Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
14 hours ago, AlexL said:

Or he is not honest enough to answer. Or both [not intelligent and not honest].

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.

Let's see. He made a lot of claims about facts. I asked him explicitly to justify some of them - about 6-7. Most of the time he did not even attempt. 

Doesn't he realize that in a rational discussion he has to do it? Even if he is not intelligent enough to infer by himself this simple fact of logic, he certainly encountered this in the Objectivism literature. And I also pointed this out to him clearly.

He also often manifested extreme bad faith. So... no, I cannot grant him the excuse of not comprehending. He rather plays the fool than really be a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

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

 

That's it? Then you learned nothing new, followed nothing. Just like the rest, context-dropping.

There were NO events previous to Feb 24. No prior causation. Period. Then you have range-of-the-moment responses and prejudicial judgment.

Just like the man who wanders into a theater for the first scene of the third Act, and sees a bloody corpse and a man standing over it holding a gun - aha, he is the evil scoundrel! He might wait to discover the killer was defending an innocent party from a mad man's attack with a knife, but his mind is made up, fixed.

That's what I find here - 'appearances' and instinctive feelings suppress actuality and reason. That clearly fails Rand's criteria for passing moral judgment.

Causal equation: Western not-so-covert interference in the country + Ukraine's overt belligerence = Russia's preemptive belligerence.

What came first, in what order? What events preceded the third Act? Do they have any bearing on this apparent "initiation of force"?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AlexL said:

Let's see. He made a lot of claims about facts. I asked him explicitly to justify some of them - about 6-7. Most of the time he did not even attempt. 

Doesn't he realize that in a rational discussion he has to do it? Even if he is not intelligent enough to infer by himself

I have been remiss in assuming you (and your partner) can analyze, deduce, integrate, assess and synthesize information (and some experts' evidence and opinions) against the standard, reality - in short, are objective enough to think and judge for yourselves. This was my error.

 btw - talking about a "standard", I am curious AL, is it your conviction that your own life is "the standard of value"?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 does not comprehend the discussion.

Silly boy.

I comprehended - at first - that Ukrainian lives were at stake. And since find it hard that many have been lost, civilians and combatants on both sides, I make no discrimination. While you all were looking for blame, calling out "evil Putin" (and absolutely "innocent Ukraine"), and making the stupid, media-fed mistake of presuming a small Russian force was intending genocide and conquering European countries and returning the Russian Empire (and how Putin must be stopped and punished)  - there was one thing essential.

No. 1 objective value: prevent the inevitable loss of life and destruction.

So instead of what any rational observer could predict, a losing war for Ukraine, with great loss of life - and the dangers of greater escalation - "cut to the chase", urgently.

Have envoys discover what Russia most wanted - which Putin precisely stated, if any had heard beneath the propaganda noise - and what Ukraine would need in return. Make that deal - now. Not later. End the war before it began.

Rather, the tough-guy arrogance and Russophobia by the West ensured no interruption to the conflict. Their immorality surpasses Putin's invasion, who after all, was also trying to stop the loss of lives -  in Ukraine and later on, in Russia. As he knew would be coming next year or so, and worse, if he did nothing now.

Is that the discussion I did not comprehend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
13 hours ago, AlexL said:

He made a lot of claims about facts. I asked him explicitly to justify some of them - about 6-7. Most of the time he did not even attempt. 

Doesn't he realize that in a rational discussion he has to do it?

I have been remiss in assuming you (and your partner[???]) can analyze, deduce, integrate, assess and synthesize information (and some experts' evidence and opinions) against the standard, reality - in short, are objective enough to think and judge for yourselves.

In other words, it is not for you to justify your specific factual claims, it is me who has to do it in your stead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2022 at 1:15 PM, whYNOT said:
On 12/15/2022 at 3:04 AM, 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

 

Expand  

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.

This seems to be the cri du coeur de whYNOT, kind of a summary of his outlook of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

If someone besides whYNOT is interested, I will make the effort to analyze the specifics of is comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

That's it? Then you learned nothing new, followed nothing. Just like the rest, context-dropping.

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't mean you are making a bad argument. I literally mean I don't know what you are talking about. Why would this be it? We've discussed my justifications before. Ever since I got back in the discussion, my posts have been mainly about "let's suppose you're right. What do you say from there?"  

