About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[whYNOT]

On 10/4/2023 at 4:01 PM, AlexL said:

Here is a summary of the key points from the article:

• Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 not because of NATO expansion, but because he beleived NATO was weak and he had an opportunity to establish control over Ukraine. He had been trying other means unsucessfully

This jumps out at me: [Not because of NATO expansion], "but because he believed NATO was weak..."

A clear example of propagandized "projection", sleight of hand, dissembling, inversion of reality. All of which, have been utilized at every stage, throughout to morally justify to their uncritical-thinking public exactly WHY - "we" had to help defend Ukraine at all costs (to its ultimate, bloody conclusion).

This article is just the beginning, what ensues will be the hugest historical revisionism of the century.

No, it was not that Russia believed NATO was weak, there's no evidence for that, nor for its 'imperialist ambitions' -- the reverse: it was that Russia was portrayed by NATO/etc./etc to be a "paper tiger" about to collapse (and incredibly, still is now, in some 'authoritative' quarters).

In short, here is a weak Russia which we can take advantage of.

We don't want you to make a deal with the Russians, averred Johnson/Biden to Zelensky. They are weak; Ukraine's NATO-drilled armed forces can famously beat them with our backing. If you negotiate, you will be on your own.

The "Ukraine-triumphalists" had their way. Well done all.

Edited October 7, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 10/6/2023 at 8:52 AM, AlexL said:

What are the facts that suggest that Russians have acquired a distaste of fearful obedience to the state?

For example, does their (sad) history confirm this?

Because they and their economy were just beginning to do well. i.e. there was and is a lot more personal freedom than before.

Give them time.

A fresh reread of Rand's essay on Racism. "Chemical predestination" and other tribalist-collectivist constructs.

You'd know that "people" are individuals, and individuals -can- observe, introspect - and change their minds.

The Russians' sad history was as much a prime cause for individual-social-political mind-changing, as it was (to the hired historical determinists who swamped the internet at first) the "portents" of things to come, deja vu all over again.

The latter academics are as good as claiming that a belligerent Germany must rise again, slave-ownership will return to the West, or that apartheid is about to re-emerge in S. Africa. As it must go with a "revanchist" Russia returning to the Czars and Soviets' empires. One is -imbued- by birth with such inherent traits...

That's not only contra-free will, it is ethnic bigotry and prejudice, which I point out as the subconscious premise beneath the 'Russophobia' let loose in the West.   

No one yet answers my question: what hostility had Russia or its leaders shown to the US and Europe, pre-invasion?

If Russians are not to be aided in making their painful evolution from the past, fine, but first, (to the West) leave them alone. Let them cause their own destiny. Cease meddling in their internal affairs or trying to collapse the country and cause more harm and violence.

Edited October 7, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

16 hours ago, AlexL said:

The context is that, as of March 31, 2014, according to Putin's perspective, Crimea no longer belonged to Ukraine, rendering the Leasing Agreement with Ukraine obsolete.

Wrong. For the public, the causal order of events has been regularly reversed or neglected by propagandists, here, to make Putin's acts "an illegal annexation".

Corrected: An ultra-nationalist motivated and foreign-backed coup -- rendered obsolete Moscow's Lease agreement with Kyiv.

That's what is caused by a forceful overthrow of a government - automatically, all previous "bets" (deals, pacts) are "off".

Null and void.

There would be no doubt, explicitly and implicitly, that Kyiv's new regime would quickly and unilaterally break the agreement and seize control of Crimea. But Putin seized control first, then called for a referendum among Crimeans.

"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force". AR

Edited October 7, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

23 hours ago, AlexL said:

The context is that, as of March 31, 2014, according to Putin's perspective, Crimea no longer belonged to Ukraine, rendering the Leasing Agreement with Ukraine obsolete.

Wrong. For the public, the causal order of events has been regularly reversed or neglected by propagandists, here, to make Putin's acts "an illegal annexation".

Corrected: An ultra-nationalist motivated and foreign-backed coup -- rendered obsolete Moscow's Lease agreement with Kyiv.

