Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RationalEgoist said:

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. 

Heh, I knew this would come. Putin happens not to be an Objectivist, you realize? 

That's why I followed up with "Objectively..." and argued rational principles.

He or Lavrov (I don't recall) stated they went by and legally adhered to (the nearest thing to international law available) the UN Charter.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Ayn Rand, Collectivized 'Rights':

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

Pathetic.

3 minutes! Well done. You are a great checker, nibbling away for any insignificant gotcha! I quoted exactly what I read in her interview.

But my main argument? Ukraine is a similar "outlaw"?

Nothing to add of substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
2 hours 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.

Yes, you repeat here all the time that the entire Western mainstream media marches in synch. But this requires a single command center, and this assumption is already a conspiracy theory.

As for the rest - it is a fake narrative. Take this:

Quote

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

Appearing now in the front are people gathered during the October 2022 "partial mobilization". Although the government claimed that only experienced people will be conscripted, in reality this was not the case They don't have the 12-months of basic training, most of them will have a 2-3 months of training, most of them were not adequately equipped and armed.

Many people are dodging the draft, were living the country or are hiding. The draft-dodging people who left Russia are estimated at 400'000 (a total of about a million left Russia since the start of the war). Estimations are based on the border controls statistics of the countries at the receiving end.

A second wave of drafting is expected in January... but according to the the government officials, everything goes according to the initial February 2022 plan !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

3 minutes! Well done. You are a great checker, nibbling away for any insignificant gotcha! I quoted exactly what I read in her interview.

But my main argument? Ukraine is a similar "outlaw"?

Nothing to add of substance.

  1. You don't have the minimal dose of honesty to admit that you were mistaken and try to change the subject.
  2. I comment whatever I chose to. And I chose to comment only on the AR's quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

He or Lavrov (I don't recall) stated they went by and legally adhered to (the nearest thing to international law available) the UN Charter.

Who said it is not so important, but do you recall what about they said it was in accordance with the UN Carter? Was it about the annexing of Crimea or was it about the pre-emptive Feb. 2022 war for  protecting DNR/LNR ? And what provision of the Charter it mentioned?

Then we will see if Lavrov/Putin was right. Maybe you will surprise me and take this challenge up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RationalEgoist said:

@whYNOT

 

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.

You have no leg to stand on. 

You are projecting.

I wanted nothing but a quick diplomatic solution, and said that often since March, because I knew (in broad strokes) where this could and would end up. A lot of death, and nothing to show for it. The Donbass would gain autonomy, or be lost anyway in conflict. The reasonable demand for Ukraine's neutrality could be conceded - or would be forced.  So - end it now. To go far enough as the war has, it could only be a capitulation by Ukraine. But I stated, too, that things should never be allowed to get to the point of *anyone* surrendering.

It is rather 'you' - the fanatical mainstream support - who would delight in surrender (Russia) and have dragged this on, in order to take revenge, punish, weaken, humiliate, regime-change... etc. Russia, while more died. Hopefully some of 'you' know by now that you don't sacrifice others' lives for righteous self-satisfaction or a mythical, glorious victory. The consuming belief at large and in the Establishment in a Ukraine "victory", which supposedly ¬justified¬ these sacrifices, owes much to a mystical 'Evil'. The objective evil was set in motion years ago in a causal chain. 

In all this, any contrarian who has tried to understand without emotion and who resisted all the media indoctrination, will see that the "innocent victimhood" of Kyiv is a flat-out fabrication. It does not "hold the moral high ground" as someone here said. If it seems I'm singing Putin's praises, it is because good v. evil conformists will only accept singing Zelensky's praises--or one will be condemned.

And Russia 'winning', is not singing Putin's praises, it is a matter of reality.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AlexL said:
  1. You don't have the minimal dose of honesty to admit that you were mistaken and try to change the subject.
  2. I comment whatever I chose to. And I chose to comment only on the AR's quote.