22 hours ago, AlexL said:

Doesn't he realize that in a rational discussion he has to do it? Even if he is not intelligent enough to infer by himself this simple fact of logic, he certainly encountered this in the Objectivism literature. And I also pointed this out to him clearly.

I don't know man, unless you really really really want to solve the mystery, I think you hit the dead end of even being entertained by his posts. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Is that the discussion I did not comprehend?

No, it was that stupid discussion about animals, instincts, free will, etc. I spent way too long on that one. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
23 hours ago, AlexL said:

Doesn't he realize that in a rational discussion he has to do it? Even if he is not intelligent enough to infer by himself this simple fact of logic, he certainly encountered this in the Objectivism literature. And I also pointed this out to him clearly.

I don't know man, unless you really really really want to solve the mystery, I think you hit the dead end of even being entertained by his posts. 

I am not entertained by his posts, I am puzzled to see his posts on OO (about Ukraine, at least).

OTOH, I am starting to think that the solution to the mystery might be along your lines - lack of comprehension, maybe some kind of a disorder. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2022 at 3:28 PM, AlexL said:

In other words, it is not for you to justify your specific factual claims, it is me who has to do it in your stead.

I'd like you to argue this "fact".

Merkel confirmed the suspicions first admitted by Poroshenko, but she is much more credible than he. The total facade exposed, that was Minsk, was conducted in order for Ukraine "to buy time", militarize its army with NATO and UK assistance, with the aim of eradicating the Donbas people, they who were honest signatories to the insincere accords, looking to cease hostilities and gain some autonomy. 

By Ukraine's continuing aggression assaulting the towns, and certain, future aggression, the West got the war they wanted and could have avoided; or does anyone think NATO believed that Putin would have held off and sat on his hands, while Russian-Ukrainians in Donetsk and Luhansk were being wiped out? 

NATO (MI6, CIA, etc.) aren't stupid people.

So Merkel inadvertently (or maybe deliberately) has vindicated Putin completely. Ukraine together with NATO, indeed posed "an existential threat": first to the Ukraine-Russians and second to Russia.

Since they could not have acted independently of the EU, UK and USA, she and Hollande would have been quietly told to carry on the fake negotiations as if in good faith.

"Unprovoked and unjustified invasion"? Premeditated, media/PR fluff to delegitimize Putin from the outset. Putin had every moral right to invade -- in self-defense. That he held off until this stage, was clearly because he was tricked, he seemingly still counted upon Kyiv to implement Minsk, perhaps waiting to see if the new guy Zelensky would fullfil his election promises. While in the interim Kyiv were using the time preparing for war.

So the cynical warmongers got the war you wished for, applauding Ukrainians (to their destruction)--but it's not working out as planned to defeat Russia, the saving-face and recriminations and self-justifications will be rampant.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2022 at 3:34 AM, RationalEgoist said:

I'm honestly disturbed by some of the attitudes that appear in this thread. 

Since this is an Objectivist forum, I will simply provide a reminder of the Objectivist view on national sovereignty: 

It should be clear, then, that Russia lacks any right to forcibly establish a sphere of influence in Ukraine according to the Objectivist view. In fact, Russia doesn't even have a right to lay claim to its own geographical territory, but that's sort of secondary in this specific case since the war is taking place within the borders of Ukraine. 

In the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, Miss Rand publicly advocated for material support to be directed to Israel, although she was opposed to sending US troops to the battlefield self-sacrificially. Although Israel and Ukraine are not exactly on the same moral level as nations, I don't believe that it's particularly unfair to use this example as a frame of reference for how she might've viewed the current war. 

The Rand statement - inapplicable. Russia is not a "dictatorship". Autocratic, yes.

"The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches".

Wiki:

The politics of Russia take place in the framework of the federal semi-presidential republic of Russia. According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament's approval. Legislative power is vested in the two houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding by-laws. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Russia has seen serious challenges in its efforts to forge a political system to follow nearly seventy-five years of Soviet governance. For instance, leading figures in the legislative and executive branches have put forth opposing views of Russia's political direction and the governmental instruments that should be used to follow it. That conflict reached a climax in September and October 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin used military force to dissolve the parliament and called for new legislative elections (see Russian constitutional crisis of 1993). This event marked the end of Russia's first constitutional period, which was defined by the much-amended constitution adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1978. A new constitution, creating a strong presidency, was approved by referendum in December 1993.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2022 at 3:34 AM, RationalEgoist said:

 I don't believe that it's particularly unfair to use this example as a frame of reference for how she might've viewed the current war. 

