Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Russia may have suffered a lot of defeat in Ukraine, but it has also killed a lot of Ukrainians and otherwise done heavy harm to Ukraine.  It has enough power to do the same to other countries.

 

That first cannot be forgotten. The second is nonsense. Hasn't the power nor the motive and will.

But another bit of fakery from the media which sticks in the public's minds: the "genocide" and "massacre" of Ukrainians.

Too many (of course) but the figures do not show any of that. In fact they demonstrate the opposite to impartial military experts, there's every indicator Moscow has a policy to minimize civilian casualties - considering the intensive urban warfare and big combatant losses. 

Here are the latest from 2 days ago, sub-4,000 deaths, always accepting the authentic count isn't up to date:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjHworxvef3AhXcS_EDHeYWDw4QFnoECBQQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstatistics%2F1293492%2Fukraine-war-casualties%2F&usg=AOvVaw0OK_SGfR4XcM-vrBPmUAOc

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Are you trying to say that Russia is the good guys, and Ukraine is the bad guys? Or are you saying something more like the Ukrainian government is not full of angels? I mean, I know that there are people who think that there is literally nothing wrong with the Ukrainian government and treat Russia as the USSR. That is overly simplistic. Every war since and including Vietnam has pretty much been both sides being in the wrong to some degree. 

But it's pretty straightforward to understand that the Russian government is filled with bad actors. Putin especially. I don't mean recently, I mean all the way back since 2000. Whatever the Ukrainian government did wrong, the Russian government has usually done worse, asserting some sort of imperialistic authority, completely pragmatic, led by one man for over 20 years who has no particular problem with assassination and murder of people in countries that are allied with the US. 

Leaving aside anything about the Ukraine, anything that hurts the Russian government more seems like the best option.

eh, it isn't without reason to ban a state run media organization if that country is an enemy. 

 

Constantly, I have been only stating the second. There are no "angels" over there, only citizens caught in the crossfire of cynical, corrupt Gvts. (morally and otherwise). A long string of evasions from both, with Ukraine ending up the most recent 'victim' of an egregious invasion. 

Another item unreported anywhere, I bet, is that Putin once asked if Russia could join NATO. In a rough recall of his words, he said he'd "always seen Russia's future linked to Europe's".

There was a squandered opportunity by Nato and the EU to introduce Russia to the fold, due to a knee-jerk Western distrust of anything Russian, no doubt.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2022 at 2:19 AM, Eiuol said:

 

Leaving aside anything about the Ukraine, anything that hurts the Russian government more seems like the best option.

 

 

Hurting the RF's government, that seems to be the policy adopted by Washington and London. A Russia "weakened" and drained by a lengthy conflict that can't get up to mischief again and maybe force a regime change. And if it can be done by proxy, remote control, without committing boots on the ground, all the better. I think the policy is cynical and altruistic, although yes, absolutely not a western soldier should ever be sacrificed in Ukraine.

In effect: "We'll send you the latest gear, teach its use, pinpoint targets for you with hi-tech surveillance, and - step aside for you to push the button". But we are not at war...

No wonder peace negotiations are not discussed.

btw, London has been the surprise. The British have the largest international appetite for war with and a victory over Russia, presently. The neo-conservatism and Jingoism read in normally straight down the middle newspapers like the Telegraph is shocking. They've convinced themselves that victory is in sight even as Ukraine is losing the East - such is propaganda. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

No wonder peace negotiations are not discussed.

All the above from this sentence sounds good to me. Although my opinion is that the Ukraine is lost, it doesn't matter anymore. At this point it's a waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters more than ever that there will emerge no 'vanquished' nor any 'victor'. (A great disappointment to many relishing a beaten Putin). That's why starting negotiations is months overdue, and have to take place while Ukraine still has some bargaining strength. Russia will have its primary goal, independent republics - of a sort - who knows how autonomous from Russia? - and an Eastern corridor to the Crimea, after a (presumed, pending) treaty is signed. (The territorial gains from a war aren't anything I enjoy, but I got used to that reality some time back). There must also be concessions made to Kyiv e.g. Odessa staying with Ukraine is non-negotiable. Russian forces must pull back into Russia by a deadline. Also, reparations...

The money from the West is still valuable, as it should have been all along - for humanitarian aid only.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, women and children were (and probably still are) being raped and murdered and stuffed in mass graves. One doesn't "negotiate" or give concessions to pure evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EC said:

Yeah, women and children were (and probably still are) being raped and murdered and stuffed in mass graves. One doesn't "negotiate" or give concessions to pure evil.