No, keep the subject going, please. I couldn't care less. I misquoted Rand. This is your most important contribution yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

If it seems I'm singing Putin's praises, it is because good v. evil conformists will only accept singing Zelensky's praises--or one will be condemned.

Basically, your position is what Grames said, but you don't even know it. He managed to say in 4 sentences what you struggle to say in 170 posts in a single thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

It is rather 'you' - the fanatical mainstream support - who have dragged this on, in order to take revenge, punish, weaken, humiliate, regime-change... etc. Russia, while more died.

Is this just another way of formulating the idea that most Ukrainians actually prefer caving to Putin's demands by giving up the Donbas and that it is only us outsiders who seek a decisive victory for Ukraine? Also, your usage of the term "fanatical" is interesting. Do you not think that foreign policy should be subordinated to moral law? A fanatical (read: principled) idea, indeed...

Look, whether you like it or not, the fact is that this war would never have had to happen in the first place if the Russian government had simply left Ukraine to its own devices back in 2014. To do this, the Russian state-machinery needs to drop the imperial big-brother complex, and face the fact that it has no right to demand that Ukraine exist as a puppet-state or that it remain geo-politically neutral. So long as it refuses to do this, any free country should recognize Russia for the threat she is, and act accordingly. 

Your whole Putinist/Eurasianist framing of the conflict as ultimately revolving around a fundamental threat to Russia is frankly not consistent with the facts of reality. It is Russia who is busy flattening Ukrainian cities and villages, not the other way around. Now, sure, if you think that Ukrainians should submit to their Russian overlords for all eternity, then I can see why allowing for Ukraine to develop independently can be interpreted as a threat to Russia. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

He or Lavrov (I don't recall) stated they went by and legally adhered to (the nearest thing to international law available) the UN Charter.

Yeah? What does the UN say about summary executions of civilians or bombing civilian infrastructure? 

Edited by RationalEgoist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

 are estimated at

Bla bla bla. To prove that Russia will lose. That Russia too has its share of anti-war dissidents and pacifists and draft dodgers. To prove Russia will lose.

You fanatics set a lot of store in a Ukraine victory, I notice. This is a massive psychological investment.

If they win, it shows finally how 'good' they are - and *I am*, by association -- but, if they lose...

I think the realization will begin to set in. A defeat means it was all for nothing. In tune with our gvts, we resisted rational, diplomatic efforts between two countries whose fight was none of our business.  We verbally urged Ukraine on to its heroic sacrifice and destruction, but nothing came of it. The harsh economic measures back home enacted by our government sanctions - self-sacrifice all for nothing. And the loathing of reality: Russia must not win! (Nuke Moscow).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Basically, your position is what Grames said, but you don't even know it. He managed to say in 4 sentences what you struggle to say in 170 posts in a single thread.

Yeah so? The argument is ongoing since events and new discoveries are dynamic. You constantly ask for a static evaluation. As if it was specially "revealed" to me. I'm not an intrinsicist unlike some.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, RationalEgoist said:

...about summary executions of civilians or bombing civilian infrastructure? 

Where do you get your propaganda? Take my word for it, which you won't, but the bulk of atrocities has been Ukrainian on civilians and captured soldiers. Bombing civilian infrastructure, is the precision strikes on the grid, electrical substations, the railways-- ah, I've been over this. Very few casualties, and those by missiles fired by Ukraine defenses. This is war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RationalEgoist said:

Is this just another way of formulating the idea that most Ukrainians actually prefer caving to Putin's demands by giving up the Donbas and that it is only us outsiders who seek a decisive victory for Ukraine? Also, your usage of the term "fanatical" is interesting. Do you not think that foreign policy should be subordinated to moral law? A fanatical (read: principled) idea, indeed...

Look, whether you like it or not, the fact is that this war would never have had to happen in the first place if the Russian government had simply left Ukraine to its own devices back in 2014. To do this, the Russian state-machinery needs to drop the imperial big-brother complex, and face the fact that it has no right to demand that Ukraine exist as a puppet-state or that it remain geo-politically neutral. So long as it refuses to do this, any free country should recognize Russia for the threat she is, and act accordingly. 

