Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

Only one of the articles mentioned was available without a paywall at the Byline Times. I was unfamiliar with the publication , but reading around their site , it seems they just transcribe CNN ‘reporting’, they are still promoting ‘Russiagate’. So much for journalistic standards , it’s a rag. And your example of, I assume , something you judge as objective , lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grames said:

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?

We can only save ourselves - by using reason.

It's easy: can you give me references about the respective publications being propaganda sources/outlets of the government of one of the warring parties?

OTOH, you may lookup Clare Daly's biography and see her affiliations - extreme left, anti-Capitalist, anti-West - and previous position statements[*]

But beside Clare Daly's reputation, I also mentioned Seymour Hersh's bad track record as an investigator. I also mentioned that "the immense silence, the conspiracy of silence" is also an empty assumption, a partial lie at least. What about these?
------------------
[*] Before the 2022 Russian aggression, posted tweets and made statements in support of Putin's Russia. An example: in late January 2022, appearing on Russian TV (!), on the main governmental TV channel Rossiya 1, Daly described the Russian troop build up on the Ukrainian border as being "clearly defensive", and said there was no evidence that Russia had any desire to invade Ukraine. Which was exactly what Putin claimed at that time, months' and weeks before the invasion. However, on February 24, 2022 she condemned the invasion - but in very "balanced" terms. But she remained anti-US, anti-NATO and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mossad, Israeli intelligence is not given to embellishing reality. This table has emerged from them recently.

Respective casualties spouted by media figures, exaggerated and falsified to celebrate how effectively "our boys" are defeating Russia and killing Russians, have been the singular driver of continuing hostilities: when you are 'winning' the casualty count you won't sue for peace, just keep sending more men into the "grinder" and keep despatching more weapons, prolonging war; needlessly, a much greater number of Ukraine soldiers died and are today dying and injured in consequence of the (western) propagandists' big Lies.

400_-_1-24-62014.jpg?1676962742
Mossad figures, according to «Hürseda Haber»

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Mossad, Israeli intelligence is not given to embellishing reality. This table has emerged from them recently. [...]
Mossad figures, according to «Hürseda Haber»

«Hürseda Haber» is a Turkish source. Did Mossad communicate these figures to this Turkish publication only?

IOW, do you have a better source for these Mossad figures?

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Site " 1420", Daniil Orain, micro-interviews, 20 February 2023 in Russian province, Morgaushi, 400 miles to East from Moscow. 

Theme: "Rural Russians explain why Russians protect the motherland in another country"

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2023 at 12:04 AM, Doug Morris said:

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?

Yes, that could be a reasonable cover story, Stoltenberg would (pretend to) have it so.

His actions say otherwise.

"We were early on preparing Ukraine for its defense and to deter Russia..." - in effect

All PR fluff for the underinformed and misinformed public and his memoirs. This innocent scenario conceals Nato's longstanding aims for Russia. Surround, isolate, weaken, break up.  Ukraine, just a convenient pawn to enable that goal -- by giving Putin no choice but to deploy over the border in what he regarded - as any leader would - his country's pre-emptive defense.

With the benefit of hindsight (Minsk exploited for delay- etc.) we know without doubt this Nato-enlarged army had as first priority, the defeat of the Donbass. Does this appear 'defensive'? Observers are sure and it is logical, Crimea would have been attacked next. Does this seem a 'deterrent'?

The monstrous fact is that Nato ¬needed¬ Russia to attack: it had to be provoked into a confrontation with the UAF. And simultaneously for Kyiv to appear the innocent victim, backed by the ever-so concerned Nato.

Look at all the diplomatic opportunities squandered and actively prevented, pre-invasion until the very dangerous present, by those who really call the shots, the West.

Here is proof of Kyiv's and Nato's malign militarism. They are still telling themselves and fantasizing: a. Russia can/will lose b. Russia will yet collapse under the military, economic and political strain. Just keep supplying, escalating, and getting Ukrainans killed.

