Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[Peter]

edit. I quote from Eyal Mozes’ critique of The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, by Randy E. Barnett.

But granted ethics and rights are two distinct issues, what is the relation between them? Objectivist value theory approaches the question of rights by establishing the importance of rationality, independence, and productivity. Specifically, it demonstrates that to live man must guide his actions by his independent, rational thinking, using it to produce the resources he needs to survive. The basic social requirement of man's survival, therefore, is that other people not prevent him from acting rationally, independently, and productively. Fundamentally, the only danger to man's ability to act in this way is the possibility that some other person will initiate physical force against him. Rights are therefore justified as the principles on which society must be organized to fulfill the basic social requirement: to preserve man's ability to act rationally, independently, and productively by protecting him from the initiation of force. Thus, in the logical structure of Objectivism, rights come later than ethics and are based on it. In the words of Ayn Rand, rights are "the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics." (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition, p. 92.)

 

[Peter]

Not to hammer it in but is Ukraine initiating force?

From: "WILLIAM  DWYER" To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Roll Call (i.e., definition of force) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:32:38 -0700 Joe Duarte asked, [D]oes anyone have a good definition of force? The non-initiation of force principle is key to the objectivist ethics and politics. I'd like to know exactly what we mean by force. I heard that Kelley defined it in one of his works - does anyone know which one? I can't find it.  

Joe, I don't know about Kelley's definition, but "force" in a libertarian/Objectivist context refers to the negation of a person's will or choice; it means compulsion.  In this sense, two people engaged in the sport of boxing or wrestling are not using "force" against either; since their participation is voluntary.

The ~initiation~ of force, for an Objectivist or a libertarian, is gaining a value from its owner without his or her consent, which is why fraud is a form of force. Thus, the initiation of force presupposes the concept of property rights, which is a point that Kelley has made.  For example, if I physically remove you from a particular place against your will, I have used "force" against you.  But I have not ~initiated~ force against you if the place is my property and you are occupying it against my will.  Thus, in order to determine whether or not an act of force qualifies as the ~initiation~ of force, one needs to have a prior understanding of the property relations obtaining between the two parties involved in its exercise.

For whatever it's worth, Peikoff defines "physical force" as "coercion exercised by ~physical~ agency, [e.g.,] by punching a man in the face, incarcerating him, shooting him, or seizing his property."  So, what, then, do we mean by "coercion"?  My dictionary defines "coerce" as "to restrain or dominate by nullifying individual will," which comports with my earlier definition of "force". Peikoff also defines the ~initiation~ of physical force as "~starting~ the use of force against an innocent individual(s), one who has not himself started its use against others." [OPAR, 310] My dictionary also lists several synonyms of "force" and makes some interesting distinctions, e.g., "compel, coerce, constrain..."  "Coerce comes closest to what Objectivism means by "physical force".  Accordingly, "coerce suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual or threatened violence or pressure." I hope this helps.  It is the best I could do off the top. Bill

[anthony]

15 hours ago, tmj said:

Fuck Russia , I’m not on a ‘side’ that is either for or against the Russian regime. 

Why should anyone be on Ukraine’s ‘side’?

What specific reasoning determines that outside of either being Russian or Ukrainian me must pick a side  , Ohioans need to pick a side?

 

That's about my position, and why I've been 'the dove' who argued for early, urgent diplomatic engagement. Primarily, for the Ukrainian people's best results. Diplomatic efforts which have been suspiciously unforthcoming since PM Johnson sabotaged one attempt.

But it seemed clear to me that the Russian invasion could not be defeated in its expressed, limited goals. A reality to deal with, practically and morally.

The emerged picture is of one side alone that's pushed *escalation* (conflict plus sanctions), and has done so, using Putin's ill-advised - not unprovoked - invasion as excuse. One side only, would not touch a cease-fire and talks (disregarding the cost to Ukraine's lives).

