Ukraine strikes back

[inertia]

Not that long ago, there was a time when Jewish people fled Germany in the hope of a clean escape from a terrible Nazi killing machine. A line was drawn on Hitler's hell-like and clearly evil territorial expansion plans, and with courage, pain and tears, the war ended at enormous cost. Currently, even as I write these words the Russian killing machine is on its way producing a Ukrainian holocaust with a verified civilian death count of 3280 as of March 6th, 2022 and this hell-like and clearly evil territorial expansion plan is nowhere near its end.

Surrender isn't an option. Evil must be contained.

___

 

[inertia]

What are the chances that the liberal news outlets will update their defamatory stories?

- The New York Times - 19 hours ago (as I write this response)

___

 

[cjab]

Surrender isn't an option.

Are you telling the Ukrainians to fight to the last man, or to the first atomic bomb?

 

[inertia]

Are you telling the Ukrainians to fight to the last man, or to the first atomic bomb?

Well, I'm obviously not telling the Ukrainians what to do. I am sharing my political/philosophical viewpoints about the war on Ukraine on this thread while keeping up with the latest news about the ongoing war.

Freedom fighters should stand their ground to avoid being in servitude to an entrenched unaccountable autocratic dictatorship. No one else can tell them otherwise and freedom-loving governments worldwide should provide a helping hand in their time of need. An outright surrender in Ukraine not only encourages future military aggression against other long-held internationally recognized borders* but also establishes a foundational war philosophy that nuclear extortion and/or biological and chemical warfare extortion is essentially a fair game in order to gain an upper hand in negotiating and territory expansion at will. For the people of Ukraine specifically, the destruction of access to nonpartisan courts, an unconstrained press, vigorous legislatures, and spirited civil societies with a vibrant economic future are worth fighting for.

- Autocrats chip away and even demolish checks and balances on their authority.
- A second nuclear age may even mean that this emerging new era is not constrained by Cold-War rules.
- After an all-out nuclear war has ended, there are no guarantees that free societies will continue in countries that survive.

__________

* While the Cold War was fully operational, its long-established goal of preserving the all-important status quo with nuclear weapons no longer applies under extortionist rules simply because it is contrary to the desires of autocrats that wish to challenge regional or international order.

 

[cjab]

Well, I'm obviously not telling the Ukrainians what to do. I am sharing my political/philosophical viewpoints about the war on Ukraine on this thread while keeping up with the latest news about the ongoing war.

Freedom fighters should stand their ground to avoid being in servitude to an entrenched unaccountable autocratic dictatorship.

For the common man, what is the difference between the dictatorship of Ukrainian oligarchs and that of Russian oligarchs? Why is Ukraine so poor and corrupt, if Ukrainian oligarchs are so benevolent?

The war may be misconceived as being about "freedom". May be it is really a war between Western sponsored oligarchs and Russian sponsored oligarchs, where the common people are pawns.

No one else can tell them otherwise and freedom-loving governments worldwide should provide a helping hand in their time of need. An outright surrender in Ukraine not only encourages future military aggression against other long-held internationally recognized borders*

What if Russia held the view that the "long held" border of Nato wasn't between Ukraine and Russia? What if the concept of borders can be extended to blocks of nations governed by treaty pacts.

A problem as I see it is that Nato had been using the concept of national autonomy to advance its own belief in its right to global dominance. The Bidens are part of this enterprise. Rightly or wrongly, Russia objects, seeing itself as a global superpower on a level with the USA. Russia may be under a delusion as to its equal status in the world. Equally the USA may be deluded as to the Russian determination to succeed in Ukraine.

but also establishes a foundational war philosophy that nuclear extortion and/or biological and chemical warfare extortion is essentially a fair game in order to gain an upper hand in negotiating and territory expansion at will. For the people of Ukraine specifically, the destruction of access to nonpartisan courts, an unconstrained press, vigorous legislatures, and spirited civil societies with a vibrant economic future are worth fighting for.

All courts are partisan to the prevailing political correctness of the day. There is a lot of persecution of Russians in Ukraine but we never hear about that. We never really knew about loads of Russians burned to death in Odessa in 2014. These are being used as excuses to justify war. One thing I agree: war is horrible.

