Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 6/13/2022 at 12:37 PM, whYNOT said:

Without any evidence of that, and in denial of the logic?

I mean, you were given examples of reasons to believe that, but you didn't even address them.

On 6/13/2022 at 12:37 PM, whYNOT said:

I think most people haven't understood the absoloute importance of Ukraine's neutrality to Putin, and so have leapt to that false conclusion. 

What would have happened if Putin did not invade? If Ukraine stayed neutral, what would have happened? I'm actually curious about both answers that you would give.

On 6/12/2022 at 10:00 PM, whYNOT said:

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

On 6/12/2022 at 8:19 PM, whYNOT said:

It would appear it's necessary to cast him as the darkest demon in order to sanctify Zelensky and Ukraine.

I mean, he's not literally Satan, but authoritarians are the worst leaders there are, and the government's they lead are oppressive. Or on the other hand, maybe you're just saying that every country is as bad as Russia or pretty close. I also looked, you didn't say he was authoritarian and autocratic but if I missed it, you can point it out.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I mean, you were given examples of reasons to believe that, but you didn't even address them.

What would have happened if Putin did not invade? If Ukraine stayed neutral, what would have happened? I'm actually curious about both answers that you would give.

 

"To believe" - Russia was (is) intentionally and "aggressively imperialist" towards Europe?

I don't recall any "examples of reasons" which were not based on pure supposition.

i.e. Putin invaded for territorial motives that ¬ had ¬ to go well beyond what he stated, up front. Don't believe a word. It's a trick, why would he accept such high risks and economic damage for little reward? Ukraine's not enough for him! Next comes Poland, the Baltics ... Definitely not merely East-South Ukraine!

Any substantial reason I missed, jog my memory.

One can only deduce the realities of 'Russian expansion' further afield from what they have and what they'd face: an under strength Army, strung-out logistics and supplies far from their bases, insufficient air cover, the difficulties of occupation - assuming it can overthrow and replace the Gvt's of other countries - resentful populations to suppress while contending with well-armed guerrilla bands, and one must conclude - an impossible feat.

Then the question: what for? To spread an ideology Russia does not have? For the sake of Russian nationalist pride? To gain an outrageously costly (short-lived) 'empire' in full-time revolt? Nothing to gain there, not a desirable goal, if possible. 

One might infer the outcomes if Putin hadn't invaded. The Eastern Donbass would have been defeated by Kyiv soon this year, to be re-absorbed into Ukraine with loss of lives and refugees. (They are right now, even when losing, resorting to their original method of shelling 'soft' targets, like the cities in Donbass and caused 100's of civilian casualties).

With less resistance the present Ukraine forces that were this year much more powerful than previously would have little problem against the separatists. And Ukraine would have soon joined Nato anyway. After which the tensions at the border with Russia could have intensified and a full scale war might have erupted eventually.

If Ukraine had assured its neutrality and non-Nato membership and honored the Minsk accords, ceased fighting against the Donbass, granted it limited autonomy and representation in Parliament? (As revealed by the ex-President, none of which they had any intention of). Who can tell if that would have been satisfactory to Putin?

(Maybe, an indication, he's made it public record in recent days that he will abide by the wishes of the residents there, after the regions are secured).  

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I don't recall any "examples of reasons" which were not based on pure supposition.

Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea. Those are more immediate examples. Grames mentioned Chechnya earlier.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

i.e. Putin invaded for territorial motives that ¬ had ¬ to go well beyond what he stated, up front. Don't believe a word. It's a trick, why would he accept such high risks and economic damage for little reward? Ukraine's not enough for him! Next comes Poland, the Baltics ... Definitely not merely East-South Ukraine!

Don't believe whose word? Anyway, high risk of what? I already explained before, being imperialistic doesn't mean that invasion of other countries is imminent. Slow and steady wins the race. The risk in Ukraine seems minimal as it is, with a pretty good amount of potential for energy resources. The Black Sea is pretty important. Stop mixing me up with people who make exaggerated claims.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

To gain an outrageously costly (short-lived) 'empire' in full-time revolt?

