About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[tadmjones]

20 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

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?

 

Hurd’s post is dated for today, so I don’t understand to which articles you are referring. 
Was there a war in Ukraine in 2001? Was Biden CIC , Bush had him on it? Not that personnel would matter if the the US needed a war for democracy then war there would be , yeah ? Can’t leave democracy hanging it would be immoral. Besides the biggest threat to democracy in the oughts was Saddam, he gassed his people remember , where did he get the precursors for those weapons?

Edited August 15 by tadmjones

[Doug Morris]

38 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

58 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

 

Hurd’s post is dated for today, so I don’t understand to which articles you are referring. 

Articles found by googling the title of Hurd's post.

39 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Was there a war in Ukraine in 2001?

No.

 

[EC]

2 hours ago, Grames said:

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.

Ukraine isn't the one threatening WW3 and nuclear annihilation on the world, that's Russia and their buddies.

[AlexL]

4 hours ago, Grames said:

Putin, he has support and internal agreement [... It needs to end, and if that means Ukraine gets divided then so be it.]

And the moral judgment - who aggressed whom (and snatched territories) - doesn't matter... Neither does the precedent - for the Europe's security...

Pathetic.

[whYNOT]

Prognosis by Gordon Hahn, scholar in Russian affairs.

https://gordonhahn.com/2023/08/15/maidan-meltdown-ukrainian-chaos-and-a-russian-quagmire/

 

[whYNOT]

Trying to understand a revived neoconservatism. "The Wolfowitz Doctrine" crops up a lot.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjzk87-kuKAAxXz_7sIHQI9D_gQFnoECAgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWolfowitz_Doctrine&usg=AOvVaw12BuPYjEDzZbNPKNG1jXlV&opi=89978449

and fast forward to the Putin era.

Astonishing. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, not just Putin, requested bringing Russia into NATO --what 'might have been' if there had been rational visionaries.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjzk87-kuKAAxXz_7sIHQI9D_gQFnoECAwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org%2Ffeature%2Fhow-wolfowitz-doctrine-shaped-putin%E2%80%99s-outlook-206225&usg=AOvVaw158OeqeNZOpvfr-8TmPD6V&opi=89978449

 

 

Edited August 16 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 8/15/2023 at 7:05 AM, AlexL said:

And the moral judgment - who aggressed whom (and snatched territories) - doesn't matter... Neither does the precedent - for the Europe's security...

Pathetic.

Its skeptics (or mystics) who perceive "the land" minus "the people". You believe Objectivists are either?

I must presume many Donbas inhabitants owned their land and homes, they were there for generations--so the regime terrorizing them with civil war (clearly to drive them out, vacate the land of people and claim the industries, the natural resources and farmlands for the likes of BlackRock ) were committing violations of property rights.

Kyiv lost its "sovereign nation" status right there. Those people then had the right to self-determination and to secede--with their property.

And if anyone ought to have been sanctioned by the West to get its 'house in order', to re-establish a sector of the population's democratic rights, grant representation to the Donbas and cease their violent ethnic apartheid by ultra-nationalists, it should first have been Ukraine.  A war would have quite certainly been prevented and Europeans wouldn't be trembling in the ludicrous fear of being invaded. Instead, Kyiv was financially/militarily/morally aided and rewarded.

Many African countries have been and still are after half a lifetime, economically sanctioned for earlier election fraud, ethnic repression, "unsuitable" leaders and policies, coups overturning the democratic process, etc.. The subjective "rules-based order" plays favorites and punishes others.

"Moral judgment"!

 

Edited August 17 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

Mini street-interviews, in Moscow, 4 days ago.

 

[tadmjones]

More Russian voices

 

[AlexL]

7 hours ago, tadmjones said:

More Russian voices [...]

Do you have a comment?