Decent and reasonable people can't absorb how much they have been media-indoctrinated and taken in by the pretexts, duplicity and hypocrisy of those like Stoltenberg. In summary, such respectable-looking and 'caring' bureaucrats have sacrificed Ukraine for their geo-political, geo-economic ends.

(And again, what was Nato even doing, involved inside Ukraine, by what right? Nato has rules about not admitting any nation that's in conflict. Kyiv had already shown its undemocratic propensities, the violently engineered divisions in its people, its corruption, some western-acknowledged and (not long ago) officially condemned neo-Fascist elements, and so on. By any rational standard Ukraine was a long way from proper Nato-membership status. But yet, Nato not only did not rebuff Kyiv, since 2014 at least it is has been supplying and supporting and anticipating larger conflict for its (contra-Russia) purposes.

Putin was correct to fear Ukraine's accession--with what Nato's been visibly doing with Ukraine as a NON-member, imagine their provocative actions from within Ukraine, when/if it is admitted.

Nato broke its own rules, as it is presently.  One self-contradiction among many.

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2023 at 2:34 AM, AlexL said:

«Hürseda Haber» is a Turkish source. Did Mossad communicate these figures to this Turkish publication only?

IOW, do you have a better source for these Mossad figures?

That's something of an m. o. by Israel, to sneak in controversial items through minor channels.

Sometimes it gets picked up by the big agencies and distributed to the main media. But don't hold your breath waiting for BBC etc. to admit these casualty numbers. They know this info for sure, but won't tell. If I see anything more I'll deliver.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
On 2/19/2023 at 11:04 PM, Doug Morris said:

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?

Yes, that could be a reasonable cover story [...]

Yes, @Doug Morris, your hypothesis is the simplest one. Indeed, in 2014 Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea and parts of the Donbass region. Under these circumstances, when one of the guarantors of Ukraine territorial integrity violated it, Ukraine asked for military help. Which is not only morally legitimate, but also clearly allowed by the Art. 51 of the UN Charter. Unfortunately, Ukraine received very little help before February 2022 and was on the brink of collapse in March 2022.

@whYNOTnever presented verified facts that contradict this hypothesis. And never will.

He has truly "turned to the dark side" in politics and rational debate, on the subject of the Russia/Ukraine conflict ☹️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A lie will not fit anything except another lie".

 

(Did I see someone citing Article 51? That has been rejected in the West, when, coincidentally, the identical Article was cited by Putin when asked to intervene in their defense by Luhansk and Donetsk.

Rules for me but not for you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
On 2/23/2023 at 1:34 AM, AlexL said:

«Hürseda Haber» is a Turkish source. Did Mossad communicate these figures to this Turkish publication only?

IOW, do you have a better source for these Mossad figures?

That's something of an m. o. by Israel, to sneak in controversial items through minor channels.

Maybe, you don't know that Mossad did provide these figures to this obscure Turkish publication.

IOW, you DON'T have a better source for these Mossad figures. This is just another claim you cannot prove and only litter this Objectivism forum.

The above is sufficient ground for readers to ignore the matter. However, there is a Fact Check by Newsweek which concludes, after a lengthy analysis, that :

[the information is] Unverified. The figures quoted [for casualties]... come from a Turkish website that does not link to its sources, nor does it provide any other authenticated evidence. The claim that it received its data from Israeli security services is also highly dubious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

"A lie will not fit anything except another lie".

(Did I see someone citing Article 51? That has been rejected in the West, when, coincidentally, the identical Article was cited by Putin when asked to intervene in their defense by Luhansk and Donetsk.

Rules for me but not for you?

Rejected in the West for Lugansk and Donetsk? Do you have a link? You don't. But maybe you can imagine what could have been the reason? Maybe because LNR/DNR cannot invoke Art. 51? Eh, clever boy? You never read Art. 51, or never understood it. Here it is, again

Quote

Chapter VII — Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations [...]

