Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    112

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    whYNOT reacted to Eiuol in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    I was referring to JL, who you quoted.
    But really, the site is mostly dead. You have the stupidity of a Q believer, the drunken ramblings of what resembles an old man who watches too much Newsmax, and the Socratic trolling of a guy who always hits space bar before a question mark. This is probably more than half the posts in the past few months. I just pop in once in a while hoping to see a decent threat on philosophy, but I can't resist sometimes to see how the psych ward is doing.
    Get out while you still can!
  2. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    I am stating that Russia has the right to self-defense like any nation. A principled thinker and/or nation, will not assert "for me but not for thee".
    I surely do not have to repeat and produce many others' words endlessly, that NATO encroachment, the outside militarizing of Ukraine, the outside meddling in its politics, an illegal and continuing Ukraine war against a portion of citizens based upon their ethnicity - a CIVIL war turned a blind eye to by the West - can NEVER have been committed innocently, arbitrarily, nor purposelessly. 
    A child could see that Russia was the target all along. Perhaps Putin couldn't see this ...
    Like this other dude you want an easy answer, categorically condemning Russia: Objectivists, in line with the self-righteous and warmongering neocons and most (woke) Leftists.
    But. This moral judgment is not open and shut, 'revealed knowledge', that intrinsicists yearn for,  it's complex.
    The collective West has acted immorally; and Putin has been immoral but not "unprovoked", as proven. 
    Such clearly deliberate ¬provocation¬ by the self-same West, is only one reason why its acts were immoral.
    In short, they wanted confrontation with Russia. With sanctions and all, this war was to be the final weakening and dismantling of Russia.
    More - "a proxy war". To exploit Ukraine's location and Ukrainian Russophobia to the West's ends - using and encouraging Ukrainians to fight on their behalf (and to hell with peace treaties) while their country gets "wrecked", which the West could not legally do themselves or (rightly) have not wished to lose their own soldiers in - is unbelievably callous and cynical and sacrificially immoral. 
    You fight your own battles, take your own licks - or else don't take on any non-self-defensive war.
     
  3. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?"
    Seshadri Kumar
    I just found this synopsis.
    Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked!
    Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there  - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..."
    Plausible deniability - as politicians say.
    Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up.
    https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa
  4. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from tadmjones in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?"
    Seshadri Kumar
    I just found this synopsis.
    Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked!
    Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there  - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..."
    Plausible deniability - as politicians say.
    Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up.
    https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa
  5. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Nothing but dissembling sophistry--for effect. You are quite the authoritarian, no?
    A true representative of your media. The facts are "out there", they require deduction.
    Have you even acknowledged the fact of an existing civil war, or not your "choice"? 
    I will read what you have to say, in case you come up with a substansive thought, don't expect replies.
     
  6. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from dream_weaver in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?"
    Seshadri Kumar
    I just found this synopsis.
    Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked!
    Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there  - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..."
    Plausible deniability - as politicians say.
    Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up.
    https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa
  7. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from dream_weaver in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "Avoiding making your moral judgment..."
    I haven't stopped, but stated over and over, the moral culpability has to be spread among all parties concerned.
    Not ONE comes off innocent.
    Trouble is, everyone expects a neatly wrapped "pure good versus pure evil" pronouncement. I've resisted that intrinsicism. That pre-judging without understanding is the product of willful ignorance, also of emotions and feelings which aren't "tools of cognition" - or of moral judgment.
    The Objectivist standard of value, "man's life" - remember?
    Contra-"man's life" acts, such as the non-rationality, deceit, evasions, malice, covetousness, sacrifices of others' lives, determinism, power and control, nationalist supremacy, collectivism, false pride --etc.,etc. have been on display by everyone, not least by the advanced and civilised nations, leaders and their institutions. 
     
     
  8. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    From an essay, an argument I entirely agree with for what (I believe) is the 100% interests of the USA, before we get to the self-interests of any other nations. "Permanent alliances".
    (I sometimes say, not interventionist nor never isolationist- independent. I'll chance my arm that's somewhat the vision George Washington had in mind in 1796).
    "Stark Realities with Brian McGlinchey"
    "How NATO Empire-Building Set the Stage for Crisis Over Ukraine"
    [Since the Cold War's end, "NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence"]
    Brian McGlinchey
    Jan 31
    "In his farewell address, George Washington said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
    What an offensive notion to Pentagon generals, weapon industry execs, DC think tankers and State Department bureaucrats, who, rather than avoiding permanent alliances, have been relentless in their quest to pile on new ones.