It is the western powers which gladly anticipated a win-lose zero-sum outcome: We/Ukraine win gloriously, Russia loses humiliatingly. I observed Putin at first clearly wanted to avoid that. i.e. Agree to xyz concessions (already promised by Kyiv) and there can be a peaceful solution, no one has to lose, no distinct victor nor a Ukraine surrender.

But the irrational need for personal 'satisfaction', and national hubris (esp. the UK) and the opportunity to "weaken Russia" (for later benefit to the West), dictated that evil Putin is beneath negotiating with, as an equal with national security concerns like any other leader - Who does he think he is, this upstart?! "Anyway, Russia will be beaten militarily and economically and he will be overthrown in a regime change". A gross wishful miscalculation and misidentification by 'experts', about Russian military strength, economic resilience and resolve. The costs of their evasions will be enormous. On Ukraine, but not only.

Now it may be sinking in that 'zero-sum' works both ways: The unthinkable, "they" might win... That would mean an ignominious and expensive defeat for "us". So the West hasn't been able to stop 'doubling down' its lethal aid and propaganda campaign to the bitter end. For an ounce of common sense, not facing the reality and the avoidance of diplomacy.

Today:

"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Tuesday that a military victory for Russia in Ukraine would spell defeat for the entire Western alliance".

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Not to hammer it in but is Ukraine initiating force?

Peter,

Yup.

Michael

[anthony]

13 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Notice how persistently Peter ignores the well-informed material and commentary Tony keeps providing.

The applicable Objectivist term is "evasion."

Ellen

It's by way of the put-about media narrative. In effect - There was *nothing* of importance going on, in and with Ukraine until that day, 24 February, when Putin made his move. Nothing to see here. Therefore, Putin evil; Ukraine Gvt innocent. A fairly concretist, 'feelings' reaction.

Like any who wanted to know more, and avoid the media's warlike-indoctrination and moral sanctimony, I had to get a lot of factual education from a mix of sources to come even slightly up to speed. From O'ists recently, especially the ARI lot, there's an un-Oist-like dependency on (leftist) msm authority, and distrust of any 'alternate' sources.

[Marc]

Considering my man HW is talking about the US military, I will put the clip here.

Gotta love HW!

[anthony]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

edit. I quote from Eyal Mozes’ critique of The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, by Randy E. Barnett.

 In the words of Ayn Rand, rights are "the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics." (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition, p. 92.)

 

Then statism is the antithesis to "individual morality in a social context"; statism "causes" wars (AR) and "needs" them. Individuals don't go to war, left alone they will happily trade with productive individuals abroad. 

The statism of all parties concerned, nation on/against/with nation, caused this one. 

[ThatGuy]

On 10/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, ThatGuy said:

The timing of this is...well...
 

"Parents, if your son is an only son and the last male in your family to carry the family name, he is still required to register with SSS. Learn more about who needs to register at

404 error page | Selective Service System

SSS.GOV

(But then, there's the "funny" side of this: are they just going to "assume their gender"? What if they suddenly don't "identify as male"?)

"Wait...this just in..."

"Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don’t have to"
 

Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don't have to

AMERICANMILITARYNEWS.COM

---

Under President Joe Biden’s administration, transgender women who are born male must register for the Selective Service.

 

[Peter]

I wrote: Not to hammer it in but is Ukraine initiating force?

And Michael answered, “Yup.”

Sooooo . . . Ukraine is knocking out the windows in Moscow, shut off the power to a Russian nuclear power plant, dropped or shot 1,187,000 rounds of munitions on Russian territory, killed a bunch of Russians on their own turf, taken over border areas of Russia, murdered civilians, targeted schools, tied the hands behind the back of Russians and then shot them? That would be the initiation of force, and all Ukraine has to do is get out of Russia, and stop killing Russians  . . . . or is it the other way around? But, but gee it can’t be cause they’re mu Russians.

[Marc]

1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

"Wait...this just in..."

"Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don’t have to"
 

Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don't have to

AMERICANMILITARYNEWS.COM

---

Under President Joe Biden’s administration, transgender women who are born male must register for the Selective Service.

