Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

*** Split from: Objectivists are working to save the world from tyranny--isn't that altruism? ***

23 hours ago, The Laws of Biology said:
  • Just looking around the present world, and looking back at history, it seems that tyranny is far and ahead the dominant form of government.
  • Just today I saw a news report that a gov't official in Russia had said that domestic opponents to Russia's current war in Ukraine will be sent to concentration camps.
  • What was achieved in the USA in 1789 (when the U.S. Constitutioin was instituted) may be really anomolous and unsustainable.
  • Even in ancient Greece, in places like Athens, they had democracy from time to time, but I think more often they had tyrants, oligarchs, and so on, and eventually they got Alexander the Great (just as later on other locates got the various Caesars, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin, and so on).
  • Maybe tyranny just follows from the dominant human nature.
  • Thus, the January 6, 2020 riot at the U.S. Capitol can be viewed as a preview of the coming tyranny, oligarchy, or whatever you want to call it. (cf. Beer Hall Putsch of 1923)
  • Maybe the Objectivist conception of a better future is just a beautiful dream.
  • Maybe it is comparable, in a sense, to the very different beautiful dream a better future held by the Democratic Socialists.
  • Maybe. 
  • But, in any case, Ayn Rand is definitely a great novelist and a great philosopher.

>Just today I saw a news report that a gov't official in Russia had said that domestic opponents to Russia's current war in Ukraine will be sent to concentration camps.

What was the news source? Most of what mainstream media has presented to the public regarding Ukraine has been propaganda. Even many images have been shown to be hoaxes.

Ethnic Russians who speak Russian but live in Ukraine don't want to live under a Ukraine government run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) with a puppet president (Zelensky). The Ukraine government has been shelling the ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine since 2014 and thousands of those Ukrainians have been killed. Additionally, as Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, has confirmed in a recent videotaped Senate hearing, Ukraine has a number of bioweapons laboratories (she called them "research facilities") that we now know through documents released by the Pentagon, were and are, financed by the U.S. Apparently, Mr. Putin doesn't like the idea of U.S.-backed bio-weapons labs on his doorstep, especially given what is now know via leaked emails, etc., from Fauci, Daszak, Baric, et al., regarding gain-of-function research on viruses that began in North Carolina (Chapel Hill, University of N. Carolina, Fort Dietrich) and continued in Wuhan, China at their Institute of Virology. 

Can't understand why anyone would uncritically believe the narrative spun by mainstream media. 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Economic Freedom said:

>Just today I saw a news report that a gov't official in Russia had said that domestic opponents to Russia's current war in Ukraine will be sent to concentration camps.

What was the news source? Most of what mainstream media has presented to the public regarding Ukraine has been propaganda. Even many images have been shown to be hoaxes.

Ethnic Russians who speak Russian but live in Ukraine don't want to live under a Ukraine government run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) with a puppet president (Zelensky). The Ukraine government has been shelling the ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine since 2014 and thousands of those Ukrainians have been killed. Additionally, as Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, has confirmed in a recent videotaped Senate hearing, Ukraine has a number of bioweapons laboratories (she called them "research facilities") that we now know through documents released by the Pentagon, were and are, financed by the U.S. Apparently, Mr. Putin doesn't like the idea of U.S.-backed bio-weapons labs on his doorstep, especially given what is now know via leaked emails, etc., from Fauci, Daszak, Baric, et al., regarding gain-of-function research on viruses that began in North Carolina (Chapel Hill, University of N. Carolina, Fort Dietrich) and continued in Wuhan, China at their Institute of Virology. 

Can't understand why anyone would uncritically believe the narrative spun by mainstream media. 

I think his point was tyranny still exists... because "concentration camps".

His particular example is not relevant to his point here... he could point to North Korea for example.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug Morris said:

What are your grounds for this accusation?

>What are your grounds for this accusation?

You're serious? Statements by the Azov Battalion espousing Nazism. Many are saying that their members shouldn't even be called "Neo-Nazis"; they're simply good, old-fashioned Nazis, similar to the Ukrainians in WWII who sided with the 3rd Reich. There are also many statements by Ukrainians regarding atrocities against them by the Ukrainian army (not the Russian Federation army). Watch, also news from Europe, especially the French journalist living in Ukraine, Anne-Laure Bonnel. 