I'm interested in the idea of intrinsic evil. "Pure evil" ("pure good", for that matter).

Is it imbued, somehow, in everyone of a certain (e.g., "Russian") type, class, nationality, group, tribe, ethnicity?

Is the action of one individual ¬representative¬ of the whole? The entire class, representative of each?

Asked in my interest of the methods of media propaganda. Those techniques that employ the above and much else (sensationism, emotionalism, e.g.) for mass consumption.

And EC, wouldn't the existence of one atrocity committed by a Ukrainian soldier contradict this "pure evil" by a (or some) Russian soldier(s)? Because it's a certainty that some did take place on the ''good' side.

That's what happens in war, occasional atrocities. Only, the latter would seldom be reported, be covered up by most victims, witnesses and journalists, for obvious reasons. The pure good narrative must be maintained.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I'm interested in the idea of intrinsic evil. "Pure evil" ("pure good", for that matter).

Is it imbued, somehow, in everyone of a certain (e.g., "Russian") type, class, nationality, group, tribe, ethnicity?

Is the action of one individual ¬representative¬ of the whole? The entire class, representative of each?

Asked in my interest of the methods of media propaganda. Those techniques that employ the above and much else (sensationism, emotionalism, e.g.) for mass consumption.

And EC, wouldn't the existence of one atrocity committed by a Ukrainian soldier contradict this "pure evil" by a (or some) Russian soldier(s)? Because it's a certainty that some did take place on the ''good' side.

That's what happens in war, occasional atrocities. Only, the latter would seldom be reported, be covered up by most victims, witnesses and journalists, for obvious reasons. The pure good narrative must be maintained.

 

 

You know I mean the *actions* of the Russians are objectively "pure" evil as illegitimate aggressors in an immoral war on innocents who posed no threat whatsoever to the RF, not some type of intrinsic evil. If you are seriously going to ask me if I should also put a negative moral judgement on the actions of a nation that is defending itself from the aggression of an evil dictatorship then maybe you need to seriously rethink your position. What's next, the Nazi's in WW2 weren't objectively evil aggressors that needed to be completely defeated and the Allies were also somehow evil for shooting them in the head?

You're normally a reasonable and rational poster, what's going on with you?

 

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's going on in with people defending the actions of the Russians on this site while saying basically things like Ukaine isn't/wasn't a morally perfect nation? No country in history up to this point has been morally perfect, that doesn't mean you get an open pass to resort to moral relativism in the face of blatant evil and atrocities. And just because a person "expects" atrocities to happen in a war doesn't make it moral or acceptable in any way... just the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every one of Tony's interlocutors here has emphatically declared their commitment to evading whole categories of fact they don't like.

The thinking of objective and informed people will always seem bizarre to those wholly committed to keeping their eyes closed to categories of fact they don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EC said:

You know I mean the *actions* of the Russians are objectively "pure" evil as illegitimate aggressors in an immoral war on innocents who posed no threat whatsoever to the RF, not some type of intrinsic evil. If you are seriously going to ask me if I should also put a negative moral judgement on the actions of a nation that is defending itself from the aggression of an evil dictatorship then maybe you need to seriously rethink your position. What's next, the Nazi's in WW2 weren't objectively evil aggressors that needed to be completely defeated and the Allies were also somehow evil for shooting them in the head?

You're normally a reasonable and rational poster, what's going on with you?

 

Yes, it's what many can't get their heads around:

How possibly can the RF (and Putin) consider itself under an "existential threat"?

What right does he have to feel aggrieved by this?!

I have agreed and it's evident, it is not about the "innocents who posed no threat" (it never is) it is the corrupt machinations of Govt's and Nato.

Nobody can answer a simple question - why keep expanding a so-called, "defensive" organisation when there has been no enemy, the USSR, to defend against any longer? From its necessary beginning in 1949 and 12 members, to 30 (or 32) now? Is there nothing suspicious, possibly belligerent, in that?

Would your country tolerate this steady encroachment up to its borders of military and missile bases, by other countries - in spite of many placatory assurances made not to extend further - for no rational, overt or explained purpose? Or is this a moral equivalency I am not allowed to make? I consider that objectivity.

(And by the way, the "Nazis"you raise, and ultra-right nationalists, have been continuously active in Ukraine, as well; another thing the MSM won't stress).

I stick to my earlier remarks, I find the evasions from both sides almost equal.

