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

On 6/25/2022 at 2:28 AM, Eiuol said:

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. 

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. 

Makes sense. What's your point? 

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. 

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

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. 

Not aware that "anyone said they fear Russia will invade Europe"? What! That's been floated by everyone, and has been the widespread European fear touted by the media, remarked on by the Telegraph writer above.

Right, an "immoral" invasion succeeding an immoral 8 year assault on the Ukrainian breakaway citizens in Donbass coming just in time to forestall an "immoral" fresh assault by Kyiv's foreign-trained and well-equipped army, planned in March. As Poroshenko publicly crowed, he only agreed to the terms of Minsk 2 favoring the Donbass to buy time - immorally - for the training and strengthening of the government forces to overthrow the Donbass. 

In retrospect, nobody should have been amazed at the performance of the Ukrainian forces: "About 250,000 men, one of the largest armies in Europe", it has slowly come to light. To what end? Not just against the much inferior separatist militia, even "backed by Moscow". Quite obvious: Russia was expected to enter in defense of the Donbass and they were getting ready for them.

None of the above was known to or premeditated by NATO, of course...

But you'd be oblivious to any of that, from the mainstream narrative Ukraine has been squeaky clean.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"NATO admits it’s been preparing for conflict with Russia since 2014"

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that increases in deployments and military spending were carried out with Moscow in mind

 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Wednesday that increases in military spending and rising numbers of troop deployments in Eastern Europe since 2014 were carried out in anticipation of a conflict with Russia.

Speaking after a meeting of NATO members and partner states in Madrid, Stoltenberg accused Moscow of “using force in the eastern Donbass since 2014,” despite the fact that Kiev’s forces have been shelling cities in the region ever since the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics declared independence from Ukraine that year.

Nevertheless, Stoltenberg said that the US-led military bloc decided in 2014 to start beefing up its forces in Eastern Europe. 

“The reality is also that we have been preparing for this since 2014,” he stated. “That is the reason that we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the alliance, why NATO allies have started to invest more in defense, and why we have increased [our] readiness.”[RT]

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 10:04 PM, whYNOT said:

"NATO admits it’s been preparing for conflict with Russia since 2014"

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that increases in deployments and military spending were carried out with Moscow in mind

 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Wednesday that increases in military spending and rising numbers of troop deployments in Eastern Europe since 2014 were carried out in anticipation of a conflict with Russia.

Speaking after a meeting of NATO members and partner states in Madrid, Stoltenberg accused Moscow of “using force in the eastern Donbass since 2014,” despite the fact that Kiev’s forces have been shelling cities in the region ever since the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics declared independence from Ukraine that year.

Nevertheless, Stoltenberg said that the US-led military bloc decided in 2014 to start beefing up its forces in Eastern Europe. 

“The reality is also that we have been preparing for this since 2014,” he stated. “That is the reason that we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the alliance, why NATO allies have started to invest more in defense, and why we have increased [our] readiness.”[RT]

Commonly from bureaucrats, especially leftists, how they haven't the self-awareness to feel embarrassed by their remarks. What SecGen Stoltenberg's confession or slip of the tongue reveals is how NATO has been spoiling for a fight since 2014 with Russia. It could have been justified a) by taking advantage of the situation, by exploiting political and military events ("never let a crisis go to waste") or b) by collusion with Govt's and manipulation of events, likely both. Anyhow, NATO as he admits, first increased troop presence in East Europe (I suppose to be security back-up against Russian 'expansionism'). More recently, the instructing and arming of a large and powerful Ukraine Army with the initial goal to wipe out resistance in Luhansk and Donetsk. Knowing Putin's objections in all those spheres, there could be only one purpose, provoking Russia, and one outcome: invading Russian forces and a confrontation. With Ukraine the convenient proxy. What occurs to me is how much like entrapment this seems. The trap was set for Moscow to fall into, the bait: the Donbass. A major setback, the army calculated to be stronger is losing. But NATO still seems to cling to the vanishing hope that by helping and encouraging Ukraine to fight on, Russia will need to fight a long war and is bled dry, simultaneously the sanctions damage the country and maybe the Russian people rise up. Etc.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 3:47 PM, tadmjones said:

Eiuol

What's your point? Don't just post a link and expect me to automatically understand what you're saying. 