Baby steps are good. But I don't think you mean the same thing as me or Grames when we say imperialism. There is no requirement that it happens quickly or stupidly.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

(They are right now, even when losing, resorting to their original method of shelling 'soft' targets, like the cities in Donbass and caused 100's of civilian casualties).

Okay, and suppose this did happen. In the Russian military did nothing. What would that mean for Russia? Or the rest of the world?

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

After which the tensions at the border with Russia could have intensified and a full scale war might have erupted eventually.

Why would tensions increase just by joining NATO? 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If Ukraine had assured its neutrality and non-Nato membership and honored the Minsk accords, ceased fighting against the Donbass, granted it limited autonomy and representation in Parliament? (As revealed by the ex-President, none of which they had any intention of). Who can tell if that would have been satisfactory to Putin?

But why would they have needed to assure their neutrality? As in, what would have happened differently if the Ukraine was neutral? Also, separate question, assuming a non-neutral Ukraine, what would have happened if Russia did not invade? What would have happened to Russia? 

I just can't tell if you're trying to say that Russia was justified in invading the Ukraine. Didn't you say before that not even you said Russia was justified? If it isn't justified, this conversation is pointless. If it is justified, I'm trying to see what threats you even think existed. Not speculations, I'm talking about threats that would constitute initiating force. Not a hotly contested thing like Donbass which isn't a clean and clear conflict for either side. Plus that's only one region, not the entire country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea. Those are more immediate examples. Grames mentioned Chechnya earlier.

 

 

They constitute the weak, "imperialist" argument, quite irrelevant here.

The only argument which concerned me at first and now, as I quoted myself from an early post, attacks the notion that Russia is or will be "...aggressively imperialist towards Europe".

Never - in any foreseeable future, quickly, or in "baby steps".

Why it is of concern, is that is the fear of many and most Europeans and their leaders, the threat magnified by media manipulation.

In short: After Ukraine, are we next?

Therefore, the Ukrainians are perceived to be "the defenders of Europe" against Russian aggression, therefore the EU and Europeans felt the need to make a self-sacrifice in solidarity with Ukraine, therefore, Zelensky is allowed to browbeat the leaders of Germany, France and others for "not doing/giving enough", therefore, a sanctions package that does the West and poorer countries more harm than Russia--therefore, the neocon warmongering by the West. And therefore, why Ukraine has had to fight on, regardless, having been earlier, immorally, dissuaded from any peace negotiations, by Boris, etc. in the cause of "winning" against Russia.

Most of it invalidated, once "imperialism to Europe" is discounted.

(In part proof, since Russia has been concentrating forces in the East, a large amount of alarmism in Europe has abated, polls indicate people are losing interest in the war).

That's when Grames showed up the fallacy of Putin invading westwards and willingly encountering more Nato countries, after going to great lengths to block Ukraine entering Nato. THE reason for Putin not wanting to defeat and occupy Ukraine. 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

And therefore, why Ukraine has had to fight on, regardless, having been earlier dissuaded from any peace negotiations

But I've been trying to ask you, why was invading Ukraine necessary (not in the eyes of Putin, but why do you yourself think it was necessary for the interests of Russia)? So to answer that, if the Ukraine didn't care about joining NATO, what would have changed? If the Ukraine didn't remain neutral, and Russia didn't invade, what would have changed? There is no subtext here, I just want to know what you think. And just for clarity, can you say in definite terms if you think that Russia was justified in invading the Ukraine. The first questions are about why, in the grand scheme of things, other courses of action were not better. The last question is asking for you to clearly state your moral position. 

24 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The only argument which concerns me, as I quoted myself from an early post, attacks the notion that Russia is or will be "...aggressively imperialist towards Europe".

But I never did argue about "aggressively imperialist", I said imperialist.

26 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

They constitute the weak, "imperialist" argument, quite irrelevant here.

You said you don't recall any examples, now that I give you examples, you change the goalpost to say that they are irrelevant? You were saying there was no evidence of imperialism, but then you switch topics to say that you just care about the exaggerations from people. The whole thing you disputed is that there is or was any kind of imperialism. 

