Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Here's an opinion piece from RIA-Novosti, translated into English.

William,

I started listening, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. And I'm not going to spend 16 minutes guessing.

We must kill all the Nazis. We must destroy all the Nazis. We must not rest. We must not grant mercy. We must get rid of Nazis. There are no half-measures. We must eliminate Nazis. All of them. Nazis. Nazis. Nazis. We must... we must... we must... we must... we must... we must... we must... we must... we must... we must... we must... arrrrrrrrgh!!!!

That's the message I got.

So my question.

What the fuck is that?

It almost sounds like the mainstream media in the West talking about Russia.

Michael

[Peter]

11 hours ago, anthony said:

Deleted. Cant' find the vid apparently debunking 'the massacre' claim any more.

Everybody but Russia in NATO? Russia is composed of vermin. You effing pieces of shit. May all Russians rot in hell.  

From Newsweek: Finland Prime Minister Sanna Marin said Saturday that the country will make a decision on applying for NATO membership by the end of spring, because "Russia is not the neighbor we thought it was." Finland's relations with Russia have changed in an "irreversible" way, said Marin, reversing course on earlier remarks that it would be "very unlikely" that Finland would apply for membership with the military alliance during her current term of office. Russian officials have warned of potential retaliation, in the form of military and political consequences, should Finland and Sweden join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Sergei Belyaev, director of the Second European Department of Russia's Foreign Ministry, told Russia's state-run news agency Interfax that Finland and Sweden not joining NATO is "an important factor in ensuring security and stability in northern Europe."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 hours ago, anthony said:

 Deleted. Cant' find the vid apparently debunking 'the massacre' claim any more.

My thinking goes along the following lines.

I have never found Barnes to be making shit up.

But even with this, I would not call Azon aligned groups doing false flag events a fact.

It's just that Nazis are famous for doing false flag events with no consideration for human life (deaths) involved. It's reasonable to suspect their progeny would continue the tradition.

As to UK blocking independent investigation and even Russia calling for one, my instinct says follow the money...

Michael

[anthony]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

We are in fog of war. If anyone makes a definitive claim or a definitive rebuttal, run away. Don't walk away. Run.

Whatever they want to accomplish, truth is not part of it.

 

..

 

Michael

Michael, You notice that first off RT and Sputnik were banned in the EU? (SA was getting RT amid several foreign news channels until it was abruptly terminated by the service provider).

  "European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the plans Sunday to ban RT and Sputnik as part of a wider package of sanctions in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. RT has been described in the West as a tool of Moscow’s propaganda machine, aiming to manipulate public opinion through the spread of pro-Russian rhetoric and justify its invasion — and the EU's quick action is part of a massive information war unfolding both online and offline".

So the identical thing is happening as re: Covid, vaxxes. Censorship, deplatforming. People all over are not trusted to source competing info and think for themselves. Like I say, I want the propaganda, among some truthiness, from all sides.

Look what she is implying: *We* can "manipulate public opinion" but no one else may. (Since who knows what the people might do with knowledge?) This openly admits to 'their' propaganda, in opposition to Russian propaganda.  Resting on the assumption that people are collectively weak-minded and have to be told the one truth, to collectively emote the same way.

The fog of war, as if it's not enough, has been joined with a deliberately groomed fog of info from Ukraine, I think. Experience in news gave me a lesson in the number of ways that coverage can be manipulated or distorted. At any turn, one has the option to dramatize and glorify or diminish or disregard actuality with picture and story content - according to one's bias, briefing or honesty. What's done with the raw material up the line through editors and subs or producers and commentators, ditto.  I gained a good idea of what explosive events actually look like 'on the ground'. A photojournalist certainly can be 'too close to the action' - but also too far - to gain and depict an overall accurate view. Comes with the territory, but consistently this war correspondence has the reek of inauthenticity. I don't need be there to sense the news doesn't match the reality on the ground. 

 

[william.scherk]

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Here's an opinion piece from RIA-Novosti, translated into English. A portion from a page I copied -- you can download the text-to-speech audio file (kudos to MSK for recommending Blakify, which has some near-human sounding voices):

 

Original location: Mariia Kravchenko's Medium post

 

Reaction set in ...

'Genocide masterplan': Experts alarmed after Kremlin intellectual calls for 'cleansed' Ukraine

NEWS.YAHOO.COM

---

Ukrainian society must be “cleansed of Nazi elements,” a leading Russian intellectual wrote in an essay published on Sunday, as Ukrainian soldiers sifted through the gruesome aftermath of a slaughter of...

