About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[necrovore]

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm getting at that generally those who argue that NATO is/was threatening Russia pretty much revolves around how they don't trust or align with Western values generally.

I'll say it again: you're conflating Western values with Western leaders. They are opposites.

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

I'll say it again: you're conflating Western values with Western leaders. They are opposites.

I'm not conflating them, I think that because you (at least, I think you are trying to say that NATO should be viewed as threatening) do not consistently hold Western values, you necessarily cannot trust any Western leader. Or any Western leader you would support is actually more aligned with non-Western values. This isn't based only our conversation here, but other post of yours including truly thinking that January 6 was a false flag operation. 

It's not like you have brought up once your evidence that NATO is misusing money or has any intention other than acting defensively. You have not argued either that NATO is even participating in the conflict. It's pretty much "well, it's socialism - which is already anti-Western - and socialists literally desire people to suffer, therefore we know off the bat that Western leaders simply will always have ill intentions." I already said that you are actually talking about neoliberal mixed economies, to which your best response was basically "I'm talking about the socialist parts". Not to mention that you didn't provide evidence that there are Western leaders deliberately causing suffering and are socialists. What you provided was a villain's line of thinking from Atlas Shrugged, which apply to a specific fictional context only meant to illustrate a specific abstract idea. Not an argument or explanation of history or contemporary events.

But, I'm not so much posting this to convince you, it's for working out my ideas about the Ukraine conflict.  

Edited October 5, 2022 by Eiuol

[necrovore]

21 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

you necessarily cannot trust any Western leader

So I should just trust them, eh? ... That's your idea of "consistently holding Western values"? Just stop trying to figure things out for yourself, stop believing your lying eyes, and trust the people in power.

Right.

Talk about a "villain's line of thinking from Atlas Shrugged"... (or maybe The Fountainhead?)

[whYNOT]

The value of scouring alternative sites - leftist, too, could you believe - is finding some incredibly rational, independent, and knowledgeable minds outside of the conformist establishment and mass-created narrative who write on the subject conceptually, brilliantly, insightfully and factually (much better than I have). Even Noam Chomsky mentioned in her article out-philosophizes most Objectivists (regarding war, and this one).

Our irresponsible and infantile 'leaders' are close to the edge from which there's no return, and haven't a clue how to stop. They are in react-and-hope for miracles mode. When nobody is thinking, or was never able to think, that is what the philosophers' task is.

Caitlin Johnstone:

"The moronic narrative that the invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked” poses a massive obstacle to peace, because if Putin is just attacking and invading countries solely because he’s crazy and evil it means detente is impossible and he won’t stop until he’s decisively crushed".

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/10/02/caitlin-johnstone-unprovoked-war-fable-blocks-peace/

Open up the links also, recommended

Edited October 5, 2022 by whYNOT

[Easy Truth]

The provocation argument has a serious flaw in that:

There seems to be some sort of inherent or objective standard of where the lines should exist and that the west provoked Putin. If it is based on some history, then the overriding issue that effects our long term security is the fact that when the Soviet Union Broke up, Ukraine had nuclear weapons and gave them up for the implicit assurance that it would be safer without them. If in fact the west does not protect Ukraine, any country that will want to develop and or keep nuclear weapons. If we defend Ukraine, any country that wants to develop nuclear weapons will know that it is better off, or will be defended if it gave them up.

Now if in fact Ukraine itself became a rogue nation invading other countries, then this implicit protection should be ignored.

If the argument is that we supported a coup, then all that would mean is that Putin also has a right to support a coup. Currently Putin has chosen a war, not a clandestine coup.

The other issue is the idea that you can change borderlines without a voluntary deal.

The idea that NATO is expanding, as if NATO is gobbling up nations, like it is invading them, is a false narrative. Nations are requesting to join. This is through voluntary means. If they join, NATO expands, legitimately and in a morally sound way. The idea that Putin has a right to have the current members of NATO not allow any new members is an overstepping. 

