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

The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#21

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

yucky wrote: post #20
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. 2. Yes, my personal opinion is that Crimea could at least have a special status as most people living there are Russians. But it should have been done in a completely different way, in the spirit of support and col…

> 1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the res…

> Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result?

I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat and some people buy it. Euromaidan happened for just one reason: Putin pressured Yanukovych not to sign the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement and he gave in. Ukrainians didn't want to share the fate of Belorussians though. So Putin decided to invade as it was a slap in his face.

> And then here where they actually did vote democratically, you don't support it because you wish it had been done a different way?

No, any vote under the Moscovian rule is not democratic. Actually I don't care that much about Crimea as very few people died but I do care a lot about Donbas as people were suffering enormously. Of course the Russian media portrayed it as if everything was done by Ukrainians. My friends who lived there at the time said the thugs that ruled there didn't value human life at all, something that the whole world was to see a few years later. It was a tragedy that the West didn't react in 2014 and went for the appeasement strategy instead.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#22

Post by yucky »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #21
yucky wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Yes, Putin saw that Ukrainians don't want to integrate with Russia and that Ukraine is escaping the Moscovian sphere of influence so he decided to invade Ukraine, taking over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the res…

> Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result? I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat and some people buy it. Euromaidan happened for just one reason: Putin pressured Yanukovych not to s…

  > I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat
Putin is an autocrat, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the democratically elected government of Ukraine was violently overthrown in 2014. You keep trying to change the subject from that for some strange reason.

There was a democratic election in Ukraine and that duly-elected government was overthrown in a coup/revolution in 2014. Are you trying to dispute that, or just trying to pretend it had nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea the next day?

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#23

Post by 0dayz »

imiric wrote: post #14
0dayz wrote: post #6

Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone). I've to this day not heard a single good argument from the "anti-imperialists" of what the world should have done after multiple attempts with large peace treaties being violated. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8 Here's a much better video showing the time l…

> Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone). That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of 6 Balkan countries, didn't exist anymore in 1999. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of Serbia and Montenegro, existed between 1992 and 2003. Colloquial…

>That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong.

I'm sorry but you don't see the irony of saying my point is "pedantic" and then you go well ashctually.

And even if we skip past that I'm not wrong since I said de facto not de jure (which even then you are wrong, _socialist_ federal republic is not the same as federal republic, that's like saying USSR is the same as modern day Russia).

The video is about the war not the state, since the war didn't happen during titos reign.

Hence why I think you can gloss over the oversimplification.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#24

Post by 0dayz »

VincentEvans wrote: post #9
xdennis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used…

There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.

You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#25

Post by 0dayz »

yucky wrote: post #22
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ukrainians voted that government into power though. Doesn't violently overthrowing the government go against the whole idea of democracy? Not to mention being illegal. But you're cool with that because of the result? I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat and some people buy it. Euromaidan happened for just one reason: Putin pressured Yanukovych not to s…

> I know Putin argues this way. He tried to use the "democracy" argument even though he is an autocrat Putin is an autocrat, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the democratically elected government of Ukraine was violently overthrown in 2014. You keep trying to change the subject from that for some strange reason. There was a democratic election in Ukraine and that duly-elected government was overthrown in…

You call others bad faith and then you yourself act in bad faith.

The Ukrainians were being shot at by Ukrainian and beaten up by OMOH, but of course ordinary people are the evil makers here.

And the revolution only became a revolution after the security forces (alongside OMOH) started to try and disrupt the then peaceful protest.

Maybe look in the mirror before you call others bad faith.

Re: The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

#26

Post by VincentEvans »

0dayz wrote: post #24
VincentEvans wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.

You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?

I don’t mean to say that UN is not capable of ANY action, but rather increasingly not capable of the scope of action that is meaningful in my view.

Also, I think the impotence of the UN is a recent and progressing phenomenon. That is to say that its possible it was more capable and willing to act in the 90ies and progressively became less so since.

Post reply on HN