Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Honestly, Grames and necrovore at least make coherent points even if wrong, points that you can argue with. The psych ward (tad, JL and whyNot) just throw out stream of consciousness thoughts.

Thanks, that is a compliment coming from you. Your need to psychologize is noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Thanks, that is a compliment coming from you. Your need to psychologize is noted.

When in doubt, psychologize. Now we are both gonna get booted off, Jon. Unfamiliar with conceptual methods, they are. To conform here you need to endlessly pick over each piece of data  - or fly off into rationalism, neither being conceptual, the integrated sum of scores of facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

 Other than potentially gaining a conceptual insight into what is going on halfway around the world, is this conversation going to alter the course of events over there? I suspect not.

 

 

 

 

I've debated this exact point often to myself. Is this worth it? For what little it might achieve with an unknown few readers, out there?

I decided it is, for this war and what may follow, mankind is too important to not take efforts to preserve. Observing the rampant subjectivity everywhere, especially among our 'world leaders', who better than objectivists to bring fresh thinking to the stale conformity, authoritarianism, emotionalism and determinism? Maybe with allies (and others I find in odd parts of the internet), the word can spread to encourage the many to stand and fight back also. Tell them: It does not have to be this way.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an essay by Bruce Fein about Robert Kagan.

(John Q Adam's vision, as pertinent as it is today. Absolutely--"the benignant sympathy of her example"--that is all we elsewhere need).

"Further, Kagan maintains, emancipating foreign nations from the Dark Ages is the optimal path to optimal democracy, liberty, and prosperity in the United States. He has no moment for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address to Congress expounding the foreign policy of the United States contrary to Kagan’s gospel:

“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….”"

JQA

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Grames and necrovore at least make coherent points even if wrong, points that you can argue with. The psych ward (tad, JL and whyNot) just throw out stream of consciousness thoughts.

OK, then Grames and necrovore are not as bad as "the psych ward (tad, JL and whyNot)".

Awesome!

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reminder, this train of events didn't have to happen. Not once, but twice was the start of positive negotiations nipped in the bud. In April by Boris, and here as early as March '22. Putin had reduced his demands to gain traction for a peaceful resolution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

<...>

"[Naftali Bennett] is walking back his suggestion that the United States may have "blocked" an agreement last year to end the war in Ukraine, a claim that had been amplified by Russian state media and Kremlin sympathizers in the West [...]"

"In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.

"The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled".  (see other details here).

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the "Russian Empire!" skeptics, the full Bennett interview reveals how much Putin was ready to concede for a resolution.

Here:

https://youtu.be/ZpCTEBaTFS8

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

"[Naftali Bennett] is walking back his suggestion that the United States may have "blocked" an agreement last year to end the war in Ukraine, a claim that had been amplified by Russian state media and Kremlin sympathizers in the West [...]"

"In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.

"The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled".  (see other details here).

"Bucha" was a most convenient event, coming very soon after and during those negotiations about negotiations.  Too convenient. There were certainly factions who wanted to go ahead with war, domestic or foreign. What better than an Azov-committed, MI6-conceived false flag atrocity to raise outrage and promote conflict?

Even accepting Bucha's doubtful veracity, the collective West still had *zero* rights interfering in a peace deal, nor using Bucha as a weak excuse. These were cynical/immoral interventions which - any fool could predict - have eventuated in losing, not dozens, 100's of thousands of lives, and all the rest.

If the West was so concerned about Ukraine civilians (or future atrocities), all the more reason to back the potential peace accords.

And have avoided 'punishing' Russians by punishing Ukrainians.

Anyhow, they well know by now that Ukraine's atrocities far outnumber Russians, and covered up for them. An "atrocity" is when the enemy commits it, apparently.

This argument doesn't wash at any level.

Not to distract from the big takeaway -- Bennett reveals Putin/Zelensky were amenable to compromises to end the fighting in the first days of invasion. Especially Putin.

It -might- have stopped right then.

An interview I only find on a few back channels

Let's see if NYT and CNN cover that story...

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

the full Bennett interview reveals how much Putin was ready to concede for a resolution.

In fact, the full Bennett interview reveals how LITTLE was Putin ready to concede for a resolution - for only a ceasefire, in fact.

One can judge about “much” or “little” only by first establishing what would be fair and just. And this is something like:

1). recovery by Ukraine of all occupied territory

2). credible security guaranties for Ukraine (given the fact that it will border with Putin’s Russia for a long time, and with Russia – forever)

3). Payment by Russia of war reparations – for damages inflicted to Ukraine since 2014.

Putin wasn’t ready to concede ANY of the above! Instead of retreating from all occupied territories, he would keep all he already grabbed – in exchange for the mere promise (!!) he won’t advance any further.