27 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

THE reason for Putin not wanting to defeat and occupy Ukraine. 

He literally explained that Putin is willing to play the long game with the Ukraine, and that Russia joining NATO would only be a ploy to weaken NATO. You'll have to explain why you reached a different conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 The last question is asking for you to clearly state your moral position. 

 

My moral position is unchanged. First, this invasion is not an event that happened in isolation from anything else. Superficially, people heard "invasion", saw Putin, and react with moral outrage. That's 'easy', elemental, and was my own visceral response at first - anyone's subconscious throwback to the strong "bully" who pushed his way in upon the weak "innocent". And a reversion to all the film scripts in which the aggressor meets his match and is humiliated or killed; one gains satisfaction at justice done. (Who often has been a stereotypical Russian "Mafiosi thug" too). You don't need to believe this account, only to be aware that many other people do. 

It's that personal satisfaction that people need - seeing evil defeated by good. A feeling, hardly thinking nor drawing moral conclusions, and anyone who properly wants to know more had to probe further to begin to discover the antecedents and conditions in Ukraine (and Russia) and the mindset of leaders that brought events to this point. One -might- find that the innocent were not all that innocent. Who, I don't have to repeat: all of them. None of the central actors were covered in glory. (The true innocents the 'common' people who paid and are paying for the lies and deceit, the evasions, of those in power). I mentioned Johnson of the UK, one who "immorally dissuaded" Zelensky from dealing with Putin early on. Thus backing and committing Ukraine to 'fight for the West'. Of course, greeted with enthusiasm by westerners and Ukrainians who believed, when the Russians seemed to be retreating, there would be inevitable victory and satisfaction.

I've pointed to self-sacrifice and sacrifice, the core moral doctrine surrounding this war. That is clear by now. Except the "film script" is panning out badly for people (who have seen war only in movies), and only now have leaders begun shifting towards and suggesting that dirty word, diplomacy, as the only way. Very late: not one of them (maybe, Macron) suggested negotiations at the start to try to avoid the sacrifices of war. Did any want to actually find out what were Putin's aims and concerns? Were any - perhaps - legitimate? At least find out what we are dealing with.

No, it was assumed prejudicially: Russia has little moral standing to have "concerns". Putin is evil because he invaded; Putin invaded because he is evil - any contact with him must be taken as appeasement and weakness. Today, Zelensky, probably believing in his public image, seems not to have seen the writing on the wall and appears blind to the West gradually easing off on Ukraine as it realizes its own errors of judgment and needs to save face. He is still adamant he won't negotiate nor make concessions with Russia so for now committing his people deeper into a war for East Ukraine they are not going to win. This, putting sentimentality aside, is not heroism, it further sacrifices the people.

Kyiv lost Ukraine's right to the Donbass already, as I see it, by employing constant force against the inhabitants rather than honor a treaty, which is now known from his predecessor to have been deliberate fraud, "indirect force". One can assume Putin had seen through that deception a way back.

And Nato, too, doesn't come out well: How would they innocently maintain they couldn't have predicted Putin eventually responding to the pressure!? Against all advice that Putin considered Nato's growth inimical to Russia, and who drew the line at Ukraine. Was this their plan to isolate Russia? It succeeded. 

My moral position is disgust with all of them, including the media who have played a big part in feeding the world misinformation, and the lie: victory through heroic sacrifice. To go back to a stage much of this started, 8 years ago  - and who'd discriminate between "Russian-Ukrainians" lives and "Ukrainians" lives - people need not have died to satisfy the West's moral righteousness. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

My moral position is unchanged.

I don't know what your moral position is, you never did say at any point in the entire thread. Was Russia morally justified invading the Ukraine? That's all I'm asking. 

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Were any - perhaps - legitimate? At least find out what we are dealing with.

I mean, people who make those decisions already know far more than you about Putin. Authoritarians don't have legitimate concerns, or if they speak of something that would be legitimate, they have an ulterior motive where they want something illegitimate in the end. 

