About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[Eiuol]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

which could and would have enforced a just solution

I said appeal to, as in, request help or make others aware. 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A high cost to pay, but rational if the values gained are hierarchically higher.

Which is fine, but "saving the Ukrainians" isn't "doing what's best for Russia". 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Except he predicted correctly. NATO plus Ukraine are plainly demonstrating their enmity to Russia, for all time.

Well yeah, authoritarian and autocratic regimes are not respected. This is a good thing.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What matters, do the Russian people consider it legitimate?

We already went over how it doesn't matter how many people consent, autocratic and authoritarian regimes are still not legitimate. 

[whYNOT]

On 1/22/2023 at 5:58 AM, RationalEgoist said:

Why no mention of the recent Russian onslaught in Dnipro where over 40 people who lived in an apartment building were either vaporized or helplessly buried in the rubble? 

"UN charter"...yeah, whatever. 

By "onslaught" you think those people were deliberately targeted?

You believe killing civilians has been the RAF policy?

Is that what your preferred media tells you?

[whYNOT]

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I said appeal to, as in, request help or make others aware. 

Which is fine, but "saving the Ukrainians" isn't "doing what's best for Russia". 

Well yeah, authoritarian and autocratic regimes are not respected. This is a good thing.

We already went over how it doesn't matter how many people consent, autocratic and authoritarian regimes are still not legitimate. 

Nah, told you, I recognize your drift. This "legitimacy" subtly references the innate inferiority/superiority among nations and displays the attempt to rationalize the egregious interference into Ukraine's (read: Russia's) affairs by the West.

Who specifies and judges "legitimacy"?

It has been an interference that was planned overtly and covertly to bring Russia to heel under the Western hegemony (see: Overextending and Unbalancing Russia, Randcorp.) - ultimately, to Balkanize the country into smaller, weaker chunks.

Since, being less than a "perfect" government (like a few hundred others) the country cannot, you'd say, claim its rights to exist, i.e. their people's right to exist. 

I've said: either invade Russia - or let it be. No half way. These glaringly obvious past and recent measures to goad Russia into - perhaps - foolhardy responses in order to weaken/destroy it on another country's real estate, and with their manpower - while maintaining the West's righteous innocence for the history books, are duplicitous and hypocritical. Unfitting for free-ish nations, dropping to others' low standards.

An invasion that's not to be undertaken for anything less than an unmistakable dictatorship. Like N. Korea (and who is going to goad or invade them?)

Edited Tuesday at 03:19 AM by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

9 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

This "legitimacy" subtly references the innate inferiority/superiority among nations

I mean, yeah, autocracy is always inferior to democracy/constitutional republics. This isn't controversial.

10 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Who specifies and judges "legitimacy"?

We already went over objective criteria. The criteria that Rand provided. 

12 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

overtly and covertly to bring Russia to heel under the Western hegemony

To some extent, yes, it would be better for everyone if the Russian government adopted generally Western standards of democracy. This is a good thing. 

 

 

[whYNOT]

--so we don't have to fight Russia over here.

Did Schiff envisage the Russian Fleet with a thousand troop ships arriving unopposed off the US west coast, a few million soldiers ready to invade? I trust his self-delusional statement that set up Ukraine's sacrifice will go down in infamy with "Screw Putin's red lines!".

The all mighty, all conquering, superhuman "Russia" that spin doctors concocted to scare the children.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 05:34 AM by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I mean, yeah, autocracy is always inferior to democracy/constitutional republics. This isn't controversial.

We already went over objective criteria. The criteria that Rand provided. 

To some extent, yes, it would be better for everyone if the Russian government adopted generally Western standards of democracy. This is a good thing. 

 

 

We've been over that too. Democracy cannot be pressured on countries, they, the majority within them, need to discover its benefits for themselves - ideologically - otherwise the commitment to it will not last from one generation to the next. Then the slippage back to authoritarianism.

No more can it be "making the world safe for democracy" - delivering "Democracy" around to the natives, missionary-style. The system is not new on any, any more.

Additionally, and generally in the West, the exemplars of the system aren't as dedicated as they once were. Yet they keep up the pretensions of nominal adherence to democracies.

It's becoming more today like making the world safe for plutocracy. Or corporatocracy, perhaps.

Edited Tuesday at 05:36 AM by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Apropos C. Johnstone's article: "NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO's existence"

this amusingly apt image (when the unthinking can't do anything but repeat the same failure as before--"escalate" proceedings)

https://twitter.com/HumansNoContext/status/1617477466649497600

 

[Jon Letendre]

In case anyone still doubts what the Biden regime wants in Ukraine ... 

Biden on March 11, 2022:

"The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment, and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews - just understand, don't kid yourself, no matter what you all say, that's called World War Three."

Biden yesterday, January 25, 2023:

"Today I am announcing that the United States will be sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine."

Edited 20 hours ago by Jon Letendre

[Doug Morris]

20 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

31 Abrams tanks

Will they have American crews?  I don't think so.

[RationalEgoist]

The user's handle is RageAgainstWar? How amusing. I wonder if they have condemned the actions of the aggressor in this conflict, namely the Russian government. 

Yet another person led astray by the nihilist narrative that pervades every political corner (leftists, libertarians, nationalist conservatives, etc.) today. 

May the Ukrainians be victorious soon. 

[tadmjones]

The nihilists are the ones lamenting the cessation of death and destruction and not able to truly appreciate a proper victory. Lol

---

[Eiuol]

On 1/24/2023 at 12:14 AM, whYNOT said:

We've been over that too. Democracy cannot be pressured on countries, they, the majority within them, need to discover its benefits for themselves - ideologically - otherwise the commitment to it will not last from one generation to the next. Then the slippage back to authoritarianism.

You can pressure, as in pressure an autocratic regime to stop being autocratic through different diplomatic measures, and being defensive about if regimes dare to do anything outside their borders. Which is what's happening. No one is invading Russia, for good reason. 

But notice that you are responding to me saying that autocratic regimes really are inferior by nature. Not just worse, worse in terms of being illegitimate. Of course you can criticize the West if it wants a forceful introduction of democracy, but the fundamental disagreement here is that you think Russia is a legitimate regime. I'm perfectly glad to criticize Western foreign policy in a harsh way, but I'm not going to do that by defending or trying to legitimize Russia. I'm going to criticize Russian foreign policy just as harshly, and probably worse because the regime is autocratic. 

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Will they have American crews?  I don't think so.

You don't need to phrase it like it would be wrong or improper if American crews were operating them. And besides, it doesn't eliminate moral responsibility. Sure, indirect support through arms or funding shows less of a commitment than direct involvement, it still shows intention to harm Russia - which is a good thing. 

[Jon Letendre]

Imagine living in Russia, watching your government instigate World War Three and your possible vaporization by arming Mexico with offensive weapons for use against America, and yet downplaying what's happening on grounds that, well, at least no Russians will operate those arms, and besides, America is the aggressor.

[AlexL]

Site " 1420", micro-interviews in Moscow.

Theme: "Do you remember what people are dying for in Ukraine? It’s been 11 months now"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm68x5Jm1SA