Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

...operates in a defensive manner... 

 

Against -- whom?

The reasoning has gone over your head. "Defensive" implies an aggressor.

Any self-respecting nation would not allow this.

A fundamental error, here: Since Russia is and has demonstrated historically it's of such an - obviously - lower standard, the people and leaders of which cannot hold themselves in esteem nor equal to others.

So the notion that Putin might actually highly value his nation (intrinsically and/or subjectively, but where is that not prevalent?) --escapes them.

Therefore - ANY nation, in fact, would never tolerate the encroachment of ANY 'organization', increasing numerically and in proximity closer to its borders. 

Their rational conclusion: If the spread is not clearly beneficial to our country, it can't be good. Its intentions must be interrogated, and when necessary, prevented from further spread.  

(If further, that org. can plant intercontinental missile bases within those "defensive" partners... need I go on?)

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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

Did you not read the post? He was saying how it couldn't solve future problems. He even said it would result in the loss of long-standing European peace. He also mentioned you were unconvinced, yet you speak as if you agree. 

23 hours ago, Grames said:

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.

On 6/11/2022 at 2:04 PM, Grames said:

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.  

In other words, Putin wants to weaken NATO or even better, destroy it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The reasoning has gone over your head. "Defensive" implies an aggressor.

 

Right, and if there is no aggressor, there is no issue. NATO leaves Russia alone. It's not even intervening with Ukraine. There is no evidence that NATO is or ever was a threat to Russia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Did you not read the post? He was saying how it couldn't solve future problems. He even said it would result in the loss of long-standing European peace. He also mentioned you were unconvinced, yet you speak as if you agree. 

Did you not carefully note what I quoted from Grames' post?

His first paragraph, which I agreed with and ran with. I have not so far replied to his other substance.

I don't need your interlocution and interference. If he wants he can question me.

You have a big problem with posters being in any agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Did you not read the post? He was saying how it couldn't solve future problems. He even said it would result in the loss of long-standing European peace. He also mentioned you were unconvinced, yet you speak as if you agree. 

In other words, Putin wants to weaken NATO or even better, destroy it. 

An interesting take by Grames and worth considering. To enter NATO in order to subvert it. Except it seems too complicated.

And I consider it making overmuch of an offhand remark Putin made to the Nato chief, George Robertson: "When are you going to invite us to join Nato?"

But I agree fully that Putin was not naive, nor is. Did he maybe mischievously know the stir that would have caused -- while shrewdly testing Nato's premises? Yes, I'm sure.

I don't believe he thought Russia would get invited, and as far as I know, did not repeat the overture to Nato.

Very much more telling, was, in another instance this remark from the article: 

"I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world".

If one is going to accept and judge on face value what someone says as sincere, then one must include everything said.

A person often will be not-naive and also not-evil. Running through the debate is - take Putin at his word - here- but not - there. Plenty of selectivity concerning Putin, as seen in the media too. It would appear it's necessary to cast him as the darkest demon in order to sanctify Zelensky and Ukraine.

As I said, I haven't accepted either.

So I attribute less importance and reality to the joining of Nato, far more to Putin's aspirations for Russia in "the civilised world". I believe that was genuine and I'm not naive.

Even a grand cynic is not always cynical in every sphere.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

But I agree fully that Putin was not naive, nor is. 

In which case, you know he was up to no good. 

But, in any case, you don't seem to think Putin is an authoritarian, and that Russia is free to the same extent as any other Western country, so you would have no reason to think Putin is different than any other typical world leader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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.

There is no need for the NATO charter to call out Russia specifically as an eternal enemy, that would just get in the way of peaceful coexistence.  A decision not to engage in persistent taunting is not guile.   A defensive alliance is not a benevolent organization, that was never a pretense.  It is true that Russian expansionism was an ongoing threat against which NATO could act as an insurance policy, that is hardly a secret that Putin needed to confirm or reveal. 

And even so the other justifications for NATO remain, the suppression of militarism and the encouragement of European political integration.

Russian expansionism was not a threat to the original NATO members, but it was a threat to the new members who were closer to Russia.  It was rational and proper for those countries to decide to join NATO.  It was rational and proper for the existing NATO members to allow them entry.  Events have only proved them correct.

