About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[whYNOT]

41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Who said the Russian people consented? 

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. 

The Russian people didn't get much choice, did they? Although there's a parliament representing them, the Duma.

No, I'm addressing the western "people". Where, we hope, enough vocal opposition would have curtailed their governments' involvement. What disturbs me, there are few anti-war protests anywhere. Can only mean that western populations are subservient to the dictates of states.

Must I simplify?

"America",  etc, is incomparably, morally preferable to "Russia".

HOWEVER: The actions and inactions and evasions by those in the US, UK, EU,  et.al. regarding this conflict, only - and the causes leading up to the conflict - have been no better than Russia's i.e. irresponsible at best.

Russia was - evidently - put on defensive alert by the activities over the border and internationally. They knew back then their security was always threatened, and like any State, take it seriously. As a nuke owning country, even moreso.

When I discover more, I will be able to better assess how "unjustified" their invasion was - or the reverse. I have reached certainty it was "provoked". Invited, encouraged, planned-for, welcomed, etc.

Maybe, in this war, alone, Russia was "more sinned against than sinners". But around here, I have to watch my words.

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

9 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

HOWEVER: The actions and inactions and evasions by those in the US, UK, EU,  et.al. regarding this conflict, only - and the causes leading up to the conflict - have been no better than Russia's, morally

What are some of the moral errors that Russia has made regarding this conflict? You seem to have innumerable examples of moral errors from the west, but none from Russia. 

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

What are some of the moral errors that Russia has made regarding this conflict? You seem to have innumerable examples of moral errors from the west, but none from Russia. 

The single - rationally- moral error made: Russia expected a short campaign.

Simply arrive in some (low) numbers, and Kyiv would bend to the pressure, return to talks with a purpose this time. Then neutrality, security guarantees, Donbas autonomy, non -NATO, and the worst is over at little cost.

They completely miscalculated how far the West would go in making sacrifices in its fervor to beat Russia, pressurizing Zelensky the other way, to war.

You are asking for me to acknowledge 'those' moral errors.

The media are filled with "atrocities" which, somehow, are never committed by Ukrainians.

The early invasion was an exercise in relative self-restraint (a proper military buff can tell you) and of the Russia policy trying to avoid non-combatant casualties. Which is highly dangerous for the soldiers practicing it. You don't automatically open fire at any movement in your vicinity, you check it first, costing vital seconds. Only an inference on my part, the Russian command would not have condoned atrocities by their soldiers. Singly, it's probable. As with reports I've read of Ukraine atrocities you will seldom hear of.

We shall see when war crime trials come up.

I know what a leading question is.

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

"It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?"

Seshadri Kumar

I just found this synopsis.

Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked!

Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there  - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..."

Plausible deniability - as politicians say.

Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up.

https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa

Edited December 6, 2022 by whYNOT

[dream_weaver]

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa

From the article:

International relations are never about right and wrong. They are about what is possible and what is not, because we live in an anarchic world with no central law enforcer. 

This is the key error. This is where the laws of identity and causality are brushed aside to make acceptable to the reader that we live in an anarchic world, and suggests that a central law enforcer might be needed, or possible.

[tadmjones]

If it had said 'not always' instead of 'never' it would be more 'right'. No ?

The implication that a central enforcer is needed would not stand, yes ?

Edited December 6, 2022 by tadmjones
added last line

[Jon Letendre]

Aligning one's thinking and actions with that which is possible and away from that which is not possible are the epitome of respect for identity and causality.

Anything else is what constitutes a futile attempt to brush them aside.

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Aligning one's thinking and actions with that which is possible and away from that which is not possible are the epitome of respect for identity and causality. (mine emphases)

"Possible" has many meanings. As you connect it with identity and causality, it follows that you use it in the metaphysical sense.

Now : in connection to what metaphysical claim are you making the above observation ?

[AlexL]

20 hours ago, whYNOT said:

On 12/5/2022 at 7:29 PM, 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?

There is no trace of sophistry in my comment [but you are free to reveal it], neither dissembling, nor otherwise, but it is obvious that my tactics with you is getting you looney. It wouldn't if you would make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here.

Quote

The facts are "out there", they require deduction.

For me, "out there" are only facts I can perceive. For what others believe - and what you push here indiscriminately - I need evidence.

Quote

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

It is not my choice with you, only with whoever is, in my judgment, sincerely interested in forming an opinion.

Quote

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

I will read all you say, so that you should better make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here.

