Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Grames said:

No.  From the medical malpractice of the covid "vaccines" to the embrace of wild climate theories to attack standards of living to unconstrained fiat money creation to recklessly risking global thermonuclear war the present American government and those who support its policies are evil and a personal danger and I wish them ill.

And that is why you "now fully support Russia's cause in the Ukraine operation" ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:
7 hours ago, AlexL said:

Sarcasm ?

I don't think he's sarcastic...

Yes, I am shocked, he did confirm this.

I thought that @whYNOT, @Jon Letendreand @tadmjonesare marginal here, on this Objectivism forum, but it seems that they are here more mainstream then I thought...

I guess they think of themselves as some kind of courageous nonconformists, while being of the worst kind of conformists.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

I thought that @whYNOT, @Jon Letendreand @tadmjonesare marginal here, on this Objectivism forum, but it seems that they are here more mainstream then I thought...

Well, they are certainly marginal in the sense of being intellectually uninteresting and un-dynamic. That's why I went on that Nick Fuentes comparison, pointing out that he makes a moral argument and is quite unequivocal about his views. He makes an argument with meaning and consistency. Mainstream or not doesn't matter, because less intelligent people will grab onto these arguments without comprehending the philosophical principles underneath. When Fuentes calls America the Great Satan, he means liberal democracy as embodied by America is a source of decay in the world and that a real America would be strong and powerful especially on a national level. Even if Russia isn't the greatest, at least it isn't America. 

I said before that supporting Russia in this case isn't a matter of really anything to do with whether war was the right decision. It's not that NATO was being aggressive, or that Russia is defending particular interests economic or otherwise, or that the Ukraine needs to be left alone. Really it's about being for Western liberal values, or being for autocratic nationalism that stands against the so-called decadence of Western democracy. And I'm sure that Grames could talk about these things on that level of abstraction. Grames would be part of a wider idea that liberal democracy doesn't work, including the nongovernment institutions that operate by those standards. The whole system is corrupt head to toe, and America is the source. If I'm off base, he can correct me.

I'm not actually against overturning and revolutionizing the entire system, I just completely disagree with what the disease is. Therefore, I also disagree with any treatment based on that diagnosis. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More exposed, Hollande knew as well. This was an orchestrated Western plot, which the Donbass people and we naifs took as a decent attempt at making peace.

"Indeed a ploy"

"Successful resilience" [by Ukraine] - Hollande

Closer to: the greater loss of lives by Ukraine in their courageously foolhardy, suicidal attempt to "beat Russia".

Engineered by none other than Hollande, Merkel and Poroshenko to gain time for a powerful Ukraine assault to commit large casualties when certainly overwhelming the East.

And knowingly, unless NATO and the EU are idiots, draw Putin in.

Therefore, NO deal at Minsk was remotely considered, a deal that if actuated might very well have spared everybody this war. What Hollande etc. did, was create conditions for a war with their sly trickery. He's now coming out for his share of the limelight, apparently unaware of his confessed guilt: his causal role in subsequent deaths and most likely defeat of Ukraine. Something about Woke Leftists and narcissists, they aren't ever embarrassed or experience guilt.

Others will wonder how these Masters of the World sleep at night?

 

 

Hollande backs up Merkel revelation on Donbass peace

Ex-French leader agreed with former German counterpart's description of the real purpose behind Minsk agreements
Hollande backs up Merkel revelation on Donbass peace
FILE PHOTO. French President Francois Hollande (R) and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. ©  Thierry Chesnot/Getty Images

The 2014 Minsk Agreement was indeed a ploy to buy Ukraine time and should be credited for Kiev’s “successful resilience” now, former French president Francois Hollande said on Friday. Confirming former German chancellor Angela Merkel’s assessment of the truce, Hollande also blamed US weakness for the failure to deter Russia.

Earlier this month, Merkel described Minsk as “an attempt to give Ukraine time” to build up its military. Speaking with the Kyiv Independent, a pro-government Ukrainian outlet, Hollande agreed, saying Merkel was “right on this point.”

“Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity,” Hollande said, adding that it also stopped the advance of Donbass “separatists” on Mariupol.

RT, from the Kyiv Independent

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2022 at 5:31 PM, Eiuol said:

The right answer would be actively seek to obliterate both or do absolutely nothing. Of course, presuming both countries aren't legitimate. 

 

Obliterate! A country/countries you've not even been attacked by? Now you are sounding like the Oist fundamentalists from the old days.

Nuke Tehran!

Aren't legitimate? Who judges such? (Not dogmatic Oi'sts - I trust).

Supposedly the millions of individual citizens' lives aren't "legitimate", only one huge collective to obliterate.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Obliterate! A country/countries you've not even been attacked by? Now you are sounding like the Oist fundamentalists from the old days.

Usually that would be the wrong choice if we are talking about invasions (the important point being that a dictatorship would have no moral basis to claim that force was initiated against them), but anyway, I meant obliterate as in seek out what would ruin that country's government. I would seek out the obliteration of the Iranian government, but I wouldn't suggest military operations at all. If Thailand invaded Myanmar, I wouldn't care at all. If Saudi Arabia invaded Iran, the only diplomatic option I would support is the complete dissolution of both governments, and maybe interfere in both sides of that war by screwing with the Saudi's and the Iranians with the hopes of leaving both governments worse off. 

24 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Who judges such?

20 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Supposedly the millions of individual citizens' lives aren't "legitimate", only one huge collective to obliterate.

We were talking about the Rand quote, so you already know that "who judges" is whether a country qualifies as a dictatorship according to objective criteria, and that it's not a comment at all about individual citizens. They would be victims of their government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that private citizens—whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers—have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government. Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war: a government of limited powers, bound by constitutional restrictions—or an unlimited government, open to the pressure of any group with warlike interests or ideologies, a government able to command armies to march at the whim of a single chief executive?

http://cultureofreason.org/style/img/capitalismtheunknownideal.jpg

“The Roots of War,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking on the other side, CNN. Some comfort food for anyone still in their propaganda bubble. About every second word, is wishful thinking, fabrication, misidentification of Russian actions, underestimation of its superior military strength and resolve, projection or deflection, and a morale-boost for Kyiv and "the collective West"--

published at this moment, New Year's day, when the Ukraine Army is almost down and out and could be as little as 30-60 days from capitulation. All them 'war correspondents' are PR stooges for Kyiv and also must take blame for prolonging the war, increasing war-casualties. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/01/europe/putin-ukraine-war-shift-europe-security-intl-cmd/index.html

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark humor on "prolonging war" and mass self-delusions of victory. Lifted from an anonymous online poster

Putin, Day 10. We would settle for demilitirization and the 2 republics.

The Comedian: NO! (30,000 dead)

Putin, Day 100: We would settle for demilitirization, the 2 republics, and all the territory we've claimed.

The Comedian: No! We are also going to retake Crimea! (75,000 dead).

Putin Day 200: We would settle for demilitirization, the 2 republics, all the territories we claimed, and Odessa and Kharkov.

The Comedian: Slava Ukraini! (100, 000 dead)

Etc...

...

Putin, some time 2023: Gives a speech about why you shouldn't put a crooked comedian in charge of a country...

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

... the Ukraine Army is almost down and out and could be as little as 30-60 days from capitulation.

Wishful thinking. There are no signs that Russia is winning, only hopes based on mechanically counting and comparing the potential assets, like GDP or population.

And ignoring:

  • the motivation of the Ukrainian military,
  • the Western weapons,
  • Western sanctions, 
  • depletion of some important armament stocks,
  • their lower quality,
  • Russians' avoidance of recruitment,
  • and so on.

The race is far from being run...

(I almost never watch or read CNN, but this linked analysis is similar to the Institute's for the Study of War, a source I found with time to be quite reliable.)

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

not sure why you quoted that.

"...open to the pressure of any group with warlike interests or ideologies..."

