Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

AlexL's  has a highly *passive* mind and methodology, which demands being ~led to conclusions~ than an appetite for finding out the truth for himself.

An active mind arrives at opinions or conclusions by first researching the facts. This is why it is capable, and always does, substantiate the facts if asked to.

In contrast, a passive mind begins with conclusions drawn from propaganda outlets - those of concerning entities - such as Russia Today, RIA Novosti, or TASS. It even shares articles from these sources, as well as from Western "journalists" officially employed by them, on this Objectivism forum!

This is why the passive mind cites pseudo-facts to justify its conclusions, mirroring the approach of its sources. When asked to substantiate these so-called "facts," it responds with, "Find out the truth yourself."

Ridiculous. And sad...

Edited March 7 by AlexL

[Harrison Danneskjold]

15 hours ago, human_murda said:

Unless the Ukrainians agree, Russians would have to use force, which would be immoral.

So when you speak of "political negotiations" (meaning voting) involving the distribution of resources (money) are we assuming that every political negotiation must be unanimous in order to be valid?  If some individual disagrees with this "political negotiation" they get punished (with physical violence) if they fail to adhere to it anyway, don't they?

Putin speaks your language, my man.

[whYNOT]

The "aggressor". This needs to be tackled.

The "non-initiation of force" principle has relevance only to *physical force* (and fraud). 

So far, okay? Yet I do not find enough debate on what could be called "psychological force" related to "potential force".

Someone, A, punches B on the nose. Without context given, it's case closed. "A" is the aggressor. With context supplied, B punched A first. Aha, clear self-defense:  B is the aggressor. Simple so far.

But let's say, 1. A stops his fist one inch from B's nose. 2. B asks repeatedly that it be removed because it makes him nervous. 3. A continues wagging his fist under B's nose. 4. B punches A's nose. 

Who is/was the (physical) aggressor? "A". So one must admit pre-emptive, self-defensive force to be rightful. 

Taken to the real world, if such a thing as objective, international law could exist, it would be sufficient grounds for country A which has observed a psychological/potential force, an armed force or terror group, growing over its border in country B; has asked repeatedly for the provocation to be removed; when not, takes it upon themselves to invade B to stop "the potential becoming actual".

Being "objective" law, remember - the relative value-status of A and B, individuals or countries - should not be admitted as evidence. B may be of low character and reputation, A might be an upstanding person (or country)  - who acted badly in this instance.  

All the court has to know and find out: "who initiated the force?". In this case, the normally "upright" individual will be found guilty. "In the courtroom of one's mind", by one's moral justice, one would judge likewise. No matter "who you are", one has no right to gratuitously menace another person - and not expect a chain reaction of consequences. Even a vile person. You leave them alone to "let nature take its course" - until or if, they pose a clear and direct "fist-wagging" threat to you, or they actually punch you on the nose, then you take extreme action. 

The nicely wrapped package everyone needs, evil here, pure innocence, there - is not so simple, is it? 

 

Edited March 7 by whYNOT

[Harrison Danneskjold]

9 hours ago, Boydstun said:

The remark of mine you are commenting on, Harrison, was in a response I made to a specific remark made by Tony, not you. I do think there are issues over which one can be sure of evasion, but the issue and attempted evasions are more obvious and sure than in people's political cogitations. My specific case: It is not plausible that people hold to religious faith without evasion in proportion to the irrationality of the religion. I concur in Rand's remark "There is no honest revolt against reason."

Yes, but the shoe fit me as well.
 

9 hours ago, Boydstun said:

I do incline to think evasion is in play if in thinking about the conquest of Ukraine by Putin, one ignores what a brutal and vengeful dictatorship would likely flourish in Ukraine or if one ignores the ways in which Putin conquered Crimea and Belarus.

Oh, certainly.  Especially if we set the precedent that any nutjob who happens to get ahold of a nuke can conquer and plunder whatever he feels like (which we've already been doing for a while, now).  But if we're not willing to kill the bear then we might as well give him what he wants.  What we're doing instead is trying to have it both ways; trying to posture as if we're willing to stand up to Putin when we can't even contemplate doing any such thing, and we're going to end up with the worst of all possible worlds.

