Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Ha.  I'm not obliged to educate you about well-established facts.

„Well established facts”… You thus clearly admit that you did not do your own research for establishing the elements you claim as facts – I mean the six enumerated in my previous comment. You clearly admit that you simply took them over from your usual sources of truths about the RF-Ukraine conflict.

So... you are again refusing my challenge to argue / establish / prove your claims regarding alleged facts - which is an obvious obligation/duty of honesty and honor in a rational debate, especially on forum dedicated to Objectivism. Bot this duty is not enforced here.

As an aside: Regarding some of your sources – I enumerated Russia Today, TASS and Dimitri K. Simes’ The National Interest – you write “Haven't heard of the last two”. As you certainly heard of  RT and TASS, you then mean the last one, The National Interest, which is owned by a certain Dimitri Simes [*]. In one of your comments on OO you approvingly cited / referenced an article which first appeared in The National Interest. Of course, you also approvingly cited articles from TASS and RT. As you can see, these are not publications you can cross-check one against the other in order to establish facts – they are in the same circle, a vicious circle, as I called it😁

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You may make a reasoned and evaluated - moral - argument from the facts you know...

Yes, I may, but for the time being I prefer to challenge YOUR claims, as I have already explained. I understand your exasperation, but this is my choice. You may chose to simply avoid making claims which you cannot support. I will continue to challenge your claims when and if I'll feel like it.

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

... or receive no more response from me. 

No more response from you ??? I never received a cogent response from you...

------

[*] a Soviet propagandist based in Washington and who has been hosting, since 2018, together with a representative of Putin’s party United Russia in the Russian “Parliament”, a weekly talk-show on the main (!!!) Russian state TV channel. I saw one and I had enough. Same for Vladimir Solovyov, Margarita Simonyan (CEO of Russia Today !!!), Olga Skabeeva : 10 minutes per week is my maximal dose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2022 at 7:14 PM, whYNOT said:

The only thing preposterous, is that a Jewish president/ neo-Nazi element in Ukraine should indicate to onlookers anything pertinent and self-contradictory at all. A fanatical group (especially active in the military) doesn't represent the whole country, nor is the (birth?) religion of its leader representative of the country.

So, we are to believe that a Nazi regime will tolerate a Jewish president. I guess these are the good kind of Nazis we hear about.

On 10/14/2022 at 7:14 PM, whYNOT said:

Maybe you don't know military strategy, which is simply that in trying to take over, occupy and stabilize some limited territory, an army has to drive the opposition back - much further and deeper to secure a no-contact zone. Given the long range precision rocket launchers and artillery the UAF has received, so the further they must be pushed back. 

With this reasoning, NATO should in fact be frightened. It means that Russia would drive into the neighbors of Ukraine to create the buffer zone that it would supposedly need.  (since military strategy requires he go "much further")

No wonder, they are all beefing up their militaries.

On 10/14/2022 at 7:14 PM, whYNOT said:

Okay, Putin 'went to' the capital. Since he clearly did not mean to occupy it, which would have been foolhardy with the low number of invading RF troops, but redeployed at the first resistance, it was obviously (and discussed by proper military experts) a strong warning to Kyiv--a successful diversionary ploy, that had Zelensky initially agreeable to negotiations (in Istanbul, until the war-mongering cretin Johnson arrived to stop him, encouraging the conflict against Russia to go on: i.e. "we" can beat them!).

Putin obviously did not mean to occupy the capital Kyiv. He obviously did not mean to invade Ukraine. It is because of his benevolent nature, that he is in retreat right now.

Tell me more, I'm willing to believe anything because I'm not a "proper" military expert.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

So, we are to believe that a Nazi regime will tolerate a Jewish president. I guess these are the good kind of Nazis we hear about.

With this reasoning, NATO should in fact be frightened. It means that Russia would drive into the neighbors of Ukraine to create the buffer zone that it would supposedly need.  (since military strategy requires he go "much further")

No wonder, they are all beefing up their militaries.

Putin obviously did not mean to occupy the capital Kyiv. He obviously did not mean to invade Ukraine. It is because of his benevolent nature, that he is in retreat right now.

Tell me more, I'm willing to believe anything because I'm not a "proper" military expert.  

