Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Apparently in the early sixties NATO being a Nazi wasn't all that bad ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger

Just a technical question: was Adolf Heusinger really a member of the Nazi party ? I checked a number of his biographies and found nothing about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Just a technical question: was Adolf Heusinger really a member of the Nazi party ? I checked a number of his biographies and found nothing about that.

I have no idea , he was injured in the Wolf's Lair assignation attempt on Hitler , so up until that morning Hitler trusted him , so maybe just Nazi adjacent, good call .

 

As an aside though, do you think a former Wehrmacht official being appointed to head the NATO military arm played into any of the USSR's paranoia of NATO encroachment ? His tenure did span the Cuban Missile crisis.

Edited by tadmjones
add aside,liar to lair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Then why do yo call him a Nazi and imply that NATO employed Nazis in command positions ?

Until this morning I had never heard of him , nor could I name any other NATO military commander throughout the history of the organization. But today the algorithm pointed me to an article that mentioned him , having little if even detailed knowledge of NATO actions my impressions of its comings and goings are only shaped by whatever general or casual information floats around in popular culture , basically in the broadest view in the west ‘they’ are pretty much the ‘good guys’.

I would never have guessed that one of Hitler’s former military officers would have been selected for such a post. Do you think the ‘official’  or legal Nazi status as compared to ‘plain ole Wehrmacht officer ‘ is a difference in kind and not simply degree? I would assume that even if he was a member , that that would have been ‘scrubbed’ to allow for more acceptability in the post WW2 west. Or maybe NATO really is and always been Nazi friendly.

 

ps I figured when I mentioned it , someone would be triggered ‘he wasn’t a Nazi , he only helped Hitler establish the Third Reich , he had a totally different uniform !’

Edited by tadmjones
Added ps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I would never have guessed that one of Hitler’s former military officers would have been selected for such a post. Do you think the ‘official’  or legal Nazi status as compared to ‘plain ole Wehrmacht officer ‘ is a difference in kind and not simply degree? I would assume that even if he was a member , that that would have been ‘scrubbed’ to allow for more acceptability in the post WW2 west. Or maybe NATO really is and always been Nazi friendly.

The problem here isn't the idea that a Nazi could attain a very high position in NATO. Interpol had a similar thing happen. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as far as the organization - it doesn't mean that the organization is at heart a Nazi organization. Knowing that somebody was a Nazi is good blackmail, it keeps them in line.

The problem is, why did you bring it up? I guess you are saying random things, whatever strikes your mind. Or far more likely is that you are directly insinuating that NATO is a Nazi organization with the cover of "I don't know if he is a Nazi, but he might be!" Alex asked why you did this, to which you only said you ran into the idea. At least answer the question rather than stacking up questions and claims without any point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, necrovore said:

Although NATO did have the stated purpose of defending Europe from the Soviet Union, it had another purpose. The US paid almost the entire cost of NATO.

Yeah totally, NATO is just a scheme to trick the US to subsidize socialism. Nevermind the fact that most European countries are neoliberal mixed economies. After all, if you have allies, why should you be supportive, they should be able to handle their own military! They don't need help, there is nothing actually threatening Europe. Russia is fine, the Balkans are doing just great; the Soviet Union is gone, there is no war in the Balkans. Everyone knows Russia isn't actually threatening, so why would even Nordic countries want to be part of NATO? It also explains why Russia was kept out, because... I don't know, but I did have a chain of logical connecting words between my sentences!

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

I suppose I'm concerned that NATO wouldn't want the war to be settled, because the political class has more money and power when the weapons are flowing than when they are not... and, like bank robbers, they are not good at thinking long-term, or assessing unexpected consequences.

Right, because capitalist leaning economies - err I mean socialist economies - control the military-industrial complex. The richer classes control the less rich classes. They don't care about global defense, their only motivation is money.
 

*

What you posted is a narrative, not a set of facts. I'm not contesting your facts, the few that you mentioned. I'm contesting the whole reasoning process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The Pro-Putin argument seems to be that Russia was aggressed on and that it is retaliating.

But the aggression from Ukraine can only be described as a threat of aggression, rather than actual aggression. In the case of Putin, the aggression is physical.

Now in terms of who benefits right now, wars usually will deliver benefits to many nefarious entities. It always has and always will. To someone who is NOT "in the know", like myself, Russia attacked and Ukraine. The Ukrainian regime did not fall apart like Iraq. People are willing to die for their country so Ukraine is not a population that wants to join Russia. In other words it does not look like NATO etc. are forcing the Ukrainians to fight for their territory.

