Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

YouTube channel "1420", Daniil Orain, micro-interviews, mid-March 2023, in Moscow. 

Theme: "Do you think our government can stop this war at all?"

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Used to be the respectable Western mainstream Press would gleefully take on the power "establishment" wherever, whoever. They lately turned and renounced any integrity and ethics - to serve that power: the warmongering governments. So in new alignment are states and corporate media that between them churn out propaganda, indoctrinating their public. Candace sees it.

https://youtu.be/6M7ekmm83m4

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2023 at 11:21 PM, AlexL said:

Why on Earth should anyone prefer Candace Owens's own propaganda (see Wiki about her)???


What about it? A singular feature of propagandists is slurring counter-propagandists. The only view which prevails must be the overwhelming statists-media-corporatists narrative. I don't think you have a rigorously objective pursuit of facts which some bright sparks like Owens possess. And hang what she may be, or is purported to be, politically and intellectually. "Isolate", I keep advising.

Someone who has recently come from Donbass and Moscow, been "on the ground", direct experience/hearsay by amateurs has its value when the pros have absconded. His discovered "facts" you don't hear elsewhere, for obvious reasons. The guest-visitor is not the most intellectual but Joe Lauria, a soft socialist, knows his stuff intimately.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What stands out among the Western bureaucrats has been their adamant refusal, from before the war til presently, to sincerely negotiate and pressure the ceasefire - don't mention peace proposals. Just consider the stakes: the Ukraine Army is on its last legs. Every delay costs further terrible deaths. But they must be urged - by false information and material aid - to fight on.

"As long as it takes!". Really? Even when no one is left?

Apparently, what do another ten or twenty thousand Ukraine casualties matter when the 'crats wanted their prolonged war (to weaken Russia). What does it matter that the world edges closer to annihilation? 

"But we will not talk diplomacy and concessions with Putin!"

What if JFK had refused to negotiate with Khrushchev over Cuba from such insane hubris? But "world leaders" understood vital, national values, and had strong character back then. Also their understanding that the "other guy" has his existential fears for his people and country too. That deal was sealed by JFK agreeing also to move US Jupiter missiles out of Turkey, his concession.

The identical error I seem to notice by O'ists which misleads them into following the prevailing narrative is I'm sure from the (misapplied) Objectivist edict, never to "Sanction evil". And never to initiate force. But Russia - and Putin - was not the first cause of this evil - nor of initiating force. Nor, are they the first cause of prolonged continuation of the evil of this war as I said.  Rather, what must not be sanctioned was and is the thoughtless immorality and foreign policies and scorn of diplomacy by our Western lords and masters under the hypocritical pretext of 'doing good' (- defending Ukraine by destroying it) - while they conveniently fulfill their geopolitical-economic aims over Russia and Ukraine.

The absolute "evil" of how things could go with this war shouldn't need explanation. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2023 at 6:44 AM, whYNOT said:

A singular feature of propagandists is slurring counter-propagandists.

One can easily break the apparent symmetry between the two by identifying which does justify/prove its claims about facts and which (@whYNOT) evades doing so.

On 4/18/2023 at 10:38 PM, whYNOT said:

new alignment are states and corporate media... Candace [Owens] sees it.

Candace Owens (from your link), in the first 40 seconds (!!!):

0:12 the mainstream media clearly works for the state

0:29 operation Mockingbird [*] … CIA began putting journalists on their payroll

0:37 state working in lockstep with these journalists; they are not working for you, they are working to protect the state

[*] Deborah Davi’s Mockingbird theory, that the CIA operated a deliberate and systematic program of widespread manipulation of the U.S. media. Does not appear to be grounded in realityQAnon supporters have used the term "Operation Mockingbird" when referring to American media that spread what the supporters consider "fake news" … Cf. Wiki Operation Mockingbird 

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An item in Yahoo from Def Sec Austin where he self-justifyingly reverses cause and effect:

In short, he claims the Ukraine invasion was ¬the cause¬ of NATO expansion. Huh? Another seer like Stoltenberg. It only took some decades of increasing pressure on Russia for their prophecy be realized. See, we told you so!

https://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-chief-ramstein-summit-russias-204011494.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

An item in Yahoo from Def Sec Austin where he self-justifyingly reverses cause and effect:

Austin's remarks in full: Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley Hold a Post-Ukraine Defense Contact Group Press Conference, Ramstein Air Base, Germany
 

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

In short, he claims the Ukraine invasion was ¬the cause¬ of NATO expansion.