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

My moral position is disgust with all of them, including the media who have played a big part in feeding the world misinformation, and the lie: victory through heroic sacrifice. 

That's not a coherent position, unless you want to say that all immoral actions are equivalent. But I asked: was Russia morally justified invading the Ukraine? 

You also skipped over the previous 2 questions again.

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And Nato, too, doesn't come out well: How would they innocently maintain they couldn't have predicted Putin eventually responding to the pressure!?

Pressure to do what? That's like saying "I raped her in my car after our date because she was so hot wearing a short skirt, how could she innocently maintain that she couldn't have predicted I would eventually respond to the pressure!?" It's not that anybody thought that Putin wouldn't do it, but he had every opportunity to make a different decision. There wasn't any pressure, nobody was doing anything to Russia, so that's why I'm asking you what pressure you think there was. You mentioned the potential for NATO borders to be closer to Russia, but NATO has never invaded a country, and don't suggest any plans to do so. 

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Was this their plan to isolate Russia? It succeeded.

Sounds like a pretty good thing to do to an authoritarian government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

which is now known from his predecessor to have been deliberate fraud, "indirect force".

I thought this should be separate. Even if this is true, violating a treaty can be pretty bad, but it doesn't follow that it was a means to do something far worse. In the same way, violating a contract can be pretty bad, but it doesn't follow that upon violation, I can resort to assaulting you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Sounds like a pretty good thing to do to an authoritarian government. 

Authoritarianism is the standard presently, or haven't you been attending to harsh controls by all governments in recent years? Do they all get isolated?

The degree of, and a nation's will and capacity to push back authoritarianism, they will vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

This can reasonably be taken as evidence of Putin's evil.  Is it a lie?

Of course whYNOT will say all this could have been avoided.

I can't open the article. The "backbone" I can dismiss out of hand. Much superior artillery has been the backbone of Russia's war effort. Why resort to "banned weapons"? Which will leave traces Ukraine has been intent on finding to declare 'atrocities'? That these banned weapons are only coming to light now, is suspect; There will be, and I anticipated, plenty of excuses by the Western 'experts' in the media and by Kyiv, for why the war turned against all their prognostications: "It was this unfair and immoral advantage!"

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

That's not a coherent position, unless you want to say that all immoral actions are equivalent. But I asked: was Russia morally justified invading the Ukraine? 

You also skipped over the previous 2 questions again.

 

 

I have no obligation to answer these insistent queries, clearly questioning my morals.

And why have other participants fallen out of this debate, even the OP?

IF one drops all context, an invasion is immoral.

Replace the context, that Nato has been evidently up to no good for Russia, objectively - and subjectively (in Putin's eyes) with its senseless 'expansionism', a coup and revolt was funded and abetted in Ukraine by foreign powers, that discrimination in Ukraine against ethnic Russians/Russian speakers had been rife, and that a continuous conflict was being waged by Kyiv in part of the country which could be an eventual threat to Russia, and these add up to immoral activities which might well lead to a further immorality, the invasion; one can see a chain of evasions.

Here is the tendency by Objectivists to expect (demand) the free will principle of others, in denial of reality, that most people are largely determinists, those who will maintain: When this happens, I do that. There is no choice in the matter, it is determined.

"Unprovoked and unjustified invasion". The common phrase. Not if a Western nation had resorted to invading a neighbor for all the above causes! That would have been a justified, pre-emptive and defensive use of force.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I thought this should be separate. Even if this is true, violating a treaty can be pretty bad, but it doesn't follow that it was a means to do something far worse. In the same way, violating a contract can be pretty bad, but it doesn't follow that upon violation, I can resort to assaulting you. 

Poroshenko himself was recently interviewed pridefully stating he had had no intention of keeping his side of the Minsk bargain, at the time he signed it. Did you not see the link?

A unilateral breach of contract.

Fraud, "an indirect use of physical force", is more serious than you think. It directly affects the victim's planning and goals, with their monetary losses, of course.  Here, much worse: a "false pretense" and broken promise affected people's lives and properties in Donbass.

Fraud

A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.