The argument here seems to be that if a nation gives you an ultimatum regarding something you are doing, stop doing what you are doing. That seems to be what Putin did, he simply gave an ultimatum. We can't pay ransoms or appease a bully.

Now if we did meddle, then there is a corresponding right for Putin to meddle and he has done far more by absorbing Crimea. Again, if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Crimea would have stayed Ukrainian.

If there was a judge, in a world court, the final judgement would be, Russia get out of Ukraine and let's settle this thing through negotiation. One way or the other, Putin would have to get out.

[Eiuol]

11 hours ago, necrovore said:

So I should just trust them, eh? ... That's your idea of "consistently holding Western values"? Just stop trying to figure things out for yourself, stop believing your lying eyes, and trust the people in power.

Right.

Talk about a "villain's line of thinking from Atlas Shrugged"... (or maybe The Fountainhead?)

No, I said you will not be able to trust any of them. Or actually, not trust them one iota is what I'm getting at. Of course you shouldn't blindly trust anyone. It's more like I'm saying that the level of distrust is at a level of distrusting Western values altogether. I don't think you mean to do this. 

I mean, it's not that difficult to provide some hard evidence that NATO has nefarious monetary motivations, or that anyone wants to keep the war going. You've got speculations. Then again, at the level of distrust you have, I know that you would require a lower standard of proof than me to demonstrate wrongdoing.

 

 

[necrovore]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Of course you shouldn't blindly trust anyone. It's more like I'm saying that the level of distrust is at a level of distrusting Western values altogether. I don't think you mean to do this.

There's evidence that I've seen but don't have. I can't present it to you because I don't have it anymore, but there are sources that keep producing more, and it's consistent with information going back decades. I have a long memory.

I actually get frustrated with news websites that present useful information (often with quotes, pictures, etc.) only for it to "scroll off the screen" in a day or two.

Like the time when Nancy Pelosi claimed that her house was vandalized, there was a picture of something spray-painted on her garage door, but looking at the picture you could see that the spray-paint mysteriously stopped at the exact edge of the door and did not intrude onto the brick next to the door, where it would have been much harder to clean off. It was as if someone used a board or something to protect the brick from the spray-paint. Why would real vandals be so kind? Unfortunately I doubt if I could find that article or that picture today. It's not like Google would be of any use, because of their own political leanings.

Sometimes I "print to PDF" but often I don't, there is just too much.

Occasionally these sources remind me of something they said six months ago, and I'm like, hey, I remember that! That wouldn't mean anything to somebody who didn't see it the first time, though.

I think a lot of the people here who agree with me know what I am talking about, though.

By contrast, certain people in power would like to suppress information that is inconvenient to them. They create "disinformation boards" and such to do it officially, too. That's a good reason not to trust them. As I've indicated before, I don't trust that general approach to knowledge.

I trust reality, and the approach of starting with reality, and following it wherever it leads -- not ignoring it or suppressing it, either because it's inconvenient or for any other reason.

Reality still exists even if you do ignore it, and ultimately it can't be suppressed.

There is more than one Western philosophy and some value reality and some don't. (Also, there are degrees of valuing reality, and there are some philosophies that value it different amounts in different contexts.) In that sense, we might want to choose carefully which Western values are worth defending. I would generally side with Ayn Rand.

[whYNOT]

17 hours ago, necrovore said:

I'll say it again: you're conflating Western values with Western leaders. They are opposites.

Right, for most of the present crop of 'leaders', and since they don't exist in a vacuum, the many who deserved them.

Worth reiterating, an objective value is as good as the "valuer" who recognizes it, (by the standard, "man's life") one who sees/comprehends it to be such - and chooses to act on it and for it.  It's intrinsic value in which something is "imbued" with value and subjective value that declares something can go in or out of value by whim. So a great "institution" is only as good as individuals who run it and may be destroyed from within.

