Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Let us say that is true. Does that give a nation the right to invade? Why not just do another Crimea if that sliver is the only issue at stake.

On one hand the invasion was because the fear of NATO. Now it seems it was because Ukraine was an immoral government.

Even with your description, it's aggression would be limited to it's own population. There is no aggression against another country by the Ukraine. Especially when it gave up it's nuclear missiles. And for the west, that is in fact should be the overriding issue. To defend Ukraine's integrity to prove that it is better to give up your nuclear weapons than to keep them. That is our interest at stake.

If there was an official treaty, you would have a case. But there is no officially recognized treaty.

If there was such a treaty, was it in secret? Was it between only two people? Two heads of state? What are we elevating to a  level of "treaty"?

The fact is that there has been a cold war going on and an official agreement needs a third party to witness. Both sides should know that.

Some confusion about a "treaty", whether between NATO and Russia or between Kyiv and the rebel Donbas. In short. The first was not formalized explicitly, the second Minsk I and II (2014/15) was explicitly agreed to by all parties including Russia, but not finally acted upon by the Gvt. responsible, Kyiv (but, yes, violations on both sides) who merely resorted to carrying out increased war up until this year.

I searched for articles that help put things in perspective. I highly recommend them all. They review actions and inaction, Western and Russian goals, attitudes and misconceptions which brought things to a head and this point. Again, the supplied facts and substance and arguments in them appear hardly at all, to the extent of being buried, in the propagandized media 'spin'.  Notice the dates. There's almost prescience for future events, i.e., conceptual thinking.

Albeit socialist by conviction and political leaning, the journalists have great integrity: Parry, Hedges, etc., excoriate the propaganda techniques, in wars especially, that they intimately understand, and are/were a class above the rest, I think.

2015: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/19/ukraines-poison-pill-for-peace-talks/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAQQAg&usg=AOvVaw3tE2IDnW7callqhwxLoZit

March, 2022: https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/01/chris-hedges-the-greatest-evil/

2015: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/09/obamas-stupid-propaganda-stuff/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw1Ek-kKW7llRW6zg4-uQGpm

Feb 2022:https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/02/us-reaping-what-it-sowed-in-ukraine/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw0Pr-nFYGAsEN8Iz9R_qzrO

May 2022: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=017930374292714292268:vw5cotp1r2c&q=https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/10/caitlin-johnstone-if-the-us-wanted-peace-in-ukraine/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiZ--39g_b6AhWrQvEDHUWBCkQQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw3dwpR3gnHI5VuBcVFeqUeL

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

I searched for articles that help put things in perspective. I highly recommend them all.

Admirable research ! Bright perspective and impressive variety of sources😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was not meant to be "variety"; these are rational articles by reporters-intellectuals with rare expertise and knowledge who deplore the loss of any lives by the power-policies of the petty, limited minds in Gvts and every institution, those for whom ending/preventing a war, negotiations and peace-making, display - to others - a moral weakness, "appeasement", not character, valuing and self-confidence. Also, who despise the sustained propagandizing - the media's lies - which has brought the great majority under submission to those second-handed leaders. On only two issues, human life being sacrificed in this war and honest journalism (and the independent mind), I unusually find myself aligned with some or a few of the anti-war Left.

I wonder if the neo-cons/Leftist-warmongers in their 'win at all costs' stance have not been an influence on Objectivists too.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2022 at 5:43 PM, Easy Truth said:

Let us say that is true. Does that give a nation the right to invade? Why not just do another Crimea if that sliver is the only issue at stake.

 

A "right to invade", no. That's restricted in Rand's observance to a free nation v. a dictatorship: the right to invade and overthrow, but not the moral obligation, I think she wrote.

I'm playing with the notion of possible moral vigilantism, on a national scale.

"vigilante"
noun [ C ]
 
"A person who tries in an unofficial way to prevent crime, or to catch and punish someone who has committed a crime, especially because they do not think that official organizations, such as the police, are controlling crime effectively. Vigilantes usually join together to form groups".
 
