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

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 971 posts

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#741

Post by kunagi7 »

rixrax wrote: post #680
idlewords wrote: post #61

Gorbachev secured his place in history by what he didn't do. While never endorsing the end of the eastern bloc, he made it clear beginning in the late 1980's that unlike his predecessors, he would not oppose democratic reforms in Eastern Europe by force. To general astonishment, he kept this promise, and with the regrettable exception of Lithuania this commitment to not repeating the crimes of his predecessors is Gor…

But the dissolution of soviet union is not over yet. You can see this nowhere as clearly as in russias attack on Ukraine[0] where imperialistic russians that dream of restoring the glory and borders of soviet union[1] are waging their genocidal war. Meanwhile they are using hunger[2] and energy as their weapons against the rest of the world[3]. If the russians are not stopped in Ukraine, then there is no reason to be…

First of all, RIP Gorbachev.

The Soviet Union ceased to exist in December 26, 1991 [0]. Russia is not the USSR, and it's almost impossible it will never be anything remotely close.

Most of the former USSR industrial capabilities where either abandoned, razed or looted.

Russia's modern industry (including military) depends heavily on European (now sanctioned and obtained via third countries) and Chinese imports. This means that most of their industrial machinery, oil/gas extraction sector, automotive industry, chips... is now strained. They've almost stopped producing cars.

Russia is mostly burning the gigantic former USSR reserves until they dry out. And Ukraine is way bigger than Abkhazia, Ossetia or Transnistria so it has the largest burn rate since Afghanistan.

Just look up at their modern attempts of modernization. The T-14 Armata was expected to have over 100 of them built before 2020 [1] but only a few experimental units can be seen in the wild. Even the Iskander is a USSR design.

The "humiliation" is happening on both sides every day as we speak. No one will either "win" or "lose" the Russia-Ukraine war. It's just an endless attrition warfare [2] were both sides consume their huge military storage (Ukraine using a mix of exUSSR and NATO material and Russia using exUSSR material).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#742

Post by rkuska »

nivenkos wrote: post #692
lapcat wrote: post #22

The United States didn't do enough to help Russia transition to democracy in the 1990s. There was no "Marshall Plan" after the Cold War like there was after World War II. This was a huge mistake, and we see the consequences now, with Russia having turned back toward totalitarianism and imperialism. Sadly, it seems that Gorbachev's efforts were mostly for naught. But it was courageous at the time to open up the Soviet…

The US actively supported Yeltsin and paved the way for Putin. This is what they wanted. And it's working wonders now - the US will make a fortune off of LNG and arms sales, whilst completely destroying competing European industry which suffers gas shortages and uncompetitive energy prices. It's a masterful long-term play.

This is how every conspiracy starts I think. Others believing that people in power have these plans laid out several decades in advance. Where in reality their plans (in democratic world) only spans several years (their active mandate).

Nobody can foresee the future. US supported Yeltsin because that was something that made sense in a given time for them. They didn't do this because they expected to make ton of money in 2022 of LNG and arms sales.

Now they were given opportunity to make some $ which also coincidence with their own interests.

But they are not able to tell what impact will this have in another 20-30 years. They do it because it makes the most sense now. Not because they have this super masterful long term play.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#743

Post by danbruc »

rixrax wrote: post #680
idlewords wrote: post #61

Gorbachev secured his place in history by what he didn't do. While never endorsing the end of the eastern bloc, he made it clear beginning in the late 1980's that unlike his predecessors, he would not oppose democratic reforms in Eastern Europe by force. To general astonishment, he kept this promise, and with the regrettable exception of Lithuania this commitment to not repeating the crimes of his predecessors is Gor…

But the dissolution of soviet union is not over yet. You can see this nowhere as clearly as in russias attack on Ukraine[0] where imperialistic russians that dream of restoring the glory and borders of soviet union[1] are waging their genocidal war. Meanwhile they are using hunger[2] and energy as their weapons against the rest of the world[3]. If the russians are not stopped in Ukraine, then there is no reason to be…

From your link [1].

He [Putin] became briefly close to President George W Bush - who even claimed to have glimpsed Putin's soul - until the Iraq War drove them apart. In Iraq, Putin insisted that international law must be upheld - no invasion could be allowed without approval from the United Nations Security Council, and that approval was not forthcoming.

This is also Putin and it is not singular. If you listen to his speeches, he often demands that international laws and treaties should be upheld and he became increasingly frustrated over the years that this was not done. Maybe you can argue that this was his only option out of a position of weakness, but never the less he did this.

Putin wanting to recapture and rebuild a past empire is a very new narrative without much supporting evidence over all those years.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#744

Post by least »

notahacker wrote: post #724
least wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are to suppose that the Confederate States of America were a legitimate, sovereign government of the Southern states, the term "War of Northern Aggression" makes more sense. They did not threaten to secede from the United States, they did secede from it. The United States taking action to take back control of the southern states could be viewed as "Northern Aggression." Granted, it is a little odd considering…

It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent troops into the United States to oppose the secession. But it's not referred to as "the War of British Aggression". The only sense that singling out "Northern Aggression" makes sense in is perpetuating the myth that the slaveowners were the real victims.

> It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent troops into the United States to oppose the secession. But it's not referred to as "the War of British Aggression".