"In retreat right now". Come back to me in a month.

You can't presume that in the fluid 'cut and thrust' of military operations it is always clear who is in retreat, who is in advance, what are the key positions, who is regrouping, nor who is taking unsustainable losses for unimportant gains on a map. Simply, the UAF are taking terrible losses while the Russians have been conserving their initial troops. True figures are hard to come by, but casualties were and are heavily on the Ukraine side according to impartial observers, no matter what you hear. As some say, the real war hasn't begun yet. Much depends upon how far NATO/Ukraine will escalate the battle and on what territory.

Of course, the wishful thinking put out by western Gvt's and media, preclude mentioning any Russian gains, or its over all superior territorial position, nor the terrible thought - Russia might achieve its aims. When the logistical picture does emerge in the credulous west that Putin is most likely not going to lose - save a massive NATO intervention (or an arranged nuclear event to permit that) --not after the reserves arrive for his thus far, insufficiently manned forces, surmise what will happen when reality sinks in.

People everywhere will demand:

"Why did our government and EU/NATO put us through this for absolutely nothing!!?

Why should we have had to suffer from the economic costs of sanctions, Ukraine armaments, etc.,  on our lives?

Why did so many extra Ukrainians have to die for your fruitless cause?

Why did our authorities, from February until now, negate and not attempt a peaceful solution?!!!

For what, for whose benefit?

Governments will fall.

In part, caused by Western hubris or false pride, Russophobia and the 'moral' refusal to deal with Putin. All concealing this fact: those in power know fully that Putin had just cause to seek his "security guarantees" and "Ukraine neutrality" since they were the ones covertly interfering in Ukraine and making Russia (and the Donbas separatists) "insecure". They are guilty and they know it. If they are capable of guilt.

(The immorality of Blinken openly advocating a prolonged conflict to "weaken" Russia about matches Boris Johnson preventing Zelensky from talks. Since when does the West have the right to stir up and support MORE and longer wars by other nations? Rather than be the moral participants to averting death and destruction?)

The West looked for a win-lose, zero-sum outcome - in their favor. That had failure written all over it. At very best, after a prolonged conflict a Pyrrhic victory or a 'draw' - and Ukraine would become wasted in the process of conducting this "proxy war" on the West's behalf.

At very best, but that was and is still, about as unlikely as a touted Ukraine victory  - chasing the Russians out, with the great number of troops and armaments the RF have at their disposal.

Not once it seems did the powers consider 'zero-sum' going the other way: A humiliating Ukraine(-NATO) defeat. That shows their military experts' lack of rationality and caliber.

It's for this strong probability, to avoid win-lose by either side, the ONE way out should have been early negotiations and concessions by both parties. 

But sacrifice was the chosen, default option as usual. The defeat and draining of Russia by sacrificing Ukrainians and western economies. If that's not sickening to you guys what is?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

So, we are to believe that a Nazi regime will tolerate a Jewish president. I guess these are the good kind of Nazis we hear about.

With this reasoning, NATO should in fact be frightened. It means that Russia would drive into the neighbors of Ukraine to create the buffer zone that it would supposedly need.  (since military strategy requires he go "much further")

No wonder, they are all beefing up their militaries.

Putin obviously did not mean to occupy the capital Kyiv. He obviously did not mean to invade Ukraine. It is because of his benevolent nature, that he is in retreat right now.

Tell me more, I'm willing to believe anything because I'm not a "proper" military expert.  

This is not a majority Nazi regime. Did I say so? It has a minority of influential neo-Nazis, pro-Banderists and ultra nationalists.

I assume you realize how this situation is perfectly feasible in majoritarian elections. Zelensky got the populist vote. Particularly popular, because he promised to address the civil war according to Minsk (and didn't, after his life was threatened by ultra-rightists not to negotiate with 'Russians' and not try to end the war).

It is one thing to invade and occupy majorly friendly and loyalist regions, cities and towns.

Quite another, to defeat and occupy enemy strongholds, with a certain, high casualty rate to soldiers and civilians. Out of the question, Putin could consider taking Kyiv.

