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

About Ukraine

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: About Ukraine

#81

Post by shitgoose »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #75
shitgoose wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, except "countries crying for help" part. Did Afghanistan cry for help? Or Iraq?

Sometimes I wonder when people say, "Why isn't the US helping out in (insert country here)?" Then turn around and say, "Well, we never should have been in Iraq." and forget about all the things Saddam Hussein did to his people: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#repression Iraq has refused to allow the UN's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights to return to Iraq since his first visit in 1992. The governmen…

Your long list qualifies as "asking for trouble". The original question was whether Iraq and Afghanistan were "crying for help".

Besides none of the items in your list was the real reason why US invaded those countries.

Re: About Ukraine

#82

Post by geoka9 »

malkung wrote: post #52
11001 wrote: post #20

Here is an ELI5 version of what's going on in Ukraine: Ukraine doesn't have any money, it needs to borrow it. It can ask the west, but the west gives back a list of conditions to be satisfied (human rights, economical, etc) that are incredibly hard for the governmnet to achieve given deeply rooted corruption on all levels. There is another source for the money: Russia (which, despite some westerners' beliefs, is a ve…

Ok, it's well-meaning EU vs. corrupt Russia. Culturally, Ukraine seems to be much closer to Russia than to EU. So I think the end result will be similar to what happened with Arabic Spring revolutions, when the West hoped to see Western standards of democracy implanted into foreign cultures that could not possibly adhere to them (although they declared so initially). So I doubt very much that after the association wi…

> Culturally, Ukraine seems to be much closer to Russia than to EU.

The south-east of Ukraine, that is.

The western regions of Ukraine seem to be much closer to Central Europe (Poland and others).

Re: About Ukraine

#83

Post by Squarex »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #51
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Czechs and Slovaks are two distinct "tribes". The fact that they existed together as one nation in the first place was somewhat arbitrary. That said, the fact that they were split again into two nations was somewhat arbitrary as well, not everyone was in favor of that, not by a long shot.

The Slovaks were sort of reluctantly dragged into the union by the Czechs in the first place. The Slovaks were much more Catholic and traditionalist and quite comfortable with the Austro Hungarians.

I don't think they were comfortable with the Austria-Hungary at all. They were oppressed by Hungarians much more than Czechs by Austrians. Slovaks and Hungarians have pretty complicated relations even in present day.

Re: About Ukraine

#84

Post by geoka9 »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #80
malkung wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, it's well-meaning EU vs. corrupt Russia. Culturally, Ukraine seems to be much closer to Russia than to EU. So I think the end result will be similar to what happened with Arabic Spring revolutions, when the West hoped to see Western standards of democracy implanted into foreign cultures that could not possibly adhere to them (although they declared so initially). So I doubt very much that after the association wi…

No, democracy is not like making Ukranians or Egyptians love baseball, bullfighting and bratwurst. It's not some oddity from western cultures. It means rule of the people as opposed to the rule of some small group of thugs with guns (aristocracy, apparatchiks, the mafia, military dictators, religious leaders, etc). Everyone, everywhere in the world understands that by now. What is specific to western cultures is that…

> It means rule of the people

This definition is wrought with controversies. Let's say it's a rule of law? Then everything falls into place.

Re: About Ukraine

#85

Post by at-fates-hands »

shitgoose wrote: post #81
at-fates-hands wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I wonder when people say, "Why isn't the US helping out in (insert country here)?" Then turn around and say, "Well, we never should have been in Iraq." and forget about all the things Saddam Hussein did to his people: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#repression Iraq has refused to allow the UN's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights to return to Iraq since his first visit in 1992. The governmen…

Your long list qualifies as "asking for trouble". The original question was whether Iraq and Afghanistan were "crying for help". Besides none of the items in your list was the real reason why US invaded those countries.

>>>> Your long list qualifies as "asking for trouble"

SPEECHLESS.

So summary executions, starving your own people and using chemical weapons qualifies in your mind as "asking for trouble"? I'd love to see the rest of your Human Rights scale and what you think it takes to get to a level where you think interdiction is needed.

