Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwix4uSti5T4AhWSgVwKHUioDb0QFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMinsk_agreements&usg=AOvVaw3trq-woEGQpoYTGQziVYnk

There was a civil war. Largely unrecorded or reported in the West. But yet, a civil war - in Europe. Yes, people killed (about 14,000, many civilians) and extensive destruction by shelling. Whatever one thinks about the causes, a coup, etc.etc. it must be admitted the rebels had legitimate grievances. 

Only it seems did France and Germany realize a civil war (in Europe!) couldn't be allowed to continue, knowing such conflicts can spread, and Macron and Merkel took the initiative to twice bring the parties together and iron out an accord. Nobody, the msm and other EU observers seemed to bother much about "Russian" - Ukrainian lives and to condemn that long battle, so nearly everybody is ignorant of that war. I.e. prior context was dropped, "Putin's invasion" is all that is seen, heard and condemned.

Minsk, in part granted the Donbass some autonomy and representation in Parliament. Since the signing in 2015 until the present, was a long time to set matters right by Kyiv. That the government officially responsible, did nothing, Zelensky himself after running on the popular platform of a peaceful resolution to the conflict, did nothing - but go on trying to defeat the separatists, is a black mark against them.

Also, since the fruitless agreement, Putin might have invaded at any time in 8 years and did not. Perhaps waiting to see? Would he have accepted an implementation of the treaty? I'd infer that, while I'm not naive about the man.

Anyway, the point is that this war wasn't inevitable. The first thing the West could have responded with, within days of the Russians crossing the borders: While we deplore the invasion, it is imperative that negotiations begin now. We cannot help Ukraine win this or defend itself. Anything more than a few arms shipments and some humanitarian aid, our hands are tied. (Which in those first days would have brought Zelensky, by his admission at the time, to the table).

Then to send in diplomatic missions to at least produce a ceasefire to begin.

The West did not, but rather bolstered Kyiv to fight on and avoid any treaty. So - extensive and unnecessary destruction (not only by the Russian Army, btw, Ukraine forces are known to blow up buildings in retreat but also to launch attacks from them) and that grim euphemism, "collateral damage" ( a "massacre" of civilians is pure nonsense to anyone who knows the "normal" casualty figures in war. The number of civilian deaths, just above 4,000 today, is proportionately very low against combatant deaths, indicating a policy as stated by Moscow to minimize non-combatant casualties).

For deliberately perpetuating this war (not overlooking, it was a terrible aggression by Putin despite excuses of the ongoing civil war and his other security demands, neutrality, etc.) and for the self-delusion and/or pretense it was winnable by Ukrainians, for 'our' purposes at their ultimate cost, a black mark against the West and western media.  

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The first thing the West could have responded with, within days of the Russians crossing the borders: While we deplore the invasion, it is imperative that negotiations begin now.

We deplore the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany, but we must begin negotiations now! We shall have peace in our time. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

We deplore the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany, but we must begin negotiations now! We shall have peace in our time. 

 

Yes, next comes Europe! An Empire awaits.

I consider insubstantial and fearful parallels with the Nazi past the hysterics of schoolgirls, to whom I'd suggest to get a grip on reality.

There was a high probability that early on Putin would have been amenable to negotiations and a settlement, if Ukraine declared neutrality, non-Nato membership and the autonomy of the republics. He's a pragmatist, think what he would have saved himself and Russia by going that route. And (in March, I think) Zelensky openly declared his acceptance of those conditions - before he was encouraged to fight on behalf of the West's warmongers.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

wyYNOT,

If this is about eastern Ukraine, why did Putin start by attacking the whole country and trying to take Kyiv?

Why are you ignoring Boydstun's Country-404 post?

 

Fair question, I thought then it didn't make sense for Russian commanders to get involved in Kyiv. You can't take a large city today with tank battalions and armor, faced by street barricades and tremendous missile firepower from every rooftop and window. All your troops would be engaged for a year, suffering great losses, even trying. It was my guess this was a probe, or a feint, a tactical misdirection from their real target, the East. Analysts I read have concluded similarly. Sure enough, the attacks have since been concentrated in those areas to better effect. What the retreat from Kyiv did do was give Ukraine's forces and media 'experts' the false impression they were going to win this war. An intended Russian 'overthrow and occupation' of all Ukraine is a fallacy and always was.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

wyYNOT,

 

Why are you ignoring Boydstun's Country-404 post?

