Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#51

Post by konart »

ashtonkem wrote: post #50
konart wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. >behavior in Ukraine than in Syria. See, the thing is - Iraq and Ukraine were `invaded`. So you can actually compare the response from the other countries. Syria is a very different story as Russia was invited there. So it is obvious why the reaction to Russian presence there is different. Yet when the US 'enters' the scene - everything is different. In both cases. And this is somethin…

Because Russia took a part of Ukraine, or at least is trying to. It freaks out Europeans to see another country in the region invading neighbors and claiming territory. It’s the same basic reason why the Brits responded very poorly when the Germans invaded Belgium; everyone in the region starts worrying if they’re next. For all the flaws of the US invasion of Iraq, the US didn’t claim Iraq as US territory. Yes, we’ve…

Okay, so let's be clear.

It's okay to invade a country as long as:

1. You do not claim its territory or its part as your own (but you can maintain a military presence there if you feel so)

2. You do claim its territory or its part as your own but only if kind people of the first world are bit too close to the territory in question

This begs for a simple question: will the US and EU lift their sanctions if Russia gives Crimea (and to Donbas regions) back while 'maintaining a military presence' there?

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#52

Post by luckylion »

ashtonkem wrote: post #50
konart wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. >behavior in Ukraine than in Syria. See, the thing is - Iraq and Ukraine were `invaded`. So you can actually compare the response from the other countries. Syria is a very different story as Russia was invited there. So it is obvious why the reaction to Russian presence there is different. Yet when the US 'enters' the scene - everything is different. In both cases. And this is somethin…

Because Russia took a part of Ukraine, or at least is trying to. It freaks out Europeans to see another country in the region invading neighbors and claiming territory. It’s the same basic reason why the Brits responded very poorly when the Germans invaded Belgium; everyone in the region starts worrying if they’re next. For all the flaws of the US invasion of Iraq, the US didn’t claim Iraq as US territory. Yes, we’ve…

Well, officially they didn't just take it, they "guaranteed the local population's freedom", who then "chose" to "join the Russian federation".

It's a joke, of course, but I don't think it's really that different from what e.g. Turkey (with the US' blessing) does in Syria, Israel does in Palestine etc. I don't think either of them are really about territorial expansion as much as they are about security concerns. Russia is -quite understandable- not too trusting with regards to promises of peace, so they won't let a very high-value strategic location like Crimea (which hosts their black sea fleet) fall under NATO control, and they want a buffer in a kind of DMZ between themselves and NATO, which they had in Ukraine before Ukraine's strong man fell out of favor and the pro-Western movement gained power.

If they were after territorial expansion at any prices, they'd probably just pocket the Asian Ex-Soviet republics. Much larger gains including resources, not in Europe, ergo NATO does care much less.

Similarly, China's posture in the South China Sea can be explained in the same way. Building artificial fortified islands isn't an aggressive stance, it's defensive. They remember very well that the British did to them and they understand that the US isn't a friendly power and has every reason to want to limit China's power, as they massively profit from being the world's only global super power.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#53

Post by mchem »

hpph wrote: post #45
Shivetya wrote: post #36

While a bit sensationalist it obviously poses a real problem and fortunately its being acknowledged and acted upon. however google can bring up the stuff of nightmares of what we have dumped into the oceans, worse this of course only what we know of. many countries have dumped stuff without any record keeping. Chemical Weapons and other munitions https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/decaying-weapo... https:/…

there is a documentary on youtube about oil leaking out of sunk WWII ships. Some of those ships are really close to shores and tourist destinations. Fun time.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OP0U62oiBlM - The DW documentary on the matter.

A fascinating watch. It is a shame that the economics do not play out in such a way that recovery and resale is feasible. Sadly, I do not expect most governments to be as proactive as Norway’s on the matter.

The documentary suggests that even covering a wreck with sand as a preventative measure costs 10s of millions of €s. Surely an opportunity for a lower cost solution exists here?

