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

851–860 of 971 posts

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#851

Post by lapcat »

hetman wrote: post #577
lapcat wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Somewhat more aid per capita was also directed toward the Allied nations, with less for those that had been part of the Axis or remained neutral. The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total). The next highest contributions went to France" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

The UK was already aligned with US ideology.

So was Russia, actually. Yeltsin went all-in on "shock therapy" and rapid privatization of the economy.

If anything, Yeltsin was too aligned with US capitalist ideology.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#852

Post by squarefoot »

ajvs wrote: post #796
V__ wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

Ask any psychologist with a knowledge of the military world about the number of far right militants wearing an uniform and you'll be shocked by the response. Uniforms and weapons are like sex for some people.

Extreme right wingers want to wear uniforms and carry weapons at any cost: it's the way their brain is wired that makes them so inclined to the show of strength, obsession about physical efficiency, appearing and act dominant, being combative, in constant search of enemies to fight against (including creating them if necessary); and of course that decrepit ideology, which however in many cases is not the main motivator, therefore they're not perceived as Nazis, although they're equally dangerous.

The tale about Nazis in the Ukraine army is true for pretty much every country, including mine and yours. How many soldiers or cops or paramilitary forces does your country have? Well, you can take for granted that under at least 30% of the uniforms there are Azov-like extreme right wingers. And I'm very optimistic, because according both to personal direct experience when I was in the military and speaking with someone with connections there who now teaches in police schools, the numbers are way higher, up to 70-80% in some contexts, although lots of in-betweens make the distinction quite blurred.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#853

Post by danbruc »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #809
danbruc wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t think opposing someone else’s war is much of a credit to him, or evidence against the idea that he is motivated to Make Russia Great Again. It seems more like he wants International Law to bind others but not himself.

He was not completely opposing it, he just demanded to follow the law - you make your case in front of the UN and get it sanctioned. And in this case you should get credit for opposing it as it was all made up bullshit.

Making Russia great again is also perfectly fine if it means to rebuild the economy, improve living standards, and similar things. Making it greater again, i.e. extending the territory with force is of course a different matter.

How well Russia followed the laws and treaties itself, I can not judge, I only know that Putin often said, we are fulfilling our obligations even though the US or someone else does this or that. See for example the speech at the 2007 Munich security conference [1]. How true this all is, I can not tell, I would have to become a full time fact checker.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#854

Post by _vbnz »

simonh wrote: post #833
nivenkos wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Euro has also crashed 20% in a year though. That's a massive loss in purchasing power considering most things are sold in USD (including oil). We didn't intervene in Armenia or Georgia, there's not much difference here.

The fact is we should have intervened in Armenia and Georgia. We should have intervened in Syria, at least to some extent. We should have imposed crushing sanctions on Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The fact that we did not is a causal direct line to this invasion. Since the gulf war the west has become averse to foreign adventurism. I understand that and why, but it's misconceived. Washing our hands…

Why is it our responsibility?

Intervened on which side in Georgia? That Georgian government was absolutely terrible, putting dissidents in prison, firing on protests, etc. - just because they're anti-Russia doesn't make them good.

We should just try to live in peace and focus on our own nations and stop making enemies.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#855

Post by bogomipz »

wawjgreen wrote: post #497

good riddance. he was an uneducated idiot, who is indirectly responsible for the millions that were killed in Afghanistan, in 1992. In 1989, when he pulled the red army out of Afghanistan--he also cut all aid to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. the then-president of DRA went to Moscow to persuade Garbageoff to not to do so, predicting that the terrorist zealots would overrun his government leading to chaos in…

So you put all of that on just a single person - Gorbachev?

How about Nur Muhammad Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, two Afghans? The Soviets only sent troops after multiple requests by Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin and President Nur Mohammad Taraki. Do they not share proportionate responsibility?

See:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/soviet2.html

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#856

Post by pastacacioepepe »

mantas wrote: post #591
type0 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spain isn't a union state

More like Spain constitution doesn't have an article detailing exit process. Meanwhile USSR constitution had such article. Which was used by Lithuania when declaring independence.

> More like Spain constitution doesn't have an article detailing exit process.

> Meanwhile USSR constitution had such article. Which was used by Lithuania when declaring independence.

Source?

I can't find any article detailing an exit process in the 1977 USSR constitution. Only at the beginning it says that the USSR is a voluntary union, but that's far from saying it details an exit process.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#857

Post by caskstrength »

danbruc wrote: post #839
caskstrength wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus...