If one knows "a crime" is taking place which one has the power to preempt, needing fast action to rescue the victim, and while the "police" have been notified but are either slow to respond, or themselves complicit with the crime-doers, may one and should one take the law into one's hands to protect the innocents?
I believe there is a case for a national intervention to save lives before it's too late, where the "official organizations" are aware and haven't bothered to take action. 
 
 
Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imprimis: September 2022 | Volume 51, Issue 9

Complications of the Ukraine War1 (36 paragraph assessment of Nato/US/Crimera)
Christopher Caldwell is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a contributing editor at the Claremont Review of Books, and a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A graduate of Harvard College, he has been a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and a columnist for the Financial Times. He is the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West and The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties.

1. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/complications-of-the-ukraine-war/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

We should not overestimate how much Americans know or care about Russia and Ukraine. In August, the Pew Center published a study listing the top 15 issues motivating voters in the 2022 elections. Here are those issues in order: the economy, guns, crime, health care, voting rules, education, the Supreme Court, abortion, energy policy, immigration, foreign policy, big government, climate change, race and ethnicity, and the coronavirus. Ukraine doesn’t appear on the list, and generic foreign policy didn’t make the top ten. That doesn’t look like a level of voter buy-in sufficient for running such big economic and military risks. 

The the question comes up, why can a politically unimportant issue, induce such heavy spending? There has to be some political benefit, otherwise, the support for Ukraine is something that the US population does not care about. Meaning, it will not translate into votes.

My suspicion is that it is in fact politically important in some way. Let us say Russia, succeeded in annexing Ukraine. That would be a political disaster for any president or party in power. Similarly, the Covid response most likely was due to the idea that if we have 1 million people dying and we looked like we did nothing, it would be a disaster for us (the party in charge).

The fact is that this is politics. "The look of it" has a lot of bearing on how it is reacted to. And most people think that the government should get involved.

Otherwise, the only other plausible explanation becomes: there is a conspiracy, that there is a cabal of elites that move the world in the direction that they want. We are blind sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The the question comes up, why can a politically unimportant issue, induce such heavy spending? There has to be some political benefit, otherwise, the support for Ukraine is something that the US population does not care about. Meaning, it will not translate into votes.

My suspicion is that it is in fact politically important in some way. Let us say Russia, succeeded in annexing Ukraine. That would be a political disaster for any president or party in power. Similarly, the Covid response most likely was due to the idea that if we have 1 million people dying and we looked like we did nothing, it would be a disaster for us (the party in charge).

The fact is that this is politics. "The look of it" has a lot of bearing on how it is reacted to. And most people think that the government should get involved.

Otherwise, the only other plausible explanation becomes: there is a conspiracy, that there is a cabal of elites that move the world in the direction that they want. We are blind sheep.

This analysis though accepts that the situations re Russia/Ukraine war and Sars covid 19 pandemic are as well defined as the 'public presentation' of the definition. No response to a pandemic would be political suicide , but was the response that followed ' the need' for a response proportional to the actual danger and to what degree , is Russian control of Crimea ( and a non NATO Ukraine to ensure continued control) or the loss thereof an actual political concern for US voters ?

The 2020 election certainly wasn't contested on the relevant control of Crimea 'in the public', but I'd hazard a guess it was a fairly important circumstance to non elected officials in the State and Defense departments that could more easily work to their ultimate designs with domestic political cover.

"it's a fight for democracy!"

"Zero Covid !!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AlexL said:

And what is your opinion about this article ?

I took issue with when something is referred to as a no-brainer, it's probably a brainer. I get the gist of what he meant by that, but the wording was awkward at best to me. The Crimean peninsula, painted as a [the?] strategic interest at stake is compelling to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

No response to a pandemic would be political suicide

I suppose both sides, Trump and the Democrats figured that out.