 

I wasn't impressed by her article, too much supposition and apologism for Ukraine which has hardly been angelic itself.

This lengthy Putin essay she links IS worth reading, if only the last half. One might ascertain from it Putin's premises in his own words: Russian and Ukrainian Historical Unity?

Up to you the reader to decide if he wishes for this outcome by aggressive means or in fraternal benevolence.

Such comments built on a 2021 essay,

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Yes, next comes Europe! An Empire awaits.

I consider insubstantial and fearful parallels with the Nazi past the hysterics of schoolgirls, to whom I'd suggest to get a grip on reality.

There was a high probability that early on Putin would have been amenable to negotiations and a settlement, if Ukraine declared neutrality, non-Nato membership and the autonomy of the republics. He's a pragmatist, think what he would have saved himself and Russia by going that route. And (in March, I think) Zelensky openly declared his acceptance of those conditions - before he was encouraged to fight on behalf of the West's warmongers.

 

The point wasn't the comparison with the Nazis, the point was that negotiations historically never really work to prevent war. All you can really do is make war not worth the cost. And if you want to say that negotiations are necessary to prevent something bad from happening, then you are acknowledging that Russia in this situation is about to do something very wrong. It means you expected that the Ukraine would fight back, and that it would not be in the interest of the Ukraine to resort to negotiations. Negotiations are for when groups have similar enough rational goals, but differ in the concrete desires. If the lack of negotiations result in war, then the 2 sides have directly conflicting goals, no reasonable negotiation could occur unless one side made sacrifices. 

Pragmatically speaking, negotiations are shortcuts from war, so Putin would still want the same things, and if he doesn't get those things, there would be war. Either way, Russia is the winner, negotiations could only result in the West becoming objectively weaker and an authoritarian government becoming objectively stronger. But then again, the only response you had to authoritarianism is "well, no country truly protects individual rights" so I don't think this would be convincing for you. From what I gather, it seems like you regard Russian forces as liberating something. 

Not that there has to be direct intervention, but to say that negotiations would have made a difference is foolish. I can't think of a historical example where it has worked in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First paragraph of a current Newsweek article:

Pundits on the Kremlin's state-run television admitted that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting back against Moscow's aggression, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin and other top officials claiming they were invading Ukraine to liberate that segment of the Eastern European nation's population.

Is Newsweek lying?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

First paragraph of a current Newsweek article:

Pundits on the Kremlin's state-run television admitted that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting back against Moscow's aggression, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin and other top officials claiming they were invading Ukraine to liberate that segment of the Eastern European nation's population.

Is Newsweek lying?

 

Is that right? I like the way the word "some" was omitted. There would be no way that this includes most Russian Ukrainians.

"Lying", not necessarily. This report is trivial. Taken out of context, wishful thinking, clutching at straws, Newsweek has to be aware the fighting is not going well for their victory narrative and apparently will use any little thing to retain public sentiment.

An example of the media propaganda technique I pointed out. The few represent all.

I looked for this item at RT, didn't find anything. Here's today's newscast instead. The first 10 minutes are quite informative, Ukraine attacks on civilian areas, the West's shifting victory agenda as public attention to Ukraine wains.

 

https://www.rt.com/shows/news/556636-rtnews-june-06-20msk/

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2022 at 6:33 PM, Eiuol said:

The point wasn't the comparison with the Nazis, the point was that negotiations historically never really work to prevent war. All you can really do is make war not worth the cost. And if you want to say that negotiations are necessary to prevent something bad from happening, then you are acknowledging that Russia in this situation is about to do something very wrong. It means you expected that the Ukraine would fight back, and that it would not be in the interest of the Ukraine to resort to negotiations. Negotiations are for when groups have similar enough rational goals, but differ in the concrete desires. If the lack of negotiations result in war, then the 2 sides have directly conflicting goals, no reasonable negotiation could occur unless one side made sacrifices. 