Picture this.  Imagine any politician, from any side whatsoever, suggesting something like:
"At the end of the day, a man like Putin cannot have nukes.  We need to take them away from him.  If that means world war three then so be it; if that means a preemptive strike then so be it; whatever the cost to both sides may be, so be it, because we cannot permit a robber to have a nuke."
The howls of outrage and indignation from the West would be deafening.  Don't they care about the lives of soldiers?!  Don't they care about innocent Russians?!  My God, they suggested a nuclear first strike; what kind of maniac could even think that?!  And long before Putin could formulate any sort of response we would have removed that person from power ourselves.

We're not willing to actually deal with the problem.  Nobody is willing to contemplate that.  So let's stop pretending otherwise and just give him what he wants already, because he's going to get it eventually.  Let's not sacrifice the lives of the Ukrainians to satisfy our own false sense of vanity.

[necrovore]

26 minutes ago, AlexL said:

This is why the passive mind cites pseudo-facts to justify its conclusions, mirroring the approach of its sources. When asked to substantiate these so-called "facts," it responds with, "Find out the truth yourself."

How do you recognize a "pseudo-fact"?

It seems it is you who only accepts facts that have been curated by your esteemed group of experts, and you only apply Objectivist principles to those specific facts when drawing your conclusions. Further, when your experts tell you to reject certain other facts, when they say, "don't look in the closet," you obediently don't look. And when they throw people in jail for stating those inconvenient facts (as tweets for example), or when they cancel elections which may have been influenced by those facts, you seem to just shrug your shoulders. No complaints, no condemnation. After all, they're the experts, and so they apparently have the right to throw those people in jail for "spreading misinformation," and to cancel elections, if the voting public "gets it wrong." It seems you would say that your experts are the only ones who can see reality for what it really is.

Suppose your experts were lying to you. Do you even realize that's possible? If you listen only to them, how could you tell if they were? You do realize that their "facts" can be self-consistent and still wrong, right? What then is the definition of a lie? Is it determined by reality itself, or by your specific group of experts, through whose lens everything must be seen?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

8 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

And so, in every word they breathe, they are liars. We know that they are liars. They know that we know that they are liars. We know that that they know that we know that that they know that they are liars. There is no point in arguing with such idiots. They will simply continue to lie.

What a fascinating rationalization for refusing to engage with opposing viewpoints.  Given the kinds of stances you take I can understand the impulse behind it (I don't envy you the task of trying to defend yourself) and perhaps that would be best, after all.

[whYNOT]

43 minutes ago, AlexL said:

An active mind arrives at opinions or conclusions by first researching the facts. This is why it is capable, and always does, substantiate the facts if asked to.

In contrast, a passive mind begins with conclusions drawn from propaganda outlets - those of concerning entities - such as Russia Today, RIA Novosti, or TASS. It even shares articles from these sources, as well as from Western "journalists" officially employed by them, on this Objectivism forum!

This is why the passive mind cites pseudo-facts to justify its conclusions, mirroring the approach of its sources. When asked to substantiate these so-called "facts," it responds with, "Find out the truth yourself."

Ridiculous. And sad...

Name one pseudo-fact I posed. It's not enough to cite "propaganda" to items which conflict with your propaganda. Whether the size of armies, the movement of forces, the sequence of events, the insane impossibility of a Ukraine (plus, plus) "conquest", the shelling of the Donbass, the farce of Minsk admitted by its signatories - and so on. The facts I raise are not even controversial, while some get "scrubbed" and need digging out.

Educate yourself and make deductions for yourself.

You make the allegation I am lying, you must counter "my" facts with "your" facts.

That's what so-called "fact-checkers do", expose others' fabrications. Can you? 

 

Edited March 7 by whYNOT

[Harrison Danneskjold]

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And then after that impossibility, leave enough men behind for the hazardous occupation of Ukraine, so to move their troops onto the next "European conquest". Ridiculous. The alarmist creation of propagandists to coax Europeans to come on board. 