Your whole Putinist/Eurasianist framing of the conflict as ultimately revolving around a fundamental threat to Russia is frankly not consistent with the facts of reality. It is Russia who is busy flattening Ukrainian cities and villages, not the other way around. Now, sure, if you think that Ukrainians should submit to their Russian overlords for all eternity, then I can see why allowing for Ukraine to develop independently can be interpreted as a threat to Russia. 

Yeah? What does the UN say about summary executions of civilians or bombing civilian infrastructure? 

I believe you have not followed. There was only one side - early on - which sought and has continued to seek a resolution to the conflict, and it was not Kyiv or the West

In keeping (clearly) with NATO/Ukraine's plans, the prospective talks with Zelensky (arranged in Istanbul, early April) were scuppered by Boris Johnson as representative of the western backers.

If you don't think Russia validly worried it was facing an "existential threat" by NATO and Ukraine, this active sabotage of a truce and negotiation by the West confirms their worries to be legitimate. Why would any civilised, moral nation/s prevent a diplomatic solution to a war? When such Gvt's should be encouraging peace (particularly with a nuclear country)? Answer, they wanted the war to go ahead. Putin's fear was proven accurate, not his paranoia. 

"Puppet State" is a misnomer: having a neutral neighbor was good for Russia, which had not interfered since Ukraine independence up until the Gvt. overthrow and the business in the Donbass started. More, the very best for the Ukrainians; they could have grown prosperous poised between Europe and Russia and independent of each.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:
7 hours ago, AlexL said:

 [Russian casualties] are estimated at (because you listed the Ukrainian ones)

Bla bla bla. To prove that Russia will lose. That Russia too has its share of anti-war dissidents and pacifists and draft dodgers. To prove Russia will lose.

No, the Russian casualties that I mentioned do not  prove that Russia will lose. They only prove that Russia suffered comparable losses (in absolute terms, but greater losses in relative terms). Russia may win. But Russian losses prove that, against all odds and all expectations, Ukraine is not (yet?) losing.

Quote

If they win, it shows finally how 'good' they are - and *I am*, by association -- but, if they lose...

No, if a party wins, it will not mean that it (and its supporters) were morally right. It will only mean that... well, they won.

Only if your prediction was that Russia will win, and in fact it will lose, then you were wrong - in your prediction.

Quote

Russia must not win! (Nuke Moscow).

Yes, Putin's Russia must not win. Its imperial ambitions must be squashed. For now and for the future. Exactly as the case of Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan and for the same reason - it represents a clear danger for the entire Europe (and for the US, as long as it is a NATO member, which it arguably shouldn't).

As for the method - "Nuke Moscow" is not the only way.

PS: don't forget my challenge about your Putin/Lavrov claim of Russia fully abiding by the UN Charter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I wanted nothing but a quick diplomatic solution, and said that often since March, because I knew (in broad strokes) where this could and would end up.

You indeed called all the time for a diplomatic solution (and blamed Ukraine and the evil West to reject it).

Now: what diplomatic solution would seem to you to be fair and just? Forget about the feasibility, one that would be fair and just only.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

Now: what diplomatic solution would seem to you to be fair and just? Forget about the feasibility, one that would be fair and just only.

I'm not sure it matters, because when it gets down to it, he thinks that Russia is a sovereign nation with valid moral and legal claims, while you and I think that it is essentially a dictatorship which has no valid moral or legal claims. If he wants to accuse us of hypocrisy, and think we should also call the Ukraine a dictatorship, that just means he shouldn't be defending Russia either - Ukraine and Russia would both be illegitimate. 

And then we will get weird accusations about being racist against Russians. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2023 at 11:48 AM, AlexL said:

Only if your prediction was that Russia will win, and in fact it will lose, then you were wrong - in your prediction.