Instead of credible security guaranties for Ukraine, he wanted Ukraine to renounce joining NATO (who could provide some security). It is true that Putin was renouncing to “demilitarize”, that is completely disarm Ukraine. A limited military is a guarantee for a permanent insecurity for Ukraine - because Putin's Russia will not disappear from the Ukraine's border.

Putin’s renunciation of the intended “denazification” would be concretized solely in sparing Zelensky’s life. Such a concession… as if killing him would be the most natural and obvious thing to do!

Moreover, there was no talk about Zelensky keeping his position, neither keeping his “Nazi” government, nor the “Nazi” Parliament or local administration. IOW, as a price for sparing Zelensky’s life, Putin reserved the right to install his people in Ukraine. And his military, as he didn’t commit not to. Full control, in other words.

THIS is “how much Putin was ready to concede for a ceasefire”!

As to the misrepresentation hype about Bennett having allegedly revealed how the West derailed a wonderful deal… if someone else is interested that I look into it, I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, necrovore said:

1. What, in your view, does this article claim (not prove, simply claim)? IOW, what does NATO Chief admission consists of, according to your understanding of the article?

2. Does the article's claim seem convincing to you?

About when the war started and when NATO training of Ukrainian military started  - I had a (fruitless) discussion with @whYNOT - from this comment on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

What, in your view, does this article claim (not prove, simply claim)? IOW, what does NATO Chief admission consists of, according to your understanding of the article?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply read the article?

Isn't it important if the NATO secretary general says for the first time that "The war didn't start in 2021, it started in 2014"?

There are plenty of citations that show that the NATO secretary general did indeed say this.

The implications are interesting, though... for example... how could Putin have started the war in 2021 if it actually started in 2014? Might that make Putin's action possibly retaliatory instead of initiatory? Or did Putin start the war in 2014?

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

Does the article's claim seem convincing to you?

I followed the links and it looks like the article's authors are referring to evidence in order to support their contentions. So it's certainly possible they are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, necrovore said:
22 hours ago, AlexL said:

What, in your view, does this article claim (not prove, simply claim)? IOW, what does NATO Chief admission consists of, according to your understanding of the article?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply read the article?

Yes, it would, but only if my question had been "What does the article say?" But my question was about what do you understand from the article, what was for you the novelty, the big revelation. 

Quote

Isn't it important if the NATO secretary general says for the first time that "The war didn't start in 2021 [should be 2022/AL], it started in 2014"? There are plenty of citations that show that the NATO secretary general did indeed say this.

Sure, of course he said this! But where is the novelty? Where is the revelation? This is something everyone who followed the events even superficially knew already. The current thread in this forum mentions this since September 2022, the previous one since May or June, and the very first one (Ukraine) - since March 2014. Also, every reference work about the Russia-Ukraine conflict mentions it ! This fact is a banality.

So, what is the big deal? Why these hyped qualifiers "surprising words", "admits finally, for the first time", "an important truth", "a very rare admission"? 

Or maybe "the war started in 2014" is meant in a more subtle sense, which I didn't catch? What is this sense? 

Quote

The implications are interesting, though... for example... how could Putin have started the war in 2021 if it actually started in 2014? Might that make Putin's action possibly retaliatory instead of initiatory? Or did Putin start the war in 2014?

Given my remarks above, these implications are not relevant anymore.

OTOH, the article inserts a tweet with the caption "'NATO has been training the Ukrainian military since 2014, NATO partners have been supplying the Ukrainian armed forces with the necessary weapons and training since 2014' — Jens Stoltenberg admits again"

Is this the the big revelation? Then why do you say the big revelation is that the war started in 2014 and not in 2022??? Just say it is the training by NATO, and then we can look into it.
-------------
A very cool comment by @Nicky in the 2014 "Ukraine" thread mentioned above !

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, necrovore said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply read the article?

Isn't it important if the NATO secretary general says for the first time that "The war didn't start in 2021, it started in 2014"?

There are plenty of citations that show that the NATO secretary general did indeed say this.

The implications are interesting, though... for example... how could Putin have started the war in 2021 if it actually started in 2014? Might that make Putin's action possibly retaliatory instead of initiatory? Or did Putin start the war in 2014?

I followed the links and it looks like the article's authors are referring to evidence in order to support their contentions. So it's certainly possible they are correct.

These guys are so self-unaware they hang themselves unwittingly by their own virtue-signaling admissions. 8 years in advance Stoltenberg -somehow - knew the necessity of preparing a Ukraine military for war, either he's a prophet, or NATO had foul intentions and ambitions all along. Certainly not displaying the slightest intent to avert or defuse what could be the most dangerous war ever. The opposite.