Ukraine (the government, not the majority of the people) is a hotbed of corruption, including bioweapons manufacturing (which they call "research", and which our State Department is now calling "Defensive"), human trafficking, and money laundering. That's why, before the military intervention, Putin asserted that he was "De-Nazifying Ukraine." Indeed. Just so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many are now saying that Taiwan has the same corruption issues as Ukraine, and that PRC under Xi might invade it for the same reason. Tramp asserted that about 2 months ago in an interview. The difference, I think, is that PRC might want to annex Taiwan, whereas I don't believe Putin is going to do that to Ukraine. Putin could've invaded and annexed Ukraine back in 2014 under the militarily weak Obama administration with no meaningful objections from the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • dream_weaver changed the title to Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative
16 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I think his point was tyranny still exists... because "concentration camps".

His particular example is not relevant to his point here... he could point to North Korea for example.
 

>His particular example is not relevant to his point here... he could point to North Korea for example.

And yet he didn't point to an obvious example like North Korea. He pointed to Ukraine, indicating that he uncritically believes the narrative spun by mainstream media.

Look up "Operation Mockingbird".  And note this interesting declaration regarding intentionally planted misinformation (i.e., "disinformation") in the news cycle presented to the public by the established news venues (i.e., today they are The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Fox):

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"

William J. Casey
Director of the CIA, 1981-1987

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

"a Ukraine government run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) with a puppet president (Zelensky)."

What are your grounds for this accusation?

>What are your grounds for this accusation?

Already answered (see above).

Do some homework. The entire Ukrainian government is corrupt (and mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion"). And while doing research, ask yourself why the sons of Joe Biden (Hunter Biden), Nancy and Paul Pelosi (Paul Jr.), and Mitt Romney (he has several; don't remember which one) sit on the boards of directors of energy companies in Ukraine, a topic about which they know nothing. This is all influence-peddling and money-laundering. You might want to introduce yourself to the concept of the "Deep State" since it's seeping into mainstream media from the alternative/fringe/conspiracy media on venues such as BitChute and Rumble.

If you're intimidated by the European press regarding what's going on in Ukraine, you might try starting with an American comedian-turned-political-commentator, Jimmy Dore. He's a lefty slowly getting "red-pilled" on various issues, including Covid, the so-called "vaccines", Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum Agenda 2030, Bill Gates buying up most of American farmland, etc.. He tends to harp occasionally on fabulousness of socialized medicine and "Medicare for All" but aside from that, he's great. Often funny, lots of bad language (F-bombs, etc.). As a stand-up comic he's not in the same class as the late George Carlin (no one is), but he's pretty good on counter-narratives of political news. He's generally good at citing his sources, as well. For example:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

Already answered (see above).

No, you never understood or answered my question.

What are your grounds for saying the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" runs the government there?

What are your grounds for saying President Zelensky is a puppet?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

No, you never understood or answered my question.

What are your grounds for saying the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" runs the government there?

What are your grounds for saying President Zelensky is a puppet?

 

Watch the Jimmy Dore podcast I sent you.

Here's another link to a Jimmy Dore podcast in which he shows an excerpt from a Fox Business News broadcast with guest, Ret. Col. Douglas MacGregor explicitly calling out Zelensky as a puppet:

https://tinyurl.com/2j5shk3p

Zelensky receives money from a Ukrainian oligarch who fled Ukraine for Israel (he also has a Cypriot passport) named Kolomoyski; Zelensky, in turn uses that money (some of it, anyway) to help finance the Nazi Azov Battalion. So the battalion pretty much is the influential entity within the government (and therefore, "runs" it. You object to the term, "runs"? Too bad.) and is the influential element within the entire Ukraine military. Zelensky's entire cabinet, by the way, was "selected" (i.e., installed) by Kolomoyski (apparently, from his Swiss chateau). So Zelensky is a puppet of Kolomoyski's money and of the Azov Battalion's thuggishness. Recent leaked phone calls from Victoria Nuland (Undersecretary of State) admit the U.S. participated in a coup to oust the former president, Poroshenko, for the sake of "regime change" more amenable to U.S. interests (meaning, NATO, and the personal interests of various American oligarchs). Oliver Stone made a documentary about this several years ago titled "Ukraine on Fire." You can find it online.