[Boydstun]

On 6/25/2023 at 10:09 AM, Boydstun said:

Since the preceding post by Alex, Putin and Prigozhin reached an agreement, avoiding armed conflict among the Russian mercenary group and the regular Russian troops. I see this as a victory for Putin in his Ukraine quest. Those mercenary troops, as well as the Chechen mercenary troops, are now returned to Ukraine to continue Putin's aggression and hegemony. Prigozhin in exile in Belarus is surely a dead man walking, although Putin may leave him alive until he has secured unity of the Wagner troops with the regular Russian troops, all under regular Russian military command. I still think Putin will not enter negotiations bringing peace to Ukraine until after the US elections of 2024, hoping for Republican wins that might cut US Military aid to Ukraine and bring him advances in the war for bargaining position or perhaps victory.  

Now dead

[whYNOT]

https://youtu.be/l3oiVRwiC0g?si=nbSBou4dN8PSDCki

 

[whYNOT]

Richard Salsman, Atlas Society, briefly weighs in.

The word "sacrifice" (of Ukraine) features often and surprisingly among those dissident anti-war conservatives, soft socialists, etc., I read, unsaid by Oists who have the unique grasp of and right to it and to the corresponding (Western/global) self-sacrifices. .

 

Edited September 1 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

An "Egoistic foreign policy" [Salsman] is a useful concept, going ahead.

The Morris' on song below:

"Not us!"--is never rationally egoist, despite Romney and Graham's utterances on money well spent, paying others to perform the terrible work on  'our' behalf.

 

Edited September 2 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

https://youtu.be/MKMxMUG4cKA?si=AoNmqP92YIagEoOn

Sachs still at it, tirelessly pointing out the emperor's nakedness.

 

[whYNOT]

And why did NATO, at minimum, not *consider* Russian alarms about its expansion, advertised often by Putin and previous presidents, or at least enter some dialogue?

Conclusion: like macho juveniles, they hubristically believed they'd "win" --without negotiations--with the large Ukraine military doing NATO's bidding and heavy sanctions to break apart the RF, politically and economically, and a vast propaganda campaign influencing public opinion in the West.

All irrationally aimed at a distinctly non-hostile and conciliatory post Cold War Russia.

However, now not looking good for Ukraine and NATO. The "consequentialists", in the leadership cliques and a billion followers, who looked for moral supremacy in a 'certain' triumph over Russia, and justifying the several 100's of thousands (of Ukraine soldiers) thrown at Russia and killed - and the loss of more land (than first entertained by an early treaty, as more oblasts choose to join Russia), are soon to be bitter and confused: By their ethical doctrine when Russia wins - they lose any moral high ground. No sympathy for them from me.

Then there will be more of the "CYA" coming from Nato and western governments. A first crack from Stoltenberg below, admitting/bragging publicly that Putin was worried about NATO expansionism and placed a proposal for mutual security.

"We rejected that".

Maybe, Jens, that was the cause (and other provocations) for invasion? Not even urgent plans to discuss anything with Putin and reach a compromise?

How are things looking now, buddy? 

Caitlin Johnstone, another fellow horrified at the senseless life lost by acts and inacts by the morally/intellectually bankrupt Western leaders who abetted and incited a conflict. And even now prevaricate, escalate and won't pull the plug

 

https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=82124&post_id=136866482&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=20l79l&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjE5MjE1NDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNjg2NjQ4MiwiaWF0IjoxNjk0MjIzMzE2LCJleHAiOjE2OTY4MTUzMTYsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MjEyNCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.UuTyb8mQF-Il1ZlTW7dQGa0NlDEGiO9oGdpE17E4FGs

 

Edited September 13 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

They meant it - "To the last Ukrainian!" What made for rousing headline copy at the time is closer. The refugees, now 'draft dodgers', are to be forced by Kyiv to go home and fight(some EU countries have refused, to their credit).

In war, when you've run out of your available resources, you've lost the war and must sue for an armistice. All that one heard until lately was about the endless supply of weaponry - lethal aid - to Ukraine. As though the weapons and armor, each type a proposed "game changer", would do the job alone. How much was heard about the steady losses to Ukraine's human resources - except to massively underrepresent them? (as deception to keep up morale for their troops' losing battle, keep cash and supplies coming in and sustain public belief by far away onlookers, so more would die). Ruled by western skepticism/determinism and sacrificial sentimentality, depressingly predictable

 

Edited September 17 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=82124&post_id=137202849&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=20l79l&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjE5MjE1NDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNzIwMjg0OSwiaWF0IjoxNjk1MTcwNzk0LCJleHAiOjE2OTc3NjI3OTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MjEyNCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.IgbX4CmcJxdEz1v8pMRJthspP2PaKmL1NB5w_1-5VWs

A look at the nuclear brinkmanship phenomena from the comments of a narcissistic Hollywood showman.

