Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

On 12/2/2022 at 11:43 AM, whYNOT said:
On 12/2/2022 at 1:19 AM, Craig24 said:

I have to ask... (I may regret this).... what do you mean by Russia's security situation?  Who was or is planning/threatening to attack or invade Russia?

Ah, just that some people and countries do somehow object to a neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals. Silly, I know. You'd find that tolerable over in your country, wouldn't you (?), so why the fuss Putin's been making about Ukraine potentially getting nuke capability presented by that benign, 'defensive' organization?

Is the fact that "some people and countries do somehow object to <something>" automatically means that that >something> is illegitimated or illegal ? For any action of anyone there is someone that will find it objectionable.

IOW, you should first research the matter (what you never do) and establish:

1. what are the facts about "neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals", and

2. what about that is illegal?

About "illegal": maybe you are not aware, but the number and placement of nuclear weapons and of the corresponding vectors is regulated by a series of treaties between USSR/RF and USA, which are still in force and which also foresee reciprocal inspections to insure compliance.

So: do your research and try to establish an illegality: that the facts you found according to #1 violate the treaties. Hint: lookup "New START" in Wiki. It has been extended just last year for 5 more years.

So: do your research about #1 and #2 above. It would be useless for you to comment before having done this.

PS: in particular, regarding "10 minutes flight from their capitals", try to establish that Russia does NOT already have the same capabilities with regards to the Western European capitals, that there is a dissymmetry.

A rapid search showed that Washington/DC is at 30 minutes flight time for Russia's nuclear bombs, and 10-15 if launched from submarines. And this is for Russia to USA, not for Russia to Western Europe !

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Baud: [...]

Here are two sources - which are at least as Swiss as Baud is😁, and which discuss Baud's opinions:

https://www.heidi.news/articles/les-methodes-de-l-espion-suisse-jacques-baud-pour-disculper-la-russie-en-ukraine

https://www.blick.ch/politik/editorial-ueber-meinungsfreiheit-in-kriegszeiten-ein-schweizer-geheimdienstler-auf-putins-mission-id17430444.html

If you don't understand the respective languages, just install in your browser the Google Translate extension and you will get entire webpages translated with just two clicks (no repeated copy/pastes anymore). This will also open to you all sites in Russian, both governmental and private. A vast new world...

PS. Just to clarify: you cited Baud, I cited anti-Baud. They cancel one another. Now what ? Let Baud alone, he is not an uncontested authority,  he is not the fifth Evangelist. Therefore just prove his claims.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

On 17 February, President Joe Biden announced that Russia would attack the Ukraine in the next few days. How did he know this? It is a mystery. 

lol

Did you even read your link?

“They have moved more troops in, number one. Number two, we have reason to believe they are engaged in a false flag operation to have an excuse to go in. Every indication we have is they are prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine,” Biden said. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 9:24 PM, Craig24 said:

  Why is it Russia's problem?  Is the current conflict a rescue operation to save innocent victims of this civil war?  

Is that concept so hard to entertain?

But I see this difficulty all the time from those who are trapped in 'the bubble'. I observed the indoctrination methods from the media, leaders, intellectuals, think tanks, so-called experts - etc. and can see the effects. 

First task: *to dehumanize* a people (Russians) - and *to demonize* (Putin). Once accomplished, by the steady drip of mass disinformation and omitted information and psy-ops, the reactive feelings of people, "the group mind", take over.

Then, every vile act is possible or likely, even, expected (in their minds) and any decent acts absolutely impossible: by Russians and him. Nothing new, a race or group or whatever, once publicly dehumanized, is the necessary precursor to committing injustice and violence against them. 

Against the deep background (NATO's long, ongoing and apparently meaningless expansion) - and the more recent anti-democratic acts of the assisted coup/Maidan and the Gvt. treatment of Russo-Ukrainians - a little later the militarizing of the Ukraine Army by NATO - now events led to this point, the clear and present danger of the UAF overcoming the "rebels" in a war with their Gvt.

Consider a president across the border who has watched all those irrational and destructive actions unfold, and now, along with the rest to worry about, is faced with the immediacy of the conquest and very likely mass deaths and abuse (by Russian-hating, Nationalist extremists) of this group of embattled people (with a shared ethnicity, etc. - or not) and who now request from him military assistance. And it is feasible - to objective viewers - that he may well be humanely concerned for them--the decisive tipping point -- enough therefore to take "rescue action".