Seeing you bring her up. Rand would have castigated any American involvement in Ukraine and against the Russian Federation.

Sacrificial - and self-sacrificial.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
On 12/16/2022 at 2:28 PM, AlexL said:

In other words, it is not for you to justify your specific factual claims, it is me who has to do it in your stead.

I'd like you to argue this "fact".

Merkel confirmed the suspicions first [...]

I don't remember making a claim on this subject, so that I don't have to argue anything about that.

OTOH, you still have to present evidence for the "facts" you claimed to be true and I asked you to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2022 at 1:19 AM, AlexL said:

I am not entertained by his posts, I am puzzled to see his posts on OO (about Ukraine, at least).

OTOH, I am starting to think that the solution to the mystery might be along your lines - lack of comprehension, maybe some kind of a disorder. 

 

 

"The trouble with Objectivists is they don't think". Nathaniel Branden (circa 1990, in interview).

Mystifying at first. But yeah, I see a codified rigidity of thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2022 at 12:23 AM, Eiuol said:

 Ever since I got back in the discussion, my posts have been mainly about "let's suppose you're right. What do you say from there?"  

 

"Let's suppose you're right". Uh, untrue.

You wanted my moral judgment and I laid it out from all the essential evidence available, allocating blame more on the Western side.

You have done nothing but oppose me, without argument, and level ad hominems.

So I asked for your reasoned, moral judgment and got a stock answer: x is better than y. End of story.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:
On 12/17/2022 at 2:34 AM, RationalEgoist said:

... In fact, Russia doesn't even have a right to lay claim to its own geographical territory, but that's sort of secondary in this specific case since the war is taking place within the borders of Ukraine. 

... Miss Rand publicly advocated for material support to be directed to Israel, although she was opposed to sending US troops to the battlefield self-sacrificially...

The Rand statement - inapplicable. Russia is not a "dictatorship". Autocratic, yes.

"The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches".

So: today's Russia is not a dictatorship because... its Constitution says so!

But then, neither Soviet Russia was a dictatorship in Rand's time, because its Constitution said:

"[USSR] is a society of true democracy, the political system of which ensures effective management of all public affairs, ever more active participation of the working people in running the state, and the combining of citizen's real rights and freedoms with their obligations and responsibility to society [from the Preamble]"

Article 1. [USSR is the] state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country.

Article 2. All power in the USSR belongs to the people. The people exercise state power through Soviets of People's Deputies [Parliament], which constitute the political foundation of the USSR. All other state bodies are under the control of, and accountable to, the Soviets of People's Deputies.

Etc.

Dictatorship? No way! If it would be, the Constitution would read:

"USSR is a dictatorship [or autocracy] etc."

But it doesn't. So...😁

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The total facade exposed, that was Minsk, was conducted in order for Ukraine "to buy time", militarize its army with NATO and UK assistance, with the aim of eradicating the Donbas people

You have my attention now.  I'm against innocent folks being eradicated.  Of course you have proof of this....

I have my doubts.   

https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511

Quote

 

Russia has made these kinds of false claims before. It sought to justify its invasion of Georgia in 2008 and annexation of Crimea in 2014 by framing them as humanitarian interventions.

If Russia truly believed genocide is taking place in Donbas, it could have made its case in a more formal and less violent way. Russia could have shared evidence with different U.N. bodies, including the U.N. Office on Genocide Prevention, and petitioned for an investigation.

Military intervention to prevent atrocity crimes – which include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing – only gains a degree of legitimacy if clear evidence has been provided to the international community. It’s also necessary to collaborate with other countries at the U.N. or other global or regional multilateral actors.

Russia has not done this.

