Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Grames was saying that Russia is an imperialistic force, and that imperialism is bad. I agree with that. But I'm not trying to argue with you, it's not worth my time. Not because I like the disagreement, but because you've never had the ability to offer a captivating or worthwhile argument. 

Crimea, ties with China, lack of any cohesive pro-Western strategy, lack of any goal of individual rights, Putin's track record of opting for assassination where convenient rather than diplomacy (always with plausible deniability of course), having the same overall MO since at least 2000, need for natural resources, etc. not one individual thing. 

Which isn't imperialism then. Imperialism is necessarily a type of subjugation.

Argument by analogy is always an unhelpful way to argue.

You know full well I'm talking about Putin's (supposed) designs West, into Europe. I said so several times, excluding East Ukraine and South. Crimea, was gifted to the Ukraine by Kruschev in the Soviet era: It has remained 90+% Russian-inhabited and must have looked ripe for annexation. Wrongly, it was taken back by Moscow with no resistance.

"Subjugation"> Try holding an Empire with subjugation. You have not the slightest understanding of what it would take a nation to try to begin (or recover) an empire today. I was born in the British Empire and have a little better idea of the composition of an Empire, its benefits, advantages and injustices and wrongs and how it must dissolve in time. People eventually will want self-determination. (E.g. the Donbass).

It is much more than military might, conquest and overthrow of the Govt. It needed some measure of agreement or quiescence towards the modern, sophisticated institutions and methods, greater wealth and freedom and other values - by the populace and from the rulers in existing local, power structures--back in the older empire days (of e.g. the British Empire). Today, it would be impossible. Russia has nothing to offer what others haven't already got. Russia can invade, it cannot subdue- it can attempt to occupy, it can't persuade - not even Ukraine, leave aside Poland, Sweden, etc.etc. Whatever else Putin might be he's a pragmatist first. "What's doable?" He and Russia, I've remarked, haven't Communism any longer to bring other countries' peoples on board, ideologically.

Holding down the population, quelling uprisings and rebellions and insurrections by the large majority who have the power of the internet and great amounts of weapons at their disposal: this is the fantasy of neo-cons and a portion of Leftists who have fear-mongered and indoctrinated the world that an empire is what Putin is after. They deserve some blame for the consequences.

Statism is the cause of war, Rand argued: These are two statist countries, Ukraine and Russia. They have very similar rankings in the official Freedom Indices of nations, i.e. low.

Ties with China? Well so have or had many countries including SA. The US too.

Lack of individual rights? Where do you see those properly practiced in this collectivist world?

Before you get to reforming Russia, there are many worse to start with.

These are all rationalist, book-learned notions of "empire-building" disconnected from modern reality.    

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Russia’s Strategic Partnership
with Europe

.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjdiPnlmYD4AhXOTcAKHcPiDx4QFnoECEUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iss.europa.eu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FEUISSFiles%2Fanaly077.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Jxh8rApGR9i-2R-WTPGOO
THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY SPRING 2004 9 9
Dov Lynch is a research fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies in
Paris.
Shortly before the twelfth Russian–European Union summit in early November 2003, in an interview with the Italian press, Russian president Vladimir Putin stated,

“For us, Europe is a major trade and economic part-
ner and our natural, most important partner, including in the political sphere.
Russia is not located on the American continent, after all, but in Europe.”

Russia, he continued, is “interested in developing relations with our part-
ners in the U.S. and the American continent as a whole and in Asia, but, of
course, above all with Europe.”1

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 7:49 AM, EC said:

I've described my solution to this, an AI "dictator" in control of an advanced drone force.

I must have missed something. You're speaking as an Objectivist? What happened to rights? What happened to the freedom to employ rational self interest? Aren't you proposing another great socialist solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Whatever else Putin might be he's a pragmatist first. "What's doable?" He and Russia, I've remarked, haven't Communism any longer to bring other countries' peoples on board, ideologically.

He is a pragmatic authoritarian imperialist. 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

These are all rationalist, book-learned notions of "empire-building" disconnected from modern reality.    

What are you talking about? Are you saying that the rationalist notion is that Russia would succeed? I didn't say Russia would succeed. Tell that to Putin. 

 

I watched the Oliver Stone interview. He is just speaking as a guy who is no expert, generally a leftist, and politically sympathetic to people like Chavez. Interesting thoughts, but a filmmaker, not really known for a balanced point of view. 

