About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[whYNOT]

To those who think this war wasn't premeditated. "In that first day of the war..."

"The published data shows that in the first week of the Ukraine-Russia war there was a huge mass of pro-Ukrainian hashtag bot activity. Approximately 3.5 million tweets using the hashtag #IStandWithUkraine were sent by bots in that first week. 

In fact, it was like someone had flicked a switch, when at the start of the war on 24 February, pro-Ukraine bot activity suddenly burst into life. In that first day of the war the #IStandWithUkraine hashtag was used in as many as 38,000 tweets each hour, rising to 50,000 tweets an hour by day three of the war". 

https://declassifiedaus.org/2022/11/03/strongmassive-anti-russian-bot-army-exposed-by-australian-researchers-strong/

[Craig24]

33 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

In fact, it was like someone had flicked a switch, when at the start of the war on 24 February, pro-Ukraine bot activity suddenly burst into life. In that first day of the war the #IStandWithUkraine hashtag was used in as many as 38,000 tweets each hour, rising to 50,000 tweets an hour by day three of the war". 

Is this supposed to be evidence that Russia's invasion was provoked?  

[KateTheCapitalist]

1 hour ago, Craig24 said:

Is this supposed to be evidence that Russia's invasion was provoked?  

I mean it quite literally was provoked by NATO 

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, KateTheCapitalist said:

I mean it quite literally [that Russia's invasion of Ukraine] was provoked by NATO 

Can you please explain?

[Doug Morris]

On 12/5/2022 at 6:24 PM, whYNOT said:

On 12/5/2022 at 4:17 PM, Doug Morris said:

Where do you see this?

 

The entire western media.

Can you give a few examples?

 

[AlexL]

On 12/6/2022 at 12:47 AM, whYNOT said:

You don't go interfering, god-like, in another country's internal and regional affairs.

This principle should be valid for everyone, right? In particular to USA/NATO and to Russia. Let's see.

Russia: it shouldn't have gone interfering, god-like, in Ukraine's internal affairs, by alleging genocide of Russian-speaking Ukrainians from Crimea and Donbass. But it did - capturing foreign territories and organizing and supplying with weapons and troops separatist movements.

USA/NATO: after Russia interfered militarily in Ukraine's internal affairs, any UN member has the legal right to defend the victim of an aggression.

Says Art. 51 of the UN Carter: 

“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...”

[Eiuol]

13 hours ago, AlexL said:

Is this comment addressed to me ??

I was referencing JL, whynot, and Tad. I realize that the question mark the thing can apply to you, but you aren't a Socratic troll. 

11 hours ago, AlexL said:

What does "Q" mean ?

Oh man, you're in for a delicious treat. It's the most extensive and rich right wing conspiracy theory out there. Q is the alleged whistleblower from within the "deep state" who knows what's really going on but can only reveal details secretly. I forget sometimes that it's mostly an American thing. 

[Eiuol]

9 hours ago, KateTheCapitalist said:

I mean it quite literally was provoked by NATO 

It's like people forget that we have to extend analysis back 20 years if we want to talk about provocation. 

If NATO provoked Russia, Russia should attack NATO. But they attacked Ukraine with its own issues. If they refused a direct attack on NATO because it would be certain suicide, they would be acting as if the Ukraine was independent of NATO. If NATO provoked, the justified target is NATO. Of course, if the Ukraine is de facto a member of NATO, Ukraine would be a justified target as well. But that would be suicidal, because if the Ukraine were a de facto member, NATO would retaliate. Except, NATO didn't retaliate. So I would conclude that Russia didn't think it was suicidal, and did not consider the Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. 

In other words, if NATO provoked, Russia attacked the wrong country. 

But then you might say "they knew that NATO would try to remain noncommittal to give the illusion of innocence!" The simple explanation: NATO doesn't consider Ukraine a member in the first place, so why would it commit? 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Eiuol

[tadmjones]

So Putin made the rational choice to invade and annex the areas Russia would need to secure the Black Sea , before the same action would be an attack on NATO ?

[dream_weaver]

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I forget sometimes that it's mostly an American thing. 

Germany arrests dozens as QAnon-inspired "Reichsbürger" group accused of plotting to overthrow  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-terror-plot-prince-heinrich-reichsburger-alleged-qanon-inspired-coup/

Granted QAnon-inspired is arguably not 'Q' nor QAnon.

Edited December 8, 2022 by dream_weaver

[Jon Letendre]

Greg, according to the article, little old Rico and his group of "around 50 men and women" have the "intent of eliminating the constitutional order of the Federal Republic of Germany ... " Damn!

And "3,000 security forces" were amassed against them. Double Damn!

That is some multiple. They better hope Rico's "hunting lodge group" doesn't grow. As the oncological surgeon says, 'fingers crossed, we got it all.'

[AlexL]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I was referencing JL, whynot, and Tad...

