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

Kissinger's killing fields

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#121

Post by int_19h »

vlovich123 wrote: post #99
mythrwy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukr…

> It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Except the USSR released it. Nothing to do with the US. And Russia trying to recapture it now has nothing to do with the fact that it’s been it’s own country for almost 50 years. Not to mention Ukraine has repeatedly sought entrance into NATO for exactly this fear and Russia has dissuaded NATO from considering it under threat…

Crimea does indeed make for a good naval base, but Russia has more options that aren't much inferior - Novorossiysk, for example. More importantly, Black Sea itself is strategically not very interesting for Russia because Turkey (a NATO country) controls the straits, and thus in any big war involving NATO the Russian fleet would be locked in anyway.

No, it is largely a cultural thing. There's considerable evidence that Putin really believes all the tripe about "triune people" that was written in his 2021 essay [0], and genuinely sees independent Ukraine as a deliberately manufactured cultural "anti-Russia" that cannot be allowed to exist for that reason alone.

[0] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#122

Post by int_19h »

dragonwriter wrote: post #120
int_19h wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy's sake: the only NATO country that had a land border with USSR proper was Turkey, which joined in 1952, three years after NATO was formed.

> Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy's sake: the only NATO country that had a land border with USSR proper was Turkey, which joined in 1952, three years after NATO was formed. Norway is a founding member with a land border, and borders don't just happen on land; the US also is territorially adjacent to Russia.

You're right; I didn't even think of Norway because of how insignificant and remote that stretch of border is, but yeah, it's still technically land border.

Either way I don't think it matters. The point ultimately is that NATO expansion is not some kind of Western imperialist creep - neighbors of Russia rushed to join NATO as soon as they could because they wanted security based on their own past experience. It was never a threat to Russia.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#124

Post by kornhole »

karp773 wrote: post #118
kornhole wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People of the US must support their leader to make war. Similarly people of Russia must support their leader for war. An American journal like the Intercept has near zero influence on people in Russia just as Komsomolskaya Pravda has near zero influence on us. If an outlet is promoting hate against another country rather than paths of diplomacy, it is promoting war.

You can't really draw parallels between American and Russian media. What is the equivalent of Fox News in Russia?

The point is very few people in Russia watch Fox News. It is targeted to an American audience. Fox News trying to convince people in Russia of anything is pointless.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#125

Post by camillomiller »

mimd wrote: post #119
camillomiller wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let me understand: the mistake of a non-military intellectual who was not in a position of power at the time, and was proven wrong about his ideologically loaded perspective, is presented as an equivalent to the position of a high ranking official that physically commanded actions that killed thousands of innocent civilians?

You don't think Chomsky has power? Using your influence to cause others to disregard or advocate for actions can lead to as much death as direct influence. He was activity dismissing reports as "misinformation" for ideological reasons at the time and people took his advice. If it caused people to not act, then yes, he's partially responsible. No, I don't think he's equivalent, but let's not give him a pass here. His…

Your position is giving very much a free pass to the atrocities the U.S. government was responsible for at the time. Chomsky was one of the few voices that saw it, and denounced it accordingly. His position on Pol Pot has never been fully absolutory, instead he just focused more on the injustices coming from his own camp, where he certainly had more weight to excert. Also, Marxism is a perfectly fine philosophy, and extremely interesting lens through which we can read and understand capitalism and our present. Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing to reinforce a negative bias against them unfortunately shows a profound misunderstanding of both

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#126

Post by harry8 »

monetus wrote: post #16
runarberg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kissinger him self claims to have said it. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#ef...

502 error

  host wikileaks.org 
  wikileaks.org has address 80.81.248.21
  wikileaks.org has address 51.159.197.136
  wikileaks.org mail is handled by 10 reykjavik.spp.is.
For comparison in case your DNS provider is doing something that you might not care for.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#127

Post by mythrwy »

xorcist wrote: post #97
mythrwy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukr…

All of what you say could be factually correct, and it's still an imperialistic war instigated by Russia to subsume a neighbor. Accepting an Ukranian identity was never on the table. War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of…

In this case it's hard for me to justify the forcing of republics that are largely Russian to belong to a union that has been turned decidedly anti-Russian including with a coup and NGOs and intelligence activity.

There has been a lot of bloodshed, including of civilians before the "war" started and much of it was from the side that is now aggrieved.

I understand the economic reasons for not wanting Russia to control so many resources and important trade routes, but in this case if there is a "more wrong" party in my opinion it is the meddlers from further off. This is only my opinion and I really think there isn't much of a "morally right" party in this sitution.

Let me also put it like this.

I don't necessarily control what bad people in other places do, but I expect my own society to not behave badly. To not overturn other societies and cause death and suffering and chaos for economic gain and then give me bullshit reasons and propaganda about "truth and justice and democracy". I believe if more people on all sides thought this way we would have less problems but as you say, here we are.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#128

Post by elihu »

dilap wrote: post #79
archagon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to brush up on what the word "instigated" means.

Instigated is maybe too strong a word, but certainly at least provoked. It's a testament to the awesome power of US propaganda that you can't throw a stone in Texas without hitting a house flying the Ukrainian flag, but almost no one actually knows the history and circumstances leading up to the war. I think these two pieces provide some good background: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...…

Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members. Russia doesn't have a right to be upset that Ukraine kicked out a corrupt puppet.

As for NATO expanding east, Russia has something of a grievance there but the U.S. and NATO should never have relegated some of the former Soviet states to the status of "buffer regions" in perpetuity in the first place. Those countries have the right to self-determination and security just like anyone else.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#129

Post by favorited »

missedthecue wrote: post #106
favorited wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would be a disaster, because it would be an intra-NATO military conflict, and while intra-NATO military alliances exist, they are untested and it's hard to imagine another NATO state backing US military action in the Netherlands. The Netherlands would invoke Article 5 and request military assistance from other NATO members against the US.

Isn't there intra NATO conflict between Turkey and Greece?

Yes, and several NATO states have separate military alliances with Greece at this point, but luckily neither side has ever invoked Article 5...

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#130

Post by _kbh_ »

kornhole wrote: post #116
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how durable the opinion that everything in the world is somehow the fault of the US. Russia attempts to annex its neighbor - US fault. China invades Taiwan - the US PROVOKED them. It's warped.

The statement that the war was unprovoked is proving to be less durable by the day. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...

> The statement that the war was unprovoked is proving to be less durable by the day. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...

This article makes no sense what so ever, and repeats multiple Russian talking points including a often included comment about NATO expansion

That comment and supposed promise never happened in the way it is presented, I’d suspect someone who is familiar with this situation to know that.

That the author of that _opinion_ doesn’t know that is telling of his actual familiarity with the situation.

The entire thing reads like Russian propaganda and reads like it’s trying to dissuade western weapons to Ukraine, a key Russian goal.

Post reply on HN