Russia approves use of military in Ukraine • Hacker News Board

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#181

Post by terranstyler » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:37 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #168

terranstyler wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked I didn't see any democracy in the Western sense of the word in the western world. Except for Switzerland maybe Examples: Tapping phones without warrant Searching homes without without warrant A policy of guilty until proven innocent Torture

Obviously we have much to live up to. Democracy has always been more ideal than reality. But societies differ in their place along a "democracy" spectrum, and Russia and the Ukraine are much farther from that ideal than the west.

I know, but historically compared there were times when the above 4 "non-democratic behaviors" didn't occur (or they occurred less frequently or at least we didn't know).

I see a tendency away from democracy which in my eyes destroys any credibility of the West to spearhead a democratic movement.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#182

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:37 PM UTC

liviu wrote: post #155

a-priori wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but many people in Moldova call the language they speak 'Moldovan', even if it's only subtly different from Romanian. When given the option in a 2004 census, 60% of the population chose 'Moldovan' as their native language, compared to 16.5% who chose 'Romanian'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language

In 2004 the Communists were in power in Republic of Moldova. But in December 2013 Moldovan court rules official language is 'Romanian,' replacing Soviet-flavored 'Moldovan': http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/12/05/moldovan-court-rules... Just as there is no 'Austrian language', is German only. Or 'Switzerland language', is German, French and Italian. Edit: Of course there is heavy dialect or accent of the language in…

JFTR: Austrian German is a protected language within the EU.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#183

Post by ZanyProgrammer » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:38 PM UTC

crudbuster wrote: post #147

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except...Ukraine is in no way comparable to Korea. Maybe there are 30000 American troops in Ukraine that I didn't hear about?

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#184

Post by gk1 » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:38 PM UTC

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.

> This issue has already been settled.

Obviously it hasn't.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#185

Post by ardit33 » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:39 PM UTC

hepek wrote: post #54

kievins wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happened in Georgia in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#The_South_Oss...

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.

Big difference. Serbians under Milosevic were committing mass murder and ethnic cleansing (as they had done with Bosnia and Croatia few years earlier), while here, Ukrainians are not kicking people from Crimea out.

This is just a land grab.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#186

Post by lotsofmangos » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:41 PM UTC

cwaniak wrote: post #162

afterburner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember this actual war Russia fought and won during Bush's tenure? Didn't think so. The US's forces were tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq during that time, Putin had even more leeway than he does now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_war

What are you talking about???? Bush kept building US bases in plenty of ex-USSR republics day and night. He kept Putin by the balls. I'm an US citizen in Poland now. Bush wanted to build anti-ballistic shield in Poland that would render this country along Czech Republich untouchable by the Ruskies. First decision Obama made? He scrapped the whole deal in order not to make Russia feel bad. You have no idea how pissed…

How does an anti-ballistic shield help against tanks then?

The plan for anti-ballistic launchers in eastern europe are to protect the USA against long range launches, not to protect eastern europe from ground troops.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#187

Post by iaskwhy » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:43 PM UTC

zmb_ wrote: post #172

iaskwhy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, this is very interesting, thanks for the eye-opening link! It actually might explain my previous questions about Kosovo.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#188

Post by MarkTee » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:45 PM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #82

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…

> I thought Obama was supposed to be the anti-imperialist replacement for Bush? America has been imperialist since WWII. It has nothing to do with the sitting president.

America has been imperialist since the 1800s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#189

Post by us0r » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:49 PM UTC

cwaniak wrote: post #92

visakanv wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This dude never knows what to do. That's the problem. With Bush as a President Putin just wouldn't dare.

So he should start a war with a nuclear power?

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#190

Post by asveikau » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:53 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #177

asveikau wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I agree a lot of it is pretty far from the mark, but I object more strongly to the idea that one must dogmatically follow the rules.

Also, I do think folks here sometimes get carried away with the "no politics" rule in particular, as if to define politics too broadly or kind of miss the point. (OK, so this has political implications, but imagining some sort of time warp, would you deny a story on World War II because it's "too political"?)