 

Everyone knows things that everyone knows or so they say. The rest of us are presumed to be neutral. On the other hand, it might be time to dust off some Ayn Rand articles on slave-pens and such. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have never found Barnes to be making shit up.

This is off-topic, but oddly enough, I believe this should be kept in mind.

If I know Trump, he has learned a hard lesson, will assimilate it, and it will be reflected in his actions.

However, I'm watching as I believe many are. Trust but verify is the rule for me on this one...

(As I keep saying, identify correctly first, then one can evaluate correctly.)

Michael

[william.scherk]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I started listening, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

It is tough to listen to and it is tough to read. It's up there with well-enunciated "cleansing" policies of recent human dark ages.

Imagine a Ukrainian reading this. The language of extirpation. Merciless suppression of a national culture and language ... 

Spoiler

We wrote about the inevitability of Ukraine’s denazification as early as last April. We do not need a Nazi, Banderite Ukraine, the enemy of Russia and a tool of the West used to destroy Russia. Today, the denazification issue has taken a practical turn.

Denazification is necessary when a considerable number of population (very likely most of it) has been subjected to the Nazi regime and engaged into its agenda. That is, when the “good people — bad government” hypothesis does not apply. Recognizing this fact forms the backbone of the denazification policy and all its measures, while the fact itself constitutes its subject.

This is the situation Ukraine has found itself in. The fact that the Ukrainian voter was choosing between the “Poroshenko peace” and the “Zelenskyy peace” must not deceive you: Ukrainians were quite happy with the shortest way to peace via a blitzkrieg, which was strongly alluded to by the last two Ukrainian presidents when they were elected. This was the method used to “pacify” home antifascists in Odesa, Kharkiv, Dnipro[the RU original uses the city’s former name “Dnipropetrovsk”], Mariupol, and other Russian cities — the method of total terror. And ordinary Ukrainians were fine with it. Denazification is a set of actions aimed at the nazified bulk of the population, who technically cannot be directly punished as war criminals.

Those Nazis who took up arms must be destroyed on the battlefield, as many of them as possible. No significant distinction should be made between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the so-called “nationalist battalions,” as well as the Territorial Defense, who have joined the two other types of military units. They are all equally complicit in the horrendous violence towards civilians, equally complicit in the genocide of the Russian people, and they don’t comply with the laws and customs of war. War criminals and active Nazis must be punished in such a way as to provide an example and a demonstration. A total lustration must be conducted. All organizations involved in Nazi actions must be eliminated and prohibited. However, besides the highest ranks, a significant number of common people are also guilty of being passive Nazis and Nazi accomplices. They supported the Nazi authorities and pandered to them. A just punishment for this part of the population can only be possible through bearing the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system, waged as carefully and sparingly as possible relates civilians. The further denazification of this bulk of the population will take the form of re-education through ideological repressions (suppression) of Nazi paradigms and a harsh censorship not only in the political sphere but also in the spheres of culture and education. It was through culture and education that the pervasive large-scale Nazification of the population was conducted, ensured by the guarantees of dividends from the Nazi regime victory over Russia, by the Nazi propaganda, internal violence and terror, and the 8-year-long war against the people of Donbas, who have rebelled against the Ukrainian Nazism.

Denazification can only be conducted by the winner, which means (1) their unconditional control over the denazification process and (2) the authority that can ensure such control. For this purpose, a country that is being denazified cannot possess sovereignty. The denazifier state, Russia, cannot take a liberal approach towards denazification. The denazifier ideology cannot be challenged by the guilty party that is being denazified. When Russia admits that Ukraine needs to be denazified, it essentially admits that the Crimea scenario cannot be applied to the whole Ukraine. In all fairness, this scenario was also not possible in the insurgent Donbas in 2014. Only the 8-year-long rebellion against the Nazi violence and terror managed to result in an internal unification and deliberate, explicit, broad-scale refusal of retaining any association with or relation to Ukraine, who has identified itself as a Nazi community.

The period of denazification can take no less than one generation that has to be born, brought upm and mature under the conditions of denazification. The nazification of Ukraine has been going on for more than 30 years — starting from as early as 1989, when Ukrainian nationalism was given legal and legitimate forms of political self-expression and led the movement for “independence”, setting a course for Nazism.