(Additonal and extra to sorting out the over-riding, long term security concerns posed by Ukraine's excessive militarizing to his country).

But to the masses this response is totally unthinkable. Established: Putin is evil. He's irrational/insane. He wants only to conquer and brutalize. He can't have human concerns. He is not permitted to hold values (e.g. in preserving his nation). Cognitive dissonance and denial is their only answer to these plausible alternative suggestions; rather than take independent thought that notion is blocked from their minds.

I see this blocked mindset constantly from people's premises, online and personally.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

lol

Did you even read your link?

“They have moved more troops in, number one. Number two, we have reason to believe they are engaged in a false flag operation to have an excuse to go in. Every indication we have is they are prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine,” Biden said. "

 

Not my writing. Baud's. You need to look for the quotation marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Not my writing. Baud's. You need to look for the quotation marks.

Then I hope you realize it's a a bad bout source, with an error that big. 

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But to the masses this response is totally unthinkable. Established: Putin is evil. He's irrational/insane. He wants only to conquer and brutalize. He can't have human concerns. He is not permitted to hold values (e.g. in preserving his nation). Cognitive dissonance and denial is their only answer to these plausible alternative suggestions; rather than take independent thought that notion is blocked from their minds.

That's because most people don't think authoritarianism, and Putin is to blame for this. Your position is more like "akshully the West is morally equivalent, on balance Putin is pretty good, and we should acknowledge he might truly have admirable and virtuous intentions". Just make the moral case that Russia didn't do anything wrong and is a force for good, instead of going in circles all the time and avoiding making your moral judgment. 

As much as this guy is pretty much scum, we don't have to wonder what he thinks. Forget your act of "people are mean to Putin", or realize that it sounds disingenuous. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, whYNOT said:
On 12/2/2022 at 8:24 PM, Craig24 said:

  Why is it Russia's problem?  Is the current conflict a rescue operation to save innocent victims of this civil war?  

Is that concept so hard to entertain?

It is impossible to entertain this without evidence.

But I won't hold my breath to ever get it from you.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an essay, an argument I entirely agree with for what (I believe) is the 100% interests of the USA, before we get to the self-interests of any other nations. "Permanent alliances".

(I sometimes say, not interventionist nor never isolationist- independent. I'll chance my arm that's somewhat the vision George Washington had in mind in 1796).

"Stark Realities with Brian McGlinchey"

"How NATO Empire-Building Set the Stage for Crisis Over Ukraine"

[Since the Cold War's end, "NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence"]

Brian McGlinchey

Jan 31

"In his farewell address, George Washington said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

What an offensive notion to Pentagon generals, weapon industry execs, DC think tankers and State Department bureaucrats, who, rather than avoiding permanent alliances, have been relentless in their quest to pile on new ones.

That impulse is vividly exemplified by the dangerously provocative post-Cold War expansion of NATO, and its consequences are apparent in today’s Ukraine-centered tensions with Russia.

NATO was created to oppose a Soviet empire that no longer exists. Had American presidents followed Washington’s sage counsel, they’d have spearheaded the dismantling of NATO upon the end of the Cold War. Instead, with America’s encouragement, NATO has nearly doubled its membership—from 16 countries when the Berlin Wall fell to 30 today.

With each new member, the U.S. government and American service members are tied to another far-off tripwire: Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on any member country compels other treaty members to come to its aid. It’s the epitome of what Thomas Jefferson called an “entangling alliance.”

While the growth in the number of NATO countries and U.S. war commitments is unsettling, it’s the direction that’s been most troublesome: NATO expansion has marched the alliance relentlessly eastward, right up to Russia’s border".

[...]

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Then I hope you realize it's a a bad bout source, with an error that big. 

That's because most people don't think authoritarianism, and Putin is to blame for this. Your position is more like "akshully the West is morally equivalent, on balance Putin is pretty good, and we should acknowledge he might truly have admirable and virtuous intentions". Just make the moral case that Russia didn't do anything wrong and is a force for good, instead of going in circles all the time and avoiding making your moral judgment. 

As much as this guy is pretty much scum, we don't have to wonder what he thinks. Forget your act of "people are mean to Putin", or realize that it sounds disingenuous. 

 

"Avoiding making your moral judgment..."

I haven't stopped, but stated over and over, the moral culpability has to be spread among all parties concerned.

Not ONE comes off innocent.

