About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Your problem is reversal of cause and effect.
The red line for Russia was identified by Putin to be Ukraine - right? Nato was expanding East...

Our subject right now was NOT Putin's opposition to Ukraine's NATO membership.

Our subject was the question : did "the collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military before or after Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine. The answer is important, because if the Western military aid started after Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine, the military aid cannot be the cause of the war.

You were the first to address this topic, namely with the following:

23 hours ago, whYNOT said:

the collective west for years builds and supplies the Ukraine regime's military powers

Now: Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine in February-March 2014. Therefore, in order to justify the claim that the military aid to Ukraine was the cause of the 2014-2023+ war, you have to show that the West provided Ukraine with military aid before 2014.

Please do this and only this; I will simply ignore anything else.

Edited February 7 by AlexL
for clarity

[Grames]

On 2/4/2023 at 11:02 AM, Eiuol said:

But you are also talking about supporting Russia, which is different than staying out of the conflict. What would be beneficial about Russia's success?

America can't lose and exit the situation without financial obligations without Russia winning.   Even a military draw with present frontlines as new borders means Biden's Billions and his kickbacks keep flowing forever.

[Grames]

On 2/6/2023 at 7:45 PM, AlexL said:

You can call however you want the Russia's 2014 actions in Ukraine (snatching Crimea and organizing and feeding with arms and personnel a separatism in Donbas).

The fact is that "the collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military only after Putin's Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. 

The CIA toppled the existing legimate government of the Ukraine in 2014.  Having failed at the espionage game of force, Putin trumped the Americans by resorting to more direct force.   Americans started this shit.  

[Eiuol]

20 minutes ago, Grames said:

America can't lose and exit the situation without financial obligations without Russia winning.

Right, so you still need an analysis of what Russia gains. I've already given reasons why I think that Russia winning would be worse than any bad that the US is doing (bad for me, not bad for the Ukrainians or Europeans in general). 

[Eiuol]

30 minutes ago, Grames said:

Americans started this shit. 

You know as well as I do that conflict goes even further back than that. It's not like problems with Putin's Russia started with Crimea. 

[Grames]

On 2/6/2023 at 7:17 PM, AlexL said:

Neither did you justify your - implicit - premise that Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula.

Allow me.

I incorporate by the reference the basic facts about Catherine the Great, in particular "..With the support of Great Britain, Russia colonised the territories of New Russia along the coasts of the Black and Azov Seas. "  and " ... Many cities and towns were founded on Catherine's orders in the newly conquered lands, most notably Odessa, Yekaterinoslav (to-day known as Dnipro), Kherson, Nikolayev, and Sevastopol. "

Crimea as it is known today in its non-Muslim form is Russian.  It was founded by the Russian government by Russian people speaking the Russian language and keeping the Russian cultural norms in entirely new cities.  To this day it still is populated by Russians speaking Russian and keeping Russian cultural norms.  Crimea has been Russian for longer than Texas has been American.  Khrushchev reassigned administrative control of the Crimea region to the Ukraine region for some reason, some kind of political payoff or perhaps he just wanted to reduce the paperwork crossing his desk.  In no way did this administrative maneuver change anything about who was living in the Ukraine.  When the Soviet Union collapsed the technicality of Khrushchev's act meant Russia lost control of Crimea.  It is as absurd to think Russia would just let the Crimea go as to think America would let Texas go back to Mexico or become independent if some irregularity were newly discovered in the process of Texas' admission to the Union of States.  

[Grames]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

You know as well as I do that conflict goes even further back than that. It's not like problems with Putin's Russia started with Crimea. 

Russia is a small population and small economy country that is getting older and smaller demographically every year so "problems with Putin's Russia" have never really mattered.  Eventually Russia will not even be able to afford its nuclear weapons, or will reduce to a merely token nuclear capability along the lines of North Korea or Pakistan.  Russia is not a threat, it a bogeyman displayed to secure funding for bloated American bureaucracies that have no purpose without an enemy to fight.  

Among the more absurd things that have happened within your lifetime, the change within the Democratic party from Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State visiting Vladimir Putin with her misspelled "Reset" button and Barack Obama at a presidential debate looking on with bemused incredulity as Mitt Romney claimed Russia was a threat to America to the present day Democratic party and the same people now seeing a Russian behind every rock should give you whiplash.  The pattern is: the party out of power uses Russia as an external enemy to rally support under a fake patriotism appeal.

[AlexL]

6 hours ago, Grames said:

On 2/7/2023 at 1:45 AM, AlexL said:

The fact is that "the collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military only after Putin's Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. 

The CIA toppled the existing legimate government of the Ukraine in 2014.

