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

761–770 of 971 posts

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#761

Post by caskstrength »

nivenkos wrote: post #745
caskstrength wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further

Wait, so are they just protecting Russian-speaking people of the east from bloodthirsty Ukrainian Nazis or they are waging aggressive war with intention to topple Ukrainian government and annex significant portion of Ukraine outside eastern regions and Crimea?

> But do you think this conflict is worth it?

Worth it for whom?

> Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea?

AFAIK returning to status quo of pre-Feb 24 was proposed multiple times by Ukrainian side. That would imply Russia retaining control over Crimea indefinitely. You make it sound like Ukraine attacked Crimea first and Russia is just defending or something.

> Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction?

Of course not! I would prefer Russians to just pack their bags, leave and happily continue selling resources to Europe! They could even invite Angela Merkel to Gazprom board for bonus points!

> It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace

Ukrainian side offered peace with concessions multiple times (including neutral status, which is another usual bogeyman of Russian propaganda "we are just afraid of NATO nuking us from Ukrainian territory!"), but Russia didn't want to have any of that. It is almost like Russia is actually interested in something else besides securing oppressed Russian-speaking population of Ukraine and ensuring that no evil NATO nukes are installed on Ukrainian territory...

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#762

Post by cookieswumchorr »

nivenkos wrote: post #731
poushkar wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here we come again with the "Ukrainian nationalism" and "coup". So boring. Will you ever update your guide on Russian propaganda? Even the russian troll factory stopped using these arguments like 2 years ago.

I'm not pro-Russian. But here in Europe we've had 25% of our savings and purchasing power destroyed almost overnight, for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us (CIS borders and nationalism after the USSR). Why can't we just be neutral? We didn't do this for Georgia's claim in Ossetia or Armenia's claim with Azerbaijan (both similar scenarios), or the Iraq-Iran war, etc.

why are (western) Europeans such pussies? Like, really, short-term economic loss is not going to kill anyone. I'm glad to see that the eastern, slavic and baltic part of Europe can handle it so much better. Partly because they've been under totalitarian rule, and gone through the economic disaster it left behind. Which was waaay harder then the current cost surge

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#763

Post by hestefisk »

Nanana909 wrote: post #499
hestefisk wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Countries like Poland and Hungary have huge social issues and struggle with corruption. A lot of political research points to the recent rise in fascist nationalism in these two countries as caused by being thrown from one political ideology to another (e.g. “communism” to ironfisted neoliberalism / Washington Consensus). It’s pretty evident none of them worked. If anything the country that was LEAST worse o…

> It’s pretty evident none of them worked. How is that evident, though? It’s actually pretty clear that the quality of life has drastically improved in most of these countries. Of *course* you can always find some group who is suffering. But there is no way I would want to live in 1980s Poland, Estonia, etc vs 2020. For example: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS?location... The continued existence o…

Washington consensus-style capitalism / Reaganite neoliberalism was not good for most countries. A good example is how the Russian economy responded to excessive privatisation instead of building a strong public sector that builds and supports private enterprise (similar to the US, although neoliberal scholars don’t like admitting it). The track record is the same in a lot of Latin-American countries where IMF and WTO imposed similar doctrines. I’m mostly for free markets etc, but it wasn’t appropriate to expect countries such as Poland with a “plastic” economy (political economy as the communist like labelling it) to succeed with a neoliberal anti-government “libertarianism” ideology overnight. It just doesn’t work that way. Stiglitz even wrote a book on the topic.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#764

Post by Const-me »

nivenkos wrote: post #728
notahacker wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? The internationally managed referendums Russia has never asked for and would never permit? Arguments that "real issue" with Russia repeatedly invading its smaller neighbours is that one of the neighbours won't grant something n…

I'm not pro-Russia either, I just don't understand why we're completely destroying our economies for a conflict that has nothing to do with us (post-USSR border division and nationalism).

Ukraine wasn't Putin's first military offence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

It's reasonable to assume if we fail to stop Russians in Ukraine, they continue restoring Russian empire with military force.

In the past, Baltic states and Poland were part of Russia, yet now all of them are NATO member states. A real opportunity to start a nuclear WW3.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#765

Post by V__ »

danbruc wrote: post #743
rixrax wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hi…

> he became increasingly frustrated over the years that this was not done.