    That impulse is vividly exemplified by the dangerously provocative post-Cold War expansion of NATO, and its consequences are apparent in today’s Ukraine-centered tensions with Russia.
    NATO was created to oppose a Soviet empire that no longer exists. Had American presidents followed Washington’s sage counsel, they’d have spearheaded the dismantling of NATO upon the end of the Cold War. Instead, with America’s encouragement, NATO has nearly doubled its membership—from 16 countries when the Berlin Wall fell to 30 today.
    With each new member, the U.S. government and American service members are tied to another far-off tripwire: Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on any member country compels other treaty members to come to its aid. It’s the epitome of what Thomas Jefferson called an “entangling alliance.”
    While the growth in the number of NATO countries and U.S. war commitments is unsettling, it’s the direction that’s been most troublesome: NATO expansion has marched the alliance relentlessly eastward, right up to Russia’s border".
    [...]
  9. Confused
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/03/ukraine-nukes/
  10. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Is that concept so hard to entertain?
    But I see this difficulty all the time from those who are trapped in 'the bubble'. I observed the indoctrination methods from the media, leaders, intellectuals, think tanks, so-called experts - etc. and can see the effects. 
    First task: *to dehumanize* a people (Russians) - and *to demonize* (Putin). Once accomplished, by the steady drip of mass disinformation and omitted information and psy-ops, the reactive feelings of people, "the group mind", take over.
    Then, every vile act is possible or likely, even, expected (in their minds) and any decent acts absolutely impossible: by Russians and him. Nothing new, a race or group or whatever, once publicly dehumanized, is the necessary precursor to committing injustice and violence against them. 
    Against the deep background (NATO's long, ongoing and apparently meaningless expansion) - and the more recent anti-democratic acts of the assisted coup/Maidan and the Gvt. treatment of Russo-Ukrainians - a little later the militarizing of the Ukraine Army by NATO - now events led to this point, the clear and present danger of the UAF overcoming the "rebels" in a war with their Gvt.
    Consider a president across the border who has watched all those irrational and destructive actions unfold, and now, along with the rest to worry about, is faced with the immediacy of the conquest and very likely mass deaths and abuse (by Russian-hating, Nationalist extremists) of this group of embattled people (with a shared ethnicity, etc. - or not) and who now request from him military assistance. And it is feasible - to objective viewers - that he may well be humanely concerned for them--the decisive tipping point -- enough therefore to take "rescue action".
    (Additonal and extra to sorting out the over-riding, long term security concerns posed by Ukraine's excessive militarizing to his country).
    But to the masses this response is totally unthinkable. Established: Putin is evil. He's irrational/insane. He wants only to conquer and brutalize. He can't have human concerns. He is not permitted to hold values (e.g. in preserving his nation). Cognitive dissonance and denial is their only answer to these plausible alternative suggestions; rather than take independent thought that notion is blocked from their minds.
    I see this blocked mindset constantly from people's premises, online and personally.
  11. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Is that concept so hard to entertain?
    But I see this difficulty all the time from those who are trapped in 'the bubble'. I observed the indoctrination methods from the media, leaders, intellectuals, think tanks, so-called experts - etc. and can see the effects. 
    First task: *to dehumanize* a people (Russians) - and *to demonize* (Putin). Once accomplished, by the steady drip of mass disinformation and omitted information and psy-ops, the reactive feelings of people, "the group mind", take over.
    Then, every vile act is possible or likely, even, expected (in their minds) and any decent acts absolutely impossible: by Russians and him. Nothing new, a race or group or whatever, once publicly dehumanized, is the necessary precursor to committing injustice and violence against them. 
    Against the deep background (NATO's long, ongoing and apparently meaningless expansion) - and the more recent anti-democratic acts of the assisted coup/Maidan and the Gvt. treatment of Russo-Ukrainians - a little later the militarizing of the Ukraine Army by NATO - now events led to this point, the clear and present danger of the UAF overcoming the "rebels" in a war with their Gvt.
    Consider a president across the border who has watched all those irrational and destructive actions unfold, and now, along with the rest to worry about, is faced with the immediacy of the conquest and very likely mass deaths and abuse (by Russian-hating, Nationalist extremists) of this group of embattled people (with a shared ethnicity, etc. - or not) and who now request from him military assistance. And it is feasible - to objective viewers - that he may well be humanely concerned for them--the decisive tipping point -- enough therefore to take "rescue action".
    (Additonal and extra to sorting out the over-riding, long term security concerns posed by Ukraine's excessive militarizing to his country).