  

[whYNOT]

"Over-Extending and Unbalancing Russia"

Rand Corporation, 2019

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjzr_T348n6AhVaOMAKHfOdA90QFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rand.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Frand%2Fpubs%2Fresearch_briefs%2FRB10000%2FRB10014%2FRAND_RB10014.pdf&usg=AOvVaw20gfMooZk2oSGu4PL84GLT

Excerpt:

"Increasing the size and frequency of NATO
exercises in Europe may help to enhance
readiness and deterrence, but it is unlikely
to prompt a costly Russian response unless
the exercises also send risky signals".

Edited October 5, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

An utterly cynical study I think, whose authors appeared to believe the Cold War was ongoing.

When we can see daily the policies, techniques and methods enacted, does that end the fallacy - "unprovoked"? Does it justify Putin's paranoia about "an existential threat" and demands for security guarantees?

So much for benign and innocent NATO.

A short assessment of the Rand report:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjzr_T348n6AhVaOMAKHfOdA90QFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fenglish.almayadeen.net%2Farticles%2Fblog%2Frand-report-prescribed-us-provocations-against-russia-predic&usg=AOvVaw2tpM_ooYac6e60Vrc-PrMt

 

This analyst concludes:

"A peace settlement that guaranteed basic rights for all Ukrainians and state neutrality in the rivalry of big powers, would be advantageous to most Ukrainians. It is only the US foreign policy establishment including the US military media industrial complex and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who would be “disadvantaged”.   

Since Ukraine is a multi-ethnic state, it would seem best to accept that reality and find a compromise national solution that facilitates all Ukrainians. Being a client of a distant foreign power is not in Ukraine’s national best interest. 

The Rand report shows how US policy focuses on actions to hurt Russia and manipulates third party countries (Ukraine) toward that task". 

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

20 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If there was a judge, in a world court, the final judgement would be, Russia get out of Ukraine and let's settle this thing through negotiation. One way or the other, Putin would have to get out.

If there could be such a judge, where was he a long time before this invasion?

When a negotiation, a done deal, had already been decided by opposing parties.

Where was the judge when further more Ukrainians were being attacked and killed by Kyiv and Ukrainians continuing after that deal was dishonored by the state?

If Putin were ordered to "get out" (in imaginary, present negotiations) there would be no judge/police force to prevent that war continuing as before, until the Russo-Ukrainains had succumbed, killed, rounded up in camps or fled.

Without a judge to call upon, Putin's patience apparently ran out and he apparently thought he had to take the law and some rough justice into his own hands. Either that, or abandon those people.

There is apparently no international law preventing "accession". A bunch of people within a lesser region within a country who decide they've had enough of their gvt. rule, can - in reality - hold elections for their self-determination, break away, and become self-ruling or become part of a bordering nation. That this new 'nation' gains/doesn't gain "international recognition" - approval by a majority of nations - is immaterial to reality. 

The only thing in reality stopping that process would be the question of the independent region being able to defend itself. I.e. having enough military strength and the will to use it.

What's driving the Western global community crazy, calling these "sham" referendums, an "annexation" by Russia, a "land grab", etc., are the above facts they can't do anything about--except bring escalating force to bear to win the regions back. They cannot admit this was actually an accession, a rejection by some people of Kyiv, made by the majority choice of the inhabitants to leave, as they must see it, the oppressive insecurity in Ukraine for Russian protection. Leaving, instead of choosing mass self-sacrifice, the moral[!] thing to do.

The judge didn't show up in time, was prevented in fact, now it's very late for any just and peaceful negotiations. This will (more likely) be "decided on the battlefield". A great shame on the West, who have explicitly sought that all along.

Edited October 6, 2022 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

Okay, which is useless on the Internet, because memory isn't always reliable. Even for the vast amount of knowledge that I have, but don't have a specific source, I know how to find old sources, or new sources that confirm the same fact. If you can't do that much, as far as I'm concerned, you're just telling me a dream that you had. On epistemological grounds, if you can't verify your own memories with sources, you shouldn't trust those memories. 

On 10/5/2022 at 10:56 AM, necrovore said:

It's not like Google would be of any use, because of their own political leanings.

