Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Never mind. If you fail see the differences.

I know what the differences are, so which differences do you think I'm not noticing? 

43 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Back to "autocracy", what looks clear to us in those other countries which have a perceived and/or legitimate "autocratic leader" blinds many to how autocratic their own Western nations have been turning.

How is an autocratic leader legitimate? 

Still waiting on your opinion about Grames' post about unequivocally supporting Russia and unequivocally standing against American and Western interests (i.e. desires that America and the West be harmed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Still waiting on your opinion about Grames' post about unequivocally supporting Russia and unequivocally standing against American and Western interests (i.e. desires that America and the West be harmed).

That is an unjust smearing, and par for the course with you.

Grames wished ill to "the present American government and those who support its policies," and he stated he wanted to see "The American empire" defeated.

That is not the same as standing against legitimate interests and not the same as desiring harm to America, just the opposite, in fact.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I notice from Israel the (I think) minority who are bitterly against Zelensky because of his allegiances have taken to calling him "the Kapo" 

[...]

1. Is there a way for me to also "notice" this? IOW, do you have a link to this information coming from Israel. I wish to take a closer look at those which are calling Zelensky "Kapo".

I don't deny they exist; indeed, a lot of people, including you and Putin, claim Ukraine is a Nazi/Fascist state, etc. and thus Zelensky has to have Nazi allegiances. I do know what are your sources for such claims, I am now curious about the sources of the information coming from Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Grames wished ill to "the present American government and those who support its policies," and he stated he wanted to see "The American empire" defeated.

That is not the same as standing against legitimate interests and not the same as desiring harm to America, just the opposite, in fact.

It is the same, because I'm talking about America in the place as it exists right now, not America the place that exists in the unspecified future. He may desire the creation of a new America and would support the interests of that new America. But it is literally impossible to do anything to the interests of a country that doesn't exist. 

I'm talking about the so-called American Empire. I'm talking about the West as it exists today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The West as the GAE , the one that just shut down the world ? Yeah that needs to be knocked down a peg or two, mind you not the majority of people who inhabit the Empire , which I am one , but the technocract authoritarians that have centralized so much control gotta go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from an article by Joshua Cho, early 2022; Putin explicitly states his invasion rationales. Yeah, the Donbass features as one.

A widely unpublished essay, the reasons will become clear.

 

"Recreating empire?"

An oft-repeated corollary to the Western media’s frequent Hitler comparisons is that there was little point before the invasion in addressing Russia’s security concerns surrounding NATO expansion and the US’s unilateral abandonment of arms control treaties, since Putin supposedly wanted to recreate the Soviet Union or Russian Empire despite his repeated explicit denials. Putin’s alleged belief that the modern state of Ukraine has no right to exist, the argument goes, is proof of his supposed Hitlerian expansionist ambitions.

“Talk of ‘de-Nazification,’ while absurd on a factual level, is nonetheless revealing. It tells us that Putin is acting on his long-held belief that the Ukrainian government has no right to be independent. It hints at his ultimate goal: to transform Ukraine into a vassal of a new Russian empire,” wrote Zack Beauchamp for Vox (2/24/22).

The two sources Western media most cite to make this claim are Putin’s speech (2/21/22) recognizing the independence of the separatist Donbas republics, and an essay he wrote last year (7/12/21) titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Vox’s Zack Beauchamp (2/24/22) wrote that Putin “believes that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian.” Ha’aretz (3/17/22) published an op-ed comparing Putin’s July essay, with its “Hitlerian motifs,”  to Hitler’s Mein Kampf—particularly “the notion of an artificial and tragic division of a people that must be rectified by reunification.”

Perhaps the most frequent purveyor of this narrative is Timothy Snyder (4/18/18), who claimed that the war in Ukraine is a “colonial war”:

"In a long essay on “historical unity,” published last July, [Putin] argued that Ukraine and Russia were a single country, bound by a shared origin. His vision is of a broken world that must be restored through violence. Russia becomes itself only by annihilating Ukraine".

However, when one actually reads both sources, rather than relying on secondhand sources to explain what Putin meant, it quickly becomes apparent that these are blatant misrepresentations of what Putin said. Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” is long and convoluted, but although Putin talks about Russia and Ukraine’s shared historic, religious and linguistic heritage, and claims that “modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era,” he also stresses that Russia has acknowledged new geopolitical realities:

"Things change: Countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!… The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country". 

This point was repeated in Putin’s later speech (2/21/22), where Putin blamed the existence of the modern Ukrainian state on Vladimir Lenin and the USSR. Putin’s claim was not that Moscow should continue to govern all of Ukraine, however, but that Russia’s recognition of Ukrainian independence was an act of political generosity, in contrast to what he presented as Kyiv’s ungenerous treatment of the residents of Donbas:

"Despite all these injustices, lies and outright pillage of Russia, it was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine’s dignity and sovereignty".

