Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Stephen

Thank you for the link , now it makes sense that Oliver Stone called Putin a ‘son of Russia’ . It also appears his(their) long term strategies tend to be centered on just that , the long term. So perhaps dastardly, but not so much blow up civilization and ruin future trade dastardly, or that would be a lot of planning for no benefit, and ruthless and dastardly as we know Russians to be , plain stupid they are not , yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Tad, you're completely wrong, and making the exact same mistakes in your evaluation that most of the world made before the invasion when they thought Putin was just being "clever" but was too "smart" to actually do it. I predicted with near certainty that he would for many many reasons and that it would only be his first stop. He has his sights set on at least the majority of Eastern Europe and WILL use ALL means at his disposal to achieve that goal or destroy the entire world trying to achieve it. Putin is Hitler with the largest nuclear arsenal in existence.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EC said:

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.

Do you think Ukraine will try to take back Crimea?

I don't know.

Have you ever studied the book The 2x2 Game? Some might apply to this situation (cf.).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Do you think Ukraine will try to take back Crimea?

I don't know.

Have you ever studied the book The 2x2 Game? Some might apply to this situation (cf.).

 

No, I think they consider it a sunk cost that they ceded years ago now.

I never read it but I've heard of it. "Expert" in Game theory may have been a over-characterization of my knowledge because I've only studied it in relation to poker, but I do use it daily to crush everyone online as a second job. My main job is with Amazon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

EC

Are your certain predictions describing Russian/Putin actions in Ukraine circa 2014 or the more overt and highly militarized aggression of February of 2022?

 

This year's, I didn't pay much attention to Russia or it's activities in 2014 because I thought they were to weak to worry about. But Putin has changed for many reasons over the last few years and that's changed the situation in ways that are important because of their nukes. I've been following all of this closely since about last September because of the likely WW3 threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, EC said:

No Tad, you're completely wrong, and making the exact same mistakes in your evaluation that most of the world made before the invasion when they thought Putin was just being "clever" but was too "smart" to actually do it. I predicted with near certainty that he would for many many reasons and that it would only be his first stop. He has his sights set on at least the majority of Eastern Europe and WILL use ALL means at his disposal to achieve that goal or destroy the entire world trying to achieve it. Putin is Hitler with the largest nuclear arsenal in existence.

The majority of Eastern Europe. Wow. I got nukes, so do as I say.

That's the kind of impossibly irrational stuff the MSM has been espousing and exploiting.

Maybe just maybe Putin is concerned with no more than what is happening in his front yard?

Considered that anyone?

Has anyone identified and contrasted and evaluated what Putin wants, says he wants and actually is doing, before jumping to pie-in-the-sky conclusions,

Identify first, guys.

omigod, it's dour prophesies like this that will get everybody killed. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EC

The annexation of Crimea was carried out by a weak Russia? The subsequent overt bolstering of Ukraine’s military capabilities by NATO powers was in response to a perceived weakness in Russia’s ability to project military actions ?

These are examples of the reasoning you used in your assessment/ predictions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The majority of Eastern Europe. Wow. I got nukes, so do as I say.

omigod, it's dour prophesies like this that will get everybody killed. 

 

 

You summed up how the man actually thinks correctly beyond the superficial things he says "to gain public support" for his policies even though you meant it as a type of passive-aggressive "joke".

Or, presenting the actual reality of the situation is how one attempts to save the world and all those lives instead. I don't live in the fantasy world you've created in your own mind where Russia is a legitimate country, taking legitimate actions for legitimate reasons. You're relatively safe in S. Africa from the initial effects of a nuclear exchange, but here in the US I'm not, so I have to take the threat seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

EC

The annexation of Crimea was carried out by a weak Russia? The subsequent overt bolstering of Ukraine’s military capabilities by NATO powers was in response to a perceived weakness in Russia’s ability to project military actions ?

These are examples of the reasoning you used in your assessment/ predictions?

Yeah, I'm done talking to you. Think of what I've said in your last millisecond of life before being vaporized by a nuclear-tipped hypersonic missile though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EC said:

I didn't pay much attention to Russia or it's activities in 2014

I've been following all of this closely since about last September

And it shows.

As Tony said, you have a lot of mis-identification to go back and fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EC said:

"Expert" in Game theory may have been a over-characterization of my knowledge because I've only studied it in relation to poker

This also strongly shows in all of your armchair military general pontificating, which would rapidly get us all killed, as Tony observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Do you think Ukraine will try to take back Crimea?

I don't know.

Have you ever studied the book The 2x2 Game? Some might apply to this situation (cf.).

 

Do you remember your favorite ribbing for Bill Dwyer?

"Armchair Philosopher."

If only you could see you now!

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, EC said:

Yeah, I'm done talking to you. Think of what I've said in your last millisecond of life before being vaporized by a nuclear-tipped hypersonic missile though.

Okay EC, EC okay.

Given where I live , I’d almost hope for quick vaporization to be spared the pain of watching my family and wider community die more slowly from radiation poisoning and starvation which unfortunately would be the likely outcome for most if the current or any similar events cause a civilization ending nuclear exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Do you remember your favorite ribbing for Bill Dwyer?

"Armchair Philosopher."

If only you could see you now!

Lol, go back to writing long rambling posts nobody reads. Philosophy, especially Objectivism, is something that is needed and meant for *all* individuals/rational entities, not white-haired psudo-intellectuals sitting in their ivory tower's discussing tower-in-the-sky rationalist theories that are completely disconnected from actual reality with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of person would accept a job running a Ministry of Truth for Joe Biden, as that Nina Jankowicz did?

I found some answers to that question in Atlas Shrugged: Monsters with corroded souls, that's who would accept such a "job," lording over all of us.