In a fuller context:

Now, we also heard today from the European Union on its proposal to speed up the production and delivery of ammunition for Ukraine, and more countries are thinking about how they can increase industrial production not just for the near term, but also for the medium term and the long term, and that is a powerful reminder that we stand with Ukraine's defenders for the long haul. 

You know, Putin made a series of grave miscalculations when he ordered the invasion of Ukraine more than a year ago.  He thought that Ukraine wouldn't dare to fight back, but Ukraine is standing strong with the help of its partners.  Putin thought that our unity would fracture, but Russia's cruel war of choice has only brought us closer together.  And I'd note that Finland, which has long taken part in this contact group, is here today as a new NATO ally.  I expect that Sweden will soon follow, and that makes something crystal clear — Putin's war of choice is not the result of NATO enlargement, Putin's war is the cause of NATO's enlargement.

 You know, when I first convened this contact group, I saw nations of goodwill that were eager to help Ukraine resist Russia's imperial aggression, I saw a coalition that stood united and firm, I saw countries determined to stand up for an open and secure world of rights and rules, and all of that was just as true at Ramstein today as it was a year ago. 

The Ukrainians are still standing strong in their fight for their freedom and they have the courage and the capability for the road ahead and we will have their backs for as long as it takes.

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Huh? Another seer like Stoltenberg. It only took some decades of increasing pressure on Russia for their prophecy be realized. See, we told you so!

Alternatively, imperialism of the Russian kind is not popular in the West. If the supreme ruler of the Russian Federation had not miscalculated ... 

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

More war reporting from the folks at Kyiv Independent:

pLiEJqN.png

https://kyivindependent.com/tag/russias-war/

scv60xm.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann on being labelled a 'foreign agent'

E. Schulman is a Russian political scientist specializing in legislative processes. Schulmann is an associate professor of the RANEPA, an associate professor of the Moscow School for the Social and Economic Sciences, and an associate fellow of Chatham House.
She works as a lecturer and columnist, gives expert commentary to the media, and hosts her own political radio talk show. As of April 2023, her YouTube channel has 1.08 million subscribers [some videos are in English].

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, William Scott Scherk said:

Austin's remarks in full: Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley Hold a Post-Ukraine Defense Contact Group Press Conference, Ramstein Air Base, Germany
 

In a fuller context:

Now, we also heard today from the European Union on its proposal to speed up the production and delivery of ammunition for Ukraine, and more countries are thinking about how they can increase industrial production not just for the near term, but also for the medium term and the long term, and that is a powerful reminder that we stand with Ukraine's defenders for the long haul. 

You know, Putin made a series of grave miscalculations when he ordered the invasion of Ukraine more than a year ago.  He thought that Ukraine wouldn't dare to fight back, but Ukraine is standing strong with the help of its partners.  Putin thought that our unity would fracture, but Russia's cruel war of choice has only brought us closer together.  And I'd note that Finland, which has long taken part in this contact group, is here today as a new NATO ally.  I expect that Sweden will soon follow, and that makes something crystal clear — Putin's war of choice is not the result of NATO enlargement, Putin's war is the cause of NATO's enlargement.

 You know, when I first convened this contact group, I saw nations of goodwill that were eager to help Ukraine resist Russia's imperial aggression, I saw a coalition that stood united and firm, I saw countries determined to stand up for an open and secure world of rights and rules, and all of that was just as true at Ramstein today as it was a year ago. 

The Ukrainians are still standing strong in their fight for their freedom and they have the courage and the capability for the road ahead and we will have their backs for as long as it takes.

Alternatively, imperialism of the Russian kind is not popular in the West. If the supreme ruler of the Russian Federation had not miscalculated ... 

More war reporting from the folks at Kyiv Independent:

pLiEJqN.png

https://kyivindependent.com/tag/russias-war/

scv60xm.png

Austin playing to the choir. Fine words to conceal one fact - without Nato in the frame - nothing would have happened. Left alone, Kyiv and Moscow could have settled matters (e.g. the abusive treatment to Russ-Ukraianians, Ukraine's neutrality) peaceably between themselves as sensible neighbors.