Pragmatically speaking, negotiations are shortcuts from war, so Putin would still want the same things, and if he doesn't get those things, there would be war. Either way, Russia is the winner, negotiations could only result in the West becoming objectively weaker and an authoritarian government becoming objectively stronger. But then again, the only response you had to authoritarianism is "well, no country truly protects individual rights" so I don't think this would be convincing for you. From what I gather, it seems like you regard Russian forces as liberating something. 

Not that there has to be direct intervention, but to say that negotiations would have made a difference is foolish. I can't think of a historical example where it has worked in the long run.

Several commentators have correctly said, two wrongs, or a dozen, "don't make a right". However:

- the Ukraine Gvt. clearly did not protect "the individual rights" of a portion of their population by attacking them for these past years. And worse, by ignoring the Minsk deal made (which Putin co-signed, btw), so doing, continuing that conflict without end. That negotiation was to allow for a special political dispensation for those provinces, a certain amount of self-determination, superficially comparable to the state system.

Would Putin have stuck to his side of the bargain, who can know for sure. Would it have prevented the invasion if implemented, ditto. Was he at all concerned about 'liberating' the Donbass? While not naive, I tend to believe so by later events.

(What there are, are two "authoritarian governments", the RF and Ukraine  - Ukraine's coup, remember, which un-democratically replaced one semi-authoritarian rule with another).

Comes down to this, the Kyiv Gvt got what it deserved in reality, by their evasions of reality. At any stage, up to the point of invasion, even lately while they observed Russia's army on standby on the border for one year - they had the chance to act properly and peacefully (and honor the Minsk protocols), as befitting a sovereign nation comprised of different ethnicities, cultures, languages (etc).

Now they are likely going to be pressured into making concessions of territory, the same and more that they evaded all this time.

BUT - only after a needless, useless, destructive and wasteful war. I've said from the start that this should not get to the point of either side "winning" or "losing". That hasn't changed now, as options run out for Ukraine.

Subtract the rampant emotionalism, the false pride and militant supremacy - in "beating the other" and "making them pay", and so on, and rationality could have prevailed.

For "bad-faith actors", I think there's hardly a moral distinction to be made any longer between the two sides, inclusive of arbitrary or cynical Western motives; the West, who even now are sending in some highly accurate, extreme-range armaments which -can - penetrate well into Russia, if not to prolong and/or escalate the fighting, why?

   

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 5:58 PM, whYNOT said:
Quote

If this is about eastern Ukraine, why did Putin start by attacking the whole country and trying to take Kyiv?

Fair question, ....

Western and Russian judgement alike expected Ukraine to fall over like a house of cards.  Ukraine was expected to panic, the troops to rout and the leadership to flee.  Russia needed troops moving toward Kiev to prompt that to happen and to collect the prize as it fell into its lap.  This was a gamble but seemingly justified as western analysts also had no confidence in Ukraine's ability to resist beyond the first few weeks.

What happened was that Ukrainian military forces overperformed the modest expectations of them and Russia underperformed.  The forces diverted from real strategic objectives in the south to the Kiev operation were inadequate for a long campaign against legitimate resistance.  Russia revealed that it simply cannot conduct war in the American fashion of deep striking maneuvers that also bring along enough fuel, food and ammo to sustain the operation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Minsk deal ... which Putin co-signed, btw

You seem to stress this as if it had a special significance. What is it, what are you trying to say ?

(BTW, Putin did NOT co-sign either of the two Minsk agreements; it took me less than 5 minutes to check. Is this simply a singular oversight ? Or are you generally not very meticulous with facts ? We will see...)

In addition to my question above, I would appreciate if you could answer the following two more general, but somewhat personal questions:

1. I saw that you posted quite a number of comments on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with many details. Therefore: why does this subject interests you ? Have you ever had contact with that region ? Relatives ?

2. What are your main trusted sources of information on this subject ?
 

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

the Ukraine Gvt. clearly did not protect "the individual rights" of a portion of their population by attacking them for these past years.

About this and other points - maybe later, depending on how the conversation functions, or doesn't... 😀

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

You seem to stress this as if it had a special significance. What is it, what are you trying to say ?

