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

151–160 of 255 posts

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#151

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #142
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.

> Seems like you've been suckered Seems like, from your comment history, that you've been suckered into a Political Discussion on HN :-) As they say: "the only winning move is not to play the game"

[deleted]

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#152

Post by sp332 »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #124
wismer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenter may have implied they were troops of the Russian Army, but did not outright say it. Since these few hundred are mercenaries (might as well call them that, not 'private contractors'), they are still an extension of a sovereign nations armed forces.

Yep, just like Blackwater, etc were an extension of American might in Iraq. Unless the parent wants to go down teh path of saying that American PMCs in Iraq had nothing to do with American might and power?

Just a note, Blackwater changed their name to Xe in 2007 and Academi in 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#153

Post by smsm42 »

rjzzleep wrote: post #137
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…

>>> propaganda, as long as it matches your prejudices of America being the root of all evil. >>> believing propaganda spouted by an authoritarian dictator >>> ambitions for territorial conquest is not the surest way to achieve peace! wow dude, take a chill pill. how about you abide by what you're preaching? the us has military bases in more than 150 foreign countries

I do? Nice to know. American people must be really generous giving 150 military bases to a dude who isn't even US citizen. I wonder what they give to citizens - it must be at least 10 military bases in 300 countries!

I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to abide though. I guess you call me to abstain from invading foreign countries? I was going to invade Poland tomorrow, but if you say so, I won't. Citizens of Poland, you're welcome.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#154

Post by wismer »

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…

Sorry, but how does the link that to setting up the riots? That's an accusation without any concrete proof.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#155

Post by liviu »

a-priori wrote: post #101
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> different language (Russian, not Moldovan) The official language of the Republic of Moldova is Romanian[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Moldova

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 Switzerland and Austria, but I was talking about high language.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#156

Post by a-priori »

cosud wrote: post #131
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

Sure, they can call it however they want. Technically they're the same language. There are only minor lexicographical differences, the grammar being roughly the same. Blame Stalin for the confusion.

Technically, they're different, which makes the question of whether they should have a different name a political one, not a linguistic one. As the saying goes, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#157

Post by foobarqux »

smsm42 wrote: post #83
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...

They won't. What you expect, US going to war with a nuclear power over some territory in some third-rate country? The maximum you can expect is a couple of Obama speeches and Kerry promising an unbelievably small diplomatic effort to solve it. So yes, all those treaties are worth something only when everybody wants to follow them, and they stop being worth paper on which they are printed as soon as one of the partici…

It's not just "some territory": Russian natural gas --- one of the principle sources of Russian influence in Europe --- goes through Ukrainian pipelines.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#159

Post by afterburner »

rangibaby wrote: post #31
StephenFalken wrote: post #14

It would be interesting to discuss how Ukraine got into this kind of situation ([1] [2]) and what are the "natural" consequences of it. Somehow it feels we are not dealing with a single country anymore. [1] http://i.imgur.com/1iiXqHN.jpg [2] http://i.imgur.com/eNo56LZ.jpg

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.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#160

Post by smsm42 »

afterburner wrote: post #149
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, if you're willing to throw the law and legalities aside, then...you're nothing more than a thug, and/or an apologist for them.

No, I'm being realistic about what it means to push Russia on this point. They're serious about Crimea, handling this well will require consideration. The law matters, yes. And so does how Russia feels about Crimea. Both need to be considered.

Japanese feel strongly about Kunashir too. But you don't see them sending in the military. I think thuggish behavior means you should consider their feelings less, not more. Get the military out, then talk about feelings.
Post reply on HN