So with that in mind, and the mobilization, it would be good to know what an appropriate negotiated settlement would should look like in the eyes of the pro-Russia side.

 

The US supported Iraq for decades during their war with Iran. Without that help the Iraqi regime was as weak and prone to disintegration as it was which made it that much more easier to topple. 

In comparison Ukraine still enjoys a full US and most western nations full throated support. Even in the midst of a quasi civil war since 2014, after a coup that resulted in pro NATO , pro EU regime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The problem here isn't the idea that a Nazi could attain a very high position in NATO. Interpol had a similar thing happen. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as far as the organization - it doesn't mean that the organization is at heart a Nazi organization. Knowing that somebody was a Nazi is good blackmail, it keeps them in line.

The problem is, why did you bring it up? I guess you are saying random things, whatever strikes your mind. Or far more likely is that you are directly insinuating that NATO is a Nazi organization with the cover of "I don't know if he is a Nazi, but he might be!" Alex asked why you did this, to which you only said you ran into the idea. At least answer the question rather than stacking up questions and claims without any point.

I brought it because it is at least tangential to my comments on the OP.

I’m not sure if AlexL posted Journo’s essay as an example of a counter point to the realpolitik school’s argument as voiced by Mearsheimer or to endorse Journo’s stance via a critique , he seems to be more a champion of Journo in regard to Tony’s critique.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Yeah totally, NATO is just a scheme to trick the US to subsidize socialism.

I didn't say "just."

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Nevermind the fact that most European countries are neoliberal mixed economies.

Why "nevermind"? A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom (capitalism) and controls (e.g., socialism or fascism), so this does not rule out what I said.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

After all, if you have allies, why should you be supportive, they should be able to handle their own military!

If two countries agree that each one will defend the other if attacked, then there is no need for money to change hands, even if the attack actually occurs. It might cost money to honor the agreement, but that money would not need to flow from either country to the other.

Maybe after World War II, Europe was too weak to defend itself, and it might have made sense for the US to help it then, but the flow of money continued long after it should have ended, and then it took on a life of its own.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

They don't need help, there is nothing actually threatening Europe.

What they don't need is free money or loot.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

They don't care about global defense, their only motivation is money.

They think they can have both, but they are neglecting the former in their pursuit of the latter.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

What you posted is a narrative, not a set of facts. I'm not contesting your facts, the few that you mentioned. I'm contesting the whole reasoning process.

On what basis? You're accusing me of saying a lot of things that I didn't even say.

Also, whether something is a "narrative" or not is beside the point: what matters is whether or not it's true.

I don't think you can argue that it isn't true. Maybe you could argue that it isn't important, or that it leaves important things out, but I think it's important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

I don't think you can argue that it isn't true. Maybe you could argue that it isn't important, or that it leaves important things out, but I think it's important.

What you did is make some claims, which is not the same as stating facts. The first fact that you mentioned is that NATO was created to defend against the Soviet Union. That's where stating facts ended.   I can't argue what you said is not true because it's a story you made up. So I went along and made a story just like you. It's actually the same story. I know I said "' just a scheme" but I should have said "for the most part just a scheme". 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I can't argue what you said is not true because it's a story you made up.


"I can't argue that Newton's Laws are not true because they are just generalizations that Newton made up..."

(My point being that what you are saying could be applied to any argument whatever and therefore is a rejection of reasoning as such)

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, tadmjones said:
19 hours ago, AlexL said:

Then why do yo call him a Nazi and imply that NATO employed Nazis in command positions ?

… an article that mentioned him [Adolf Heusinger] … having little… knowledge of NATO actions my impressions of its comings and goings are only shaped by whatever general or casual information floats around in popular culture, basically in the broadest view in the west ‘they’ [Nazis, presumably] are pretty much the ‘good guys’... Or maybe NATO really is and always been Nazi friendly.

Therefore you identify him as a “Nazi” not because he was literally one, but because of a “popular culture” where NATO is a Nazi/Fascist organization which, quite understandably, supports the neo-Nazi state which is Ukraine - according to the latest and greatest Soviet studies…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Therefore you identify him as a “Nazi” not because he was literally one, but because of a “popular culture” where NATO is a Nazi/Fascist organization which, quite understandably, supports the neo-Nazi state which is Ukraine - according to the latest and greatest Soviet studies…

Nope. As I said, the "popular culture" impression I had was a vague understanding and or agreement that NATO was the 'good guys' and was surprised to see that a Nazi was once picked as the military commander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Nope. As I said, the "popular culture" impression I had was a vague understanding and or agreement that NATO was the 'good guys' and was surprised to see that a Nazi was once picked as the military commander.