 

It cannot lose - bar - a desperate, last ditch NATO military entrance - while not guaranteeing Russian defeat anyway, but, bring the world to the brink.  I could not see how they would ever lose conventionally. Russia's resources are too deep. 

If that small fact had been better understood, maybe (one can't tell with those zealots and Russophobes) there could have been little motive or appetite by the West to "defeat Russia" using the Ukraine Army, but a rush to peace negotiations. The experts seemed to have been clueless (about the strength of Russian military and economics and politics), and now they are paying for it, with no way to withdraw without admitting their irrationality and sacrifices - and the bitter blow of losing to Russia.

My first concern was for Ukraine. My "prediction" was, basically - heads you (Ukraine) lose, tails you lose. (Post invasion). But with an incalculable difference in losses/concessions if they'd have been rational and valued life. One can observe now that the 'best' future result for Ukraine after an artificially-prolonged (by Western assistance and urging) *might* be battling on to an eventual, future stalemate. However, a Pyrrhic victory would leave the East Ukraine still under Russian occupation, after many more deaths and far more destruction in Ukraine and Russia. (And always, that risk one side does something insane. Most likely Kyiv). That's Ukraine's ¬best¬ military outcome, possible, and it is terrible.

All could have been circumvented with dedicated, honest diplomats and negotiators first up. They (the Western alliance and Ukraine) convinced themselves to see a zero-sum, win/lose outcome, the surreal anticipation of certain victory; learning of their greedy intent and malice, has forced Russia to modify their initial, compromising ambitions, to adopt "win/lose" also. Not good news for Ukraine nor the potential of talks at this stage.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not sure it matters, because when it gets down to it, he thinks that Russia is a sovereign nation with valid moral and legal claims, while you and I think that it is essentially a dictatorship which has no valid moral or legal claims. If he wants to accuse us of hypocrisy, and think we should also call the Ukraine a dictatorship, that just means he shouldn't be defending Russia either - Ukraine and Russia would both be illegitimate. 

And then we will get weird accusations about being racist against Russians. 

 

You are not wrong. On the face of it I cannot fathom why either side of this conflict, both basic "outlaws" per Rand, or autocracies, according to other political standards - would be defended by free-er nations.

Leave alone, the insane fervor of Ukraine's support.

But I do know why and everyone should by now.

Little or nothing of all this has been concerned with the "defense of Ukraine" - it has been all about the "attack on Russia" (by other means, a "proxy").

You are wrong. Both have the right to self-defense. For the least value a country and people have in others' eyes, they themselves must be able to have the right to protect what little they have or find in themselves. Even the worst can't be expected to self-sacrifice.

That you personally or anyone here are not "racist against Russians", is not at all pertinent. Understanding attitudes by the greater numbers is my aim and whom I talk about. I read and pay attention to comments following stories, YouTubes, articles and the like. Maybe close to a thousand this year. There is a useful way to detect popular opinions, politics, morals and trends; I found an overwhelming collectivist, Russian-hatred, catered to by the media propaganda. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
On 1/2/2023 at 10:48 AM, AlexL said:

Only if your prediction was that Russia will win, and in fact it will lose, then you were wrong - in your prediction.

It cannot lose [...]

You misunderstood what I wrote. Hint: it was a point of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2023 at 11:48 AM, AlexL said:

Yes, Putin's Russia must not win. Its imperial ambitions must be squashed. For now and for the future. Exactly as the case of Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan and for the same reason - it represents a clear danger for the entire Europe (and for the US, as long as it is a NATO member, which it arguably shouldn't).

 

That old mantra. Russia's "imperial ambitions". "They" did it once (or twice) they *can* do it again: they *want* to do it again.

Historical determinism.

But rather than find out directly from Putin (in the proceedings of negotiations early in the year) - if imperialism could indeed be his intention, let's instead ignore him, and discussions, and promote this ludicrous and dangerous fallacy.

Fear mongering subjugates everyone nowadays. E.g the controls over populaces by Covid fears. 