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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. 

I agree with you here.  Russia appears willing to pay the price of victory, the western powers are unwilling to commit more than espionage, propaganda and inadequate amounts of military equipment.  I don't think the western powers should commit more and never should have meddled in Ukraine in the first place.  This entire affair is just getting people killed in Ukraine and the larger economic effects will put millions at risk of starvation in other parts of the world.

Poland and Romania are already in NATO.  If Putin's special military operation succeeds beyond his stated goals and gains all of Ukraine as a Russian Federation member there is no realistic path beyond the Ukraine for any further military operations.  NATO does not need Ukraine to be secure.  Russia didn't need Ukraine to be secure either, but don't see things that way.

NATO does not need Finland (and Sweden) either, but since they have asked and are under a realistic threat then for the sake of peace Finland should be admitted to NATO or given unilateral security guarantees to discourage a Russian operation there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

In which case, you know he was up to no good. 

But, in any case, you don't seem to think Putin is an authoritarian, and that Russia is free to the same extent as any other Western country, so you would have no reason to think Putin is different than any other typical world leader. 

I was the first to say he was authoritarian and autocratic.

You have a bad habit of misrepresenting my content.

There's no point in my reiterating to you that not-naive is not necessarily "no good", which is not necessarily "evil". 

In that respect, every world leader has been - at very least -  "not naive".

I maintain Putin at one time was receptive to the West. Not, again for obvious reasons, much reported on. An opportunity was wasted by Russia-denigrators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Grames said:

Russian expansionism was not a threat to the original NATO members, but it was a threat to the new members who were closer to Russia.  It was rational and proper for those countries to decide to join NATO.  It was rational and proper for the existing NATO members to allow them entry.  Events have only proved them correct.

 

"Events have only proved them correct."

(What came first, the chicken or the egg?)

Grames, this is the crux of the matter.

Was Nato in fact ~goading~ some strong response from Moscow (a reaction that would retroactively "prove them correct")? - or - were they taking in further members, innocently unaware of Putin's 'encirclement paranoia'?

This latter is an impossibility unless the Nato people were unconscious.

They could be in no doubt that, while he didn't protest over previous ex-Soviet, Nato entrants, Putin had drawn "a red line" for Ukraine. By their assurances that Ukraine could eventually join, they were, with deliberation, 'prodding the Bear', so to speak. 

This reduces to: was (and is) Putin in DEFENSIVE mode, overall? Contradictory to the widely accepted wisdom that his intents were and are aggressively imperialist? Without any evidence of that, and in denial of the logic? I think most people haven't understood the absoloute importance of Ukraine's neutrality to Putin, and so have leapt to that false conclusion. 

(Someone has posited the clear self-contradiction of Putin venturing up to and across any MORE Nato-member borders; now, who was that ... ? ;)

What matters ultimately, is not what I or you believe, it's what Putin believes to be fact: Nato in Ukraine would be a security breach for Russia and had to be prevented, even at an enormous cost.

(Plus, "liberating" the Donbas and consolidating the Crimea - etc. etc.

I go with the reverse: Events are proving HIM, correct. Nato, in recent decades and presently, has not proven to be principled, nor acted in good faith.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Was Nato in fact ~goading~ some strong response from Moscow (a reaction that would retroactively "prove them correct")? - or - were they taking in further members, innocently unaware of Putin's 'encirclement paranoia'?

This latter is an impossibility unless the Nato people were unconscious.

America, France and Britain are not vulnerable to an equivalent paranoia, but Germany, Poland and Romania and the small countries are equally paranoid about Russian encroachment as Russia is about encirclement.  Is one paranoia more important than the other?  Not in some impartial god's view sense, and NATO is not in the business of being impartial.

I think western intelligence agencies and the U.S. State Dept. should have let Putin have the Ukraine and not contested it for the last decade.   He's going to get it anyway because he is willing to fight for it and the west is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Grames said:

America, France and Britain are not vulnerable to an equivalent paranoia, but Germany, Poland and Romania and the small countries are equally paranoid about Russian encroachment as Russia is about encirclement.  Is one paranoia more important than the other?  Not in some impartial god's view sense, and NATO is not in the business of being impartial.

