Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/25/2022 at 3:46 AM, Eiuol said:

It really doesn't matter, he's just going to talk about how woke he is about Russia and Ukraine and how blind we are to the real world and victims of propaganda. Anyway, Crimea was part of the Ukraine, notwithstanding that he is skeptical that it really was (insinuating that Crimea was actually part of Russia, therefore Russia wasn't actually invading the Ukraine, but Russia was asserting authority over its own land). 

 

I inquired out of interest if Ukraine owned Crimea. I did not know and am sure it's new on most here, it was "administered by Ukraine", which might be different. But you would call this my "insinuating" it was part of Russia - mind-reading again, which is why I find discussion with you pointless.

Republic of Crimea - Wikipedia

 
 
"Before its invasion and annexation by Russia in 2014, the territory was administered by Ukraine as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea..."

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2022 at 4:11 PM, AlexL said:

, supports the neo-Nazi state which is Ukraine - according to the latest and greatest Soviet studies…

The neo-Nazi influence is and has traditionally been strong in Ukrainian politics and the military, which is not to say it is majorly a neo-Nazi state. Naturally this is sanitized and brushed aside by the West. Lefty warmongering msm especially can't be seen to be supporting Nazis. This account, inculcating of children in fascism to hate Russians, from a hard leftist (but antiwar) website.

https://mronline.org/2022/08/31/from-nurseries-to-nazis/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 4:02 PM, AlexL said:

You brought forward a whole lot of - purported - arguments and evidence for calling Journo's analysis "disingenuous".

I did not refuse to consider your arguments and evidence. I simply asked you to chose yourself 2-3 from the multitude, the ones you consider fundamental to your verdict, so that I can concentrate on these, make a reasoned argument of my own, and see, at the end, if your evidence is true and your verdict is correct.

I am trying to avoid the situation when, if I eventually succeed in refuting your arguments, you will then raise other arguments ("but what about this, what about that"), and this will never end.

So: please read carefully what I wrote and tell me what do you decide about the path I propose.

At this point you can simply say that you do or do not agree. The I will decide about my next step. I believe this is a fair proposal, and I explained why it is fair.

The "verdict" is self-evident if you apply logic to the facts.

A. there was not any concerted effort by the sponsors, Germany and France, or the UN, EU and NATO to pressure Kyiv into compliance with its Minsk agreements. This alone could have averted conflict. Zelensky who ran and was overwhelmingly elected on a "peace platform", made a small effort to negotiate with the separatists and was told by ultra-nationalists he'd be strung up from a tree if he continued; result, he turned 180 on his promises, called the separatists "terrorists" and redoubled the assaults on the Donbas. As the President, responsible for all his electorate, he showed he is a fraud and a cheat, who should not be lecturing the world on saving "democracy".

B. NATO had been training the Ukraine forces for several years since Maidan.

C. When Putin invaded, Zelensky seemed amenable to peace talks but was told by Boris Johnson: The Russians can be beaten by Ukraine--but if you negotiate with them you can expect no support from the West. And he obediently complied. Talks and concessions at that point, also could have prevented war. 

D. the deep background, NATO expansion: knowingly and deliberately against Putin's warnings of his "red line" at Ukraine. A little respect or simple acknowledgment for his position as leader responsible to the RF and its right to security and self-determination was called for. But, "to hell with Putin's red line" was stated in reply.

Connect the dots if you are looking for "logic". This was a seemingly senseless invasion that was anticipated and prepared for by the West. With Journo focusing solely on NATO, i.e. Mearsheimer's legitimate 'realist' argument and accurately predicted warning; by presuming Putin's writings as deterministic of his "imperialism" - and a few irrelevant ad homs about Putin (guilt by association, e.g. "Trump's" favorable impression of Putin--and you know what that means to some...) Journo doesn't even penetrate to the cause of this war and Putin's intentions, so Journo hasn't shown grounds to pass moral judgment. 

Unprovoked and unjustified, the media's mantra. "Unprovoked", clearly false. Putin knew with certainty that Russia was facing an existential threat from the West, as the above proves, in retrospect. I.e, despite opportunities to do so,  the West did not want the war to be stopped - but much more he would have learned as privy to many covert misdoings and meddling. Simply, the West wanted and wants Russia beaten and fragmented. Only "Unjustified" (morally) gives one pause for thought. Is and was Putin's loyalty and concern for the unsafe Russian-Ukrainian people in their regions, an over-riding motive, his high value? Not having that insight, events point that way.

