Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Not hypocrisy.

Intentional instigation of World War Three.

Unintended consequences for the poor F'ker who tries to "instigate" WW3...

He will in fact be setting the spark to wake up and transform of the great masses of Sheeple back into We the People, and instigating in fact the largest Rebellion/Revolution the World has ever seen, by We the People against the corrupt Predator Class and corruption in Global and Domestic Institutions... all throughout the Western so-called democracies. 

BE assured the People won't send sons to die in order to line their pockets anymore.  We will see who gets sacrificed on what alter this time around, if they try to order the People to die in some foreign land for no good reason or if they try to sentence the People to death for refusing to go...  I'd like to see them try.

 

This so-called instigation might be just what is needed to start the purification of the world... albeit a consequence unintended by the so-called instigator.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Unintended consequences for the poor F'ker who tries to "instigate" WW3...

The notion of world wars is antiquated. There is a constant state of war, but mostly turning towards economic war these days. 

It's both stupid and hyperbole to suggest that sending arms would instigate World War III, as Biden did, because the reality is, sending arms doesn't start wars. So, I don't know what you're on about. 

Not to mention that of all conflicts to get worked up about, you pick one where the primary instigator is Russia? That somehow sending arms to Ukraine would start World War III, but that invading Ukraine in the first place isn't instigation? The fact that you don't write out "fucker" makes your post comical. 

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

corrupt Predator Class and corruption in Global and Domestic Institutions... all throughout the Western so-called democracies. 

This makes you sound like a confused leftist. A leftist at least knows that they are condemning capitalism. 

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

largest Rebellion/Revolution the World has ever seen

Workers of the world unite! 

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

in order to line their pockets anymore

The military-industrial complex!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Grames said:

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing achievement, but it is a design for an empire with a few built-in safeguards now discovered to be insufficient to prevent the descent of that empire into a degenerate state.

Is there a point in American history where you say the country finally descended into an empire? Clearly you are saying that there were no safeguards to prevent the US from becoming ideologically driven by imperialism, but when do you think that transition happened? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Is there a point in American history where you say the country finally descended into an empire? Clearly you are saying that there were no safeguards to prevent the US from becoming ideologically driven by imperialism, but when do you think that transition happened? 

The U.S. has always been an empire, both legally and culturally.  Ever encounter the principle of "Manifest Destiny" in American history?  What is new is the degenerate corruption, arrogance and recklessness of the de facto ruling class.  It is a consequence of the ending of the long Cold War with the Soviets, who by simply existing at least kept the American leaders somewhat in check.  It is now a unipolar political world, a world organized around only one great power, America.  There is no one and nothing to dispel the illusions and self-deceptions of the American leaders, except the eventual disasters that bad policy creates, and not even then as long as some other country does the suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Grames said:

The U.S. has always been an empire, both legally and culturally.

I don't see what you would consider to be an achievement of the Constitution if you think that it was how the alleged American empire was designed. If you mean mean that it codified rights at least in name, I can see that, but if imperialism is essentially bad, and America is essentially imperialist, then America is essentially bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

... but if imperialism is essentially bad, and America is essentially imperialist, then America is essentially bad. 

Nothing is essentially bad in politics except the initiation of the use of force.  Imposition of political control over a population by force is bad, and it is imperialism if the population in question is a distant or foreign one.  America's empire was for the longest time a purely domestic empire, the new states admitted to the union of states were populated by Americans before they were states so the expansion of the empire was neither foreign nor by force.   

Espionage is a use of force.  Bringing Ukraine into the American orbit by espionage and then not even granting individuals in Ukraine the rights of citizens that would come with statehood is imperialism.   

edit: It would still be imperialism even if Ukraine became a state in the U.S. because of the criteria of "foreign population" and "the use of force".

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Grames said:

Nothing is essentially bad in politics except the initiation of the use of force.