The current nazified Ukraine is characterized by its formlessness and ambivalence, which allow it to disguise Nazism as the aspiration to “independence” and the “European” (Western, pro-American) path of “development” (in reality, to degradation) and claim that “there is no Nazism” in Ukraine, “only few sporadic incidents.” Indeed, there isn’t a main Nazi party, no Führer, no full-fledged racial laws (only a cutdown version in the form of repressions against the Russian language). As a result — no opposition or resistance against the regime.

However, all listed above doesn’t make Ukrainian Nazism a “light version” of the German Nazism of the first half of the 20th century. Quite the opposite: since Ukrainian Nazism is free from such “genre” norms and limitations (which are essentially a product of political technologies), it can spread freely just like a basis for any Nazism — both European and, in its most developed form, the American racism. That’s why there can be no compromise during denazification, as in the case of the “no to NATO, yes to EU” formula. The collective West is in itself the architect, source, and sponsor of Ukrainian Nazism, while the Banderite supporters from Western Ukraine and their “historical memory” is just one of the tools of the nazification of Ukraine. Ukronazism poses a much bigger threat to the world and Russia than the Hitler version of German Nazism.

Apparently, the name “Ukraine” cannot be kept as a title of any fully denazified state entity on the territory liberated from the Nazi regime. The people’s republics, newly created on the territories free from Nazism, must and will develop on the basis of practices of economic self-government and social security, restoration and modernization of systems of essential services for the population.

Their political direction cannot be neutral in practice: the redemption of their guilt before Russia for treating it like an enemy can be manifested only by relying on Russia in the processes of restoration, revival, and development. No “Marshall Plans” can be allowed to happen on these territories. No “neutrality” in the ideological and practical sense that is compatible with denazification can be possible. Individuals and organizations who are to become tools of denazification in the new denazified republics cannot but rely on the direct organizational and force support from Russia.

Denazification will inevitably include de-ukrainization — the rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic component in the self-identification of the population of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya territories, which was started by the Soviet authorities. Being a tool of the Communist superpower, this artificial ethnocentrism was not left unclaimed after its fall. It was transferred in its subservient role to a different superpower (the power above states) — the superpower of the West. It needs to be brought back within its natural boundaries and stripped of political functionality.

Unlike, for example, Georgia or the Baltic States, history has proved it impossible for Ukraine to exist as a nation-state, and any attempts to “build” such a nation-state naturally lead to Nazism. Ukrainism is an artificial anti-Russian construct that has no civilizational substance of its own, a subordinate element of an extraneous and alien civilization. Debanderization alone will not be enough for denazification: the Banderite element is only a hand and a screen, a disguise for the European project of the Nazi Ukraine, which is why the denazification of Ukraine means its inevitable de-europeanization.

The Banderite elites must be eliminated; their re-education is impossible. The social “bog,” which has actively and passively supported them through action and inaction, must go through the hardships of war and internalize the lived experience as a historical lesson and the redemption of its guilt. Those who didn’t support the Nazi regime and suffered from it and the war it started in Donbas must be consolidated and organized, must become the backbone of the new authorities, their vertical and horizontal framework. History has shown that the tragedies and dramas of the war time benefit the peoples who were tempted and carried away by their role as the enemy of Russia.

Denazification as a goal of the special military operation within the limits of the operation itself means a military victory over the Kyiv regime, the liberation of the territories from the armed supporters of nazification, the elimination of hard-line Nazis, the imprisonment of war criminals, and the creating of systemic conditions for further denazification in peacetime.

The latter, in its turn, must begin with the establishment of local governments, militia, and defense institutions, cleansed of Nazi elements, the launching on their basis of constituent processes to create a new republican statehood, the integration of this statehood into the close cooperation with the Russian agency on Ukraine denazification (newly established or reorganized on the basis of, for example, Rossotrudnichestvo), the adoption of the republican regulatory framework (legislation) on denazification under Russian control, the definition of boundaries and frameworks for the direct application of Russian law and Russian jurisdiction in the liberated territory in regard to denazification, the establishment of a tribunal for crimes against humanity in the former Ukraine. In this regard, Russia should act as the guardian of the Nuremberg Trials.