He and the RF have paid and will pay a colossal price to "liberate" the East's people from their plight and to try to demilitarize Ukraine and remove the existential threat. 

There are enough evasions to spread around all parties involved.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

It's sounds like you're trying to argue that money is such a good thing that we wouldn't want to sully it by pointing out that it also motivates bank robbers (even though it does).

As far as I saw, you didn't demonstrate that money is being used for some nefarious end, and you still haven't attempted to substantiate that money is being used wrongfully. You could say that there is a monetary imbalance that is unfair (which is basically common knowledge), that much is fine. The narrative you provided goes off to say that the imbalance is intentional and manipulative, and evidence that NATO should not be trusted. Apparently the evidence for this intention is that they want the money flowing, and the power that comes with this. But what power are you referring to if not the power of money to accomplish productive things? Why would the desire to keep the money also lead to the desire to make war last longer? 

The desire for money has nothing to do with it. That you mention money is irrelevant. What matters is if you have a reason to say that NATO has some nefarious idea in mind, because you would then say that money enables them to accomplish that nefarious intention. It seems to me that you wouldn't trust NATO even if the monetary imbalance was corrected. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain's warmongers: https://declassifieduk.org/explainer-britains-proxy-war-on-russia/

"Whitehall’s major problem with Moscow is that it “is seeking its own independent sphere of influence separate to any American-backed global order or rule book”, the then head of the British army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, said last year.

Unacceptably to British planners, Russia elected to become a rival. Then defence secretary Michael Fallon said in 2017 that “Russia has chosen to become a strategic competitor of the West”.

His successor, Gavin Williamson expressed a similar lament, saying that “after 1990 we … believed there would be only one superpower”, referring to the US. Now, “Russia wants to assert its rights”, he complained.

“After 1990 we … believed there would be only one superpower.”

This Russian independence and rivalry has contributed to the “erosion of strategic advantage” for the West which must be regained, General Sanders says. The UK wants to see Russia confined to a status of global pariah.

Whitehall is making extraordinary efforts to help Ukraine, and defeat Russia, in its war".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 4:13 AM, whYNOT said:

The "verdict" is self-evident if you apply logic to the facts.

A. B. C. D. 

[...]

In my previous post I analyzed your arguments in favor of your "disingenuous” verdict.

I expected you to refute my analysis/arguments.

Instead, you came up with additional criticism of the West – your points A to D. Then you continue with some more criticism. Even if all these were justified, they are, in the context, off topic.

You simply dodge a serious, structured, rational debate and switch, instead, to the “stream of consciousness” mode.

It doesn’t make sense for me to continue such a debate.

If someone else has questions, I will try to answer.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2022 at 4:35 PM, AlexL said:

Instead, you came up with additional criticism of the West

Is it just me or does the spouting of anti-Western talking points coincide pretty well with fascism? I mean, Putin's MO has always been pretty authoritarian, and something of a third way that isn't communism or liberalism. Crying how the West is being mean to illiberal governments, upset by the power of the capitalist class (in this case, the political class to be specific), and blaming defensive military actions of others as the cause of their own aggressive and offensive military actions that originated 20 years earlier. 

Beware the fascist apologists. Just wait till they start going on to rationalize the policies of the new prime minister of Italy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

upset by the power of the capitalist class (in this case, the political class to be specific)

The political class is not capitalist. Just because someone has money doesn't mean they're capitalist. It is even possible for someone to earn money legitimately and still not be capitalist. They can be corrupted later, or as they go. (If they are not corrupted, I would not call them members of the political class. There is no "capitalist class.")

The political class are criminals, like gangsters or bank robbers. They have the same psychology. They don't earn money by producing anything; they get it either by favors or by taxation or by just printing it. They regard productivity itself as a plum to be handed out, or a favor to be fought over; although they are willing to compete against each other, they do not want random people being productive and inventing new successful businesses in their garages (unless they can seize them, or buy them with printed money). They would rather have a few big businesses than thousands of little ones. (One of them said "I don't think we want people starting banks in their garages.") They want businesses to be awarded to people. They want to control who succeeds and who fails, so that they can ensure that they keep the successes among themselves and their friends. They do not want capitalism or freedom for anyone else ("You will own nothing and be happy"), just themselves, and maybe not really even that. They are trying to create the "state of ultimate inversion" that Ayn Rand warned about, where the people have to act by permission, but the government can do anything it pleases. That is fascism.