Was Zelensky fairly elected? He was a popular TV actor and comedian but given the evidence of election fraud in the U.S. (see Dinesh D'Souza's documentary "2000 Mules") and what appears to have been a similar kind of fraud in the recent French election (popular LePen is ahead in all polls and suddenly loses to the unpopular Macron, who immediately declares that he's going to institute the new "Digital ID" passports to everyone) I have little confidence that Zelensky's 73% win with a 95% turnout was legitimate. 

Just before the incursion, Putin declared that he intended to "De-Nazify" Ukraine, another indication that there's little difference between the Nazi Azov Battalion and Ukrainian government, since the rest of the government -- cabinet ministers, at any rate -- were simply installed by Kolomoyski and pretty much do nothing. According to journalists on the ground in Ukraine, most of the Ukrainian military forces have been routed by the Russian army, but they have now fled into populated urban centers, using locals as human shields (just as many Islamist jihadists have done in middle east conflicts with Israel). That means the Russian army has to move at a much slower pace than they otherwise would. I understand from statements made by Dr. Robert Malone (pioneer of mRNA technology in the 1980s, who has come out in the past year as being highly critical of the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna) who also has professional experience in the military intelligence sector, that the 30-or-so bioweapons labs in Ukraine (funded by the U.S.) cannot simply be shelled and demolished since that risks spreading whatever pathogens were being toyed with. Each lab has to be "decommissioned", meaning bioweapons experts have to go into each lab, investigate what's there, and then decommission it, usually by just walling up the entire laboratory. He said this is the usual way in which anthrax labs are handled: you can't just blow them up because the spores are robust and can become airborne. The entire facility has to be walled up (sort of like Chernobyl). Nice.

I would never deny such an inquisitive mind as yours the pleasure of doing your own research on this issue. So do a little homework. Who knows - you might even get "red pilled".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Invasion of Iraq by the US military under GW Bush was an agression and deserves condemnation, notwithstanding American-govrnment claims in the runup that Saddaam was producing bioweapons (seeing what one expects to see? psychological projection?). Same with Russian invasion of Ukraine under Putin. I rely on regular sources of information ("mainstream media") for report of the circumstance that no facilities for such weapons production were ever found and that Americans qualified to discern them were on the ground looking for them and for a very long time. I'll stay with regular sources that have the "narrative" that men really landed on the moon, that the 9/11 attacks occurred and were not instigated by US government agents, but the Bin Laden gang, over internet mining for sayings bolstering my political wishes and indicating my secret, unsung smarts. Iraq had not attacked the US. The latter was the aggressor. Ukraine had not attacked Russia. The latter was the aggessor.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended: An interesting and informative (if long) livestream podcast by a filmmaker/writer named Gonzalo Lira, who lives in Ukraine. He covers most of the relevant facts regarding the oligarch Kolomoiski (living in Switzerland) who helped place a comedian and actor, Zelensky, in power, as well as paying him to finance the Nazi Azov Battalion. According to Lira (in hiding as of the time he recorded this podcast) all of the cabinet ministers were "selected" by Kolomoiski and then duly "appointed" by Zelensky. The ministers are all thugs (according to Lira), as are the members of the Azov Battalion. The atrocities highlighted by the western media (the maternity hospital, for example) are mainly examples of classic "False Flag" operations, committed by the Ukrainian army (including, of course, Azov) against Ukrainian citizens, and then blamed on Putin and the Russian army. 

Retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, Gonzalo Lira, and other commentators whose links I've posted, are crystal clear on the reasons for the Russian incursion: Russia sees the expansion of NATO into Ukraine -- with the strong possibility of western (i.e., US) nukes stationed along its eastern border, just a few kilometers from Russia -- as an existential threat to its sovereignty, in exactly the same way and for the same reason, that the US under the JFK administration viewed Soviet nukes in Cuba -- just 90 miles away from the US -- as an existential threat to its own sovereignty. Lira posits hypothetically how the US would react if China, for example, formed military alliances with countries in South America, and then an otherwise neutral buffer-zone like Mexico were pressured to join such an alliance: would the US simply say, "Well, Mexico's a sovereign country so it therefore has the right to join any kind of alliance it pleases" or would it say, "such an alliance is ultimately controlled by China, and if Mexico ceases to be a neutral buffer between the US and the China/S.America alliance, we'll be seeing Chinese nukes on the northern border of Mexico, right next to Texas". I think the latter. And Lira, et al., are right when they aver that the US would view that as an existential threat to its own sovereignty and would probably take military action against Mexico...not to conquer territory but to keep Mexico "neutral", i.e., as a buffer between itself and the China/S.America alliance.

