Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Italy, for one, proposes diplomatic negotiations:

"The existence of the Italian proposal was revealed by the newspaper La Repubblica last week on Thursday. It said the Italian government shared it with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and leading Western powers.

The four-step roadmap to peace reportedly includes a ceasefire, demilitarization of the frontline in Ukraine, diplomatic settlement of the status of Crimea and the Donbass republics, and an overarching agreement on security in Europe".

"The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said last week that Italy “shared its vision” with Kiev and that the government was studying it. However, Ukraine reiterated that it will not agree to any peace proposal that does not respect its pre-2014 borders, casting doubt on the plan’s viability".

Russia attacked the neighboring state in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the German- and French-brokered Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014.

Much like the Italian proposal, the peace plan was supposed to start with a ceasefire and disengagement of Ukrainian and rebel troops. The endgame was for Donbass to be granted amnesty, autonomy, and representation in the Ukrainian parliament, before Kiev could take control of the two republics’ borders with Russia. The Ukrainian leadership acknowledged it had no intention of implementing the deal as written, despite signing it".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Italy, for one, proposes diplomatic negotiations:

Kissinger is right, if they can buy peace by just giving up Donetsk and Luhansk then Ukraine should take that deal.   But instead what will happen is that Zelensky and his western sponsors will fight to the last Ukrainian.  Zelensky will ultimately be forced out of office and take refuge in Israel.  Hopefully Russia will be too weakened by the Ukrainian operation to launch operations against Finland and Sweden.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Which set of words?

The first but I understand your point. I just try to separate the actual threats from the propaganda. It's the nonstop nuclear threats that I take the most serious even though I understand it's also partially just posturing to keep us from interfering in the madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Grames said:

Sincere engagement with the argument and mind behind it might work, but nothing else can.

I wouldn't have that much hope. If a person truly falls for it, then I really doubt that they are capable of responding to any arguments. 

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Why the West got involved at all, is the premier question.

The question has been answered for you, you just didn't like it. Russia is an imperialistic force. Imperialism is bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Imperialism is bad. 

That's an overstatement. What if the US united the world under a single Capitalist empire. That wouldn't be bad in any sense if we were talking about true Capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, EC said:

What if the US united the world under a single Capitalist empire. That wouldn't be bad in any sense if we were talking about true Capitalism.

No empire is capitalist, because capitalism is essentially freedom and empires are by definition antithetic to freedom.  I suppose we will now enter discourse into what the concept empire refers to and its definition.

An empire is "an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority."  It imposes authority and often rulers foreign to the people that are ruled.  The principle of organization of an empire is the interests of the empire and the imperial core population, not the interests of the people conquered.  Examples of empires in history include ancient Persia, the Roman Empire, the early Islamic Caliphate, the later Islamic Ottoman Empire, the colonial empires of Spain, France, and Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

No empire is capitalist, because capitalism is essentially freedom and empires are by definition antithetic to freedom.  I suppose we will now enter discourse into what the concept empire refers to and its definition.

An empire is "an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority."  It imposes authority and often rulers foreign to the people that are ruled.  The principle of organization of an empire is the interests of the empire and the imperial core population, not the interests of the people conquered.  Examples of empires in history include ancient Persia, the Roman Empire, the early Islamic Caliphate, the later Islamic Ottoman Empire, the colonial empires of Spain, France, and Britain.

I agree with you under your relatively common definition. I should have, and almost did put the word empire in scare quotes because I just mean a one-world truly Capitalist government, you can call it whatever you want. There's zero point in having competing "nations" on the planet, especially as we begin to become an interplanetary species.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EC said:

There's zero point in having competing "nations" on the planet, especially as we begin to become an interplanetary species.

Unless you have a way to guarantee that "one nation" can exist that has the best possible policies, the point is to have competing "nations", i.e. more choices. (interplanetary or not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

The question has been answered for you, you just didn't like it. Russia is an imperialistic force. Imperialism is bad. 

Ya, it's in the Russian DNA. I think what nobody "just didn't like" is any other explanation for this invasion, but "Russian imperialism". The neo-cons depend on it.

That caters to the fall-back, deterministic, answer; no more looking and thinking is needed. 

What's yet to be demonstrated: Putin had/has designs anywhere else, outside Ukraine.

No, it hasn't been answered, when I've said it's a ludicrous notion, that's been propagandized fully.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

So like multinational corporations that make agreements with authoritarian states in order to leverage the states’ power over the affected populations? Stuff like Foxconn worker dormitories?

Don't mention the imperialism of corporatocracy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Italy, for one, proposes diplomatic negotiations:

However, Ukraine reiterated that it will not agree to any peace proposal that does not respect its pre-2014 borders, casting doubt on the plan’s viability".

"That does not respect its pre-2014 borders".

No one noticed this. "Pre-2014 borders". That means no deal. If - Russia doesn't surrender all territory won, including the East Zelensky's been attacking. Maybe he's crazy.

Somehow he still believes he has a position of strength, has the upper hand because he has powerful backers.

Yelensky has a way out by negotiating a peace settlement. He's lost the eastern regions, anyway. But by dealing could have limited his land and manpower losses and shortened the war. (And avoided it running out of control).

imo, legally, he gave up Ukrainian sovereignty in the East when he continuously attacked his citizens in Luhansk and Donetsk in clear violation of the Minsk treaties he signed, designed to grant them a little autonomy.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjU6r26sP33AhWISsAKHWzaBVAQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2022%2Fapr%2F26%2Fbritain-backs-ukraine-carrying-out-strikes-in-russia-says-minister&usg=AOvVaw2Pk2NGtsMSAckSLMSDNQ69

Best part: The UK "armed forces minister" apparently hadn't a clue a long civil war was already going on, supplied and aided by his armed forces, in 'peaceful' Ukraine.