All of the above means that in order to achieve the denazification goals, the support of the population is necessary, as well as its transition to the Russian side after its liberation from the terror, violence, and ideological pressure of the Kyiv regime, and after their withdrawal from informational isolation. Of course, it will take some time for people to recover from the shock of military hostilities, to be convinced of Russia’s long-term intentions, meaning “they will not be abandoned.” It’s impossible to foresee exactly in which territories such a mass of the population will constitute a critically needed majority. The “Catholic province” (Western Ukraine, made up of five oblasts) is unlikely to become part of the pro-Russian territories. The exclusion line, however, will be found experimentally. Behind the line, a forcibly neutral and demilitarized Ukraine will remain, with the formally banned Nazism and hostile to Russia. This is where the haters of Russia will go. The threat of an immediate continuation of the military operation in case of non-compliance with the listed requirements must become a guarantee of the preservation of this obsolete Ukraine in a neutral state. Perhaps this will require a permanent Russian military presence on its territory. From the exclusion line to the Russian border, there will be a territory of potential integration into the Russian civilization, which is inherently anti-fascist.

The operation to denazify Ukraine, which began with a military phase, will follow the same logic of stages in peacetime as during the military operation. At each stage, it will be necessary to achieve irreversible changes, which will become the results of the corresponding stage. In this case, the necessary initial steps of denazification can be defined as follows:

— The elimination of armed Nazi formations (which means any armed formations of Ukraine, including the Armed Forces of Ukraine), as well as the military, informational, and educational infrastructure that ensures their activity;

— The establishment of people’s self-government institutions and militia (defense and law enforcement) of the liberated territories to protect the population from the terror of underground Nazi groups;

— The installation of the Russian information space;

— The seizure of educational materials and the prohibition of educational programs at all levels that contain Nazi ideological guidelines;

— Mass investigations aimed to establish personal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity, the spread of Nazi ideology, and support for the Nazi regime;

— Lustration, making the names of accomplices of the Nazi regime public, involving them in forced labor to restore the destroyed infrastructure as punishment for Nazi activities (from among those who have not become subject to the death penalty or imprisonment);

— The adoption at the local level, under the supervision of Russia, of primary normative acts of denazification “from below,” a ban on all types and forms of the revival of Nazi ideology;

— The establishment of memorials, commemorative signs, monuments to the victims of Ukrainian Nazism, perpetuating the memory of the heroes of the struggle against it;

— The inclusion of a set of anti-fascist and denazification norms in the constitutions of the new people’s republics;

— The establishment of permanent denazification institutions for a period of 25 years.

Russia will have no allies in the denazification of Ukraine. Because this is a purely Russian business. And also because it is not just the Bandera version of Nazi Ukraine that will be eradicated. The process will also, and above all, affect Western totalitarianism, the imposed programs of civilizational degradation and disintegration, the mechanisms of subjugation under the superpower of the West and the United States.

In order to put the Ukraine denazification plan into practice, Russia itself will have to finally part with pro-European and pro-Western illusions, acknowledge itself as the last authority in protecting and preserving those values of historical Europe (the Old World) that deserve to preserve and that the West ultimately abandoned, losing the fight for itself. This struggle continued throughout the 20th century and found its expression in the world war and the Russian revolution, which were inextricably linked with each other.

Russia did everything possible to save the West in the 20th century. It implemented the main Western project that constituted an alternative to capitalism, which defeated the nation-states — the Socialist red project. It crushed German Nazism, a monstrous offspring of the crisis of Western civilization. The last act of Russian altruism was its outstretched hand of friendship, for which it received a monstrous blow in the 1990s.

Everything that Russia has done for the West, it has done at its own expense, by making the greatest sacrifices. The West ultimately rejected all these sacrifices, devalued Russia’s contribution to resolving the Western crisis, and decided to take revenge on Russia for the help that it had selflessly provided. From now on, Russia will follow its own way, not worrying about the fate of the West, relying on another part of its heritage — the leadership in the global process of decolonization.

As part of this process, Russia has a high potential for partnerships and alliances with countries that the West has oppressed for centuries and which are not going to put on its yoke again. Without Russian sacrifice and struggle, these countries would not have been liberated. The denazification of Ukraine is at the same time its decolonization, which the population of Ukraine will have to understand as it begins to free itself from the intoxication, temptation, and dependence of the so-called European choice.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Imagine a Ukrainian reading this.

William,

Imagine a MAGA person reading the mainstream press in the West.

People do propaganda all over the world. Even in Russia.

Whodda thunk it, huh?