- Autocrats chip away and even demolish checks and balances on their authority.
- A second nuclear age may even mean that this emerging new era is not constrained by Cold-War rules.
- After an all-out nuclear war has ended, there are no guarantees that free societies will continue in countries that survive.

True.

__________

* While the Cold War was fully operational, its long-established goal of preserving the all-important status quo with nuclear weapons no longer applies under extortionist rules simply because it is contrary to the desires of autocrats that wish to challenge regional or international order.

 

[inertia]

For the common man, what is the difference between the dictatorship of Ukrainian oligarchs and that of Russian oligarchs? Why is Ukraine so poor and corrupt, if Ukrainian oligarchs are so benevolent?

History records that president Zelensky accelerated his political agenda by passing a law for the sole purpose of curbing the influence of oligarchs backed by Russian insurgents in the Dobas.

The war may be misconceived as being about "freedom". May be it is really a war between Western sponsored oligarchs and Russian sponsored oligarchs, where the common people are pawns.

I don't have any reasons to believe this narrative. What's historically shocking is the assassination attempt during Yushchenko's campaign for the presidency with dioxin poisoning that eventually sparked the Orange Revolution. ( There are a lot of records here. )

What if Russia held the view that the "long held" border of Nato wasn't between Ukraine and Russia? What if the concept of borders can be extended to blocks of nations governed by treaty pacts.

International recognition of boarders should be respected and they were for many decades. Using nuclear weapon extortion to make changes that favor Russia's dreams isn't a legally defensible position.

A problem as I see it is that Nato had been using the concept of national autonomy to advance its own belief in its right to global dominance.

Well, NATO certainly accomplished its objectives in keeping the west strong and free resulting in rare, long-lasting alliances that began in 1949. China and Russia are not "globally dominated" by the alliance and Russia is well known for its attempt to rupture the alliance between Europe and America. That said, the United States is concerned about the issue of burden sharing and it has been concerned about it for a while.

The Bidens are part of this enterprise. Rightly or wrongly, Russia objects, seeing itself as a global superpower on a level with the USA. Russia may be under a delusion as to its equal status in the world. Equally the USA may be deluded as to the Russian determination to succeed in Ukraine.

Presidents of the United States tend to be aligned politically and militarily with NATO as an international organization.

All courts are partisan to the prevailing political correctness of the day. There is a lot of persecution of Russians in Ukraine but we never hear about that. We never really knew about loads of Russians burned to death in Odessa in 2014. These are being used as excuses to justify war. One thing I agree: war is horrible.

Indeed, war is horrible. It's difficult to believe reports from an entrenched unaccountable autocratic dictatorship.

___

 

[inertia]

Wall Street Journal (5/8/2022)

"Embattled Ukraine Soldiers in Mariupol say they will fight to the end."

"Ukrainian forces besieged by Russian troops in Mariupol vowed Sunday to fight till the end, as the government in Kyiv braced for the possibility of heavy strikes on Monday, when Russia commemorates the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II.

Ukrainian troops who have been defending Mariupol and are holed up inside the massive Azovstal steel plant there pleaded Sunday with the Kyiv government and international groups to negotiate a rescue."

Reuters (5/8/2022)

"Sixty feared dead in bombing of Ukraine school; G7 condemns Putin"

"ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine, May 8 (Reuters) - As many as 60 people are feared to have been killed when a bomb struck a village school in eastern Ukraine, the regional governor said on Sunday while Russian forces continued shelling the last holdout of Ukrainian resistance in the ruined southeastern port of Mariupol.

Luhansk region Governor Serhiy Gaidai said the school in Bilohorivka, where about 90 people were sheltering, was hit on Saturday by a Russian bomb, setting it ablaze."

___

 

[cjab]

International recognition of boarders should be respected and they were for many decades. Using nuclear weapon extortion to make changes that favor Russia's dreams isn't a legally defensible position.

Russia accuses Nato of fighting a proxy war in Ukraine.

