Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--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 by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 11:31 AM, whYNOT said:

I think "Empire" is often used loosely and metaphorically, the USA isn't one. It might appear to act like one.

I used to think that.  The road to opening my eyes was started for me when I read 'The Federalist Papers' and the potential future state was described as an empire even when confined to continental North America.  It was described as an empire  by the men who designed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2023 at 4:55 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Biden yesterday, January 25, 2023:

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

These will be brand new tanks built from scratch, possibly to avoid violating U.S. laws about exporting certain classified technologies that will be omitted from the Ukraine-bound tanks.  It will take a year to build them.  I predict they will never arrive in Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Grames said:
On 1/26/2023 at 10:55 PM, Jon Letendre said:

31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine."

These will be brand new tanks built from scratch [...] I predict they will never arrive in Ukraine.

This is possible.

However, the announcement itself played another, a much bigger role: it allowed Germany to accept to send its own tanks, Leopard 2, to Ukraine. And also to agree that other countries, having these tanks, to send them to Ukraine.

PS: The links in your signature do not work.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

PS: The links in your signature do not work.

Thanks for the heads up.  I have now edited my signature and have discovered that multiple links to different destinations all go to the last entered link, so if I have to choose one its to 'The Evidence of the Senses".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2023 at 8:25 PM, Eiuol said:
On 1/26/2023 at 5:17 PM, 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. 

I was responding to Jon Letendre accusing Biden of hypocrisy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Grames said:

and the potential future state was described as an empire even when confined to continental North America.  It was described as an empire  by the men who designed it.

I don't know if the word empire here refers to imperialism as an ideological outlook, or simply descriptive as all-encompassing. Which of the Federalist papers makes this claim, and what's the context? My initial reaction is that it's probably some passage that denigrates the antifederalists or those who don't want a federal government, and making a comparative case of resembling an empire like Rome. 

Still, you are saying that the United States of America is and always has been illegitimate? I mean, you are basically saying even the Constitution is trash and designed by people who want empires. The Constitution is the design of America after all.

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

I was responding to Jon Letendre accusing Biden of hypocrisy.

 

Biden is a hypocrite, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.thumb.jpeg.da67493dcb8219b9efe2df5f77c712ec.jpeg

THE DPRK FOREIGN MINISTRY CONDEMNED THE SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINIAN REGIME AND THE DISSOLUTION OF RUMORS AROUND COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA

On January 29, the head of the DPRK Foreign Ministry Department for US Affairs, Kwon Jong-geun, published the following press statement.

"In connection with the press statement by the deputy head of the Department of the Central Committee of the CPC, Kim Ye Jung, condemning the US decision to transfer Western-made tanks to Ukraine, on January 27, a representative of the White House National Security Council said that the American side would continue to supply Ukraine with weapons necessary for self-defense against the "aggressive war" allegedly unleashed by Russia.

Such formulations are nothing more than a ridiculous and hypocritical absurdity, which, however, fits into the perverted paradigm of the United States, which often pulls its nuclear strike weapons to the Korean peninsula under the pretext of "expanded deterrence" in response to someone's "provocation".

If the United States had not forced the planned expansion of NATO to the east to the detriment of Russia's just security interests, the conflict we have today would not have broken out in principle.

The behavior of the United States, which, despite the just concern and condemnation of the international community, persistently tries to pump Ukraine with offensive weapons, such as main battle tanks, is an anti-human crime aimed at maintaining international instability.

 

It's 2023 and North Korea is the voice of sanity.  smfh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know if the word empire here refers to imperialism as an ideological outlook, or simply descriptive as all-encompassing. Which of the Federalist papers makes this claim, and what's the context?

I just did a search and there are many more casual uses of the word empire than I remembered.  Rather than reproduce them here I will explain how to find them easily.  At the website https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers  click on the link for the full text.   Wait, I can just give that here: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10

The full text of Federalist #1 through #10 are now loaded in your browser, so just CTRL-F to search for 'empire'.  There are few instances of "British empire', and in Federalist #19 an extended recitation of the history of what Hamilton calls the 'German empire' but in the main he calls the collection of the 13 former colonies 'the empire', in the prospective future and even his present day.  He uses 'empire' almost interchangeably with 'union'.

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing achievement, but it is a design for an empire with a few built-in safeguards now discovered to be insufficient to prevent the descent of that empire into a degenerate state.

 

 

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...