The next interview by Fridman is with an actual expert on Russian history. He contextualizes Russian history, how to think of Russia as a complex country, without losing sight of the ways that Putin's Russia is still pretty authoritarian. Just because Russia is misunderstood by most of the West doesn't mean it operates in a justifiable way. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Holding down the population, quelling uprisings and rebellions and insurrections by the large majority who have the power of the internet and great amounts of weapons at their disposal: this is the fantasy of neo-cons and a portion of Leftists who have fear-mongered and indoctrinated the world that an empire is what Putin is after. They deserve some blame for the consequences.

But Chechnya happened.

edit:  Chechens are now fighting for Putin in Ukraine.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The next interview by Fridman is with an actual expert on Russian history. He contextualizes Russian history, how to think of Russia as a complex country, without losing sight of the ways that Putin's Russia is still pretty authoritarian. Just because Russia is misunderstood by most of the West doesn't mean it operates in a justifiable way. 

Kotkin's expertise on old Russia doesn't seem to me to extend to insights into present events and actors, where he falls into the common faults of Zelenski whitewashing and Putin blackening - and altruism:  Fight On Ukraine (until the last heroic martyr). Apparently out of his depth with real events, a scholar's rationalism.

Stone is experienced in the doings and factions of recent Ukraine on the ground, has a creator's empathic insight into human nature and individual character- and war - he can *understand* without being a hero-worshipper for either party. He looks to find the way out of the killings he deplores, and wants curtailed not extended forever into an attrition war to suit the West's strategy- on all, I agree, said so at the start. Quite often lately, especially with pandemic policies, I find some common ground with old school Liberal-leftists.

I can't think of anyone who has said Putin acts "in a justifiable way". But he has a purpose. The very worst, "evil", was expected from him by all analysts/experts/pundits and few took him at his word and made the effort to take his and Russia's genuine concerns seriously. The "unprovoked invasion" - which had *some* provocation, perhaps calculated - obviously cost Russia big: therefore, the presumption that the experts deduced was Ukraine was just the start of Russia's campaign in Europe. They failed to grasp he is paying high for an equally high value (to him) Russia's security, long range. And, here I speculate, that he might have been truly concerned about the vulnerability and obviously dangerous situation of the Russian Ukrainians in the East to the upcoming assault. 

If "A thug" is what Putin looks like, so a thug is what he must be, and exclusively thuggish behavior - never from our nice guy, Zelenski and his soldiers! - can be anticipated. Returns to, "revealed knowledge", the usual error, a person's surface appearances depict his character. More than that, the image-building propaganda by western media, which can go some way to 'make or break' a public figure. .

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caution: Further blunt opinions, conservative this time, from a ranking soldier

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

He is a pragmatic authoritarian imperialist. 

What are you talking about? Are you saying that the rationalist notion is that Russia would succeed? I didn't say Russia would succeed. Tell that to Putin. 

 

 

The "rationalist notion" is in a principle reverse-applied to make known facts and acts fit into it. From the facts and evidence alone, one cannot infer Putin's capability - nor desire - to create an empire. Therefore, his imperialism is a rationalist presumption.

His motive for the invasion of one country does not indicate a motivation for more invasions.

To reiterate this crucial point, it's this false assumption which has elevated European and global tensions; fears exploited by some, to go absolutely all in to defeat Putin at extreme costs: a self-sacrifice for Ukrainians who are purportedly "in the front line defending Europe'' and those major economic/military/etc. self-sacrifices, elsewhere.

From what might have been a regional conflict, by so doing this has become perceived as global danger.

Pragmatic, authoritarian, no doubt. It remains to be seen that he has imperialist ambitions in Europe, and I'm certain not.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Stone is experienced in the doings and factions of recent Ukraine on the ground, has a creator's empathic insight into human nature and individual character

He didn't visit the Ukraine, he has as much experience as you and me. He is a controversial person, and not an objective thinker as evidenced by the movies he has made. He does what a leftist filmmaker does, mostly trying to "contextualize" and provide plausible excuses for atrocities or bad behavior, other times the usual Michael Moore style of anti-American filmmaking. It's good that on the one hand he is willing to dive into the mind of someone, but he's always excited to portray somebody who doesn't like America is a good figure, even admirable. You hate leftist media so much that I'm actually shocked you seem to think that Oliver Stone is any different. 