"Sergei Lavrov told Russian state media: “Nato, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy. War means war.”"

Russia accuses Nato of ‘proxy war’ in Ukraine | First Thing

Comments come as diplomats gather in Germany for US-hosted talks to navigate ‘critical’ phase. Plus, Bennifer and the other couples who get back together

www.theguardian.com

The problem for Ukraine is that by becoming Nato's proxy, in a proxy war between Russia and Nato, Ukraine has now done enough in Russian eyes to be eliminated from the world map.

 

[mikeT]

Russia accuses Nato of fighting a proxy war in Ukraine.

"Sergei Lavrov told Russian state media: “Nato, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy. War means war.”"

Russia accuses Nato of ‘proxy war’ in Ukraine | First Thing

Comments come as diplomats gather in Germany for US-hosted talks to navigate ‘critical’ phase. Plus, Bennifer and the other couples who get back together

www.theguardian.com

The problem for Ukraine is that by becoming Nato's proxy, in a proxy war between Russia and Nato, Ukraine has now done enough in Russian eyes to be eliminated from the world map.

I'd say "you can't be serious", but I spent some time reading this forum before joining - and I recognize the rather improbable nature of a number of the POVs here...

Russia invaded the Ukraine. The abject ridiculousness of accepting the view of Russian state media aside, their aggression caused this war. Claiming the subsequent Ukraine reaction to the invasion is a proxy war is literally an attempt to rewrite weeks-old history.

No one who's paid attention to that history and cares about getting it right would ever make such a claim.

 

[cjab]

I'd say "you can't be serious", but I spent some time reading this forum before joining - and I recognize the rather improbable nature of a number of the POVs here...

Russia invaded the Ukraine. The abject ridiculousness of accepting the view of Russian state media aside, their aggression caused this war. Claiming the subsequent Ukraine reaction to the invasion is a proxy war is literally an attempt to rewrite weeks-old history.

No one who's paid attention to that history and cares about getting it right would ever make such a claim.

You're misunderstanding the issue, which is Ukraine being armed and trained by NATO. The proxy war has arisen by NATO giving arms and intelligence to help Ukraine fight Russia, something that wasn't on the original Russian agenda. Even Americans are conceding it. In fact there are few realists who aren't conceding it: Western propagandists being the main culprits here.

 

[Carol]

I'd say "you can't be serious", but I spent some time reading this forum before joining - and I recognize the rather improbable nature of a number of the POVs here...

Russia invaded the Ukraine. The abject ridiculousness of accepting the view of Russian state media aside, their aggression caused this war. Claiming the subsequent Ukraine reaction to the invasion is a proxy war is literally an attempt to rewrite weeks-old history.

No one who's paid attention to that history and cares about getting it right would ever make such a claim.

History didn't start just weeks ago.

 

[Thistle]

Well, I'm obviously not telling the Ukrainians what to do. I am sharing my political/philosophical viewpoints about the war on Ukraine on this thread while keeping up with the latest news about the ongoing war.

Freedom fighters should stand their ground to avoid being in servitude to an entrenched unaccountable autocratic dictatorship. No one else can tell them otherwise and freedom-loving governments worldwide should provide a helping hand in their time of need. An outright surrender in Ukraine not only encourages future military aggression against other long-held internationally recognized borders* but also establishes a foundational war philosophy that nuclear extortion and/or biological and chemical warfare extortion is essentially a fair game in order to gain an upper hand in negotiating and territory expansion at will. For the people of Ukraine specifically, the destruction of access to nonpartisan courts, an unconstrained press, vigorous legislatures, and spirited civil societies with a vibrant economic future are worth fighting for.

- Autocrats chip away and even demolish checks and balances on their authority.
- A second nuclear age may even mean that this emerging new era is not constrained by Cold-War rules.
- After an all-out nuclear war has ended, there are no guarantees that free societies will continue in countries that survive.

__________

* While the Cold War was fully operational, its long-established goal of preserving the all-important status quo with nuclear weapons no longer applies under extortionist rules simply because it is contrary to the desires of autocrats that wish to challenge regional or international order.