I think western intelligence agencies and the U.S. State Dept. should have let Putin have the Ukraine and not contested it for the last decade.   He's going to get it anyway because he is willing to fight for it and the west is not.

They were entitled to feel nervous about encroachment too, but with far less evidence. I did not see invasions and occupation or few incursions by Moscow into ex-USSR states, excepting Chechnya for an anti-terrorist campaign, let alone posing a threat to Poland and Germany; while all the while, Nato's membership expanded by nearly twenty. With a couple more on the horizon.

This is not to say Putin was a principled, good faith actor, either! (No one has been, is apparent). But he did leave newly-independent nations alone, all that period - with only Ukraine remaining his "line in the sand", the warning which went ignored. 

"Spoils of war" do not sit comfortably with anyone. But it is approaching certainty that Russia will emerge from war with some more - or far more - territory than it anticipated or probably planned for, if we could ever know the truth of this. Perhaps years back the West/EU could have pressured Kyiv to relinquish the Donbas 'republics'. Citing how Kyiv had lost control of them, needing to wage a war to subdue the separatists, they might have argued that Ukraine had lost its sovereignty over the East, de facto and de jure.

In combination - rationality, forward-thinking and principles - with "realpolitik": THEN, the losses of land and lives could have been minimal. Instead, non-reality and emotionalism - beating Putin, weakening Russia, economically and militarily, and Ukraine's heroics 'defending Europe', dominated.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

They were entitled to feel nervous too, but with far less cause. I did not see invasions, occupation and few incursions by Moscow into ex-USSR states, excepting Chechnya for a supposedly anti-terrorist campaign, let alone posing a threat to Poland and Germany,

Russia proper and its satellite Belarus were not invaded, occupied, or incurred into either, unless you count Belarus by Russia.  If you go back a little further, the former Iron Curtain countries have a lot to remember.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Russia proper and its satellite Belarus were not invaded, occupied, or incurred into either, unless you count Belarus by Russia.  If you go back a little further, the former Iron Curtain countries have a lot to remember.

  

Right. Don't you think the most significant event to highlight was Russia's 1991 voluntary breakup of the Warsaw Pact? And - subsequent Nato activties since 1991?

These maps tell a tale:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjlr_2InK34AhWDg1wKHRRpCRQQFnoECE0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2022%2F05%2F19%2Ftwo-maps-show-natos-growth-and-russias-growing-isolation-since-1990.html&usg=AOvVaw2lJwYAe0kbv0FMcepQ2zH7

And:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjlr_2InK34AhWDg1wKHRRpCRQQFnoECCoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dw.com%2Fen%2Fnato-why-russia-has-a-problem-with-its-eastward-expansion%2Fa-60891681&usg=AOvVaw3zE5IjkWFIL4k2vqLxPEkE

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Russia proper and its satellite Belarus were not invaded, occupied, or incurred into either, unless you count Belarus by Russia.  If you go back a little further, the former Iron Curtain countries have a lot to remember.

  

True and their  'remembering' is in  , or comes from, a different context than that of a lot of the Anglo-West, and I think especially different from a distinctly American framing. Sovereignty, nation, people, culture and the acquisition of and legitimacy of power in a nation state comes from a very different context.   Ethno-nationalism is a 'thing' and the way that has evolved or played out for centuries shaped the politics.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Don't you think the most significant event to highlight was Russia's 1991 voluntary breakup of the Warsaw Pact?

That's one event among many.  It would take more study than I have time for to properly evaluate its meaning and significance.  Putin was not part of the national government until about 5 years later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I did not see invasions and occupation or few incursions by Moscow into ex-USSR states,

If you only start counting after the USSR collapsed that is cherry picking.  The basis for the the anti-Russia attitudes goes back further than that.  For Russia the period after the collapse of the USSR was one of extraordinary weakness.  Russia did not take any actions against ex-USSR states because it could not.  That was the time to invade Russia if anyone cared to, but no one did.  

leaving_russia.thumb.jpg.c2bf6377a788a4fafbe4704e5abb0dbc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 4:08 PM, Economic Freedom said:

. . . If you don't know about the Dept. of Defense documents indicating the financing of bioweapons labs in Ukraine, then you know nothing about Ukraine. . . .