On 6/30/2022 at 4:04 PM, whYNOT said:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Wednesday that increases in military spending and rising numbers of troop deployments in Eastern Europe since 2014 were carried out in anticipation of a conflict with Russia.

These are defensive maneuvers, not the intent to invade or attack. Troop deployments do not signify the intent for offensive action. You seem to disagree that an authoritarian state like Russia as led by Putin is objectively not good, worse than anything else in Europe, so I can see why you might interpret that as hostile action. But again, NATO does not historically take preemptive action against anyone, and they still haven't done it. So there is no reason to interpret it as anything other than defensive. I also would have anticipated conflicts with Russia, and as a cautionary measure, I would deploy more troops around Eastern Europe than in Western Europe. And you refuse to answer what it might be that NATO could be pressuring Russia to do. 

On 6/30/2022 at 4:04 PM, whYNOT said:

“That is the reason that we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the alliance, why NATO allies have started to invest more in defense, and why we have increased [our] readiness.”[RT]

On 6/29/2022 at 11:54 AM, whYNOT said:

What! That's been floated by everyone, and has been the widespread European fear touted by the media, remarked on by the Telegraph writer above.

We went over this, and the article didn't even mention fear. I really have no idea how you got that interpretation other than maybe the strange inference that saying Russia is imperialistic or a threat to Western values and lives is therefore claiming that there is a clear and imminent danger that Europe will be invaded. Yet the troop deployment you mentioned, and that those are sufficient in NATO's eyes, is evidence enough that NATO doesn't believe that Russia is an imminent invasion threat to Europe. If someone did make a claim that there is a widespread danger of the Russian invasion of Europe, I would like to see that. So far, I see you minimizing that authoritarianism is a very very bad thing, thus seeing any hard pushback against Russia as irrational fear. 

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

provoking Russia, and one outcome: invading Russian forces and a confrontation.

What, Russia would be provoked to invade Poland? How could this even happen?

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But NATO still seems to cling to the vanishing hope that by helping and encouraging Ukraine to fight on, Russia will need to fight a long war and is bled dry

Why is this a vanishing hope? I mean, is it a vanishing hope because it means Russia will not be bled dry, and they will just retreat and leave everything alone? Sounds pretty good to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

These are defensive maneuvers, not the intent to invade or attack. Troop deployments do not signify the intent for offensive action. You seem to disagree that an authoritarian state like Russia as led by Putin is objectively not good, worse than anything else in Europe, so I can see why you might interpret that as hostile action. But again, NATO does not historically take preemptive action against anyone, and they still haven't done it. So there is no reason to interpret it as anything other than defensive. I also would have anticipated conflicts with Russia, and as a cautionary measure, I would deploy more troops around Eastern Europe than in Western Europe. And you refuse to answer what it might be that NATO could be pressuring Russia to do. 

 

You sound naive. If someone made repeatedly clear to you that this (a nation or their property) was important - it matters deeply to them, regardless of the little value you could see in it, and they told you not to encroach upon it or else there could be trouble - there might be nothing to prevent you crossing that "red line" they insist upon: but be prepared for consequences if you do.

With foreknowledge, no longer can one (and NATO) pretend innocence of the outcomes. That would be (and has been) an immoral evasion of the reality.

And no overt actions by NATO against Russia - "pressuring Russia" - were necessary. They simply had to do little more than 'innocently' offer Ukraine eventual membership together with every other country in the vicinity, taking advantage of Ukraine's geographical position, so attempting to provoke Russia's response. In anticipation of which, they have already been building up troops since 2014. NATO's full-time job surely has been studying Russia and predicting its actions: if we did this... what then?

I don't try to claim NATO has been "evil", but that they have not been acting in good faith, have evaded facts and promises, have meddled in geo-politics, and must take ¬some¬ responsibility for this war.

Recent events and admissions by officials have half-vindicated Putin's paranoia over NATO. It looks now like he had good reason to view it as "an existential threat". As we can see, they accomplished their one wish, cutting off Russia from Europe.

One can prod the bear, but don't be surprised with the violent reaction. And don't plead, hypocritically, that one could not know it would come.