History didn't begin yesterday. There have been few examples of a country that could maintain a liberal democratic order as is envisioned in our constitutional republic, which defends the primacy of the individual. This is not an accident. The United States is unique because it has emote on either side in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our founders devoted themselves to these ideas and we ultimately have been able to defend it within our borders. However universal this idea might be for individuals history has shown realism has asserted itself over and over again. It's just the fact that when both sides rule out the idea of losing they will do anything to avoid that from happening. The nuclear annihilation card is fairly unique basically it can only be properly done by two countries the United States and Russia and formally the Soviet Union. So we are really placed in a unique situation.

The theory of liberal hegemony that we have pursued since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1998 is a unique moment in history which will likely never be duplicated again, and it has been a catastrophic failure. The world in which there is only one pole of power is no longer around. We should not pile dead bodies as high as the sky in pursuit of a policy that is destined to fail at least in the immediate decades in the offing. Is there a chance that both Russia and China will collapse in on themselves? Yes there is. And we could return to a unipolar world in theory, but history should teach us that trying to fight a new war every other week to impose liberal hegemony on the world at the point of a gun was not the best policy. This insight might have been easier to see if ground zero in the destruction was Manhattan or Los Angeles. But people who were killed on the other side of the world are just as important as people who are killed here in the United States.

And it's probably worth pointing out that our intelligence agencies like the CIA who have been up to their eyeballs in installing one political group in Ukraine over another have turned their attention domestically and are doing the same thing in the United States of America. So now it's Americans whose fates are out of our hands, and in the hands of a clandestine agency who operates in secrecy. And it's not just the CIA it's just domestic law-enforcement like the FBI. The Biden administration is claiming in press conferences that the most immediate threat is not Al-Qaeda it's people who are complaining about the Biden administration like parents in Loudoun County and generally Trump voters. There's something more important here than getting to see how our new weapons systems perform an actual battle.

It's no accident that individual liberty to express opinions like the one I'm expressing right here, is rapidly evaporating here in the United States because if you try to impose liberal hegemony at the point of a gun in the world you have to silence objections domestically in the United States. There is an absolute inverse relationship in imposing freedom abroad and retaining freedom at home.

The only thing that has saved Russia in all the land invasions that have happened is the length of the supply lines getting swallowed in the vast expanse. If Ukraine is a member of NATO the distance between the nearest NATO border and Moscow is 250 km. That means the next war after this one, Russia will cease to exist. That means that Russia can't lose this war, because Russia is falling off a demographic cliff and they will not have the people to fight the next war. Which is to say they will go nuclear in this war.

 

[inertia]

...

The theory of liberal hegemony that we have pursued since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1998 is a unique moment in history which will likely never be duplicated again, and it has been a catastrophic failure.

The idea of liberal hegemony is not political-science scripture.

1.) "Liberal Hegemony" is a debated political theory and many academics have significant issues with its premises.
2.) This political philosophy is a theoretical narrative that is inconsistent with historical facts for the United States.

Historic examples as evidence:

- The United States could have insisted that Kuwait change its ways after its liberation from Iraq in 1991 and become a liberalized society.
- The United States didn't stop Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in Venezuela.
- The United States didn't intervene with coups against democratically elected government of Turkey and many others.
- The United States after overthrowing Libia, it did not reinvest in its reconstruction.
- The United States did very little to democratize Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
- The United States did nothing to stop Putin’s reestablishment of autocracy.

"At the peak of its power in 1989, the United States withdrew a quarter of its troops from East Asia and 80 percent of its military forces from Europe, cut its active-duty military personnel and its defense budget by a third, destroyed its own chemical weapons stockpile, and demobilized three-quarters of its nuclear warheads."*

The above examples do not display the work of a liberal hegemon attempting to foster liberalism in illiberal societies.

3.) The United States does not demonstrate "crusader mentality", is not "addicted to war", and is not involved in "social engineering" the planet

Is there a chance that both Russia and China will collapse in on themselves? Yes there is.

Not likely. There is a chance that all the air molecules in the room where you are reading this sentence will redistribute themselves into a small volume in one corner, but it's exceedingly small.