I've argued this - in the modern era it is a rank impossibility to conquer - and then, occupy, against a population's will - entire countries.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:
On 1/2/2023 at 10:48 AM, AlexL said:

Yes, Putin's Russia must not win. Its imperial ambitions must be squashed. For now and for the future. Exactly as the case of Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan and for the same reason - it represents a clear danger for the entire Europe (and for the US, as long as it is a NATO member, which it arguably shouldn't).

That old mantra. Russia's "imperial ambitions". "They" did it once (or twice) they *can* do it again: they *want* to do it again.

Historical determinism.

1. They (Putin, in fact) are doing it right now

2. About the imperial ambitions (w/o the scare quotes) I posted here a short presentation.

Putin detailed in public his imperial ambitions for Russia in an article  and several speeches. They are readily available, also in English, on the Kremlin site. Exact references: on request.

PS: don't forget my challenge about your Putin/Lavrov claim about Russia fully abiding by the UN Charter in Ukraine events.

Edited by AlexL
Added PS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

For the least value a country and people have in others' eyes, they themselves must be able to have the right to protect what little they have or find in themselves. Even the worst can't be expected to self-sacrifice.

Victims of dictatorships may defend themselves as they see fit, but not to wield the power of the dictatorship to do so. 

I would've expected you to argue that I'm flat out wrong that Russia is a dictatorship, I find it bizarre and disheartening that instead your argument went to justifying a moral right for dictatorships to defend themselves. I wonder though if you read Grames' post and agree with him?

5 hours ago, AlexL said:

You misunderstood what I wrote. Hint: it was a point of logic.

Please, try to recognize when going over all the facts again is a waste of time. It starts to come across as if you don't understand philosophical principles either, and are deliberately avoiding talking about them. It would be better if you try to make it into something productive. The real issue is a moral issue, because that colors the way that facts should be interpreted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

1. They (Putin, in fact) are doing it right now

 

Rubbish.

The Russian Army are - right now - fighting to gain and hold only a section of Ukraine, and not having an easy time of it, no walk in the park.

Only simpletons would believe that army can easily waltz on further, into the enemy strongholds - or to overcome and occupy other countries.

That Eastern/southern chunk incorporates a large majority of loyalists who badly want to secede from Ukraine after what Kyiv did to them. NOT people who'd strongly resist occupation by a Russian "empire", as would occur anywhere else. And I've explained at length why an immediate rescue mission in Donbass was necessary and important to Putin. (Backed by Jack Matlock's opinion that Putin wouldn't have invaded if the Minsk treaty had been enacted).

This type of soft thinking has been common by propagandizing pundits and public - and evades a simultaneous self-contradiction:

a. Ukraine can beat Russia and is!

b. After Ukraine, Russia will be a powerful menace to other European countries!

Weak - or powerful? Losing- winning? You can't have it both ways. At the same time and in the same respect.

a. was mere (immoral--evil, in fact) morale-boosting to keep Ukrainans fighting on the West's behalf.

b. was scare-mongering to hold the EU united in the (self-defeating) sanctions against Russia.

You've been played.

There's not a true military pundit who gives credibility to Putin's "imperialism", only armchair experts and the like, disconnected from reality.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

...

There's not a true military pundit who gives credibility to Putin's "imperialism".

Well you can stake your house on the bet that it is not pure altruism either.  

But along this line of thought, for researching the deeper Russian motives and particularly the influences on Putin's thoughts and actions this piece at the Unz Review is informative.   Russia's Neo-Byzantinism  (The author's citations and quotes are good, his parting thought about Muslim Turkey also having any Byzantine cultural influence is not good because Islam has its own justification and precedent for mixing church and state.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Grames said:

Well you can stake your house on the bet that it is not pure altruism either.  

 

I am very sure Putin decided Russia was going to take ¬some thing¬ from all this, to make it worth their while.

Just, I gather from several observers, on balance, he would have preferred avoiding the predictable sacrifices of needing to go to war.

Russia has quite enough land and people (and resources)! 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...