Calm down:

1. I did not challenge the termination by Putin of the leasing agreement(s). As Crimea, in Putin's view, no longer belonged to Ukraine, the Leasing Agreement had no object any more.

2. What I wrote is the exact justification Putin provided in the Federal Law "On termination of agreements relating to the stay of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the territory of Ukraine". Here is the relevant part:

Quote

As a result of the signing on 18 March 2014 of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on acceptance of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and on formation within the Russian Federation of new entities, the object of Russian-Ukrainian agreements has been lost due to the de facto termination of the lease relations of the Russian Federation of the objects of its Black Sea Fleet in the territory of Ukraine.

They say nothing about an ultra-nationalist motivated and foreign-backed coup that rendered obsolete Moscow's Lease agreement with Kyiv. They simply say that the Lease Agreements are obsolete because Crimea does not belong anymore to Ukraine,  but to Russia.

[AlexL]

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One would first have to question why "the gift" of Crimea to Ukraine

OK, be my guest, question it. Based on facts, for once.

[AlexL]

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

On 10/4/2023 at 4:01 PM, AlexL said:

Here is a summary of the key points from the article [ISW Study]:

• Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 not because of NATO expansion, but because he beleived NATO was weak and he had an opportunity to establish control over Ukraine. He had been trying other means unsucessfully

This jumps out at me: [Not because of NATO expansion], "but because he believed NATO was weak..."

Oh, you then DO accept my challenge of showing that at least some of ISW's 40+ claims are factually false ! OK, I am getting my popcorn ready!

[AlexL]

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

On 10/6/2023 at 8:52 AM, AlexL said:

What are the facts that suggest that Russians have acquired a distaste of fearful obedience to the state?

For example, does their (sad) history confirm this?

Because they and their economy were just beginning to do well. i.e. there was and is a lot more personal freedom than before.

1. Beginning to do better - yes, starting from about 1998 and only some. Russia's economy was stagnating at least since 2012;

2. They were given some personal freedom (first by Gorbachev, by mistake), it did not result from a (mythical) "distaste of fearful obedience to the state".

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A fresh reread of Rand's essay on Racism "Chemical predestination" and other tribalist-collectivist constructs.

You'd know that "people" are individuals, and individuals -can- observe, introspect - and change their minds

A. Rand had, without being a Racist, a very bad opinion about the Russian mentality and culture of submission and collectivism.

If you consider that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively observed, introspected and changed their minds, then prove it.

[whYNOT]

On 10/8/2023 at 12:36 AM, AlexL said:

A. Rand had, without being a Racist, a very bad opinion about the Russian mentality and culture of submission and collectivism.

If you consider that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively observed, introspected and changed their minds, then prove it.

Facile determinism. i.e. 'Innate' character.

Rand would (today) most likely have "a very bad opinion about" the *western* mentality and "culture of submission and collectivism". Of course - and widening statism/anti-individualism. 

Look to oneself, first, the blind acceptance of state propaganda for starters.

Additionally, the Western nations began from a far higher platform. What has that 'determined'?

Edited October 9, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Facile determinism. i.e. 'Innate' character.

Character is not (pre)determind and is not innate. Neither is the (dominant) culture.

[whYNOT]

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

Character is not (pre)determind and is not innate. Neither is the (dominant) culture.

Correct. In which case, why would you cite Rand's "very bad opinion abut the Russian mentality, culture of submission" ...etc

-as if she would think the Russian mentality was "innate"? Even today, after new generations and past-Communism many years later; and therefore, central to what the Russian mentality is today and core to one's moral judgments of them now?

No, the problem isn't with Rand's accurate observation back then, it's with the pervasive, fixed-in-concrete, determinist-collectivist prejudice about the Russian 'character' now. "They would commit xyz, obviously!"

Whether Imperalist war - or 'atrocities'. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

Character is not (pre)determind and is not innate. Neither is the (dominant) culture.

Correct.