It's the most extensive and rich right wing conspiracy theory out there

OK, thanks

[KateTheCapitalist]

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It's like people forget that we have to extend analysis back 20 years if we want to talk about provocation. 

If NATO provoked Russia, Russia should attack NATO. But they attacked Ukraine with its own issues. If they refused a direct attack on NATO because it would be certain suicide, they would be acting as if the Ukraine was independent of NATO. If NATO provoked, the justified target is NATO. Of course, if the Ukraine is de facto a member of NATO, Ukraine would be a justified target as well. But that would be suicidal, because if the Ukraine were a de facto member, NATO would retaliate. Except, NATO didn't retaliate. So I would conclude that Russia didn't think it was suicidal, and did not consider the Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. 

In other words, if NATO provoked, Russia attacked the wrong country. 

But then you might say "they knew that NATO would try to remain noncommittal to give the illusion of innocence!" The simple explanation: NATO doesn't consider Ukraine a member in the first place, so why would it commit? 

first of all NATO is evil so defending it seems silly
but also im not saying russia is in the right but the west poured fuel onto the conflict and basically accelerated it to the point of this war 

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, KateTheCapitalist said:

first of all NATO is evil so defending it seems silly
but also im not saying russia is in the right but the west poured fuel onto the conflict and basically accelerated it to the point of this war [mine emphases]

In a previous comment you also wrote that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was provoked by NATO. I asked you to explain, but you didn't.

Now, what facts of the matter lead you to all these conclusions ?

In polite company, and all the more on a site dedicated to Objectivism, where one is assumed to be rational, one has to justify his claims if asked to. Otherwise one can rightly be considered a troll.

[Jon Letendre]

"in polite company" is a nice touch.

[AlexL]

51 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

"in polite company" is a nice touch.

Possibly this "nice touch" was  not intended, maybe I did not understand correctly the meaning of this idiom. I meant something like "well brought up people, polite, having common sense".

This was not the essence of my comment, but you may chose from it whatever corresponds to your character...

Edited December 8, 2022 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:55 PM, Craig24 said:

Is this supposed to be evidence that Russia's invasion was provoked?  

It shows that the Bot part of this propaganda campaign was already in place, premeditated and prepared--for when the provoked invasion would happen.

What they'd call in law, circumstantial evidence.

Edited December 9, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:30 AM, Eiuol said:

You were quite clear that the West has done a lot worse with nefarious intentions and these intentions were not from rational errors (irrational errors are immoral), while Russia/Putin made a rational error (which, hopefully you are aware, is not immoral by Oist standards). So, assuming that your pages upon pages of analysis are correct, and we consider all the issues that are relevant, Russia comes out as the moral superior with regard to this conflict. 

Of course it's complex, but you've been posting your opinions for many months now on this topic, with a lot of (supposed) analysis. More than enough time for you to reach a conclusion. 

I mean, you should read the essay by Rand called "The Cult of Moral Grayness". 

I think your "moral relativism' is backwards. It is I who present for moral parity, and reject double standards. In a situation, a strong, free-ish nation 'A' might well invade a bordering country B it's had past tensions with, which has been steadily building up its military strength into a vast army for no other apparent objective except belligerence against A, while openly mooting the possibility of gaining nuclear weapons. A would first seek explanations from B. It would insist upon non-belligerence and a security guarantee, but unforthcoming. To top it all, if B had been holding as hostage an enclave of people that it had been attacking and killing, and every day the situation was worsening-- A would soon respond with pre-emptive force: initially to protect the people and their lands, even maybe annexing the land for their future safety. But primarily to defend itself and its own population. To passively await the outcome of events could be suicidal.

'A' would be congratualted by other nations for doing so, not vilified and condemned.

So who holds the double standards and moral relativism here? Most in "the West".

One has to be careful to not fall into innate "moral supremacy"; i.e. "nation/people/individual A is *obviously* superior to nation/people/individual X". Therefore, is privileged to a higher moral treatment and status which X does not - superficially - merit.

Russia v. Rest of the World has been on the receiving end of that innate, collectivist, racist, determinist, inferiority. "Evil is in every Russian's DNA". By many everywhere who arrogate to themselves a superiority they might or do not objectively deserve, conferred only by accident of birth and nationality.

Edited December 9, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 12/7/2022 at 7:02 PM, KateTheCapitalist said:

I mean it quite literally was provoked by NATO 

Quite right. I can't imagine any of this without NATO's dominant presence. It takes two to tango. Rather than risk a face to face confrontation that would be highly dangerous, Ukraine provided the perfect foil, the place where Putin drew his 'red line' and could be counted on to react.

Where NATO could fight it out at second-hand, by (conventional) proxy warfare. I estimate NATO miscalculated, over-escalated and have dug themselves in too deep and are finding it hard to back out now, without the 'victory' they predicted. 