Edited December 6, 2022 by AlexL

[dream_weaver]

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

If it had said 'not always' instead of 'never' it would be more 'right'. No ?

The implication that a central enforcer is needed would not stand, yes ?

The no right or wrong reveals the author's acceptance of moral relativism.

As to a central law enforcer, the laws have to be discovered /or created before the discussion of their enforcement comes to play.

If the role of legitimate government is to identify, secure, and protect individual rights, then using this standard for evaluating right or wrong casts much of what was written by. Seshadri Kumar under a different light. 

[AlexL]

8 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

If the role of legitimate government is to identify, secure, and protect individual rights, then using this standard for evaluating right or wrong casts much of what was written by. Seshadri Kumar under a different light. 

I also suspect that this Seshadri Kumar never dreamed to be approvingly quoted on a Objectivism site...

[dream_weaver]

35 minutes ago, AlexL said:

I also suspect that this Seshadri Kumar never dreamed to be approvingly quoted on a Objectivism site...

Obviously I need to work in my delivery, if what I said is to be taken as approving.

Is the USA striving to be the role of the promoter of individual rights if their goal is to bring about an unstated subversive ulterior agenda?

 

[Eiuol]

20 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You are asking for me to acknowledge 'those' moral errors.

Wait, and you can't just say that you prefer Russia here? There is no leading question here, or if there were, you would be criticizing me for leading you into saying that you prefer Russia here? 

 

20 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You are asking for me to acknowledge 'those' moral errors.

Since you're trying to say that they aren't bad, why wouldn't you just say that Russia is overall in the moral right? You said that "no one is innocent" but at the same time you are saying that "the only error Russia made is expecting a short campaign", aren't you saying that Russia is more innocent than everyone else?

I'm criticizing you for the apparent moral relativism. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to figure out what your moral position is. It's more of a psychological curiosity why Nick Fuentes makes his moral position abundantly clear, but your moral position is pretty vague. 

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

"Possible" has many meanings. As you connect it with identity and causality, it follows that you use it in the metaphysical sense.

The guy literally believes in Q. Look at his post history. I'm telling you, don't bother. 

[AlexL]

11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The guy literally believes in Q. Look at his post history. I'm telling you, don't bother. 

I do bother. I have a dream😁: whYNOT is ejected from this Objectivism site (for not abiding by the rules of a rational discussion) or at least is banned from posting to the threads about the Russian aggression against Ukraine, where he broadcasts war propaganda.

[AlexL]

7 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

49 minutes ago, AlexL said:

I also suspect that this Seshadri Kumar never dreamed to be approvingly quoted on a Objectivism site...

Obviously I need to work in my delivery, if what I said is to be taken as approving.

No, you don't : Seshadri Kumar was approvingly quoted by whYNOT.

[whYNOT]

7 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

From the article:

International relations are never about right and wrong. They are about what is possible and what is not, because we live in an anarchic world with no central law enforcer. 

This is the key error. This is where the laws of identity and causality are brushed aside to make acceptable to the reader that we live in an anarchic world, and suggests that a central law enforcer might be needed, or possible.

Well, this returns to Mearsheimer and others. At that top level of international relations: "Who you gonna call"? 

9-1-1 isn't picking up. 

"I had this signed or verbally agreed upon peace treaty - or trade contract, etc.  - and xyz has broken their side of the deal". What then?

As exists I suggest  ¬a subjective¬ "rules-based order" (as it is called) laid down and enforced by the greatest power/s, you as another and lesser nation and leader may often receive a moral and just dispensation for your problems.

But not always, when there is a conflict of interests, where your beef lies specifically WITH one or more of those great powers themselves, is it not possible they will rule against you to serve their interests?

The previous/present "rules-based order" I suggest was premised on "might is right": the strong are the good, by definition and necessity - our rules and our judgment are final and will be backed by all necessary force. That leaves open the door to the (supposedly) unjustly-treated nation rebelling, to take the 'law into their own hands', to apply and equally enforce their own "might is right".

The replacement being put about is an international "law-based order", as I read it, a positive move to an objective/impartial "order". How, and what form it takes, is beyond me.

Edited December 7, 2022 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

I do bother. I have a dream😁: whYNOT is ejected from this Objectivism site (for not abiding by the rules of a rational discussion) or at least is banned from posting to the threads about the Russian aggression against Ukraine, where he broadcasts war propaganda.

I was referring to JL, who you quoted.