This may be true, but I think it's more likely that he doesn't care about it at all. He is an opportunist, and back then the best opportunity was to criticize the U.S. and Europe by insisting on international law. Today, he is saying Europe is a fascist Nazi oppressor.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#766

Post by dale_glass »

nivenkos wrote: post #745
caskstrength wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But do you think this conflict is worth it?

For Russia, no. For Putin specifically, maybe. Russia is going to end up in a much worse position without any significant (and maybe any at all) gain. Putin is in a position where backtracking is difficult and dangerous, so he probably won't until things become completely untenable.

For Ukraine it's very worth it because they're fighting for their own existence.

> Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction?

At this point, I do. Formerly, I'd tend towards "no", but I changed my mind. My reasoning:

* The war has already started. Crimea has a very strategic place in it, and a vulnerability for Ukraine.

* Strategically it's very desirable for Ukraine to own it, as well as for its allies.

* Strategically it hurts Russia a lot to lose it.

* From the long term point of view I think it's good for Russia to lose something significant in the conflict. It changes the calculus. Trying to take over Ukraine not only won't succeed, but will put them in a situation worse than before, and that hopefully is an additional reason to avoid a repeat. Russia can tolerate losing soldiers, tolerating losing a chunk of themselves is harder.

> It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace,

I don't think a compromise is really possible at this point. It might have been a possibility in the past, but it's too late.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#767

Post by theelous3 »

danbruc wrote: post #743
rixrax wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hi…

So when putin claims casus belli over another nation's land due to previous ownership a whole bunch of times, you just disregard it because of something he _didn't_ say years ago?

The tactic of "rules for thee but not for me" is as old as time. The implication that putin wants russia to actually be held to the same standards as he is trying to get other nations held to - all the while fomenting war on his borders and ignoring eight bajillion commitments and treaties - is laughable.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#768

Post by shashurup »

credit_guy wrote: post #698
shashurup wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really astonished. In what kind of echo chamber do you live in? Have you been in Russia in 90's? It was not only an economical disaster, more than ten years we lived in a constant bombardment by the media of "revelations" about our lives before, kinda non stop shit storm (we even believed this was the press freedom as the west sees it). In the hindsight it seems like it was impossible to devastate a country to su…

But that’s on Yeltsin, not on Gorbachev. What’s on Gorbachev is that all the Eastern European countries got to be free. I was born there. Life now is many times better than it was during Communism.

I've read memoirs by Anatoly Chernyaev [1]. And the whole impression was that Gorbachev had no clue about what do next. He was quite successful in breaking existing system but no feasible plan for further movement. Quite similar to what bolshevicks did earlier. Not surprising such people treated with a big share of skepticism in Russia.

Of course Yeltsin was even worse in this respect.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Chernyaev

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#769

Post by nivenkos »

Const-me wrote: post #764
nivenkos wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not pro-Russia either, I just don't understand why we're completely destroying our economies for a conflict that has nothing to do with us (post-USSR border division and nationalism).

Ukraine wasn't Putin's first military offence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War It's reasonable to assume if we fail to stop Russians in Ukraine, they continue restoring Russian empire with military force. In the past, Baltic states and Poland were part of Russia, yet now all of them are NATO member states. A real opportunity to start a nuclear WW3.

The Georgian war was instigated by Georgia though, that authoritarian president wanted to reclaim South Ossetia - read the unresolved conflicts part of the article you linked yourself! Sure, Russia took advantage of the situation, but there's no way that extrapolates to them invading Poland and Europe.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#770

Post by KptMarchewa »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #235
Beltalowda wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as "real capitalism"; it's a broad and somewhat vague set of ideas with many possible implementations, none of which are more "real capitalism" than any other, although I'd argue that some implementations definitely better than others (and 90s Russia is a good example of that).

Capitalism is just an economic system with predominantly private ownership of the means of production. Whether a country's set of economically productive organizations are owned by shareholders via a stock exchange or by whomever was powerful enough to take control of them by corrupt means seems irrelevant, no?

>Whether a country's set of economically productive organizations are owned by shareholders via a stock exchange or by whomever was powerful enough to take control of them by corrupt means seems irrelevant, no?

It is extremely relevant when you look at the outcomes.

Post reply on HN