Same with Russia and Ukraine. Russia wants Ukraine neutral.

According to these sources, the outcome of this incursion is a foregone conclusion: the much larger, better equipped Russian army will win, especially since (as stated above) they view this issue as an "existential threat" and are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep Ukraine neutral AND to "de-Nazify" Ukraine by killing the Nazis...meaning killing the members of the Azov Battalion. The latter know this, of course, which (according to these sources) seems to be the main reason Zelensky/Kolomoiski/Azov are trying to keep the conflict going, as well as trying to coax other countries into the conflict -- especially the US -- in the hopes of starting a proxy war between the US and Russia, and in the hopes of extending the conflict long enough that they can continue surviving, probably by fleeing the country (just as Nazis in Germany did when they saw the war had turned against them).

It's important to counter the false narrative coming out of western mainstream media since the latter seem pretty much to be warmongers interested in getting the US involved in what would clearly be World War 3. To understand more on how and why US mainstream media all seems to be in lockstep with their narrative regarding Ukraine, look into the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird", as well as Obama's signing into law the right of the US government to promote propaganda to the public (he essentially reversed an earlier law that had forbidden the federal government from propagandizing to the public).

And THAT would be a perfect opportunity -- along with whatever new pandemics (or PLANdemics) the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, et al., have in store for us -- to impose the "Great Reset" on everyone. You can kiss goodbye any liberties you're now enjoying if that happens. For an example of what that could look like, see what's going on in the megacity of Shanghai, China.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I rely on regular sources of information ("mainstream media") for report

That's a major mistake. It's not "information" at all, but a narrative whose function is to get people to consent to whatever the government and other powerful, "stakeholder" groups want. It's story-telling, mainly comprising half-truths and outright lies.

Just a month or two before the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a "pandemic game" (similar to a "war game" but focused on disease, not nuclear weapons) played in NYC, hosted by Johns Hopkins University. This game was known as "Event 201" and there are many video clips available online if you simply look for them. Members included some MDs, representatives of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, et al. Event 201 was also not unique; other pandemic-games have been played in the past, attempting to "game-out" how to respond if a global pandemic of some novel pathogen were to appear. What's especially alarming about Event 201, however, is that no discussion was made regarding how best to treat people; it was all about "how do we control the narrative -- the flow of information -- so that large populations are easily controlled?" It was all about social control. All members appeared to agree that controlling the media and keeping them in a narrative "lockstep" with one another was paramount: the media should all, essentially, "read from the same script"; say the same things; point to the same protagonists ("Zelensky is a hero!") and antagonists ("Putin is a madman!" "There are no early treatment therapies for Covid-19, and those healthcare providers who claim otherwise are spreading dangerous misinformation!" "The VAERS database cannot trusted since the reporting of vaccine adverse events is merely anecdotal!"); promote the same agendas ("Vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate! The Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective!"). It's right out of "1984."

Given the large number of independent researchers, journalists, podcasters, commentators, etc., online, at alternative venues that don't censor information that is counter-mainstream-narrative ("Rumble", "BitChute" as alternatives to YouTube); "DuckDuckGo" and "Brave" as alternatives to Google; Truth-Social as an alternative to Twitter), there's no reason to limit information-gathering to the "legacy media" venues, or mainstream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

Interesting. Long-winded but interesting.

I'm fascinated by the amount of lively discussion it generated.

In any case, I'll have to peruse it later today.

So how did that perusal work out?

I used to post at another "Objectivist" posting site* at which the owner of the site (who shares your political and "narrative" interests and proclivities) kept saying for years he was going to read work of mine that had come up and had nothing to do with politics (but attracted readers). Turned out he never did. And when I and the other intellectuals left that site, sure enough, it became only political, which was his true flame.

I hope you didn't come here primarily to talk "narrative" junk and politics. The owner of this site, btw, was born in Soviet Ukraine and probably is not in need of any revelations concerning what has gone on there and is "really" going on there. 

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> hope you didn't come here primarily to talk "narrative" junk and politics.

Why? You only prefer posters to talk "epistemology" junk and metaphysics? Each to his or her own junk.

