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

111–120 of 255 posts

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#111

Post by smsm42 »

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 aggressor in this situation, really?

Really? I guess that would be the country that sends the military to the territory of another country. But who would that be? There should be some way in here to blame America here and prove sending military into neighbor's territory is actually all fine, provided that neighbor did an unspeakable atrocity of potentially siding with America or EU.

>>> I've got no stomach for war.

Looks like you've got a lot of stomach for believing propaganda, as long as it matches your prejudices of America being the root of all evil. What a surprise would it be for you when it turns out believing propaganda spouted by an authoritarian dictator with ambitions for territorial conquest is not the surest way to achieve peace!

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#112

Post by vonmoltke »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #98
voidlogic wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not was a prominent British diplomat says: Sir Anthony Brenton (UK Ambassador to Russia 04-08): "If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia."

Key emphasis on and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding . That's a rather big if . But realistically, no one is going to care, because the west still isn't going to war with Russia over this. Edit: Technically, if it wasn't approved by the US Senate, then its legally just scrap paper.

Actually, that is a good point I was forgetting. This is not a treaty. This is a "gentleman's agreement" between three nation states.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#113

Post by rjzzleep »

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…

how? same way libya was bombed into oblivion. same way europe and the us can "legally" send guns to extremists in syria, that decapitate civilians, christians, and basically anyone who disagrees with the destabilization efforts. same way france can constantly do political coups in african countries without anyone caring.

heavy german support of the opposition, eu sanctions of the country(i'm not sure how legal this really is) certainly helped as well.

you call it backdoor. i call it coup. and if we're still alive in 50 years, and didn't bomb ourselves into oblivion given the course we're taking right now, we can probably read about these coups in controversial sections of wikipedia or wikileaks.

watch ukraine get split up like so many other countries in the recent past.

it's not about which party is more powerful. it's about which party wins the media war. if we had respected their sovereignty in any manner we would have let them play out their conflicts internally, but we didn't. we completely supported the opposition.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#114

Post by firstOrder »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #80
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…

Citation needed. Name those advisors. Every country in teh world recognizes Crimea as being Ukraine. Russia has just announced its invading that.

The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. there is a very large Russian military base there. In 1992 the Ukrainian government ceded that the Crimea was almost completely autonomous of Ukraine.

How is Russia invading when it already has a massive military base there, in the Crimea, which was Russian until 1954?

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#115

Post by aquadrop »

danmaz74 wrote: post #103
aquadrop wrote: post #97

I hope that was just a political move in response to harsh words from the USA and no real sending troops will follow. Because that is very stupid thing to do for Russia. It makes me sick that nobody in the parliament voted against. And even though western media was using propaganda heavily as well as russian's did, there's no need to bend the truth with that kind of stupid move. It will only make the conflict bigger…

Apparently, troops are already there though.

There's naval base in Sevastopol with permanent troops.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#116

Post by crudbuster »

visakanv wrote: post #79
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…

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.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#117

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

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…

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.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#118

Post by philwelch »

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...

Um, no treaty is worth starting World War III over.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#119

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

lmg643 wrote: post #108
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. Name those advisors. Every country in teh world recognizes Crimea as being Ukraine. Russia has just announced its invading that.

Victoria Nuland, the woman who was caught on the leaked tape saying "F*ck the EU", essentially because the EU was not quite as enthusiastic about supporting further action, was the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland Obama has a lot of stuff he has to deal with on a daily basis - listening to the audio, it would make sense that she is cal…

So, you're left with one lowly ranking woman who you think is some mastermind of an evil cabal. "Her brother-in-law came up with Bush's "surge" strategy in 2007"

TOTALLY irrelevant here. Logical fallacy violated. Non sequitor.

EDIT: Seriously, you think Victoria Nuland, by herself, is pulling the strings of the American foreign policy?

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#120

Post by Elhana »

Mchl wrote: post #43

Russia has a long tradition of "protecting" "[...]The Soviet Government also cannot view with indifference the fact that the kindred Ukrainian and White Russian people, who live on Polish territory and who are at the mercy of fate, should be left defenceless. In these circumstances, the Soviet Government have directed the High Command of the Red Army to order troops to cross the frontier and to take under their prote…

US has a long tradition of "protecting" as well. They were protecting Yugoslavia, then protected Iraq, Afganistan, Libya.. recently Syria. They are also looking to protect Iran and Ukraine now. Most of it without UN resolution, with the exception of Libya, where they interpreted "no fly zone" resolution as "just bomb everything that moves" (because Gaddafi tanks could fly I guess).
Post reply on HN