About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[tadmjones]

Since when did Republicans, other than Trump (and those echoing him), stop being champions of 'democracy' and 'sovereignty'? Who in DC is actually calling for scaling back on the "Ukrainian cause"? 

I think in the end , absent a war declaration by NATO/US, Ukraine will become West Dnieper and East Dnieper and all but Kiev in the west will be pulverized and reduced to a rump nation with, of course, a very very strong NATO security 'guarantee'.

[Boydstun]

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Since when did Republicans, other than Trump (and those echoing him), stop being champions of 'democracy' and 'sovereignty'? Who in DC is actually calling for scaling back on the "Ukrainian cause"? 

. . .

Yes. Those are the ones among Republicans I was thinking of, whose capture of the White House and Congress Putin can hope for. 

Among Republican Voters Recently

GOP Lawmakers in Dissent

Edited June 25, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

19 members of Congress signed this letter. Given that Congress is virtually a stalemate between the two parties , ~7% of Republicans that make up roughly half of the total number of legislators are calling publicly for pulling back military aid to Ukraine. Do you foresee the next 'redwave' any time soon ?

It doesn't look like McCarthy or McConnell read or care much about the Pew results.

[tadmjones]

Sen Rand Paul is getting 'busy'

https://daily.whatfinger.com/republicans-introduce-bill-affirming-congressional-war-powers-in-relation-to-natos-article-5/

[tadmjones]

Pipelines, coastlines and black earth , very little democracy

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Funherd.com%2F2023%2F07%2Fthe-capitalists-are-circling-over-ukraine%2F

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Pipelines, coastlines ...

From the article from UnHerd you were recommending (which means endorsing), entitled The capitalists are circling over Ukraine:

Quote

But was the gathering of all those Western corporate elites at the Ukraine Recovery Conference entirely altruistic? There are, after all, massive profit opportunities being created by the war.

Why should the reconstruction of Ukraine be altruistic and profitless?

[tadmjones]

Hazlitt had things to say about that brand of ‘profit’ and not even from the angle of state sponsored ‘capitalists’ , just from the frame of a properly functioning private market/economy that operates on wealth creation. This is an entirely different beast on steroids. It’s why we have war mongers , the people you keep cheering.

[AlexL]

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Hazlitt had things to say [...]

You did not answer my question.

[tadmjones]

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

You did not answer my question.

I was speaking to the casus belli.

As to altruistic, there are those who use the term 'in good faith', they operate on the principle that altruism is a benevolent and beneficial motivation for human flourishing, obviously those familiar with and sympathetic to Rand's frame of the term would disagree.

If country wide  destruction is a profitable venture, it would be silly to not blow more shit up.( in the name of human flourishing and wealth creation)

Edited July 10, 2023 by tadmjones

[AlexL]

11 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I was speaking to the casus belli.

Can you please explain?

18 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

those who use the term ["altruism"] 'in good faith', they operate on the principle that altruism is a benevolent and beneficial motivation for human flourishing,

Those who use the terms "egoism" and "profit", operate on the principle that egoism and profit are benevolent and beneficial motivations for human flourishing.

21 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

If country wide  destruction is a profitable venture [...]

No, I was saying that the reconstruction should, legitimately, be a profitable venture.

27 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

obviously those familiar with and sympathetic to Rand's frame of the term would disagree.

The subject was not about Rand's frame.

[tadmjones]

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

Can you please explain?

Those who use the terms "egoism" and "profit", operate on the principle that egoism and profit are benevolent and beneficial motivations for human flourishing.

No, I was saying that the reconstruction should, legitimately, be a profitable venture.

The subject was not about Rand's frame.

Corporate oligarchs gained control of USA foreign policy via the intelligence and state department communities and use their economic resources to engineer international policy/power/war mongering and manipulate the populations of the western 'democracies' ,  I'm a full blown conspiracy theorist. The benevolent withholding of the use of force is a rarity among nations, wars happen because groups of individuals with access to state power want them to happen.

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Corporate oligarchs gained control of USA [...]

Pathetic...

[tadmjones]

I know right.

[AlexL]

Putin vs Zelensky, Russia vs Ukraine, American Interests | Yaron Brook Show

https://youtu.be/3APjwBURoBk?t=106

[tadmjones]

Not a very principled defense of the 'west' , his pragmatism reflects some aspects of 'realpolitik'. I agree with his assessment that the progressives have destroyed what is called education in the US , though for him, I infer his 'conservative(s)' would have produced a similar result as Putin's evil is manifest in his 'conservatism'.