OK, sorry, your grammar was somewhat convoluted for me and I misunderstood you.

OTOH, you did not establish, either before or after you presented this as a fact, that that guy was indeed a Nazi (and remained one) in his beliefs.

Nor did you present facts that should have prevented him from being employed by NATO. Just innuendos and insinuations which present NATO as a Nazi/Fascist organization. This fits nicely with the present-day putinist - internal and external - propaganda which presents Ukraine as a Nazi state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 2:28 PM, tadmjones said:

I have no idea

9 hours ago, tadmjones said:

was surprised to see that a Nazi was once picked as the military commander.

You both have no idea if he was a Nazi, and know that he was a Nazi. But anyway, it doesn't matter, because this still doesn't say anything about NATO. As I said about Interpol, Nazis would be easy to blackmail. The US did this as well - using Nazis for espionage and intelligence operations. 

4 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Heh, the fact that a high placed Wehrmacht official ends up as NATO military commander 'fits nicely' with putinist 'propaganda' .

It's actually pretty good propaganda, all you have to do is say "Nazi in NATO" and people's imagination goes wild. 

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

My point being that what you are saying could be applied to any argument whatever and therefore is a rejection of reasoning as such

By the way, if you really think I'm being unfair, all you have to do is provide some piece of evidence that NATO is a large part a scheme to loot the US. Mostly I'm not buying it because you started engaging in some anti-capitalist rhetoric about profit and power. Just because there is an unfair structure to the way NATO is funded doesn't mean that some plot was behind it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Mostly I'm not buying it because you started engaging in some anti-capitalist rhetoric about profit and power.

Capitalism requires a separation of state and economics. What we have with NATO is not capitalism at all; it's cronyism and corruption. There's plenty of evidence for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

What we have with NATO is not capitalism at all; it's cronyism and corruption.

NATO is a treaty organization, it can't be capitalism or not, because it doesn't and can't dictate state or economics. It would be like calling Amazon capitalism. It doesn't make sense. But besides that, you are saying that some of the corruption is because of profit motive. Your entire story was about the corrupting influence of money. If money is being used in an illicit and shady manner, show me. Otherwise, the way money is being used makes sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All NATO expenditures , especially allocation and use of military equipment and man power is government spending , capital consumption . Any profit that accrues is ultimately tax revenue that is transferred to individuals via corporate structures. 

The more governments spend tax revenues on military equipment the more ‘profit’ is generated , or actually transferred. Or is there some sense that military spending is an investment and a sign of wealth creation ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But besides that, you are saying that some of the corruption is because of profit motive. Your entire story was about the corrupting influence of money.

It's sounds like you're trying to argue that money is such a good thing that we wouldn't want to sully it by pointing out that it also motivates bank robbers (even though it does).

Ayn Rand wrote a great deal about money, including how it makes a big difference whether it was obtained honestly or dishonestly. In fact, those are some of her most famous quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, you did not care to react to my suggestion to indicate what are your most fundamental objections to Journo’s analysis, among all those you mentioned. Then my next step will be to examine a few of your objections.

On 9/19/2022 at 11:08 PM, whYNOT said:

[Journo’s analysis  is] disingenuous. Skirts around the end of NATO's fundamental raison d'etre ("to defend against the Soviet Union " ...) - with the disintegration of that very same Soviet Russia. What 'enemy' was its continuing purpose for existence, afterwards and now?

In other words, in your view, NATO should have dissolved itself after the dissolution of USSR and of the Warsaw Pact. Let’s examine the facts.

a). The Warsaw Pact was created in 1955, as a counterpart to NATO; NATO was created much earlier, in 1949. Then, in logic, if NATO would have been dissolved, then the Warsaw Pact should have been too, but NOT the other way around, as you suggest.

b). It is not true that NATO was founded "to defend against the Soviet Union". The North Atlantic Treaty specifies that its aim is to guarantee the collective security of its members against any attacks of “third parties”, any “third parties”. After the disappearance of USSR as a potential source of an attack, the other potential sources remained. In fact, ANY third party worldwide could become a danger. Therefore, the disappearance of one danger, even of the main one until then, is NOT a reason to dissolve the Alliance.

c). On the other hand, shortly after the dissolution of USSR and the fall of Communism, some of the former Communist countries and Soviet republics, in view of their history of relationship with Russia, considered the possibility of joining NATO for defense. According to Wiki, “countries wishing to join must meet certain stringent requirements and complete a multi-step process involving political dialog and military integration”. The process takes long years, a full decade for some.

d). Moreover, the events after the dissolution of USSR and the fall of Communism clearly demonstrate that the dissolution of NATO would have been an enormous mistake.