Unless of course the form of government is itself operating by means of essentially initiating force. As far as I know from other discussions, you would say that imperialism in large part doesn't care about rights, and operates by initiating force. 

15 minutes ago, Grames said:

Bringing Ukraine into the American orbit by espionage and then not even granting individuals in Ukraine the rights of citizens that would come with statehood is imperialism.

If the "American orbit" is alignment with American objectives, then I don't think that can be characterized as imperialism. America would have to dictate the way other countries operate, not just by expressing the minimum standards of forming an alliance, but forcing other countries to obey. I think this was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Ukraine I really don't think so. 

This certainly happens within American foreign policy, but the idea that Russian imperialism harming America (in its entirety) is superior than other means of harming American imperialism (a specific piece of American foreign policy) doesn't make sense to me. Then again, I get the sense that you really do think that the current state of America is so bad and harmful that the autocracy of Russia appears to be helpful when it follows its interests. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Unless of course the form of government is itself operating by means of essentially initiating force. As far as I know from other discussions, you would say that imperialism in large part doesn't care about rights, and operates by initiating force. 

Yes.  The structure of the American government created by the U.S. Constitution was inspired in part by republican Rome and imperial Rome, and because of the similarity of structure (not its actions) it was an empire from the start.  As empires go it was relatively benign until it reached the limits of the North American continent.  It was benign because it was not conquering foreign populations and subjugating them to foreign rule.  Also note that the Bill of Rights was/were not a part of the Constitution as it was offered to the states for ratification, so technically I can still claim that "imperialism in large part doesn't care about rights".   

 

29 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If the "American orbit" is alignment with American objectives, then I don't think that can be characterized as imperialism.

It is, because what the Ukraine should be aligned with is Ukrainian objectives.  The U.S. government has used espionage and bribery to manipulate Ukraine rather than military conquest.  This is still an initiation of force.  

Ukrainian policy should be to use their location between the two empires to negotiate the sweetest deal possible.  Prior to the Maidan coup of 2014 it was Russia that had made the sweetest offer.  The CIA saw to it that negotiations came to an end by replacing the Ukrainian government.  That was wrong, I disapprove of that strongly.

I have no responsibility for what Russia does but I do for what the U.S. gov't does.  I don't want the U.S. gov't to be doing what it is right now, and neither does Russia.  My interests and the Russian government's interests are aligned with respect to Ukraine.  Don't read any further into it than that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Grames said:

Also note that the Bill of Rights was/were not a part of the Constitution as it was offered to the states for ratification, so technically I can still claim that "imperialism in large part doesn't care about rights".   

I'm aware, I'm also aware that those like Hamilton argued that not only was it unnecessary, but possibly a threat because in the future people might perceive it as "these are the only rights that exist, therefore the government has free reign over everything else". I agree with this. My point is that lacking a Bill of Rights doesn't mean not caring about rights. 

11 minutes ago, Grames said:

I have no responsibility for what Russia does but I do for what the U.S. gov't does.  

Sure, I feel the same way, but I also think that Russia puts the state of foreign affairs into disarray in such a way that the ideologies of autocratic governments are promoted even in the US. Here you sound like you aren't really addressing the reverberating effects of Russian policies in the long run, only addressing the immediate effects on American imperialism.

23 minutes ago, Grames said:

Don't read any further into it than that.

I don't believe you, but if you are sincere, your interests seem to align with Russia in many more ways than just the Ukraine. A greater ideological commonality than with America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Here you sound like you aren't really addressing the reverberating effects of Russian policies in the long run, only addressing the immediate effects on American imperialism.

... and the long term effects of American imperialism on myself and the world.  Russian imperialism does not have the power to reach around the world, America's imperialism does, and is.  

 

21 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I don't believe you, but if you are sincere, your interests seem to align with Russia in many more ways than just the Ukraine. A greater ideological commonality than with America. 

