Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Grames said:

 

  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.

 

Very nice geo-political insight. I think you answer yourself. Why attempt such when Russia would only end up surrounded by more NATO countries? (And even more, if Putin advanced into the EU...)

You've exposed the self-contradiction in the widespread, entire-Ukraine-occupying, Empire-building myth.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a very broad view, from Peter the Great to war to future prognoses for Europe and Russia. A very brief mention (for AlexL) of an imminent - alleged - assault on the East this year (at 10:15).

There's some waffling but worth the listen.

Apropos Russia and Europe, I'd just finished a fine and quirky novel ("To the Hermitage": Malcolm Bradbury) featuring philosopher Diderot and of his visit, meetings and intellectual discourse with Catherine in "Sankt Petersburg". A fascinating period in Enlightenment and Russian history, the time of an outward-looking, intellectual/cultural-aspiring while still primitive Russia.

 

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/556759-russia-europe-closing-window/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2022 at 10:52 PM, 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.

Well yeah, the point would be that those people were objectively threatening. Of course people would dispute if the people attacked were threats or innocent victims, but it isn't like they were people completely innocent of everything. Aside from that, it's different than the absolutely routine violation of individual rights in Russia. Feel free to post examples of your claims though, besides just mentioning Donbass. 

On 6/6/2022 at 10:52 PM, whYNOT said:

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

Russia is actually authoritarian in the way Putin operates it, the Ukraine is not apparently any more authoritarian than Australia - Australia had some of the worst lockdown laws, which you could call authoritarian, but it would be absurd to say that Australia itself is authoritarian. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Q would be proud of your bravery. 

Thanks.

Likewise, I'm sure the ladies at The View and George Soros and so many more are even more proud, of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Well yeah, the point would be that those people were objectively threatening. Of course people would dispute if the people attacked were threats or innocent victims, but it isn't like they were people completely innocent of everything. Aside from that, it's different than the absolutely routine violation of individual rights in Russia. Feel free to post examples of your claims though, besides just mentioning Donbass. 

Russia is actually authoritarian in the way Putin operates it, the Ukraine is not apparently any more authoritarian than Australia - Australia had some of the worst lockdown laws, which you could call authoritarian, but it would be absurd to say that Australia itself is authoritarian. 

 

Got that Tony? They murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens with years of shelling and military assaults. But they are NOT authoritarians and suggesting otherwise would be absurd. Have fun talking to these clowns.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Australian government only acted as an authoritarian regime , that doesn't make them an authoritarian regime , duh.

If you are to make the specious argument that by acting in an authoritarian fashion that makes the Aussie govt a de jure authoritarian regime, in this forum, please post a link to the Aussie constitution that states they are an authoritarian regime.

Most western 'democracies' have shown, especially over the last two years, that they are de facto authoritarian regimes but Oists will screech to their dying cyber breath ," It's Not De Jure !!" cuz that makes a difference, somehow ,concerning whether or not they are 'actually( with links) authoritarian

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 Of course people would dispute if the people attacked were threats or innocent victims, but it isn't like they were people completely innocent of everything. 

 

 

I've quite frequently pointed out that there were (had to be) in that conflict, transgressions by both the "Kyiv-backed" force - some of whom, deliberately by Kyiv, one would think - were the infamous Azov battalion, neo-Nazis who continue hating Russians and are hated and feared, in return - and the "Moscow-backed" separatists. 

As far as innocent victims and tyrants go, I could imagine swinging the media-agenda completely around.

What if the Leftist-dominated MSM had taken the side of the separatists? Nothing new for them, they make their reputations on "the weak victims" suppressed by the evil oppressors. Can anyone imagine the Left without a supply of fresh victims?

There in Ukraine, was an obvious role for victimhood, the Russian-speakers native to that region, having been disallowed their rights and even language in Ukraine, now fighting for survival and self-determination in a strip of land, but attacked by nasty Kyiv.

(Feel free to read "innocent" Palestinians and Gazans and Hamas, resisting evil Israel, a major Leftist cause).

Instead of what amounted to largely, a media silence, regarding the Donbass war that few foreigners were aware of, one can be sure there would have been a regular media presence and daily-weekly reports coming out of the region - showing the devastation in Luhansk and Donetsk and suffering conditions and casualties of the poor Russians!

(Who were labeled terrorists by Zelensky in accord with my narrative).

One can bet the world's sympathy would lie on the Russian side against the Ukrainians (as it has - despite all the evidence and reality, remained anti-Israel).

Apartheid!