Doesn't ring a bell?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

 Dark humor on "prolonging war" and mass self-delusions of victory. Lifted from an anonymous online poster

Putin, Day 10. We would settle for demilitirization [😁] and the 2 republics.

The Comedian: NO! (30,000 dead)

Putin, Day 100: We would settle for demilitirization, the 2 republics, and all the territory we've claimed.

The Comedian: No! We are also going to retake Crimea! (75,000 dead)[...]

Russia's military casualties are comparable with Ukraine's, so that the dark humor is easily reversible.

Quote

Putin, some time 2023: Gives a speech about why you shouldn't put a crooked comedian in charge of a country...

Chances are that Zelenski will outlive the secluded dwarf (Putin) as president...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Dark humor on "prolonging war" and mass self-delusions of victory. Lifted from an anonymous online poster

Putin, Day 10. We would settle for demilitirization and the 2 republics.

The Comedian: NO! (30,000 dead)

Putin, Day 100: We would settle for demilitirization, the 2 republics, and all the territory we've claimed.

The Comedian: No! We are also going to retake Crimea! (75,000 dead).

Putin Day 200: We would settle for demilitirization, the 2 republics, all the territories we claimed, and Odessa and Kharkov.

The Comedian: Slava Ukraini! (100, 000 dead)

Etc...

...

Putin, some time 2023: Gives a speech about why you shouldn't put a crooked comedian in charge of a country...

 

But all of this implies that Russia has a legitimate right to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign nation. It doesn't. An outlaw nation can claim no rights for itself. Your argument is equivalent to a thief saying "oh, I'll just seize 10% of your property, and this is ok". Well, no, because theft is objectively wrong. 

21 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"...open to the pressure of any group with warlike interests or ideologies..."

Doesn't ring a bell?  

I think this is a dishonest framing of what Rand was trying to get at. Did you know, for instance, that she publicly rejected the idea that there existed such a thing as the "military-industrial complex"? Rand was no pacifist, not by a long shot. She was in favor of increasing the military budget, she thought that a military strike against Iran would be morally proper, and she argued against a nuclear freeze during the Cold War. 

Again, the problem here is that you're making arguments which are not in line with Objectivism. You can have your separate views, but keep them to yourself. Or go to some MAGA forum and spread them there. 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Obliterate! A country/countries you've not even been attacked by? Now you are sounding like the Oist fundamentalists from the old days.

This is so corrupt. "Oist fundamentalists"? What does this even mean? Who are you referring to?

This is an Objectivist forum, so God forbid that the views expressed here should be in line with that philosophy...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

(I almost never watch or read CNN, but this linked analysis is similar to the Institute's for the Study of War, a source I found with time to be quite reliable.)

All sources -informing¬ each other... a mutual echo chamber.

On the other hand, no shortage of willing soldiers - reservists having taken the required 12 months of basic training (at age 18-27) over previous years - advanced armaments and armour many appearing only now in the front, munitions production lines incomparable in the West, and a grim stoicism to defend Russia in what they see has become an existential war against the Western coalition.

With poor strategies, the UAF has placed winning territory and media headlines above manpower. Every advance came with large losses. Caring less for PR, the RAF has conserved their men with tactical retreats (hailed as "victories") during the first phase when their numerical number was low and lines were stretched thin. They are presently coming to strength. 

Guns alone don't win wars ("Send more weapons" - the machine-oriented, determinist attitude), while well-looked after and supplied men - with the guns for the task - and better tactics do.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A large-scale instance [of political smear-tactics], in the 1930’s, was the introduction of the word “isolationism” into our political vocabulary. It was a derogatory term, suggesting something evil, and it had no clear, explicit definition. It was used to convey two meanings: one alleged, the other real—and to damn both.

The alleged meaning was defined approximately like this: “Isolationism is the attitude of a person who is interested only in his own country and is not concerned with the rest of the world.” The real meaning was: “Patriotism and national self-interest.”

