About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[dream_weaver]

Why does the question form in my mind about the morality of haranging someone for an expectation of the specific form in which a clear moral statement is to be framed? 

[dream_weaver]

Via Drudge Report, a Wall Street Journal article about a shift from central intelligence agencies to Open-Source intelligence.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rise-of-open-source-intelligence-tests-u-s-spies-11670710806

Warning: Echos of Russia being manipulated into attacking Ukraine are contained therein too.

Edited December 11, 2022 by dream_weaver
Embed link

[AlexL]

12 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

... a Wall Street Journal article about...

WSJ paywall 😒

[dream_weaver]

Hmm. I'm not a subscriber. I'll look for a comparable article. 

[dream_weaver]

Sure enough, it's behind a paywall after having read it once. Here another in a similar vein:

Are spy agencies ready for open-source intelligence?
By Weifeng Zhong
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/are-spy-agencies-ready-for-open-source-intelligence

[tadmjones]

I went 'thru' the paywall by going to Drudge and clicking on the article.

But what 'echo' was in there ?

[dream_weaver]

In the WSJ, it referenced DOW Chemical as having a team of eight people that used OSINT to anticipate Russia attacking Ukraine, and use the information to profit in an unspecified way. 

An additional search on DOW Chemical, Russia, Ukraine yielded another 1 of 1 article remaining for:

Chemical industry under pressure to cut ties with Russia
After the invasion of Ukraine, some of the world’s largest chemical companies are shunning Russian business
by Alexander H. Tullo

https://cen.acs.org/articles/100/i10/Chemical-industry-under-pressure-to-cut-ties-with-Russia.html

Dow, the largest US chemical maker, told C&EN in an email that it has suspended all purchases of feedstocks and energy from Russia. Dow says it has also “significantly reduced its operations and product offerings in the country” and halted investment. It adds, however, that it is still supplying “limited essential goods in Russia, including food packaging, hygiene, cleaning and sanitation products and household goods.”

Dow operates a polymer dispersion plant and owns a stake in a polyurethane systems joint venture in Russia. The company says it is providing evacuation support for employees and their families in Ukraine and is also looking to do so for its Russian workers.

[dream_weaver]

17 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I went 'thru' the paywall by going to Drudge and clicking on the article.

But what 'echo' was in there ?

Sorry. Yes, this one just states Russia attacked Ukraine.

[Doug Morris]

If Putin is a good guy, why is he trashing civilians so much?

 

[Doug Morris]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:55 PM, whYNOT said:

First task: *to dehumanize* a people (Russians)

I don't recall seeing anything in the Western media that dehumanized the Russian people.  If you see so much of it, can you give a few examples? 

 

[AlexL]

There is a guy, living in Moscow, who makes and films, with his small team, micro-interviews with random people, mainly in Moscow, but also in other places in Russia. His name is Daniil Orain. They ask people's opinion on various current topics. The videos are published on YouTube; they are in Russian, but with good English subtitles.

The interviews are interesting because they show, more or less, what people think. As a poll they are not representative. Moreover, many passers by refuse to answer questions and are not filmed. Practically all videos on this channel are interesting. The recent ones - last 9-10 months - are mainly about the Russian's perception of the war. 

Here is one, the latest to this hour, on the subject "Are you ready for the 2nd wave of mobilization?" :

https://youtu.be/n1V90z8C-r8?t=41

Many viewers from Russia [YT is not (yet?) blocked in Russia] say that this Daniil Orain guy is quite courageous...

The viewers' comments are also interesting.

Edited December 11, 2022 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

As I’ve said prior I had no window into what ‘everyday’ Russians think or how they ‘see’ the ‘world’. 
In that group it seemed the military aged men seemed to be motivated by a ‘general’ nationalism in that they may not volunteer to spread imperialism,but feel that they would be motivated to defend the motherland.

It was nice to see people like the lady who said that she doesn’t see enemies in the people of Ukraine only victims of violence in the prosecution of war.

The man vaping had a surprising view that the US is resource poor as opposed to resource rich and just ‘greedy’ to keep all other sources of energy from the rest of the world. 

[AlexL]

Combat morale: Interceptions of phone conversations between Russian conscripts in Donbass region with their mothers:

https://youtu.be/Wt9Ee48HKjE

The density of swear words kind of certifies the authenticity of the interceptions 😁

[AlexL]

5 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I had no window into what ‘everyday’ Russians think or how they ‘see’ the ‘world’. 

The videos of this Daniil guy's site, "1420" - https://www.youtube.com/@1420channel/videos - provide, in totality, a kind of window - with its limitations...

Edited December 12, 2022 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

Video and audio files are easily faked and but grunts do always complain, lol.

