The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#11

Post by yucky » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 1:30 PM UTC

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #4

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why? It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other f…

NATO Pretends it is a defensive alliance, and yet Russia can point to shit like this as proof positive that is a lie and use it as justification to take offensive action to prevent them encroaching closer and closer, encircling them[1], as NATO has continued to do since then.

So yes, there were unintended consequences from this non-defensive NATO war.

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/1...

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#12

Post by tyingq » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 1:52 PM UTC

hulitu wrote: post #8

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #4

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why? It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other f…

> Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.

>And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.

I'd agree with "one of the reasons", but there are also base reasons for unrest there that are unrelated to anything outside the Middle East.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#13

Post by hdjjhhvvhga » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 3:08 PM UTC

xdennis wrote: post #7

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #4

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why? It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other f…

There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used…

If Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#14

Post by imiric » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 3:13 PM UTC

0dayz wrote: post #6

Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone). I've to this day not heard a single good argument from the "anti-imperialists" of what the world should have done after multiple attempts with large peace treaties being violated. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8 Here's a much better video showing the time l…

> Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone).

That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of 6 Balkan countries, didn't exist anymore in 1999. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of Serbia and Montenegro, existed between 1992 and 2003. Colloquially, they're both referred to as Yugoslavia, and it's clear from the date and context which one is referenced.

> Here's a much better video showing the time line.

I haven't seen the video from the OP yet, but this one from Johnny Harris, while slick and well produced, refers to SFR Yugoslavia being communist. It was actually a more liberal form of socialism (the S in SFRY) than communist USSR countries ever enjoyed. Tito famously established the Non-Aligned Movement of countries that rejected both Western and Eastern influence.

Overall, it gets many things right, but my history knowledge in the period isn't great to fact-check what else it got wrong.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#15

Post by hdjjhhvvhga » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 3:15 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #11

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #4

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why? It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other f…

NATO Pretends it is a defensive alliance, and yet Russia can point to shit like this as proof positive that is a lie and use it as justification to take offensive action to prevent them encroaching closer and closer, encircling them[1], as NATO has continued to do since then. So yes, there were unintended consequences from this non-defensive NATO war. [1] https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/1..…

Yes, Putin loves to use the example of Yugoslavia because on the surface it's similar and it also resonates well with the Serbs. However, there are several important differences:

* NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing

* Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO finally decided to intervene.

* And of course NATO didn't do any of the atrocities Russians are doing now like massacre in Bucha etc.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#16

Post by yucky » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 3:48 PM UTC

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #15

yucky wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO Pretends it is a defensive alliance, and yet Russia can point to shit like this as proof positive that is a lie and use it as justification to take offensive action to prevent them encroaching closer and closer, encircling them[1], as NATO has continued to do since then. So yes, there were unintended consequences from this non-defensive NATO war. [1] https://media.defense.gov/2016/Jun/30/2001564177/799/799/0/1..…

Yes, Putin loves to use the example of Yugoslavia because on the surface it's similar and it also resonates well with the Serbs. However, there are several important differences: * NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing * Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO fi…

  > Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. What precipitated that, what exactly was going on in the Ukraine at the time? Or was it just a random decision one day to invade?

Also, is it true that Crimeans didn't fight back and in fact voted to be annexed into Russia afterwards? On the surface that seems like a strange way to handle a foreign invasion, curious as to your thoughts on this.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#17

Post by hdjjhhvvhga » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #16

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Putin loves to use the example of Yugoslavia because on the surface it's similar and it also resonates well with the Serbs. However, there are several important differences: * NATO wasn't bombing Serbia to take over their land as Russia is doing * Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war, no Ukrainian was killing any Russians. However, Serbs were actively killing others and the war was in full swing when NATO fi…

> Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. What precipitated that, what exactly was going on in the Ukraine at the time? Or was it just a random decision one day to invade? Also, is it true that Crimeans didn't fight back and in fact voted to be annexed into Russia afterwards? On the surface that seems like a strange way to hand…

Actually this is very clear to me as I was there a few times and talked to my friends on both "sides" - that is, from both Eastern and Western Ukraine. They had very different views.