Now Putin invades to rescue the poor Russians in Palestine, um, the Donbass, and to drive back the Ukraine army, he would be internationally hailed as a savior.

The power of media indoctrination.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony next you’ll say the American regime is acting in an authoritarian manner just because its officials arrest political opponents on bogus charges or broadcasts show trials 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/michigan-republican-gubernatorial-candidate-arrested-in-connection-to-jan-6-capitol-breach_4522911.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=whatfinger

Tune in tonight to see and help the regime identify and punish its enemies!

81 million people can’t be wrong , Joe’s legit everybody knows it , and it’s criminal to think otherwise !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

... if Putin advanced into the EU...

There is only one way Russia could be conflict with the EU and not also NATO.

Finland and Sweden are in the EU but not NATO.  Turkey is vetoing Finland and Sweden entry into NATO.  EU doesn't have an army.  If Russia leans on or invades Finland and Sweden that would suffice for rationale to create an EU army and keep the U.S. vs Russia direct confrontation from happening.  I would consider that a second worst case scenario, just behind a U.S. or NATO vs. Russia nuclear war.

When Russia was without Crimea and Black Sea ports perhaps Turkey could be evicted from NATO as more trouble than they are worth, but now that Russia has the Black Sea again Turkey is necessary again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Got that Tony? They murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens with years of shelling and military assaults. But they are NOT authoritarians and suggesting otherwise would be absurd. Have fun talking to these clowns.

I mean, to genuinely believe in Q is necessarily being a clown.

I after all did ask for some evidence of systematic authoritarianism, rather than a typical dispute where there is some reason to think that at least one side has committed criminal acts. Otherwise, you might as well say that arresting anybody in any circumstance is authoritarian. But I know that you can only think in absolutely black-and-white terms, that you are not capable of any nuance, the any and all injustices must be authoritarianism. These are the failures of anyone who believes in Q, it's a massive failure of objective thinking. 

12 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Most western 'democracies' have shown, especially over the last two years, that they are de facto authoritarian regimes but Oists will screech to their dying cyber breath ," It's Not De Jure !!" cuz that makes a difference, somehow ,concerning whether or not they are 'actually( with links) authoritarian

It's like saying Nazi Germany is literally as bad as modern Germany, that North Korea is literally as bad as the US, that China is literally as bad as Brazil. That a country might take a singular authoritarian act does not necessarily mean that the government is acting by nature as an authoritarian government. It's kind of weird because it's taking anti-Western stance, that the West is evil and bad, with the US at the top of the line, the only hope is Russia. I'm not saying you can't be against some actions of the West, I'm saying that you are against the very thing that the West stands for and you would think that the US and the rest of the West is already done for. 

22 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You've exposed the self-contradiction in the widespread, entire-Ukraine-occupying, Empire-building myth.

Did you not realize that the person you quoted has already stated in this very thread that Russia is acting in an imperialistic manner? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of nuance, what do you think I’m implying when I use the word ‘regime’?

Do you think I’m speaking against the idea of rule of law , or the protection of individual rights, or the concept of impartial justice ?

Edited by tadmjones
Lol edited to correct auto check substitution of imperial for impartial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Did you not realize that the person you quoted has already stated in this very thread that Russia is acting in an imperialistic manner? 

 

He, Grames, has every right to modify his thinking as events proceed. We all face the same uncertainties, not enough information coming out, and things are changing continuously; others' minds and intentions aren't transparent and neither side in war will expose their hands, so one has to resort to conjecture about what the players are considering.

Nevertheless, Grames has logically demonstrated the extremely low possibility of Putin placing Russia up against any NATO borders. Something the imperialist-theorists haven't thought of or pretended not.

In "an imperialist manner": That's war for you. Your forces drive forward where possible. Not to mean you will advance endlessly until stopped.  

Central here: what is Putin's mindset - and - what does he desire and what does he believe are the utmost limits to the Russian army advance?

Where would he draw new borders if given carte blanche?

(Assuming the very worst outcome - a total capitulation by Kyiv).

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Grames said:

There is only one way Russia could be conflict with the EU and not also NATO.

Finland and Sweden are in the EU but not NATO.  Turkey is vetoing Finland and Sweden entry...

There's a "long game" NATO is playing, I think has emerged. Regime change in Russia, the breaking-up of the country, into subservient chunks that have rich resources to loot/trade ...?

One cannot know the full picture. But who caused what?

A hint: at the time Sweden and Finland looked to be joining, (and still do, apparently) there was much glee from English neo-con quarters - the Telegraph writers gloated that Putin had badly miscalculated - a backfire- and rather than prevent Ukraine's entry had only caused by his act two new members bordering Russia, to join.