190,000 men don't go far and he was evidently, by subsequent actions, only interested in the East and South.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two rational calls for immediate end-of-war talks (and previous failures): C Johnstone and A Mate

 

 

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/10/12/us-rejection-of-moscows-offer-for-peace-talks-is-utterly-inexcusable/

 

 

https://mate.substack.com/p/russia-says-us-wrecked-ukraine-talks

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Two rational calls for immediate end-of-war talks...

Peace talks automatically imply some give and take from both sides. The unstated, axiomatic premise of both authors is that Ukraine must give up some of its territories.  Now:

1. Why should Ukraine accept anything less than recovering the sovereignty within its full  internationally recognized 1991 borders ?

2. Putin never signaled that he would consider this solution. Why is it considered acceptable that an aggressor keeps even an inch of the conquered land ?? This is unjust and immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

Peace talks automatically imply some give and take from both sides. The unstated, axiomatic premise of both authors is that Ukraine must give up some of its territories.  Now:

1. Why should Ukraine accept anything less than recovering the sovereignty within its full  internationally recognized 1991 borders ?

2. Putin never signaled that he would consider this solution. Why is it considered acceptable that an aggressor keeps even an inch of the conquered land ?? This is unjust and immoral.

Here you are speaking to the abstract argument of morality as it applies to aggressor /belligerent states and their actions. And a rational reading of the situation through that lens would identify and assign the normative moral judgements as laid out.

If country A invades country B and claims land in country B now 'belongs' to country A , that fells into the category of an immoral act and most likely the result of imperialist actions on the part of country A.

The question is does the current situation between Russia and Ukraine 'fit' into that specific well defined box?

Control of Crimea has been historically the means by which European / Eastern European/Eurasian powers have tempered Russia's naval power via the Black Sea fleet and its use of warm water ports.

It seems the thrust of these discussions started , and have been argued especially by Tony , to the idea that the western press has presented the situation as if it were solely an example of country A invading country B akin to Napoleon and has purposefully down played or ignored the influence of NATO /US actions and a broader historic context via control of the Black Sea as adjuncts to Russia's current actions, notwithstanding a normative judgement of the military aggression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tadmjones said:

It seems the thrust of these discussions started , and have been argued especially by Tony , to the idea that the western press has presented the situation as if it were solely an example of country A invading country B akin to Napoleon and has purposefully down played or ignored the influence of NATO /US actions and a broader historic context via control of the Black Sea as adjuncts to Russia's current actions, notwithstanding a normative judgement of the military aggression.

Let us accept the premise that NATO or the united states put pressure, or was threatening enough. Then Russia was retaliating or defending itself against agression. Then one could say that China is defending itself over Taiwan, that the Arabs are defending themselves over Israel, that Iran is defending itself over what happened a long time ago. And then in turn, the west is defending itself against them defending themselves.

NATO is a threat, it is meant to be a threat. At the heart of the argument is: NATO should not be a threat. Is it now a bigger threat since more countries have joined it? Should we now expect more violence from Russia? Is it more justified now?

The case has to be made that Russia had a right to use violence at this stage of the game. Or shall we say Putin has a right to do that. The west  set up a coup in Ukraine, fine. Russia set up an election to separate Crimea. Why not do that again? Why get hundreds of thousands of people killed and bring the world closer to a nuclear accidental war?

The undeniable fact is that any country that makes territorial claims that it expects through violence is a threat. China is a threat to almost all countries surrounding it. That is why they are all beefing up their militaries. Do we have that happening with the US and its neighbors? No because there are no territorial claims. There has not been any threat of violence from NATO, only an allowance of countries joining. That is what people and the press see. What are they missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former Ambassador Matlock had the integrity to place his reputation on the line at risk of being a Puin-appeaser by speaking forthrightly. He will infuriate Kyiv and its followers. I caution delicate readers that this came from RT today - it must, by definition be a false report unlikely to be found in msm who played dumb that there was an ongoing bloody war in Donbas against Ukraine citizens , and if so, what of it? What's that to do with Putin, he invaded because he is evil - QED:

"The former ambassador noted that Kiev had multiple opportunities to avert war. He believes that Russia would not have sent troops into Ukraine in February if Kiev “had been willing to abide by the Minsk agreement, recognize the Donbas as an autonomous entity within Ukraine, avoid NATO military advisors, and pledge not to enter NATO.”"

https://www.rt.com/news/564903-jack-matlock-ukraine-washington/

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2022 at 2:38 AM, Easy Truth said:

So, we are to believe that a Nazi regime will tolerate a Jewish president. I guess these are the good kind of Nazis we

With this reasoning, NATO should in fact be frightened. It means that Russia would drive into the neighbors of Ukraine to create the buffer zone that it would supposedly need.  (since military strategy requires he go "much further")

No wonder, they are all beefing up their militaries.