Have you read it? And understood? Have you noticed "armed attack against a Member of the United Nations"? Nobody recognized the self-proclaimed LNR/DNR; they are not UN members.

You believe this is a purely formal objection and/or simply an oversight of the UN charter? Think again!

Without the need to be an UN member, that is an already recognized state, anyone could proclaim independence of a region and then ask for help - including from precisely the foreign government which stirred up the "independence" movement (with or without the intention to later absorb it)! For example "LNR/DNR" asking help from Russia.

[The lack of moral legitimacy of the UN itself, while being true, has nothing to do with the subject, which was your claim of double standards - "Rules for me but not for you"]

So yes, Ukraine can legitimately invoke Art. 51 when asking for help against the invader, but "LNR/DNR" cannot, and rightly so, both morally and legally.

Learn to read carefully and also to think by yourself!

Edited by AlexL
for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:
On 2/19/2023 at 11:04 PM, Doug Morris said:

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?

Yes, that could be a reasonable cover story [...]

Yes, @Doug Morris, your hypothesis is the simplest one. Indeed, in 2014 Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea and parts of the Donbass region. Under these circumstances, when one of the guarantors of Ukraine territorial integrity violated it, Ukraine asked for military help. Which is not only morally legitimate, but also clearly allowed by the Art. 51 of the UN Charter. Unfortunately, Ukraine received very little help before February 2022 and was on the brink of collapse in March 2022.

@whYNOTnever presented verified facts that contradict this hypothesis. And never will.

He has truly "turned to the dark side" in politics (© @dream_weaver) and rational debate, on the subject of the Russia/Ukraine conflict ☹️

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoover Institution, Uncommon Knowledge
Host: Peter Robinson
Guest: Stephen Kotkin, historian
Subject: "A Historian of the Future: Five More Questions for Stephen Kotkin"

Questions:

  1. What are we doing in Ukraine? 1:35
  2. How will this [Ukraine war] end? 23:02
  3. Taiwan 51:51
  4. Are there still high-profile US politicians as there were before? 1:08:17
  5. Is the 21st century going to be The American Century, as the 20th was? 1:24:54

 

For @whYNOT: <sarcasm>This Kotkin is another victim of the Western totalitarian media propaganda</sarcasm>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2023 at 8:45 PM, AlexL said:

Maybe, you don't know that Mossad did provide these figures to this obscure Turkish publication.

IOW, you DON'T have a better source for these Mossad figures. This is just another claim you cannot prove and only litter this Objectivism forum.

The above is sufficient ground for readers to ignore the matter. However, there is a Fact Check by Newsweek which concludes, after a lengthy analysis, that :

 

"sufficient ground for readers to ignore" is the tell-tale sign of propagandists. Nothing to see here. Shoot the messenger - before he reads the message.

Those figures don't have to be accurate in order to raise doubt for critical thinkers. It's not in doubt that Ukraine and other analysts have been falsifying casualties for the last year. Proper experts have been making similar estimates to the above, called the rate about 7-1 in combat losses. While TV pundits claim Russia losses at anything up to 200k. 

Fact is, the RF generals are extremely conservative in risking or losing their men, discount anything you hear about "human wave" assaults. Ukraine military plays to international head lines, and take massive losses.

The necessity for Ukraine/the West to magnify/minimize casualties, should be clear. Ukraine needed a morale boost to carry on fighting (for the West). The same way, every Ukraine advance and Russian tactical retreat in the field was heralded as the certain, coming victory for Ukraine--when the reality was and is slowly dawning, the UAF cannot chase Russia out.

Now reports are coming out that men, young and old are being pulled from the streets to be thrown into the line. Authentic, green "conscripts", unlike the Russian conscripts who all have had to take one year military training.

Lacking propagandist lies, Ukraine would have learned the truth and committed to negotiations early on.