What if he simply said "give me Finland because I have nukes"?

[tadmjones]

What would NATO do if Finland voted to join the Russian Federation?

[whYNOT]

And if one does look at all available reports and sources as one should, including wow! Russian ones, being objective and unswayed one way or other by others' facts and opinions, in order to a. "know your enemy" and b. eventually make up your own mind, one will find an interesting new "perspective".

Most Russians seem to think and believe the war began in 2014, not 2022. 

That takes me back to the "aggressor". And who initiated force?

A (2014) coup by the opposition party taking out the democratically-elected president - initiation of force. 

A war by the new government on its citizens, irrespective of the intricate details, based on "ethnicity" must be always an act of the lowest morality and - initiation of force.  

The agreements to settle that war, sabotaged and never meant to be implemented by its European guarantors and the Ukraine  Government:  fraud, that is -  initiation of force. 

The initiators OF the initiation of force were then the Ukrainians. Not such a dead easy problem of culpability to solve by only invoking a well-known O'ist principle, I for one, find.  

 

Edited March 7 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

9 minutes ago, necrovore said:

How do you recognize a "pseudo-fact"?

It seems it is you who only accepts facts that have been curated by your esteemed group of experts

1. Where does this "It seems it is you who..." comes from?

2. My approach is to avoid relying on expert opinions altogether, especially those that lack verifiable arguments. Instead, I examine relevant primary sources, such as statements from cited individuals (e.g., politicians), laws, treaties, memoranda, and sometimes official reports, to see myself what they actually say. This method resolves over 80-90% of disputed facts.

When I lack verifiable facts, I withhold my opinion on those subjects until I learn more. I also avoid commenting on topics I haven’t researched myself to at least some extent.

3. I challenged about a dozen of @whYNOT's claims of fact - of the one that are easy to check. Of these, he tried to justify two facts he used in his posts (in 2023, I think) and he failed. He simply ignored the rest. He was not the only one on this forum to avoid such challenges.

I challenged about a dozen of @whYNOT’s factual claims—the ones that are easy to verify, as explained above. Of these, he attempted to justify two facts from his posts (in 2023, I believe), but he failed to do so conclusively (I don't remember the details). He simply ignored the rest. He’s not the only one on this forum who dodges such challenges.

If you have a bona fide interest, I can try to locate those cases and you can make your own opinion, including about "It seems it is you who..."🙁

[AlexL]

18 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

That takes me back to the "aggressor". And who initiated force?

The subject is the war between Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, one has to examine who of the two initiated force against the other.

Quote

A coup by the opposition party taking out the democratically-elected president - initiation of force.

A war by the new government on its citizens... - initiation of force.

Even if true, are these instances of initiation of force between Russia and Ukraine??? Who are you trying to fool?

As to "The agreements to settle that war, sabotaged [...]", I was ready to engage - a long time ago - in a debate about this and I have asked you to tell me first what do the Minsk agreements stipulate, in your view, for ex. who the parties are, who should do what, in what sequence, who did its part, who did not etc. Unsurprisingly, zero feedback from you...

[Harrison Danneskjold]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

What would NATO do if Finland voted to join the Russian Federation?

I really have no idea.  That's an interesting question.  However, I'm pretty sure that if Putin said "give me Finland because I have nukes" the entire world would express great outrage and moral indignation while quietly doing precisely what he told them to do.

We are completely unmanned by a specific kind of weapon.  I suspect it doesn't even have anything to do with the weapon itself; it's more likely that we've all just seen one too many horror movies in which it leads to the end of the world.  It's a pathetic state of affairs, but so long as that's the case we'd better be honest with ourselves about it.

[SpookyKitty]

Going by the replies in this thread, if my neighbor is buying guns, then I am justified in preemptively shooting him. You know, "to prevent the potential from becoming the actual".