If other nations, EU and NATO didn't approve of Russia or loathe and fear its past history, fine - they should have left it alone. Anyway, it is no worse and a little better than many other autocracies and theocracies.

 

 Ukraine has been named by various scholarly observers: a football, the battering ram, the wedge, the buffer, a bulwark, against Russia. Also not innocent of wrong-doings, that Kyiv government, its armed forces and Ukrainian people have been fully exploited for others' much greater geo-political objectives.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

What, Russia would be provoked to invade Poland? How could this even happen?

 

No, the present invasion, of Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

No, the present invasion, of Ukraine.

Then what you're really saying is that there is a conspiracy by NATO that was going on where NATO were pretending to be Ukrainian forces (fighting against anti-Ukrainian forces who were already going to get involved regardless of these supposed fake Ukrainians). Then Russia would be trapped into a war if they respond. 

Or you mean that NATO was providing support to the Ukraine for their initial incursions. Such support was limited at best because obviously the Ukraine is still not a member of NATO. This wouldn't be entrapment though, because the Ukraine would be the primary actor here and the actions of NATO would be transparent anyway. You could argue that the Ukraine provoked Russia, but that would be in knowing action on the part of Russia. Entrapment means being tricked, and this isn't being tricked. It's not like the Gulf of Tonkin incident with Vietnam, or WMDs with Iraq, where exaggerated incidents are used as causes to go to war. 

The first one is insane, but maybe that's really what you mean. If you mean the second one, then that would be a provocation so much as a calculated military move by Putin.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If someone made repeatedly clear to you that this (a nation or their property) was important - it matters deeply to them, regardless of the little value you could see in it, and they told you not to encroach upon it or else there could be trouble - there might be nothing to prevent you crossing that "red line" they insist upon: but be prepared for consequences if you do.

But NATO would be deploying troops in NATO countries, so you aren't talking about Russian property or Russia itself. NATO shows no evidence of preemptive action were being nearby would be a threat. Sitting in countries like Poland and still doing nothing direct even during the Ukrainian invasion is all the evidence you need. 

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

They simply had to do little more than 'innocently' offer

Countries aren't offered membership, they apply for membership. But you have to keep expanding your web of conspiracy about NATO secretly bringing countries into the fold so that someday they can achieve their goal of world domination for this line of reasoning to make sense anyway. Is it really that hard to believe that most countries don't trust an authoritarian government? No need for a complex story about NATO when they are still acting defensively.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I don't try to claim NATO has been "evil", but that they have not been acting in good faith, have evaded facts and promises, have meddled in geo-politics, and must take ¬some¬ responsibility for this war.

 But if this is all you're getting at, then this claim is sensible enough. Yet I think there is more reason to think that NATO is even further removed from the situation then you are claiming. Certainly not enough to claim existential threat from NATO, Russia pretty much cut itself off just by being an authoritarian regime of more than 20 years. 

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Anyway, it is no worse and a little better than many other autocracies and theocracies.

Which is really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Then what you're really saying is that there is a conspiracy by NATO that was going on where NATO were pretending to be Ukrainian forces (fighting against anti-Ukrainian forces who were already going to get involved regardless of these supposed fake Ukrainians). Then Russia would be trapped into a war if they respond. 

 

What "fake" Ukrainians? Where did I indicate NATO were pretending to be Ukrainian forces?

Clearly, you haven't understood what is exploitation. How to turn a crisis, encourage one, etc., to one's political/economic advantage.

The civil war was going on, right? As Putin observed it, the Donbass and the people needed liberating/rescuing. 

All the while, Ukraine's army was being professionally instructed and strengthened for several years. If there was no NATO training, directly, you can be sure they knew about it and approved. 

Next phase, when Putin's army predictably goes in to liberate the Donbass, "the bait", he must inevitably come up against Ukraine's forces well-prepared to confront him*.

Did there have to be a conspiracy by NATO manipulating events? I indicated - not necessarily. But they knew damn well there would be a war.

Further, did absolutely nothing to try to avert one. From the start until today, have either discouraged or dissuaded Kyiv from sorting matters out peacefully with Moscow. That is the great moral indictment against NATO. 