Putin’s efforts to justify Russia’s invasion are not based on events that happened centuries ago; his historical accounts in these two texts, however self-serving, are not linked to attempts to justify violence. Rather, the speech (2/24/22) that declared the “special military operation” did so on the grounds that the “eastward expansion of NATO” that began in 1999 is “a matter of life and death,” and a “red line” for Russia’s security that had been crossed despite several warnings. 

He also maintained it was to “protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime” in the Donbas region. Such concerns are generally dismissed as pretextual in the West, but the UN’s count of civilian deaths in the Ukrainian civil war—3,321 as of January 2019 (UN OHCHR, 9/23/21)–is comparable to the UN civilian death toll from the Russian invasion, with a tiny fraction of the international outrage.

[...]

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2023 at 10:55 PM, Jon Letendre said:

... and not the same as desiring harm to America, just the opposite, in fact.

 

In fact, it is truly "just the opposite". I noted all those war critics I read, hear and some I have posted, to be *the* American patriots who hold their nation to highest standards. They come in many mixed, political kinds (in some areas you will differ strongly, but you know you could talk meaningfully and get along well with anyone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2023 at 8:31 PM, Eiuol said:

Still waiting on your opinion about Grames' post about unequivocally supporting Russia and unequivocally standing against American and Western interests (i.e. desires that America and the West be harmed).

?? Why must I be the one tasked with an opinion?

An aside (may be relevant):

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it". Mark Twain

IF, as I believe, NATO is inextricably tied to "American and Western interests"  I am of the opinion the USA should prepare to leave NATO.  (After this is over). Not that I can see it happening soon. But the binding "encumbrances" elsewhere are not in American - rational - interests.

The big picture I hear from geopoliticians is nearing the close of "a unipolar world" and the "rules -based order". Dominated and led by the USA during this post-Cold War period, for which I and most in the world would be thankful. But it has served its critical purpose - all good things must end.

I think their analysis is true, and the war was a catalyst for this change, for better or worse.

(They enthuse about the emerging multi-polarity of neutral, non-aligned, non-western countries, which would not support and/or condemn the West/Ukraine or Russia on issues of sanctions etc. . I have doubts).

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Why must I be the one tasked with an opinion?

I wanted to know what you thought.

23 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it". Mark Twain

His point is something about the spirit of the country, in the abstract. And I take it to mean approval of the government from administration to administration. I don't care about the Biden administration in particular, nor the Trump administration, but since I still generally support the American government, I care about American interests and want those to be is best off as possible. The same government that Grames refers to as the American Empire, whose interests he wants worse off as possible. 

But we certainly can't reify a "true America". All you can do is talk about the America that exists concretely, and its general form of government, and realize that another America would be entirely different. I would like such a thing. Even still, I would prefer the so-called American Empire, especially because I don't think supporting Russia would grant me anywhere near closer to the kind of America I would like. Further away in fact. Even if you want to claim that Russia is not a dictatorship, it isn't moving towards democracy or any notion of a more free government. Worst case scenario, the US is moving towards autocracy, but Russia is already there and shows no signs of improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 Even still, I would prefer the so-called American Empire, especially because I don't think supporting Russia would grant me anywhere near closer to the kind of America I would like.

A false dichotomy in there, and a non sequitur. To prefer an American Empire doesn't mean supporting Russia. And, an America without an "empire" surely would not consider Russia a rival and a threat - 'imperialist', political, economic nor military - and vice-versa. Two nations that simply live and let live.

There's enough I find wrong with Russia (at its present, immature stage of development); however, I condemn Ukraine's and the West's underhanded, reckless activities and where they've brought us.

My "support" - narrowed to the context of this war - comes from my educated opinion that Russia has been dealt a grave injustice by the West.

My favorite 'socialist' writer Caitlin Johnstone puts across more incisively my views than I can:  such as, her article picks on the "self-fulfilling prophecy" (I said about NATO too) - the scheme to eventually goad Russia into retaliation, in part, to finally justify NATO's (purposeless) expansion. We told you Russia was still dangerous!

https://mronline.org/2022/12/03/nato-exists-to-solve-the-problems-created-by-natos-existence/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

To prefer an American Empire doesn't mean supporting Russia.