Someone who would volunteer to help with Zelensky's election, as she did, in short.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, EC said:

Lol, go back to writing long rambling posts nobody reads. Philosophy, especially Objectivism, is something that is needed and meant for *all* individuals/rational entities, not white-haired psudo-intellectuals sitting in their ivory tower's discussing tower-in-the-sky rationalist theories that are completely disconnected from actual reality with each other.

You don't understand at all what I wrote there to Stephen.

Maybe its best if you leave it to Stephen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EC said:

You summed up how the man actually thinks correctly beyond the superficial things he says "to gain public support" for his policies even though you meant it as a type of passive-aggressive "joke".

Or, presenting the actual reality of the situation is how one attempts to save the world and all those lives instead. I don't live in the fantasy world you've created in your own mind where Russia is a legitimate country, taking legitimate actions for legitimate reasons. You're relatively safe in S. Africa from the initial effects of a nuclear exchange, but here in the US I'm not, so I have to take the threat seriously.

Right, I'm (er) "safe" down here: Should I give a damn about others? Think about that a moment.

What would you personally give to save the world?

"tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" (Hume, the skeptic-nihilist)

EC. You'd be against, if I have this correct, urgent negotiations entered into with Putin? But would rather blow Russia to smithereens if he doesn't surrender.

While simultaneously horrified at the prospect of nuclear war.

There's a self-contradiction here.

I point out that you suggest that dealing with Putin the brute would be beneath anyone of moral stature.  

So I infer that pride is more important than a holocaust, in your value priorities.

Except I'm wondering if that's "pride" as selfish virtue, or "pride" as emotional outrage i.e. hubris.

The greater value, some peaceful return to Ukraine, alleviating tensions, ending war deaths and easing for now the threat of nuclear exchange, you must concur, sits monumentally above anyone's pride (or insignificant hubris). As you'd see, someone creating a successful deal with Putin-Yelensky wouldn't be an act of altruistic sacrifice, it's an absolutely incalculable "gain".

Where's Henry Kissinger, or Donald Trump, when you need him?

Right now intervention by a wheeling-dealing, pragmatist statesman will be invaluable.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2022 at 4:13 PM, 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.

 

DM, you mean Russia could suffer "a lot of defeat" in Ukraine, and yet enter other countries and ... go on suffering "a lot of defeat"?

Please tell me how lots of defeats could be sustainable.

While, as I said, defeating strong armies, overthrowing governments, occupations, and using essential manpower to keep resentful populations subdued in every place. Losses, logistic problems, supply lines growing longer- never going to happen. For what, to enforce (ex-)Communism on Europe? Or recover the dream of a Tzarist Russia? No future, impossible and never was such expansion intended.

Why can't anyone take Putin's objectives at his word? A neutral Ukraine; a non-NATO Ukraine; demilitarized and de-Nazified; and the "liberation" of repressed Russian Ukrainians. Period.

Those comparatively modest goals were not bad enough?

Nope. Everyone trapped in MSM unreality by 'expert' pundits assumed far worse and have been running round like headless chickens ever since.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EC said:

 

Or, presenting the actual reality of the situation is how one attempts to save the world and all those lives instead. I don't live in the fantasy world you've created in your own mind where Russia is a legitimate country, taking legitimate actions for legitimate reasons.

No one I hear can resolve their contradiction: A compassion for lives being lost; Non-compassionately and coldly accepting the loss of more lives to come by continually arming them and cheering on Ukrainians to continue fighting until victory. 

You can't have your cake and eat it.

It has become obvious this is all about punishing Putin. The Ukrainians are the pawns in the game.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

No one I hear can resolve their contradiction: A compassion for lives being lost; Non-compassionately and coldly accepting the loss of more lives to come by continually arming them and cheering on Ukrainians to continue fighting until victory. 

You can't have your cake and eat it.

It has become obvious this is all about punishing Putin. The Ukrainians are the pawns in the game.

There's no contradiction and it's not hubris, nor a need to "punish" Putin for his international terrorism and/or war crimes that were carried out on his own orders (implicit or explicit), even though he certainly deserves to die for all of that.

It's about the right of the (relatively) free nations of the world to protect the rights and lives of their citizens from the death and destruction from an evil tyrant. An aggressive defense is not just for the current threat but also a warning to near (and far) future threats from other tyrannies such as N. Korea and China that the lives of the relatively free loving people of the world aren't open to being sacrificed at the whims of their evil ambitions. Would I love to see non-war solution to this problem that doesn't reward evil rights violating aggression? Sure, who wouldn't? But it's NOT possible. Therein lies the actual contradiction: you and others believing that such a solution exists and/or is possible.

Sometimes, as was the case during the Second World War, evil has to be defeated to be stopped, it can't be negotiated with in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons one doesn't negotiate with terrorists or a criminal with a gun to one's head. Who wins and who loses long term in such a "negotiation", and does the "negotiated" result end the threat or encourage more terror-for-loot in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

You don't understand at all what I wrote there to Stephen.

Maybe its best if you leave it to Stephen.

Oh, I understood completely. You were attempting to question my "qualifications". But, why is an actual general (who's almost certainly far less intelligent than I am, as you also are) more "qualified" to speak accurately about these issues than myself? Because said intellectually inferior general attended West Point and was indoctrinated into collectivist military type thinking? That's actually a disqualification for proper thinking no matter how otherwise competent the man happens to be. Specialization, and people like you that are overly obsessed and irrationally only respect the ideas of "experts" is a cancer on man's advancement as a species. A proper man should be able do and understand everything (within reason).

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the relatively free nations stepping up to the plate to defend their citizens, or are they primarily sending arms and munitions to Ukraine and letting the Ukrainians bear the brunt of Putin's ongoing war turned battle of attrition?

Edited by dream_weaver
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...