Caitlin has this right. She has more guts than many.  Besides, it requires Objectivist integrity (and guts) to know what you know and honor your knowledge and values against mass opinion; continuing life on this planet demands that Western leaders do NOW what they could always have done many years ago - de-escalate. Listen to the opposition. This is bigger than them. They are culpable for - knowingly - inciting this conflict. Could they cease acting like tough-guy movie heroes who always beat the opposition?

"Not self, but the absence of self, is closer to the root of all evil". N. Branden

Edited September 20 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=82124&post_id=137202849&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=20l79l&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjE5MjE1NDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNzIwMjg0OSwiaWF0IjoxNjk1MTcwNzk0LCJleHAiOjE2OTc3NjI3OTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MjEyNCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.IgbX4CmcJxdEz1v8pMRJthspP2PaKmL1NB5w_1-5VWs

I still admire your (only) skill: posting the longest possible URLs😁

Edited September 20 by AlexL

[Jon Letendre]

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=82124&post_id=137202849&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=20l79l&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjE5MjE1NDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzNzIwMjg0OSwiaWF0IjoxNjk1MTcwNzk0LCJleHAiOjE2OTc3NjI3OTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MjEyNCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.IgbX4CmcJxdEz1v8pMRJthspP2PaKmL1NB5w_1-5VWs

A look at the nuclear brinkmanship phenomena from the comments of a narcissistic Hollywood showman.

Caitlin has this right. She has more guts than many.  Besides, it requires Objectivist integrity (and guts) to know what you know and honor your knowledge and values against mass opinion; continuing life on this planet demands that Western leaders do NOW what they could always have done many years ago - de-escalate. Listen to the opposition. This is bigger than them. They are culpable for - knowingly - inciting this conflict. Could they cease acting like tough-guy movie heroes who always beat the opposition?

"Not self, but the absence of self, is closer to the root of all evil". N. Branden

Good article.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor forwarded a theory about what is really behind the belligerent and irrational stance so many take toward Russia, in his talk with Tucker: he said if you look into the ethnic background of the most fervent, in the US, in Europe, around the world, they seem to share an ancient gripe with the Russian nation. He implied they are attempting to settle a very, very old score. I'm not entirely sure what history he refers to.

[AlexL]

19 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Colonel Douglas Macgregor ... in his talk with Tucker: he said if you look into the ethnic background of the most fervent, in the US, in Europe, around the world, they seem to share [...]

"if you look into the ethnic background"

With this kind of argument, cited approvingly, this Objectivism(?) Forum truly hit rock bottom. 

@dream_weaver

Edited September 20 by AlexL

[Jon Letendre]

Cited approvingly? I don't even know what his argument is. What background he means, what event from history he means to say is being avenged.

Macgregor is a prominent figure who said these things on the show of most watched media personality (Tucker Carlson) in the world. I agree with him that the fervency is spectacularly mismatched to the known circumstances and so there is likely something much deeper going on.

How is openly discussing such a major event of our times and comments by prominent experienced military figures addressing that event, "hitting rock bottom?"

[AlexL]

12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Cited approvingly?

Yes, you cited approvingly his ethnicity-based "argument".

THIS is "hitting rock bottom" and not "openly discussing such a major event of our times and comments by prominent experienced military figures addressing that event".

[Jon Letendre]

Is 'the Russians still want world domination, like they did last century" an "ethicity-based argument"?

[AlexL]

6 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Is 'the Russians still want world domination, like they did last century" an "ethicity-based argument"?

Don't waste everyone's time: I quoted for you the exact part of your post which does constitute an ethnicity-based "argument".

Go away!