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I can't think of anyone who has said Putin acts "in a justifiable way". But he has a purpose.

So you agree that he has acted in an unjustifiable way? 

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And, here I speculate, that he might have been truly concerned about the vulnerability and obviously dangerous situation of the Russian Ukrainians in the East to the upcoming assault. 

What upcoming assault?

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If "A thug" is what Putin looks like, so a thug is what he must be, and exclusively thuggish behavior

Who are you arguing with, me or the Western media? Why are you trying to make counterpoints against arguments I'm not making, and arguments I completely disagree with? I'm saying that Putin is acting in an imperialistic way, not that each and every action in the future has already been determined to be imperialistic. Revealed knowledge is not even the right comparison, you are talking about viewing behaviors as deterministic or unchanging. 

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Zelenski whitewashing and Putin blackening - and altruism

How so? Give me timestamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 12:57 PM, whYNOT said:

"Subjugation"> Try holding an Empire with subjugation. You have not the slightest understanding of what it would take a nation to try to begin (or recover) an empire today. I was born in the British Empire and have a little better idea of the composition of an Empire, its benefits, advantages and injustices and wrongs and how it must dissolve in time. People eventually will want self-determination. (E.g. the Donbass).

It is much more than military might, conquest and overthrow of the Govt. It needed some measure of agreement or quiescence towards the modern, sophisticated institutions and methods, greater wealth and freedom and other values - by the populace and from the rulers in existing local, power structures--back in the older empire days (of e.g. the British Empire). Today, it would be impossible. Russia has nothing to offer what others haven't already got. Russia can invade, it cannot subdue- it can attempt to occupy, it can't persuade - not even Ukraine, leave aside Poland, Sweden, etc.etc. Whatever else Putin might be he's a pragmatist first. "What's doable?" He and Russia, I've remarked, haven't Communism any longer to bring other countries' peoples on board, ideologically.

Holding down the population, quelling uprisings and rebellions and insurrections by the large majority who have the power of the internet and great amounts of weapons at their disposal: this is the fantasy of neo-cons and a portion of Leftists who have fear-mongered and indoctrinated the world that an empire is what Putin is after. They deserve some blame for the consequences.

The first major crisis Putin faced as Prime Minister was the Second Chechen War.   During that war Russia accomplished everything that you describe as so difficult.  Since he/Russia did it once, it is reasonable to attempt to do it again.  If he is willing to commit to ten years or more of fighting and to grind down Ukrainian military resistance by attrition then Russian military victory is inevitable because Ukraine is smaller.  It appears that Putin is willing to pay the cost.  It is unknown if Ukraine can continue to get the subsidies it needs to stay in the war that long.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

The first major crisis Putin faced as Prime Minister was the Second Chechen War.   During that war Russia accomplished everything that you describe as so difficult.  Since he/Russia did it once, it is reasonable to attempt to do it again.  If he is willing to commit to ten years or more of fighting and to grind down Ukrainian military resistance by attrition then Russian military victory is inevitable because Ukraine is smaller.  It appears that Putin is willing to pay the cost.  It is unknown if Ukraine can continue to get the subsidies it needs to stay in the war that long.  

There is a major difference. Chechnya did not have a border that allowed for massive aid from modern countries which seems to exist in the case of the Ukraine. 40 Billion is close to the 60 billion entire Russian yearly military spending. Then add the aid from European countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

40 Billion is close to the 60 billion entire Russian yearly military spending. Then add the aid from European countries.

One third more is a lot. I don't think that total aid from all countries would be even close to 5 billion, let alone 20. It would be simple enough for Russia to ask China for aid if it became necessary. Where did you get those numbers anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think that total aid from all countries would be even close to 5 billion, let alone 20. It would be simple enough for Russia to ask China for aid if it became necessary. Where did you get those numbers anyway?