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an enemy and it is Putin and his nuclear stockpile that he is threatening the entire world, myself and my family, and possibly all life on this planet with right now. We are in involved in the most serious existential threat to this entire planet and quite possibly all life on it at any moment (he could be "pushing the button" as I type this) of a evil, likely dying madman who on a whim realizing he's destined to lose then die, can, and likely will, launch Armageddon. This isn't a time to argue over various past actions of much less evil parties. It's time to end the threat before the the threat ends, well.... everything and everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

So I stick to my earlier remarks, I find the evasions from both sides almost equal.

I think you mean evasions by leaders, governments.

But regarding the discussants from both sides, isn't it fascinating how we evade none of what they have to say? We look carefully and consider all of it. And none of it is new to us when they present it. We had already heard it from our nephews and nieces who got it from social media. We had already heard all of it from our neighbor who got it from CNN. We can turn on MSNBC any time and hear all of it. We engage with all of it.

Whereas they evade whole swathes of information as a matter of principle and epistemological pride.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EC said:

 This isn't a time to argue over various past actions of much less evil parties. It's time to end the threat before the the threat ends, well.... everything and everyone.

Okay, this I can definitely agree to. My attitude is the past matters in reckoning how everyone got to this point, and in trying to understand the character of players involved and evaluate what they claim to want - but the fox is already in the hen house - what to do about it next?

Stay cool, for sure. Aim for mitigation and damage control, rather than incendiary or emotive claims of moral culpability.

For one certain estimate, throwing more armaments into the fire of Ukraine is reckless, and can likely lead to escalation. As one or the other side becomes more desperate, is when things spiral out of control and accidents happen. I see online others too wanting to press hard for a truce, etc. which means accepting that nobody will win this war outright, and that's an obstacle to climb when about everybody worldwide expected a favorable and glorious outcome for the brave Ukrainian fighters ... (etc.)

One has to understand that no one, Ukraine nor Russia, can ¬afford¬ to lose, so diplomats have to give each side an "out". I think the conflict is soon coming to the point that they both would gratefully accept it.

Comes down to: Reality and rationality. Not whims and wishes from politicians and media-driven, sabre-rattling heroics, hubris and alarmism. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only "out" is to seriously threaten Russian with complete and immediate destruction unless it ceases it's present course of action and gives up all of its strategic nuclear capacity, or else we are just kicking the can down the street again until maybe Cold War Part 3 in another 30 years (or less)...if we are that lucky again... The odds of us getting lucky again is likely astronomically low btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little further insight from the "dark side". There's no reason not to listen to ALL the propaganda out there. Lavrov is articulate at least. From a sharp interviewer on India TV he replies openly to some of the above concerns: how honestly, that's up to you to assess. I'd say there is fairly high truthiness in there.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwirnIWri-r3AhWLecAKHWCaC18QtwJ6BAgFEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DecpRrep0twE&usg=AOvVaw0T0Sfh78VvzzR_B_4Py629

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, EC said:

The only "out" is to seriously threaten Russian with complete and immediate destruction unless it ceases it's present course of action and gives up all of its strategic nuclear capacity, or else we are just kicking the can down the street again until maybe Cold War Part 3 in another 30 years (or less)...if we are that lucky again... The odds of us getting lucky again is likely astronomically low btw.

Oh well;

That sort of "diplomacy" is not going to work.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Whereas they evade whole swathes of information as a matter of principle and epistemological pride.

Seriously, you are a true believer in Q, and your Savior never showed up, after which you abandoned posting for a very long time. I don't think you know what evasion is, or even epistemological principles. You haven't even mentioned the fact that people don't like, and when Alex requested more details about the fact that you claim, you didn't bother to post evidence or mention anything about these alleged eyewitnesses and the veracity of their testimony. 

5 hours ago, EC said:

You're normally a reasonable and rational poster, what's going on with you?

I mean, I guess you haven't read enough of his posts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Putin a dictator , is every aspect of Russia or the RF firmly under his personal control ? I do not honestly know the answer to that question , I do believe he is a leader in a system that tolerates or even encourages rather authoritarian leadership by western or US standards . But I do not know enough about the nation and culture of Russia to be certain that he can exercise the ‘same amount’ of power as one would ascribe to a leader in North Korea or akin to Hitler’s Third Reich. 

I would assume western propaganda plays a part in the cartoonish characterizations of Putin as Satan. I assume he has to be somewhat political domestically, even if it is to only placate the oligarchs that rose from the fall of the Politburo, but I am practically ignorant of the ‘real view on the ground’ of current Russian society. I further assume that the whole of ‘Russia’ ,all of its territories and its influence on the control of the Russian  Federation , is a rather diverse society. Like a confederation of smaller and rather distinct ethnicities , cultures, religious groups ect , that ethnic Russians and Moscow/ Kremlin feel the ‘right’ and or obligation to be the seat of power. Again just my relatively non informed opinion and view.