The people from Donbas were very poor. Actually Ukrainiansin general were poor but e.g. in Donyetsk there were whole districts where people stopped paying for electricity etc. They had the idea it would be better to live under the Russian rule. Same in Crimea: there were mostly Russians or people speaking Russian everywhere. They thought that if Crimea was Russian they would be better off as more rich Russians would come there.

Western Ukraine was very different. I asked someone on the street in Russian and he kindly answered this is not Russia, they have another language etc. I was surprised as I didn't mean to start a debate, I just wanted to know my way to the train station.

Back to your question. It's very clear why the war started and Putin explained it in very simple terms in the victory piece that was published by RIA and quickly retracted[0]. In short, he felt like Peter the Great and wanted to take over the whole Ukraine to be remembered in history books as someone who gathered both Belorussians and Ukrainians under single Moscovian rule.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#18

Post by yucky » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #17

yucky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prior to 2014 when Putin started the war I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. What precipitated that, what exactly was going on in the Ukraine at the time? Or was it just a random decision one day to invade? Also, is it true that Crimeans didn't fight back and in fact voted to be annexed into Russia afterwards? On the surface that seems like a strange way to hand…

Actually this is very clear to me as I was there a few times and talked to my friends on both "sides" - that is, from both Eastern and Western Ukraine. They had very different views. The people from Donbas were very poor. Actually Ukrainiansin general were poor but e.g. in Donyetsk there were whole districts where people stopped paying for electricity etc. They had the idea it would be better to live under the Russia…

You didn't actually answer the question, which is a sign of bad faith in the discussion. So I will restate them, and number them for ease of reference:

1 - Isn't it true that the democratically elected government in Ukraine had just been overthrown (call it a coup or a revolution, doesn't matter) leading to Russia annexing Crimea? I mean, the annexation happened the very next day after the government had been overthrown so you don't see that as unrelated do you?

2 - Do you support the vote that Crimeans then had on their desire to be annexed by Russia following their democratically elected government being overthrown?

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#19

Post by hdjjhhvvhga » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 7:45 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #18

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this is very clear to me as I was there a few times and talked to my friends on both "sides" - that is, from both Eastern and Western Ukraine. They had very different views. The people from Donbas were very poor. Actually Ukrainiansin general were poor but e.g. in Donyetsk there were whole districts where people stopped paying for electricity etc. They had the idea it would be better to live under the Russia…

You didn't actually answer the question, which is a sign of bad faith in the discussion. So I will restate them, and number them for ease of reference: 1 - Isn't it true that the democratically elected government in Ukraine had just been overthrown (call it a coup or a revolution, doesn't matter) leading to Russia annexing Crimea? I mean, the annexation happened the very next day after the government had been overthr…

1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way, in the spirit of support and collaboration. But Putin doesn't understand this language, he only understands conquest and power. He doesn't care at all about people. Now people living in Crimea are in constant fear and many of those who could moved elsewhere.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#20

Post by yucky » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 8:18 PM UTC

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #19

yucky wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't actually answer the question, which is a sign of bad faith in the discussion. So I will restate them, and number them for ease of reference: 1 - Isn't it true that the democratically elected government in Ukraine had just been overthrown (call it a coup or a revolution, doesn't matter) leading to Russia annexing Crimea? I mean, the annexation happened the very next day after the government had been overthr…

1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. 2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way, in the spirit of support and col…

  > 1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result?

  > 2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way

And then here where they actually did vote democratically, you don't support it because you wish it had been done a different way?

To sum up, you support violently overthrowing the democratically government in Ukraine, but don't support a democratic referendum in Crimea. Well, that's certainly a position to take.