Europe is developed enough and wealthy enough to defend 'itself' from Russia ( whether or not Russia actually poses a threat to 'Europe' isn't considered , except in some vague Russian exceptionalism) , that NATO need not exist, presumably from an American standpoint, but.. it's here so no need to see it come to an end because treaties, conscription is anti-freedom but everyone does it so , suspension of elections bad  but everyone does it, all governments are made up of corrupt individuals so we make do with least corrupt and call them the good..

Putin and Russia are the incarnations of principled evil and that is the genesis of all their actions and this is basically the basis to continue to prolong the suffering and destruction , perhaps he thinks unprincipled resistors are the antidote to principled evil. Or perhaps he should check his premises.

Edited July 11, 2023 by tadmjones

[whYNOT]

On 6/21/2023 at 5:30 PM, AlexL said:

Therefore you continue to spread lies on this Objectivism (???) Forum.

No, I am convinced that you are not lying, you certainly believe 100%.

But this is worse, because you then are one of the so many useful idiots.

But you are in good company, because they are often decent and sometimes even outstanding people. Undeservingly so (in good company, I mean), because I don't think you belong to either of these two categories.

Certain truths you and the majority can no longer escape are coming to light. No argument: The West has abused Ukraine, led it down the garden path with vague promises of NATO membership and acceptance into the west; exploiting the country as its handy weapon against Russia - at little risk to their own countrymen's lives. Even now, on its last legs the Ukrainian army conscripts (many press-ganged) are being urged, bullied and indoctrinated to fight on to an impossible victory.

As some astute thinkers like Mearsheimer and Sachs predicted a decade ago, NATO policies would "wreck Ukraine". 

That didn't stop the cynics, amoralists and useful idiots who claimed (falsely) this exercise was entirely about coming to Ukraine's defense! To protect Western "values"!!  {"Enlightenment" values according to Y Brook). And the rest of Europe...

Sure...

The powers that be in DC and London etc., have foresworn repeatedly all peaceful overtures in their lust for dominance over Russia. The massacre of all lives and the western intimidation and blackmail of every other country (here too) to cut trade contracts with Russia and China, to suffer shortages, inflation, unemployment, etc,etc., else be sanctioned, also - in arrogantly refusing to avert a war by acceding to some reasonable demands by Russia to have security guarantees and a neutral neighbor is... "enlightened"? No, it is grossly sacrificial, collectivist and statist- indifferent to human suffering. "Enlightenment values" were already previously uncertain in the West, now moreso.

Perhaps not you, but any thinking individual I ask to look around at what has become of Ukraine by 'supporting' it, and ask yourself: was it worth it?

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Yaron is displaying "Cookie cutter thought" : squeezing contextual reality into available Objectivist principles, aka, rationalism.

As such, there seems little new but what the conformist, Russophobic Establishment and main media assert already.

Ukraine as the bastion of Enlightenment values! If any place was and is far more corrupt and authoritarian than Russia has been! But, one must accept, the people - some - were turning to the wealthy West for admittance (while denying the freedom, rights and wishes of a sizable number of fellow citizens on determinist, racist grounds) - and are therefore beyond reproach from and championed by the West.

He does not that I saw refer to the role played in the Maidan coup by the West, the repression of Ukrainian-Russians, an illegal war against them, the sabotage of negotiations from Minsk onwards, the rights of a populace to neutral if not amicable relations with another nearby country (and the duty of leaders to uphold their border's integrity) - but I admit I couldn't continue further. Maybe someone else can make something out of this.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

"Now or never".  Academic Geoffrey Roberts. Written sometime last year, but still relevant and his logical telling of known facts is enhanced by recent events and revelations. Putin, apparently, did not seek war.

The orchestrated position that Putin was trapped in: act "now" (with preemptive, preventative and protective, initially - limited - force), or Crimea and Donbas, then Russia, would have to inevitably confront overwhelming attacks from the strengthened and enlarged Ukraine-NATO forces a little later. But critical he should be depicted to the masses as the first aggressor, Kyiv the innocent victim...

https://jmss.org/article/view/76584/56335

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by whYNOT

[EC]

@whYNOT

I still find it extremely strange that you seem to be supporting an evil dictator and his extremely evil aggression against a relatively free neighbor on an Objectivist forum. Especially since most of your opinions and statements from the past are relatively congruent with Objectivism in general.