Putin obviously did not mean to occupy the capital Kyiv. He obviously did not mean to invade Ukraine. It is because of his benevolent nature, that he is in retreat right now.

 

The strategy of a no-go zone is usually a. defensive (keeping borders, cities, the troops and inhabitants safely out of range of missile/artillery fire) b. in preparation for truce talks, to have some room to bargain with when arguing new borders.

I might be wrong, but it sort of appears that Putin has interest only in occupying land inhabited by majority Easterners, pro-Russia and opposed to Kyiv rule. Perhaps though, he will invite referendums wherever he goes "much further"? After the high approval for accession by Ukrainians wanting to break from Kyiv, why not grant all Ukrainian Galicians (and Poles, Estonians, Finns?) the opportunity to also accede and join Russia. He can only try.

But seriously, those neighbors beefing up their forces and rushing to join NATO have been hysterical ninnies affected by the panic mongering that invoked Putin on a Russian Empire rampage. It's noticeable that the several scholars who anticipated this have lately gone quiet. 

They could have done far better to have simply accepted Putin's stated aims at his word and projected from those, instead of psycho-analysing him and fantasizing his intentions and citing Russia's historical determinism.

For sure his whole ambition was to get away from NATO not move closer. How that goes, who knows?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2022 at 7:38 PM, whYNOT said:

You can't presume that in the fluid 'cut and thrust' of military operations it is always clear who is in retreat, who is in advance, what are the key positions, who is regrouping, nor who is taking unsustainable losses for unimportant gains on a map.

Do you follow or pay attention to sites that purport to offer accurate maps of the cut and thrust? 

On 10/16/2022 at 7:38 PM, whYNOT said:

Simply, the UAF are taking terrible losses while the Russians have been conserving their initial troops. True figures are hard to come by, but casualties were and are heavily on the Ukraine side according to impartial observers, no matter what you hear.

What I hear here is that while precise figures are difficult to arrive at ... Ukraine has sufferered more casualties than Russia.  

Can you please share the sources you may rely on as "impartial observers"?

One site that I see cited in many places reporting on details of the conflict is the Institute for the Study of War ... among which projects includes an animated timelapse: 

Interactive Time-lapse: Russia's War in Ukraine

iswAnimationGrab.png

Today's daily report:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-17

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 2:07 PM, tadmjones said:

If country A invades country B and claims land in country B now 'belongs' to country A , that fells into the category of an immoral act and most likely the result of imperialist actions on the part of country A.

The question is does the current situation between Russia and Ukraine 'fit' into that specific well defined box?

Control of Crimea has been historically the means by which European / Eastern European/Eurasian powers have tempered Russia's naval power via the Black Sea fleet and its use of warm water ports.

Is the above an attempt to construct an argument ?

If it is, then the conlusion of the argument is missing, or at least it is not stated explicitly. Could you please do it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to just type and send a comment , little if any editing or formatting. On re-reading it does seem like a conclusion-less argument, when what I had in mind was more a drilling down on whether the question of Russia's actions are fairly characterized by western media accounts and or whether or not it is appropriate to include the 'history' of the region in categorizing their actions.

It feels more Alsace-Lorraine'y' , than Norman Conquest'y'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 1:08 PM, Easy Truth said:

There has not been any threat of violence from NATO, only an allowance of countries joining. That is what people and the press see. What are they missing?

Is it not true that member nations to NATO are eligible and sometimes do 'host' US nukes?