Then, if you believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it.

Edited October 9, 2023 by AlexL

[Doug Morris]

17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Rand would (today) most likely have "a very bad opinion about" the *western* mentality and "culture of submission and collectivism". Of course - and widening statism/anti-individualism. 

She would probably have a more complicated, nuanced view of America, and still see a big difference between American mentality and Russian mentality.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

8 hours ago, AlexL said:

Character is not (pre)determind and is not innate. Neither is the (dominant) culture.

Correct. In which case, why would you cite Rand's "very bad opinion abut the Russian mentality, culture of submission" ...etc

-as if she would think the Russian mentality was "innate"? Even today, after new generations and past-Communism many years later; and therefore, central to what the Russian mentality is today and core to one's moral judgments of them now?

Culture takes a long time to change.

Russia's government is still authoritarian.

 

[tadmjones]

I’d love hear a nuanced view of our first female admiral, and the relative speed of cultural change.

[whYNOT]

20 hours ago, AlexL said:

Then, if you believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it.

I did not write "massively". But a change there has been. Anyhow, it seems I must stress the obvious: this is no longer a Communist-atheist dictatorship. Its ideology is predominantly Orthodox Christianity, and therefore Russia poses little threat now to other nations, as it did when the state and intellectuals had a mass ideology to export, one that convinced and coerced many other people.

The change is more fundamental than mere political, (i.e. simply, "authoritarian v. democratic").

Fundamentally, the Russian people's/culture's convictions have flipped from (Communist) subjectivism/skepticism - to - mystical-intrinsicism.

During roughly the same period the West has been moving the opposite way - into subjectivism-skepticism (neo- Marxism: to post-modernism, to Wokeism/etc.).

Both positions are the clearest example of "different sides of the same counterfeit coin", in Rand's brilliant formulation. In essential terms, they equally represent primacy of consciousness.

With newfound subjectivity and skepticism, anti-reason and anti-individualism, the West is in the process of losing some liberty and freedoms at the same time the Russians are gaining somewhat more than they had.

Edited October 10, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 10/5/2023 at 1:03 AM, AlexL said:

 He budgeted with several billions the extension of the already largest port at the Black Sea, the port of Novorossiysk. which was on the Russian territory.

Thus, in 2005 it was announced that until 2017 two new military naval bases will be created in Novorossiysk, substantially larger than Sebastopol's. The large scale construction project was started. The Black Sea Fleet was to be moved from Sebastopol to Novorossiysk by the end of the leasing.

So much about Russia "losing the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time" and having "no other option" than snatch Sevastopol and the entire Crimea immediately!

The other option was to build or extend one of the other ports Russia had at the Black Sea along the 700 km coastline. Novorossiysk was probably the best choice, but there were also other ports : Sochi and Tuapse, as well as smaller ones like Anapa, Temryuk and Yeysk.

The Novorossiysk project was abandoned : Putin had larger and bolder projects, of geostrategic scope, so that Novorossiysk, a replacement of Sebastopol, was not needed anymore... 

Think geo-strategy. Not only that RF would lose a vital asset, Sevastopol, after the regime change -but - WHO would take over the port?

 I think you underestimate how hungrily NATO etc. wanted Crimea and Sevastopol. And are even now calling for Ukraine offensives on them, risking war escalation.

With the superior combined fleets (USN, Royal Navy, et al.) based there, the Black Sea would become Nato's pond.

Russia's fleet, even with an alternative port, would be bottled up (with an inevitable and dangerous battle between the fleets as consequence).

All in the strategy to contain and weaken and collapse Russia. Who doubts Putin knew this, and preempted matters?

