Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
On 12/25/2022 at 11:57 AM, AlexL said:

OK, let's take them one after the other....

"OSCE negates this account, as reported in Reuters." Is it this account "that there was no identifiable pattern of targeting civilians and, therefore no genocide perpetrated by Ukraine in Donbass" ?

Please put here the reference to the corresponding OSCE document, or at least to the Reuters account...

Below some of the unambiguous Reuters piece again. What don't you understand?

<long, boring rant> Then:

"OSCE reports surge in number of explosions in east Ukraine"

Reuters

MOSCOW, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Two regions in eastern Ukraine where government and separatist forces have been fighting since 2014 were hit by more than 1,400 explosions on Friday, monitors for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said, pointing to a surge in shelling. ...

0. The account you said OSCE (as reported by Reuters) negates, is this: "there was no identifiable pattern of targeting civilians and, therefore no genocide perpetrated by Ukraine in Donbass".

1. The subject was the claim about targeting civilians. Surge in shelling does not mean surge in targeting civilians.

2. From the Reuters article you omitted the very part which was relevant for the subject - the number of victims of these more than 1,400 explosions. Writes Reuters:

Quote

The monitoring mission confirmed one civilian casualty in a government-controlled area of Donetsk.

One civilian causality after more than 1,400 explosions doesn't look like civilian were really targeted, does it?

Therefore, the OSCE/Reuters account refutes your claim above. As well as the other one: "No genocide perpetrated" is disingenuous by the OSCE and UN.

You've been caught lying again...

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

0. The account you said OSCE (as reported by Reuters) negates, is this: "there was no identifiable pattern of targeting civilians and, therefore no genocide perpetrated by Ukraine in Donbass".

1. The subject was the claim about targeting civilians. Surge in shelling does not mean surge in targeting civilians.

2. From the Reuters article you omitted the very part which was relevant for the subject - the number of victims of these more than 1,400 explosions. Writes Reuters:

One civilian causality after more than 1,400 explosions doesn't look like civilian were really targeted, does it?

Therefore, the OSCE/Reuters account refutes your claim above. As well as the other one: "No genocide perpetrated" is disingenuous by the OSCE and UN.

You've been caught lying again...

Reuters/OSCE are not the most trustworthy source, but I accepted this report for the sake of argument. They are "disingenuous", since while not "genocidal" by definition, there were already some thousands of civilians killed in urban areas. You admit this, but cannot foresee the much worse to come without an intervention, nor acknowledge reports that 4000 plus have been targeted in cities and killed this year. 

Try to correlate the above with the artillery "surge" on Feb 19.

You evade answering such questions, but I will try again:

Was the "build-up" of the UAF without a goal and purpose?

Was the surge and its timing, meaningless?

Can one conclude there was a major attack planned by Kyiv on the Donbas? If not - at minimum, a planned campaign of intensive shelling at the new levels until the conquest of the Donbas by Ukraine might have been achieved?

(And if so, do you think the defeated militia and citizens would have been treated justly? Would they have meekly submitted to the government - after Kyiv's previous treatment of "orcs" , which then went to lengths to pretend making a treaty which was never to be honored anyway? Not I think with those nationalist anti-Russian racists so close to power and blind adulation of them from the world.)

Either manner that battle would commence, there was definite casus belli for a neighboring country to intervene. In addition -- to:  outside and internal Fascist interference in a duly elected government, NATO's stated expansionism into the country, the NATO-Ukraine militarization, the blocking of peace negotiations--etc. The combination, irrefutably, enacted in order to ensure Ukraine could never have neutral relations with Russia (and clearly to incite a war between them).

To build "good neighbors" has not been on the West's agenda, put mildly. Now the West will discover the consequences of their low dealings. 

I understand your simple technique, which is to try to dismiss the big picture in favor of endlessly debating the *many* minutiae of 'facts' and quibbling over exact figures out of context with what matters. Drowning in non-integrated or disintegrated facts is a surefire way to lose touch with actuality. 