(BTW, Putin did NOT co-sign either of the two Minsk agreements; it took me less than 5 minutes to check. Is this simply a singular oversight ? Or are you generally not very meticulous with facts ? We will see...)

 

At a summit in Minsk on 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany agreed to a package of measures to stop the War in Donbass; this package became known as Minsk II.[27][28][29][30] Since then the contact group occasionally gathers in Minsk.[31] The separatist Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic representatives forward their proposals to the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine.[32] Wikipedia

 

Obvious what I'm saying. That Putin clearly had a vested interest in the success of the Minsk agreement.

Which suggests that if it had been implemented by Kyiv, he wouldn't have invaded.

Therefore, by using Minsk's failure as (one) justification to invade, he likely was sincere.

Wiki says "the leaders of... Russia".

I assumed Putin co-signed - if literally not signed by him, one safely assumes signed with his blessing: then do we need to argue over which Russian delegate actually did the signing?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

1. I saw that you posted quite a number of comments on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with many details. Therefore: why does this subject interests you ? Have you ever had contact with that region ? Relatives ?

2. What are your main trusted sources of information on this subject ?
 

 

 Frivolous, no? It doesn't make any objective difference what contacts I have or haven't over there. If it's so important, I have known someone who lived in Ukraine and have worked with a few Russian dancers and a gym coach. A friend came from there originally. Does that help? My sources are all over the place. Anyone can find their own, not trust blindly, think for themselves.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sample of the news reports that somehow, never make it into the mainstream media. "Trust blindly", no. Consider:

The assault allegedly planned by Kyiv to have been launched in March this year:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi-qKzYg534AhXQh1wKHUkBCCwQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fvoi.id%2Fen%2Fnews%2F143300%2Frevealed-this-is-the-reason-for-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-february-24-ahead-of-kyivs-plan-to-attack-donbass-in-march-2022&usg=AOvVaw3lBgnsRgOOg7HvU4MTcxAD

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reuters is a ~reasonably~ neutral source for a "timeline" of events (to put us all on the same page).

Even they leave out significant occurrences, e.g. inexplicably Minsk gets not a mention.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwijpcja_5z4AhWYglwKHakNCW8QFnoECDQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fevents-leading-up-russias-invasion-ukraine-2022-02-28%2F&usg=AOvVaw38kWhp4x4rjFYbA-pvVLio

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

[...]

> Obvious what I'm saying [by insisting that Putin himself (co-)signed the Minsk deal]. [I am saying] that Putin clearly had a vested interest in the success of the Minsk agreement.

Russia’s foreign policy is, and was, controlled by Putin; of course he had an interest, otherwise Russia would not have sponsored it! This is, however, self-evident and did NOT deserve being insisted upon.

 > by using Minsk's failure as (one) justification to invade, he [Putin] likely was sincere.

Putin did NOT use Minsk’s failure as one of the justification to invade Ukraine.

You made - again! - a claim without checking first, although it would have been easy : I needed less than 5 minutes.

(Besides, do you consider that the failure to abide by an agreement is an acceptable casus belli??? If not, why mention it? We could address later the subject of what could truly justify a military action /invasion.)

 > It doesn't make any objective difference what contacts I have or haven't over there. If it's so important, I have known someone […] A friend […] Does that help?

You are commenting here on my question about why the subject Russia-Ukraine interests you. Yes, thanks, I was curious and, besides, it does objectively help: it tells me something about your context.

 > Anyone can find their own, not trust blindly, think for themselves.

This is about my question on your main trusted sources of information on this subject. I appreciated your principle about not blindly trusting, but checking instead. And you give an example – about news of an “assault allegedly[???] planned by Kyiv to have been launched in March this year” which „never make it into the mainstream media.”