 

Freaking clown show

[anthony]

Straight-talking Col. Douglas MacGregor joins the Morrises.

https://youtu.be/vav_pvzaEaY

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

... or is it the other way around?...

Peter,

You are offering a false dichotomy and demanding an answer.

I'm not going to use that standard.

Michael

[Peter]

From American Thinker, March 1, 2022 Did Biden goad Putin into invading Ukraine? By John M. Contino/ As of today, thirty member countries constitute the NATO alliance.  Between 1999 and 2020, fourteen countries were admitted into NATO in the following order: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia.  Much of that real estate borders Russia, and the U.S. is committed to defending those lands against Russian aggression. Alliances can be powerful deterrents to war, but they can also be dangerous.  After Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, the Serbians agreed to a long, demeaning list of Austrian demands to avert war.  Nevertheless, the Austrians insisted on crushing Serbia without fear of drawing Russia to Serbia's defense, knowing that the Kaiser had sworn the equivalent of a Teutonic blood oath to defend Austria unconditionally,

On December 9, 2021, Reuters reported that in a 90-minute phone call, President Biden had assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Kyiv's bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands.  Said Zelensky: "President Biden said very clearly that the decision on Ukraine's accession to NATO is the decision of the Ukrainian people only, this is a sovereign and independent Ukrainian state, he said ... and it depends on Ukraine and NATO members."

Surely Biden knew that admitting Ukraine into NATO was a red line for Putin that would trigger a military response, and surely Putin knew about the phone call if Reuters published an article about it.  Knowing we could not realistically prevent Russia from invading Ukraine if she was determined to do so, was it wise to give Zelensky those assurances just as Putin was massing troops on the border? Last week, the New York Times reported that for the last three months, from December through February, U.S. intelligence officials had been sharing information about Russian troop movements with the Chinese, in an unsuccessful attempt to get China to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine.  The intelligence given to the Chinese was passed on to the Russians, and wouldn't that harm rather than help the Ukrainians, whose interests we are presumably defending? On the face of it, the behavior of the Biden administration makes it look as though Biden's people were baiting Putin into invading Ukraine.  But why?  Getting a stock villain to do so something villainous can help shift the focus of the administration's tanking poll numbers.  That's a high-risk motive if that's what it is.  Then you have the Green New Dealies, who are influential in the Democrat party and are ever impervious to political and economic damage.  They hate low oil and gas prices because they know that high oil and gas prices make their unpopular grand schemes more palatable to the masses.  Motive or not, it's a fact that the U.S. imported 12 million to 26 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per month from Russia in 2021, and we import more gasoline from Russia than from any other country: "In 2021, Russia accounted for 21% of all U.S. gasoline imports, with Canada second at 17%."  To compound those stats, Biden's cancelation of the Keystone Pipeline has deprived us of about 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada.

There's plenty of blame for this mess to be laid on Biden's lap.  Our military's readiness, effectiveness, and status in the world have certainly been degraded by Biden.  The whole world witnessed the humiliation of our withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Wherefore art those woke generals who howled that climate change is the number-one threat to our national security?  So far only John Kerry is dumb enough to publicly fret that the horror and stench of war are bad for the climate. Putin has put Russia on some sort of Defcon nuclear alert and has said removing Russian banks from the SWIFT banking network would be an act of war.  An American/Russian cyber-war could be devastating to power grids, financial networks, and the energy sector. As much as we may wish for the resistance of the Ukrainians and the sanctions from the U.S. and Europe to succeed, we can only hope that those actions don't result in a catastrophic escalation of events.  A bitter compromise agreement between Russia and Ukraine with which neither side is entirely happy may be the best result that can be achieved.

[Peter]

From Business Insider: Former President Donald Trump blamed the US for "almost forcing" Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, Newsweek was the first to report. During an interview on Saturday morning on Real America's Voice, a right-wing network, the former president accused the US and its leadership of goading Putin into waging a botched invasion of Ukraine on February 24.

"They actually taunted him, if you really look at it, our country and our so-called leadership taunted Putin," Trump said. "I would listen, I would say, you know, they're almost forcing him to go in with what they're saying. The rhetoric was so dumb."

