Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 6/21/2022 at 6:04 AM, Eiuol said:

 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 :("

 

 

Not a matter for making them "upset", nor for pleasing them.

To be objective concerning others means the moral treatment of them with rational consistency by one's ethical standards of justice. It's not about 'special' treatment, this person, over that one, nor that one as - 'obviously' - lesser:

The method precludes ¬appeasement¬ [of Russia and/or Putin].

This will be 'just' and honest treatment, accompanied by goodwill, at its best.

Leading up to this year, could NATO chiefs sincerely claim Russia was consistently treated that way by them? Would a neutral observer of past words and acts and non-actions by Nato, conclude so?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That dangling is incredibly dangerous, and it's possible that it just caused Ukraine to experience the worst of all worlds: not receiving NATO protection while also enduring one of the most aggressive forms of Russian domination possible".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjz5cCGr8L4AhV-REEAHbQkBK4QFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.com%2Fopinion%2Fmsnbc-opinion%2Frussia-s-ukraine-invasion-may-have-been-preventable-n1290831&usg=AOvVaw3zYSKm3femqHds-UhusTmn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Would a neutral observer of past words and acts and non-actions by Nato, conclude so?

I read your post at least 5 times, I honestly don't comprehend what you're saying. I mean, I think you just repeated what I said? That the only thing NATO did was say some mean and unfair things about Russia (and it would be insane to suggest that unfair words are morally equivalent to threatening initiation of force). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"That dangling is incredibly dangerous, and it's possible that it just caused Ukraine to experience the worst of all worlds: not receiving NATO protection while also enduring one of the most aggressive forms of Russian domination possible".

The msnbc story is cast as the U.S. mistreating Ukraine.  Which is true but not equivalent to mistreating Russia.  The story claims it was bad diplomacy to know Putin had decided to launch the invasion and do nothing.  True enough.  The story here is U.S. arrogance and incompetence in Ukraine not mistreatment of Russia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I read your post at least 5 times, I honestly don't comprehend what you're saying. I mean, I think you just repeated what I said? That the only thing NATO did was say some mean and unfair things about Russia (and it would be insane to suggest that unfair words are morally equivalent to threatening initiation of force). 

It's rational to acknowledge that the words by people in powerful organizations represent intent, and will, could be, turned into action, and so, plan accordingly.

For some irrational, off-the-wall "threatening initiation of force". (A British military columnist I used to respect) .

This (portion of an) Telegraph article is today's: His numbers are faulty (released by Ukraine which has consistently roughly doubled enemy losses and halved their own, in others' estimates) as is his poor reckoning on the state of the war and the Russian shortage of front line troops); Coughlin pronounces the Russians in "dire straits". AND, states "a country that finds itself incapable of winning one conflict would be well advised to avoid provoking...etc." Exactly.

He actually points to the contradiction he makes: Russia can't win one war - but - Russia is so militarily dangerous and hostile, that BRITAIN must be prepared to go to "conventional war" with it. (Not Poland, not NATO - Britain, relatively safe, across the Channel from Europe)!

But cannot see the logical contradiction he points out: either 1/ Russia is all-powerful and Imperialist- or - 2/ Russia is too pathetically weak to represent any expansionist threat.

This is the position the dangerous warmongers have trapped themselves in in order to stir up and escalate conflict- but they can't have it both ways.

One supposes the British Army will be needed to defeat Russian cooks.

 

---------

"Britain Must Be Prepared To Go To War With Russia"

Putin’s latest threats show he is not beaten, but we are dangerously ill-equipped for a conventional conflict

CON COUGHLIN

DEFENCE EDITOR

23 June 2022 • 6:00am

After the terrible drubbing the Russian military has suffered during the Ukraine conflict, Western leaders might be forgiven for concluding that Vladimir Putin no longer has the ability to threaten his European neighbours.

It is not just the devastating loss of tanks, artillery and armoured vehicles that has left Moscow struggling to maintain its “special military operation” against Ukraine. The high casualty rate suffered by Russian ground forces – which the Ukrainian military yesterday claimed stood at a staggering 34,230 war dead – is severely hampering Moscow’s attempts to seize control of the Donbas region.

Russian generals have been forced to cobble together front-line battalions consisting primarily of instructors, trainers and cooks. It has even been suggested that the Kremlin is considering granting an amnesty to prisoners convicted of minor crimes on condition they agree to fight in Ukraine. In short, the Russian war effort in Ukraine is in dire straits, a predicament that one might expect would encourage Putin to adopt a less confrontational tone with his Western rivals. A country that finds itself incapable of winning one conflict would be well-advised to avoid provoking another confrontation with its European neighbours".

[...]

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It's rational to acknowledge that the words by people in powerful organizations represent intent, and will, could be, turned into action, and so, plan accordingly.

Of course, but there is apparently no plan or intent or prior actions that would indicate an MO of attacking countries preemptively. You mentioned "pressure" but you didn't say pressure to do what; you mentioned the simple possibility that nuclear missiles can be placed in NATO countries even though NATO has yet to ever do that; you mentioned expansion but the growth of NATO doesn't involve attacking other countries. As far as NATO goes, there seems to be absolutely no intent to get involved with the Ukraine and Russia and didn't plan to before either. So the only intent you can pick out of here is the intent to not admit Russia into NATO. 