1. Can YOU prove that the West supplied the Ukraine's military before 2014) ? @whYNOTdidn't (yet?).

2. Can you prove that "CIA toppled the existing legi[ti]mate government of the Ukraine in 2014" ?

[AlexL]

7 hours ago, Grames said:

On 2/7/2023 at 1:17 AM, AlexL said:

Neither did you justify your - implicit - premise that Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula.

Allow me.

I admire your courage😁

But first, an introductory remark:

Quote

It is as absurd to think Russia would just let the Crimea go...

Well, the unthinkable happened: the newly created Russian Federation recognized the newly created Ukraine in its 1991 borders, that is including Crimea. It did this in several multilateral and bilateral treaties. The last of the treaties was signed by Putin (2010); you understand what it means. It means that Putin cannot blame Yeltsin for treason for "giving up" Crimea. OTOH, talking about signing treaties/accords in good faith 😁: where is Putin's good faith in the 2010 signature? Now he not only denied the belonging of Crimea to Ukraine, but also the legitimacy of Ukraine itself !

Now the main point:

Quote

Catherine the Great [250 years ago!]... Crimea ... is Russian... Russian people speaking the Russian language... Crimea has been Russian for longer than...  Khrushchev reassigned...

And this is supposed to prove that Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula? OK. Then: how and why history and language provides a right and legitimacy to this right? According to what principles?

Edited February 8 by AlexL

[tadmjones]

"And this is supposed to prove that Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula? OK. Then: how and why history and language provides a right and legitimacy to this right? According to what principles? "

European/eastern European/Eurasian principles of might makes right?

If we take as a starting point Catherine's 'founding' of the region as a Russian entity and  look at a contemporaneous map of the wider region  and then compare that to a map of that region today , how similar are the lines of 'recognized' sovereignty , or take a map of the region in the 19 th century or early to mid 20th , what principles are being followed that explain the changes ? 

Was Czarist Russia a legitimate govt ? Lenin's? Stalin's?

What 'principle' is the USA following by fueling a war in eastern Europe today ?

 

[AlexL]

18 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

[...]

I will first wait for @Grames's answer.

Meanwhile you may try to think over and improve your very anemic comment. I will check if you don't owe me already some answers and comments...

[tadmjones]

It's not as anemic as tiresome reiteration , if you look back at my participation in this thread , I think I've been following the same line of reasoning.

"Owe you" insert derisive little smiley face thingy here

[Eiuol]

9 hours ago, Grames said:

It is as absurd to think Russia would just let the Crimea go as to think America would let Texas go back to Mexico or become independent if some irregularity were newly discovered in the process of Texas' admission to the Union of States.  

Your example might have a point if there were continuity from Russian tsars, to the Soviet Union, to the Russian Federation. But it's all disjointed, as radically different forms of government, with each of them having no legitimacy in the first place. I mean, that Putin would make such a claim and act on it makes sense for this reason, but you used it as an actual valid justification. Even if you are right that Russia has a valid claim to the territory on a legal level, Russia's illegitimacy makes it moot. On a moral level, who cares? 

9 hours ago, Grames said:

The pattern is: the party out of power uses Russia as an external enemy to rally support under a fake patriotism appeal.

I pretty much agree, and with the way that Russia isn't a threat per se. And hope it stays that way. Seems to me that it's better off for me and everyone else if Russia doesn't grow in any way. Sending some arms to the Ukraine seems pretty cost-effective, and doesn't seem imminent that the Ukraine is going to become something worse than it was. If you think Russia is so weak that even that much money is pointless, it would also mean that Russia succeeding would make utterly no difference on American government. It wouldn't discourage anything in the American government that is imperialistic, it wouldn't discourage bureaucracy, it wouldn't discourage all the bad things about the US that you want to minimize and eventually destroy. At best, Russia's success would only create chaos in that region (arguably leaving room for American imperialism to get even worse), with a slight increase in Russia's power. That's only my best case scenario. 

[whYNOT]

Yet another peace negotiation was prevented last year.

Ex Israel PM Bennett reveals.

 

 

[whYNOT]

On 2/8/2023 at 12:18 AM, AlexL said:

Our subject right now was NOT Putin's opposition to Ukraine's NATO membership.

Our subject was the question : did "the collective West" started to supply the Ukraine's military before or after Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine. The answer is important, because if the Western military aid started after Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine, the military aid cannot be the cause of the war.

You were the first to address this topic, namely with the following:

Now: Russia engaged in military operations against Ukraine in February-March 2014. Therefore, in order to justify the claim that the military aid to Ukraine was the cause of the 2014-2023+ war, you have to show that the West provided Ukraine with military aid before 2014.

Please do this and only this; I will simply ignore anything else.

One can't reason with someone who won't reason. Can you not deduce anything?

You have seen the evidence for:

A. The confessed deceitfulness of western participants in the Minsk accords - to gain time for the UAF to be strengthened.