"I remember, it's real, I swear! But there's no evidence I can provide you because the truth is being suppressed."

This is a form of argument used by conspiracy theorists when they are pressed for evidence but they have none. 

Instead of providing stronger evidence, or better reasoning, you have resorted to going on about suppression of truth, claiming that your memory is good even when you don't have anything else to show me, or using as evidence the reasoning of literally fictional characters in fictional settings (Atlas Shrugged is not a dramatization of the world we live in, but a dramatization of the world that could be).

On 10/5/2022 at 10:56 AM, necrovore said:

I trust reality, and the approach of starting with reality, and following it wherever it leads

You're not following it very well though. 

[necrovore]

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

On epistemological grounds, if you can't verify your own memories with sources, you shouldn't trust those memories.

No, that's not how it works.

No one can think or see for another person, just as no one can breathe or eat for another person.

It would be second-handed for me to try to see only what other people see, or to try to know only what other people know.

If I cannot trust my own mind, or memory, or eyes, then reason is impossible to me. That would also apply to anyone else.

(This would also mean that I am more likely to trust people who encourage me to see things and think them out for myself, than people who tell me that I should trust "Western leaders" but not my own memory.)

There's sometimes a difference between what you know and what you can "prove in court," and I suppose this is an example of it, or an explanation for it.

It's also an example of why freedom is necessary -- because as long as I'm not hurting anybody else, I shouldn't need to "prove everything in court." The reason freedom is a value to a rational being is that it means, for example, that I can go off and do things that no one else can see the reason for. There is the risk that I am wrong, but, I am not trying to force anyone else to go along with me. As long as that's the case, the "blast radius" of my mistakes is limited, by the freedom of other people.

The ephemeral nature of the Internet is a bit of a problem with the Internet, but not so much with reality. If reality consisted only of non-repeating events, then abstraction would be impossible. Therefore, if an abstraction is correct, new pieces of evidence for it will keep coming up. Besides, other people are seeing the same things on the Internet that I am. Maybe you need to diversify your news sources, in which case you will see some of these facts as well, because they will come up again, even if I don't have specific citations. Even if you disagree with "opposition" news sources, sometimes they mix facts and opinions, and the facts are correct even if the opinions are wrong, and so you can discard the opinions. The facts are sometimes verifiable and important. Sometimes even the Marxists get facts right (but they always propose Marxism as the solution to every problem they see... because they are Marxists.)

Nobody has time to read every article from every source but even a little random sampling may reveal important things and, if that happens, you can investigate more thoroughly.

I do take my own advice and look at "opposition" news sources from time to time. So far I haven't seen anything that would change my mind, at least about the broad abstractions. Instead I see people telling me to ignore facts and not to trust my own memory.

Edited October 9, 2022 by necrovore

[Eiuol]

You can trust your own mind and memory, to the extent that you know you have used the proper methods. Memory and cognition are fallible, meaning that you should recognize when they are probably incorrect. When are memories probably incorrect? When you go to verify your claim but then fail to find that verification. 

[necrovore]

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

When you go to verify your claim but then fail to find that verification.

Meh, I haven't failed, I'm just too lazy.

Also new examples are popping up all the time. So I think it's silly to just present one or two examples -- and I don't have time to curate hundreds or thousands of them for you.

(I did find one interesting piece of information today, but it seemed to be more about censorship than about Ukraine, so I posted it in a thread where I was writing about censorship. But that same article seems to have implications regarding the character of the EU's leaders at the moment.)

Edited October 9, 2022 by necrovore

[necrovore]

I should add something, now that I think about it:

It's very common, even normal, for a person to generalize from lots of information and then not remember all the individual items that gave rise to the generalizations (because of the "crow epistemology" and the like). This is what gives rise to "sense of life" and so forth.

However, if a person has formed generalizations that way, the generalizations can still be valid. In fact, it would be very difficult for them to be invalid, especially if the volume of information is large, because the person would have to be misled, not by a single piece of information, but by lots and lots of it.