43 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

but was the response that followed ' the need' for a response proportional to the actual danger and to what degree , is Russian control of Crimea ( and a non NATO Ukraine to ensure continued control) or the loss thereof an actual political concern for US voters ?

Well, the gain of Crimea and easy access to it is of great military advantage to the Russians, and as far as keeping Russia weaker, it is of interest to the opponent. Now, how important it should be, i.e. the risk of nuclear war, I'm not sure.

I was puzzled by the attitude of the article in that it's obvious that Ukraine should be held as a buffer state, like Poland was before world war 2 (my interpretation). I can see it as a potential strategy but not clear cut and obvious.

It seems it was a political gamble, with the NATO side betting that Russia with it's dependence and interests would not invade. It goes against the idea that if you trade with the opponent that it is less likely that you will go to war with them. A similar question is coming up around our relations with China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade certainly goes through distortions during war, but antebellum In realpolitik sense it doesn’t seem the principled balm it is extolled to be qua balm.

Fortunes and power are large elements of nation states and those are held by individuals and groups of individuals that make ultimately the ‘national’ decisions. The closer those decisions can be tied to the ‘will of the people’ the better, but in modern day US the Congress doesn’t really control the war powers, for good or ill those powers reside in the ‘official’ government. And having public opinions on ‘their’ side helps but isn’t actually necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2022 at 8:35 PM, dream_weaver said:

I took issue with when something is referred to as a no-brainer, it's probably a brainer. I get the gist of what he meant by that, but the wording was awkward at best to me.

This is a small excerpt from the first of the 36 paragraphs of the linked article. What your opinion about the rest of this paragraph ? About the rest of the article ?

I am trying to understand why did you linked to that article and why did you include the author's good looking credentials...

Quote

The Crimean peninsula, painted as a [the?] strategic interest at stake is compelling to me.

Sure, Crimean peninsula is of big strategic interest to Putin, especially given his worldview and his plans. But what do you infer from it ?

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2022 at 9:36 PM, tadmjones said:

Trade certainly goes through distortions during war, but antebellum In realpolitik sense it doesn’t seem the principled balm it is extolled to be qua balm.

Fortunes and power are large elements of nation states and those are held by individuals and groups of individuals that make ultimately the ‘national’ decisions.

First, trade, properly to laissez-faire, should not ever come under the purview of governments, therefore eliminating international trade treaties, tariiffs, duties, sanctions and embargoes (or foreign conflicts) etc., too.

It is only the individuals in their own right who deal/engage/trade with one another everywhere.

Although we've been accustomed by "geopolitics",  to all governments in the human form of so-called representative leaders dealing, allying, 'aiding and uplifting', identifying "peer competitors" - and so creating enmities and conflict - with, for and against the other world leaders - purportedly acting for the benefit of all individual citizens, but often serving partisan interests and elite groups - it's because we've become so used to collectivism and statism as the norm.

Geopolitics and its "global chessboard" machinations and interference of any nation in other nations is then the manifestation of statism on an international scale.

(AR: Statism, the cause of war; statism ¬needs¬ wars)

As things stand though, the realpolitik of some like Mearsheimer has practically proven superior to any statist-geopolitical model (as I see it). 

Reducing foreign policy to its elements: like with individuals, other countries (comprised of many individuals) also have their own aggregated histories, cultures, interests, aspirations and values -- as nations, leave them be. Live and let live. Yet, as one to one, individual citizens within and abroad will be free to go on dealing with one another in many beneficial ways.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 1:35 PM, AlexL said:

This is a small excerpt from the first of the 36 paragraphs of the linked article. What your opinion about the rest of this paragraph ? About the rest of the article ?

I am trying to understand why did you linked to that article and why did you include the author's good looking credentials...

Sure, Crimean peninsula is of big strategic interest to Putin, especially given his worldview and his plans. But what do you infer from it ?