Some of them claim to be supporters of Ayn Rand or freedom or capitalism but they are not selfish in the Ayn Rand sense. They have victims and (metaphorically speaking) they hide the bodies under layers and layers of bureaucracy.

The political class likes to provoke crises and emergencies ("never let a crisis go to waste") because it gives them an excuse to seize political power and do end runs around mechanisms (such as due process) that are intended to protect individual rights, because, hey, it's an emergency!

Even if they didn't originally provoke the war in Ukraine, they are acting to prolong it, because it is useful to them.

The political class seeks to eradicate the rights of the West's citizens. They seek to have all the wealth for themselves. They would rather destroy wealth than not possess it, so Ayn Rand's observations that the mind is the root of wealth and that the mind only functions when free, are irrelevant to the political class. The never-ending "emergencies" are just one way for them to proceed. (Sensing that time is running out, they are trying to speed up the process.) The Covid lockdowns were the first large-scale example, but that didn't work. They've decided it's in their best interests to keep provoking Putin and to deliberately get rid of any possibility of a diplomatic solution. (Blinken was recently caught saying that the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines was a good thing...)

This does not make Putin a good guy and I don't much care what happens to Putin in all this.

What I do care about is the people of the West who are losing their rights (and, secondarily, their wealth) because of the self-appointed elites in charge of the bureaucracies of Western governments. (Douglas Adams was right when he said that the purpose of the President was not to wield power, but to attract attention away from it...)

As far as I can tell the populist leaders who keep getting elected, like the Prime Minister of Italy, or Donald Trump, are derided because they are obstacles to the ongoing quest of the political class. Such populist politicians, if elected, are not always effective because all they (and almost all the people who voted for them) have is a sense of life and not an integrated philosophy. This can cause them to make stupid anti-freedom mistakes such as trying to ban "woke" books and the like. However, they are not integrated fascists; the political class are. And of course, as Ayn Rand herself observed, the mistakes of the defenders of capitalism make it easy to pick holes in their philosophical positions, and the holes, unfortunately, are very real.

On the other hand, the political class has much bigger holes in their theories, and they are doomed to fail eventually. If they keep printing money, the currency will collapse. If they keep pursuing shortsighted environmentalist policies, they will destroy their own ability to produce energy (or win wars). If they keep pushing Putin, eventually Putin will be forced to react violently. The important questions are only how many victims the political class will take with them -- and what, if anything, will arise to take their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, necrovore said:

The political class is not capitalist. Just because someone has money doesn't mean they're capitalist. It is even possible for someone to earn money legitimately and still not be capitalist. They can be corrupted later, or as they go. (If they are not corrupted, I would not call them members of the political class. There is no "capitalist class.")

That's not quite what I'm suggesting. I'm not saying that they are the capitalist class because they have money, but that the very thing you are criticizing is that having money is a corrupting force for many people. Since money itself is corrupting, and many political entities are corrupt, those that wield power - the political class - are therefore corrupted by money. This argument is wrong, but only it's only wrong if you accept that money isn't the real issue at stake. If you point to desire of money as bad in only some instances, you are still pointing to some kind of suspicion of money. That the flow of money should raise flags for some sinister intention. In other words, you might not be using the word capitalist, but you are still providing a negative critique of capitalism in general. Indeed, there are many problems with the neoliberal standards of government so popular in the west. The flow of money isn't one of them. 

You aren't wrong when you say things like:

35 minutes ago, necrovore said:

They want to control who succeeds and who fails, so that they can ensure that they keep the successes among themselves and their friends. They do not want capitalism or freedom for anyone else

And if you criticized NATO in those terms, that would be fine. The political class in that sense is not referring to anything to do with capitalism, not even indirectly. You wouldn't be making an anticapitalist argument. But this is not the kind of criticism you gave. It was about the flow of money, how you worry that NATO would want the war to continue because it would be the desire of money of corrupt people, and no attempt to analyze how there were already pretty good and rational reasons why NATO would want money in this instance. If you give explanations like the part I quoted here, that would be sensible, but it looks more like you are trying to fit two different arguments together that don't belong together.