>The owner of this site, btw, was born in Soviet Ukraine and probably is not in need of any revelations concerning what has gone on there and is "really" going on there. 

I'm confident the owner of this site, btw, who was born in Soviet Ukraine, is well-informed enough to know that the Soviet Union disappeared over 30 years ago. It's now the "Russian Federation" and Ukraine is simply "Ukraine." I'm less confident but still hopeful that the owner of this site, btw, would prefer a free, democratic, neutral Ukraine, free of influence from oligarch-appointed thugs in Zelensky's cabinet, with an active Nazi element in its military, trying to draw the U.S. into a long-term proxy war with Russia.

If, however, the owner of this site, btw, who was born in Soviet Ukraine is not so well-informed to see what's actually going on Ukraine, I'd be very happy to provide lots of links from individuals "on the ground" in Ukraine who will enlighten him or her.

I'll say this, however. Judging by your posts, you are not especially well-informed about what's going on in Ukraine; you appear to be at least 30 years behind the times ("Soviet Ukraine?" Huh?). The reason is simple: you're too contented with CNN and Fox to investigate further. 

Regarding your long-winded posts from 3 months ago:

I'll peruse it when I get the chance to peruse it. Part of the disincentive for doing so (to be honest) is the salient fact that English is not your first language so your sentences are often (as they say in Yiddish) "farblunget", so I have to waste lots of time trying to disentangle your non-standard syntax along with your many typos. It'll take a little time.

I'm sure it's very brilliant and brave. Good grief! You actually have an opinion about Kant that differs from Miss Rand's opinion? That's almost as brave as those Objectivists I knew in 1970s who had opinions about impressionist paintings that differed from Miss Rand's! (she thought such paintings were "silly"); or those who actually had the temerity to say that they liked the music of Beethoven (in spite of Rand's claim that he had a "malevolent sense of life") and didn't especially care for the ragtime music of Scott Joplin (Rand said at a lecture that if someone didn't like the music of Scott Joplin, there must be something wrong with him). Such bravery on your part to have a different opinion from that held by Miss Rand!

I was hoping, of course, for something more trenchant. Such as: "Rand's theory knowledge is kooky", or "Rand's metaphysics is 19th-century naive-materialism and therefore unscientific, if not downright anti-scientific"; etc. Something like that.

Be patient. I'll peruse your opinions when I get the chance to peruse them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombast is not more clear or informative or durable than scholarly writing. Good to learn to read the latter, for exactitude in grasping reality.

Do you read scholarly works?

Is your native language English?

 

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Good to learn to read the latter, for exactitude in grasping reality.

LOL! "Good to learn to read the latter, for exactitude in grasping reality."

A lovely, well-constructed sentence. Ranks right up there with Churchill's quip about not ending sentences with prepositions:

"This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sentence was conversational (and friendly), not for a scholarly composition.

"It's good to learn to read the latter, . . ." It's easy for a normal, good-faith reader to fill in that "It's" in the subject sentence fine in comprehension.

I was never unkind to you. Or was I? Why all this personal animus? --- e.g. "Your opinion of Kant"

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

 

You wrote:

> [the] Ukraine government [is] run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)

> [the] Ukrainian government is […] mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion"

1. You provided no proof of this claim, you only evaded the request of providing proof by mentioning the government’s corruption, human trafficking, and money laundering. All these do NOT prove your claim.

2. By "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" you seem to mean some kind of a political party, heavily represented in and dominating the Ukrainian government.

Whatever the case may be: specifically, what members of the Ukrainian government do belong to this “Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" ?

And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! This trick doesn’t work with me.

Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on), so be careful about what you do claim on these subjects: I will ask for proof.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AlexL said:

You wrote:

> [the] Ukraine government [is] run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)

> [the] Ukrainian government is […] mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion"

1. You provided no proof of this claim, you only evaded the request of providing proof by mentioning the government’s corruption, human trafficking, and money laundering. All these do NOT prove your claim.

2. By "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" you seem to mean some kind of a political party, heavily represented in and dominating the Ukrainian government.

Whatever the case may be: specifically, what members of the Ukrainian government do belong to this “Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" ?

And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! This trick doesn’t work with me.

Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on), so be careful about what you do claim on these subjects: I will ask for proof.

>Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on)

I don't believe that. You'll have to provide proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

You wrote:

> [the] Ukraine government [is] run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)

> [the] Ukrainian government is […] mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion"

1. You provided no proof of this claim, you only evaded the request of providing proof by mentioning the government’s corruption, human trafficking, and money laundering. All these do NOT prove your claim.

2. By "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" you seem to mean some kind of a political party, heavily represented in and dominating the Ukrainian government.

Whatever the case may be: specifically, what members of the Ukrainian government do belong to this “Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" ?

And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! This trick doesn’t work with me.

Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on), so be careful about what you do claim on these subjects: I will ask for proof.

>Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine

Clearly not. Since you've apparently never even heard of the Azov Battalion -- or if you believe that they're a political party -- then you know nothing about Ukraine. If you've never heard of Kolomoisky, you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is (and don't know about her leaked phone call), then you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know about the Dept. of Defense documents indicating the financing of bioweapons labs in Ukraine, then you know nothing about Ukraine. I could go on but the conclusion is ineluctable: you know nothing about Ukraine except that it's next to Russia. You know that you don't like Russia mainly because Ayn Rand disliked Russia, so (like most on this board) disliking Russia is pretty much all you wish to know about Ukraine.

>And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! 

The proof of MY claims are based on the eye-witness accounts and testimony of others actually in Ukraine (Ukrainians, Russians, Americans, and sundry western European journalists) as well as leaked information such as phone calls, documents, etc. of principal actors responsible for a coup back in 2014 (Victoria Nuland, etc.). If you don't accept eye-witness accounts of Ukrainian citizens that the Ukrainian army has been shelling their own cities and committing atrocities against their own people, then you'll just have to travel to Ukraine yourself and see for yourself.

But then you'll be Red Pilled and awake and you probably won't like that. Please: swallow the Blue Pill, continue watching CNN, and go back to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed among the pro-Russian right wingers is that they spend a lot of effort telling you about all this stuff about the US/NATO expansion, leaked phone calls, Azov, etc. to keep focus on the US/NATO as the "bad guys" in their current programming. But very few of them (?) either (a.) continue to say that since the US/NATO did all this stuff that therefore Russia's invasion is justified and amounts to self defense on the part of the Russians, or (b.) continue to say that nonetheless Russia's invasion is not justified and in fact they are committing a grave injustice worthy of resistance on the part of the Ukrainians.

Question: why is that? 

Possible answer: They're not interested in the typical philosophical questions surrounding the issue. Finding out what one ought to do about a given situation in accordance with some set of general principles. (I mean in a Socratic sense that "care for one's own soul" would lead one to make sure one wasn't supporting or condoning or excusing injustice.) The interest here isn't even philosophical or practical at all. There is no truth one is trying to get at. One's goal is something else, like promoting one's self being an exciting contrarian "maybe I can make myself look like a really cool transgressive thinker." It's kind of a role play in one's head. 

The use of one's faculties is not aimed at guiding action, but is rhetorical in nature, as if to say "don't look there!" To remind one "we're bad too!" is designed to shift the focus of the listener and leave the rest to implication.

Counter proposal: Putin/the Russian government does not have a legitimate security interest in NATO not expanding eastward or in the Ukraine wanting to be part of Europe. The reason is very simple: Putin is not a legitimate ruler and the Russian government is not morally legitimate. Putin has no right to rule at all, not over Ukraine and not even over Moscow. Indeed I, 2046 have more of a right to rule over Russia because at least I haven't violated anyone's rights or liberties and would immediately resign. It may or may not be strategically prudent to not upset Putin, to include tactical deception about one's intentions to join NATO, but he has no moral claim to keep NATO from his doorstep.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 2046 said:

One thing I've noticed among the pro-Russian right wingers is that they spend a lot of effort telling you about all this stuff about the US/NATO expansion, leaked phone calls, Azov, etc. to keep focus on the US/NATO as the "bad guys" in their current programming. But very few of them (?) either (a.) continue to say that since the US/NATO did all this stuff that therefore Russia's invasion is justified and amounts to self defense on the part of the Russians, or (b.) continue to say that nonetheless Russia's invasion is not justified and in fact they are committing a grave injustice worthy of resistance on the part of the Ukrainians.

Question: why is that? 