Trouble is, everyone expects a neatly wrapped "pure good versus pure evil" pronouncement. I've resisted that intrinsicism. That pre-judging without understanding is the product of willful ignorance, also of emotions and feelings which aren't "tools of cognition" - or of moral judgment.

The Objectivist standard of value, "man's life" - remember?

Contra-"man's life" acts, such as the non-rationality, deceit, evasions, malice, covetousness, sacrifices of others' lives, determinism, power and control, nationalist supremacy, collectivism, false pride --etc.,etc. have been on display by everyone, not least by the advanced and civilised nations, leaders and their institutions. 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Trouble is, you and the rest want a neatly wrapped "pure good versus pure evil" pronouncement. I've resisted that intrinsicism. That's the product of emotions and feelings, which aren't "tools of cognition" - or of moral judgment.

Who is worse, the US or Russia? 
Who is worse, the Ukraine or Russia?
There you go, now you can answer in a way that isn't as simple pure evil or pure good. Otherwise, you're going to sound like Kanye saying that he loves everyone, both Jews and Nazis. I've asked for a moral preference, and I'm sure you know enough to judge whether one is worse than the other right now. I have an unequivocal moral preference for the US today. I'm not even calling you out for being wrong here, I'm talking about failure to make moral judgments during war. I'll put it this way: morally speaking, "no one is innocent" is just a way to avoid judging whether someone is more guilty than another. 

43 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Not ONE comes off innocent.

Okay, then would you list a few things that Putin did which were immoral? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

It is impossible to entertain this without evidence.

But I won't hold my breath to ever get it from you.

You were "not as clueless" as I was. You kept yourself "in the light" - Was all you have proferred about the Maidan and Donbas events.

I have finally figured btw, your demands for "evidence" is a cover for evasion.

 

Not clueless, you must have overlooked or were not allowed to know of a few minor details that don't put many Ukrainians in a good light:

Graphic content.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:
19 hours ago, AlexL said:

It is impossible to entertain this without evidence.

But I won't hold my breath to ever get it from you.

You were "not as clueless" as I was. You kept yourself "in the light" - Was all you have proferred about the Maidan and Donbas events.

You made a claim and I asked for evidence, as I usually do. Why should I have proffered more ? Did I presented facts about Maidan and Donbas ? No, I did not. And this is my choice, as I announced many months ago : as you are presenting a lot of "facts" on which you base your conclusions/opinions, I ask(d) you to present evidence. Which you never really did.

In the last week or so I challenged you to present proof for half a dozen of your factual claims, but you failed to do this, same as you did before.

I even warned you that I will challenge you, so you should better make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here.

But instead you complain that I don't throw here facts and opinions. Yes, I do make my life easy and your life tough.

----
The main rule of a rational discussion is: I prove my facts if asked to, you prove yours. You don't abide by it and I wonder why are you still tolerated on this Objectivism forum...

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Who is worse, the US or Russia? 
Who is worse, the Ukraine or Russia?
There you go, now you can answer in a way that isn't as simple pure evil or pure good. Otherwise, you're going to sound like Kanye saying that he loves everyone, both Jews and Nazis. I've asked for a moral preference, and I'm sure you know enough to judge whether one is worse than the other right now. I have an unequivocal moral preference for the US today. I'm not even calling you out for being wrong here, I'm talking about failure to make moral judgments during war. I'll put it this way: morally speaking, "no one is innocent" is just a way to avoid judging whether someone is more guilty than another. 

Okay, then would you list a few things that Putin did which were immoral? 

You confuse the abstract of "Russia" and of "US" with the concrete specifics: this war, the governments, the individuals in them, and the actions they took.

Inarguable, how the USA and Russia compare--as nations.

 

What is worse, a. by 'cornering' Russia in several ways, the West has aided and set Ukraine up for war against Russia?

b. Russia responding?

What's worse, a. Before and immediately after invading, Russia is willing for talks in Istanbul? (the one time an invader wanted to start with talks).

b. The negotiations are refused by Boris and Biden in the second month? So condemning Ukraine to war.

And then, the governments of the West go further: they call for a prolonged war to bleed Russia dry (which will certainly also bleed Ukraine dry, win or lose); because they all must know their Gvt's covert and overt involvement in Ukraine, their hypocrisy is incredible.

BUT, here we can see their true premises: anti-Russia all the way for decades. So, "provoked" Putin was indeed. 

Between Ukraine and Russia, very little difference on any freedom index. With more recent events showing Ukraine to be a poor democracy.