I wonder what you have in mind when you write this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between Occupation and Liberation: the small town of Maryinka, Donetsk Region, Ukraine

Note about the author (from Wikipedia) Maxim Katz (1984) is a Russian political and public figure, co-founder of the Urban Projects Foundation, author of the YouTube channel of the same name... former deputy of the municipal assembly of a Moscow district (2012–2016). Left Russia in 2022, is broadcasting from Israel.

Good English subtitles

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Links to contemporary Russian and adjacent voices are appreciated.

The video seems to highlight the overall theme that Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens are being ground up in the effort to strengthen the security of the NATO countries. 

As a cultural note is the Patriotic War still a touchstone for the majority of population ? I seem to remember hearing that , in Moscow at least , newlyweds would visit a war memorial on the day of nuptials as a matter of course. The video seemed to show that reverence is still ‘functional’ at least in the east ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a joint press conference yesterday, Hungary and Austria announced they will not "provide Ukraine with defense assistance "to prevent a further escalation.""

Apparently, these defense ministers didn't get the memo from our own expert here who knows that even sending offensive weapons will not cause escalation, a concern that is "antiquated" and "stupid."

Austria, Hungary agree not to supply weapons to Ukraine (yahoo.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The video seems to highlight the overall theme that Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens are being ground up in the effort to strengthen the security of the NATO countries. 

I was wondering why do you put likes on most on my videos. Now I guess I understand: you believe they confirm your position.

I watched again the video and I did not find that its message was that "Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens are being ground up in the effort to strengthen the security of the NATO countries"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

I was wondering why do you put likes on most on my videos. Now I guess I understand: you believe they confirm your position.

I watched again the video and I did not find that its message was that "Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens are being ground up in the effort to strengthen the security of the NATO countries"...

I put likes on the posts because I appreciate the window into modern Russians and the glimpse into their culture.

The video showed the grinding , you missed that ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

The video showed the grinding , you missed that ? 

I probably missed the meaning of "citizens are being ground up" and "the grinding". Can you please explain this to someone like me who is not a native English speaker.

I am trying to understand correctly what exactly do yo mean by "Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens are being ground up in the effort to strengthen the security of the NATO countries"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, AlexL said:

I probably missed the meaning of "citizens are being ground up" and "the grinding". Can you please explain this to someone like me who is not a native English speaker.

I am trying to understand correctly what exactly do yo mean by "Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens are being ground up in the effort to strengthen the security of the NATO countries"

Well in the video they showed what that city looked like under Ukrainian ‘occupation’ and then the destruction it suffered , a seeming complete leveling, after Russian liberation. And you are correct that those images confirm my view that Ukraine is being ground into pulp as a result of Ukraine’s stated intentions to seek membership in NATO. 

The west has been enthusiastically behind that effort , even though those especially in the US knew that was an action the Kremlin considers a ‘red line’. Putin could not attack or invade a NATO member without committing Russia to total war , so he invaded Ukraine before it could join. 

As a defensive pact NATO expansion would logically mean expansion represents a greater degree of security for members of the group. So.. a more secure NATO through the destruction of Ukraine and its citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

you are correct that those images confirm my view that Ukraine is being ground into pulp as a result of Ukraine’s stated intentions to seek membership in NATO. 

0. "Ukraine is being ground into pulp" - oh, I see, "ground..." means destroyed. OK, thanks.

1. Did I say that those images confirm your view etc. ??

2. How do those images confirm that Ukraine was attacked and is being destroyed precisely because of Ukraine’s stated intention to seek membership in NATO (and not for any other reason)?

Quote

As a defensive pact NATO expansion would logically mean expansion represents a greater degree of security for members of the group. So.. a more secure NATO through the destruction of Ukraine and its citizens.

No, the attack and destruction of Ukraine was not inherent in NATO expansion, it was a personal choice of Putin.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2023 at 11:27 PM, Grames said:

and the long term effects of American imperialism on myself and the world.  Russian imperialism does not have the power to reach around the world, America's imperialism does, and is.  