 

Michael

[anthony]

13 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It is tough to listen to and it is tough to read. It's up there with well-enunciated "cleansing" policies of recent human dark ages.

Imagine a Ukrainian reading this. The language of extirpation. Merciless suppression of a national culture and language ... 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Certainly is. A horrific statement of intent, rationalized as only an intellectual can. Considering there might well have been old or recent enmities with, and suppression and attacks on Russian-Ukrainians by the segment of neo-Nazis within Ukraine's politics and armed forces, there's nothing to justify an ideological -etc.- "cleansing" of a neighboring country.

Could rooting out Nazi influences be possible? Not in your wildest dreams, which is where this intellectual is. If part-successful, you just drive people underground and heighten their fanaticism.

The pragmatic, not insane, Putin must know this. Whatever he's stated, words stating intent often don't translate into acts. Anyhow, the unanticipated resistance his army has found, obviously precludes a regime change, a puppet Gvt., an occupation, or - full-scale "denazification". If he perhaps wanted those to begin with.

For me I think much of this was Putin's bluff and distraction, pretending to justify an invasion. (It's hoped, for the sake of a speedy end to hostilities, that he does not make de-nazifying a condition in treaty negotiations).

His objectives still appear to remain the two major ones: Territorial - establishing the (majoritarian self-elected) Eastern Ukraine regions  as "independent republics" (which clearly will be satellites of the RF) - and non-NATO membership for Ukraine.

[anthony]

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (Wikipedia)

Main article: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Total casualties

Breakdown	Casualties	Time period	Source
Civilians	6,719–7,046+ killed	24 February – 4 April 2022	Ukrainian government[73]
	1,480 killed, 2,195 wounded	24 February – 4 April 2022	United Nations[74]
Ukrainian forces (UAF, NGU)	2,000–4,000 killed	24 February – 9 March 2022	US estimate[75]
	1,300 killed	24 February – 12 March 2022	Ukrainian government[76]
Russian forces (RAF, Rosgvardiya, PMC Wagner)	1,351 killed, 3,825 wounded[note 5]	24 February – 25 March 2022	Russian government[77]
	7,000–15,000 killed	24 February – 23 March 2022	NATO estimate[78]
	10,000+ killed	24 February – 30 March 2022	US estimate[79]
Donetsk PR forces	767 killed, 3,559 wounded	25 February – 31 March 2022	Donetsk PR[80]

On 25 March, Russia's Ministry of Defence confirmed that 1,351 Russian soldiers had been killed in combat, with another 3,825 being injured. It also claimed 14,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed and 16,000 wounded by this point.^[77] Additionally, the DPR claimed 979 Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 1,150 wounded in the Donbass region alone by 11 March.^[81] In contrast, on 6 April, Ukraine claimed Russian combat losses were around 18,600,^[82] while its forces suffered 1,300 dead by 12 March.^[76] At the end of March, Ukraine stated it would not reveal its losses, which it described as "considerable", until the end of the war.^[83]

With respect to Russian military losses, Ukrainian estimates tended to be high, while Russian estimates of their own losses tended to be low. Combat deaths can be inferred from a variety of sources, including satellite imagery and video image of military actions.^[84] According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, Ukraine’s government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was “probably” downplaying its own casualties. Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities.^[85] According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well.^[86] Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact, as Western countries were emphasizing the Russian military's toll, while Russia wanted to downplay its losses.^[87]

The number of civilian deaths as well as military deaths is impossible to determine with precision given the fog of war.^[88][84]

[anthony]

On 4/6/2022 at 6:14 PM, anthony said:

"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, Ukraine’s government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was “probably” downplaying its own casualties. Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities.^[85] According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well.^[86] Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact, as Western countries were emphasizing the Russian military's toll, while Russia wanted to downplay its losses.^[87]

Engaged in a misinformation campaign, right.

Ukraine, basically, knowingly deceiving the world about its civilian deaths, for (extra) sympathy and support, and likely, seeking military intervention. 

7000 - to - 1480.

About FIVE times the official UN figures?

[Peter]

From Fox News: U.S. rolls out new sanctions as "war crimes" mount. Soon, White House briefing. 

[Peter]

A few hours ago, Bois Johnson, the Prime Minister of Britain gave a rousing speech, directly to the people of Russia.  It is worth a listen.

From AP: Russian war crimes alleged at UN Security Council.

White House is currently at 3:22 pm briefing reporters about new sanctions on Russia.