(The easiest mistake is over-generalizing, which is, you have information from your situation and you think it applies to all situations. Keeping context is the key to preventing this.)

Any person uses similar generalization mechanisms to learn complex skills such as driving, typing, or playing a musical instrument. You wouldn't say that a person doesn't really know how to drive (in general) merely because he can't remember and cite all the individual turns and stops he made while learning to do it.

But that's what it amounts to, to say that my memory must be misleading me because I can't cite individual articles.

Scholars in libraries can form abstractions over books, but since the books are still there, they can find the source information again if they do a little digging. If I have a vague memory of something I read in OPAR, then I can often find it. The Internet, however, is ephemeral, as I have noted.

Also, if you read an entire book and generalize over it, it can be hard to justify that the generalization applies to the whole book, just by providing a few quotes. Somebody could always claim that you cherry-picked the quotes to justify the generalization. The only way they can see the generalization for themselves is to read the entire book for themselves.

Outside of books, even if a person doesn't have the original information from which he formed his generalizations, the generalizations can still be checked against new information as it comes in.

There are people who have never learned how to type, or fly a plane, or ride a horse, etc., and if you watch them try, you can tell they don't know how, even if you also don't know how. But that's different from someone who clearly does know how to type or play the piano or whatever and merely can't show the exact history of how he learned it.

On the other hand, it's possible for someone to mistakenly think that flying a plane is easy, and on that alleged basis not study the subject at all, and then end up in the cockpit of a plane and suddenly realize it's much more complex than he had assumed.

In my case, even if the old information is gone, new information keeps coming out, and so far I have continued to see my generalizations borne out again and again, so I suppose I can try to share more of these articles going forward.

That being said, articles and facts won't necessarily convince some people, anyway. Peikoff wrote a section in OPAR about "opposition to capitalism being rooted in bad epistemology." If you believe in censorship, if you believe that certain information should not be considered merely because it already contradicts your worldview, then you will be difficult to reach (and you will eventually end up in the position of the person who used to think flying a plane is easy). Incidentally, this is also the main reason why religions still exist, even after having been proved wrong. "Not blindness, but refusal to see; not ignorance, but refusal to know."

Objectivity requires the integration of all facts.

Edited October 10, 2022 by necrovore

[whYNOT]

Its after all, the courtroom of your - own - mind which matters. You can give facts and impart knowledge and moral judgments - in summary, if incomplete - to someone else, but can't without painstakingly recreating each step (the amount of actions: induction and deductions and inferences, implications and even assumptions, from data from many sources you amassed) - validate - the formation of the concepts.

When there's something as complex as this war and its causes, motives, ethics, politics, history, military activities, economics, consequences - etc.etc., BUT perverted by outright lies, unprecedented mass deception and calculated omissions by all the main media in lockstep, even simple facts and occurrences can be disputed, and one gets bogged down in 'proving' concretes. This requires a certain amount of good faith, a charitable reading, and followed up with their own lines of research and rigorous thinking which happily might have them coming to matching conclusions. Hard to find when you have to contend with others' fixed, unshakeable judgments based on feelings or emotions.

Edited October 10, 2022 by whYNOT

[Easy Truth]

On 10/5/2022 at 7:09 PM, whYNOT said:

The only thing in reality stopping that process would be the question of the independent region being able to defend itself. I.e. having enough military strength and the will to use it.

There is also the interests of all other nations to uphold a certain ethical stance. They also have something at stake that can and should influence the direction.

[whYNOT]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:45 PM, Easy Truth said:

There is also the interests of all other nations to uphold a certain ethical stance. They also have something at stake that can and should influence the direction.

Number one, for the ethical stance, human lives. The other nations, especially the powerful ones, would and should be aware that the wannabe, separatist group of people have been and remain in peril for their lives, i.e. they are under existential threat where they are. Along with that, the human condition shows many a people are psychologically attached to and take pride in their cultures, history, traditions, languages, ideas or religions--properly, and as a part of an individualist nation and Gvt. that is blind to such distinctions, no contradiction exists.