Possible answer: They're not interested in the typical philosophical questions surrounding the issue. Finding out what one ought to do about a given situation in accordance with some set of general principles. (I mean in a Socratic sense that "care for one's own soul" would lead one to make sure one wasn't supporting or condoning or excusing injustice.) The interest here isn't even philosophical or practical at all. There is no truth one is trying to get at. One's goal is something else, like promoting one's self being an exciting contrarian "maybe I can make myself look like a really cool transgressive thinker." It's kind of a role play in one's head. 

The use of one's faculties is not aimed at guiding action, but is rhetorical in nature, as if to say "don't look there!" To remind one "we're bad too!" is designed to shift the focus of the listener and leave the rest to implication.

Counter proposal: Putin/the Russian government does not have a legitimate security interest in NATO not expanding eastward or in the Ukraine wanting to be part of Europe. The reason is very simple: Putin is not a legitimate ruler and the Russian government is not morally legitimate. Putin has no right to rule at all, not over Ukraine and not even over Moscow. Indeed I, 2046 have more of a right to rule over Russia because at least I haven't violated anyone's rights or liberties and would immediately resign. It may or may not be strategically prudent to not upset Putin, to include tactical deception about one's intentions to join NATO, but he has no moral claim to keep NATO from his doorstep.

>The reason is very simple: Putin is not a legitimate ruler and the Russian government is not morally legitimate.

Neither is Zelensky and neither is the present Ukrainian government. Zelensky was chosen by Igor Kolomoisky (a criminal oligarch living in Switzerland) because 1) he was a popular comic actor starring in a popular tv show so he had a high public profile; 2) he had no political or executive experience at all; and 3) he's a known cokehead. Upshot: Zelensky is very easily manipulated. Many Ukrainian civilians, especially those living abroad, have stated outright that the election was fixed and that Zelensky was essentially installed. "Deep State" players (including those in the U.S. such as the Biden crime family) like weak, easily manipulated leaders of foreign countries. It makes money laundering so much easier.

So the issues of "rights", "moral legitimacy", etc. are irrelevant in this conflict. The only issue that matters is to understand motives, not to agree with them. Russia views Ukraine as a necessary buffer between itself and NATO. Understandably, Putin does not want western nukes on his border, for the same reason the U.S. didn't want Russian nukes in Cuba, just 90 miles from its own border. Putin also doesn't want western-financed bioweapons facilities on its border (there were about 30 of them, last I heard), labs that the U.S.'s own Victoria Nuland admitted to in front of the Senate several weeks ago (much to the surprise, it seems, of senator Marco Rubio). If Zelensky were any kind of a leader at all -- legitimate or not -- he could negotiate peace immediately and save many Ukrainian lives. All he would have to do is agree to keep Ukraine neutral. He won't do it because he can't do it: he's just a popular-tv-actor-coke-addict-figurehead and is not the one actually in command of the government. The intent of those who are in command, is to keep the conflict going as long as possible to create a proxy-war between the west and Russia; i.e., specifically, between the U.S. and Russia. Lots of people in the west like that idea because lots of people can profit from war.

Objectivists should check their premises before apologizing for a regime run by absentee oligarchs, brutal thugs, and explicit Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 2046 said:

One thing I've noticed among the pro-Russian right wingers is that they spend a lot of effort telling you about all this stuff about the US/NATO expansion, leaked phone calls, Azov, etc. to keep focus on the US/NATO as the "bad guys" in their current programming. But very few of them (?) either (a.) continue to say that since the US/NATO did all this stuff that therefore Russia's invasion is justified and amounts to self defense on the part of the Russians, or (b.) continue to say that nonetheless Russia's invasion is not justified and in fact they are committing a grave injustice worthy of resistance on the part of the Ukrainians.

Question: why is that? 

Maybe because this is a case of bad guys vs. bad guys, like two groups of gangsters in a gang war. Sure, one of them had to start it, and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it, but that doesn't make the other group of gangsters "good guys."

p.s. I do not know if my position here matches that of anybody else in this thread. I just saw that one statement and wanted to respond to it.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

[...]

You alleged that the Ukraine government “is run by a neo-Nazi gang”. I’ve asked you to prove it. I even suggested you a specific method: by naming the top government officials who are Nazis. Or you could list the specifically neo-Nazi policies of this government.

You did neither of these. Neither have you done it in any other proper, i.e. rational, way. Evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems are NOT arguments.

Therefore: do you intend to prove that allegation? And make only claims you can prove?

Otherwise it will mean that you intend to continue to contaminate this forum with putinist propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...