[tmj]

Remind me why it is important to encourage Ukraine militarily ? Any aid given is only going to prolong the death and destruction, why is it not more important and morally acceptable to use diplomacy to encourage Ukraine to do what ever is necessary to capitulate?

It is the poorest and most corrupt nation in the region , why wouldn’t the population experience a net positive if they became even reluctantly Russian citizens ?

[ThatGuy]

1 hour ago, tmj said:

Remind me why it is important to encourage Ukraine militarily ? Any aid given is only going to prolong the death and destruction, why is it not more important and morally acceptable to use diplomacy to encourage Ukraine to do what ever is necessary to capitulate?

It is the poorest and most corrupt nation in the region , why wouldn’t the population experience a net positive if they became even reluctantly Russian citizens ?

???

[Peter]

4 hours ago, tmj said:

It is the poorest and most corrupt nation in the region , why wouldn’t the population experience a net positive if they became even reluctantly Russian citizens ?

Objectivists do not initiate or encourage the use of force. This principle is sometimes shortened to NIOF. Here is an old letter from Ghs wherein he uses the phrase. Peter  

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Intent, Warmongering, and Battle  Hard-OnsDate: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 02:26:25 -0500 Tim Starr wrote: "However, all who love justice must love just wars, so there's no necessary conflict between a libertarian theory of justice and a love for war."

Jeff Olson replied: "This is news to me.  I didn't realize that by loving justice I was logically obliged to love war."

Tim replied: "Just war, yes.  Perhaps you have difficulty imagining a just war, or perhaps you don't really love justice. Perhaps your approval of justice takes a different form.  I could see an argument similar to yours being made about the death penalty, with people claiming to love justice but not the death penalty.  However, most who would take this position would do so because they'd consider the death penalty unjust."

Like Jeff, I have serious problems with Tim's statement about "loving" a just war, even taking into account Tim's flair for dramatic aphorisms. (1) It is not clear what Tim means by "love" in this context. I think of "love" as involving something more than "respect," "esteem," "approval," etc., because "love" implies an affective response or emotional attachment that, if it exists at all in the former evaluations, typically exists to a far lesser degree and may even constitute an emotional difference in kind. Since I do feel a strong emotional attachment to justice, I may be said to love justice. By this I primarily mean that I feel strongly about the value of voluntary social relationships that are based on a reciprocal respect for individual rights, i.e., relationships that do not involve the use or threat of physical force. Tim, however, is speaking of a situation where rights have already been seriously violated, or where there exists a clear and present danger of such violation, and which would therefore justify a "just war" as a legitimate form of self-defense. (I would argue that only a clearly defined and delimited notion of self-defense, in contrast to retribution and even restitution, can ever justify a war, but this is a different subject.) 

From the fact that I "love" justice (i.e., voluntary social relationships), it does not necessarily follow that I similarly "love" the legitimate use of violence, including a just war, that may be necessary for the purpose of self-defense and the *enforcement* of justice. There is a significant difference here, in terms of my emotional response, between a situation in which force never enters the picture at all versus a situation in which the initiation of force, by violating justice, legitimates the retaliatory use of force in self-defense.

My response to the latter is tinged with a heavy dose of regret that such measures are even necessary in the first place. Hence, although I would intellectually approve of self-defensive violence, I would never use the concept of "love" to describe my feelings about it. At most I might feel a cathartic sense of vindication and even revenge if (say) an intended rape and murder victim manages to kill her assailant while being attacked, but in my lexicon this response would not qualify as "love" in any recognizable sense.

(2) We should keep in the mind that the concept of war, as commonly understood, refers to a major, sustained conflict between states – or at the very least between politically defined groups -- rather than a conflict between individuals. For this (and other) reasons, war has a collectivistic aspect to it that should make any individualist extremely uncomfortable, even if he concludes that war is necessary as a last resort. War should always be viewed as a measure of last resort, an activity that should be employed only when all other reasonable options have been exhausted. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that wars always have undesirable, and often disastrous, unintended consequences, such as the loss of innocent lives and the growth of state power. Even so-called victors typically pay an immensely high price for war in blood, money, and the loss of individual freedoms.