[tadmjones]

Depends on the HOA,lol. And maybe the kinds of guns and how you know he has recently acquired them. Context is important , if he casually mentions a new interest in game hunting and they are firearms suitable for hunting , that would be different then if he ‘quietly’ purchases an A1 tank , demonstrates it is not decommissioned and parks it with the torrent aimed at your front door.

[AlexL]

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Educate yourself and make deductions for yourself.

An excellent advice for you to follow, instead of approvingly posting articles published by official outlets of the warring parties.

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Name one pseudo-fact I posed.

Sure, but hold on a moment - you didn’t address  two of my earlier comments: this one (about "understanding of Russia's perspective") and this one  (about your curious arguments supporting the claim that Ukraine was the aggressor in the Russo-Ukrainian war.)

After you explain the above, we can discuss - as an example of alleged facts - your frequent claim that NATO’s expansion into former Communist countries and Soviet republics violated a promise the U.S. made to Russia to "not move one inch eastward."

It’s not the simplest example, but I don’t have the patience to search for a simpler one. Feel free to choose another if you’d like. You could refer to those mentioned in our intense debate from late 2022, around this comment.

Please try doing your best - both in responding to my earlier comments and regarding your claim about "not an inch eastward". Or regarding whatever claim of fact you prefer. 

Edited March 7 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

17 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I really have no idea.  That's an interesting question.  However, I'm pretty sure that if Putin said "give me Finland because I have nukes" the entire world would express great outrage and moral indignation while quietly doing precisely what he told them to do.

We are completely unmanned by a specific kind of weapon.  I suspect it doesn't even have anything to do with the weapon itself; it's more likely that we've all just seen one too many horror movies in which it leads to the end of the world.  It's a pathetic state of affairs, but so long as that's the case we'd better be honest with ourselves about it.

Those end-of-times movies, in my view, have trivialized to this and the past generation, the reality of humankind's final war. They depict "survivalist" themes which seem pretty appealing. My indelible experience was reading "WARDAY", not quite fiction, not quite documentary, in the 80's. A mostly dispassionate survey and interviews by the two authors of myriad groups and personal lives of small remnants of survivors scattered around the US years after a nuclear exchange with Russia, recounting their experience of what happened and why. Yes, I thought , this is what it would look like, there is nothing romantic about the aftermath, just human existence that's between harsh and dull.

Trivialize, sentimentalize and normalize an-nihilism and one brings the possibility closer.

But I argue strenuously with the fatalists, the "good v. evil" intrinsicists who have an almost mystical certainty that Russia is still what it was and will always be, THE enemy of the West. That Russians and their leaders (in that order) are not what they were when Soviet Communists, the city people in particular are thoroughly westernized, educated, with businesses privatized with all modern amenities. At the top end in the Kremlin, there is still some of the old mindset, down among the great number of individual  Russians there is quite a high progressivism and levels of personal freedom. Of course out into the provinces and further, in that huge (11 or 12 time zones) and low-populated country the contrasts to the cities' educated sophistication and well to do people are staggering.  

One has to find out for oneself, from literature, travelogues and anecdotes from Russians themselves. At least - start to "know your enemy". 

That surprising ignorance about Russians and Russia stuck in the past, an always-dictatorship, feeds the "Russian belligerence" which has been played to the extremes in western media  leading up to the war, and at an hysterical level since. 

With a biased eye against Russia myself to begin with, by regarding its actions objectively I came to the growing certainty that Russia in fact has tended to be mostly self-DEFENSIVE (and in Ukraine greatly self-restrained) rather than aggressive, since the Cold War. 

Self-defensive actions will naturally be also violent, after all, and that distinction with belligerence matters. Only in that light does the Russian invasion, visibly a limited one - with the intention of gaining security guarantees - make sense. 

Anyhow, on that nuclear blackmail question, what it boils down to is that Russia is not going to expand to Finland nor any place in Europe. What for? more space - lebensraum?

If it implausibly wanted to - OR, encountered a conventional threat from a neighbor it only has to respond with 'conventional' force (which is devastating enough they have shown) 

The propaganda campaign against Russia achieved its aim. I've clearly seen it portraying Putin as insanely unpredictable so much that he could and would launch nukes for "the Empire".