What, exactly, is “concern with the rest of the world”? Since nobody did or could maintain the position that the state of the world is of no concern to this country, the term “isolationism” was a straw man used to misrepresent the position of those who were concerned with this country’s interests. The concept of patriotism was replaced by the term “isolationism” and vanished from public discussion.

The number of distinguished patriotic leaders smeared, silenced, and eliminated by that tag would be hard to compute. Then, by a gradual, imperceptible process, the real purpose of the tag took over: the concept of “concern” was switched into “selfless concern.” The ultimate result was a view of foreign policy which is wrecking the United States to this day: the suicidal view that our foreign policy must be guided, not by considerations of national self-interest, but by concern for the interests and welfare of the world, that is, of all countries except our own.

“‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RationalEgoist said:

But all of this implies that Russia has a legitimate right to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign nation. It doesn't. An outlaw nation can claim no rights for itself. Your argument is equivalent to a thief saying "oh, I'll just seize 10% of your property, and this is ok". Well, no, because theft is objectively wrong. 

 

Another "sovereign nation", Russia, has the right to self-defense. Pre-emptive defense, when its neighbor was militarizing with outside help, was on the verge of a membership in a distinctly unfriendly NATO, and conducted clear belligerence upon their (ethnic, Russian) civilians. Which obviously - as anyone knows, now - was meant to incite wider warfare with Ukraine against Russia .

So do you hope for things to improve? They could only get worse for Russia in that situation.

This pre-emptive, limited attack was a normal and rational response by any nation; except for this: Russia is considered sub-normal and Russians, sub-human. Prejudice by 'group' and "chemical predestination" (AR) is a determinist, collectivist judgment, not any part of Objectivism.

The theft of property? Well within the UN charter, is "self-determination" of a people. And those people come with - are inseparable from - lands, businesses and properties.

"Objectively", WHO is going to force those people and their properties to return to Kyiv, its former and present tormentors? By what right? Ukraine lost its sovereign right to them and their land by its debased acts.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2022 at 6:11 PM, Eiuol said:

When Fuentes calls America the Great Satan, he means liberal democracy as embodied ...

I'm not actually against overturning and revolutionizing the entire system, I just completely disagree with what the disease is. Therefore, I also disagree with any treatment based on that diagnosis. 

 

What is your diagnosis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@whYNOT

So, to repeat myself (once again), one line of argument could be that the United States should not support Ukraine if doing so would constitute an act of self-sacrifice. Provided that a person could demonstrate this objectively, I would say that they could still grant Ukraine's moral superiority over the Russian government and maintain their position of isolationism without a contradiction. 

But you, on the other hand, actually want Russia to win! You're obviously trying to sing Putin's praises, to some extent. Ask yourself whether or not you can honestly see Ayn Rand doing that if she were alive today. Consider the fact that she was opposed to the war in Vietnam, but that she was equally opposed to a victorious Viet Cong. Unlike in VIetnam, the United States has sent no troops of its own to Ukraine. It's somewhat akin to America's support for Israel (which Rand publicly supported) throughout its wars against the Arab countries. 

Objectivism says that a free nation can invade a dictatorship if it's in their self-interest to do so. So, in other words, it isn't recognition of the supposed "rights" of the dictatorship which should hold a free nation back. Nor does it come down to whether or not the free nation has been attacked by the dictatorship, as you claimed earlier. 

You have no leg to stand on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Well within the UN charter

Seriously? Rand despised the United Nations and advocated for its termination. She rejected the UN's ruling that the Palestinians were legally entitled to the West Bank and Gaza after the Six-Day War, so I assume that she would reject whatever you mentioned as well. 

Objectivists do not recognize the UN as a moral or legal authority. 

Edited by RationalEgoist
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, RationalEgoist said:

@whYNOT

 

 

Objectivism says that a free nation can invade a dictatorship if it's in their self-interest to do so. So, in other words, it isn't recognition of the supposed "rights" of the dictatorship which should hold a free nation back. Nor does it come down to whether or not the free nation has been attacked by the dictatorship, as you claimed earlier. 

You have no leg to stand on. 