    But to the masses this response is totally unthinkable. Established: Putin is evil. He's irrational/insane. He wants only to conquer and brutalize. He can't have human concerns. He is not permitted to hold values (e.g. in preserving his nation). Cognitive dissonance and denial is their only answer to these plausible alternative suggestions; rather than take independent thought that notion is blocked from their minds.
    I see this blocked mindset constantly from people's premises, online and personally.
  12. Sad
    whYNOT got a reaction from William Scott Scherk in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    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. 
  13. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    You have not answered what you think Putin should have done re: the long civil war on the RF's border -- in which Russian-Ukrainians have been and are yet today being indiscriminately shelled and killed by their own government without end in sight (to be tedious).
    Would you, being a president, have ignored it?
    A war, not merely being passively ignored by EU and NATO, nor even intervened with to stop hostilities, but actively abetted.
    No one asks "why". What was in it for the West?
    (Ha! I deliberately gave you "gentle" anticipating a predictable response).
  14. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Ah, just that some people and countries do somehow object to a neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals. Silly, I know. You'd find that tolerable over in your country, wouldn't you (?), so why the fuss Putin's been making about Ukraine potentially getting nuke capability presented by that benign, 'defensive' organization?
    Cynically called whataboutism, no - it's  a solid principle. Morally principled or unprincipled actions have objective base, regardless of who's involved. Wrong in Cuba, wrong in Ukraine.
    Each nation or individual has a right to protect their own safety and well-being. It/he/she can lay down a red line that others cross at their risk.
    Goes also for outsiders helping build a great army for your unfriendly neighbor. For what target? Could it be you?
    Every nuke-owning nation makes use of their nuclear weapons constantly; the guy who points a gun at someone and demands his cash. He doesn't need to ever fire the weapon. That's an "implicit" threat for illicit gain, goes over the head of some but apparently understood by Putin. 
  15. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Ah, just that some people and countries do somehow object to a neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals. Silly, I know. You'd find that tolerable over in your country, wouldn't you (?), so why the fuss Putin's been making about Ukraine potentially getting nuke capability presented by that benign, 'defensive' organization?
    Cynically called whataboutism, no - it's  a solid principle. Morally principled or unprincipled actions have objective base, regardless of who's involved. Wrong in Cuba, wrong in Ukraine.
    Each nation or individual has a right to protect their own safety and well-being. It/he/she can lay down a red line that others cross at their risk.
    Goes also for outsiders helping build a great army for your unfriendly neighbor. For what target? Could it be you?
    Every nuke-owning nation makes use of their nuclear weapons constantly; the guy who points a gun at someone and demands his cash. He doesn't need to ever fire the weapon. That's an "implicit" threat for illicit gain, goes over the head of some but apparently understood by Putin. 
  16. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Yes.
    And next year? I don't believe the security situation would have improved for Russia.
  17. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    The facts are unpalatable to you. I've given dozens of experts who provide facts. What would I expect but anger from anyone finding out their supplied 'facts' were all wrong, part wrong, or as I repeated, "omitted"? There are going to be many who slowly uncover the lies, reality will be harsh. 
  18. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    The list goes on. How far will he go, is the concern. For the umpteenth time, desperate Zel has tried to drag in (more, to the nihilist extreme) foreign assistance and armies for outcomes of acts he knows were self-inflicted, not Russian doings. "Projection" as it's been called.
    But let's not ruin his idealized image!
  19. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    If you don't know by now who/what 'started it' you never will. Tough how it's turned out and will turn out for Ukraine, and I've not suggested Putin is nice, but conflict can be the consequence of denying democracy and equal rights to a part of the population by reason of ethnicity (and 'the sins of their fathers'). 
    "Why would so many countries...."etc? They were gulled into panic by academics etc. into believing they were next to be invaded.
    The 'self-fulfilling prophecy' of NATO: "we told you Russia would be dangerous again - one day". It only took about 30 years of NATO aggravations to finally have its (null) reason for continued existence to be vindicated.
    Human nature, simple psychology, you treat others with suspicion or hostility they eventually turn unfriendly.
  20. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "If you don't already know no explanation is possible". I've heard that line from propagandists and mystics.
    No use talking with you.
  21. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Not a clue what you are going on about, what excuse, feeding what family? Explain. But you do remember who imposed the sanctions? Not Russia. The Western authorities did this and the pain of shortages etc. rebounds on their own populaces, and the powers helped foment this war for some underhand purposes, the economic consequences to be felt by everyone.
    Those useful -and obedient- idiots who are in the majority in the EU and Britain--are convinced self-sacrifice (you heard about altruism in "Objectivism", I guess) is the ¬moral¬ thing to do -because their Gvt's told them so and their media created a false narrative that appeals to their feelings - done to "punish" Putin and bleed Russia, rather than disdain to negotiate with him.