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But cannot see the logical contradiction he points out: either 1/ Russia is all-powerful and Imperialist- or - 2/ Russia is too pathetically weak to represent any expansionist threat.

What your point? Russia is a weak imperialist power. That's your answer. I'm not aware of anyone that said Russia is all-powerful and super scary. Or if anyone was scared, they wouldn't be anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Of course, but there is apparently no plan or intent or prior actions that would indicate an MO of attacking countries preemptively. You mentioned "pressure" but you didn't say pressure to do what; you mentioned the simple possibility that nuclear missiles can be placed in NATO countries even though NATO has yet to ever do that; you mentioned expansion but the growth of NATO doesn't involve attacking other countries. As far as NATO goes, there seems to be absolutely no intent to get involved with the Ukraine and Russia and didn't plan to before either. So the only intent you can pick out of here is the intent to not admit Russia into NATO. 

What your point? Russia is a weak imperialist power. That's your answer. I'm not aware of anyone that said Russia is all-powerful and super scary. Or if anyone was scared, they wouldn't be anymore. 

A false alternative, is my point. The RF is neither so strong as to try to build an empire, nor so weak as to ever lose in east/south Ukraine. My conjecture: both conflicting narratives are kept alive, particularly by British Russophobes, in order to heighten fears of a Russian invasion into Europe; Europeans who therefore would go on bearing the sanction costs and keep delivering more arms and aid into Ukraine, "in defense of Europe" - while simultaneously -  providing the morale boost for Ukrainians to continue counter-attacks against Russian forces, supposedly, "in dire straits" - cause for Kyiv to reject negotiations and carry on the conflict longer - achieving either a (impossible) Ukraine victory, or (unlikely) a battlefield stalemate. The longer this goes on, apart from the intent of weakening Russia, at some stage the fighting could spill over (inadvertently or calculatedly) into a NATO-member country and those warmongers might get their desired outcome - justification for direct confrontation with Russia.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A false alternative, is my point.

What false alternatives? You are the only one who mentioned alternatives between 2 options. So I said I don't think anyone ever said that imperialistic intentions means that a country is stronger than most countries. I'm not aware of anyone who said that they fear Russia will invade Europe. 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Europeans who therefore would go on bearing the sanction costs and keep delivering more arms and aid into Ukraine, "in defense of Europe"

Well yeah, immoral invasions will do that. That's generally a reason to send arms somewhere, especially when a country is dramatically authoritarian compared to all the people sending arms. 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

providing the morale boost for Ukrainians to continue counter-attacks against Russian forces, supposedly, "in dire straits"

Makes sense. What's your point? 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

achieving either a (impossible) Ukraine victory, or (unlikely) a battlefield stalemate.

But so far it seems to be the case that Russia is the one that needs to spend an exorbitant amount of money, in other words, a little bit of investment by the West goes a long way to weakening the authoritarian government that is Russia. 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

at some stage the fighting could spill over (inadvertently or calculatedly) into a NATO-member country and those warmongers might get their desired outcome - justification for direct confrontation with Russia.

How could that happen? If they wanted that, they would've done that already.

22 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Five NATO nations currently “host US nuclear weapons “ and NATO forces have been training with Ukrainian forces incorporating them into NATO schemes.

Yeah, that wouldn't be NATO installing the weapons, and NATO schemes is ambiguous because a scheme can refer to many different types of actions, some of which might be typical for nonmembers. The point being, I think any of these things are outside the way that NATO has always functioned, and there is no evidence that NATO wants to take military action in any ongoing conflict between countries of any type. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is hosting nuclear weapons different than ‘installing ‘ nuclear weapons ? I thought your argument was that no nuclear weapons were ‘in’ NATO member countries.

What I was referring to re schemes , was the paused but ongoing military exercises and training between Ukrainian forces and NATO forces. One of the reasons for such exercises is to coordinate and integrate command and control and incorporate various military units into a framework under NATO control.

Which from a Russian perspective this could be seen as a situation where, ultimately, Ukrainian military forces would not be under the certain control of the Ukrainian government. 

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

How is hosting nuclear weapons different than ‘installing ‘ nuclear weapons ? I thought your argument was that no nuclear weapons were ‘in’ NATO member countries.

No I wasn't actually, I may have been unclear. I meant that it isn't like those countries joined NATO and bam, they have acquired nuclear weapons. It's different when the members acquire the weapons through their own efforts, compared to NATO itself providing them as a membership bonus or something to that effect. 

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Which from a Russian perspective this could be seen as a situation where, ultimately, Ukrainian military forces would not be under the certain control of the Ukrainian government. 

It does get ambiguous, but on its own, seems to be more of a defensive maneuver given the context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol

" As far as NATO goes, there seems to be absolutely no intent to get involved with the Ukraine and Russia and didn't plan to before either. So the only intent you can pick out of here is the intent to not admit Russia into NATO.  "

item 66:(2018)

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156624.htm#54

 

item 23 (2008)

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

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...