Live data from Hacker News

Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

economist.com

191–200 of 267 posts

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#191
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really not true. The US put massive pressure on NATO under Bush Jr for Ukraine to join NATO, but Ukraine eventually faltered. They formalized a position that Ukraine was able to join NATO, and put a lot of pressure on France and Germany so that it would be that way. Eventually, Euromaidan happened and Ukraine tried to cash into those overtures, but the West wasn't ready to back it up.

That’s the Georgia playbook as well. They encouraged Georgia to fight the Russians. Georgians lost territory and lives and the American and Western allies shrugged and said “oh well, that’s unfortunate”.

Your comment implies that Georgia might have had better ways out of that situation, that’s probably not true.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> its own entity (prior to 1945)

Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#193
I like this daily "What's in the Putin's head" guessing in the West media. The man himself stated everything 15 years ago in his Munich speech. The core problem - European security is build at the expense and against Russia. NATO expansion after USSR dissolution(which was voluntary act) is seen as proof of its hostility and having military bases of the hostile military alliance right at your borders is existential threat. It is this simple.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Quoted post unavailable.

He objectively lied more than other politicians by a huge margin. This is clearly verifiable.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#195
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a popular edgy opinion but I think it's useful to occasionally remember who has thousands of soldiers massed on the border.

HackerNews has a weirdly pro-Russia bent, at least in these comment sections. People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?) and how Crimea is and has been Russian, even though the Russians invaded and conquered it in the past decade... Really odd. Not just making arguments against US involvement but flat out repeating false, pro-Russian propaganda.

> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?)

Ok, I have no "pro-Russia" bent at all, I think they are to blame in this whole story as their concerns could've been addressed by diplomacy like most European leaders have been trying to say... but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine and how it might think war is a justifiable way to stop that from happening? And if that's the case, how it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been (with Krimea and Eastern Ukraine in a war situation for several years)?

It's hard to do so, but try to imagine yourself being a decision maker on the Russian side. Seeing an extremely important, historically aligned neighbour that has a very large, geographically un-obstructed border with you, and who can block your access to extremely important maritime routes, trying to join a military alliance who sees you as one of their main enemies.

While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable and I can totally see how NATO nations should do everything it can to avoid this war, they have nothing to lose, while Russia has a lot at stake... sometimes, it's a wise move to back off your expansion to avoid loss of life and making the situation much, much worse (imagine a world with Russian-occupied Ukraine for years to come)... when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).

I highly recommend the Caspian Report channel on YT and its series on this conflict to understand the motivations on each side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzk

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#196

The Economist has traditionally the worst coverage of Russia amongst Western media. To the point where it starts looking like it is something personal for the editors: always the same narrative, facts and opinions that not fit in the picture are conveniently ignored etc. This article has a lot of pure speculations, that oversimplify the internal politics and decision making process in Russia. Yes, there’s a relativel…

Literally everything the west said is happening before our eyes. Russia is mounting a false flag operation trying to find an "excuse" for war. They were supposed to finish the "exercise" and instead they're adding troops. Will you "accept this as facts" when they march through the entire country or will that just be "an extended exercise". I understand it's hard to admit your own country is run by a power hungry dict…

> hard to admit your own country is run by a power hungry dictator

That is not hard. What is hard, is to realize that sometimes politics transcends particulars of the power structure and the character of the ruler, when it looks more and more like a nation has to do what it must, given the circumstances (no matter how they got there).

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#197
post #84

See also Anne Applebaum: > Putin is preparing to invade Ukraine again—or pretending he will invade Ukraine again—for the same reason. He wants to destabilize Ukraine, frighten Ukraine. He wants Ukrainian democracy to fail. He wants the Ukrainian economy to collapse. He wants foreign investors to flee. He wants his neighbors—in Belarus, Kazakhstan, even Poland and Hungary—to doubt whether democracy will ever be viable…

[flagged]

Please don't fulminate, use HN for political or ideological battle, post in the flamewar style (including nationalistic flamewar, god help us), or take threads on generic tangents, especially generic ideological ones. (Oh, and one more thing: or use allcaps for emphasis).

All this is in the site guidelines—would you mind reviewing them, and sticking to the rules when posting here? We'd appreciate it. The idea on HN is curious conversation. Comments like the one you posted one, and the others you posted to this thread, nuke that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ha…

> 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.

So, I presume you're talking about this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

In general, I tend not to respect referendums that are preceded by invasion of military forces (who I believe were not Russian, according to the Russian government of the time?). But yes, you are correct, the people of Crimea did vote for this.

However, this is massively, massively different from both the original Treaty between the UK and Ireland in 1920, as all UK troops had withdrawn before this occurred. Additionally, the 1998 referendums took place in an environment where most of the violence had stopped for a number of years, which is definitely not the case in Ukraine.

> Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

So, you'd be fine if the Russians wiped out the native language of the Ukrainian people, cut down their forests and watched as multiple millions of them died? Clearly you wouldn't be (I hope) and only someone with absolutely no context on Irish/UK history would make such a ludicrous claim. Additionally, it was the United Kingdom that this did, not England (which only exists as a nation in sports).

> 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 feel like you may have mistaken the 1916 proclamation of independence with the 1998 referendum, which I think speaks to your lack of understanding of the issues (and I cheerfully admit that I know very little about the history of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine). From a Republic of Ireland point of view, the 1998 referendum was actually about giving up a territorial claim on the six counties of Northern ireland, which is very different from what happened in Crimea.

> Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military,

I just cant even, with this statement. Like, every weekend when I was growing up, there were violent deaths in the North of ireland (and Britain) on behalf of terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate). There was definitely a bunch of terrible things done during this period, but the vast majority was driven by people living on the island of Ireland, not the British government. The British government didn't make it any better, but they didn't mass 130k troops around the North at any point.

> I also mentioned India

I'm going to assume that you have no answer to my question then.

On that note, I'll bow out of this conversation as I'm not sure it's productive for either of us. Hope you have a great morning/afternoon/evening.

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#199
post #24

See also Anne Applebaum: > Putin is preparing to invade Ukraine again—or pretending he will invade Ukraine again—for the same reason. He wants to destabilize Ukraine, frighten Ukraine. He wants Ukrainian democracy to fail. He wants the Ukrainian economy to collapse. He wants foreign investors to flee. He wants his neighbors—in Belarus, Kazakhstan, even Poland and Hungary—to doubt whether democracy will ever be viable…

I suspect "Anne Applebaum"'s loyalty doesn't lie with America.

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments, flamebait comments, and this sort of comment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the alternative is strong men using cruelty to extract wealth at any cost. That sounds like America now...

Go to Africa to see wealth extracted at any cost. Economic and environmental devastation and lots of otherwise preventable suffering.

> Economic and environmental devastation and lots of otherwise preventable suffering.

Still sounds a lot like the US

Post reply on HN