"Imperial aggression" by Russia has been done to death. Its purpose, broad alarmist indoctrination to get everybody acquiescent, naturally.

It's a falsehood that is born out by subsequent events. The alacrity with which Putin accepted PM Bennett's peace initiative (a few weeks in) declares Putin's intentions were for a swift diplomatic resolution with his 'SMO' show of force. Amid all the other later Russian invitations to negotiate, brutally nipped in the bud by the militant West.

Because the Russian armed forces initially exercised great restraint, (by the West's standards of warfare) and were anyway vastly undermanned for an "imperialist" conquest, - but mainly I believe exactly because of those early Russian proposals to talk compromise - Nato, the EU etc. leapt to the conclusion that Putin was weak or bluffing and Russia had no heart for a war: "therefore, "We and Ukraine and can beat him!". An easy victory? Famous last words. For which blunder of calculation and the cynicism in pressing Ukraine to fight to its destruction, all governments involved need to be held accountable.

Like weak people and bullies are prone to, the presumption that another's self-restraint is a sign of weakness - not of strength and confidence or of good will -  to be exploited or attacked.

Rhetoric too from Stoltenberg. His bluster while the conflict still rages that Ukraine will soon get its Nato membership was only designed to ensure that Russia realizes that nothing less than a total victory, surrender, a greater territorial incursion into Ukraine (to create a buffer zone outside the range of missiles and terror assaults) and hard peace terms will suffice. They logically cannot accept less than an agreement permanently denying the remaining (Western) Ukraine its Nato entry and demanding lasting security guarantees. Russia did not launch an invasion to still have Nato's malevolent power on its new doorstep.

Nothing new from the West - Stoltenberg has condemned Ukraine to more losses. Cannot be repeated too often that this all could have been averted at the start by decent, thinking actors, who could identify the problems objectively and foresee the almost inevitable, dreadful outcomes.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

From the link: 

Quote

the [leaked] documents reveal that ... Ukrainian deaths and causalities are at least 4 times that of Russia

A very recent analyses published by Bellingcat (the well known Netherlands-based investigative journalism group that specialises in fact-checking and open-source intelligence), establishes that the leaked document dealing with the Ukrainian vs. Russian casualties was circulated in two versions: one showing more Russian losses than Ukrainian, and a second one showing the reverse.

Quote

[From the Bellingcat study] A closer examination of the second image, with the much higher Ukrainian KIA numbers... shows crude image manipulation. 
As well as the later posting time and far blurrier resolution, the numbers are out of alignment. Spacing between some numbers and letters is also too large to be consistent with the font. 

This means that the claim endorsed by @whYNOT is not proved by the recent leaks.

This claim seems to be as false as the alleged Mossad casualties numbers endorsed by @whYNOT previously (see here his post and my subsequent comments).

@whYNOT's spreading of lies continues to be tolerated on OO...

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

No intelligence from belligerents should be taken at face value, Putin still won’t admit he blew up N2.

1. Is this related to my comment? In what way?

2. What is "N2"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AlexL said:

From the link: 

A very recent analyses published by Bellingcat (the well known Netherlands-based investigative journalism group that specialises in fact-checking and open-source intelligence), establishes that the leaked document dealing with the Ukrainian vs. Russian casualties was circulated in two versions: one showing more Russian losses than Ukrainian, and a second one showing the reverse.

This means that the claim endorsed by @whYNOT is not proved by the recent leaks.

This claim seems to be as false as the alleged Mossad casualties numbers endorsed by @whYNOT previously (see here his post and my subsequent comments).

@whYNOT's spreading of lies continues to be tolerated on OO...

 Is it your claim that the greater casualties were of the Russians?

Answer yes/no: if yes, bring evidence and proof. 

No matter, as things collapse, the lies are being exposed daily. Expect a flood of denouncement, accusations, cover-ups and recriminations. Sour grapes, in short. You and the indoctrinated believers will become superfluous to the debate in six months.