Trump did not provide any examples of how the US or President Joe Biden "taunted" Putin or what was the supposedly "dumb" rhetoric. Earlier in the interview, the former president claimed that the war between Russia and Ukraine would never have happened if he had won the election and served a second term.

"Ukraine and Russia would not be fighting," Trump claimed. "It doesn't mean they'd love each other, but there's no way they'd be fighting, and there's no way Putin would have actually gone in."

In the build-up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Trump made the same baseless claim that Putin would not have invaded if he was still in power. He cited his positive relationship with the Russian leader.

"I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He liked me. I liked him," Trump said during a "Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show" appearance on February 22. "I mean, you know, he's a tough cookie, got a lot of the great charm and a lot of pride, and he loves his country."

[Peter]

I thought those two perspectives were interesting though . . . maybe . . . wrong. 

[Peter]

One more observation. I read Russia was shipping train loads of troops to its ally, Belarus and Ukraine wants to join NATO now#@! Check out a map of the area. Belarus is just north of Ukraine and on the border with several NATO allies like Latvia and Lithuania and surprise, surprise, there is a small chunk “cut off” Russia just below Lithuania.

Recently the people of Kaliningrad overwhelmingly voted to get out of Russia but we will see what happens.               

From Bing. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the Kaliningrad Oblast lost its overland connections to Russia, as Lithuania gained its independence and Poland broke free from the Soviet orbit. As Konigsberg was once a German exclave, Kaliningrad became a Russian one. Some of the old Konigsberg remains, though. The Konigsberg Cathedral has been restored. 

From “Editorials:” U.S. Formally Approves Finland and Sweden's NATO Membership. The United States has given its formal approval for Finland and Sweden to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. On August 9, President Joe Biden signed the U.S. Instruments of Ratification, making the United States the 23rd NATO nation to approve the two Nordic countries’ application to join the strongest, most powerful defensive alliance in the world. Leaving behind their long-standing tradition of neutrality, Finland and Sweden sought to join NATO in May in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and brutal war on Ukraine.

“Putin thought he could break us apart,” said President Biden, “in my view, weaken our resolve. Instead, he’s getting exactly what he did not want.” President Biden urged remaining NATO Allies who have not yet ratified the two countries’ accession to NATO to do so quickly. “Finland and Sweden have strong democratic institutions, strong militaries, and strong and transparent economies. They’ll meet every NATO requirement…and make our Alliance stronger.”

President Biden noted the two countries’ bids for membership in NATO had overwhelming bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, as was shown in the Senate vote on August 3. He said that support sent a message: “Together with our Allies and partners, we’re going to write the future we want to see. And in a moment when Putin’s Russia has shattered peace and security in Europe, when autocrats are challenging the very foundations of a rule-based order, the strength of the Transatlantic alliance and America’s commitment to NATO is more important than it has ever been.” President Biden pointed out that in seeking to join NATO, Finland and Sweden are making a “sacred commitment” to the core of the NATO Alliance – Article 5, which commits each member state to mutual defense: that an attack against one member is an attack against all members.

“Today we see all too clearly how NATO remains an indispensable Alliance for the world of today and the world of tomorrow,” President Biden declared. “When Finland and Sweden bring the number of allies to 32, we’ll be stronger than ever. And this will benefit all our people.”

[anthony]

Poke Putin into a self-defensive, pre-emptive invasion, and there you go: the rationale and justification for Nato's continued existence and expansion!

But join the Club, you'll be protected.

We told you the Russians would be a threat again one day. Only took about 30 years to wangle it.  

[anthony]

20 hours ago, Peter said:

I wrote: Not to hammer it in but is Ukraine initiating force?

And Michael answered, “Yup.”