"Unintended" does not mean "unforeseeable." Even with the best "smart" weapons that money and technology can provide, we know, with as much certainly as we can know any future event, that innocent people will die during war and suffer for years after a war has officially ended. I simply cannot bring myself to "love" a situation that will invariably result in the loss of innocent lives, regardless of who may be deemed morally responsible for this consequence. I may feel that I have no realistic choice but to sanction a just war, and I may feel that the unintended (though foreseeable) loss of innocent life is justifiable in some circumstances, but my regrets will be profound nonetheless. My dominant feeling here would be one of immense sadness, not love.

(3) To declare a state of war is, in effect, to declare a state of emergency in which a respect for innocent life will not be the paramount concern (i.e., a concern that trumps all other considerations) until and unless a given goal is achieved, a goal that is often characterized as "defeating the enemy." Again, I can feel no enthusiasm, much less "love," in supporting what amounts to a suspension of individual rights, even if I should regard this war as necessary and justifiable.

In my book, to love justice is to hate war, since to declare even a "just war" is to commit oneself to the inevitable loss of innocent lives. I agree with Tim that some wars can qualify as "just." But love has nothing to do with it. Ghs

[anthony]

SELF-defense is the basis of just war. (Rand's speech to the West Point cadets).

Putin could disingenuously argue he was coming to the defense of separatist Russian-Ukrainians who had been continuously - self defensively -  resisting Kyiv in a civil war.

Well, so they were.

What's the legitimacy of a majority of people in a geographical area who want autonomy and self-rule, from a central Government, a repressive regime, a distant colonial power or a distant monarchy?

There are many modern or historical precedents set for their right to do so, de jure, and many acknowledgments of their de facto independence, afterwards, when ending and/or winning their respective conflicts.

Kyiv evidently was not even prepared to discuss Eastern separation. It sent forces attacking the Donbas regions.

One could surmize that Putin's invasion, in his mind anyhow, was simply an escalated, unbroken continuation of the civil war.

More: he probably views that as an aggressive retaliation against Kyiv's aggressive force directed at the rebels.

(Only then, at this point did the Western societies wake up and pay attention, the (14,000 in total, 6000 civilian) deaths and destruction and fleeing refugees in Donbass, up to this stage, not considered too serious nor meriting much media airtime.

So, recently, Zelensky's Govt has responded in Ukraine's self-defense to the invasion. But there is good evidence and a pretty strong argument - when conceived of to be a single, unbroken conflict up til the present - that the initial full-scale, military aggression came from Kyiv, only eight years back.

 

 

[ThatGuy]

6 hours ago, Peter said:

Objectivists do not initiate or encourage the use of force.

Initiate? No.
But as to encouraging the use of...more like, "Don't start none; won't be none."

Quote

Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness. Her gun was equipped with a silencer; there was no sound to attract anyone’s attention, only the thud of a body falling at her feet.

Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition) (p. 1051). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

Quote

“Who are you?” screamed some terror-blinded voice.

“Ragnar Danneskjöld.”

Three sounds answered him: a long, swelling moan of panic—the clatter of four guns dropped to the floor—and the bark of the fifth, fired by a guard at the forehead of the chief.

Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition) (p. 1056). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

[tmj]

I resonate with Ghs in his estimate of applying the concepts of ‘love’ and ‘justice’ and especially with regard to a state or declaration of war as being the product of ‘governments’ and therefore not wholly representative of the will of all people who will inevitably be confronted with and damaged by those government actions.

In the concrete example of the war in Ukraine , why should a ‘lover’ of justice encourage continued death and destruction on the people of the region? 

In my , perhaps limited view, military aggression was precipitated by coup orchestrated by western powers , most notably the US State Department to remove a Russian allied or ‘puppet’ regime and replace it with a regime allied or ‘puppeted’ by the EU , NATO and our Dept of State and its designs and machinations. Putin annexed Crimea and the breakaway regions to ensure and strengthen Russia’s naval and military capabilities in the region, along with apparently ultimately gaining control of the energy resources in eastern Ukraine.

I don’t see 1776 any where near any of this. Even if there were some semblance of an ideological defense of freedom or national sovereignty, championing the cause of some second world Eastern European isn’t the hill to launch a hot war directly involving a nuclear power. 

Prior to all of ‘this’ what I knew of modern Ukraine , I gleaned from YouTube videos of some guy who would hop trains and buses to explore places in that region to wax nostalgic about Soviet times and architecture, unfortunately his travels documented a very sad state of affairs of a broken society . Circumstances that don’t really allow for a ‘free’ people to ‘rise up against tyranny ‘ . It painted a picture more of a ‘people’ easily manipulated by and powerless to defend against any regime in power at the moment.