Wouldn't Russia see every 'host' akin to the view the US had of Cuba 'hosting' USSR nukes ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

On re-reading it does seem like a conclusion-less argument

And it remained a conclusion-less argument. Then there is nothing for me to comment on. If there is no conclusion, then there is no way for me to see if the "history of the region" has any relevance. 

You are wasting my time with your stream of consciousness discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AlexL said:

And it remained a conclusion-less argument. Then there is nothing for me to comment on. If there is no conclusion, then there is no way for me to see if the "history of the region" has any relevance. 

You are wasting my time with your stream of consciousness discourse.

fair enough, though I have little discretion over the use of your time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 7:42 PM, whYNOT said:

Former Ambassador Matlock had the integrity to place his reputation on the line at risk of being a Putin-appeaser by speaking forthrightly. 

Anyone who says or writes something is placing his reputation on the line. This is the corollary of the freedom of speech. Inadmissible is only the forcible suppression of its right to say and publish whatever he wants on media that agrees to do it.
Therefore, the above introductory remark is an attempt to present Matlock as a potential martyr.

Quote

[from] RT today - it must, by definition be a false

As RT is (by the characterization of its CEO M. Simonyan) a propaganda weapon of one of the parties in the current war, it is to be expected that RT's report on Matlock's opinion piece cherry picks the parts it will present to the reader.  
As in the case of RT's report on RAND corporation analysis, the objectivity would demand that whYNOT summarizes the original piece and links to it - instead of to its RT rendering.
But objectivity is, visibly, not one of the whYNOT's objectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tadmjones said:

 

Wouldn't Russia see every 'host' akin to the view the US had of Cuba 'hosting' USSR nukes ?

There's an incapacity by nearly all to "see" things from Russia's point of view. Missing from the many who consider themselves 'empathic'.

To try to "put yourself in the shoes of" the leadership and the average individual Russian - and consider: what risk would I/my country/my government dislike, or never put up with?

You hear the Cuban crisis come up often, to little avail. America must of course, it is presumed, have an extended sphere of security, from its borders and the entire western hemisphere, and onto continental Europe, going East...right up to the Russian borders. Unquestioned.

Conversely, Russia can not, it's presumed, question its security on what's going on immediately on its front doorstep - probable missile bases or a great military concentration just across the border.

Why not? Because Russia is inherently inferior and was once a threat? a subjective and determinist attitude.

For thee, not for me.

This relative importance/status/power of nations should not be the legal/objective/principled manner to conduct international relations. Which can be seen presently.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

As in the case of RT's report on RAND corporation analysis, the objectivity would demand that whYNOT summarizes the original piece and links to it - instead of to its RT rendering.
But objectivity is, visibly, not one of the whYNOT's objectives.

Do you want to know - or to be told? Unable or lazy to follow up for yourself, which means you will remain on the concretist ground floor forever checking sources. You don't know "objectivity".

Following on the RandCorp study, this interview: Look for how their "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia" (to sustain "anxiety" in Russia) has been playing out by NATO and Ukraine recently.

iow, quite openly we are told this conflict was premeditated - by RAND informing NATO.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Accordingly, RAND proposes, of the many “options” for “extending Russia economically”, one stands above the rest: “A first step would involve stopping Nord Stream 2.” (A Mate)

Most prophetic by RAND. Their study was in 2019

https://mate.substack.com/p/in-nord-stream-attack-us-sees-a-tremendous?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Is it not true that member nations to NATO are eligible and sometimes do 'host' US nukes?

Wouldn't Russia see every 'host' akin to the view the US had of Cuba 'hosting' USSR nukes ?

A fundamental difference in the situation between Cuba and Ukraine is that Cuba had nuclear missiles on it's soil.
Ukraine does not. But there is the potential once it does join NATO.

Keep in mind after the nuclear devices were taken off of Cuba, the United states did not threaten to invade Cuba for being in the sphere of the Soviet Union. Meaning all sorts of threats existed because of the alliance with the USSR but did not evoke an ultimatum from the US.

The Cuban response was specifically taken in response to the missiles "existing" and more being delivered (otherwise the USSR ships could be allowed them to be searched).

In the case of the Ukraine, Russia is acting against a potential threat.

This type reaction would also be justification for the action that the US took in Iraq. A potential of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be untrue. They did not exist, yet the sense of being threated is what justified the war.