You're making the mistake of assuming that every conflict must follow a strict naming convention when in reality it'd usually be called something different based on who you ask. The annexation of Texas by the United States resulted in what the United States calls the Mexican-American War, while Mexico refers to it as "U.S. Intervention in Mexico." I'd say that the "War of Northern Aggression" would pretty much exclusively used by people that view Southern secession from the United States as legitimate, but that doesn't mean it is used exclusively by your strawmen.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#745

Post by nivenkos »

caskstrength wrote: post #732
nivenkos wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

What do all these trite propaganda lines about "UkRaiNian NazIs oPpreSsing RuzZiAn-sPeaKinG pEoPleS iN teh EaSt!!1" have to do with Russian army trying to occupy Kyiv or annex Kherson (while indiscriminately murdering civilians in the process)? Do you need my help to verify on the map that those places are not in eastern Ukraine or in Crimea? P.S. I'm a Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further (long-range missiles from the USA that can hit Sevastopol, the economic conscription of the Chechens and Daghestanis in Russia, etc.)

But do you think this conflict is worth it? Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction?

It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace, and there is no real way of having a truly independent process and decision-making (e.g. from referendums in the DPR + LPR, etc.) - ideally this could have been resolved diplomatically a year ago.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#746

Post by RealityVoid »

leosarev wrote: post #628
avmich wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think US did enough divide and conquer and meddling to help bringing back an authoritarian government. There is a phrase in Russia, :) "But in USA they lynch people". The idea is that in Russia it's often that discussion is interrupted by listing the ills of America, to avoid talking about Russia or for other reasons, so it's easy to justify pointing fingers to "the real evil". I think you're wrong and your argum…

>Current Russian laws mean little to define Russia de facto. There is a huge difference between real totalitarian state and present day Russia. In present day, there are less than 100 people have been imprisoned for "political" reasons (for violating foreign agent law or for violating army fakes law). It's widely discussed and criticised in Russian national media. In 1937 alone something like 700000 people were execu…

You don't need genocide to be considered totalitarian.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#747

Post by least »

gizmo385 wrote: post #671
ironcurtain wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> the War of Northern Aggression That’s some choice phrasing there. Mind explaining this framing? Pretty sure the only people I’ve seen use this phrasing were people who thought the confederacy and slavery were good things

The term "Civil War" affirms the United States' (i.e. Northern) viewpoint that the secessions of the southern states were illegitimate and the conflict that ensued was between citizens of the same country.

If you think that the secession of southern states was a legitimate act and the formation of the CSA was legitimate, you can't call it a civil war. It's a war between two sovereign states, of which the United States (i.e. "The North") would be seen as the aggressor, hence "War of Northern Aggression."

The motivation behind seceding was predominantly maintaining slavery, though then a deeper question might be, when is secession legitimate? And is there any justification that the United States might simply accept secession of a state from the Union?

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#748

Post by nivenkos »

blueflow wrote: post #739
me_me_me wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine if Trump had really been a Russian agent and had returned Alaska to Russia, would you expect all subsequent administrations to just respect that it is Russian now? Huh? You mean: Imagine if Russia just annexed Alaska after they sent their green men over-there, to disrupt and takeover the region. Since when Ukraine just gave up on crimea? They were bullied off it and same with donbass. Their military was wea…

I think Alaska is a bad example to pick since it has been Russian before.

And Crimea was in the RSFSR, both when it was Tatar (although autonomous then) and during Russification.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#749

Post by mvc »

88840-8855 wrote: post #489
epolanski wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> common sense reforms Politically and in terms of press freedom, maybe. Economically it was a disaster that ruined an already stagnating growth and turned it into recession.

Fully disagree. Economic reforms were trash, the Chinese did them better. Political reforms broke the system. The Chinese avoided doing them and look at them today.

Oh yeah. China's a real "land of the free, home of the brave" these days. Just ask Jack Ma or Peng Shuai.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#750

Post by simonh »

nivenkos wrote: post #705
me_me_me wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine if Trump had really been a Russian agent and had returned Alaska to Russia, would you expect all subsequent administrations to just respect that it is Russian now? Huh? You mean: Imagine if Russia just annexed Alaska after they sent their green men over-there, to disrupt and takeover the region. Since when Ukraine just gave up on crimea? They were bullied off it and same with donbass. Their military was wea…

No, I was referring to when Khrushchev just arbitrarily transferred the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR. It had been independent / Tatar before, and Russification meant it was mainly populated by Russians. The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan. Why can't they just allow internationally managed referendums to take place? This would be far better th…

>The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan.

Wow, just wow. And how exactly were they supposed to do that?

The unity government was declared on 24th February and was formally convened on 27th February 2014.

How long did Russia wait to see if the new government would accept regional referendums?

Well, Russian forces seized control of key strategic sites across Crimea on, er, 27th February 2014. The same day the new government formed. The idea that genuine free and fair regional referendums were ever an option, or even something Russia had any interest in pursuing or allowing whatsoever, is pure fiction.

Suppose the regions did hold referendums and chose to stay part of Ukraine, do you think that would have been the end of it? Russia would have just backed off and respected Ukrainian sovereignty? That's just not how the Russian leadership thinks. Putin had no interest in allowing even the possibility of any such thing.

Post reply on HN