It's not as if Russia is on another planet and there is utterly no impact on world affairs and spread of different ideologies. The fact that you say you support Russia in this conflict is enough evidence that you really do think Russia has some kind of impact, namely that America can be harmed by Russia. But then you would have to explain why supporting Russia's interests in the Ukraine is preferable to supporting America's interests. A general sense of American imperialism is not great, but on the other hand, how would Russia's success help you in any way? 

It seems like you support something like accelerationism, anything that would help hasten the collapse of America would be the best way to bring about the type of country you want to live in. I find that to be a very very bad method. If you don't support that, then how would Russia's succeeding in the Ukraine possibly bring you closer to a freer life for yourself? 

On 1/31/2023 at 6:06 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Apparently, these defense ministers didn't get the memo from our own expert here who knows that even sending offensive weapons will not cause escalation, a concern that is "antiquated" and "stupid."

Escalation is not the same as starting a war. It's antiquated to think that world wars would get "started" anymore, because in a real sense, a world war has been going on for a very long time. If you are worried about a world war starting, you missed the boat. And besides, historically speaking, wars begin over specific violations of agreements or specific events. They don't begin because someone sent arms. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

 

No, the attack and destruction of Ukraine was not inherent in NATO expansion, it was a personal choice of Putin.

I’m not saying the war in Ukraine is inherent in NATO expansion per se , but it is the consequence of a possible expansion of NATO in Ukraine. If or when Ukraine expels all Russian forces from their territory with the aid and backing of the west , it will be practically obligated to join NATO , so a larger and more secure NATO will be accomplished by the grinding up of Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tadmjones said:
9 hours ago, AlexL said:

No, the attack and destruction of Ukraine was not inherent in NATO expansion, it was a personal choice of Putin.

I’m not saying the war in Ukraine is inherent in NATO expansion per se , but it is the consequence of a possible expansion of NATO in Ukraine.

And what is the mechanism for enacting this consequence [war in Ukraine], a mechanism that does not involve a personal choice by Putin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2023 at 8:46 PM, Eiuol said:

It's not as if Russia is on another planet and there is utterly no impact on world affairs and spread of different ideologies. 

Russia is not spreading an ideology, and hasn't since the Soviet Union collapsed.  Russia is spreading Russia.  That threatens neighbors of Russia and no one else.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 8:46 PM, Eiuol said:

how would Russia's success help you in any way? 

No wider war, no hundreds of billions to Ukraine every year, no more massive subsidization of the corrupt clique involved in the Ukraine-aid-for-kickbacks, the end of the careers of the career State Dept. officers at the Ukraine desk (esp the infamous Victoria Nuland), no more outrageous acts of espionage such as the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline at America's behest, the return of fungible commodity prices (fertilizers, grains, natural gas, etc. )to lower levels.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 8:46 PM, Eiuol said:

It seems like you support something like accelerationism, 

I wonder if the novel Atlas Shrugged was the first appearance of the notion of accelerationism?   But anyway no, it would actually be the opposite.  The way to accelerate into the brave new world is to just keep pushing until someone pushes back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve already said that my view is Putin invaded Ukraine to secure Crimea before he had to commit to total war by attacking a NATO member to secure Crimea.

I suppose that could be described as his personal choice in that he is most likely the individual in the regime to make the final decision on mobilization and engagement of the military. Whether it , the desire to secure control of that region, exists as his personal desire is not exclusive of the fact that control of that region is important to strategic concerns of Russia.

Ukraine should have sold it to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The normally reliable anti - war movement in the US has been painfully slow to coalesce in the face of the manic Ukrainian cancel culture, only now starting to pull together a broad mix of peaceniks (the usual Lefty pacifists, to rational opponents of -this- expanding war). Libertarians in there but no mainstream Objectivists represented.

Too little, too late?

https://mronline.org/2023/01/30/right-left-to-join-in-d-c-protest-not-one-more-penny-for-war-in-ukraine/

 

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...