But really, the site is mostly dead. You have the stupidity of a Q believer, the drunken ramblings of what resembles an old man who watches too much Newsmax, and the Socratic trolling of a guy who always hits space bar before a question mark. This is probably more than half the posts in the past few months. I just pop in once in a while hoping to see a decent threat on philosophy, but I can't resist sometimes to see how the psych ward is doing.

Get out while you still can!

Edited December 7, 2022 by Eiuol

[whYNOT]

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Wait, and you can't just say that you prefer Russia here? There is no leading question here, or if there were, you would be criticizing me for leading you into saying that you prefer Russia here? 

 

 

I am stating that Russia has the right to self-defense like any nation. A principled thinker and/or nation, will not assert "for me but not for thee".

I surely do not have to repeat and produce many others' words endlessly, that NATO encroachment, the outside militarizing of Ukraine, the outside meddling in its politics, an illegal and continuing Ukraine war against a portion of citizens based upon their ethnicity - a CIVIL war turned a blind eye to by the West - can NEVER have been committed innocently, arbitrarily, nor purposelessly. 

A child could see that Russia was the target all along. Perhaps Putin couldn't see this ...

Like this other dude you want an easy answer, categorically condemning Russia: Objectivists, in line with the self-righteous and warmongering neocons and most (woke) Leftists.

But. This moral judgment is not open and shut, 'revealed knowledge', that intrinsicists yearn for,  it's complex.

The collective West has acted immorally; and Putin has been immoral but not "unprovoked", as proven. 

Such clearly deliberate ¬provocation¬ by the self-same West, is only one reason why its acts were immoral.

In short, they wanted confrontation with Russia. With sanctions and all, this war was to be the final weakening and dismantling of Russia.

More - "a proxy war". To exploit Ukraine's location and Ukrainian Russophobia to the West's ends - using and encouraging Ukrainians to fight on their behalf (and to hell with peace treaties) while their country gets "wrecked", which the West could not legally do themselves or (rightly) have not wished to lose their own soldiers in - is unbelievably callous and cynical and sacrificially immoral. 

You fight your own battles, take your own licks - or else don't take on any non-self-defensive war.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

The collective West has acted immorally; and Putin has been immoral but not "unprovoked", as proven. 

You were quite clear that the West has done a lot worse with nefarious intentions and these intentions were not from rational errors (irrational errors are immoral), while Russia/Putin made a rational error (which, hopefully you are aware, is not immoral by Oist standards). So, assuming that your pages upon pages of analysis are correct, and we consider all the issues that are relevant, Russia comes out as the moral superior with regard to this conflict. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

But. This moral judgment is not open and shut, 'revealed knowledge', that intrinsicists yearn for,  it's complex.

Of course it's complex, but you've been posting your opinions for many months now on this topic, with a lot of (supposed) analysis. More than enough time for you to reach a conclusion. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Like this other dude you want an easy answer, categorically condemning Russia: Objectivists, in line with the self-righteous and warmongering neocons and most (woke) Leftists.

I mean, you should read the essay by Rand called "The Cult of Moral Grayness". 

[AlexL]

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You have the stupidity of a Q believer, the drunken ramblings of what resembles an old man who [...]

Is this comment addressed to me ??

[Craig24]

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Is this comment addressed to me ??

He's talking about Jon Letendre.  I wonder if he ever met this Q?

[AlexL]

37 minutes ago, Craig24 said:

He's talking about Jon Letendre.  I wonder if he ever met this Q?

Thanks.

What does "Q" mean ?

Edited December 7, 2022 by AlexL

[dream_weaver]

'Q' has been discussed in several threads and mentioned occasionally in others:

https://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/search/&q=QAnon&search_and_or=or

(This post should not to be taken as a contribution to QAnon.)

Split from this thread: *** What are the similarities and differences between 'Q' haters and Ayn Rand haters? ***

Edited December 7, 2022 by dream_weaver
Added 'Q' explicitely, then added discaimer.

[AlexL]

8 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

'Q' has been discussed...

So "Q" is a contributor to QAnon. OK, Thanks.

Edited December 7, 2022 by AlexL

[AlexL]

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I am stating that Russia has the right to self-defense like any nation. 

Yes it has the right to self-defense, but not the right to invoke self-defense for an aggression perpetrated for personal reasons by its leader.

Quote

I surely do not have to repeat and produce many others' words endlessly, that NATO encroachment [...]

This is exactly what you are doing : repeat and produce many others' words endlessly, but never back them up with evidence.