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

Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 267 posts

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#161

Post by shagmin »

sudosysgen wrote: post #105
ericb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only the US & allied governments are actually actively promoting the idea of going to war. It's incredibly costly to park 150,000 troops and armor in a position to invade. But your issue is with the governments saying "excuse me, why does it look like you're positioning your troops for an invasion?" OK.

Don't overestimate the cost. If the units weren't there, they'd be doing large scale exercises and maneuvers, which can be even more costly. From the perspective of the Russian army, stationing a medium-sized force within their own borders is not going to be that expensive. Also, the corresponding increase in gas prices is going to counteract that perhaps even completely.

Not sure I follow why they would necessarily be doing large scale exercises and maneuvers if they weren't deployed to the Ukrainian border.

Also from what I understand a lot of these Russian troops are actually in Belarus as well.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#162

Post by elzbardico »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #18
baremetal wrote: post #2

I read this as why the economist and friends want russia to want war. but maybe im just cynical and jaded?

Russia annexed Crimea and has been engaged in a proxy war in Donbas for 8 years. The Kremlin has now amassed 100K - 200K troops at Ukraine's border. Yet, the Russian propaganda machine continues to claim it's the West that wants war. Can you explain how the West is the aggressor here?

Russia is defending herself from the aggressive encroachment of NATO. It is not very different from the US in the past not wanting Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#163

Post by whythre »

sudosysgen wrote: post #116
throw0101a wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so. Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio…

If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much. NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act). For many members of NATO, th…

>The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.

As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#164

Post by nathanaldensr »

jabagigo wrote: post #69
daniel-cussen wrote: post #8

So to begin with, fact, Putin is a better chess player than Biden. You might think, oh it's just a board game, computers are better at it. You could say that. Apparently the strategy right now is get right next to the border of Ukraine and do military exercises, then watch as NATO loses its shit with every passing second.

I think the question the article brings up is, why is Russia playing chess against Ukraine and other such countries? Why isn't Russia instead building bridges, establishing stronger economic bonds, and addressing its own issues inside itself to help increase the quality of life of its people? And they seem to answer it by saying that Putin and entourage love chess and are really good at it, that's why. Thus the concl…

You assume that nationalism is not viewed by the Russian people as "what's best" for them. Are you sure of your assumption? Not every country believes in the West's new spirit of authoritarian corporatism (some might call it fascism) and collectivist social tendencies.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#165

Post by elzbardico »

ptr wrote: post #109
consp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with that premise, it is good to point out the NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic countries and weapon shipments to Ukraine is a thing. Though I doubt this is at the same scale, and we as simple people have no way to verify any of this and people generally trust the propaganda on whichever side they are on.

NATO troops and weapon shipments to Ukraine became a thing after Russia started threatening Ukraine's existence -- we want to help the Ukrainian people. We as "simple" people can decide whether we trust people like Putin or people like Biden.

No. It is not. The pressure for Ukraine to join NATO has been simmering for decades before the west financed a coup to put literal nazis in power in Ukraine. Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#166

Post by aww_dang »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #146

The information war on this is already very hot. Diametrically opposed viewpoints coming from each side. US: The russians are about to invade. Russia: No we aren't. Honestly, as someone on the outside of this I really have no idea what to believe. Is Putin just putting up a show of force but not actually going to pull the trigger, or is this the real deal preps for imminent invasion?

No post body was provided.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#167

Post by nathanaldensr »

ptr wrote: post #109
consp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with that premise, it is good to point out the NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic countries and weapon shipments to Ukraine is a thing. Though I doubt this is at the same scale, and we as simple people have no way to verify any of this and people generally trust the propaganda on whichever side they are on.

NATO troops and weapon shipments to Ukraine became a thing after Russia started threatening Ukraine's existence -- we want to help the Ukrainian people. We as "simple" people can decide whether we trust people like Putin or people like Biden.

Or neither.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#168

Post by throwaway6734 »

gfosco wrote: post #147
throwaway6734 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Russia isn't the one starting this conflict >Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it. Which one is it? >The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it. The massive troop build up along Ukraine's border and in Belarus? You're spreading Russian propaganda.

Look I think you're missing the point. Chew on it for a bit, don't respond half-cocked. You: I want do to X. B: If you do X, I will do Y. You can try to convince B not to do Y if you do X... but if B is prepared to do Y, and is showing you he's prepared to do Y... and you can't convince him not to... then you have to consider, that if you continue trying to do X, that You are the one agitating.

What are the X & Y in this situation?

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum where they committed to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#169

Post by VictorPath »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #149
VictorPath wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> British government to invade and occupy Ireland The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood. The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.

> The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood. Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation. The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is f…

> If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are

If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

> The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998

The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.

> I also mentioned India

Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military, which is not the case.

Post reply on HN