Sooooo . . . Ukraine is knocking out the windows in Moscow, shut off the power to a Russian nuclear power plant, dropped or shot 1,187,000 rounds of munitions on Russian territory, killed a bunch of Russians on their own turf, taken over border areas of Russia, murdered civilians, targeted schools, tied the hands behind the back of Russians and then shot them? That would be the initiation of force, and all Ukraine has to do is get out of Russia, and stop killing Russians  . . . . or is it the other way around? But, but gee it can’t be cause they’re mu Russians.

A can of worms. Atrocities, civilian targeting - you don't want to go there, I think. Might be disturbing to know the reality. Ten to one, they are fanatical ultra-nationalist, Ukrainian committed and/or constructed. Seeking sympathy from their true believers overseas, its been called "projection" and "inversion" (- of "our" atrocities, onto "them"). So Russia, not UAF, shells the nuke power station it controls and operates, blows up its own pipeline, mines and bombs their people in the streets of 'liberated' cities, and Kyiv looks pristine. While they can round up "collaborators", such as Donbas school teachers and civil servants who kept working during the Russian occupation without protest.

Impressive is the power they wield when the psy-ops/propaganda Kyiv puts out isn't logically refuted  nor ever investigated impartially by western news outlets, literally the power to murder.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

I gave our differences some thought and here is what I came up with.

A country is manmade. Force is metaphysical.

To look at the force initiated by one country and consider that as metaphysical, but ignore the force initiated by another country, is to attribute metaphysical status to countries qua countries.

(I normally don't use "qua."  )

But countries are manmade.

Initiation of force is wrong no matter which country does it. That is, if one uses reality as the standard.

 

Rand wrote an essay called The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made. She was focusing on primacy of existence versus primacy of consciousness, so she did not specifically talk about how countries are manmade, but there are some quotes I found pertinent. They are below.

Incidentally, I believe she wrote that essay--which riffs off the Serenity Prayer of AA--trying to understand her husband and his attraction to alcohol. Maybe trying to fix him (as women are wont to do  ).

Anyway, here are some cherries I picked from the essay.

Quote

Man’s faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature, but it opens the way for a host of contradictions — when and if men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man.

It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed. It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary. Man is not omniscient or infallible: he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or he can lie, cheat and fake. The man-made may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuity — or it may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil.

. . .

The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is — and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality. The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong — it is the standard of right or wrong, by which a (rational) man judges his goals, his values, his choices. The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be. Nothing made by man had to be: it was made by choice.

. . .

The faculty of volition gives man a special status in two crucial respects: 1. unlike the metaphysically given, man’s products, whether material or intellectual, are not to be accepted uncritically — and 2. by its metaphysically given nature, a man’s volition is outside the power of other men.

. . .

Today, intelligence is neither recognized nor rewarded, but is being systematically extinguished in a growing flood of brazenly flaunted irrationality. As just one example of the extent to which today’s culture is dominated by the primacy of consciousness, observe the following: in politics, people hold a ruthless, absolutist, either-or attitude toward elections, they expect a man either to win or not and are concerned only with the winner, ignoring the loser altogether (even though, in some cases, the loser was right) — while in economics, in the realm of production, they evade the absolutism of reality, of the fact that a man either produces or not, and destroy the winners in favor of the losers. To them, men’s decisions are an absolute; reality’s demands are not.

 

Ukraine as a country is not metaphysically given. It was made by humans, humans, I might add, who unleashed an incredible amount of corruption, embezzlement and initiation of force on its own citizens and on the world. Just because that did not take of form of Ukraine as a country invading another country (and don't forget, a country is a manmade product), that does not extinguish from existence the initiation of force it did perform.

That is the philosophical foundation of where I disagree with you on condemning Russia and holding Ukraine blameless (not to mention a host of bad actors and other countries that participate in the same and related corruption, embezzlement and initiation of force).

Where I agree with you, in terms of countries, that is manmade products, it is proper to condemn one country invading another. Even countries betraying treaties they made.

But where I disagree, in terms of metaphysics, it is an inversion to say the sovereignty of any one country exempts it from reality, so when it initiates force, that doesn't count.