If being politically repressed/ethnically discriminated against/socially alienated *because of* some or all of those very characteristics by a Govt. (and other citizens) which has failed to protect them as individuals - nor as 'a collective' -  in fact where the Gvt. is the root of the existential threat and force (as in this case) that people's right to self-determination within delineated borders would and should be recognized by other nations.

Edited October 14, 2022 by whYNOT

[Easy Truth]

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Number one, for the ethical stance, human lives. The other nations, especially the powerful ones, would and should be aware that the wannabe, separatist group of people have been and remain in peril for their lives, i.e. they are under existential threat where they are. Along with that, the human condition shows many a people are psychologically attached to and take pride in their cultures, history, traditions, languages, ideas or religions--properly, and as a part of an individualist nation and Gvt. that is blind to such distinctions, no contradiction exists.

The over ridding issue is that Putin did not try to protect the lives of those in the sliver of land between Russia and the Ukraine. If your perception had merit we should have seen Putin stop at the line where "those" people were in mortal danger. But he went all the way to the capital.

So your position is that the west should have allowed a separation of that sliver because their lives were in danger. If in fact, their lives were in danger, you would have a point. But you have to show that in fact they were in mortal danger.

If they were not in mortal danger, then Putin is the one who did not care about human lives, trying to take more than just a sliver. Beyond that, the narrative that they are Nazi's with a Jewish president is preposterous.

[whYNOT]

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The over ridding issue is that Putin did not try to protect the lives of those in the sliver of land between Russia and the Ukraine. If your perception had merit we should have seen Putin stop at the line where "those" people were in mortal danger. But he went all the way to the capital.

So your position is that the west should have allowed a separation of that sliver because their lives were in danger. If in fact, their lives were in danger, you would have a point. But you have to show that in fact they were in mortal danger.

If they were not in mortal danger, then Putin is the one who did not care about human lives, trying to take more than just a sliver. Beyond that, the narrative that they are Nazi's with a Jewish president is preposterous.

I'm afraid you are underinformed. On the causation and situation in East Ukraine returning to 2014 and a violent coup. The legalized prohibition and discrimination against Russian language, status and culture, effectively making Rus-Ukrainians second-class citizens. A civil war conducted by Kyiv on separatists that had killed and was still abusing and killing (¬14,000) Donbas civilians and defensive militia. The Minsk agreements brokered by France and Germany which were supposed to relieve that by granting the region autonomy. But were not implemented by Poroshenko and Zelensky. The arming and build up of the large Ukraine forces pre-invasion, aided by the West. Their goal, the final eradication of the regions, self-evidently. And, if not made explicit, to be used against Russia next--if/when Russia responded as was anticipated.

Of course their lives were in mortal danger! As they had always been for eight years. That's not a fact that the main media has released.

So if you are Putin, seeing all that, the lengthy destruction of the Donbas and the injustice of a broken treaty, etc.,  happening up close over the border and knowing the certainty of a greater fresh assault coming after winter 2022 on the isolated people who identify "Russian-Ukrainian" and whom you likely feel allegiance/responsibility to and are concerned about: what do you do? - who are you gonna call to protect them? Amnesty Int or the UN? Useless. The EU and NATO - they, who were and are complicit (with Kyiv)? There would be no international rescuers coming to their aid.

Okay, Putin 'went to' the capital. Since he clearly did not mean to occupy it, which would have been foolhardy with the low number of invading RF troops, but redeployed at the first resistance, it was obviously (and discussed by proper military experts) a strong warning to Kyiv--a successful diversionary ploy, that had Zelensky initially agreeable to negotiations (in Istanbul, until the war-mongering cretin Johnson arrived to stop him, encouraging the conflict against Russia to go on: i.e. "we" can beat them!).

Kyiv, despite wishful western military observers, was never "a victory". But most unfortunately gave Ukrainians and their backers the false hope of final victory, still dreamed of today.