[whYNOT]

19 hours ago, EC said:

@whYNOT

I still find it extremely strange that you seem to be supporting an evil dictator and his extremely evil aggression against a relatively free neighbor on an Objectivist forum. Especially since most of your opinions and statements from the past are relatively congruent with Objectivism in general.

An "evil dictator" - as presented by 'the Narrative'.  For my part, I find it hard to accept that O'ists, versed in reality, can be taken in by deceit and propaganda, like everybody.

 I construe my concept of "evil" from *evasion*.

I.e. The countless chain of evasions committed for 30 years which incrementally brought us, Ukraine and the rest of the world, to this climatic point.

If you've not been following, I will repeat what many thinkers have observed, that this war was easily averted.

As the previous essay showed, Putin went to lengths to find a peaceful resolution which was permanent and guaranteed.

No one wanted to listen. As late as three months pre-invasion he presented a draft to the White House proposing security guarantees for the two nations that was rebuffed. A well-publicized attempt, I doubt. It was essential Putin be imaged by Govt.-fed misinformation to be the imperialist, insane, evil dictator, invading for no discernible cause, so to get all Europeans pliable.

Russia's concerns - those of a nuclear superpower - did not merit being considered seriously, it appears. One more evasion.

 

Not simply that NATO and the collective West ignored warnings for decades by several scholars like Stephen Cohen to leave Ukraine alone and neutral-- against the high risk of Russia and ANY Russian president, not necessarily Putin, responding forcefully in defense - it is obvious, the experts heard about and were highly familiar with the potential risks.

Therefore: Those in NATO, etc., etc., were clearly COUNTING upon a Russian reaction - and a confrontation in Ukraine.

Not innocent ignorance, iow, but knowing evasion.

Did the intelligent and educated people who specialize in Russian studies in advisory 'think tanks' etc., actually believe Putin was going to abandon Russia's assets, human and territorial, when the new and huge UAF Army attacked them? Shrug and walk away? That strains all credibility.

Summary: they knew conflict was coming and welcomed it. To have justification to "weaken" (read - collapse) Russia with the force of a surrogate army and harsh economic sanctions. Their motives, geo-political, hegemonic, grab natural resources cheaply and war profiteering.

You want to tell me about "evil"? first of all, look to your government(s) who are indifferent to this predictable bloodshed (Russian/Ukrainian, does it matter to the ghouls?) and evaded every opportunity to prevent it, contain it, curtail it or end it.

History will judge, the West's governments and Kyiv did not own the moral high ground.

Now that their objectives are failing, those 'experts' are exposed as wishful fools, immoral ones at that.

Edited August 14, 2023 by whYNOT

[necrovore]

Seems on topic today: https://drhurd.com/2023/08/14/ukraine-the-biggest-money-laundering-operation-in-human-history/

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

Seems on topic today: https://drhurd.com/2023/08/14/ukraine-the-biggest-money-laundering-operation-in-human-history/

How is this relevant to the current war?

 

[tadmjones]

It is talking about the current war , Hurd’s been duped by Russian propaganda too.

[Grames]

On 8/13/2023 at 3:40 PM, EC said:

@whYNOT

I still find it extremely strange that you seem to be supporting an evil dictator and his extremely evil aggression against a relatively free neighbor on an Objectivist forum. Especially since most of your opinions and statements from the past are relatively congruent with Objectivism in general.

Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, and I see #13 here polluting your thinking.

1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
8. "Keep the pressure on."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

 

This war is not about Putin, he has support and internal agreement to the degree that even an assassination would not change the policy of Russia or end the war.  In focusing on Putin you blank out the thousands and now tens of thousands of people needlessly suffering and dying on both sides.  The war is basically a stalemate except that the longer the war goes on the greater Russia's advantage will become.  It needs to end, and if that means Ukraine gets divided then so be it.

[Doug Morris]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

It is talking about the current war , Hurd’s been duped by Russian propaganda too.

The original articles about Ukraine being a money laundering operation were published in 2001 and 2004.  So how is this relevant to the current war?