Your link points to an article titled “Revealed, This Is The Reason For Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine February 24: Ahead Of Kyiv's Plan To Attack Donbass In March 2022”. The publication you chose is more than obscure, but it doesn’t matter here; however, you could have chosen the primary source, Sputnik News. What matters is that it cites a Russian Federation’s Defense Ministry spokesman claiming that:

"During the special military operation, the secret documents of the command of the Ukrainian National Guard became the property of the Russian military. These documents confirm the secret preparations by the Kyiv regime for the offensive operation in Donbas scheduled for March 2022"

I don’t dispute that the spokesman has indeed said this. But, as you could imagine even without checking ;-), the Ukrainians immediately denied this, which means that the matter is at least disputed. In such a situation one does the obvious: one tries to look at the Ukrainian “secret documents”. They are secret for Ukraine, but the Russian would have gladly published them, if real, to irrefutably prove such a crucial point (for them). Have you found them? If not, doesn’t this fact seem suspect to you?

Therefore: after checking (quite at random) three of your claims about facts, I found two to be false and one to be at least arbitrary (made without proof) and even very suspect.

It indicates, maybe, a pattern: preaching the principle “not trust blindly, think for themselves”, but not really practicing it.

And remember the saying: you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Which means that, in the future, before citing facts, especially on this Objectivism Forum, you should carefully check them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

 

 > by using Minsk's failure as (one) justification to invade, he [Putin] likely was sincere.

Putin did NOT use Minsk’s failure as one of the justification to invade Ukraine.

You made - again! - a claim without checking first, although it would have been easy : I needed less than 5 minutes.

(Besides, do you consider that the failure to abide by an agreement is an acceptable casus belli??? If not, why mention it? We could address later the subject of what could truly justify a military action /invasion.)

 

The 5 minute wonder. "Putin did NOT".

Is Putin's (self) justification questionable?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWjI3RmZ74AhUITMAKHQ7LC40QFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmacmillan.yale.edu%2Fnews%2Ffrustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo&usg=AOvVaw0x-1bNWxlFhHOp_ntbfMsu

 

 

A 5 minutes search, from BBC's page:

"Launching the invasion on 24 February he told the Russian people his goal was to "demilitarise and de-Nazify Ukraine". His declared aim was to protect people subjected to what he called eight years of bullying and genocide by Ukraine's government. Another objective was soon added: ensuring Ukraine's neutral status" .

For good measure, and similar, RT:

"Russia attacked the neighboring state in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state".

I would like you to supply your source denying that Minsk non-implementation as justification.

And I did not state that I "consider that the failure to abide...is an acceptable casus belli" etc.

I said in effect that was PUTIN's reason. I'll go further, as I have done, that if he or any government perceived a threat to Russian Ukrainian - or one's countrymen's lives (in another country) - none would sit back and let them get killed: They'd take preemptive military action to rescue them.

Sound just to you?

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

Therefore: after checking (quite at random) three of your claims about facts, I found two to be false and one to be at least arbitrary (made without proof) and even very suspect.

It indicates, maybe, a pattern: preaching the principle “not trust blindly, think for themselves”, but not really practicing it.

And remember the saying: you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Which means that, in the future, before citing facts, especially on this Objectivism Forum, you should carefully check them.

I count two. One I believe I've validated, the other still pending and more likely true than not. If you're going to fact-check me, you'll need more than 5 minutes search - and must provide your counter-sources, as I do.

And I notice you neglected to mention your accusation against me about "the leader of Russia" involved at Minsk as I reported.

But where do you find your info - or - opposing info? Weren't RT and Sputnik banned in Europe (for that very reason - we can't have independent minds questioning authority and the settled feelings and 'science' about the war in Ukraine, can we?).

I think I search through and collate more dissenting facts and opinions than you have demonstrated.

Your narrative runs very close to the "accepted narrative" which blankets Google and blocks the majority of dissenting voices.

On an Objectivist forum, only one's utmost candor matters. That means you are bound by your integrity to report on anything you might find, even and especially when conflicting with your stance.

There is no way possible you cannot uncover contradictions to "the narrative" about Ukraine and Russia and NATO. There are too many deceits and cover-ups floating around. Before even assessing their morality (sacrificial-altruism, predominating).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Grames said:

Western and Russian judgement alike expected Ukraine to fall over like a house of cards.  Ukraine was expected to panic, the troops to rout and the leadership to flee.  Russia needed troops moving toward Kiev to prompt that to happen and to collect the prize as it fell into its lap.  This was a gamble but seemingly justified as western analysts also had no confidence in Ukraine's ability to resist beyond the first few weeks.