A terrible error. The sort of error that has caused the West, military men and politicians to believe their own propaganda, to lose this war. Do not assume Russians are stupid and backward.

Misidentify and underestimate your enemy and defeat is the effect.  

In panic mode as the end gets closer, the West has been escalating to make *something* happen to save them from humiliation. Maybe Putin will make a crazy mistake if "we" (i.e. Ukrainians) keep fighting. So send more lethal weaponry and in the last throw of the dice, actually "put boots on the ground": send in our European soldiers.  

Who is insane here?  

Edited March 7 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

Please try doing your best - both in responding to my earlier comments and regarding your claim about "not an inch eastward". Or regarding whatever claim of fact you prefer. 

Have you gone mad? That "inch eastward" statement was voiced, I proved it with the NYT piece and you conceded it was. Done and dusted. 

Really, I've rarely come across such pettifoggery. 

Obviously, the political/ ethnic/violent acts of initiated force in Ukraine toward the Russian-Ukrainian contingent, would be seen in a bad light by Russians in Russia  - affecting the Kremlin's relations with Kyiv. Anyway, correct or not  - they viewed it that way.

Presumably, they saw a causation which would soon cause Russia trouble. 

But to my major point: if we here are gong to judge and to blame Russia for "initiation of force", ( have no problem with this, per se) - then we must equally hold our ally and friend fighting Russia, Ukraine, blameworthy for its own "initiations of force". Three of which I listed. 

Ukraine (the Gvt., at least) is not "pure and innocent", I've repeated. 

You may begin to see why I keep reiterating this -  evasions were made across the board by all 

Edited March 7 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

46 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Have you gone mad? That "inch eastward" statement was voiced, I proved it with the NYT piece and you conceded it was. Done and dusted.

Oh, from NYT, my Bible?😁 Now seriously, can you point me to that episode in our discussions? I can't remember it at all !

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Obviously, the political/ ethnic/violent acts of initiated force in Ukraine toward the Russian-Ukrainian contingent, would be seen in a bad light by Russians in Russia [...]

In order to justify along these lines the 2014 Russia intervention in Ukraine, you will have first to established the reality of these acts and then show that, if real, they would justify Russia intervening in a foreign country.

But I will let this for another time. Besides, I believe I already asked you to justify all this... When we will return to this subject, you will have the opportunity to show me how, when and where I have already conceded this😁

Please note that I did not deny that the phrase containing "not one inch westward" was really voiced.

What I expect you to justify is your claim that the promise the U.S. made to Russia to "not move one inch eastward" was referring to NATO’s expansion into former Communist countries and Soviet republics.

[whYNOT]

On 3/7/2025 at 3:04 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

What if he simply said "give me Finland because I have nukes"?

Simple answer, Putin doesn't appear to be suicidal. Nor, apparently wishes for the destruction of Russia and martyrdom of all Russians. None are jihadis seeking their reward in heaven. One's nukes, when exploited as the belligerent means to a minor gain (Finland), rather than the final self-defense, the sort-of mutual guarantee of peace between superpowers, can only have one outcome. Threaten to use them once, against e.g. Finland, and you begin a causal chain of effects. Russians would know the consequences of nuke blackmail, can see moves ahead in that chess game. Russia has shown they are effective at conventional war, therefore haven't any need or desire to "escalate". Those alarms sounded of them using nukes is just that, panic-mongering. It's the losers you have to beware of. 

Edited March 8 by whYNOT

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 3/7/2025 at 8:41 PM, whYNOT said:

Simple answer, Putin doesn't appear to be suicidal.

Yes, but it wouldn't be suicide if the West immediately backed down and gave him whatever he was demanding.
 

On 3/7/2025 at 12:53 PM, whYNOT said:

But I argue strenuously with the fatalists, the "good v. evil" intrinsicists who have an almost mystical certainty that Russia is still what it was and will always be, THE enemy of the West.