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

“The Nature of Government,”

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

and that a continuous conflict was being waged by Kyiv in part of the country which could be an eventual threat to Russia,

Russia mounted military exercises on the border of Ukraine every year since 2014.  But this year something was different.  A large portion of the Ukrainian army was already positioned facing the Donetsk and Luhansk, but not to defend Kiev.  Putin claimed Ukraine was going to launch a military operation to pacify those areas.  This is plausible.  It seems that war was inevitable but Putin gained an advantage by attacking first.   If Ukraine did its part to provoke this war then Ukraine does not have a moral high ground.

But don't blame NATO, or other countries for joining NATO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Pressure to do what? That's like saying "I raped her in my car after our date because she was so hot wearing a short skirt, how could she innocently maintain that she couldn't have predicted I would eventually respond to the pressure!?" It's not that anybody thought that Putin wouldn't do it, but he had every opportunity to make a different decision. There wasn't any pressure, nobody was doing anything to Russia, so that's why I'm asking you what pressure you think there was. You mentioned the potential for NATO borders to be closer to Russia, but NATO has never invaded a country, and don't suggest any plans to do so. 

 

It doesn't have to invade. The "pressure" from Nato in recent decades has been *implicit*.

What one (me, anyway) could call psychological intimidation.

At any stage Nato might - it has the right to - plant nuclear missile bases in a Nato member's country. Which sends a clear, implied, signal to a neighboring country that it is (still) considered a potential threat to the international community.

If discounting that military purpose, and also how Nato is *a political* organization -  there is one forgotten item:

It's insulting for any country and leader to be considered "a threat" - and permanently distrusted. That does not foster good relations between neighbors. No encouragement is offered for that country to improve itself; it will remain a pariah, no matter what.

So again the question, why expand? To piss someone off?

I then doubt Nato's benevolence, lately.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Fraud, "an indirect use of physical force", is more serious than you think.

Yeah, but as I said, you violating a contract doesn't mean I get to assault you. It is neither the proper moral response nor the proper legal response. Violating a treaty doesn't mean invasion is a proper moral response nor diplomatic response. 

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Authoritarianism is the standard presently, or haven't you been attending to harsh controls by all governments in recent years? Do they all get isolated?

Most Western governments operate as constitutional republics, and many other countries like Japan. In Putin's Russia, there has never been a claim that it resembles much of the freedoms we have in the West and still do. It is significantly less free than any Western country and many Asian countries. You cannot reasonably claim that life in a Western country is as authoritarian as in Russia. I don't know how far South Africa has come since apartheid, maybe it isn't that far off from Russia, but here in the US, and many European countries, any squashing of freedom is significantly less than Russia and pales in comparison. Russia is sympathetic to authoritarianism in the way that China is, or Iran, or countries like that. Don't act like you don't know what I meant - unless of course you think the world really does suck that much in your surviving on the very last legs of freedom. 

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I have no obligation to answer these insistent queries, clearly questioning my morals.

Yeah, I'm asking what your moral beliefs are. Is it that difficult for you to decide if you think that Russia is morally justified invading Ukraine? You never hesitate to state your moral beliefs, least of all hesitate towards me. Why do you hesitate here? And for the other questions, I told you that they aren't questions about morality, they are simply questions about what you think would happen. Not what you think should happen, just what would happen. 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

At any stage Nato might - it has the right to - plant nuclear missile bases in a Nato member's country. Which sends a clear, implied, signal to a neighboring country that it is (still) considered a potential threat to the international community.

When was the last time they did such a thing? 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

So again the question, why expand? To piss someone off?

Who, NATO? It's not that NATO "expands", joining an alliance isn't really expansion except to say that people enjoy the benefits provided. NATO doesn't attack countries, it only defends them, and has never behaved otherwise. The most they have ever done is say mean and insulting things to Russia. And clearly they didn't let the Ukrainian in anyway, and still haven't, so any widening of the alliance has never happened yet! If you mean Russia, well, more resources. Pretty straightforward. 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The "pressure" from Nato in recent decades has been *implicit*.