One has to return to whether or not NATO has been gradually goading Russia into reaction. A purely defensive organization that had nothing to defend against - is what? What raison d'etre can it have?

Putin - it seems - has given them one on a plate. Now, "our" (NATO's) long-term plan is working: "We" knew Putin was obsessively against our encirclement/encroachment -- therefore, despite assurances made to him, we merely have to keep pressing closer while semi-promising Ukraine membership sometime in future.

Comes to a point, Putin must explode.

And now - NATO can innocently justify how essential their existence was all along. "We told you Russia would still pose a threat!" (In effect).

Obversely, it seems to me the original causality might have eventuated from NATO.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

...

Comes to a point, Putin must explode.

And now - NATO can innocently justify how essential their existence was all along. "We told you Russia would still pose a threat!" (In effect).

Obversely, it seems to me the original causality might have eventuated from NATO.

 

I don't think so Tony, because this has been a very long game and reifies NATO into an entity with its own diplomatic strategy carried over 2 generations now.  NATO has a rotating staff of people in the pay and uniforms of member countries, so those member countries are where to look for overarching strategies.  Poland and Romania just don't want what Russia wants, and joining NATO means they won't have to accept what Russia wants.  Poland and Romania, and the smaller countries, are players with their own interests and diplomatic strategies and are not merely territory captured by NATO.  The expansion of NATO seems legitimate to me.

Ukraine with its divided population and the political espionage operations fomented by both sides is not a country with clear loyalty to east or west.  Putin claims it is not a country at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grames said:

I don't think so Tony, because this has been a very long game and reifies NATO into an entity with its own diplomatic strategy carried over 2 generations now.  NATO has a rotating staff of people in the pay and uniforms of member countries, so those member countries are where to look for overarching strategies.  Poland and Romania just don't want what Russia wants, and joining NATO means they won't have to accept what Russia wants.  Poland and Romania, and the smaller countries, are players with their own interests and diplomatic strategies and are not merely territory captured by NATO.  The expansion of NATO seems legitimate to me.

 

In spite of the many diplomats and observers who urged NATO to accept no further members, and were ignored?

In other words, an institution that had no sensible rationale - no longer, a beneficent, central purpose - to continue to exist, not only did not 1. close down, 2. freeze membership - but 3. grew in membership.

I have not heard/read one reason anywhere: Why did NATO go on expanding? (almost as if, "seeing Russia doesn't want anymore to expand into Europe we will expand to Russia").

Only two possibilities I can see:

NATO was ignorant of a potential backlash from Putin (or his successor).

NATO was expectant of one.

I believe it only requires a handful of influential individuals to formulate, pass along and foster a long-term policy, strategy and 'philosophy'. Within both a corporation (as I've seen in companies) and a bureaucracy: this policy could be enacted covertly, perhaps - motives known only to the few insiders.

Maybe, there were and are dyed-in-the-wool Russophobes in NATO who still smarted from the Cold War, looking for payback?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

...

Maybe, there were and are dyed-in-the-wool Russophobes in NATO who still smarted from the Cold War, looking for payback?

There are dyed-in-the-wool Russophobes in Poland and Romania who still remember Soviet domination, that is for sure.  Also, while being on the lookout for western anti-Russian bigots lets not overlook the fact that Putin was the last KGB agent to leave and close the Berlin KGB station.  I have largely the same convictions I had in my late twenties, how much has Putin changed?

Other reasons to keep NATO around:

  • its continued existence prevents an EU army from manifesting 
  • it increases mutual diplomacy among all the members, even ones not sharing a border
  • standardized military equipment costs less, standardized ammo benefits even more
  • military incidents and accidents between forces are reduced due to common operating procedures
  • if there were no NATO and no EU army a web of interlocking defense treaties would crop up, the treaty situation of Europe prior to World War I.  That would be bad because then any small incident potentially becomes a World War.

 

Going to www.nato.int gets this quote:

In fact, the Alliance's creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

So even with the extinction of Soviet expansionism the other two purposes still apply.  Russian expansionism is a lot less scary than Soviet expansionism I admit, but if you are Finland you still have a lot to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Grames said:

There are dyed-in-the-wool Russophobes in Poland and Romania who still remember Soviet domination, that is for sure.  Also, while being on the lookout for western anti-Russian bigots lets not overlook the fact that Putin was the last KGB agent to leave and close the Berlin KGB station.  I have largely the same convictions I had in my late twenties, how much has Putin changed?

