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

Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

hosted.ap.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 255 posts

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#141

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

afterburner wrote: post #132
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crimea is legally, according to international law and recognized by everyone but Russia, part of Ukraine. You mean Crimea was part of the RSFSR until 1954, not the Russian Federation.

Being legalistic in this circumstance ignores what Crimea means to Russia, and how the majority of Crimea is ethnically Russian. The background of the region matters for realizing how much Russia cares about Crimea, and therefore how to deal with it in this situation.

Okay, if you're willing to throw the law and legalities aside, then...you're nothing more than a thug, and/or an apologist for them.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#142

Post by davidw »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #123
crudbuster wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama is about to be pawnd by Putin. This is going to make him look extremely weak. If I was on his national security team, I would push for an immediate no-fly zone in Syria. Then, in March, when the Ukraine dissolves into 2 separate countries via referendum, the US will at least have gained something from Russia's blundering.

Pawnd? WTF? So, Obama is an imperialist if he sends in troops or supports the Ukrainian government (and there's zero chance of the former happening) or he's a dunce who gets pawnd by Putin? Seems like you've been suckered in by the cult of tough guy macho Putin.

> Seems like you've been suckered

Seems like, from your comment history, that you've been suckered into a Political Discussion on HN :-)

As they say: "the only winning move is not to play the game"

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#143

Post by smsm42 »

aquadrop wrote: post #115
danmaz74 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, troops are already there though.

There's naval base in Sevastopol with permanent troops.

The new troops are already there, which were airlifted in recently, not the ones previously present in Crimea.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#144

Post by pmcpinto »

gk1 wrote: post #17

See what happened in Ukraine's neighboring country, Moldova, 24 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Transnistria Moldova had a population of ethnic Russians that lived on the Eastern bank of the river D'niest'r. (Similar to the Crimean region in Ukraine.) Eventually a civil war broke out, and Russia stepped in to back the ethnically Russian region (sound familiar?). The end result was a stalemate. A ceasef…

It looks really a scary place

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#145

Post by rangibaby »

iaskwhy wrote: post #74
hepek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happened in Serbia in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo Only in this case it was NATO who invaded, and it is viewed quite differently from the western media then what parents have cited. The worst thing in world today is to become the rope on which the imperial forces tug to prove their strength.

Kosovo seems a much better example although I don't understand why NATO was able to enter the war against the wishes of Russia. Maybe nothing major happened because Serbia was sort of a Russian puppet state instead of being Russia itself? Or the lack of interesting resources in Kosovo? I have some remembering to do. By the way, while reading about Kosovo's history yesterday, I noticed how beautiful Pristina's Nationa…

It was in 1999, when Russian strength and morale (political, economic and military) was at it's nadir. Compare the two wars in Chechnya with the war in Georgia.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#146

Post by afterburner »

crudbuster wrote: post #116
visakanv wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly can Obama do, though? Anybody have any clear ideas?

Obama is about to be pawnd by Putin. This is going to make him look extremely weak. If I was on his national security team, I would push for an immediate no-fly zone in Syria. Then, in March, when the Ukraine dissolves into 2 separate countries via referendum, the US will at least have gained something from Russia's blundering.

Looking weak? You realize Putin looks weak if he doesn't defend Crimea, with an actual majority Russian population and an actual Russian naval base. You want to start running the US like Russia, jumping at every threat and feeling insecure at every turn?

Stop thinking about appearances of weakness, that is not a path to emulate, it is the path of tyrants and despots.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#147

Post by crudbuster »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #123
crudbuster wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama is about to be pawnd by Putin. This is going to make him look extremely weak. If I was on his national security team, I would push for an immediate no-fly zone in Syria. Then, in March, when the Ukraine dissolves into 2 separate countries via referendum, the US will at least have gained something from Russia's blundering.

Pawnd? WTF? So, Obama is an imperialist if he sends in troops or supports the Ukrainian government (and there's zero chance of the former happening) or he's a dunce who gets pawnd by Putin? Seems like you've been suckered in by the cult of tough guy macho Putin.

He is a tough guy. He just invaded a country by force and effectively told Obama to shutup up and sit down. It's Obama's move now. If he does nothing now, will he also do nothing when North Korea rolls into the South? The thugs are watching and learning.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#148

Post by cdi »

smsm42 wrote: post #111
lmg643 wrote: post #75

From what I gather, Obama has some of the same foreign policy advisors as Bush did. We are pursuing some backdoor strategy to get Ukraine to join the EU. The democratically elected president chose to ally with Russia instead, because Russia offered them more. We set up riots over there, and he flees the capital. The leader is declared to be deposed, and now a leader friendly to the west can take over. Russia can't st…

That's some pile of bullshit. Who are "we" that set up the riots? Those people stayed there since November, with wide popular support, risking life and limb. It is unbelievably obtuse to echo Kremlin propaganda that those were but the agents of US State Department. One has to be either exceptionally ignorant or exceptionally motivated to find a way to blame America to believe this canard. >>> Question is - who is the…

>That's some pile of bullshit. Who are "we" that set up the riots?

"We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12...

You could also research finances behind 2004 Ukrainian revolution. I'm not saying it's bad. I even support current Ukrainian revolution and I am against Russian aggression. But it's quite obvious that US and allies are are trying to undermine pro-Russian or neutral governments in ex-USSR countries and make these countries adversarial towards Russia geopolitically. It happened in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, with Color revolution technique, where large groups of people occupy squares and then capture government buildings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#149

Post by afterburner »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #141
afterburner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being legalistic in this circumstance ignores what Crimea means to Russia, and how the majority of Crimea is ethnically Russian. The background of the region matters for realizing how much Russia cares about Crimea, and therefore how to deal with it in this situation.

Okay, if you're willing to throw the law and legalities aside, then...you're nothing more than a thug, and/or an apologist for them.

No, I'm being realistic about what it means to push Russia on this point. They're serious about Crimea, handling this well will require consideration.

The law matters, yes. And so does how Russia feels about Crimea. Both need to be considered.

Post reply on HN