The pressure to do what? Be specific. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Yeah, but as I said, you violating a contract doesn't mean I get to assault you. It is neither the proper moral response nor the proper legal response. Violating a treaty doesn't mean invasion is a proper moral response nor diplomatic response. 

 

Simply, when being the victim of a broken contract, a) one has legal recourse to claim damages and b) As the fraudster has impinged on his victim's rights (with "use of indirect physical force") he faces criminal charges.

Who were the Donbass residents going to appeal to when that treaty was broken? The Kyiv government and president who broke it?

When it was not implemented, leaving the people in danger from Kyiv forces, and no higher court to appeal to for justice, Putin "took the law into his own hands", it seems.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

Most Western governments operate as constitutional republics, and many other countries like Japan. In Putin's Russia, there has never been a claim that it resembles much of the freedoms we have in the West and still do. It is significantly less free than any Western country and many Asian countries. You cannot reasonably claim that life in a Western country is as authoritarian as in Russia. I don't know how far South Africa has come since apartheid, maybe it isn't that far off from Russia, but here in the US, and many European countries, any squashing of freedom is significantly less than Russia and pales in comparison. Russia is sympathetic to authoritarianism in the way that China is, or Iran, or countries like that. Don't act like you don't know what I meant - unless of course you think the world really does suck that much in your surviving on the very last legs of freedom. 

 

Maybe, but you of course missed what I wrote about degrees of authoritarianism and the will (of the people) to oppose such.

I'll add what's obvious - and - having the systems and structures in place -  to prevent it and combat it when it predominates. 

"[Much] less than in Russia". That's what "Degrees" means. 

Which also means, the freer nations set high standards that need to be sustained to that higher degree - when lesser countries have lesser standards to live up to and less far to decline into autocracy.

But to have disdain for a lesser country e.g. Russia, and treat it as inferior is collectivist (and as usual, intrinsicist): it will have many good and excellent individuals. It also, believe it or not, has very normal human beings. 

 

I see now where all the participants have gone, they get moderated or put off by you from freely participating. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Grames said:

Russia mounted military exercises on the border of Ukraine every year since 2014.  But this year something was different.  A large portion of the Ukrainian army was already positioned facing the Donetsk and Luhansk, but not to defend Kiev.  Putin claimed Ukraine was going to launch a military operation to pacify those areas.  This is plausible.  It seems that war was inevitable but Putin gained an advantage by attacking first.   If Ukraine did its part to provoke this war then Ukraine does not have a moral high ground.

But don't blame NATO, or other countries for joining NATO.  

That first was not common knowledge, I discovered when researching quite by chance, confirmation of Putin's claim about an imminent assault (denied by Kyiv), so I bet you didn't hear that on MSM!

Additionally, reports came out of intensive training of units in Ukraine just before this year. Preparing for something...

With Russian troops lurking openly just across the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk, it's not plausible to assume Kyiv forces in place on the other side of those regions didn't expect a major confrontation with Russia. One theory may be they invited one, believing they could win it there and then.

Everybody was amazed at how strong the Ukraine army has been, no pushover, so maybe.

Perhaps, as well as by attacking first with the element of surprise, Putin's attack in the north was diversionary, it succeeded in splitting Ukraine forces. But there's too much disinformation and dissembling - by Ukraine and its supportive world media mostly, while Moscow stays tight-lipped about their strategies and objectives.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Which also means, the freer nations set high standards that need to be sustained to that higher degree - when lesser countries have lesser standards to live up to and less far to decline into autocracy.

But free nations don't remotely fall into the category as authoritarian except in a highly qualified way referring to specific actions, while the Russian government is authoritarian to such an extent that it is authoritarian unqualified with a substantial lack of freedom. Isolating such countries is fine, especially if that simply means ignoring them. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

But to have disdain for a lesser country e.g. Russia, and treat it as inferior is collectivist (and as usual, intrinsicist): it will have many good and excellent individuals. It also, believe it or not, has very normal human beings. 

What are you talking about? When I say Russia, I'm talking about the Russian government of Putin. I have nothing but sympathy for the people living under such a terrible government. 