48 minutes ago, necrovore said:

The political class likes to provoke crises and emergencies ("never let a crisis go to waste") because it gives them an excuse to seize political power

I find this to be equivalent to "make the best out of a bad situation" in both intent and meaning. But anyway, that's getting off topic if I say anymore.

50 minutes ago, necrovore said:

They've decided it's in their best interests to keep provoking Putin and to deliberately get rid of any possibility of a diplomatic solution. (Blinken was recently caught saying that the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines was a good thing...)

Everything is fine until you get here. The problem here is the whole question of appeasement. How is it a good idea to have a "diplomatic" solution to a world power that fundamentally stands against your values? The only way I see this as being true is if the power in question is not fundamentally against your values. It's not like Sparta versus Athens, where we could foresee diplomatic solutions once in a while because they at least shared some form of Greek values in common. It's more like Athens versus the Persian Empire, so fundamentally opposed that it would be self-flagellation to find diplomacy - essentially giving in. And that's really what I'm getting at. Not the smaller discussion about money and monetary incentive. The much wider issue of fundamental values. I can oppose many things like Covid lockdowns much like an Athenian would oppose a Spartan, but that doesn't mean I reject or see these governments as equivalent to Russia (except, Russia did have lockdowns anyway). 

If the loss the rights is your concern, Russia is one of the more concerning countries, as well as China. I don't think it does anyone any good to try to find reasons that NATO is up to no good when Russia is far more concerning than anything NATO is up to or has done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Objectivity, factual accounts and reasoned evaluations, from a non-Objectivist. Jacques Baud was a Swiss Intelligence officer and a former NATO adviser and author on Ukraine. IMO, knowledgable, without fixed prejudices and is an honorable man.

https://scheerpost.com/2022/10/02/us-and-uk-sabotaged-ukrainian-peace-deal/

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2022 at 10:35 PM, AlexL said:

Instead, you came up with additional criticism of the West – your points A to D. Then you continue with some more criticism. Even if all these were justified, they are, in the context, off topic.

 

Two quick reasons to criticize "the West" lately - the collective West wants this war indefinitely prolonged. Right? You've heard the bureaucrats. iow, they haven't any compunction seeing more deaths and destruction - in a proxy war, over there - for the sake of, what? Weakening Russia for illicit gains and getting revenge on Putin and saving face after making terrible miscalculations. It is NATO/EU who are increasing the bellicose rhetoric, not Russia which merely replied to nuke suugestions: the concerns about "prepping" us the public for a false flag incident are not unfounded. You ought to have learned enough by now to recognize that not everything done by Putin has been unprovoked or completely irrational or value-less, while the Ukraine government is deeply flawed, having absconded from its obligations by warring on their own citizens  - hardly the behavior of 'democracy' or a 'sovereign state'. 

Second, and the best term I can come up with is western "corporatocracy", that anti-concept of power-politics and power-corporates, merged in one ruling entity. What results, can't be called a "mixed economy", even. Simply, statism. How far removed from individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism as to be unrelated. Necrovore says it eloquently. 

The Journo argument is uninformed of facts and rationalistic, the common method of preconceiving an issue or a person by one's instant gut response, pick out some selective facts to reverse-accomodate objectivist principles - and rationalize, rationalize, to try to lend your judgment substance. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

And if you criticized NATO in those terms, that would be fine. The political class in that sense is not referring to anything to do with capitalism, not even indirectly. You wouldn't be making an anticapitalist argument. But this is not the kind of criticism you gave. It was about the flow of money, how you worry that NATO would want the war to continue because it would be the desire of money of corrupt people, and no attempt to analyze how there were already pretty good and rational reasons why NATO would want money in this instance.

I never made an anti-capitalist argument.

My argument was that US funding of NATO was subsidizing European socialism, because the governments there didn't have to spend money on their own defense, and were free to spend it on social programs instead.

46 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

How is it a good idea to have a "diplomatic" solution to a world power that fundamentally stands against your values?

"Fundamentally standing against your values" is not an initiation of force.

Putin attacked Ukraine, sure, but he did not attack NATO or the US. NATO is technically not obliged to defend Ukraine, as it is not self-defense for NATO to do so. Ukraine isn't part of NATO yet.