That's how anti-reality propaganda works well. There's why the majority are most prone to utterly believe the word of (Western) media--exactly because ingesting whole, the prepackaged narrative, the feeling-based altruist morality, the voice of presented authority figures, its selected 'optics', sound bites etc., is satisfying for the short attention span of many - and obviates the hard effort of individual, volitional thought and hard moral judgments. The majority need to be told what their moral judgment is to be.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are those I understand who would greet this information sorrowfully, while relieved that Ukraine civilians have not died in greater numbers that every war claims. The so-called and ugly term, collateral damage (as if many trees were felled). There are many who will not and cannot accept the care to limit civilian casualties with which the Russians have fought, for being the antithesis to what they were told and believe Russians to be, i.e. evil, murderous, brutal. Some quite openly would prefer a huger death toll to advance their propaganda campaign - "For Ukraine!". They are despicable hypocrites. The same as anyone wishing for "a prolonged war" that will kill more civilians and soldiers - but "weaken Russia" - wherever you are, check your premises.

https://southfront.org/russia-conducts-operation-with-minimum-civilian-casualties-study-shows/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Reuters/OSCE are not the most trustworthy source, but I accepted this report for the sake of argument.

You accepted?! As if it was me who brought up this reference !!! No, it is your source and it was trustworthy enough for you till yesterday. Now suddenly, when I presented a fragment that you overlooked (or hoped I won't notice) and you didn't like it, your source became, literally overnight, un-trustworthy. Such an hypocrisy!

Quote

You evade answering such questions, but I will try again: Was the "build-up" of the UAF without a goal and purpose? Was the surge and its timing, meaningless? [...]

I said yesterday "let's take them [your claims] one after the other". The first point Reuters/OSCE about Kiev targeting civilians. You were caught lying that Reuters/OSCE negated the evaluation that Kiev was NOT targeting civilians. So: where is the evasion??

Do you have something to add about this first point?

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2022 at 5:12 PM, Eiuol said:

Why the but? Dictatorships are not legitimate sovereign nations. You even agreed with that. 

I mean, yeah, that's a dictatorship for you. Not the worst one in history, but it is still an autocracy, which is a form of dictatorship.

An autocracy is not often a form of dictatorship, which would make many countries (mostly African and Asian) "dictatorships" by this reckoning.

What seems to be the accepted range:

Closed Autocracy; Electoral Autocracy; Electoral Democracy; Liberal Democracy. Russia features as the second.

Here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/political-regime

I usually make the argument that both Ukraine and Russia are still freshly emerging nations out of a common dictatorship, and new to democracy as theory and practice. A degree of painful transition expected.

The evolution to liberal democracy is best a process of general and mutual consent. That probably won't happen in one generation.

I argue each of them and their citizens should have been left alone to choose their type of governance for themselves, at their own pace-- without outside interference - avoiding undemocratic, violent govt. overthrows which can and will permanently divide any country. The sign of a maturing nation begins at inclusivity/equality for all ethnicities, cultures (etc.) - leading to eventual individual rights, rarely yet optimistically.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Russia features as the second.

Iran is classified as an electoral autocracy. Perhaps we could say that in a very narrow way, not each of these qualify as a dictatorship, but yes, the majority of those are dictatorships of some form or another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

You accepted?! As if it was me who brought up this reference !!! No, it is your source and it was trustworthy enough for you till yesterday. Now suddenly, when I presented a fragment that you overlooked (or hoped I won't notice) and you didn't like it, your source became, literally overnight, un-trustworthy. Such an hypocrisy!

I said yesterday "let's take them [your claims] one after the other". The first point Reuters/OSCE about Kiev targeting civilians. You were caught lying that Reuters/OSCE negated the evaluation that Kiev was NOT targeting civilians. So: where is the evasion??

Do you have something to add about this first point?

Hey - let's get this straight.

Kyiv is "targeting civilians" as we speak. And have injured and killed many (also having a few months ago scattered banned (by the Geneva Convention) "butterfly" mines delivered by missiles into Donetsk, for which there is documented evidence, causing civilian injuries, e.g. loss of limbs. ).

Whether Ukraine killed many, previous to the invasion is moot. They definitely *fired upon* civilian areas for many years.

What matters: the "source" I quoted, not known to be impartial, reported there was "a surge" of artillery fire from 19 Feb. 

That was enough for my purposes, by their admission it shows that a major attack or uptick of attacks by a more powerful UAF was imminent. People, militia members and civilians would continue to be killed in larger numbers, ultimately the Donbas overcome. Can you refute that deduction?

The rest of the report, inconsequential and not connected to that. 