Edited October 10, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

nothing beats seeing for yourself, being there

https://youtu.be/WUlMvyKeUHM?si=rOsWMY3X_yHo0ylr

How is the city architecture reconciled with a dictatorship?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&sca_esv=572214004&biw=1177&bih=811&sxsrf=AM9HkKlgK-SbpCr0Cg_aZ2QvcxfEmB0yUw:1696959250631&q=Modern+moscow+architecture&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=wLdPSGFIQgatsM%2COC1avBBH_n2NqM%2C_%3BG_S2mSdPipoBuM%2CBtVaIkHsSfNV6M%2C_%3BqJ8u0w4eGkCTEM%2CnmILTglnF8SKjM%2C_%3BkiE2KATT7FBNiM%2CVq1oQIVzaLXSKM%2C_%3B_7y499FfiXQeYM%2CAzinm2cCAbTDFM%2C_%3BoqPjPjRlzeK5GM%2CFEinIpxGJY8LoM%2C_%3Bu3cuFvKjDkhoiM%2CQ3FXrCe9NwoFaM%2C_%3BdIRMoY4GZFbTdM%2CzxJWYP0Iah8PZM%2C_%3BElXZ9UuCUavQiM%2CijKMrHNUxrayfM%2C_%3BZNrJEKYCwZvLUM%2CPCiXurIjqmCy0M%2C_%3ByXnrwfnx3XQHPM%2C0UODsqLmuKRJsM%2C_%3BXthRrPtS-VkMfM%2CFEinIpxGJY8LoM%2C_%3BtEFf3wJu8_QbBM%2Cg4nbZFOLONcysM%2C_%3BFZcj-KsGxNhYsM%2C2uBmEdz8yiarKM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kRH4S3gtdEHzbTyyH7FBaLh4S0fMw&ved=2ahUKEwj38NPqgeyBAxXzUUEAHUQoCXAQjJkEegQIHRAC

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

23 hours ago, AlexL said:

Then, if you believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it.

I did not write "massively". But a change there has been.

No, you didn't write "massively". But you should have, because a few percent of a population "observing, introspecting and changing their minds" does not mean a change in culture or mentality you were taking about as a reality in today's Russia.

Therefore, if you still believe that since Ayn Rand's days Russians massively "observed, introspected and changed their minds," as you claim, then prove it by facts.

You mentioned only one: 

Quote

Because they and their economy were just beginning to do well. i.e. there was and is a lot more personal freedom than before.

To which I commented:

Quote

 

1. Beginning to do better - yes, starting from about 1998 and only some. Russia's economy was stagnating at least since 2012;

2. They were given some personal freedom (first by Gorbachev, by mistake), it did not result from a (mythical) "distaste of fearful obedience to the state".

 

Therefore I am waiting for a true proof of your claim.

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Not only that RF would lose a vital asset, Sevastopol,

Sevastopol is not RF's, can't you understand this ??? And RF has no a priory right to the ability to control the Black Sea, to make it its "pond"!

Why shouldn't it be Turkey's "pond"? Or Romania's? Or Ukraine's? Or Bulgaria's? Whose "pond" is the Mediterranean?

Observing Putin's Russia, I would prefer the Black Sea be NATO's "pond". NATO/US never brought dictatorship to a (semi)free country, but Russia did.

Besides, I showed that Putin could have the Black See as his "pond" even without Sebastopol, and even envisaged such a move, but this is an inconvenient truth for you.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

you underestimate how hungrily NATO etc. wanted Crimea and Sevastopol.

HOW hungry were NATO etc.? Was there a document, an official statement published/leaked about this? Why isn't it all over the Internet, or at least on the Kremlin site? So: bring out proof and not idle speculations. But this would be an absolute première, so that I am not holding ma breath

[whYNOT]

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

Observing Putin's Russia, I would prefer the Black Sea be NATO's "pond". NATO/US never brought dictatorship to a (semi)free country, but Russia did.

Besides, I showed that Putin could have the Black See as his "pond" even without Sebastopol, and even envisaged such a move, but this is an inconvenient truth for you.

 

You cannot put facts together, wasting my time replying to you. Once more, not only would Russia certainly lose the Sevastopol lease agreement after the Ukr Gvt's overthrow, the port would be lost specifically to Nato's superior fleets--who would have dominance over shipping in the Black Sea. Therefore, be able to intercept and search RF cargo ships and even blockade the Russian fleet at will, in whichever harbor they still own. "Might makes right".