I don’t see any ‘real’ good guys , it appears more like differently aligned oligarchs on both sides exhorting power over control of pipelines and coastlines, with the immediate costs being borne by the civilian populations of the region.

One of the strongest indications that leads me believe this frame is closer to the ‘truth’ , is that everyscreen in my house is clamoring about how this death and destruction is some necessary and Supra-moral fight for freedom.

Fuck Putin and Fuck Keev, and fuck anybody goading either of them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If this guy, Brian Williams, were still around (and nobody knows why he left MSNBC), he would be one of the first in line pushing for war with Russia. He luvs him some war, baby...

Although he doesn't actually use the word, love, in this 2017 video, the love of war sentiment is honking.

Williams quoted Leonard Cohen on showing footage of deadly missiles taking off to bomb Syria and said he was "guided by the beauty of our weapons."

Modern mainstream news people don't use that kind of rhetoric, but I have seen them echo that same sentiment when talking about Ukraine and possible war with Russia.

 

btw - The reason that particular bombing happened was because the Pentagon argued that the Syrian government had gassed its citizens. They misled President Trump at the time because that was later proven to be a false flag event staged by the rebels, not by the Syrian government.  (Does anyone really think the Pentagon's endless war for profit machine was fooled?)

People who said it was a false flag at the time were scoffed at and called every name in the book by the mainstream media.

At least those like Brian Williams thought it was beautiful, so some beauty was brought to the world. Huh?

I wonder if gassing those innocent people then lying about it was beautiful, too...

Luv is such a wonderful thing...

Michael

[anthony]

8 hours ago, tmj said:

I resonate with Ghs in his estimate of applying the concepts of ‘love’ and ‘justice’ and especially with regard to a state or declaration of war as being the product of ‘governments’ and therefore not wholly representative of the will of all people who will inevitably be confronted with and damaged by those government actions.

 

It's the "love" of war and "justice" in the ~visceral~ manner which many hold, that I think Ghs recognizes and criticizes. What attracts people is that war is the most visceral of mankind's activities. It gets "all the juices flowing" and makes many observers feel most - alive. 

"Justice" - seen as a collective retribution for someone's perceived moral sins, one who is the convenient focus of all one's rage. The greater the rage and fear, the bigger the payback demanded.

That explains the strange glee with which I believe I see people regarding and talking about this war, some/many wishing for massive intervention, tacitly condemning more innocents and combatants to death.

They seem to me the same sort of Social Justice Warriors on a world scale who want punishment meted out ("seen to be done") for their moral satisfaction, from the safety of home.

I never considered myself a peacenik (and never, hawkish or a pacifist), until now. While I despise "gratuitous" violence generally, responding with violence will sometimes become inescapable and rationally moral. But not this time. Not unless there're significant new developments.

Maybe, I suggest, to properly set out to fight a just war, a rational man or government will loathe having to do so, as the last resort, yet do so without hesitation. 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are no words to express the contempt I have for this kind of thing from the Deep State.

Three US Intel Officials Tell NBC News That the “Intelligence” Biden Released on Russia/Ukraine Was Made Up (VIDEO)

Three US Intel Officials Tell NBC News That the "Intelligence" Biden Released on Russia/Ukraine Was Made Up (VIDEO)

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

NBC News on Wednesday evening casually admitted that the “intelligence” Biden released claiming Russia was planning a false flag operation as a pretext to invade Ukraine was totally made up...

 

They like to lie the USA into unwinnable wars so they can sell their fucking guns in crony deals...

Even when busted, they just do it again.

They make fools out of the people who support them without blinking an eye and they laugh all the way to the bank about it.

After all, it's not their kids who are dying for this...

 

They make a mockery of the USA in all senses: word, deed and spirit.

Michael

[anthony]

Refreshing to get some hard, incontrovertible facts about NATO v. the Warsaw Pact. The latter was disbanded while the first only expanded wider after admitting Germany. That was not the deal.

 

 

[anthony]

Endless war for profit.

 

[Peter]

Russia should just get out and stop killing people. When you go "across the zone you might have been protecting" and start killing innocents you are committing genocide. 

What if Putin had invaded the Brits, or South Africans, or Americans? Why in the hell is this any way different? How is he any different than the butchers who ran the USSR, or Nazi Germany?