You only have to read the 'play book' provided by the RandCorp think tank in 2015. Essential reading, you can look it up. Their premise: Russia is a "US peer competitor"...

"Over-extending and Unbalancing Russia"

Foreword:

"Despite these vulnerabilities and anxieties, Russia
remains a powerful country that still manages to
be a U.S. peer competitor in a few key domains.
Recognizing that some level of competition with
Russia is inevitable, RAND researchers conducted
a qualitative assessment of “cost-imposing options”
that could unbalance and overextend Russia".

Edited December 9, 2022 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Et tu, Angela.

And to think I had doubts about the sincerity of Putin's motives at Minsk.

Merkel admits her involvement in the Minsk agreements were only meant to gain time for Kyiv to militarize for a confrontation with Donbass and Russia. Ex President Poroshenko boasted the identical ploy some months ago.

Which leaves no one except the Donbass leaders and Putin as good faith actors in Minsk. Another piece in the jigsaw puzzle falls into place. Wait long enough, these duplicitous masquerades are exposed by the virtue-signalers themselves, looking for public appreciation. (I'm losing any regard I had for Merkel. Another one playing with empty promises while people's lives were at stake) .

Note: This was 2014, they were already worried about an invasion back then. That settles the lie about the "unexpected, shocking invasion" this year.

https://www.rt.com/russia/567873-zakharova-merkel-minsk-agreements/

Edited December 9, 2022 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What they'd call in law, circumstantial evidence.

You called your narrative "circumstantial evidence" yourself.

There is a reason that circumstantial evidence does not a priori constitute evidence. It has to be refined by a specific procedure before being able to be accepted as evidence.

Apply this procedure (it is described in Wiki, for example) to your narrative and then, maybe, you will have proved that the (alleged) readiness of Ukrainian bots demonstrates indeed that the February 24 Russian invasion was "provoked" - "provoked" in the sense you have yet to define.

Hint: you should, for example, exclude that other explanations might exist for this readiness. Good luck 🤣

[Eiuol]

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One has to be careful to not fall into innate "moral supremacy"; i.e. "nation/people/individual A is *obviously* superior to nation/people/individual X". Therefore, is privileged to a higher moral treatment and status which X does not - superficially - merit.

Right, so what's your conclusion about this context in this situation? I'm not asking a hypothetical, I'm asking what your judgment is, in this circumstance. 

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

'A' would be congratualted by other nations for doing so, not vilified and condemned.

In other words, are you saying that you congratulate Russia for the actions it took? I already know your moral judgment about the rest of the West in this circumstance: pretty damn bad. The options for Russia are that you think they are morally worse (doesn't sound like it), morally equivalent (I doubt it, unless the miscalculation about the time the conflict would take is morally equivalent to the mountain of bad things that the West has done in this case), or morally better. 

I'm asking what your moral judgment is. I'm well aware of how to properly make moral judgments, you don't need to explain all the caveats. 

 

[whYNOT]

What moral justice here boils down to: who wanted the confrontation more?

Who actually plotted and anticipated this war the most?

Who ¬needed¬ it most? Who stood to gain the most (long term)? Only superficially, it looked like and the world was assured, it was Russia, taken by all as "the given". But logically things didn't add up.

For one, who was constantly open to talks the most, from February on? Who most valued the preservation of lives?

As evidence that contradicts the gargantuan propaganda machine designed to conceal it, and motives and intentions are unashamedly confessed by the prime actors and revealed by whistleblowers, honest reporters and the like, that balance will shift. 

Right now it is weighing against the Western-plus -Ukraine consortium since anyone can deduce that the internal and external Ukraine situation was being engineered for one purpose - to leave Putin few options but to wage war.

Committed to one, by his own publicized "red lines".

The strengthened and enlarged UAF would do the rest, presumably, and then 'victory over Russia and defeat of Putin' -- alternately, both Armies, countries, economies and governments being badly weakened in a prolonged conflict and stalemate--either outcome apparently, equally acceptable...

We will soon see plainly whose were the immoral actions. 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

...who wanted the confrontation more? Who actually plotted and anticipated this war the most? Who ¬needed¬ it most? Who stood to gain the most (long term)? ...

...who was constantly open to talks the most, from February on?[🤣] Who most valued the preservation of lives?...[🤣🤣🤣]

...anyone can deduce that the internal and external Ukraine situation was being engineered for one purpose - to leave Putin few options but to wage war.

No facts, only - ridiculous - rationalizations.

[Eiuol]

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

We will soon see plainly whose were the immoral actions. 

For everything you wrote, I find it bizarre that you are unwilling to say that "I think that Russia is overall in the moral right for this conflict." 

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

No facts, only - ridiculous - rationalizations.

Well, as you can see, even when you grant everything he says, and all his statements, and all the information he presents, he still isn't willing to make a clear moral statement.