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#54

Post by ashtonkem »

konart wrote: post #51
ashtonkem wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Russia took a part of Ukraine, or at least is trying to. It freaks out Europeans to see another country in the region invading neighbors and claiming territory. It’s the same basic reason why the Brits responded very poorly when the Germans invaded Belgium; everyone in the region starts worrying if they’re next. For all the flaws of the US invasion of Iraq, the US didn’t claim Iraq as US territory. Yes, we’ve…

Okay, so let's be clear. It's okay to invade a country as long as: 1. You do not claim its territory or its part as your own (but you can maintain a military presence there if you feel so) 2. You do claim its territory or its part as your own but only if kind people of the first world are bit too close to the territory in question This begs for a simple question: will the US and EU lift their sanctions if Russia give…

You keep saying “it’s okay if” as if you’re trying to catch me in a moral trap. This is annoying; I’ve made it very clear that the invasions discussed here are ethically wrong.

The equivalent of what Russia is doing in Ukraine would be if America annexed part of Mexico (again). It’s hard to imagine anything short of “we are giving the land back and pulling out” would calm nerves over a suddenly expansionist US. I imagine Canada in such a situation would be extremely jumpy for a long time, given their relative proximity, and “we gave it back but it’s still garrisoned by us” probably wouldn’t be good enough for them.

For actual equivalence, I think it would be much more fair to say that Russia can maintain a military presence in Syria, as that seems much more morally and geopolitically equivalent to what the US is doing in Saudi Arabia, and that denouncing Russian bases in Syria would be pretty hypocritical given what the US is also doing in the region. Although both countries should probably just stop what they’re doing in the region all together.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#55

Post by thrwway34 »

luckylion wrote: post #52
ashtonkem wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Russia took a part of Ukraine, or at least is trying to. It freaks out Europeans to see another country in the region invading neighbors and claiming territory. It’s the same basic reason why the Brits responded very poorly when the Germans invaded Belgium; everyone in the region starts worrying if they’re next. For all the flaws of the US invasion of Iraq, the US didn’t claim Iraq as US territory. Yes, we’ve…

Well, officially they didn't just take it, they "guaranteed the local population's freedom", who then "chose" to "join the Russian federation". It's a joke, of course, but I don't think it's really that different from what e.g. Turkey (with the US' blessing) does in Syria, Israel does in Palestine etc. I don't think either of them are really about territorial expansion as much as they are about security concerns. Rus…

So, next they will invade Poland because so they want a very high-value strategic location and they want a buffer in a kind of DMZ between themselves and NATO? Or Baltic states?

Where they would stop?

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#56

Post by ashtonkem »

thrwway34 wrote: post #55
luckylion wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, officially they didn't just take it, they "guaranteed the local population's freedom", who then "chose" to "join the Russian federation". It's a joke, of course, but I don't think it's really that different from what e.g. Turkey (with the US' blessing) does in Syria, Israel does in Palestine etc. I don't think either of them are really about territorial expansion as much as they are about security concerns. Rus…

So, next they will invade Poland because so they want a very high-value strategic location and they want a buffer in a kind of DMZ between themselves and NATO? Or Baltic states? Where they would stop?

Based on Putin’s public statements, we can presume that he wants one of the following.

1) To rebuild the old USSR territory, he seems to consider ex soviet bloc countries to be wayward states, not independent countries.

2) To expand Russia so that the border it shares with NATO countries is narrower and anchored to a defensible barrier. To my (amateur) eyes, that would possibly be the Dnieper river, although other good choices might exist.

1 is largely ideological, 2 is based on the fact that Russia is facing both demographic collapse (particularly when you focus on ethnic Russians) and it has immense borders that are already very hard to garrison. Due to the layout of Europe, Putin could potentially drastically strengthen his western border with more territory, which might be imperative to do before the Russian population gets too small to garrison it’s current borders.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#57

Post by tokai »

Paianni wrote: post #15
tokai wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>relegated to third world Surely Russia is second world if we are to use the three-world model.

In the context of the current geopolitical climate, Russia would be third-world? Second-world would be for "communist" countries like the PRC.

no
Post reply on HN