Meanwhile, the US was not ok with Cuba or Grenada or Panama acting against it's interests and took military action.

If the US had every right to embargo and invade, then it would be okay for Russia to have done the same thing regarding Ukraine. That is the current justification given for the action by Russia, since the US had a right to react to Cuba and Russia has a right to react to Ukraine.

The crux of the matter is: should any country have a right to escalate like that?

There is the argument that the US over stepped it's bounds. That would mean Russian also over stepped it's bounds. In that case both the US and Russia should NOT have acted using an ultimatum.

So is it okay for the US to have reacted to Cuba the way that it did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AlexL said:

Anyone who says or writes something is placing his reputation on the line. This is the corollary of the freedom of speech. Inadmissible is only the forcible suppression of its right to say and publish whatever he wants on media that agrees to do it.
Therefore, the above introductory remark is an attempt to present Matlock as a potential martyr.

 

You are unaware. In precisely this climate of moral cowardice, evasion and dishonesty by nearly all officials etc., the unique stand out is anyone who speaks out what he thinks or knows to be true.

And nearly all indoctrinating western media would not have the integrity to publish what he says. So it had to found on Russian media.

A "potential martyr"? Given the Ukrainian website "Mirotvorots" and its 'hit list' which numbers many 'enemies' (Kissinger, e.g.), not entirely improbable.

But once more you do not penetrate to the idea behind Matlock's words: See the quotation? Directly in italics?

You choose to evade the substance: Matlock thinks Putin would not have invaded - IF...

On 10/18/2022 at 7:42 PM, whYNOT said:

 

"The former ambassador noted that Kiev had multiple opportunities to avert war. He believes that Russia would not have sent troops into Ukraine in February if Kiev “had been willing to abide by the Minsk agreement, recognize the Donbas as an autonomous entity within Ukraine, avoid NATO military advisors, and pledge not to enter NATO.”"

https://www.rt.com/news/564903-jack-matlock-ukraine-washington/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:
12 hours ago, AlexL said:

As in the case of RT's report on RAND corporation analysis, the objectivity would demand that whYNOT summarizes the original piece and links to it - instead of to its RT rendering.
But objectivity is, visibly, not one of the whYNOT's objectives.

Do you want to know - or to be told? Unable or lazy to follow up for yourself, which means you will remain on the concretist ground floor forever checking sources. You don't know "objectivity".

Precisely because I wanted to know and not be told about Former Ambassador Matlock opinion piece as seen through the eyes of the RT propaganda outlet, I went to the source - the Matlock article. Of course, RT carefully avoided to link to it. Maybe because, besides what RT deemed useful to present to the reader, Matlock's article contains some opinions which RT didn't want the readers to be aware of.

This is exactly the same - disinformation - method used by RT with the RAND Corporation's report/advise about how to avoid a deliberate Russian escalation: cherry picking from the report and avoiding to link to the report itself.

Therefore: it wasn't me who was "Unable or lazy to follow up for yourself" - I did the necessary. You, however, instead of summarizing yourself the Matlock article, as objectivity would demand, you presented instead its RT rendering, while being fully aware of RT's nature as a propaganda outlet.

Objectivity is, visibly, not your approach. Should be obvious to anyone by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Precisely because I wanted to know and not be told about Former Ambassador Matlock opinion piece as seen through the eyes of the RT propaganda outlet, I went to the source - the Matlock article. Of course, RT carefully avoided to link to it. Maybe because, besides what RT deemed useful to present to the reader, Matlock's article contains some opinions which RT didn't want the readers to be aware of.

.

Are you suggesting that because there are no links, the remarks quoted by RT attributed to Matlock might not even be spoken by him!?

Made up, in fact?

"Seen through the eyes of the RT..."

Wow, the 'anti-Russian propaganda-propaganda' has you in its sway. Not a word RT publishes is credible...

Does his statement stand, yes or no?

If you found other pertinent remarks and "some opinions" which were not reported, that indeed contradict Matlock's core statement and which "RT didn't want the readers to be aware of" - show them.

I'm waiting to see.

Edited by whYNOT
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   1 member


×
×
  • Create New...