I don't have any satisfactory answer for myself to your questions. Aside from the Imprimis article being about the current events in the region and correlated with the topic, so I thought it might be relevant and of interest as another source of input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


"Escalation":

es.kəˈleɪ.ʃən/ a situation in which something becomes greater or more serious:

"Warmonger":

  1. a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups.

https://youtu.be/rbFKREU13dQ

After 6 mins in. (and the indisputable controls of info by a biased Google search)

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2022 at 3:46 AM, dream_weaver said:
On 10/29/2022 at 7:35 PM, AlexL said:

I am trying to understand why did you linked to that article and why did you include the author's good looking credentials...

[...] I thought it might be relevant and of interest as another source of input 

It is indeed a different source of input about the events in that region, but it is exactly of the same leaning as the ones with which whYNOT bombards this Objectivism Forum. Another source, but the same point of view...

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

It is indeed a different source of input about the events in that region, but it is exactly of the same leaning as the ones with which whYNOT bombards this Objectivism Forum. Another source, but the same point of view...

Are you looking for a countervailing POV by en equally credentialed source ?and , or what would constitute the pedigree of the credentials?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Are you looking for a countervailing POV by en equally credentialed source ?and , or what would constitute the pedigree of the credentials?

dream_weaver explained why did he link to that specific article. He wrote:

On 11/7/2022 at 3:46 AM, dream_weaver said:

I thought it might be relevant and of interest as another source of input.

suggesting that it was a different point of view that would interest the readers.

I remarked that it is indeed a different source but the same POV as the one with which whYNOT bombards this Objectivism forum. Which means: more of the same.

Edited by AlexL
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are not looking , or bringing, a similarly credentialed , countervailing POV ?

26 minutes ago, AlexL said:

dream_weaver explained why did he link to that specific article. He wrote:

suggesting that it was a different point of view that would interest the readers.

I remarked that it is indeed a different source but the same POV as the one with which whYNOT bombards this Objectivism forum. Which means: more of the same.

And or you are not specifying what properly credentialed will /would look like ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

So you are not looking , or bringing, a similarly credentialed , countervailing POV ?

And or you are not specifying what properly credentialed will /would look like ?

No and no. These are off topic for me.

Read again my comment, the one you just quoted. There you will find what exactly was my objection to dream_weaver's recommended piece : contrary to what he seems to suggest, it was not a different POV.

But I would appreciate a comment from dream_weaver himself.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he is going to tell you that are inferring something not consciously implied. I imagine he supplied the article as a source other than RT.

But you could explain why you agreed the author of the linked was of an acceptable pedigree and give an equivalently credentialed source that holds another point of view , and perhaps we can zero in on what you consider proper credentials for a discussion on this matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlexL said:

But I would appreciate a comment from dream_weaver himself.

To me, it is intriguing that the Hillsdale College publications and the Russian Times article would be in sync. Hillsdale College is a religious institution located in Michigan, while the Russian Times is a tabloid publicizing presumably from within the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

To me, it is intriguing that the Hillsdale College publications and the Russian Times article would be in sync. Hillsdale College is a religious institution located in Michigan, while the Russian Times is a tabloid publicizing presumably from within the Soviet Union.

1. I see that I was mistaken when I assumed that you linked to that Hillsdale College article because it presented another POV on the Russia's war against Ukraine. I now understand that you presented it because it is a Western source for the same POW as Russian Times 

2. By Russian Times you probably mean RT (or Russia Today), the main Putin Russia's governmental propaganda outlet.

3. I am not intrigued at all that some (many!) Western commentators and publications share the same POV with RT. We have such a phenomenon even in such a uniquely Western publication as the Objectivism Online Forum, with whYNOT and some other commentators sharing RT's views☹️

I found out that the common denominator of such commentators and/or publications is time and again the good old wide-spread anti-Americanism.

Edited by AlexL
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...