Why the obsession with numbers? It's interesting that "numbers" - polls and casualty statistics - indicate the immorality, or otherwise, of the conflict's opposing sides, and matter so much to many. I have seen their - specifically Ukraine supporters -  celebrations. I.e. if 'we' kill more of them, we are in the right. If we are victorious we are moral. The determinist-skeptics' ethics by numerology. These are each and all human beings, any death is sorrowful.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Humanitarian" assistance to Ukraine, was the original sales pitch by the West to the ignorant, easily influenced public.

Of course, who could argue with helping out the citizens of Ukraine?

The switch to "lethal aid" went widely unquestioned.

In the light of incessant bombardment of the Donbass towns, entering its tenth year, to which zero attention, Western humanitarian aid or public outcry has been drawn. By donated, elusive, precision Himars missile systems, btw. Where is the outrage now? Since the invasion, shelling only increased, and this is not "collateral damage" to be clear, this is the daily, directed killing and terrorizing of Ukrainian (now Russian) civilians that has claimed several thousand casualties this past year alone. It will end when the UAF is pushed out of the region.

Okay when the West brings "humanitarian"/lethal aid, not okay when it's Russia that sends in a rescue mission to protect ethic Russian civilians.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/575224-donetsk-ukraine-shelling-civilians/

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are minor "factoids" and then there are significant >facts<.

Left to their own devices, Ukraine and Russia would have muddled through and side-stepped a war, but that was not a desirable solution for the powers that be. The fact is inarguable.

 

One week into the invasion, note that Putin was prepared to make crucial concessions in his demands for the sake of peace, hardly the sign of a brutal imperialist.

 

https://thegrayzone.com/2023/02/06/israeli-bennett-us-russia-ukraine-peace/

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

 Is it your claim that the greater casualties were of the Russians?

The subject of my comment was not who had greater casualties. The subject was the fact that you post here as facts claims gathered from dubious sources or which were credibly debunked as having been doctored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One week into the invasion, note that Putin was prepared to make crucial concessions in his demands for the sake of peace, hardly the sign of a brutal imperialist.

https://thegrayzone.com/2023/02/06/israeli-bennett-us-russia-ukraine-peace/

Why bring this hyped version of Bennett's interview back again ??? 

You already put on this forum a similarly hyped version a few months ago. And at that time I wrote, citing Business Insider, :

Quote

 

"[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).

I have also showed what ridiculously LITTLE was Putin offering during the tentative negotiations.

Insider notes:

Quote

After the interview was posted, Sputnik, a Russian state media outlet, claimed it was evidence that the US and its allies had "halted efforts to put an end to the Russia-Ukraine crisis." On social media, pundits sympathetic to the Russian position likewise asserted that the interview was evidence that a pro-war establishment in the West was to blame for the continued bloodshed in Ukraine.

One of the social media that participated in propagating this hyped version of Bennett's interview was... the Objectivism Online Forum, care of @whYNOT !!!

Besides, Bennett mediation took place:

- at the demand of the "warmongers" France, Germany and US (says Bennett: "Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France") and, incidentally,

- after more than two weeks into the invasion, after it became obvious that his Blitzkrieg tactics was failing.

So, again you post here as facts misrepresentation you gathered from dubious sources, which were credibly debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2023 at 12:58 PM, AlexL said:

Why bring this hyped version of Bennett's interview back again ??? 

You already put on this forum a similarly hyped version a few months ago. And at that time I wrote, citing Business Insider, :

I have also showed what ridiculously LITTLE was Putin offering during the tentative negotiations.

Insider notes:

One of the social media that participated in propagating this hyped version of Bennett's interview was... the Objectivism Online Forum, care of @whYNOT !!!

Besides, Bennett mediation took place:

- at the demand of the "warmongers" France, Germany and US (says Bennett: "Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France") and, incidentally,

- after more than two weeks into the invasion, after it became obvious that his Blitzkrieg tactics was failing.

So, again you post here as facts misrepresentation you gathered from dubious sources, which were credibly debunked.

Simple evasion by our local propagandist. The "hyped version" is quoted verbatim in the link. It is exact to the radio interview I first linked.

Excerpts: "... then British PM took an aggressive line, while..." etc.

Bennett: ""I'll say this in the broad sense, I believe there was a legitimate desire by the West to keep striking Putin and not [negotiate]"".

""They blocked it [a peace negotiation] and I think they were wrong"".