 

https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/04/how-kremlin-distorts-responsibility-protect-principle

Quote

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 continued linking protection for ethnic Russians to military intervention. However, in this conflict, Russian-backed leaders in Donetsk participated in the Kremlin’s propaganda effort to justify the violence in eastern Ukraine. Claims of genocide against Russian-speaking Ukrainians increased in 2014 and have continued to the present war, as the Kremlin sought to provide a justification for its invasion. In recent speeches, Putin stated that Russia is protecting Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population from genocide. However, this justification is gaining little traction outside of Russia. On March 16, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a preliminary ruling that determined Russia did not have grounds to attack Ukraine based on claims of genocide and ordered Russia to stop its military operations in Ukraine and its support for armed forces in eastern Ukraine to further Russia’s war.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craig24 said:

I wonder what the German Constitution said in from 1933-1945?  One wonders......

The Weimar Constitution was practically suspended by the Enabling Act from 1933 (which was in itself constitutional), the government (practically Hitler) received the legislative attributions, only the Nazi Party was permitted to exist.

Which means that at least the Nazis did not hide behind a fig leaf...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craig24 said:
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Ukraine ... NATO and UK .. with the aim of eradicating the Donbas people

 Of course you have proof of this....

I have my doubts. [...]

Your references are correct: had Russia reported, with evidence, to the UN Security Council that Ukraine perpetrated a genocide, then, if the UN SC would not take the appropriate actions, Russia would have the right to do it itself.

Putin refuted with deeds what he claimed in words: all these 8-9 years, since 2013, the Russian diplomacy has never demanded an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and the condemnation of Ukraine for the genocide of its (Russian-speaking) citizens. Never in all these 8 years!

If Putin would have done this and if the UN Security Council would not take any measures against Ukraine, then this would allow him to completely legally and reasonably send his troops to Ukraine - to the Donbass, Crimea, etc., maybe even change the government. His only obligation to the UN would be to tell them what action has been taken! In this case, there would be no sanctions, etc., and Putin would not be considered an executioner, but a savior of Ukraine.

But he did not take this simple and obvious step... How to explain this? Stupidity? Of course not, he is a lawyer himself and is surrounded by first-class lawyers. And the chest just opens: he had no evidence. And it could not be, because there was no genocide. This is why he did not follow this golden path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

So: today's Russia is not a dictatorship because... its Constitution says so!

But then, neither Soviet Russia was a dictatorship in Rand's time, because its Constitution said:

"[USSR] is a society of true democracy, the political system of which ensures effective management of all public affairs, ever more active participation of the working people in running the state, and the combining of citizen's real rights and freedoms with their obligations and responsibility to society [from the Preamble]"

Article 1. [USSR is the] state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country.

Article 2. All power in the USSR belongs to the people. The people exercise state power through Soviets of People's Deputies [Parliament], which constitute the political foundation of the USSR. All other state bodies are under the control of, and accountable to, the Soviets of People's Deputies.

Etc.

Dictatorship? No way! If it would be, the Constitution would read:

"USSR is a dictatorship [or autocracy] etc."

But it doesn't. So...😁

It's missing an element she admired of the United States, of enshrining individual rights in its governing documents. 

In this sense, ths USSR fits the description used elsewhere of the law being used as a club until wrested from it by a larger gang, etc al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

It's missing an element she admired of the United States, of enshrining individual rights in its governing documents. 

In this sense, ths USSR fits the description used elsewhere of the law being used as a club until wrested from it by a larger gang, etc al.

My point was that whYNOT is wrong by arguing that Russia is not a dictatorship because its Constitution says so.

Besides, the Soviet Constitution "included a series of civil and political rights. Among these were the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and the right to religious belief and worship. In addition, the Constitution provided for freedom of artistic work, protection of the family, inviolability of the person and home, and the right to privacy" (Wiki)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I request at least an "open mind" in this reading.

The author closely matches the evidence I've seen and my opinions. He doesn't finish his prognosis, however. The defeat of the Donbas would further result in the fleeing or expulsion of its inhabitants (those living) into Russia, the homes, properties, farms and commercial businesses they leave behind obviously seized by Kyiv. (And I hear, but uncorroborated, there's plenty of western corporations and politicians that have long been eyeing industries and land there).

A great depopulation for profit, in fact. Another motive: war for profit, nah, surely not...

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/568369-nato-russians-donbass-crimea/

Edited by whYNOT
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...