Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

Don't bother to back up you cliched attack on a popular tabloid newspaper. Much more fun to recycle the old epithets. What amuses me is that way hypercritical folk evidently read the Daily Mail (along with the other on a regular basis else how can they be so adamant concerning it's 'rag' characteristics? Seems to be a moveable feast on HN.

Independent reports say that the DM has the largest online readership in the world at around 44 million. Disputable of course; remarkable that so few of these people (if any) appear have made a buck or two by suing the paper for telling all the lies it's supposed to peddle.

I think politics is fascinating. But 99% of internet discussions about politics are crap. I'm beginning to develop some theories about that revolving around the idea that good discussion is costly, and cheap shots/conspiracy theories/empty words are very cheap, meaning the former get crowded out by the latter. In any event though, the discussions are pretty much horrible and worsen the site, which is one of the few good places to discuss hacking and startups out there.

> They must prepare a lot of briefings if it takes 2 days.

Not really.

> Even UN is moving faster.

Yeah, but all the UN would do in even an ideal (in terms of ability to decide on approach) situation would be to declare broad principles and call on other countries to take action of broadly-specified types to acheive them (with Russia's veto on the UNSC and role in the current crisis, there's about zero chance of even that happening unless Russia's rep gets lost on the way to the chamber.)

OTOH, the EU is more likely to need to evaluate not just what it wants to achieve, but what it can actually concretely do with its real actual resources to achieve its goals, which mean that there is, in practical terms, a lot more substance for the EU to address than the UNSC.

>>> when the government spends money of taxpayers, billions of dollars over years, on democracy in foreign states,

It's not the worst thing to spend money on. Taxpayers money are spent in billions - not over years, but in single year - on much worse projects with much less positive impact on human life. So if you're worried about taxpayer dollars, start with hundreds of examples of waste, abuse and corruption that are abundant in government funding. Once we're done with that, we can talk about cutting funds on promoting liberty and human rights. Otherwise sudden worry about taxpayers doesn't sound exactly genuine.

>>> the US has supported brutal dictators when that was advantageous to their their interests

Yes, they did. Yes, it was wrong. That doesn't make not supporting this particular one wrong.

>>> But the situation when there's potential foreign involvement in democratic process,

This is bullshit. There's no meaningful foreign involvement in democratic process in Russia, beyond promoting common humanistic notions like human rights and free elections and such. For heaven's sake, Obama can't even squeeze out a meaningful statement when Russian military invades Ukraine, calling it "uncontested arrival" instead, and you're talking about controlling Russian democratic process? They don't even think about it in their wildest dreams, their dreams are about golf anyway.

>>> They didn't vote for Stalin or Lenin or Mao. A crucial difference.

Not sure about Mao, but "elections" were regularly held in the USSR. Of course, everybody knew who would win it, but so everybody does in Russia. Nobody expected anybody but Putin to win elections, and anybody but ER to hold the majority in Duma. Not exactly the democratic situation here.

>>> Putin's persona was certainly affected/formed by 2004 Orange revolution in Ukraine.

No it wasn't. Putin is ex-KGB officer, he never was a a freedom-loving libertarian and always was keen on concentrating power.

>>> I'm sure that in 50+ years FOIA request will reveal what the assistance was in detail.

But you know about it right now. But can't tell me where from because it's super-secret, your eyes only. I get it.

>>> The fact is that US is supporting undemocratic coup

The coup is plenty democratic. It is made by the very same demos whose kratos you're so worried for. Of course not everybody is happy with it, especially in pro-Russian regions, but you can't expect to hold referendum before a revolution. After - maybe, but invasion from Russia is not exactly conductive to that.

>>> That is not exactly pro-Democracy, it's more about supporting "our" guy.

Errr, what "our" guy? There's no any specific guy there, and US had no idea until recently about most of the leaders there.

>>> It's more like knee-jerk sophistry reaction to people who believe that US can do no bad with covert foreign actions

That would be a lot more appropriate if there were such people around. But we're discussing the case where pro-Russia thug president Yanukovitch, after messing up very badly with very open and explicit Russian support, runs away to Russia, and immediately Russia sends their military into Ukrainian territory - and it's US that is "meddling" and is to blame for the situation? You may not like "rabid patriots who condone foreign interventions" but you certainly sound a lot like one.

>>> provoke authoritarian states to became even more authoritarian

That sounds like classic psycho killer line - "look what you made me do!". No, dictators are to blame for their dictatorship, not some vague clandestine meddling.