Other reasons to keep NATO around:

 

Grames: Granted, and my superficial impression (KGB!) was similar. But people can change as their values change and evolve.

e.g. the overtures made by Putin to the West just over 20 years ago.

Here was an opportunity that was missed. If Putin's progressive ambition for Russia ("part of the European culture"), had only been taken seriously by more visionary and less suspicious - prejudiced - minds.

Instead, Russia was left on the outside looking in:

"In isolation from Europe". Perhaps permanently, now.

I think it's sad what might have been for the continent, as a whole.

[From The Guardian]:

"Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule".

 

"George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’

Vladimir Putin said in 2000 that he ‘cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world’.

[Jennifer Rankin in Brussels. Thu 4 Nov 2021 05.00 GMTLast modified on Fri 5]

"Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise Nato as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

Lord Robertson’s comments on the One Decision podcast, which is presented by Michelle Kosinski, a former CNN journalist, and Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of M16, underscore how Putin’s worldview has evolved during his 21 years of unbroken rule of Russia.

After the Orange Revolution street protests in Ukraine in 2004, Putin became increasingly suspicious of the west, which he blamed for funding pro-democracy NGOs. He was further angered by Nato’s continuing expansion into central and eastern Europe: Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania chose to join the alliance in 2004; Croatia and Albania followed in 2009. Georgia and Ukraine were promised membership in 2008 but have remained outside".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

[From The Guardian]:

"Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule".

 

"George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’

...

"Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

...

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

The idea of Russia joining NATO is either remarkably naïve or a gambit offered with an ulterior motive.  That Putin of all people could be naïve is not plausible.

The larger an alliance is the more unwieldy it becomes.  Too great of a diversity of interests causes the organization to only be able to respond to peripheral issues unimportant to all of them.  Russia in NATO would diplomatically neutralize that alliance in cases where Russia itself were to cause controversy, much as both Turkey and Greece being in NATO removes NATO from Greek-Turkish disputes.

Russia having been admitted to NATO ahead of all those unimportant little countries would mean Russia could veto their admission.  Russia could then act against them at its leisure and diplomatically prevent NATO from doing anything about it.

Russia could never be an equal partner in NATO without America accepting its demotion from de facto leader of the alliance.  America would gain nothing from accepting such a displacement but would risk the loss of the long peace in Europe.

It was alarmingly insightful and bold of Putin to understand all this twenty years ago and attempt to achieve by diplomacy the neutralization of NATO even when Russia was at its weakest economically and militarily.  

The economic integration of Russia with Europe has had some success.  But the Euro community is feeling rather betrayed right now and Russia's gas lines supplying Europe are being used as leverage against sanctions.

Its been a pleasure working through these thoughts even if you remain unconvinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2022 at 5:14 AM, whYNOT said:

He, Grames, has every right to modify his thinking as events proceed.

Except he didn't, especially since he did not say that he changed his mind, and in his most recent post, he mentioned Russian expansionism. Expansionism would be one aspect of an imperialistic foreign policy. But to say that Russia operates imperialistically is not to say that Putin will take every opportunity even obviously stupid opportunities, to expand the borders of Russia. All Grames has really done is offer an analysis that emphasizes that Russia is not going to succeed in the long run, but also that the threat of Russia is overblown. I don't disagree with any of this. 

On 6/10/2022 at 5:14 AM, whYNOT said:

In "an imperialist manner": That's war for you. Your forces drive forward where possible. Not to mean you will advance endlessly until stopped.  

Your earlier post demonstrated that you don't know what imperialism is, what you described here is a metaphor. Imperialism goes beyond simply winning a war. 

On 6/10/2022 at 5:14 AM, whYNOT said:

Nevertheless, Grames has logically demonstrated the extremely low possibility of Putin placing Russia up against any NATO borders. Something the imperialist-theorists haven't thought of or pretended not.

I wrote something up here, but I lost it somehow. Anyway, which people are you talking about? Both of these things can be true at the same time. That is, Russia can act in an imperialistic way without there being any immediate threat to anyone. It's not like the guy in the interview after Oliver Stone was saying anything like Russia must be stopped immediately or else the world will be destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grames said:

Its been a pleasure working through these thoughts even if you remain unconvinced.

The interesting thing about whyNot is the way he gets things wildly wrong helps to point out where people go wrong with their reasoning. I mean, you politely called him naïve, that is, believing that Russia joining NATO is some sort of benevolent and well wishing desire of Putin is naïve, because doing that would mean Putin is naïve. But Putin is not naïve. 

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

He was further angered by Nato’s continuing expansion into central and eastern Europe: Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania chose to join the alliance in 2004; Croatia and Albania followed in 2009. Georgia and Ukraine were promised membership in 2008 but have remained outside".