Biden signs $40 billion aid package to Ukraine while in Seoul

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/21/politics/biden-signs-ukraine-bill/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 8:57 PM, Eiuol said:

He didn't visit the Ukraine, he has as much experience as you and me. He is a controversial person, and not an

Huh? Stone knows a zillion times more than me or you. How did he make two documentaries without going to Ukraine?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRz4HVk4f4AhXVg1wKHQNXDHwQFnoECCUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUkraine_on_Fire&usg=AOvVaw1u0yYjf_HgxGw6xzEFYPQg

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 8:57 PM, Eiuol said:

 He does what a leftist filmmaker does, mostly trying to "contextualize" and provide plausible excuses for atrocities or bad behavior, other times the usual Michael Moore style of anti-American filmmaking. It's good that on the one hand he is willing to dive into the mind of someone, but he's always excited to portray somebody who doesn't like America is a good figure, even admirable. You hate leftist media so much that I'm actually shocked you seem to think that Oliver Stone is any different. 

 

On the media, Stone says below "I don't see reality in the news departments of American TV". And how!

This is a man who has described himself "an old left-wing film maker".

Much as with hearing individuals nowadays, one doesn't have to agree on everything to be on board with some important aspects. And they have free will, and often evolve their thinking. I can relate to him in several ways: His pursuit of truth. He is a realist and thinker, an individualist, is for peace (over-riding past and present altruist war-mongering) and diplomacy, for nuclear energy, he places high worth in the idea of America. Against, his reliance on moral equivalence.

(Criticism of America's actions and policies is NOT to be taken, automatically, at face value, as being "anti-American". The extreme opposite, an understanding of and concern for America's true nature and its future. The real American-hating, Leftist-Americans are expert at pretending a 'concern' for the nation while steadily undermining it).

Ukraine features after about 13m

On all those and by other indications, Stone would plainly be as much against the "new" Left as an average conservative. The Left is unrecognizable from the old JFK Democrats.

Stick permanent labels on someone and one can lazily avoid the work of eliciting his character and convictions.  

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foreign Policy

We do need a policy based on long-range principles, i.e., an ideology. But a revision of our foreign policy, from its basic premises on up, is what today’s anti-ideologists dare not contemplate. The worse its results, the louder our public leaders proclaim that our foreign policy is bipartisan.

A proper solution would be to elect statesmen—if such appeared—with a radically different foreign policy, a policy explicitly and proudly dedicated to the defense of America’s rights and national self-interests, repudiating foreign aid and all forms of international self-immolation.

http://cultureofreason.org/style/img/capitalismtheunknownideal.jpg

“The Wreckage of the Consensus,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 8:57 PM, Eiuol said:

Who are you arguing with, me or the Western media? Why are you trying to make counterpoints against arguments I'm not making, and arguments I completely disagree with? I'm saying that Putin is acting in an imperialistic way, not that each and every action in the future has already been determined to be imperialistic. Revealed knowledge is not even the right comparison, you are talking about viewing behaviors as deterministic or unchanging. 

 

The "thuggish looking" Putin?

I'll allow you haven't noticed how many, or most people first react to Putin, viscerally, by appearances.

Change in your imagination his inexpressive face, his persona, mannerisms, etc. -  for someone else's - one who acted exactly as he has re: Ukraine. For example, Justin Trudeau. Or Jacinta Arden, say.

Anyone who, unlike Putin, plays to the camera with kindly beneficence (which they can use very well, for the sake of gullible voters).

Would there be the identical level of hysteria surrounding this reinvented Putin, now? I believe it would drop substantially.

As it would further, if (say) it were Poland invading Ukraine for any imaginable cause. Without emotional Putinphobia and Russophobia, all of this would be a lesser event.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Huh? Stone knows a zillion times more than me or you. How did he make two documentaries without going to Ukraine?

You were talking about experiencing the goings-on in Ukraine recently on the ground. Obviously 7-8 years ago isn't recent. 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Criticism of America's actions and policies is NOT to be taken, automatically, at face value, as being "anti-American

I'm criticizing the entirety of his filmography. His criticisms are of the leftist variety. The anti-capitalist variety. But hey, I'm not the one who hates the slightest amount of leftist media and propaganda, but then turns around and praises a leftist filmmaker with the same proclivities to propaganda as soon as the narrative is convenient for me. Just because I'm not getting into the nuance doesn't mean I'm being lazy about judging him, I just don't trust that I would have a interesting discussion about his movies with you. It was more for anyone else who watched the interview.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I'll allow you haven't noticed how many, or most people first react to Putin, viscerally, by appearances.

What does this have to do with me? People do react that way, and it is wrong to judge him that way. I'm judging actions.

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...