And we could return to a unipolar world in theory, but history should teach us that trying to fight a new war every other week to impose liberal hegemony on the world at the point of a gun was not the best policy.

^This^ is not an accurate description of the history of U.S. foreign policy. In the 1990's the United States military and intelligence budgets were cut by about a third, and we destroyed our own chemical weapons stockpiles and withdrew most of our troops from overseas.

...

And it's probably worth pointing out that our intelligence agencies like the CIA who have been up to their eyeballs in installing one political group in Ukraine over another have turned their attention domestically and are doing the same thing in the United States of America.

I am aware of a dioxin poisoning, but it was an attempt to get rid of a candidate that favored the west. It's doubtful that the CIA would attempt to eliminate a west-leaning candidate. The "Orange Revolution" is a better and well-documented explanation of events.

So now it's Americans whose fates are out of our hands, and in the hands of a clandestine agency who operates in secrecy. And it's not just the CIA it's just domestic law-enforcement like the FBI.

^This^ level of paranoia is unsettling especially without cold-hard facts to support the premise.
_______

* Paul D. Miller, "Structural Realism has No Clothes", Law and Liberty essay, 4/15/2019

 

[Thistle]

The idea of liberal hegemony is not political-science scripture.

1.) "Liberal Hegemony" is a debated political theory and many academics have significant issues with its premises.
2.) This political philosophy is a theoretical narrative that is inconsistent with historical facts for the United States.

Historic examples as evidence:

- The United States could have insisted that Kuwait change its ways after its liberation from Iraq in 1991 and become a liberalized society.
- The United States didn't stop Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in Venezuela.
- The United States didn't intervene with coups against democratically elected government of Turkey and many others.
- The United States after overthrowing Libia, it did not reinvest in its reconstruction.
- The United States did very little to democratize Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
- The United States did nothing to stop Putin’s reestablishment of autocracy.

"At the peak of its power in 1989, the United States withdrew a quarter of its troops from East Asia and 80 percent of its military forces from Europe, cut its active-duty military personnel and its defense budget by a third, destroyed its own chemical weapons stockpile, and demobilized three-quarters of its nuclear warheads."*

The above examples do not display the work of a liberal hegemon attempting to foster liberalism in illiberal societies.

That may be the silliest argument I ever heard in my entire life. Because the United States did not do everything we did not do anything? That is ridiculous!

3.) The United States does not demonstrate "crusader mentality", is not "addicted to war", and is not involved in "social engineering" the planet

The United States has fought seven wars since 1989! What are you talking about! We need to have a conversation that starts with reality.

Not likely. There is a chance that all the air molecules in the room where you are reading this sentence will redistribute themselves into a small volume in one corner, but it's exceedingly small.

My argument does not turn on this point. I was trying to conced the point that you were making in your prior post to the extent that it can be vindicated at all. But if you want to stipulate to this idea I'm happy to join you as a basis for discussion.

^This^ is not an accurate description of the history of U.S. foreign policy. In the 1990's the United States military and intelligence budgets were cut by about a third, and we destroyed our own chemical weapons stockpiles and withdrew most of our troops from overseas.

In the 1990s we were busy trying to cash in on the peace dividend, but that did not prevent us from deploying our conventional weapons repeatedly in such a way as no one else on planet earth could be our equal.

I am aware of a dioxin poisoning, but it was an attempt to get rid of a candidate that favored the west.

What Russia did has no bearing on what the United States did.

It's doubtful that the CIA would attempt to eliminate a west-leaning candidate.

And your need to introduce this straw-man is . . . what exactly?

The "Orange Revolution" is a better and well-documented explanation of events.

For the record, your argument is that the orange revolution had nothing to do with the CIA. Do I understand that to be your argument? This is a question it's not an assertion.

^This^ level of paranoia is unsettling especially without cold-hard facts to support the premise.

Recapitulating everything that has happened, and all that we have learned since 2016 is really beyond anything that can be done in this post, if this is the direction that you want to take the discussion. That's just really beyond what we can accomplish here. I'm not trying to dodge anything, but you've just bitten off such a gigantic predicate it's really beyond our ability to do it any justice in this thread. Frankly, this is so well established that I find nothing about the prospect of engaging the discussion remotely interesting.