Countries voluntarily joining a treaty organization that operates in a defensive manner can't be accurately portrayed as expansion. In literal terms yes it is expansion, but it isn't anything for Russia to fear. To be angered by NATO growing would imply that NATO is getting in the way of something. You seem to also be implying that we must be skeptical of the intentions of the West, we should trust Russia but not the West, and definitely not trust the US. Or at least, Russia should be afraid of what NATO might do unless it takes action now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn’t Gorbachev expressed publicly that he has grown more suspicious of the West and NATO expansion (or growth) and paranoid about what that signals for any Russian regime ?

POTUS is threatening regime change in Russia , is that inline with what State is saying ? today? Seriously I don’t recall if The White House had to walk back on hyperbole or if that’s our current position.

Granted that doesn’t necessarily translate to long or longer term stance from a NATO standpoint , but the west certainly doesn’t seem to be all that conciliatory toward Russia , perhaps not overtly belligerent but fairly aggressive in containment.

The most recent Munk Debate I thought had a decent showing presenting opposing analysis on the question of formulating a western/NATO stance in dealing with the current conflict by incorporating Russian objectives into any calculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Grames said:

The idea of Russia joining NATO is either remarkably naïve or a gambit offered with an ulterior motive.  That Putin of all people could be naïve is not plausible.

 

Yes! Exactly what I thought.

On the one hand, Putin innocently (seemingly) stated an intent to join an organization that offered a mutual defense pact OF all its members from any other nations. Overtly demonstrating his stated view for long-term detente with the West.

And on the surface, why should Russia be left out? If every European country becomes a member - in the future it could conceivably happen that a NATO country could be a threat to another.

On the other, he tacitly and intentionally exposed NATO's entire rationale to be weak: the unspoken principle is/was that it is *Russia* alone which will continue to be that threat--and *Russia* which remains the sole point of its existence.

Putin's application to NATO could seem like dark humor: Doesn't this guy know that he cannot, ever, "join the club"!?

Confining/targeting/isolating Russia is the only point of the exercise - the boogeyman that keeps NATO operating and in funds!

(You can be sure there was chuckling at the prospect)

His gambit could be two-pronged. If they actually had let in Russia (unlikely) one would think Putin would willingly accept and that would be a gain for the RF; If they didn't, his bluff would reveal that NATO was not as guileless and benevolent re: the RF as it wished to appear.

But if anyone had been thinking objectively, NATO might have done the clever thing, question its own premises and purpose, seen the great value to the West of a more open Russia, called the bluff, and (eventually) admitted Russia - after having it fulfill their conditions.

A Russia "inside the tent" and Western-involved could have solved future problems, not least of which, obviating a potential, predictable, Russia-China bloc.

 

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Realpolitik":

"Following his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Kissinger, who turned 99 in May, was labeled “an accomplice in the crimes of the Russian authorities” by the Mirotvorets website, which is commonly believed to be run by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).

In Davos, Kissinger said that a peace deal must be reached between Kiev and Moscow in the coming months to prevent the Ukraine conflict from spiraling into a global war between NATO and Russia. For this to happen, according to the former secretary of state, Ukraine must at least accept a return to the “status quo ante,” meaning it would need to relinquish its territorial claims to Crimea and grant autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

Kissinger is a prominent advocate of the realpolitik school of international relations, which puts the practical interests of nations ahead of ideological stances."

----

Kissinger has said, in short: "let's get real". (Condemned of course by Ukraine).

The general consensus among O'ists seems to me that principles are being abandoned in the process of observing "the reality" of this conflict.

It is not "principled" to have wished for, continuously armed and boosted Victory for Ukraine. (Never a realistic outcome).

That support, predictably had and has only protracted and intensified the war, and raised far larger risks and worsened suffering for all involved and wider for the world. 

A principle which calls on sacrifice of others and self-sacrifice is no Objectivist "principle".

But now look. The present aim of delivering more and greater firepower into Ukraine lately, to keep up the attack/defense in the East-- is to give Zelensky a few more territorial options at the bargaining table. So that Ukraine holds some territory and doesn't lose too much in upcoming (one hopes) negotiations. Some loss was inevitable - how much is, now?

How unnecessary.  

A limited loss in the Donbas, "the status quo ante", i.e. autonomy - that's what Z could have conceded at that "bargaining table" from the very start (and prior, as per Minsk). 

A peace negotiation insisted upon by the West - back IN FEBRUARY - resulting in minimal or no war casualties - that would have been "principled".

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
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...