This would match the strategy occurring on land, expansionism up to and into Russian territory; or here intruding on its maritime boundary closing ships off from the Med. The ultimate target, the long-planned containment and balkanization of Russia. All while, seemingly clueless and uncaring of the major human consequences.   

Whatever - ICBM missile bases on the border or Naval missile warships patrolling off the coast restricting shipping - no nation would tolerate either. Close-by "provocation", iow.

I ask and keep asking, where was there hostility by Russia? This time - Was any threat posed to Europe by its Black Sea fleet?  

I find it sadly ironic how a corrupted country which non-democratically forced a regime change and a govt that still blatantly attacks its own people in the Donbas, with its neo-Nazi members press-ganging conscripts from the streets is considered even faintly "semi-free". And horrendous that the West can turn a blind eye to their atrocities and ally itself with them while urging the people to continue to pay with their lives (for its nefarious purpose with Russia).

The "dictatorship" will be shown by eventual East Ukraine citizens' referendums to be vastly preferable to the "semi-free country" they are presently in. Inconvenient truth.

AL: You protest too much. These are not all your own objections. Which organization hired you to troll here?

Edited October 10, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

23 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You cannot put facts together, wasting my time replying to you

I go by facts, not by phantasy.

23 hours ago, whYNOT said:

AL: ... These are not all your own objections.

Thanks for your - involuntary - compliment ! I understand: you mean the objections are too good to be mine. 😁

No, the objections are mine, but the facts are not mine.

Quote

Which organization hired you to troll here?

Do you want to change from yours to mine? No, mine doesn't hire stupid and immoral bastards.

Edited October 11, 2023 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

A simple synopsis presented by one academic Dr. Friedrich Glasl on a Neutrality Studies interview.

"These are 3 different conflicts closely intertwined".

"1. A Geopolitical War - "West" vs. "East"

2. An Interstate war - Russia vs. Ukraine

3. An intra-Ukrainian war - pro West vs. pro-Russia groups".

His device reduces the war to hierarchical and over-lapping conflict spheres. 

From this you can deduce  [1] + [3] --> [2]

Which closely ties my observation for why Putin invaded. The "deep background" (NATO actions/inactions) and the "immediate emergency" (the Donbass). With NATO/the West common to both security concerns.

Worse still, well in advance the West/NATO could be in NO doubt there would be a war - and did nothing to avert it.

After all, they created the conflict conditions:

the formula 1 + 3 = 2 would provoke and cause this war. 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

Thanks for your - involuntary - compliment ! I understand: you mean the objections are too good to be mine. 😁

No, the objections are mine, but the facts are not mine.

 

Nah, without originality you regurgitate the standard Western "talking points".

And try to divert a serious debate to trivialities.

I can tell when you receive others' input and prompting (whether from outside or within the forum).

[whYNOT]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:13 PM, AlexL said:

HOW hungry were NATO etc.? Was there a document, an official statement published/leaked about this? Why isn't it all over the Internet, or at least on the Kremlin site? So: bring out proof and...

I don't rely on others to inform me of NATO's (post-Cold war) premises, motives and intentions and likely consequences. Scary, how the latest global mind self-sacrificers need "official" confirmation from their government leaders(authorities/etc.) to be told ~what~ to think and permission 'to think'. The Brave New World, I don't think.  

Edited October 12, 2023 by whYNOT

[Grames]

It's over.  Russia wins.

The New Current Thing is Israel's war of extermination against the Gaza concentration camp.  All further media attention and war funding will go there.  Without being propped up by the U.S. their Ukrainian puppet regime will collapse and Russia and its puppets will survive.  Biden will attempt to fund the two wars at once but it is too much to ask.

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, Grames said:

It's over.  Russia wins.

🤣🤣🤣

3 hours ago, Grames said:

Israel's war of extermination against the Gaza concentration camp

🤣🤣🤣