>Otherwise sudden worry about taxpayers doesn't sound exactly genuine.

I don't worry about taxpayers money. I'm saying that taxpayers money are never simply gifted to people, there is always certain rationale in how that money is spent, and it must be spent in interest of taxpayers. If it's in interests of taxpayers to support unconstitutional coups through "democratic" NGOs, than fine. But financing brutal dictators also could be in interests of the US in minds of the elite. (Like Bahrain) The crucial part is that it should be in interest of the US not in interests of democracy or other country's peoples.

>There's no meaningful foreign involvement in democratic process in Russia

How do you know? You have all the information? You are certain that there were no attempts to initiate recruitment of people who would eventually perform an unconstitutional coup? You can't be serious.

There is circumstantial evidence that it's not just about common humanistic notions, or why would they need to hide it in a rock? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-23-russia-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_range_agent_communication... (UK is well known cooperator of US in all things anti-Russian state)

> when Russian military invades Ukraine, calling it "uncontested arrival" instead, and you're talking about controlling Russian democratic process? They don't even think about it in their wildest dreams

American security and defense agencies are a huge machine that works constantly. There is no need for Obama to show particular willingness for such actions. What is required from him is to just approve, or not cancel policies and programs that were in the place for years. He's pretty willing to kill people with drones. Don't see problem why he would say no to "promote coups in Russia"

>but "elections" were regularly held in the USSR.

these "elections" were with one candidate. And there is infinitely more freedom in Russia today. People generally don't go to prison for saying something against Putin. Similar thing could be said about the US, everybody knows who would win in the presidential elections - it would be either a democrat or a republican. No expectations of significant changes to foreign policy either. It was pretty continuous throughout last few presidents. It would be pretty stupid to compare level of freedoms in the US and Russia, but comparison of USSR with Russia doesn't pass the smell test either.

>ex-KGB officer, he never was a a freedom-loving libertarian

Stereotyping proves nothing. After he was a KGB agent, he was an assistant to pro-democracy mayor of St Petersburg. Who the fuck knows what was really going on in his mind.

But, of course personally I believe you are correct in this particular case. But it's just an opinion, proves nothing.

It doesn't mean that generally foreign involvement in politics and coups does not teach lessons to other (semi)authoritarian states, where elites might entertain a thought of going more democratic.

>But you know about it right now.

The facts that Saakashvili had US State department funded education and Yushchenko hand Reagan staffer wife are pretty glaring. I am a mere non-spy mortal and can't know all the details(like you), nor I'm payed to research details about said revolutions. In fact I didn't discuss this issue in years.

There a lot of circumstantial and direct evidence of foreign involvement in past revolutions. In english wikipedia and newspapers. I believe that there is at least some US involvement in this second Ukrainian revolution, considering directness and one sidedness of their support, and considering history. Probably through recruiting and financing media, thinktank people who frequent pro western tv channels.

>The coup is plenty democratic.

Elections are democratic. Coups by the political minority are not. If they are truly democratic they should have waited 1 year for elections. Media is pretty free, diverse and independent in Ukraine compared to Russia, so no worries about government propaganda. If elections are rigged THEN you can legitimize the revolution as democratic.

>especially in pro-Russian regions,

"Pro-Russian" (if there is such a thing beside city near Russian military base in Crimea) regions have majority of Ukraine's population btw. That's how Yanukovitch won. That "Not everybody" is pretty significant one.

>It is made by the very same demos whose kratos you're so worried for.

Liberty is not the same thing as democracy. I consider democracy as one of the tools needed for maintaining liberty.

>There's no any specific guy there, and US had no idea until recently about most of the leaders there.

How could you make such a statement? Do you work for State Department or CIA? US Media is not US State.

>but you certainly sound a lot like one.

Where did I condone Russian aggression? I said I am against it. I'm generally against strong states and military or covert actions of states against each other. Russian or American.

Speaking of insults, you sound like a FoxNews viewer. (Talking about how Obama is weak leader and so on)

>and it's US that is "meddling" and is to blame for the situation

I didn't say that US is responsible for Russian aggression. I said that US has history of meddling.

>president Yanukovitch, after messing up very badly

If there are people with molotovs(and some with guns, I saw the pictures) who are trying oust you, and are very persistent, willing to die, have at least some support among population, it's pretty hard to not mess up very badly if you want to keep power for the rest of your term. It will end badly for you one way or another.

>dictators are to blame for their dictatorship

You don't understand sovereignty. There are peoples who value independence more than democracy. I'm not saying it should be like that, but it just is.