Maybe you don't know military strategy, which is simply that in trying to take over, occupy and stabilize some limited territory, an army has to drive the opposition back - much further and deeper to secure a no-contact zone. Given the long range precision rocket launchers and artillery the UAF has received, so the further they must be pushed back. 

The only thing preposterous, is that a Jewish president/ neo-Nazi element in Ukraine should indicate to onlookers anything pertinent and self-contradictory at all. A fanatical group (especially active in the military) doesn't represent the whole country, nor is the (birth?) religion of its leader representative of the country.

Edited October 15, 2022 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

[my numbering]

1. On the causation and situation in East Ukraine returning to 2014 and a violent coup.
2. The legalized prohibition and discrimination against Russian language, status and culture, effectively making Rus-Ukrainians second-class citizens.
3. A civil war conducted by Kyiv on separatists that had killed and was still abusing and killing (¬14,000) Donbas civilians and defensive militia.
4. The Minsk agreements brokered by France and Germany which were supposed to relieve that by granting the region autonomy. But were not implemented by Poroshenko and Zelensky.
5. The arming and build up of the large Ukraine forces pre-invasion, aided by the West. Their goal, the final eradication of the regions, self-evidently.
6. And, if not made explicit, to be used against Russia next--if/when Russia responded as was anticipated.

Am I wrong if I assume that, as usual, you make these claims without having done your own research, but just cross-"confirming" these claims within the vicious circle of Russia Today, TASS and Dimitri K. Simes The National Interest ?

If you did your own research on the above claims, please chose any three of the above and present your research about the corresponding facts and their background.

Note that you failed at my previous similar challenges and I cautioned you to only make claims you are capable of defending.

I am quoting you advice:

Quote

This requires a certain amount of good faith, a charitable reading, and followed up with their own lines of research and rigorous thinking which happily might have them coming to matching conclusions. Hard to find when you have to contend with others' fixed, unshakeable judgments based on feelings or emotions.

Show that this is how you proceed yourself.

Now start with one, of your choosing. You may follow the following structure: What are the facts, what is the relevant background, the arguments from the conflicting parties (the best ones, of course), evaluation.

[whYNOT]

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

Now start with one, of your choosing. You may follow the following structure: What are the facts, what is the relevant background, the arguments from the conflicting parties (the best ones, of course), evaluation.

 This is evasive sophistry. "You may..." Ha.  I'm not obliged to educate you about well-established facts. I see you haven't once overturned or contradicted facts I presented with alternate facts. 

You may make a reasoned and evaluated - moral - argument from the facts you know, or receive no more response from me. 

Edited October 16, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

 

FOREIGN POLICY

"We do need a policy based on long-range principles, i.e., an ideology. But a revision of our foreign policy, from its basic premises on up, is what today’s anti-ideologists dare not contemplate. The worse its results, the louder our public leaders proclaim that our foreign policy is bipartisan.

A proper solution would be to elect statesmen—if such appeared—with a radically different foreign policy, a policy explicitly and proudly dedicated to the defense of America’s rights and national self-interests, repudiating foreign aid and all forms of international self-immolation".

Edited October 16, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

Am I wrong if I assume that, as usual, you make these claims without having done your own research, but just cross-"confirming" these claims within the vicious circle of Russia Today, TASS and Dimitri K. Simes The National Interest ?

 

I have quoted RT here as an alternative set of reports to ponder, often uncontroversial. Haven't heard of the last two. I go everywhere there are possibly solid facts and reasoning, by writers and experts across all political slants.

Only a rigid and dogmatic mind is afraid of fresh information and argumentation.

Still, you tacitly go to show, the deceitful, part-factual, part-fabricated, fact-omitting, narrative-creating, moral righteousness dispersed by western media and constant psy-ops by gvt's and institutions  has blanked-out a hold on reality for most. Nothing can exist except what is told there, for the faithful, it is the secularist "revealed knowledge" of the day. Mass manipulation of minds was instrumental for where we are now. 

"...and all forms of international self-immolation". Rand

Dead right!

Edited October 16, 2022 by whYNOT