Yes, intrinsicism is bad, but there are good guys and bad guys in the world.  One doesn't have to look any further back than October 7th for very clear and striking evidence of that.  And I don't think Putin is THE enemy of the West - he's one of a notable few enemies, and probably not as evil (although much better-armed) than Iran.

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.  Having skimmed through a few of your exchanges here and on the proper Russia-Ukraine thread I've realized that there's a whole lot I just don't know about that particular conflict.

However, isn't it true that Russia started this war?  Didn't Putin make a speech of some kind (in 2020, I believe) in which he mentioned territorial expansion - sort of a "Make Russia Great Again" kind of thing, but what he meant by "great" was geographically huge?  Isn't there a history going back for centuries now of Russia conquering Ukraine and generally mistreating the Ukrainians, who at times have been able to win back their independence and at other times haven't?

I really haven't done much research on this war (in fact, I'm much more familiar with Israel and Palestine) but the general sense I've gotten from what I have heard is that Putin wants to expand his empire by force, and that the entire West is torn between wanting to help stop him and not wanting to start world war 3, and trying to somehow have it both ways.
 

On 3/6/2025 at 9:14 PM, SpookyKitty said:

Going by the replies in this thread, if my neighbor is buying guns, then I am justified in preemptively shooting him. You know, "to prevent the potential from becoming the actual".

I mean, if your neighbor is a mugger who's always robbing your other neighbors at knife-point, and one day you hear him bragging about his cool new truck-mounted machine gun...  I may be wrong to apply that metaphor to Russia, but unless I am then not only are you justified, but you have a moral obligation (for your own sake as well as everybody else's) to stop him; yes.  Even if that means preemptively shooting him in self-defense.

[whYNOT]

14 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Yes, but it wouldn't be suicide if the West immediately backed down and gave him whatever he was demanding.
 

Yes, intrinsicism is bad, but there are good guys and bad guys in the world.  One doesn't have to look any further back than October 7th for very clear and striking evidence of that.  And I don't think Putin is THE enemy of the West - he's one of a notable few enemies, and probably not as evil (although much better-armed) than Iran.
 

When the evil genie has been let out of its bottle, there's no putting it back; today the West 'backs down', another day the West issues the same threat - give us x, or we obliterate you. Mutually assured destruction cuts both ways.

(Better, I think to call the concept mutually assured "values". You have something *you* value (objective or non-objective), your life, your people's lives, your culture and traditions, the future of your nation, etc. - and I/we have, as well. The fact that neither the Soviets or the modern RF has so far gone that nuclear extortion route implies they understand the ramifications too well. 

Which means they -may- be negotiated with rationally. When self-value is entirely missing, you have no (diplomatic) option but to fight that enemy to the finish. 

What can one call the bad guys and nasty guys and worst guys but "grades of evasion"? If beginning with an objectively evil ideology which is taught and upheld - abstractly - by an academic or preacher or whoever, I think the ultimate evil-doer is the one who translates that ideology into concretes: into bloodshed and others' suffering. I know this could be intellectually debatable, since the dissemination of evil ideas was the first cause, but I'd argue that the most inhumanly evil person is the one who voluntarily enacts them, sees the evil happen, makes it happen. 

The trouble I notice with intrinsicism is as one prominent Objectivist I heard can evaluate (e.g.) Trump as "purely evil": where does that leave room in one's mind for Hamas, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc., etc. but all identically "evil", and the concept is devalued?

"Immoral equivalence", perhaps? 

  

Edited March 10 by whYNOT

[tadmjones]

You forgot Putin.

[whYNOT]

16 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

...but the general sense I've gotten from what I have heard is that Putin wants to expand his empire by force, and that the entire West is torn between wanting to help stop him and not wanting to start world war 3, and trying to somehow have it both ways.
 

 

At the base, it has been kept ambiguous as to who is fighting whom.

Was this a local spat between two neighbors which is none of the West's concern that's getting out of hand? Then, one would expect, send envoys in to stop it. 

