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

171–180 of 267 posts

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#171

Post by dragonwriter »

elzbardico wrote: post #165
ptr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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

This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war.

Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#172

Post by macilacilove »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #134
macilacilove wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dont need any propaganda machine to see that countries that are furthest from the conflict geographically and economically have the least to lose. That is why the warmongerist representing US/UK war efforts in every conflict is so excited about the situation.

Having little to lose is not a rationale for doing something. You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.

Ukraine is at the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, where Western powers regularly encourage color revolutions bringing the country to a point of civil war. "The west" has virually no skin in the game but leaders would prefer Russia sanctioned and isolated so that once again US has unchallanged superpower status.

Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad.

The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#173

Post by dragonwriter »

Koshkin wrote: post #143
dragonwriter wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since. No, it hasn't. From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954). (People sometimes equa…

Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.

> Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.

The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#174

Post by HWR_14 »

VictorPath wrote: post #101
jcranmer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.

The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.

Except he didn't promise the USSR anything like that. The only commitment he made was to relay the request for a commitment to not expand NATO to the US negotiating team. It was rejected by the US team and the language the USSR suggested never made it into any treaty.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#175

Post by nathanaldensr »

rosndo wrote: post #57
Bostonian wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest replacing "an idiot" with "misguided".

We shouldn’t spare much kindness for trolls like this. The facts are indisputable and known to everyone, Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine.

If there's one thing humanity should know as "fact," it's that in war there are very, very few of them. Propaganda is the order of the day, not scientific fact.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#176

Post by Regular-Former »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #134
macilacilove wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dont need any propaganda machine to see that countries that are furthest from the conflict geographically and economically have the least to lose. That is why the warmongerist representing US/UK war efforts in every conflict is so excited about the situation.

Having little to lose is not a rationale for doing something. You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.

One reason to incentive warmongering I assume is domestic politics in the Western countries: Biden's and Boris Johnson approval ratings are pretty low, and nothing better than war to give it a boost. Take Johnson for instance: some days ago the news was his parties during the pandemic, but, alas, not anymore.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#177

Post by rosndo »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #175
rosndo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn’t spare much kindness for trolls like this. The facts are indisputable and known to everyone, Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine.

If there's one thing humanity should know as "fact," it's that in war there are very, very few of them. Propaganda is the order of the day, not scientific fact.

Are you saying that all the publicly accessible satellite footage showing Russian troop movements is fake?

Are you saying that the discredited Russian false flag attacks in separatist areas didn’t happen? (A fact anyone can verify by looking at the metadata of those videos)

Are you saying that the Russians are lying when they confirm these troop movements? Are you saying they lied when they publicly stated that they’re considering military action in Ukraine?

What exactly are you trying to say? These are very real independently verifiable facts known to the whole world.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#179

Post by BobbyJo »

hollerith wrote: post #129
BobbyJo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you forget Cuba exists and that the US was regarded a the agressor for trying to get the soviets out of there? Or would it have be totally ok with you if we invaded them?

The US didn't need to invade: President Kennedy instituted a naval blockade and that plus Kennedy's promise to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange was enough to get the Soviets to agree to remove their missiles from Cuba. That blockade of course was an agressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be agressive towards any other country is…

> The US didn't need to invade: President Kennedy instituted a naval blockade and that plus Kennedy's promise to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange was enough to get the Soviets to agree to remove their missiles from Cuba.

We did try to assassinate Castro several times, so not exactly.

> That blockade of course was an aggressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be aggressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule.

Practically speaking yes, but there are enough treaties in place at this point that if someone invades someone else they are at least breaking some of their own rules. Think of it like a credit system for countries, the more you break rules you laid down for yourself, the less credibility you have going forward. Decentralized global governance of sorts.

> Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.

I didn't intend to imply it wasn't complicated when you zoom out, but it is very un-complicated when you zoom in. The guy who throws the first punch is the aggressor. Sling words, make agreements, talk a big game, but the first one to violate the sovereignty of another government is indeed the aggressor.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#180

Post by invalidname »

aww_dang wrote: post #166
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?

Quoted post unavailable.

This is a false equivalency. I get into this a lot with Russian immigrants. They're so used to distrusting the government they distrust everything.

Sure, our politicians lie. But with the exception of Trump this is at a "reasonable" scale and they're usually held accountable. You can check them up. In the case of dictators lying is the default and if you try to hold them to account you'll breath Polonium pretty soon...

It's pretty clear whose lying here.

Post reply on HN