    (If they'd done so early on, any negotiations would unfortunately have revealed the unreported and brutal war that Ukraine had been carrying out since 2015 - that would have compromised the images of Kyiv's innocence and Putin's inherent evil, to the world. That wouldn't do; the talks were blocked).
    Societies will suffer and the Ukrainians suffer. Simply because a Story has been constructed replacing the reality that takes in the useful idiots. Who don't hear the true causes for the invasion, or if they do, evade and call it 'Russian propaganda'.
    I see you are highly sensitive to anything outside of your select western propaganda. Naturally you 'd object to reading possible facts that collide with your belief system. Besides, I've quoted RT, not the others, little. With your emotional reaction to RT you can't realize that most of their news items are lifted from the wire, Reuters, AP, with little embellishment and comment and not written by staff, or abbreviated re-writes.
  22. Like
    whYNOT got a reaction from Jon Letendre in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Your understanding is usually shallow.
    It is not 'anti - American' to be strongly against NATO without whose egregious manipulations and military-political-economic, um, "support" for Ukraine (read - belligerence against Russia) this regional war would have been a non-starter (and could surely have been resolved peacefully between the two countries involved).
    It is not 'anti-American' to be against the conflict-escalating, self-sacrificial reactions of this present US Administration.
    This is ostensively not a war that furthers America's self-defense nor national self-interest.
    Therefore, many "such commentators" and myself are distinctly PRO-American. Where does that leave all you others?
    On the war-mongering side are aligned the indoctrinated, useful idiots who may not know they are are in fact, anti-life. The purpose of the avalanche of western propaganda is to conceal one fact: humans are being sacrificed to the West's "noble intentions". 
  23. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Your understanding is usually shallow.
    It is not 'anti - American' to be strongly against NATO without whose egregious manipulations and military-political-economic, um, "support" for Ukraine (read - belligerence against Russia) this regional war would have been a non-starter (and could surely have been resolved peacefully between the two countries involved).
    It is not 'anti-American' to be against the conflict-escalating, self-sacrificial reactions of this present US Administration.
    This is ostensively not a war that furthers America's self-defense nor national self-interest.
    Therefore, many "such commentators" and myself are distinctly PRO-American. Where does that leave all you others?
    On the war-mongering side are aligned the indoctrinated, useful idiots who may not know they are are in fact, anti-life. The purpose of the avalanche of western propaganda is to conceal one fact: humans are being sacrificed to the West's "noble intentions". 
  24. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    "Escalation":
    es.kəˈleɪ.ʃən/ a situation in which something becomes greater or more serious:
    "Warmonger":
    a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups. https://youtu.be/rbFKREU13dQ
    After 6 mins in. (and the indisputable controls of info by a biased Google search)
     
  25. Haha
    whYNOT got a reaction from AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    Some confusion about a "treaty", whether between NATO and Russia or between Kyiv and the rebel Donbas. In short. The first was not formalized explicitly, the second Minsk I and II (2014/15) was explicitly agreed to by all parties including Russia, but not finally acted upon by the Gvt. responsible, Kyiv (but, yes, violations on both sides) who merely resorted to carrying out increased war up until this year.
    I searched for articles that help put things in perspective. I highly recommend them all. They review actions and inaction, Western and Russian goals, attitudes and misconceptions which brought things to a head and this point. Again, the supplied facts and substance and arguments in them appear hardly at all, to the extent of being buried, in the propagandized media 'spin'.  Notice the dates. There's almost prescience for future events, i.e., conceptual thinking.
    Albeit socialist by conviction and political leaning, the journalists have great integrity: Parry, Hedges, etc., excoriate the propaganda techniques, in wars especially, that they intimately understand, and are/were a class above the rest, I think.
    2015: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/19/ukraines-poison-pill-for-peace-talks/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAQQAg&usg=AOvVaw3tE2IDnW7callqhwxLoZit
    March, 2022: https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/01/chris-hedges-the-greatest-evil/
    2015: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/09/obamas-stupid-propaganda-stuff/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw1Ek-kKW7llRW6zg4-uQGpm
    Feb 2022:https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/02/us-reaping-what-it-sowed-in-ukraine/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw0Pr-nFYGAsEN8Iz9R_qzrO
    May 2022: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/10/caitlin-johnstone-if-the-us-wanted-peace-in-ukraine/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw3dwpR3gnHI5VuBcVFeqUeL
×
×
  • Create New...