Authenticity of data and information always needs to be questioned from all belligerents.

[AlexL]

21 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Video and audio files are easily faked ... Authenticity of data and information always needs to be questioned from all belligerents.

Sure. And even more easily than faking video and audio is to present  facts without evidence.

Important is to permanently question whatever one hear, sees and reed, and I appreciate that you are doing this systematically, whatever the source is and whatever conclusion it seems to support😁

[whYNOT]

Back to reality

https://youtu.be/XR01cIY6wDU

 

[whYNOT]

On 12/11/2022 at 6:25 PM, dream_weaver said:

Why does the question form in my mind about the morality of haranging someone for an expectation of the specific form in which a clear moral statement is to be framed? 

The insistence on this rush to instant judgment (and which conforms in lockstep with other moralizers) has roots in early Objectivism, everybody running round condemning one another for some superfluous failing - gaining Objectivists notoriety for being cultish - perhaps because, Rand said categorically: "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment".

I don't know if, but it sure looks like, that's where they stopped reading. Wow, I can and must pronounce moral judgment! To make a judgment of person or act isn't always glaringly obvious, or 'revealed' to you: Have you sufficient knowledge? Are you properly unbiased? Do you have an invested interest in the outcome? Are your emotions/feelings deciding for you? Etc.

And the proviso:  Do you "possess an unimpeachable character"? (For each to answer to himself).

The whole page in the Lexicon is worth rereading, here's the first part:

"Moral Judgment"

¶

"One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind’s judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached".

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by whYNOT

[dream_weaver]

29 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Rand said categorically: "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment".

I don't know if, but it sure looks like, that's where they stopped reading. 

Ha!

Per a google alert I discovered that Ukraine has an Ayn Rand Center - Ukraine. 

Ukrainian politician who idolizes Reagan tries to win over today’s Republicans

by Jeff Stein 

... Zablotskyy founded the Ayn Rand Center Ukraine to promote the libertarian author and covered his office walls with posters of Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, with their quotes translated into Ukrainian.

I inserted the link to the center, and while it doesn't directly pertain to this war, it was an unexpected find. 

[whYNOT]

On 12/11/2022 at 9:27 PM, Doug Morris said:

If Putin is a good guy, why is he trashing civilians so much?

 

You mean this? The de-electrification is not a pretty sight, awful for the Ukrainians in winter. If you mean total civilian casualties combined with Ukraine's ongoing artillery attacks on Donbas towns, OHCHR latest - 6,755 dead

https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=14.505236582060494,37.439659324683056,43.786173840597826,57.079312363945895&l=Reference_Labels_15m,Reference_Features_15m,Coastlines_15m(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_Day(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_Night(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_AtSensor_M15(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_At_Sensor_Radiance,VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_BandsM11-I2-I1,VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor&lg=true&t=2022-11-24-T08%3A46%3A26Z

Edited December 13, 2022 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Back to reality https://youtu.be/XR01cIY6wDU

In your view : what elements of reality emerged from this debate ? Just 2-3 of the most important ones.

[Eiuol]

On 12/13/2022 at 2:06 PM, whYNOT said:

instant judgment

Asking for a judgment after 10 months is a lot longer than instant. 

On 12/13/2022 at 2:06 PM, whYNOT said:

To make a judgment of person or act isn't always glaringly obvious, or 'revealed' to you: Have you sufficient knowledge? Are you properly unbiased? Do you have an invested interest in the outcome? Are your emotions/feelings deciding for you? Etc.

Are you saying that you have not been able to make these preliminary evaluations? Then again, you're even wishy-washy on your condemnation of NATO. You do everything but say NATO in the West is morally wrong, you do everything but say that Russia is morally right. 

In other words, by not coming to a judgment in 10 months, you are being lazy. Notice I didn't say you are right or wrong. I said you are lazy

On 12/13/2022 at 4:57 PM, AlexL said:

In your view : what elements of reality emerged from this debate ? Just 2-3 of the most important ones.

Honestly, asking him questions like that are not worthwhile. He is not intelligent enough to answer. It's like asking a 6-year-old who only knows arithmetic to do calculus integrals. It doesn't matter how many times you asked, or how many different ways you asked, your attempts just won't work. After a few posts, he will forget about what you just wrote, you're asking the same questions, and use the same attempted refutations after you already answered them 5 pages before.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Eiuol

[AlexL]

7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

On 12/13/2022 at 10:57 PM, AlexL said:

In your view : what elements of reality emerged from this debate ? Just 2-3 of the most important ones.

Honestly, asking him questions like that are not worthwhile. He is not intelligent enough to answer [...]