But you have avoided most questions, including the most simple one of all, saying whether or not you think Russia was morally justified invading the Ukraine. Even when I ask what your point is about certain things, you don't explain.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

 ...that a continuous conflict was being waged by Kyiv in part of the country which could be an eventual threat to Russia, and these add up to immoral activities which might well lead to a further immorality, the invasion; one can see a chain of evasions.

 

Have I "avoided most questions" concerning "moral justification" ? Read above. This was one more immorality in a chain of them.

I specified my "condemnation" in an early post.

But I will not join the clamorous and sanctimonious moralizing by those who wish Russia beaten - at the expense of more lives, keeping the war going as long as possible - those who wish there will be no negotiated settlement, that they can, for any justification that arrives, set western armies against Russia, escalating matters to a world war.

The neo-con military type in particular, who've been frustrated since Feb their forces couldn't intervene, who are bitter that Ukraine is not clearly winning and are thirsting to enact vengeance on Putin (and Russia, for past misdeeds).

They are insane.

I worry more about them than I do about Putin. I half-expect "a false flag" event soon, something like them firing off a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, that will be laid on Putin ... and we know the consequences. Does anyone really think this plan hasn't been considered by some?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I specified my "condemnation" in an early post.

You straight up refuse to answer 3 of my questions that are simply aimed at understanding your position. And besides, I don't follow your condemnation, it's very unclear and equivocal. I mean, okay, you called it an immorality I guess, but then it's confusing why you seem surprised or offended that countries don't trust Putin (and who could the people of Donbass appeal to? Any mediator that would not resort to the geopolitical equivalent of assault; but many countries and organizations, NATO included, make it a policy not to engage in most internal affairs. Except in the most blatant violations of rights as happened in Serbia. But diplomatic solutions are usually quite readily accepted or at least attempted). It's even more confusing when you don't even say what Russia was pressured to do by NATO. 

"Stop being mean to Russia guys, it makes them upset :("

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You straight up refuse to answer 3 of my questions that are simply aimed at understanding your position. And besides, I don't follow your condemnation, it's very unclear and equivocal.

 

 

Sophistry. Aimed at understanding my position, no. Your nagging questions are aimed at me, personally. I've written extensively about this war, its antecedents, facts as they come up and where it could end. I put out my "position" early on the urgency of getting a truce and some deal, as soon as possible, and described my initial "outrage" to an invasion - which like everyone's, was a knee-jerk, preconceptual reaction.

For you, the subject and its complexities must constantly return to me and my 'premises'.

To reiterate my "moral position":

'They', most of those involved on both sides, are approx equivalent, immoral actors - who knew better but evaded what they knew.

I know that does not satisfy the many social justice types who demand that everyone ¬only¬ and universally condemns Putin, and who made up their minds by superficial feelings, prejudices, 'revealed' knowledge, the victim and victimizer mentality, etc.. I'm not bothered with them - except for where the feelings of the masses could influence outcomes in a dangerous direction. 

 Before you leap into moral judgments of anybody, ask yourself: are you up for the effort?

"To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one’s feelings, “instincts” or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer “Why?” and to prove one’s case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer".

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

“How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,”

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I've written extensively about this war, its antecedents, facts as they come up and where it could end.

You can just point me to a previous post if a question I asked has already been answered. But I don't think the questions I did ask have been answered, or if you think they were answered, your answers were not clear. 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

'They', most of those involved on both sides, are approx equivalent, immoral actors - who knew better but evaded what they knew.

Great, but it is a rather simplistic to just claim "all sides are bad!" - and take offense when I suggest that such a position means being an apologist for authoritarianism or at least deflating the immorality of authoritarianism such that it isn't any worse than a very free Western country like the US or Germany. But I did give you the opportunity to explain in more detail what you think were objective threats to Russia itself. The weird thing is, if I granted everything you said about Russia, every single thing, that would mean that Russia was unequivocally morally justified. So I conclude that your position is confusing because it's a kind of moral grayness, taking the middleground of "everyone is the same and just as bad". 

 

 

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...