So? Go ahead, what stops them? Let the West declare war and invade Russia.

BUT will it be "in their self-interest to do so"?

(And you slightly misquote.  Rand - who said any free nation - etc., etc., while she didn't specify "if it's in their self-interest to do so". She said or indicated it's not a duty to do so).

Get this excerpt below: "A country that violates the rights of its own citizens- is an outlaw and can claim no rights".

That's exactly what Ukraine has been doing to a portion of its citizens. Killing and injuring its civilians while pretending to make a peace treaty, which allowed them time to build and attack them with a bigger force later -- that IS violating their rights.

I.E. Ukraine is as much an outlaw as Russia. It "can claim no rights", e.g. to the Donbass.

Therefore, where is the reasoning for the West helping defend (and morally support) one "outlaw" - at enormous cost --but not the other outlaw?

Pray tell me. Your "leg" isn't sturdy.

PLAYBOY
. . . And that any free nation today has the moral right—though not the duty—to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?
RAND
Correct. A dictatorship—a country that violates the rights of its own citizens—is an outlaw and can claim no rights.
Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

More exposed, Hollande knew as well. This was an orchestrated Western plot [...]

It is not the case for you to exult. Here is why:

On the subject of Minsk Accords you repeated dozens and dozens of times that Ukraine did not abide by it. I offered to discuss this subject and, because it is you who made such claims, I invited you to summarize

  • its provisions (Minsk II specifically), 
  • and how well or badly both parties abode to it.

You did not, as usual. If you had, you would have found out that none of the parties abode to it. 

I would have encouraged you to find out what arguments pro and contra were advanced, not the most ridiculous ones, but the best, i.e. the most plausible ones, as objectivity demands.

You would have learned, in particular, why Putin categorically refused to let the elections in the separatist regions to be held after the Kiev military secures the border with Russia. And why this sequence (together with the provision that a new Constitution should give the separatists an important number of sits in Kiev's government), would guarantee that Ukraine's foreign policy will be dictated by Russia and it will never be able to adhere to the European Union. That is: loose its independence and sovereignty.

The Minsk II was signed 

  • after the Ukrainian's military debacle in Debaltzevo (Feb. 2015) and
  • under the strong pressure from France (Hollande) and Germany (Merkel)

The signature of this accord was met with big protests in Kiev (dozen of thousands), and in Parliament.

The then Ukrainian President, Poroshenko, was afterwards accused of high treason. In his defense he came (in April 2022) with the excuse that, although the Accord he signed was awful, it gave Ukraine time to rearm. Which is a half-lie : Ukraine was, by February 2022, not sufficiently rearmed, and it was only saved

  • by the courageous President (who was offered by Biden to be extracted from Kiev for an exile in Poland, but refused categorically)
  • by its highly motivated and inventive military,
  • by the stupidity of Russia's officers and apathy of the soldiers.

[Zelensky proved to be a bad peace-time president, but his war-time determination rehabilitates him - in part.]

Merkel and Holland also had something to be forgiven for: for the blindness vis-à-vis Putin, for having pressured Ukraine into the potentially disastrous Minsk II, for having amplified Germany's energetical dependency from Russia. All this had contributed to the current political and economic crises in Europe, but not only.

As a consequence, Merkel, and now Hollande, took over the older Poroshenko's excuse. And also implicitly praised themselves how far-sighted, prescient politicians they were...

The strongest argument you came with in favor of Minsk is that, once the accord was signed, it must be observed - whatever the consequences might be. This is not so: the Roman Law already, and also the Public International Law practice, provide for an wise escape clause: one does not have to keep a promise if this is fatal - but the standard for this is very strict.

Edited by AlexL
Small edits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

And you slightly misquote.  Rand - who said any free nation - etc., etc., while she didn't specify "if it's in their self-interest to do so". She said or indicated it's not a duty to do so.

Ayn Rand, Collectivized 'Rights':

Quote

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

Therefore @RationalEgoistdid not misquote, and you didn't check - as usual. I needed less then 3 minutes to check. 

Pathetic.

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...