What happened was that Ukrainian military forces overperformed the modest expectations of them and Russia underperformed.  The forces diverted from real strategic objectives in the south to the Kiev operation were inadequate for a long campaign against legitimate resistance.  Russia revealed that it simply cannot conduct war in the American fashion of deep striking maneuvers that also bring along enough fuel, food and ammo to sustain the operation.  

Even on the Russian side, there was open admission that Ukraine put up more resolute and capable resistance than expected. But I've not heard they thought it would fall like a house of cards! If the West thought so, I wonder if they weren't dissembling, seeing as Britain and the US had been supplying and training Ukranians since 2015 (the UK, anyway) and should have known better how effective the Army was.

This reduces to how much Russia wanted or still wants to take Kyiv. And what costs would be acceptable. Frankly, I can't see why they'd try: superficially, of course to change the government, but that does not make sense. At great losses, civilian casualties and substantial damage to the city, the troops finally get to the Government buildings to find - everybody's left. Relocated secretly much earlier to a more secure part of the country. So what's the point? And as for the country's occupation...

I think you were aware of the crazy self-contradiction which we all were hearing simultaneously in the media, after Russia's retreat-redeployment or 'defeat' at Kyiv. (I still believe the attack was part "probe" to test out resistance and part diversionary-tactic). 

1. Russia is done for, taking too many losses, under-equipped, low morale - etc.etc.

Ukraine has victory in its sights!

2. Russia will now go after Poland, etc. etc. next, in its "expansionism".

Done for, or an army of Supermen? You can't have it both ways: a weak Army that couldn't defeat one city, is badly beaten--and now a powerhouse ready and able to conquer Europe?!

Most visibly now, neither was and is true. It had big losses, but is still strongly functioning.

Into Europe, a fantasy bridge too far, that couldn't possibly been even considered by Putin and his generals I think. It will become clearer as things unfold.

The point of the split "narrative" was almost certainly : 1. to build up Ukrainian morale with its apparent successes--and keep on going with its proxy war  2. to scare Europe into submission and sending support -- and gain new NATO members.

A military analyst wrote the other day, re: the fighting in the East and South that Russia's traditional battle style has been "a slow grinding down" of opposition, nothing flashy.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Your narrative runs very close to the "accepted narrative" which blankets Google and blocks the majority of dissenting voices.

This is a very strong clue for anyone aspiring to an objective epistemology but apparently it flies right over the heads of some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

...

Please note:

- it is confusing for me when you split into several pieces your answer to my comment. If you have to, please add “to be continued…”;

- for clarity for you and for me, please quote my claims to which you are answering (as I do);

- when you quote something, please specify clearly what that quote is supposed to prove;

- same for URLs.

Regarding URLs: instead of a monster like https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWjI3RmZ74AhUITMAKHQ7LC40QFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmacmillan.yale.edu%2Fnews%2Ffrustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo&usg=AOvVaw0x-1bNWxlFhHOp_ntbfMsu

you could simply give https://macmillan.yale.edu/news/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo Just click on the monster, se what URL does the browser display and paste that URL.

> The 5 minute wonder. "Putin did NOT". Is Putin's (self) justification questionable? https://www.google.com/url? […]

What is that URL supposed to prove? Does it prove that Putin, in his speech broadcast the morning of the February 24 invasion, did indeed specify Minsk failure as a cause for invasion? No, it does not. It proves only that the author, David R. Cameron, Professor Emeritus etc. BELIEVES that the Minsk 2 failure frustrated Putin very much. He does not even say that Putin mentioned Minsk accords in the above mentioned speech. Therefore: what useful purpose does that URL serve ?

> For good measure, and similar, RT: "Russia attacked the neighboring state […]”

What does that quote supposed to prove? That Putin mentioned Minsk accords in that speech ?

 > I would like you to supply your source denying that Minsk non-implementation as justification.

My - charitable ! – interpretation of this strange construct is that you are asking me on what basis am I clamming that Putin did NOT, in his explanatory 24 February speech, mention the Minsk accords.