Is this the collective West against Russia? The Russians for one know who is backing it and can end it.

With "plausible deniablity" the West can claim and has claimed that here is innocent Ukraine attacked without provocation by belligerent, imperialist Russia, and the righteous thing is to help them since our collective freedoms are at stake.  

I think no party can claim innocence. 

The "provocation" of Russia is not arguable. Consider the number of "Kremlin watchers", academics, military and other experts on Russia who have made careers out of studying Russia, running computer simulations, and probing for weakness. Do you think they all couldn't foresee a response one day to NATO enlargement, political interference in Russia's "sphere of influence", already (in advance of membership) training the Ukraine Army up to NATO standards, permitting a civil war to continue boiling, and so on?  

If they could anticipate the consequences, they can't escape the responsibility (even with plausible deniability) from what happened. Only the warnings by a few honest men were heard from. 

Was there any urgent attempt to diplomatically engage with Putin pre-invasion, and avert a war, during the previous year when Russian troops, in a clear warning, were camped on the border? Or take heed of Putin's attempts to negotiate soon after invasion? 

The smart move was make this (through the media) a Russia vs. Ukraine war, so the West could maintain its militarily uninvolved pretext and the conflict would not escalate to "WW 3", but had the subjective certainty how Russia would be kicked out and humiliated by the superior UAF (not without arms, logistical, Intel, surveillance and covert manpower support - and the most advanced propaganda/psy-ops campaign - supplied by the West. They miscalculated. 

(After "A" threateningly jammed his fist close to B's nose ("psychological force") and refused to withdraw it after warnings by B, "A" hired or persuaded a stand-in, or surrogate, or "proxy" - "C" -  to take A's place and be hit by B's (pre-emptive) punch on the nose.

In the resulting brawl, C has had the worst of it). 

Taking Ukraine's side, my instinct was for sane heads to intervene in this unnecessary slaughter from the start. 

 

 

 

 

  

  

Edited March 10 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 3/10/2025 at 6:35 PM, tadmjones said:

You forgot Putin.

Who could? He's been nicely served up as the quintessential - and only - evil,  throughout. 

Disregard the other evils committed by other players, those officials and leaders who ignored a possible "off-ramp", a truce and negotiations, at the start - in the (private) knowledge that Putin was available to talk, right then - so setting up Ukraine to take the fall for a war they knew was coming- and the half-lies and corruptions told by their pet media to keep everyone compliant - and Putin's your man! 

Pin it all on him, the convenient, sole locus and source of evil, and we have - "Satan". This status makes all the rest of humanity pure as angels. The quasi-religious symbol was picked up by the Objectivist community too, showing intrinsicism and - "substituting thought for principles". (Branden)

Roughly, "Any who engage with an evil-doer grants evil sanction" - and so on. I hear it a lot online. 

Yet if one takes in the full scope of the evil and evasions by everybody - when e.g. no leader had the moral courage to say "Enough! No more. This stops here!" -  which evasions led to a million Ukrainian men dead or disabled simply because peacemaking did not fit the agenda -- Rand's principle holds firm. NOT the evil committed only by one person, but the totality of evil sacrifices in general, was what has been permitted: granted "sanction". Among the rest, economic deprivations, etc., a self-sacrifice also, to the respect and reputation seen around the world of western civilization's once high standards has taken a big knock in this episode. Some other evil-doers have taken advantage of the observed Western weakness.  

When his difficult, if late, *moral* initiative to end the war, evaded in 2022 when just a few concessions from Russia and Ukraine with the US et al brokering the deal as guarantors, could have precluded any - or much less - loss of Ukr territory and all the horrific casualties - is today being properly undertaken by Trump, the naysayers in O'ism ~seem~ to imply (by a misapplication of Rand's principle) that because we don't deal with ( or "cosy up to") tyrants, the war must go on! Wherever it leads Ukr, Europe and the world. Are they not sanctioning evil? 

With those weird priorities what would O'ists have said at the time to JFK entering negotiations with Khrushchev? 

Edited March 12 by whYNOT