"Heappey told Times Radio: “Ukraine was a sovereign country that was living peacefully within its own borders and then another country decided to violate those borders and bring 130,000 troops across into their country.""

The Brit propaganda/disinformation outlets didn't correct him, just allowed his statement to go through unchallenged..

Hey, Google is available to you too, DM

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Unless you have a way to guarantee that "one nation" can exist that has the best possible policies, the point is to have competing "nations", i.e. more choices. (interplanetary or not)

I've described my solution to this, an AI "dictator" in control of an advanced drone force. And I suppose we could still have a more normal police force too, as long as they aren't allowed to possess any type of weapons. Police shouldn't have access to weapons as part of their job contract so that they can't terrorize the people who's rights they are supposed to protect, like they currently do.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, EC said:

I've described my solution to this, an AI "dictator" in control of an advanced drone force. And I suppose we could still have a more normal police force too, as long as they aren't allowed to possess any type of weapons. Police shouldn't have access to weapons as part of their job contract so that they can't terrorize the people who's rights they are supposed to protect, like they currently do.

AI "dictator" and rights coexisting.  "You will enjoy the utopia provided to you or die."  There are a thousand and one contradictions in this idea, I mentioned the first that occurred to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grames said:

AI "dictator" and rights coexisting.  "You will enjoy the utopia provided to you or die."  There are a thousand and one contradictions in this idea, I mentioned the first that occurred to me.

You're wrong and I could prove it, but have a million things to do and don't really have the time to argue/explain it in detail. But here's a quick question for you: why do believe that another type of rational (read: moral) entity running a moral government would be contrary to rights preservation? Only answer in the context of an general "artificial" intelligence with efficient thinking abilities many orders of magnitude advanced of the brightest current (non-brain technology interfaced) humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EC said:

why do believe that another type of rational (read: moral) entity running a moral government would be contrary to rights preservation?

No machine is rational, they are machines for whom determinism is literally true.   The last or latest person to program it is the real power behind that throne.  Also your equating of rational with moral is contradicted by the entirety of human history. Rational merely refers to a capacity to form concepts and think with them while moral refers to acting on a certain set of values.  Not everyone (or everything) that is rational will ever agree to the same set of values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grames said:

No machine is rational, they are machines for whom determinism is literally true.   The last or latest person to program it is the real power behind that throne.  Also your equating of rational with moral is contradicted by the entirety of human history. Rational merely refers to a capacity to form concepts and think with them while moral refers to acting on a certain set of values.  Not everyone (or everything) that is rational will ever agree to the same set of values.

Not true. You and I are rational thinking biological machines and are neither deterministic nor programmed by anyone but ourselves. If nature can create a thinking machine via billions of years of evolution, then man also can. To deny that fact would be a blatant contradiction.

This must have been what it was like about 125ish years ago having to argue with someone that human flight would soon be possible while they clearly falsely claimed it is impossible as birds flew overhead. 😂

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

It seems that you don’t grasp the fact that moral, rational,and  intelligence are abstractions. It seems like you equate them to silver, gold and electricity.

Also for you Tad, I don't possess floating abstractions (or very few anyway and with these concepts certainly not), and am not prone to any type of intrinsicism nor rationalism. In fact, I'm quite certain that I could teach a class in Objectivist epistemology accurately if I so chose to. But yeah, keep your random straw man attacks coming bro👍

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature used evolution ? 

That’ s sorta floating in the right direction but really just tautology.

The metaphysical aspect of ‘evolution ‘ isn’t a sufficient explanation of how it would be possible for’ technology’ to produce a method of imbuing a characteristic ‘into’ an entity, at least not by the nature of ‘characteristics’.

fwiw you’re not talking to me so , if you’re a man of your word you’ll stop replying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EC

An analogy of a life as a machine of nature to substitute with the concrete man-made devices which gave rise to the abstraction of machine being conceptualized? Not exactly a scenario fitting for such a logical leap is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germany Reacts to Trump's UNGA Speech

video description:  "Watch the German delegation’s response at UNGA when Trump says “Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

No, it hasn't been answered, when I've said it's a ludicrous notion, that's been propagandized fully.

Grames was saying that Russia is an imperialistic force, and that imperialism is bad. I agree with that. But I'm not trying to argue with you, it's not worth my time. Not because I like the disagreement, but because you've never had the ability to offer a captivating or worthwhile argument. 

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What's yet to be demonstrated: Putin had/has designs anywhere else, outside Ukraine.

Crimea, ties with China, lack of any cohesive pro-Western strategy, lack of any goal of individual rights, Putin's track record of opting for assassination where convenient rather than diplomacy (always with plausible deniability of course), having the same overall MO since at least 2000, need for natural resources, etc. not one individual thing. 

22 hours ago, EC said:

because I just mean a one-world truly Capitalist government, you can call it whatever you want. There's zero point in having competing "nations" on the planet

Which isn't imperialism then. Imperialism is necessarily a type of subjugation.

2 hours ago, EC said:

biological machines

Argument by analogy is always an unhelpful way to argue.

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...