OK. As you could have guessed by yourself, the only way to irrefutably prove, or disprove, this claim is to go to the source, which is Putin’s speech itself. Of course, an official transcript will suffice (vs. video). There is nothing more official as the President Putin’s official site. The transcript (and the authorized English translation) is here: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843

You could have found it by yourself in less than 5 minutes, as I did (through Wikipedia). But you apparently don’t have the reflex to fact-check your claims, even for the Objectivism Forum…

Now: if you search the word “Minsk” in that transcript… it isn’t there! Neither is it to be found in the Russian transcript.

Therefore, your claim that Putin DID mention the Minsk accords among his justifications for the invasion is thus disproved. Please note that Putin first spoke about invasion in THAT speech, never before.

> And I did not state that I "consider that the failure to abide...is an acceptable casus belli" etc.

Neither did I say that you did. Read again: I have ASKED you “do you consider that the failure to abide by an agreement is an acceptable casus belli?” I’ve also added “If not, why mention it?” Therefore: why have you mentioned it?

> I said in effect that [that] was PUTIN's reason.

Ahm… While one can easily know what Putin SAYS his reason is, it is extremely difficult to know what his reason IS…

> I'll go further… if he or any government perceived a threat to Russian Ukrainian - or one's countrymen's lives (in another country) - none would sit back and let them get killed: They'd take preemptive military action to rescue them. Sound just to you?

No, it doesn’t. But I am willing to consider the justifications you can provide.

I wrote that of the three of your claims about facts, I found two to be false and one to be at least arbitrary (made without proof) and even very suspect.

You answered: “I count two.”

Now, considering what II said above on the Putin’s Feb. 24 speech, could you please update your count ?

> Your narrative runs very close to the "accepted narrative" 

I presented no narrative. I was essentially fact-checking your facts. And I intend to continue along these lines and abstain, for the time being, from presenting my own narratives. My working hypothesis is that many, if not most of your „facts” are not true.

I did not fact-check all the factual claim you’ve made until yesterday and you cannot change them, but it is up to you to post from now on only verified facts 😉

It's not a shame not to know if a statement of fact is true or not, but it's a shame to spread unverified statements, especially on this forum.

Edited by AlexL
Small edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

This is a very strong clue for anyone aspiring to an objective epistemology but apparently it flies right over the heads of some.

Much in that. How else does one break out of the spin of media deception, the One public Narrative, but with one's induction-deduction?

A blizzard of distracting, media fed 'factoids' bring about good ol' O'ist nitpicking over minutiae.

Also some grasp of human nature is invaluable... ;) 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I think you were aware of the crazy self-contradiction which we all were hearing simultaneously in the media, after Russia's retreat-redeployment or 'defeat' at Kyiv. (I still believe the attack was part "probe" to test out resistance and part diversionary-tactic). 

....

A military analyst wrote the other day, re: the fighting in the East and South that Russia's traditional battle style has been "a slow grinding down" of opposition, nothing flashy.

 

 

Yes, all the news everyday, foreign and domestic, is constant info-war.  Curse Alex Jones for taking a perfectly good domain name and then using it for clowning.

I myself didn't expect Putin to invade.  It surprised me that he pulled the trigger after having massive annual military exercises on the Ukraine border for the last six years.  If he didn't want a land border with a NATO country, why attempt a full conquest of Ukraine which would result in a land border with several NATO countries?  Perhaps he did not order and does not want a full conquest of Ukraine?  The declared goals of the "special military operation" are just Donetsk, Luhansk and securing Crimea further, and de-militarization of rump Ukraine.  But a demilitarized rump Ukraine cannot exist without occupation by Russian troops, or else it becomes a NATO member.

Certainly there is no credible threat to Poland or Romania now, not after what we've seen of Russian military ops.  Conventional warfare with NATO/America would be humiliation for them.  This is not my American arrogance talking, they just haven't demonstrated skill at any military operation other than advancing infantry behind a curtain of artillery fire.

But the thing is, can advancing infantry behind a curtain of artillery fire work well enough for Putin to secure the stated aims of the operation?  How long can Ukraine resist and how long can Russia push in that fashion?  We will all find out the hard way I think, the war will persist until one side is exhausted.  Russia has the advantage in my judgement.  

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...