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

171–180 of 255 posts

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#171

Post by enraged_camel »

asveikau wrote: post #164
davidw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no one points it out, people won't learn. You folks can downvote all you want. I am more than willing to spend my "karma" to attempt to preserve this site from politics. Also, while we're being picky, "I wish it were ", not "I wish it was".

Good luck fighting the good fight, that ever noble pursuit of educating the masses about an arbitrary set of rules. Back in the real world, some of the most enlightening discussion is "off-topic". So this example is not HN, but: I still remember back in the heyday of Slashdot reading the thread on 9/11 as it happened. Did anybody complain that that wasn't "News for Nerds"? What's happening in Ukraine is in that simil…

Exactly. If whatever is happening in Ukraine ends up sparking a large-scale war (hopefully not), you will be reading about it in history books. That makes it both new and interesting, which fits the guidelines.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#172

Post by zmb_ »

iaskwhy wrote: post #135
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you subscribe to an extreme pan Slavophilism, in which the Balkans are legally and morally Russian territory, then no, Russia had nothing to say in the Balkans.

Not Russian territory but under Soviet (and then Russian) influence. No?

No, pretty much the exact opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#173

Post by solnyshok »

danmaz74 wrote: post #53
gk1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're oversimplifying the situation. Yes, Ukraine is a sovereign country. But half of it is ethnically Russian, and identify themselves a such. The Ukrainian border--like many geopolitical borders--is arbitrary and does not signify a single united nation. I'm not saying one side is right and the other is wrong. I'm just highlighting the fact that's it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

This could have justified a referendum. Not an occupation. That IS an act of war. Or you think that France could occupy the French-speaking part of Swiss and that wouldn't be an act of aggression?

Is there a part of constitution of Ukraine that allows some region of it to split away from Ukraine?

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#174

Post by smsm42 »

cdi wrote: post #148
smsm42 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aga…

Yes, US sent financial aid to Ukraine. And dozens of other countries too. But you talked about setting up the riots.

>>> with Color revolution technique, where large groups of people occupy squares and then capture government buildings.

You must be kidding. That's how revolutions are done since inventing of squares and government buildings. That's what revolutions are - a lot of people gather together and oust the existing powers. Presenting this as if it is some sinister technique freshly invented by US State Department is idiotic - this is how it was done before US State Department even existed.

Of course US supports governments that are not aligned with the dictatorship of Putin and of course US encourages people not to align with the dictator - what else would you suggest? For US officials to tell "we don't care if there's a dictatorship or not - it's not like we in America have any position in regard of human rights, freedom, self-rule and all such matters - those are things we don't care about here at all"? That is, however, a very far cry from "setting up the riots" which you have claimed.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#175

Post by sidcool »

jcomis wrote: post #45
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…

I once stumbled upon this youtube about Transnistria: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6kub-Ehbd4 Really fascinating, I had never even heard of the place. They really make it seem like the country is dependent on black market arms deals of former Soviet stock. Is it actually true?

A great documentary. Thanks.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#176

Post by jdimov »

davidw wrote: post #68
iaskwhy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would avoid this "can you imagine if US" thing. US has done all sorts of things, maybe even that one, I don't know. Most of the time, US has done so without any repercussion. Let's hope things go for the best this time in Ukraine, as Candide would say.

> I would avoid this "can you imagine if US" thing That, unfortunately, is simply not possible. "For each and every internet discussion of a political event somewhere in the world, someone will attempt to drag the US into it, and probably point out how the US is actually worse than the situation being discussed".

Rightly so.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#177

Post by davidw »

asveikau wrote: post #164
davidw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no one points it out, people won't learn. You folks can downvote all you want. I am more than willing to spend my "karma" to attempt to preserve this site from politics. Also, while we're being picky, "I wish it were ", not "I wish it was".

Good luck fighting the good fight, that ever noble pursuit of educating the masses about an arbitrary set of rules. Back in the real world, some of the most enlightening discussion is "off-topic". So this example is not HN, but: I still remember back in the heyday of Slashdot reading the thread on 9/11 as it happened. Did anybody complain that that wasn't "News for Nerds"? What's happening in Ukraine is in that simil…

One major correction: "It doesn't hurt any of us to start paying attention."

Do not confuse "not wanting it on HN" with "not paying attention".

Have you read the commentary here? A lot of it is really bad.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#178

Post by jdimov »

pmorici wrote: post #51
adamlj wrote: post #8

This could turn ugly really fast. If Russia attacks Ukraine the US and Britain would have to protect the borders of Ukraine, according to a treaty signed in 1994 [0]. If the US don't follow the treaty I guess we will know how much these treatys really are worth. [0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-Briti...

I doubt Americans would stand for a US intervention in Ukraine after all the crap the country has been dragged through with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I doubt anyone gives a shit about what Americans stand for.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#179

Post by [deleted] »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #93
gk1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're oversimplifying the situation. Yes, Ukraine is a sovereign country. But half of it is ethnically Russian, and identify themselves a such. The Ukrainian border--like many geopolitical borders--is arbitrary and does not signify a single united nation. I'm not saying one side is right and the other is wrong. I'm just highlighting the fact that's it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Hate to go all Godwin on you, but you don't happen to have Sudeten German ancestry, do you? This issue has already been settled.

[deleted]

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#180

Post by rangibaby »

afterburner wrote: post #159
rangibaby wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crimea is "Russian", it was granted from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev in the 50s. It's interesting that the situation is playing out pretty much according to this blog post: http://cluborlov.blogspot.jp/2014/02/shock-over-ukraine.html "Most of them don't even know what it is they are protesting, but, in essence, they are protesting the very existence of their country, which is made up of two par…

I agree separation seems to be the elephant in the room, but ignoring the separate Ukrainian language is somewhat oversimplifying. If the language spoken in Kiev was Polish, then maybe you'd have a case about the Poland bit.

What I grokked from the quote is Poland as in catholic and more culturally European, not literally Polish.
Post reply on HN