B. the sabotage in 2022 by the Western powers of the Turkey-sponsored negotiations (between Ukraine and Russia).

C. the sabotage in 2022 by the Western powers of the Israel-sponsored negotiations, (etc).

and more that hasn't been made public so far.

Anyone who might think realizes by their acts that Kyiv and its Nato/EU backers were *planning* to get into a war - and nothing would stop them (self-evidently). Peace? No chance.

War against whom? I repeat, and it is irrefutable: against the Donbass and Crimea and inevitably, Russia, in their - and its own - defense.

If Putin had not interfered at that point, he would have HAD to, very soon afterwards. The inhabitants of Donbass and Crimea would have suffered the vicious punishment we know Kyiv and its neo-Nazi forces are capable of.

This before or after red herring I won't be bothered with proving - you deny and evade whatever you are presented.

Suffice to say, the US assisted Maidan coup and a new regime, was the beginning of the troubles that raised the very real threat to Russia of losing its only warm water naval base (and plainly why it annexed Crimea), and the civil war--and so on .

Edited February 9 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

"NATO has also indirectly gone to war against Russia. US Brigadier General Joseph E. Hilbert argued that “the worst thing the Russians did was give us eight years to prepare.”"

G. Diesen

[whYNOT]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:06 AM, Grames said:

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.

Tanks, but no tanks? Biden's pivot.

https://sonar21.com/bidens-back-to-the-future-moment-as-the-media-revises-its-ukraine-narrative/

 

Edited February 9 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Only watched half, finding this geopolitical conversation informative

 

[Grames]

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

I admire your courage😁

But first, an introductory remark:

Well, the unthinkable happened: the newly created Russian Federation recognized the newly created Ukraine in its 1991 borders, that is including Crimea. It did this in several multilateral and bilateral treaties. The last of the treaties was signed by Putin (2010); you understand what it means. It means that Putin cannot blame Yeltsin for treason for "giving up" Crimea. OTOH, talking about signing treaties/accords in good faith 😁: where is Putin's good faith in the 2010 signature? Now he not only denied the belonging of Crimea to Ukraine, but also the legitimacy of Ukraine itself !

Now the main point:

And this is supposed to prove that Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula? OK. Then: how and why history and language provides a right and legitimacy to this right? According to what principles?

Putin apparently expected good prospects for further cooperation with Ukraine in the future on the basis of past ties and shared history and ongoing economic involvement.  When the U.S. simply overthrew the gov't in 2014 Putin should have begun to realize the ruthlessness of the opponent he was dealing with.  All agreements ever made with the Ukraine government had been abrogated when the U.S. dissolved that gov't in 2014 and made it a U.S. puppet state.

So what makes a government legitimate?  What does "legitimate" mean in this context?  There must be an objective definition of "government" so that we know what the referents are before it is possible to distinguish better or worse within the category.  Calling the Russian government illegitimate doesn't make it go away or make it any less of a government.  You must admit it to the category of government before you can begin to apply the standards of a proper government to it.   

Rand's definition of government A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

Defining and defending the territorial integrity of a country is one of the essential defining attributes of government.  The Russian government is not illegitimate for doing what a government does by its very nature and identity.  Anytime a government does something wrongly or incorrectly it does not cease to be the government (if only government reform could be so easy!).   

Also from the Lexicon, from Galt's speech we have The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” The objective form in which consent manifests is acting in compliance with the government exercise of authority.  Governments collapse when a critical mass of people simply stop complying with it.  Up until the moment that happens governments wield real authority. 

The distinction between wielding real actual authority and wielding legitimate authority is reached by applying a normative standard to government actions.  The Objectivist philosophy of government is that government action should be about defending human rights.  There are people in this world who are not Objectivists and not even philosophical who have different opinions about what government action should be about.  Objectivists do not have the right to murder people with different philosophies or no philosophies because those people are still humans with their own rights.  The American government, which is not in the hands of Objectivists, does not have that right.  

 

[Grames]

20 hours ago, AlexL said:

1. Can YOU prove that the West supplied the Ukraine's military before 2014) ? @whYNOTdidn't (yet?).

2. Can you prove that "CIA toppled the existing legi[ti]mate government of the Ukraine in 2014" ?

1.  There wasn't much urgency to accomplish anything prior to 2014.  The U.S. throws around unconscionable amounts of military aid routinely, Ukraine may have gotten some of this.  It would be not significant in quantity but would establish channels and contacts. 

2.  Well there is the famous leaked recording of Victoria Nuland and pals deciding who would be in the next Ukrainian gov't before it formed.  

 

Here's a post on Quora which is well sourced:

Is there any credible evidence that Ukraine's 2014 revolution was due to a CIA coup?

 

[Grames]

Famed reporter Seymour Hersh explains in some detail  How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

 

[AlexL]

You volunteered to justify (in @tadmjones stead) that Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula.