But if he is in fact Satan incarnate And has no compunction against nuclear exchange , threatening  a preemptive decapitating nuclear strike doesn’t seem like a real good rational ‘play’.

Actively prolonging the armed conflict doesn’t make sense , unless seen through some extra national jingoism.

Russia or Putin , even if they denote the same thing , is using/did use military force to ensure their control of that region and its coastlines and pipelines and against would what ‘they’ plainly see and describe as NATO encroachment.

In what specific ways does it benefit the USA which entity controls Crimea or the Black Sea ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

 . . .

In what specific ways does it benefit the USA which entity controls Crimea or the Black Sea ?

Tad, I know it's not chic to say, but frankly, one major reason the US has become involved in foreign wars has been from humanitarian concerns and against gross injustice. Yes, things like oil are also reasons, but the decisions are simply overdetermined: multiple reasons, any one of which alone would carry the day for the decision made. To look for "the real reason" in many human decisions—especially in collective action, even organized—is to chase a ghost. It may be thought that the only proper function of the US military (and intelligence) is to protect America (literally American citizens on American soil or in American armed forces). That is not the only use to which US military force has been actuated in our history; rather, often it has been used out of good will for other people under aggression or unspeakable oppression, self-interest out of view.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note on Russian Interests in the Black Sea

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen

While I agree with your overall frame of the history of the use of US military power I somewhat cynically see the power of jingoism in the frame to ‘justify’ the use of that power.

In concrete and pragmatic ways , how does this present conflict between (historically ‘The’) Ukraine and Russia even fit that ‘reason’ for ‘helping’ Ukraine?

I would most likely work to consciously suppress my inner cynic if Russia had invaded Italy or Spain , in 2014 or today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tad,

42 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Stephen

While I agree with your overall frame of the history of the use of US military power I somewhat cynically see the power of jingoism in the frame to ‘justify’ the use of that power.

In concrete and pragmatic ways , how does this present conflict between (historically ‘The’) Ukraine and Russia even fit that ‘reason’ for ‘helping’ Ukraine?

I would most likely work to consciously suppress my inner cynic if Russia had invaded Italy or Spain , in 2014 or today.

Oh, I think your last sentence is telling of many Americans, me too, and policy makers. Europe is precious to us. Concern for oppression is today among such Americans, I suggest, for people in Russia in the current era. Similar to concern for oppression in Iran. I've seen the reports of the brutality of prisons in these places against political dissidents. I imagine others have seen them also. Years ago, there were reports of Castro locking people into boxes placed in the heat. I didn't believe it when it was just talked by Cuban refugees, but eventually it got widely exposed. It was true. I've seen the reports of a prison in Russia in which new prisoners are made to run a gauntlet of bone-bashing sadists. Coming to be reported publicly, Mr. Putin said it would be looked into. I followed the story of what happened to opponents of building a highway from Moscow to St. Petersburg, a project of Mr. Putin and his cohorts. I've seen the reports of women put into prison in Iran. We cannot help everyone around the world, but these cases are serious concerns in the American heart.

Concerning a self-interest of the US in who controls the Black Sea and Crimea, I take it from the linked article at Carnegie above, that yes, the US has nuclear-protection interests in play. I know Russia was never good at getting their boomers into distant seas around the globe the way the US Navy has (by the way, the Russians never let non-Russians in the USSR have control over nuclear weapons—perhaps a good thing for us too). They tended to congregate theirs in the Baltic. Convenient for us. With the Black Sea, Russia may have a second congregation. We will cover it as well, pretty sure, but I'd guess we'd rather not have to.

Russia has always had a disadvantage with the West in its military capabilities since WWII: It's lack of private freedom, the source of technological innovation. The strategy of NATO in defense of Europe against USSR was always to out-technology USSR with its enormous Red Army poised to overrun Europe. Eventually, that gigantic costly army helped the Soviet Union to crush under its financial weight, I think. I'm glad the US has stymied proposed steps that would bring us into direct conflict with Russia in the Ukraine war. But delighted to see the way the US has sidestepped, due to intelligence capabilities, and been able to aid the Ukrainians against this Russian aggression.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game theory is extremely aggressive. It's the correct move to be very, very aggressive vs Russia in this situation even though it doesn't sound like it should be. I'm a game theory expert fwiw.

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...