*Military experts say an invader classically requires three-to-one supremacy to conquer a country. The Russians on the border pre-invasion were estimated at 190K and the Ukraine forces 250K. So, a limited operation it was intended to be.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But NATO would be deploying troops in NATO countries, so you aren't talking about Russian property or Russia itself. NATO shows no evidence of preemptive action were being nearby would be a threat. Sitting in countries like Poland and still doing nothing direct even during the Ukrainian invasion is all the evidence you need. 

Countries aren't offered membership, they apply for membership. But you have to keep expanding your web of conspiracy about NATO secretly bringing countries into the fold so that someday they can achieve their goal of world domination for this line of reasoning to make sense anyway. Is it really that hard to believe that most countries don't trust an authoritarian government? No need for a complex story about NATO when they are still acting defensively.

 

 

First, Ukraine is and was authoritarian too. (Every opposition party has been banned recently; for one example. Men aged 18-60 are legally stopped from leaving the country since invasion. Dissenting journalists face prison time. Works of Russian classicists were banned from schools and other activities - etc. ).

And don't forget that a democratically elected Govt. was overturned by Ukrainians.

Second, NATO strategists have a better idea of causality in human affairs and geo-politics than you.

Third, "doing nothing direct" is the cynical genius of all of this. NATO has a willing partner who does.

"Still acting defensively" - that is darkly humorous. Against - whom? As in the last 30 years when Russia was constantly attacking Europe, you mean?

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The civil war was going on, right? As Putin observed it, the Donbass and the people needed liberating/rescuing. 

Come on, you don't actually believe that an authoritarian cares about liberating people. I especially wouldn't believe that intervening in a conflict for the sake of liberating the people is a good thing - it's altruistic. With a civil war involved, this becomes even more altruistic. Or suppose that he was delusional enough to think that he had to save the people. How on earth is it liberation to be liberated by an authoritarian government? So either we have a government acting altruistically, or a group of people within Ukrainian territory being subjugated by the Russian government (those who wanted to be part of the Ukraine) while the other side is "saved" by an authoritarian. 

17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Clearly, you haven't understood what is exploitation. How to turn a crisis, encourage one, etc., to one's political/economic advantage.

This is a rational thing to do, or at least, it is better to push any situation towards a win rather than a loss. But my bigger point was that they had to do literally nothing at all in order for there to be a crisis. The core was always the Ukraine and Russia. 

31 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Further, did absolutely did nothing to try to avert one. From the start until today, have either discouraged or dissuaded Kyiv from sorting matters out peacefully with Moscow. That is the great moral indictment against NATO. 

That's a positive, I told you why peaceful negotiation is actually not a positive for the self interest of Ukraine. Not because avoiding war is bad, it's because this requires that somebody be a loser and somebody be a winner.  

34 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Next phase, when Putin's army predictably goes in to liberate the Donbass, "the bait", he must inevitably come up against Ukraine's forces well-prepared to confront him*.

And even supposing everything else, I don't think Putin is this stupid. Suppose even at were all true. If a layperson like yourself can make a complex scenario and see the bad consequences for Russia as a result, I can guarantee that Putin saw this long before you. In other words, no matter what scenario you come up with, even if I'm wrong and you're right about the scenario, it would mean that Putin really wanted to create a shitstorm. 

42 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

What "fake" Ukrainians? Where did I indicate NATO were pretending to be Ukrainian forces?

Because that would be the only way that the NATO could actually provoke something. To provoke would be to do something to Russia that requires them to respond, or tricks them to respond. NATO didn't do anything for Russia to respond to except diplomatically, so the only option would NATO is tricking Russia. But the thing is, you don't mean either one, all you really meant is that NATO was at best doing things indirectly through things like monetary support or military training. This could not be reasonably interpreted as provocation. 

23 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

First, Ukraine is and was authoritarian too. (Every opposition party has been banned recently; for one example. Men aged 18-60 are legally stopped from leaving the country since invasion. Dissenting journalists face prison time. Works of Russian classicists were banned from schools and other activities - etc. ).

Maybe, but I hesitate to say that these are necessarily signs of an authoritarian regime when these happen during wartime. I mean, I would classify banning Russian classics as authoritarian (do you have a citation though so I can read about that?), and banning people from leaving as authoritarian but the others are questionable. Anyway though, I don't really support intervention with Ukraine. The conflict is between Russia and Ukraine. It should stay that way. 

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...