It doesn't mean supporting Russia, but it can. Grames literally said he supports Russia. I stated my preferences as well. Not "I think Russia is right here" but "Russia is in the superior moral position on a global stage regarding just about any issue". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the defense minister put this unmentioned but widely-accepted fact out in the open. Ukraine is de facto in NATO, (and has been pre-invasion). Look out for his emotional blackmail - the guilt-trip, which without fail, accompanies the altruist doctrine.  The western support capacity, arms, instruction, covert troops, cash -etc.  (they die, we pay) ever digging the West into a deeper hole, demonstrates: Guilt works.

https://sputniknews.com/20230107/bombshell-admission-ukraine-is-carrying-out-natos-mission-against-russia-defense-chief-says-1106118578.html

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the boomer and boomer adjacent generation types are the major portion of the war hawks and mongers just like in the West. Vestiges of the fading collective memory of the last time war was worth it. For Gen Zers on war has only been a giant money pit and suffering generator with no real discernible ‘payoff’, perhaps, unless of course we count the total defeat of the ISIS Caliphate that was real, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Not "I think Russia is right here" but "Russia is in the superior moral position on a global stage regarding just about any issue". 

Just to clarify, since the sentence organization was weird, I'm saying that Grames' position, as stated, is that harm to America is desirable. Although he mentioned not really caring what happens in Russia, but the context of supporting Russia in this case because it directly harms American interests. Quite directly, support is in the context of Russia's actions as deliberately harming Western interests. Not "Russia has a right to defend itself", but "Russia as a country has done good work by attacking the West". 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Just to clarify, since the sentence organization was weird, I'm saying that Grames' position, as stated, is that harm to America is desirable. Although he mentioned not really caring what happens in Russia, but the context of supporting Russia in this case because it directly harms American interests. Quite directly, support is in the context of Russia's actions as deliberately harming Western interests. Not "Russia has a right to defend itself", but "Russia as a country has done good work by attacking the West". 

Since when is Ukraine a western interest?  Never.  It is only a relatively western place from the perspective of Russia.  Only the imperial conceptual framework that undergirds the American Empire can possibly construe Ukraine as a western interest.  The point of being an empire is that expansion to the maximum possible limit is necessary to keep the currency flowing, and what defines the maximum possible limit is repeated failures when attempting further expansion.

The American government has no business being as deeply involved in Ukraine as it is.  The personal finances of American government officials are tied to Ukrainian finance schemes, so they make Ukraine into government business.  It is corrupt.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it". Mark Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

Since when is Ukraine a western interest?  Never.  It is only a relatively western place from the perspective of Russia

It is for Ukraine to chose - freely - what orientation to prefer, be it Russia, or the West, or something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

It is for Ukraine to chose - freely - what orientation to prefer, be it Russia, or the West, or something else.

What is it you mean when you say " It is for Ukraine to chose.." ?

I infer that you mean 'in a perfectly moral world' a sovereign nation has sole discretion over its affairs and any actions it may take as long as those actions do not infringe on other nation's sovereignty and discretion. The Galt's Gulch of international relations.

My derision was directed at that attitude and the juxtaposition of the given reality of the current state of affairs.

It would be nearly impossible to argue agaisnt the rectitude for the position of national sovereignty, but freedom to make a choice and the actually ability to act on that choice is grounded in 'real world' circumstances. As unfortunate as it is 'might makes right' is still the prime and ultimate motive force in multinational relations. Ukraine may be morally free to make a choice for a western orientation, but given their lack of internal resources they can only act to the degree their benefactors will allow, eg billions of dollars of aid and military hardware. The West gets to decide if Ukraine 'lives or dies'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tadmjones said:
4 hours ago, AlexL said:

It is for Ukraine to chose - freely - what orientation to prefer, be it Russia, or the West, or something else.

What is it you mean when you say " It is for Ukraine to chose.." ?

I infer that you mean 'in a perfectly moral world' etc.

No, I mean it for the real world out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol: " ... Russia's actions as deliberately harming Western interests ... "

Grames: "Since when is Ukraine a western interest?"

Alex: "It is for Ukraine to chose"

First, Alex, I have no interest in discussing this or anything else with you, so I am unlikely to reply further. The above exchange is an good example of the games you usually play. You do not even try to read other discussants accurately or honestly — you instead typically twist their words into meanings obviously not intended in order to dismiss them and change the course of conversation.

Whether Ukraine is an essential American or western (whatever that means) interest is a question of fact. A question of facts and circumstances, not a decision for Ukraine to make. You could engage Grames' statement honestly, on the level of meaning obviously intended, but that's not your way.

This seems like a good time to repeat that the Biden Crime Family is in up to its neck in Ukrainian crimes and corruption and is in serious danger of igniting world war III in its desperation to keep its involvement hidden. Our future depends upon ending the Zelensky/Biden crime spree. Go, Putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Our future depends upon ending the Zelensky/Biden crime spree. Go, Putin.

Even if there is a "Zelensky/Biden crime spree", wanting Putin of all people to end it is beyond evil.

As is @Grameswish for Putin's Russia (Putin's Russia !!!) to overcome the West.

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...