_______

* Paul D. Miller, "Structural Realism has No Clothes", Law and Liberty essay, 4/15/2019

 

[inertia]

...

For the record, your argument is that the orange revolution had nothing to do with the CIA. Do I understand that to be your argument? This is a question it's not an assertion.

...

In general, my interest in the field of "political science" and/or political theory is tangential at best. The premise put forward here about the orange revolution is that the events that were recorded are founded on a well documented, historically accurate narrative leading to Viktor Yushchenko's presidency. Since Yushchenko's ideals leaned toward the west, an attempt on his life was considered an expedient solution by his eastern enemies.
Conspiracy theories coupled with Putin apologetics do not share the professionally accurate narratives provided by historians throughout the world.

___

 

[inertia]

Updates: Wall Street Journal (5/10/2022):

"

Nearly Encircled, Ukraine's Last Stronghold in Luhansk Resists Russian Onslaught

• More than 7,000 Civilian Casualties Confirmed in Ukraine by U.N​

• Russia Strikes Shopping Mall, Warehouse in Odessa​

• Hungary's Orban Threatens EU Unity on Russia​

• Fight of Shops From Moscow Luxury Mall Shows Russian Isolation​

• Western Economies Are Creaking Under High Energy Prices, With No Relief in Sight​

"​

___​

 

[Thistle]

In general, my interest in the field of "political science" and/or political theory is tangential at best. The premise put forward here about the orange revolution is that the events that were recorded are founded on a well documented, historically accurate narrative leading to Viktor Yushchenko's presidency. Since Yushchenko's ideals leaned toward the west, an attempt on his life was considered an expedient solution by his eastern enemies.
Conspiracy theories coupled with Putin apologetics do not share the professionally accurate narratives provided by historians throughout the world.

___

Whether, as a matter of pure rhetoric, you want to call the idea that the CIA was deeply involved in the orange revolution a "conspiracy theory" is entirely beside the point. The question is, are you of the opinion that the CIA had nothing to do with the orange revolution? Nothing is more uninteresting, or pedestrian, than people trying to make rhetorical hay out of the use of the term "conspiracy theory."

 

[inertia]

Whether, as a matter of pure rhetoric, you want to call the idea that the CIA was deeply involved in the orange revolution a "conspiracy theory" is entirely beside the point. The question is, are you of the opinion that the CIA had nothing to do with the orange revolution? Nothing is more uninteresting, or pedestrian, than people trying to make rhetorical hay out of the use of the term "conspiracy theory."

There is reason to believe that clandestine operatives from many countries, especially countries that are nearby, are currently providing real-time intelligence. The French DGSE, the German BND, Poland's intelligence agency, and the CIA all come to mind. If any of them were involved in the orange revolution, there wouldn't be any records made to the public for obvious reasons.

Anything else is speculation.

___

 

[inertia]

Hezekiah begged to differ with God who told him he was going to die, 2 Kings 20:3, and so Hezekiah recovered.

Okay - I just finished 2 Kings 20 through 21. Yes - good point cjab.

Verses 1-5:

"In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover. Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, “Remember, LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: “Go back and tell Hezekiah, the ruler of my people, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD."

Indeed, God told Hezekiah that he would die and not recover. Afterward, Hezekiah prayed to God and reasoned with him, tearfully, about his devotion and faithfulness, and as a result, Hezekiah received a 15 year repreve before his death occurred.

This is an example of God's council to people to reason with him together in Isaiah 1:18.

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."

By reasoning with God, God changed his mind. God is correct all the time and God is willing to listen to us. ( Fifteen years later, Hezekiah died. )

___

 

[Thistle]

There is reason to believe that clandestine operatives from many countries, especially countries that are nearby, are currently providing real-time intelligence. The French DGSE, the German BND, Poland's intelligence agency, and the CIA all come to mind. If any of them were involved in the orange revolution, there wouldn't be any records made to the public for obvious reasons.

Anything else is speculation.

___

No it's not just speculation people know.