminent and everyday, about 14,000 and counting. Q: Is it your conviction Putin should have ignored them, turned a blind eye and let the conflict fester?
  2. The necessity, given the West's ferocity of Ukrainian support, to increase Russia's troop strength and adopt a less restrained policy is unsurprising. That ferocity actually proves Putin's case of NATO etc. posing an existential threat to Russia ("it is not paranoia if someone is actually out to get you"). At first, I remarked, it's near certainty Putin thought - wrongly - a show of strength would be enough to pressure Kyiv into the talks and preclude more fighting. Without meddling outsiders it should have worked. There's no other logical explanation for invading with minimal forces or not first wiping out the grid, etc.-etc. The Press built it up as a comprehensive war to brutalize, defeat and occupy Ukraine, like with you the spin was globally consumed, consistent with general fear and contempt for Russians. You are fixated on Russian media, told you my sources are diverse. That the same few writers and speakers crop up often, is a testament to the small numbers who aim for the truth and reality.Who understand that liars and propagandists create a fantasy which gets people unnecessarily killed. e.g. I found this a minute ago: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/washingtons-carthaginian-peace-collides-with-reality/
  3. Of course they would be "confident of a victory"! This was a recently resuscitated and very large UAF, built up by NATO expertise and arms (and now incorporating neo-Nazi battalions). Up until then, there was only the ( while very effective) Donbass militia to defend the Donbass. For evidence, look at the tough time the UAF has given the SMO Russian force - plus the militia. Ukraine would obviously have thrashed the Donbass with great loss of life and uprooting of the civilians (into Russia, where Kyiv believes they belong). You need to make these deductions for yourself. "They were attacked". Oh right, the poor innocents, going about their normal daily war business. Who'd have guessed Russia would come in to help out... Somebody had to stop the fight, but no one else turned up. See no evil, hear no evil, that was the EU and NATO. And btw, why should NATO, if that were possible, have to get its hands dirty when Ukraine would do it for them?
  4. You knew from the start all about that coup, the treatment of Russian ethnicity-speakers, a civil war and broken agreements but have ventured no opinion or even moral judgment? More clueless than I was.
  5. I detect some sour grapes. The freshly enlisted don't have to be any better than the previous, they only have to adequately man many more artillery pieces, tanks, missile launchers. Ukraine forces and weapons have already been severely depleted. The reference to Russian history has been what esp. scholars relied upon to make their fallacious war intentions and "Russian imperialism" predictions: What went before indicates what happens in future is basic determinism. Do you believe generals can never learn from past mistakes? This time round, it's evident that their troops were pulled back from difficult positions, seldom engaging concentrated enemy forces. Short of numbers, their long front lines have been thinly stretched. The war policy was clearly saving soldiers' lives before immediate land gains, and taking up strong defensive positions to wait for the Ukrainians to come into range and a slow "war of attrition". Russian casualty figures estimated by the West greatly exaggerated, another propaganda exercise.
  6. I explained my initial position mainly in the Ukraine thread at OL and it hasn't changed. The culpability for the conflict was on all sides. So end this war before it escalates, send in the diplomats, apply pressure to freeze hostilities. A potential deal was on the table. But by March/April the west sensed the smell of victory over Russia and nothing was going to stop them. (Again, in September, after a few temporary withdrawals by Russian forces there was the brief window for Ukraine to negotiate from a better bargaining position - but no, the idiots advised it was "the beginning of the end" for Russia). I will never forgive those self-aggrandizing, warmongering political leaders and military experts and world media who sought 'triumph' above the lives lost to (never) achieve it (short of total war).
  7. Panneta is right. That was western propaganda at work, to terrify everyone into compliance. There was never the early intention to occupy and overthrow, it was logically apparent at the start. How far the RF decides to go now, since the West and Ukraine raised the stakes to zero-sum, let's roll the dice, win/lose - nobody can tell.
  8. You got it in one. There were several opportunities for a way out, no one took them up.
  9. You've missed the main features, your opinions are based on stock, msm narrative. Identify then judge, right? Would it have satisfied you if Russia had come in ultra-hard and blitzed everything immediately, gaining a fast victory? But they did not. This has been a gentle approach this far. The basic rules of warfare were discarded by Russia : the conventional wisdom, one needs a 3:1 advantage over the invaded country's forces; then one - initially, not 9 months in - pounds the civilian infrastructure (to cut the electrical grid etc. to prevent mobility and comms of enemy forces); one decapitates the enemy state by laying siege to the capital and capturing the gvt. heads; one does not go out of the way to not harm civilians; etc. etc. Did you observe any of those tactics? Under strength and outnumbered by at least 1 : 3, and an effective and brave UAF (modernly equipped and officers trained by NATO, after all), it's quite surprising how well Russia did in mostly securing the Donbas and other territories. The big BUT, that no one ever mentioned, is this "SMO" is a tiny fraction of the forces Russia could put in the field, if and when they chose to do so. It was commanded with disciplined restraint by their generals, seeking one infers, an early ceasefire and talks. (And don't believe the inflated casualty figures, the Russian army has been highly conservative about risking their men, pulling them back where their position is weak - which - further emboldens the expert idiots you read in e.g. the Telegraph: our boys are soon going to drive them out! ). Therefore, ultimately Ukraine alone can't ever win a war against Russia and will destroy itself trying.. That had to be the deciding criterion from the start, what will opposing Russia gain Ukraine? If they'd known they could not win, would they have gone this far? Only martyrs and suicides would assert they'd still be willing. Phase two begins shortly with about 300k reservists now entering the rear echelons and into the front lines. . Russia will be taking the gloves off. The propagandists pulled the psy-ops off brilliantly, you create alarm and panic in neighboring countries by assuring them they and all Europe are also in danger from a powerful, marauding Russia - to induce them to come on board with self-damaging sanctions and parting with endless military supplies and cash to Ukraine - at the same time, your military 'experts' inform everyone that the Russia army is weak and inept, to induce Ukr troops to fight and be killed until their inevitable victory. In that mental confusion nobody thinks straight. Critical thinkers would have seen the self-contradiction: Is Russia so strong - or, so weak? The Law of Identity "... at the same time and in the same respect" both those can't be true. But indoctrination depends on uncritical thinkers.