Understand: try as you will you aren't able to sanitize and cover up the attacks by Kyiv's forces upon the mass of civilians continuous from 2014 until now - or several false flag attacks lately, blamed on Russians to a gullible public - or the atrocities committed (and documented) upon captured Russian soldiers by neo-Nazis. The facts will come out. 

For the rest of it, you need to cast slurs at me because you don't like the truth - some of the Ukrainian "heroes" are often dirty scumbags, from the top down. I am not interested in further argument with anyone who cannot at least entertain the possibility that they might well be very far from innocent victims.  

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that India is the only country there that arouses my suspicion as not worth considering a dictatorship. But I don't know much about Indian politics, and that probably means their political system is worse than I thought. 

It would not be shocking to call most of these countries dictatorships. Africa is a mess politically and is no surprise that this lends itself to terrible economic growth and quality of life. You've got most Middle Eastern countries, which are notorious for being absolutely unfriendly to democracy. We've got Venezuela, we've got Myanmar, and Pakistan. All of these countries are horrible places to be. You can't characterize it as people being unfamiliar with democracy - these people are intelligent enough to know that they are all oppressed quite directly. America was new to it way back when, even South Africa is new to it, but the people in these countries manage democracy in relatively short order. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've observed in Africa, there is a distrust and growing unease with democracy, the manner in which elections, every 4-5 years, might or will change and repace the ruling parties and leaders. People in some places are coming to prefer a sense of permanence and a little stability, and the "known quantity" over proper freedoms. So an autocratic, long term ruler, even hated by some, is viewed as better than the alternative, upheavals and maybe conflict at election time and then starting over with a new government in power which may enforce unpopular or harsh changes. Interesting that Rand commented similarly, something about a person can just about handle living under a dictator whose edicts are uniformly consistent, never one who is erratic and arbitrary.   

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

So an autocratic, long term ruler, even hated by some, is viewed as better than the alternative, upheavals and maybe conflict at election time and then starting over with a new government in power which may enforce unpopular or harsh changes.

Indeed, but as I imagine you would agree, that still doesn't justify autocratic rule. Putin is nowhere near as bad as Stalin, and his regime is preferable to any USSR regime, but that doesn't change the evil of dictatorship. It isn't justified. I don't know what your point is. Are you trying to argue that autocracies aren't dictatorships? That only some autocracies are dictatorships? 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's quote Rand once again, shall we? 

"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw." (The Virtue of Selfishness, Collectivized Rights, p. 105) 

"It does not matter... whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority..." (The Virtue of Selfishness, Collectivized Rights, p. 104) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I am not interested in further argument with anyone who cannot at least entertain the possibility that they might well be very far from innocent victims.  

I am capable of entertaining any possibility in the sense that I am open to to examine the evidence for any claim. 

The problem is with you: you make dozen of claims about facts, but never present, upon request, real evidence, although you should, and you know it.

And dishonesty and hypocrisy are, in your case, not slurs, but exact characterizations.

PS:  contrary to your claim, there is no Geneva Convention regarding mines;

PPS: "[OSCE] not known to be impartial". Well, the Russian Federation considered it impartial enough from 21 March 2014 to 31 April 2022 (when, for the first time after 8 years, it vetoed its extension for another 12 months.) And our discussion was about this period of time.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2022 at 12:22 AM, AlexL said:

I am capable of entertaining any possibility in the sense that I am open to to examine the evidence for any claim. 

The problem is with you: you make dozen of claims about facts, but never present, upon request, real evidence, although you should, and you know it.

 

Real evidence? In one stroke, little left for you to say. That happened when Angela Merkel admitted she knew that no resolution of conflict was being pursued at Minsk, but 'buying time'; demonstrated again later as blocks by Biden/Johnson on early negotiations showed, Ukraine and its western allies were on a path to conflict--and every ruler knew it.

Since you never seem to arrange "facts" by prority, this "fact" dominates.

The West gets the war it wanted.

Against Russia, militarily, financially, economically - politically. But - fought ¬by¬ Ukrainians ¬on¬ Ukraine territory. The best of all worlds, they only have to pick up the expensive tab. (Offset by massive profits to the arms industries and construction contracts afterwards --etc.).

The neatest trick of psy-ops, to indoctrinate soft-minded populaces it was all Putin's doing. (But it's getting clear he wasn't keen to intervene, he didn't for a long time).