Quote

expansion [of NATO] despite assurances made to Gorbachev: not an inch past Germany

There was indeed at least one assurance made to Gorbachev resembling to these words. But was about something different and very narrow: the deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany (GDR). Namely, in September 1990 it was agreed (in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany) that the reunified Germany is allowed to join NATO, but it was also agreed that no non-German NATO military (and no nuclear weapons) are allowed one inch into the former East Germany (see here)

The narrative that there were “assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact” about the non-expansion of NATO beyond the reunified Germany seems to originate in the February 2007 Putin’s speech at a Security Conference held in Munich (see here). Here is an excerpt:

Quote

(Putin, 2007) And we have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?

 The question remains: were there any assurances above the one mention above, any authorized promises, in whatever binding form, about non-enlargement of NATO to former Communist countries and former Soviet republics?

Starting with 2007 and amplified by the 2008 Russia’s attack of Georgia and the 2014-2022 war against Ukraine, the question of the reality of a West’s pledge is intensely debated. The debate was fueled by newly discovered documents from Western archives which, according to an article published by the German publication Der Spiegel, November 2009 (see here), support the Russian position. Unfortunately, according to other studies based on the same documents, the opposite conclusion was inferred (see for example one by the Center for strategic and International Studies  here and The Brookings Institution here.) Therefore, the subject is at least disputed.

What now? The NATO subject was discussed between USSR and the West in 1990 and 1991, at the end of the Gorbachev era, when USSR has not yet fallen. It was not resumed during at least the next 10 years. This means that Gorbachev supervised all the pertinent negotiations. What does he say?

In October 2014 (after Donbass and Crimea, when Putin invoked again the “broken promises”) Gorbachev gave a long interview to the Moscow based governmental publication Russia Beyond the Headlines (RBTH), a predecessor of RIA Novosti and of Russia Today. Here is the relevant exchange with the reporter: 

RBTH: "One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”"

M.Gorbachev: "The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."

After this, le bare minimum which is certain about the allegedly promised non-enlargement of NATO is that it is strongly disputed.

But whYNOT presented it as a fact, an essential one, against the Journo's analysis... Elsewhere whYNOT comments:

Quote

Amazed how little you know [about "broken promises"]. Why "anecdotal"? This was common knowledge

Maybe you know a lot more than I do, but is also true whatever you claim to know ? Doesn't seem to be... As most of your other claims on the subject of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And what you claim is, visibly, "common knowledge" only among those who form their opinion by contrasting such diversified sources as Russia Today, TASS and D. Simes' The National Interest...

Besides: until about 2007 the Russian leadership accepted calmly the enlargement after Germany (1990), followed Poland+Hungary+Czechia (1999), in 2004 - Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania etc. Even Russia was pondering the possibility to join NATO. There even was a “Russia–NATO Council” (2002, see Wiki) for handling security issues and joint projects. However, Russia aspired to be recognized again as a Great Power and bypass all the “stringent requirements and the passage through a multi-step process”; it aspired to acquire from the very beginning a leading position alongside US, France and UK. This did not work and Putin was, apparently extremely offended and frustrated…

Quote

To steadily continue the expansion (despite assurances made to Gorbachev: not an inch past Germany) in these circumstances, NATO has been provocative, indeed. Why would it accept/invite many new members, mostly ex-Warsaw Pact, closing in on Russian borders? One doesn't need to be paranoid to find nothing benign in that. Nor certainly would any free-er, more respectable nation allow such an unexplained, irrational encroachment by any 'organisation' (one which refused its admission too). Conclusion: The isolation, weakening, and regime change by revolution for Russia was intended and planned by think tanks, quite far back.

This conclusion is about NATO leadership intentions, which is something going in people’s heads. Something like that is almost impossible to prove. Moreover, I gave above an alternative explanation which does not postulate sinister intentions. Therefore this conclusion is arbitrary.

To conclude: I considered the first four of whYNOT's objections to Journo’s analysis. They are NOT based on fact, to say the least. Simply and succinctly stated, they are crap. As usual, unfortunately☹️

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...