  10. What about the "neo-Nazis", so prevalent and condemned in articles some years back, and now sanitized by media and politicians down the 'memory hole'?? Odd when you need to find the only decent reporting from a socialist. This fellow throws light on the neo-Nazi, Right Sector, etc., movements he seems very familiar with, confirms a suspicion that the small number of them with racist hatred for anything Russian, including Russo-Ukrainians, violently hijacked and utilized the - undemocratic - Maidan coup from the peaceable majority of Ukrainians who simply aspired to align westwards. But their virulent power in politics and the military (and with Zelensky) is greatly disproportionate to their numbers. If correct, Putin has a valid point - "denazification" is necessary.
  11. Simple, if you missed the "explanation". Ritter and several other western experts have been certain throughout this war won't be won by Ukraine. Which was glaringly apparent from the first day to anyone who is honest, realistic and knows military capabilities. The question of what to do with that knowledge, the solution from day one: NEGOTIATE a reasonable settlement, and fast. Ukraine would then have had to abide by Minsk by granting Donbas autonomy, or, more probably - after the invasion - lost some territory to Russia. Now that things have escalated out of sight, it stands to lose much more. AND, obviated the unbelievable human costs which followed and still will, locally and abroad. However, the arrogant fools and sacrificers demanded nothing short of victory over Putin...and still do. Ritter and others actually care about those wasted lives.
  12. Questions for you: Do you acknowledge the war against and killing of the Donbas civilians -"terrorists" (Zelensky) - was actually a true 8 year cycle of events ? If so, at what stage did you find out, this year - or previously? If so, who should have taken the major responsibility for ceasing the bombing of people by the government, as agreed by the government? And since the treaty was not implemented by Kyiv, do you not think that any rational citizens there would forever distrust and permanently want to cut ties with their government? i.e. accede. These are serious questions, because I know of nobody personally who knew of, followed or cared about that Ukraine civil war (which has been the lead-up to this one) and found a very few online. I knew little about it. The only explanation, they/we weren't informed. It was kept in the dark. All to do with propagandizing the public's awareness or lack of. For what, more pointedly, whose ends? I've commented that there are two broad groups apparent, those who believe Feb 24 was the absolute start of the conflict, i.e. the concretists, and those who know better, whom I notice tend to be conceptualists (whatever their individual ideologies) and who can hold a greater assimilated amount of information and moral judgments -- which is none too easy, given the unfolding, unpredictable nature of a war. (Even this Russian peacenik prejudiced against her Gvt. for the apparent cause of the terrible war indicated she was shocked at the silent suffering by Donbas residents until confronted by it, and when seeing the regular bombing and its effects, esp. of Donetsk city, that continued for all that time until the present day, without any in the West concerned.) What does it all prove?: one had better understand all sides quite well and some recent history before passing moral judgment. Then one might find the Kyiv gvt./s does not hold the moral high ground, as loudly trumpeted about - and never has, since the coup. Fact: with the build up by NATO training and weaponizing the Ukrainian army was preparing to demolish the Donbas in the past Spring. Fact: until then, Putin was reluctant to go in, refusing pleas by the Donbas militias for direct intervention for some period. (Or didn't you know that?) One can do better by considering and integrating loads of evidence, reality as one's only arbiter, isolated from ¬who¬ said "xyz" and ¬where¬ it was published. Forget this propensity to authoritarian reputations and superficial 'appearances'; the best can be and are disreputable/devious and the worst can sometimes be truthful. In between there are many honest men with expertise.
  13. Judge Napolitano with Ritter: "elements of the Ukraine military"? "Negotiations"? https://youtu.be/21EY6g5z7c0
  14. Some individuals need to know and find out for themselves. One upset young Russian woman horrified with the war found that she had no clue of true events in Eastern Ukraine, as stifled and distorted by western propaganda, and modified her moral judgments when she heard and saw for herself. An extraordinary independence in times when most others need to be told what to think.
  15. A Russian translator's story. "Not knowing is worse" https://youtu.be/0OysQ7yQl_o
×
×
  • Create New...