Sure enough, Minsk, which next followed was made a mockery of. Apparently Putin was the sole dupe who bought into its implementation to end the conflict.

Zelensky also told Der Spiegel recently he had no intention of fulfilling his campaign promises for Eastern peace. Therefore, totaling four leaders (so far) who cheated and lied, with many more 'world leaders' who tacitly knew what was going on, and were complicit in the upcoming murders and/or evacuation of Donbass residents from Ukraine, and to bringing in Russia.

They got their anticipated war, I trust they choke on it.

Putin's use of preemptive force was rational and legal, whatever the UN Charter states on the matter. When all signs point to one is about to be struck one is entitled to the self-protection to strike first - here, the rightful responsibility to the safety of one's own people or others in danger . (Self-defense for just about any favored country, barring Russia, that is). And given the strong NATO militirization now admitted to, one can understand his demand for a de-militirized Ukraine--and further cause for stipulating a de-Nato-ized Ukraine.

There are some who can grasp the factual-causal  content of "implications". Many especially on the fanatical pro-Ukraine side seem blind to them. Maybe that's one dividing line.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2023 at 3:22 PM, whYNOT said:

8 years in advance Stoltenberg -somehow - knew the necessity of preparing a Ukraine military for war, either he's a prophet, or NATO had foul intentions and ambitions all along. Certainly not displaying the slightest intent to avert or defuse what could be the most dangerous war ever. The opposite.

Couldn't Russia seizing Crimea, or even getting ready to, reasonably be taken as an indication that more war was possible in the future and that Ukraine needed to be better prepared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

My watershed moment was the Nordstream sabotage.  Madmen are calling the shots and must be stopped.

She says:

0:50 I don't know what happened but I want to know. This [Seymour Hershis a man who doesn't make claims lightly, a man with contacts [...]

Why does she say she doesn't know what happened? She said a few seconds before that Seymour Hersh did find out exactly what happened - planed and executed by United States and Norway!

Or one should realize that "the detailed claim he produced" is not the same as a "detailed proof" ? And that it's only a conjecture?

Maybe also because Seymour Hersh is suspected of invoking too often anonymous sources, which means no verifiable information ?

Edited by AlexL
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

She says:

0:50 I don't know what happened but I want to know. This [Seymour Hershis a man who doesn't make claims lightly, a man with contacts [...]

Why does she say she doesn't know what happened? She said a few seconds before that Seymour Hersh did find out exactly what happened - planed and executed by United States and Norway!

Seymour Hersh is a man with a track record, but he is just one guy.  No need to commit to any particular theory at this time.  What is most scandalous of all and particularly damning in its implication, is the immense silence, the conspiracy of silence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "forgotten war"?

Very little news coverage and documentaries made it out of the Donbass, '14 to '22, as I'm always mentioning.

Considering its locale and who were the principals, the seeds of a larger and dangerous conflict were planted then, and few outsiders were allowed to be aware. An informal poll confirms my impression on the deliberate media silence.

More clearly now, by various revelations by actors made since, the civil war was downplayed by the Press in concert with the powers that be for a purpose, the main one clearly being that when Putin did invade, predictably and without many options, the fiction must be received and maintained worldwide it was an impulsive act of insane brutality and 'imperialism'. Rather than more plausibly, in part motive, a sort of rescue mission of hostages, to stop the long illicit war waged by Kyiv upon Russ-Ukraine citizens (denied 'equal' rights or representation). As known in Feb '22 and confirmed lately, Kyiv was about to intensify the battle and certainly overwhelm them with a greatly more powerful, Nato-built, UAF. 

For a taste of the hard conditions, in 2019. One of the few doccies I've seen that made it out:

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Grames said:

Seymour Hersh is a man with a track record, but he is just one guy.  No need to commit to any particular theory at this time.  What is most scandalous of all and particularly damning in its implication, is the immense silence, the conspiracy of silence.  

Seymour Hersh is a man with a bad track record. So is Clare Daly, the passionate lady denouncing Norway and USA [*]. And "the immense silence, the conspiracy of silence" is also an empty assumption, a partial lie at least.
So: all this is hype, at least for the moment.
------ 
[*] Press titles:
How the people's champions became tools of the Kremlin propaganda machine". Business Post.
"How Clare Daly and Mick Wallace became stars of authoritarian state media". The Irish Times.
"Putin's Willing Disinformation Agents". Byline Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

How the people's champions became tools of the Kremlin propaganda machine". Business Post.
"How Clare Daly and Mick Wallace became stars of authoritarian state media". The Irish Times.
"Putin's Willing Disinformation Agents". Byline Times.

So you refute my propaganda with your propaganda?  How is that supposed to work?  If only there were a way to detect propaganda.  Who can save us?

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...