Or he is not honest enough to answer. Or both.

Edited December 15, 2022 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Asking for a judgment after 10 months is a lot longer than instant. 

Are you saying that you have not been able to make these preliminary evaluations? Then again, you're even wishy-washy on your condemnation of NATO. You do everything but say NATO in the West is morally wrong, you do everything but say that Russia is morally right. 

In other words, by not coming to a judgment in 10 months, you are being lazy. Notice I didn't say you are right or wrong. I said you are lazy

 

Note the demand to rush to judgment. While evidence is still coming in - against the backdrop of major deception, obfuscation and disinformation - this is a complex evaluation to make, while early estimates and suspicions are now being confirmed. I have gone further than the simplistic, preconceptual, moralizing I hear from you.

I have categorically criticized NATO's irrational expansion and plans to expand further and the outside meddling in Ukraine politics to establish a regime change and foreign efforts to enlarge and strengthen the military in several recent years (for an unstated, but self-evident reason)-- and presently.

I ventured this war was premeditated by the West, a trap set for Russia, to be fought and suffered by Ukrainians - sacrificially of them. Confirmation is emerging of this.

I've shown repeatedly that Ukraine's social and legalized ill-treatment of the 'untermensch' Russian-Ukrainians, was tribalist-racist (apartheid, in practice); and then Kyiv's lengthy military attack on the Eastern breakaway civilians, flouted the ceasefire agreement and political solution, is absolutely immoral - and illegal. By their aggressive acts and from reports of brutality, Kyiv fully deserved to lose the loyalty of the Donbas, and will deserve to lose those territories . 

The interventions in and sabotages by western politicians of peace negotiations and prior Minsk accords, were viciously immoral.

I have maintained that Putin appeared alone in seeking a peaceful resolution, pre-invasion and after.

As for the West self-sacrificing for many years to come its economies, etc., etc., "in solidarity" or whatever 'with Ukraine' by their intention of weakening Russia's economy at all costs, no Objectivist needs to be told how immoral that is. Those governments and leaders deserve whatever they get, but as usual it's their (compliant)  people who will pay.

The entire episode has been sacrificial, of physical lives and human thriving, it seems you lot cannot grasp that altruism has been the ruling doctrine.

On balance Putin comes out much more rational, valuing and protective of his country than the aggregate of irrational Western leaders 'selflessly' willing to damage their own nations, and possibly have their citizens killed. For a conflict they could have averted.

As for those military experts who promised a glorious victory over Russia, I don't know if they are inept or corrupt. They and the pet media and Zelensky's regime who enhanced that folly and gave Ukrainian soldiers false encouragement to be killed in droves, have blood on their hands.

All this was coming down the road, foreseeable by many thinkers pre-2022, (even to a non-expert like me in Feb) which is why the first action (by a moral western leadership) -should- have been concerted efforts to diplomatically, ease tensions, sort out differences and find a peaceful outcome within the Minsk format. They didn't - that tells critical thinkers all they need to know about Western motives and moral character.

Where is your moral evaluation? Try to leave aside your feelings and avoid your normal nit picks.

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Note the demand to rush to judgment.

I'm rushing you to judgment after you have had 10 months to think about it? 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

On balance Putin comes out much more rational, valuing and protective of his country than the aggregate of irrational Western leaders 'selflessly' willing to damage their own nations, and possibly have their citizens killed. For a conflict they could have averted.

If you say so. Why can't you go on to complete your thought and say that "Putin comes out in a much better moral position"? 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The interventions in and sabotages by western politicians of peace negotiations and prior Minsk accords, were viciously immoral.

You accuse me of rushing you to judgment, but then you go on to make the exact judgment I asked you to make! But I think I solved the psychological mystery by now. 

ago, whYNOT said:

Where is your moral evaluation? Try to leave aside your feelings and avoid your normal nit picks.

The West is morally preferable in this circumstance. Russia is morally wrong in this circumstance. Not very hard to say.

14 hours ago, AlexL said:

Or he is not honest enough to answer. Or both.

No, I don't think so. I've had other discussions with him even on non-politics topics, and I think honestly he does not comprehend the discussion. Stupidity might not be the right answer, but laziness. Then again, I think laziness and stupidity are the same thing. It is easy to say is that somebody has thought it through like you did but decided to lie to themselves or others about it. But to say that somebody is thinking at a snail's pace, it's hard to imagine someone doing that. You can overwhelm somebody with so much information that they think they are being careful by not making too strong a judgment. Even Nick Fuentes doesn't get overwhelmed, and sees through the -government- propaganda, but since he is an authoritarian, condemns the West and praises Russia in clear moral terms. That's why I posted the video of him.