However, the "political class," who stand against proper values as much as Putin does, thought it would be a good idea to intervene. I have my doubts.

(When you say "the West," do you mean the rulers, or the people? They are opposites. Or perhaps you mean Western ideals such as "freedom"? Freedom is not valued by the current rulers of the West.)

Ayn Rand wrote that a free country has the right, but not the obligation, to destroy a non-free country at any time, because the non-free government consists of criminals. Setting aside the issue that Western countries are arguably not free at this time, there is also the issue that, even though a free country will eventually grow richer and stronger than a non-free one, it may not be richer or stronger at a particular time, and may wish to avoid conflict at that time.

Even if Europe discovered the value of freedom tomorrow -- which would be great -- it is still in terrible shape because of the damage done by decades of bad policies. It is in no shape to go to war. But its leaders want war. They think they can keep everything under control, and they don't care if the people suffer. They probably think suffering people are easier to rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

Ayn Rand wrote that a free country has the right, but not the obligation, to destroy a non-free country at any time, because the non-free government consists of criminals.

[Dictatorship]

"It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses".

"Volumes can be and have been written about the issue of freedom versus dictatorship, but, in essence, it comes down to a single question: do you consider it moral to treat men as sacrificial animals and to rule them by physical force?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, necrovore said:

(When you say "the West," do you mean the rulers, or the people? They are opposites. Or perhaps you mean Western ideals such as "freedom"? Freedom is not valued by the current rulers of the West.)

But the systems are there to protect individual rights for the most part. Granted that it has eroded but we still can communicate without opposition by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

My argument was that US funding of NATO was subsidizing European socialism, because the governments there didn't have to spend money on their own defense, and were free to spend it on social programs instead.

In order to demonstrate that NATO is up to no good. 

If this is all you said, this would be fine - or at least, nothing anticapitalist, even though I think it's incorrect ("European socialism" is just neoliberal mixed economy, neoliberal mixed economies are being subsidized). But it isn't. You went on to say things like you worry that NATO wants a war to continue indefinitely because of profit motive or monetary incentive. Those are the sort of talking points that an anticapitalist would use, because it makes the point well. 

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

"Fundamentally standing against your values" is not an initiation of force.

The context is when there are disagreements that both sides truly think that the other side initiated force. Diplomacy is about those kind of conflicts, or preventing the events in the first place. But when somebody stands fundamentally against your values in a conflict, there is no amenable common ground. There is no point when the conflict will be considered resolved. In this case, I'm only suggesting that it makes perfect sense to act defensively against Russia. I could see why a world power hostile to Western values would see this as an act or intent of aggression, but that's Russia's problem. That explains but doesn't justify Russia's actions. 

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

Putin attacked Ukraine, sure, but he did not attack NATO or the US. NATO is technically not obliged to defend Ukraine, as it is not self-defense for NATO to do so. Ukraine isn't part of NATO yet.

NATO isn't participating. I don't know you're talking about. Do you mean support by means of some money or some arms? 

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

Freedom is not valued by the current rulers of the West

See, this is when you start to go too far, it betrays a skepticism of anything that the West is. But I don't want to get into it with you. The rhetoric is concerned about freedom, but the content of your arguments I think contradict your rhetoric. Rhetoric is fine, but it isn't fine when it masks the content of your argument, even if accidentally.

9 hours ago, necrovore said:

But its leaders want war. They think they can keep everything under control, and they don't care if the people suffer. 

Yeah, all those wars going on all throughout Europe, from Spain to Croatia, from Sweden to Italy, in both Germany and Switzerland. They all want war, all the time. They definitely don't try to stop Islamic terrorism. It's nonstop oppression. If only they would do something like create a treaty organization for the north Atlantic region. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, what Donald Trump has in common with his base is not a good sense of life.  What he has in common with his base is anger at things perceived as personal injuries.  For the base, this has largely a matter of economics, although there are unwholesome things mixed in as well; how much there is of what, and how sound the underlying attitudes are, varies with the individual.  For Trump, it's more personal, but he's been effective at appealing to the base by reflecting their anger.

Trump is on his own quest for power, and he's willing to do it the fast way, by trashing the system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power that has served as something of a brake on statism and oligarchy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, necrovore said:

Putin attacked Ukraine, sure, but he did not attack NATO or the US. NATO is technically not obliged to defend Ukraine, as it is not self-defense for NATO to do so. Ukraine isn't part of NATO yet.