By military analysts, Putin's force was under-prepared for an invasion. Only one deduction can be made: he first tried to pressure talks. When that failed, his tactics changed.

 

What's to not grasp of the above? Connect the dots. The West did not want peace then, steered Zelensky from arranged talks later in Istanbul, and all the way through, and is still reluctant at this stage. (Coming down to Ukraine's last gasp "counter-defensive" to make up their minds).

The policy is no kindly concern for Ukraine, their objective was and is only to damage Russia.

You are clearly of the sacrificial mindset. It is no longer surprising to me to see some "Objectivists" revert to the altruist mass doctrine, one that enshrines the 'nobility' of self-sacrifice. ("How marvelous that 'they' - Ukrainians - are prepared to die and are dying for us"). Hand in hand, where there are self-sacrificial people there are sacrificers preying on them.  Rand showed that the practitioners are the most inhumane, bloodthirsty of people. Where there's sacrifice there's no kindness..

Casualties? "Credibly debunked"? You are in for a shock. Figures put about by lying propagandists to encourage further sacrifices are already being refuted by observers across the spectrum.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

By military analysts, Putin's force was under-prepared for an invasion. Only one deduction can be made: he first tried to pressure talks. When that failed, his tactics changed.

There's at least one other plausible explanation: that Putin underestimated Ukraine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

There's at least one other plausible explanation: that Putin underestimated Ukraine.

 

What - when the UAF was then, the Number 2 most formidable military force in Europe (behind Russia's Army)? One that was being expanded, trained and equipped "to Nato standards"?

Most implausible. Those activities could not go unnoticed for those years.

Moscow would be closely following events in Ukraine, and be well aware, via intel, agents, etc. of the strength they had. And so the "demilitirization" Putin insisted upon. (A condition he relaxed, in Bennett's account).

Putin's plan nearly came off, and it was as worthwhile effort - if it were left mano a mano. Zelensky was twice that we know of ready to talk turkey, maybe to make a settlement. He was not permitted, outside interference, to make the choice.

After those abortive attempts, for some reason he turned into an anti-Russian fanatic.

Underestimated, certainly, was the ferocious response by Nato, weapons pouring in, the coordinated psy-ops and propaganda warfare that posed the 'invasion' as an intended Russian conquest of all Ukraine (and beyond, Europe!). Which apparently motivated the army, some of which are fanatical Russian haters, in a ferocious fight for the West's Cause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

What - when the UAF was then, the Number 2 most formidable military force in Europe (behind Russia's Army)? One that was being expanded, trained and equipped "to Nato standards"?

Most implausible. Those activities could not go unnoticed for those years.

I don't know what was in Putin's mind.  He does not seem very rational.  He may have focused too much on how easy it was the first time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2023 at 5:19 PM, AlexL said:

YouTube channel "1420", Daniil Orain, micro-interviews, mid-March 2023, in Moscow. 

Theme: "Do you think our government can stop this war at all?"

 

A few things. I know how street interviews are done, I did many on the papers. Good journalists will look for a mix of opinions to be printed and aired. Dishonest ones will not, and will cut the interviews short or edit out unfavorable comments. "Polo"

The idea is to create the perception of a monolithic opposition (here against Putin) - or of support - by publishing only the one side. Who hopefully give the impression of 'representing' the whole society. There will always be dissent, to be welcomed. (The West could use some). Russians are like people everywhere, some thinking things through better, some going on their emotions, some automatic, anti-war pacifists, some simply don't like Putin's mannerism's and appearance, some more pro-West, some malcontents, and on and on. You have x millions of citizens, only 20% in opposition is a lot of people.

Such individual opinions are interesting but tell nothing. Linked here, the idea by AL must be to indicate Putin's unpopularity. He does not believe the 80% approval number touted. Perhaps inflated - but so what? A majority can be all wrong and a minority might be right. And the reverse. One can't make moral judgments on "approval" figures.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

I don't know what was in Putin's mind.  He does not seem very rational.  He may have focused too much on how easy it was the first time.

 

Nor can I, but mind reading is not required. You can make solid inferences about what someone sees and *must* know when their interests, if not, survival, depends on it. Besides, he made many allusions in public to this very thing.

A huge military build-up next door to you you are not going to overlook...

Which "first time!"?

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...