You started:

Quote

Catherine the Great [250 years ago!]... Crimea ... is Russian... Russian people speaking the Russian language... Crimea has been Russian for longer than...  Khrushchev reassigned...

I asked you to show  how and why history and language provides a right and legitimacy to this right? And according to what principles?

You responded with a hodge-podge of unproved claims (which I will simply ignore, as any other unproved claims):

15 hours ago, Grames said:

Putin apparently expected good prospects ... When the U.S. simply overthrew🙄 the gov't in 2014 Putin should have begun to realize the ruthlessness of the opponent he was dealing with.

Then you examine “what makes a government legitimate”, in particular the current Russian one. For defining what a government does, you quote Ayn Rand: „an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.” 

You infer:

Quote

Defining and defending the territorial integrity of a country is one of the essential defining attributes of government.  The Russian government is not illegitimate for doing what a government does by its very nature and identity.

So, in your view, if a government does what a government is supposed to do, then it is… legitimate! But you somehow forgot to quote Ayn Rand for defining a legitimate government, which is the one and only the one which „protects man's rights”.by protecting him from violence. But with this clarification Putin’s government legitimacy is OUT! Notice that you were the one who tried to use Ayn Rand’s authority, but did it very selectively. 

Then you continued a little bit but en route forgot what you had to justify – namely that “Putin has a legitimate right to the control of Crimean Peninsula”. 

If you wish, you may try to improve your - confused and unfinished -  demonstration. But please try to make a clear and reasoned case, and also avoid making claims you are not certain to be capable of proving – I will simply ignore the and you will be wasting your time and mine.

[AlexL]

21 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One can't reason with someone who won't reason. Can you not deduce anything?

Let me remind you that your task was to show that the West provided Ukraine with military aid before 2014 (because you alleged that this military aid prompted Putin to start the war, which started in 2014).

This is obviously a point of fact, so that it cannot be something deduced.

The rest of your comment is an - ridiculous - attempt to deduce facts from words. This is the very opposite of reasoning. There is nothing there for me to chew; only rationalizations based on unproved assumptions. I will not comment on them.

So: if you think you can do it, try again. The thesis to be proved is "the West provided Ukraine with military aid before 2014." Don't waste my time with anything else.

 

[Eiuol]

15 hours ago, Grames said:

Anytime a government does something wrongly or incorrectly it does not cease to be the government (if only government reform could be so easy!).   

What's your point here? No one claimed that the Russian government isn't actually a government. Legitimacy as in moral legitimacy. 

16 hours ago, Grames said:

The Objectivist philosophy of government is that government action should be about defending human rights.

If you haven't been following, the idea pushed by those who say Russia is illegitimate so far in this thread has been about autocracy being equivalent to dictatorship, not that Russia is "not as good". 

17 minutes ago, AlexL said:

So: if you think you can do it, try again. The thesis to be proved is "the West provided Ukraine with military aid before 2014." Don't waste my time with anything else.

It's a kind of a pointless argument, because in whatever way you could interpret "military aid" (depending on how strict your definition is), it doesn't make Russia any more or less justified. Even if the US sent tanks to the Ukraine and they all stood at the border, guns loaded, military at the ready, waving the American flag to indicate who sent the tanks, Russia would have no moral right to say that "this is a threat that constitutes initiation of force, we have the right to attack!" 

It is the difference between saying NATO is acting aggressively, or acting defensively. Everything hinges on the moral legitimacy of Russia. 

Basically, I don't see a way that the wrongdoing of the US could surpass Russia in such a way that Russia is the good guy here. 

[AlexL]

39 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

So: if you think you can do it, try again. The thesis to be proved is "the West provided Ukraine with military aid before 2014." Don't waste my time with anything else.

It's a kind of a pointless argument, because in whatever way you could interpret "military aid" (depending on how strict your definition is), it doesn't make Russia any more or less justified. Even if the US sent tanks to the Ukraine and they all stood at the border, guns loaded, military at the ready, waving the American flag to indicate who sent the tanks, Russia would have no moral right to say that "this is a threat that constitutes initiation of force, we have the right to attack!" 

1. I am not trying to make an argument. I am asking @whYNOTto justify his claim of fact.

If he finds something by trying to play on the possible ambiguity of the concept of "military aid", I will see.

But chances are that he will come emptyhanded.

2. I am not playing in this context the ethics card. The wider context of this question was the possible Putin's motivation to start the war: was it a real security danger for Russia posed by NATO Eastward expansion, or another explanation is also possible, for example that NATO expansion was a danger for Putin's expansion plans.

This second possibility is substantiated by Putin's public speeches and articles since 2008 in which he develops the concept of "Historic Russia" and of the essential sameness of Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians, which were separated by the vicissitudes of history and must be reunited. I wrote about this on this Forum.

Edited February 9 by AlexL