I read the entire thing [1], well I just skimmed the historical section until the 20th century. I do not see how this can be read as Ukraine is part of Russia end must be conquered back. For the current situation the most relevant part is probably the one dealing with the recent history, say the fall of the USSR or maybe even only past 2014. Unfortunately I am in no position to judge what is laid out and reading up o…

In the letter Putin directly states that he considers significant amount of Ukrainian territory as not-really-ukrainian, but a "present" from Bolsheviks or something. He also states that all of these territories now are "subject to discussion". I think it should be quite obvious to anyone (including the author) that Ukraine (like any other country) wouldn't be inclined to willingly discuss giving away its lands, so conquest is the only logical consequence.

Relevant excerpts:

You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.

In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people's views.

...

In essence, Ukraine's ruling circles decided to justify their country's independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. ...

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#858

Post by pydry »

simonh wrote: post #841
ajvs wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Every country has unsavoury elements within it, but attacking a country with a Jewish president for being fascist, because there are a few thousand racists in the south, is bullshit. Especially when you're at the same time busily funding and promoting fascist and racist groups all over Europe and the US, as Russia has been.

Zelensky asked the few thousand fascists/nazis to lay down their arms for a cease fire - in order to fulfil his primary campaign promise of ending the donbass war. They refused and called him a traitor.

Being Jewish they probably called him a few other names too.

He tacitly accepted this insubordination without a fuss, as far as I can see. These days he lavishes Azov with praise.

In which other countries does this happen?

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#859

Post by least »

notahacker wrote: post #807
least wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Just because there isn't a strict naming convention doesn't mean there isn't a longstanding convention in English-speaking countries of giving wars boring names based on the participants or theatre, even when it's absolutely unambiguous that the other side was the belligerent. Picking a ludicrously overblown name like "Northern Aggression" for a failed secession makes no sense in that context, but plenty of sense in…

> Just because there isn't a strict naming convention doesn't mean there isn't a longstanding convention in English-speaking countries of giving wars boring names based on the participants or theatre

That is one name that is ascribed to a conflict, but we often have many. The Forgotten War is the Korean War, The Great War is World War 1, The American Civil War had many names.

> Picking a ludicrously overblown name like "Northern Aggression" for a failed secession makes no sense in that context, but plenty of sense in Lost Cause victimhood narrative.

How is it overblown? It's a descriptive title that is certainly controversial, but if you accept that particular viewpoint, it's simply descriptive.

> Which is why it was a name popularised by 1950s segregationists, not the original secessionists who may have rejected the notion that it was a "rebellion" or "civil" war, but talked about wars of "Separation" or "War for Independence" instead.

You can certainly find its usage linked to segregationists, but the entire basis for suggesting it wasn't used before the 1950's is that people couldn't find any evidence of the term being used prior to that in their google searches. It not showing up in term searches for archived OCRed newspapers is hardly evidence that it wasn't a term used before then. Regardless, that is beside the point. You're going out of you way to project meaning into it that isn't intrinsically there.

Re: Mikhail Gorbachev has died

#860

Post by throwaway894345 »

danbruc wrote: post #853
throwaway894345 wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think opposing someone else’s war is much of a credit to him, or evidence against the idea that he is motivated to Make Russia Great Again. It seems more like he wants International Law to bind others but not himself.

He was not completely opposing it, he just demanded to follow the law - you make your case in front of the UN and get it sanctioned. And in this case you should get credit for opposing it as it was all made up bullshit. Making Russia great again is also perfectly fine if it means to rebuild the economy, improve living standards, and similar things. Making it greater again, i.e. extending the territory with force is o…

> He was not completely opposing it, he just demanded to follow the law - you make your case in front of the UN and get it sanctioned. And in this case you should get credit for opposing it as it was all made up bullshit.

Well, as you point out, he doesn't get credit for opposing the Iraq War because he wasn't opposed to it (he just wanted Bush to ask his permission). He also doesn't get credit for upholding the value of International Law because he only does so when it suits him, which is essentially my point.

> How well Russia followed the laws and treaties itself, I can not judge

Sure you can. Russia regularly flouts International Law and it's currently in the process of doing so.

> Making Russia great again is also perfectly fine if it means to rebuild the economy, improve living standards, and similar things. Making it greater again, i.e. extending the territory with force is of course a different matter.

Right, but we're talking specifically about extending the territory with force.

Post reply on HN