And that Ukraine one of the least democratic nations in its short history is "defending western democracy" and western "values".

Everything else falls away, your quibbles over trivial details included.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

... Angela Merkel ... Minsk... Biden/Johnson ...

You want me to get caught in your "whatabout" game - by multiplying the subjects, but never justifying the claims I've asked you to justify. If you would have done it, we could have covered by now Minsk, Merkel and many other subject - which you never researched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The neatest trick of psy-ops, to indoctrinate soft-minded populaces it was all Putin's doing. (But it's getting clear he wasn't keen to intervene, he didn't for a long time).

And that Ukraine one of the least democratic nations in its short history is "defending western democracy" and western "values".

image.thumb.png.38bb1dd03b14c47e3c44e733039a059a.png

image.thumb.png.8c2a74fada4501e2e54054d557037f13.png

Elon Musk on Twitter: "@catturd2 Easy to fool people, but it is almost impossible to convince people that they have been fooled" / Twitter

 

image.png

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And that Ukraine one of the least democratic nations in its short history is "defending western democracy" and western "values".

That's fine, and I mean it. But if you want to argue that both the Ukraine and Russia are autocratic, then you should claim that neither government has any legitimate authority. They are both dictatorships, by your reasoning. 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The neatest trick of psy-ops, to indoctrinate soft-minded populaces it was all Putin's doing. (But it's getting clear he wasn't keen to intervene, he didn't for a long time).

I mean, if you really want to get into the topic of psy ops, you might want to consider the techniques of autocrats. It's not like you denied that Putin is an autocratic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

<Ukraine on fire, documentary banned in US and occupied [???] territories>

This propaganda movie, co-produced in 2016 by Putin's admirer Oliver Stone

  1. is perfectly visible also on YouTube, not only on the Internet Archive 
  2. is perfectly visible on YouTube also in the US

It is a propaganda movie because, as remarked by reviewers on IMDB:

Quote

Serious one-sided pro-Putin propaganda. Cut and paste montage work. Only interviews with those who supported the narrative. Including Vladimir Putin himself. No historians. No experts on Eastern Europe. Supposedly Ukraine's Euro Maidan was both taken over by fascist and backed by extreme leftist George Soros. Poor Oliver Stone just seems like ghost here. This is no objective attempt at understanding. And the director is a known propagandist. Don't trust this at all. Especially now. Grade A propaganda.

Quote

Very one sided Almost everyone interviewed is on the Russian side of the fence and talks from Russian point of view.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Elon Musk : " Easy to fool people, but it is almost impossible to convince people that they have been fooled"

Very well said - by Mark Twain.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AlexL said:

This is by Mark Twain.

No, it isn't. He wrote similar things but never wrote that often-attributed-to-him line. Closest he came to it that I am aware of was in an interview he said, "The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. ...  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:
8 hours ago, AlexL said:

This is by Mark Twain.

No, it isn't.

Yes, sorry, you are correct, it doesn't seem to be by Mark Twain, according to Snopes.

But it is certainly not by Elon Musk, contrary to what you implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That's fine, and I mean it. But if you want to argue that both the Ukraine and Russia are autocratic, then you should claim that neither government has any legitimate authority. They are both dictatorships, by your reasoning. 

 

I refer to the 'official' demarcations I found: Closed autocracy, electoral autocracy - etc. 

A dictatorship would have to be a "closed autocracy", I'd suppose by that system, and it follows that an electoral autocracy which they allocate to Russia, Russia is not a "dictatorship" by those terms.

What preceded it was the Soviet closed autocracy.

Just my reasoning according to their method. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

This propaganda movie, co-produced in 2016 by Putin's admirer Oliver Stone

  1. is perfectly visible also on YouTube, not only on the Internet Archive 
  2. is perfectly visible on YouTube also in the US

It is a propaganda movie because, as remarked by reviewers on IMDB:

Right...

As in: If it's not *my* (good) propaganda it is ¬their¬ (evil) propaganda.

The feature of expert (in particular) western propagandizing has been ubiquitous groupthink, the fast rejection of everything outside the official and proper line. Which all the people know when the thought police jump all over it.

Goes well beyond not today being allowed to freely and candidly discuss these matters with others, first, one must never even objectively consider them to oneself. To self-censor.

 

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...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...