It is the callousness of pro-Ukraine zealots I cannot fathom. "Beating/weakening Russia" is paramount to them, but at whose costs? Anyone who is against negotiations - who wants the war to prolong til that remote possibility - can't pretend to be compassionate of Ukrainians, simply they are hateful of Russians. One more self-contradiction.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"sufficient ground for readers to ignore" is the tell-tale sign of propagandists.

You din not provide a credible reference/proof that the casualty numbers are true or even that they come from Mossad [*]. Therefore they can be safely ignored (Hitchen's Razor, e.g.). Also, a credible fact-checker shows that the numbers - of human casualties - lack plausibility. Saying this does not mean endorsing other numbers, especially those coming from Ukraine or Russia, the warring parties.

The characteristic of a propagandist is that he does not provide proof for its claims and, even if asked to, refuses to do so. And, instead, switches to name calling.
---------
[*] Besides, there is not much reason for Mossad to dedicate its own resources to determine independently the number of casualties. Moreover, Mossad is by far not infallible, despite its reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ret. Gen. Keith Kellogg, ex-advisor to Mike Pence, says it's the "acme of professionalism" to use Ukraine to fight Russia because that "takes a strategic adversary off the table" without "using any US troops." And then "we can focus" on "our primary adversary, which is China.""

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1631390869487067136

There is a longer game than Ukraine for many. It's time "the simplest hypothesis" was taken off the table. With (devious/self-serving/hypocritical) human behavior the superficially ostensive explanation is seldom correct. The "defense of innocent Ukraine" self-justification for beefing up the military by Nato from 2014-on was always 'made for Prime Time' viewing, mass propaganda. It was *necessary* for Russia to take the bait and enter, to play its part in the game. Kellogg indicates, and Romney said similarly recently that Ukraine/Russia was a side-show, designed to tie up and bleed Russia indefinitely, the longer the better, to be a build-up for the main event, China. As the facts trickle in, the warmongers show their inhumane and calculated premises by the cynical exploitation of Ukrainians. About the ongoing decimation of Ukrainian troops - after Kyiv was dissuaded from negotiations many times - not a primary concern. As long as it's not Western soldiers dying. Putin is constantly being validated in wanting to keep Ukraine Nato-free for Russia's extended security, he understood their intention and Nato's nature. He's more rational, observing and far-seeing than is widely given credit.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Ret. Gen. Keith Kellogg, ex-advisor to Mike Pence, says it's the "acme of professionalism" to use Ukraine to fight Russia because that "takes a strategic adversary off the table" without "using any US troops."

[...]

There is a longer game than Ukraine for many. It's time "the simplest hypothesis" was taken off the table. With (devious/self-serving/hypocritical) human behavior the superficially ostensive explanation is seldom correct.

Gen. Keith Kellogg words do not support the "longer game" hypothesis. They support "the simplest hypothesis", which stays on the table and thus got even stronger than before.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Propaganda from a belligerent sycophant, like sponsoring a prizefighter , the Don King of the Slavs.

If this is (also) for me, could you please decode it? Who is "belligerent sycophant" etc.? Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

If this is (also) for me, could you please decode it? Who is "belligerent sycophant" etc.? Please.

I was likening the military advice by Kellogg to the actions of the boxing/fight promoter Don King. Boxing promoters profit from combatants who are not themselves.

The US is a de facto belligerent in the Ukrainian/Russo war by supplying the Ukrainians in a continued effort to damage the Russian regime. In the video clip linked in the comment, he doesn't even mention the effort as defending 'democracy' or national sovereignty. He justifies the US efforts of expanding and continuing the proxy war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I was likening the military advice by Kellogg to the actions of the boxing/fight promoter Don King. Boxing promoters profit from combatants who are not themselves.

OK, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vlad Vexler, the author of this video, is a doctor of political philosophy.  He was born in Soviet Russia. His family left Russia after the fall of the USSR. Vlad is 40 years old. He is a British citizen living in London and continue to closely observe and analyze Russian politics.

 

 

Edited by AlexL
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...