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

Russia’s apparent resilience is being kept up by policy tricks and cash

thetimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–205 of 205 posts

Re: Russia’s apparent resilience is being kept up by policy tricks and cash

#201

Post by foverzar »

082349872349872 wrote: post #162
foverzar wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will fight between them with their remaining soviet weapons Says who? They can just as well harass non-Russian neighbouring states. Or quite likely form some kind of > since they are not competent to fight any large country That doesn't prevent them from trying though. > Maybe some of those would actually become a democracy. Democracy in such states is an illusion. You are either USA with sustainable, refined…

Да ну. A 2 party state is barely better than a 1 party state, and electors are a fancy way to circumvent 1 person 1 vote. It's deeply rooted mechanisms of something , but not exactly democracy )))

Why? It's actually much closer to a classical democracy. Remember that "dēmos" was never the same thing as the "óxlos".

Re: Russia’s apparent resilience is being kept up by policy tricks and cash

#202

Post by foverzar »

rich_sasha wrote: post #118
foverzar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They fly bombers into their airspaces (oops), deploys military manoeuvres at their borders, rambles about aiming their nukes at the capital cities. Your argument would be valid, if this was something exclusive to Russia, and not a common mutual thing between Russia and NATO. NATO bombers just as well fly into Russian airspace, NATO deploys military manoeuvres at Russian borders, and NATO states politicians are just…

Yes I forget. Russia is the bullied one here. And is constantly attacked by NATO, in Georgia, Ukraine... Seriously poor Russia for being so unfairly treated. Even now, if only those pesky Ukrainians would stop shooting back at them, peace could be introduced overnight.

> in Georgia

Russian peacekeeping corps WAS attacked in Georgia. The EU fact-finding mission, had blamed Saakashvili:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-rus...

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-shattered-dream...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...

It's insane how this truth has been erased in the last 14 years, despite being publicly available and easily googlable. This wiki article should provide a good enough context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Ossetian_conf...

But hey, why bother with studying facts when you can study propaganda memes, am I right?

Re: Russia’s apparent resilience is being kept up by policy tricks and cash

#203

Post by foverzar »

jcranmer wrote: post #192
pandaman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how is this possible, are you counting each operation as a separate "invasion" so you get two invasions in Ukraine (2014 and in 2022) for Russia, then I imagine Syria and Georgia? But what is fifth - is it Transnistria/Abkhazia/Ossetia in 1990s? Then the US had 20+ invasions in the same sense (Yugoslavia, multiple ops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and various countries in Africa) over your lifetime.

Russia invaded Ukraine twice (once in 2014, once this year), Chechnya twice (1994 and 1999), and Georgia once (in 2008).

> Chechnya twice (1994 and 1999)

In 1994 Chechnya was legally a part of Russia. By that principle, are you considering that Ukraine had invaded Donetsk? Not trolling, just wondering if it is a point of principle or doublethink.

In 1999 Chechnya had invaded Russian Dagestan, which triggered a military response - exactly how does this consitute as "Russia invaded"?

> Georgia once (in 2008)

Georgia attacked Russian peacekeeping corps in 2008:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-rus...

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-shattered-dream...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...

I am really puzzled by how people are so reinforced in their ignorance, despite facts being easily available for anyone who cares to spend 5 minutes to learn something.

Re: Russia’s apparent resilience is being kept up by policy tricks and cash

#204

Post by foverzar »

jcranmer wrote: post #135
foverzar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They fly bombers into their airspaces (oops), deploys military manoeuvres at their borders, rambles about aiming their nukes at the capital cities. Your argument would be valid, if this was something exclusive to Russia, and not a common mutual thing between Russia and NATO. NATO bombers just as well fly into Russian airspace, NATO deploys military manoeuvres at Russian borders, and NATO states politicians are just…

Russia has, in my lifetime, conducted no fewer than five invasions, all of which could be fairly characterized as driven by naked territorial aggression ("this land deserves to be ours"). In the same time, the US has invaded three times, none of which could be characterized as naked territorial aggression, even if you squint at it really, really hard.

> In the same time, the US has invaded three times

Like at least four, and if we use the same counting logic you did for Russia, it would be at least 20.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...

> naked territorial aggression

Well, that depends on what you consider to be worse: pushing neo-colonial policies by installing puppet governments through war and staged coups on the other part of the world, or resolving local conflicts created by dissolution of the SU along the administrative (instead of historical, ethnical, or national) borders, while granting citizenships, providing social infrastructure, or at least allowing states to gain sovereignty (if Kosovo can be independent under UN's self-determination principle, why can't Ossetia, who had been at odds with Georgia for ages and was only territorially related to it, because at some point the Soviet Union decided that budgeting that way is easier?)

Besides, considering the US geography, it's kinda hard for it to have territorial disputes, even if it really wanted to. On the other hand, you can ask Mexicans what they think of US law enforcement openly operating in Mexico.

Re: Russia’s apparent resilience is being kept up by policy tricks and cash

#205

Post by foverzar »

pandaman wrote: post #190
jcranmer wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has, in my lifetime, conducted no fewer than five invasions, all of which could be fairly characterized as driven by naked territorial aggression ("this land deserves to be ours"). In the same time, the US has invaded three times, none of which could be characterized as naked territorial aggression, even if you squint at it really, really hard.

I don't see how is this possible, are you counting each operation as a separate "invasion" so you get two invasions in Ukraine (2014 and in 2022) for Russia, then I imagine Syria and Georgia? But what is fifth - is it Transnistria/Abkhazia/Ossetia in 1990s? Then the US had 20+ invasions in the same sense (Yugoslavia, multiple ops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and various countries in Africa) over your lifetime.

It is safe to assume that they just never even heard of the half of those US military actions. Ironically, things like "Nothing happened in Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989" (nothing happened in Yugoslavia, nothing happened in Yemen, nothing happened in Syria, nothing happened in Somalia) are extremely common in Western info-bubble.
Post reply on HN