 The specific individuals in the institutions (UK Mininstry of Defence, US State Department, etc.) They come off very badly, cynically, amoral, immoral.

(The continuation of NATO as a long term and irrational policy by several Admins,  I leave aside here. The arguments have been made).

They, the "collective West" have been propagating a war they ¬knew¬ would be costly to another country's lives which they could have avoided and stopped.

What does that tell you about their moral character? Further, they had to know there would be sacrifices made by their own people, European and American by their sanctions. What does that say about their patriotism?

"Until the last Ukrainian" was uttered by an ALLY of Ukraine. Think about it. Not a Russian or Putin.

Whoever said it is getting his wish.

By supporting Ukraine's and their governments, unreservedly, until they attain the self-indulgent 'satisfaction' of (a pretty hopeless) victory, the irony is the vast majority are all more bloodthirsty than the Russians are presumed to be.

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"Until the last Ukrainian" was uttered by an ALLY of Ukraine.

Who was this ally(?) ? What was the context ? Please provide the reference.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuh, I thought it was Josep Borrell, EU.

Turns out it was a meme by the Cato Inst.. A very accurate summation about Ukraine's 'allies', nonetheless.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinm4uNpuP7AhUTfMAKHYWrC20QFnoECCYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fcommentary%2Fwashington-will-fight-russia-last-ukrainian&usg=AOvVaw3MEaCuSgMwLC3IzSe-rw3B

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha!

"It says here in this history book that, luckily, the good guys have won every single time...What are the odds?"

N. MacDonald

Explains this fanaticism by the West (um, Ukraine) to win here, at (almost) any costs.

"We" get to write the "history" (and clean up the dirty bits).

After all: Only the good can win/only the victors can be "good".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Nuh, I thought it was Josep Borrell, EU.

Turns out it was a meme by the Cato Inst.. [...]

Josep Borrell is a high EU official (kind of an EU Foreign Minister). EU is indeed an ally of Ukraine, I would say, but you say it wasn't him (but some Cato Institute author.)

I therefore understand that you retract your claim that [US/NATO/EU will fight Russian aggression] «"Until the last Ukrainian" was uttered by an ALLY of Ukraine»

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relevant governments made this war. They, the individual bureaucrats and military within them, are the ones who *deserve* the consequences they usually escape, e.g. dismissed, disgraced or charged; what is known every time, it's 'the people' who are undeserving. Why they would consent to a needless, immoral war, must be to do with vague ideas of duty and patriotic glory - their country's propaganda, that eggs them on. An historical truism.

You, a moral nation, don't go to war except as the last resort, when all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted - then, exclusively for national self-defense, against direct or impending attack.

You don't go interfering, god-like, in another country's internal and regional affairs. They finish up "wrecked" (Mearsheimer's ignored warning, 2015)

 

https://youtu.be/AizlD7WbKl0

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Why they would consent to a needless, immoral war, must be to do with vague ideas of duty and patriotic glory

Who said the Russian people consented? 

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

By supporting Ukraine's and their governments, unreservedly, until they attain the self-indulgent 'satisfaction' of (a pretty hopeless) victory, the irony is the vast majority are all more bloodthirsty than the Russians are presumed to be.

Okay, so why don't you say "Russia is morally preferable"? You gave me everything about your moral judgment regarding the West, but nothing about your moral judgment about Russia. I know what your judgment is, I'm just wondering why you don't just say it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

You made a claim and I asked for evidence, as I usually do. Why should I have proffered more ? Did I presented facts about Maidan and Donbas ? No, I did not. And this is my choice, as I announced many months ago : as you are presenting a lot of "facts" on which you base your conclusions/opinions, I ask(d) you to present evidence. Which you never really did.

In the last week or so I challenged you to present proof for half a dozen of your factual claims, but you failed to do this, same as you did before.

I even warned you that I will challenge you, so you should better make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here.

But instead you complain that I don't throw here facts and opinions. Yes, I do make my life easy and your life tough.

----
The main rule of a rational discussion is: I prove my facts if asked to, you prove yours. You don't abide by it and I wonder why are you still tolerated on this Objectivism forum...

Nothing but dissembling sophistry--for effect. You are quite the authoritarian, no?

A true representative of your media. The facts are "out there", they require deduction.

Have you even acknowledged the fact of an existing civil war, or not your "choice"? 

I will read what you have to say, in case you come up with a substansive thought, don't expect replies.

 

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...