Re: About Ukraine

#86

Post by protomyth »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #65
protomyth wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how integrated the economy and land use is, it is not a reasonable idea in the near term. If you actually were going to divide the US on a red / blue split then it would be more appropriate at a county level[1] and would result in a bunch of city-states and one big land area[2]. 1) states are not really granular enough given the existence of "battleground states" and what that means for election divisions 2) LA…

The split is not red-blue. There are distinct regional cultures in America that might be called nations. Scroll down and look at the county map in the link. Read "American Nations".

Yeah, I saw the MN combined with ND and realized whoever researched it (I do believe the original map is a Russian professor) has no real clue on modern American and is looking mainly at immigration patterns.

Re: About Ukraine

#87

Post by shitgoose »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #85
shitgoose wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your long list qualifies as "asking for trouble". The original question was whether Iraq and Afghanistan were "crying for help". Besides none of the items in your list was the real reason why US invaded those countries.

>>>> Your long list qualifies as "asking for trouble" SPEECHLESS. So summary executions, starving your own people and using chemical weapons qualifies in your mind as "asking for trouble"? I'd love to see the rest of your Human Rights scale and what you think it takes to get to a level where you think interdiction is needed.

My scale is simple - do not intervene at all. US pretense that they intervened purely on humanitarian grounds is a pathetic lie obvious to the whole world. After they intervened they left a mess that is worse then before. Besides, after infamous appearance by Mr. Powell at the UN providing undeniable evidence of universal evildoing, I think US would be a bit more, ...how should I put it..., careful about spreading justice around the globe.

Re: About Ukraine

#88

Post by cLeEOGPw »

shitgoose wrote: post #77
cLeEOGPw wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, from economic point of view, Putin makes mistake to pay so much money just for them to participate in the union. And what Putin is known for is careful, very calculated political moves, certainly not charity. So he expects something more from it later. Besides, saying that Ukraine will never be EU member just exposes your clear bias. Everyone knows it won't join EU for a long time, but if they elect peo…

He expects to build a regional structure based on economics rather then politics in which Russia will play the main role. Portraying it as the second coming of USSR is plain wrong. It is also wrong to assume that there are plans to turn this union into political one - Russia doesn't need the headache of managing Ukrainian, Kazakh or any other nation's internal affairs. To achieve that Russia is willing to spend a few…

I still think Putin is not telling the whole story about his CU yet, and I think EU is in quite good shape. Only some financial problems in southern countries (Portugal, Spain and Greece) and migration problems in UK and maybe to some extent Germany. So it will most likely not only survive, but thrive further.

Re: About Ukraine

#89

Post by gerbal »

nmc wrote: post #15
acqq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you refer to "1. What is Ukraine? Ukraine – not "the Ukraine." Whoever got stuck there will miss the rest of the article which is quite good. If you actually got stuck there, please avoid claiming what others are. Disclaimer: not an American.

Yes, I mostly refer to that first question. I did not get stuck there. I believe you misunderstood my post. I do not claim Americans are ignorant — I was asking a question anyway, so not claiming anything. I believe that, by publishing such a basic article, The Washington Post is claiming Americans are ignorant. I am trying to understand that particular phenomenon: why would a respectable newspaper, made for educated…

Because even educated people aren't educated in every area of knowledge. Your average American newspaper reader doesn't know too much about Ukraine. That's not a good or a bad things, just a fact. Much like I don't expect an average European newspaper reader to know too much about Kentucky or Paraguay.

And in the service of serving the audience, providing some background in an approachable listicle format is quite useful. Especially considering that many readers probably know that Ukraine is in the midst of turmoil, but they may not understand the root causes.

Re: About Ukraine

#90

Post by shitgoose »

cLeEOGPw wrote: post #88
shitgoose wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He expects to build a regional structure based on economics rather then politics in which Russia will play the main role. Portraying it as the second coming of USSR is plain wrong. It is also wrong to assume that there are plans to turn this union into political one - Russia doesn't need the headache of managing Ukrainian, Kazakh or any other nation's internal affairs. To achieve that Russia is willing to spend a few…

I still think Putin is not telling the whole story about his CU yet, and I think EU is in quite good shape. Only some financial problems in southern countries (Portugal, Spain and Greece) and migration problems in UK and maybe to some extent Germany. So it will most likely not only survive, but thrive further.

Well, if I am wrong - good for EU and all the best to them.
Post reply on HN