That "indicating" claim about DOD is false, prejudiced.

"At the time of its dissolution in 1991, the Soviet Union, despite being a State Party to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), had a large and sophisticated biological weapons program, consisting of dozens of research, development, and production facilities, with tens of thousands of employees, spread across many of its successor states.


"In violation of the BWC, this Soviet weapons complex developed a broad range of biological pathogens for use as weapons against plants, animals, and humans, including the weaponization of anthrax, plague, and smallpox.


"In contrast, no other European state nor the United States possessed any biological weapon development programs, in compliance with their obligations under the BWC. When the Soviet Union dissolved, it left some newly independent states, like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, with legacy biological weapons program facilities, equipment, and materials that were vulnerable to theft, misuse, and unsafe handling and storage. THE U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF DEFENSE AND STATE FUNDED PROGRAMS TO HELP TRANSITION SUCH FORMER SOVIET WEAPONS FACILITIES INTO PEACEFUL PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES.


"The United States, through international collaboration, has also worked to address other biological threats throughout the former Soviet Union. Subject matter experts in biology, biodefense, public health, and related fields were engaged from across the U.S. government. These efforts advanced disease surveillance and enhanced peaceful biological research cooperation between former Soviet Union scientists and the global scientific community, consistent with international norms for safety, security, nonproliferation, and transparency.


"The United States has also worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health, providing support to 46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades. The collaborative programs have focused on improving public health and agricultural safety measures at the nexus of nonproliferation.


"This work, often conducted in partnership with outside organizations, such as the WHO and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), has resulted in safer and more effective disease surveillance and detection. Ukrainian scientists have acted consistent with international best practices and norms in publishing research results, partnering with international colleagues and multilateral organizations, and widely distributing their research and public health findings." —DOD

( EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Double Down"
 
def.
  1. 1.
    strengthen one's commitment to a particular strategy or course of action, typically one that is potentially risky.
    e.g. "he decided to double down and escalate the war"
     
  2. 2.
    (in blackjack) double a bet after seeing one's initial cards, with the requirement that one additional card be drawn

https://www.rt.com/news/557173-ukraine-heavy-weapons-nato/

[Unprincipled? Nato and Stoltenberg have completely lost their heads. Do they know they are inviting disaster to "win at all costs" throwing in the most serious weaponry now ??]

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Grames said:

 The basis for the the anti-Russia attitudes goes back further than that.  For Russia the period after the collapse of the USSR was one of extraordinary weakness.  Russia did not take any actions against ex-USSR states because it could not. 

A weakness maintained and encouraged by America and Europe, ever since?

Very much a rational policy in the initial post-Soviet era, never to let the evil empire again arise, who could disagree? Not most/all Russians also. 

But dropping a big context: Communism was renounced and denounced by the RF.

That policy had moral merit, then, but without ~an ideology~ Russia was not the great danger anymore.

I conjecture that some in Nato and the West have gotten stuck in those old times and could not move forward, because of their concretism, overlooking and not grasping the power of that ideology. The Russian "weakness" policy became their permanent philosophy.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

But dropping a big context: Communism was renounced and denounced by the RF.

That policy had moral merit, then, but without ~an ideology~ Russia was not the great danger anymore.

Ah, good point to raise because this then gets back to the impact of geography upon politics (geopolitics).  From the monarchy of Catherine the Great through the communist era to today under Putin there is an underlying logic to Russia's foreign policy.  They have all been more similar than different judging by tracking where the armies march despite the much larger difference between monarchism and communism.   Monarchism and communism are still both statism and collectivist in principle by an Objectivist critique. 

Russia would have to change more radically than what Putin has brought to enable Russia to reach different conclusions of how Russian geography should effect its policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Minsk agreement was always intended to be broken, a delaying strategem to buy time to strengthen the Ukraine military by Poroshenko and after him, Velensky, then the Kyiv Govt.* will deservedly suffer its loss of territory.  

Video interview of former president

https://www.rt.com/russia/557307-poroshenko-comments-minsk-agreement/

 

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...