 

On a personal note, I cannot generate any enthusiasm for the Ukraine government knowing how it came about and what it has done. That does not mean I condone what Russia did. Don't forget, we are talking about a fight between gangsters and gangster states. Not between rational, moral humans.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

I thought those two perspectives were interesting though . . . maybe . . . wrong. 

Not wrong.   On the same lines Tony has been saying and documenting all along.

Tony summarizes:

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Poke Putin into a self-defensive, pre-emptive invasion, and there you go: the rationale and justification for Nato's continued existence and expansion!

But join the Club, you'll be protected.

We told you the Russians would be a threat again one day. Only took about 30 years to wangle it.  

Requoting so the whole quote shows and adding emphasis:

"Poke Putin into a self-defensive, pre-emptive invasion, and there you go: the rationale and justification for Nato's continued existence and expansion!

"But join the Club, you'll be protected.

"We told you the Russians would be a threat again one day. Only took about 30 years to wangle it"

I.e., aggression but not "unprovoked."    Escalation not "initiation" of force.

 

Plus, regarding the atrocities you insist (contra evidence) the Russians are committing:

1 hour ago, anthony said:

A can of worms. Atrocities, civilian targeting - you don't want to go there, I think. Might be disturbing to know the reality. Ten to one, they are fanatical ultra-nationalist, Ukrainian committed and/or constructed. Seeking sympathy from their true believers overseas, its been called "projection" and "inversion" (- of "our" atrocities, onto "them"). So Russia, not UAF, shells the nuke power station it controls and operates, blows up its own pipeline, mines and bombs their people in the streets of 'liberated' cities, and Kyiv looks pristine. While they can round up "collaborators", such as Donbas school teachers and civil servants who kept working during the Russian occupation without protest.

Wonderful is the power they control when the psy-ops/propaganda Kyiv puts out isn't logically refuted  nor ever investigated impartially by western news, literally the power to murder.

Requoting part of that and adding emphasis:

"A can of worms. Atrocities, civilian targeting - you don't want to go there, I think. Might be disturbing to know the reality. Ten to one, they are fanatical ultra-nationalist, Ukrainian committed and/or constructed."

Ellen

[Peter]

Ellen wrote: I.e., aggression but not "unprovoked."    Escalation not "initiation" of force

Thanks for the nuanced thinking but I think countries or individuals can have conflicts and when the conflict ceases or abates, one side re-escalates and that can be “the initiation of force.” So how much time needs to pass for that to make sense? I am not sure. But the “intellectual dilemma” reminds me of an old, strange and funny, Ghs quote.

George H. Smith wrote: Imagine if all humans were physically connected by some kind of umbilical cord, such that people could not move around independently, consume something without it affecting other people, etc. The notion of individual rights, as we now understand that concept, could not be justified in this scenario. Why? Simply because we would not be dealing with physically discrete entities known as "individuals" at all. Rather, the human species would constitute a type of single organism in which harmful actions by one part would adversely affect other parts. end quote

[anthony]

Nonviolent Ways the United States Could Exploit Russian Vulnerabilities

WWW.RAND.ORG

---

Despite its vulnerabilities and anxieties, Russia remains a formidable opponent in a few key domains. What non-violent, cost-imposing...

"Over-extending and Unbalancing Russia".

The first thought, unbalancing - what the hell for?

A second, this report was 2019, not something out the mid-60's Cold War!

A third, right, that's predatory "statism".

"Non-violent ways" = subterfuge and moral pre-justification for "We didn't do anything to start trouble!"

 

Cold-blooded calculations and charts about how far to go to make Russia "anxious", by which tactics, for what costs, at what risks.

How is the strategy working out for you think-tankers at Rand Corp?

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Meanwhile, back at the farm.

Why steal when all you need to do is ask for it and suckers give it to you?

What's worse, they give it to you and it never gets to the places it is supposed to go to.

 

This Ukraine-Russia mess can be boiled down to a simple way of saying it.

Who do you want to give money to, the Commies or the Nazis?

Just don't use the words Commie or Nazi because we don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities, right?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To quote James Carville: "It's the economy, stupid."

Michael

[Marc]