 

The litmus test:

Has at any point, Putin and Russia been seeking - in words or deeds - confrontation with NATO?

Conversely: Do all the signs not look as if NATO planned to confront Russia?

For certain, "technically not obliged" to defend Ukraine, of course.

Rather - expressly ¬prohibited¬ from doing so by the NATO charter, one would think. The question is how they managed to justify breaking their rules.

Otherwise to be ludicrous, what's to stop, e.g., any South American country in military conflict with its neighbor from calling on the NATO bloc to come to its defense?

The 'special treatment' that (non-NATO) Ukraine has received from NATO tells one thing.

Ukraine per se wasn't important. Ukraine's location up against Russia, is. That position provides the perfect 'flash point' for conflict.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Conversely: Do all the signs not look as if NATO planned to confront Russia?

Generally, if you support the Russian government and its illiberal values, you will see NATO as threatening (and the West in its entirety for that matter). If you support NATO and its flawed-but-liberal Western values, you will see Russia as threatening. (Not that NATO is participating, they aren't, the idea here is just where your mind is philosophically.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

If this is all you said, this would be fine - or at least, nothing anticapitalist, even though I think it's incorrect ("European socialism" is just neoliberal mixed economy, neoliberal mixed economies are being subsidized). But it isn't. You went on to say things like you worry that NATO wants a war to continue indefinitely because of profit motive or monetary incentive. Those are the sort of talking points that an anticapitalist would use, because it makes the point well. 

 

 

War is the literal destruction of capital , what capitalist promotes war ? 

The criticism was directed at the political leaders whose decisions lead to the financial machinations of prosecution of war and how purposefully prolonging conflict has the effect of aggregating currency into the means of war prosecution , financial or capital expenditures that can only occur ‘during’ the prosecution of war.

Military expenditures are and can only be wealth consumption. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Generally, if you support the Russian government and its illiberal values, you will see NATO as threatening (and the West in its entirety for that matter). If you support NATO and its flawed-but-liberal Western values, you will see Russia as threatening. (Not that NATO is participating, they aren't, the idea here is just where your mind is philosophically.)  

If those "liberal Western values" meant: stay out of other nations' business, they must be free to determine their own future, errors included - I'd be all for them. America's foreign policy is not cohesive, consistent nor coherent. I point that out as an outsider who holds the USA in high esteem and can see of the uncertainty and fear that lack causes in 'foreign' countries that harms the US standing abroad.

You haven't read of NATO arming and training the UAF -- before the invasion - have you? An open secret. Nor, the illegal and immoral war waged by Kyiv against Eastern Ukraine. Place the two together causally, and the intention was clear. That was an ongoing war adjacent to Russia's borders that was kept quite silent by media and largely not interfered with, by design. After the Donbas would have been eventually eradicated, those Russo-Ukrainians fleeing into Russia or dead, what could transpire next?

With those and many other facts and causations safely out of the way, the gullible msm reader can assert that Putin had no rationale for detecting an "existential threat" posed by Ukraine and its Western backers. (And after all, due to automatized western Russophobia, what moral right does he and sub-human Russians have to make objections!) 

How unthinking one must be to believe that NATO in its self-defensive/offensive push eastwards paid absolutely no attention to Russia, like it wasn't there and did not deserve explanations or security guarantees. That no western nation would tolerate. Look up John Mearsheimer and others. Russia was the intended end point, whether a Balkanization of it, I can't know. But a purpose there was.

I have the same philosophy you do, presumably - reality, first. From that to do one's own reasoning. 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

War is the literal destruction of capital , what capitalist promotes war ? 

 

 

"Statism causes war". "Statism ¬needs¬ war". AR

Throw together Russian statism, Ukrainian statism and NATO (multi-mega) statism , see what you get.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Generally, if you support the Russian government...

Typical of the conformist consensus.

"If you are not all for Ukraine obviously you are an evil Russia-supporter!!"

If not all against Russia you are against poor Ukraine. If not always for the West's activities and policies ... Etc.

Morally-superior sanctimoniousness which kills thinking, finally people.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If not all against Russia you are against poor Ukraine.

I actually didn't say that, I'm getting at that generally those who argue that NATO is/was threatening Russia pretty much revolves around how they don't trust or align with Western values generally.  

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...