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

Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

hosted.ap.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 255 posts

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#241

Post by toyg »

danmaz74 wrote: post #208
toyg wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spheres of influence are real. If Panama fell under a Russian-friendly government likely to stop US vessels going through the strait, would the US government just sit there, "respecting the democratic rights of the citizens of Panama"?

First of all, the Ukrainian government wasn't bent on stopping Russian anything, AFAIK. Second, I morally condemned many acts from the USA, like the second war in Iraq based on evidently fake accusations of weapons of mass destruction. So, why shouldn't I condemn even more baseless acts from Russia?

"Baseless"? Crimea is populated by a majority of ethnic Russians, it's the most strategic base for the Russian Fleet to access the hugely-critical Mediterranean Sea, and it's a potentially key location to get gas from Russia to the European market without going through central Ukraine. In the last decade, when a Ukrainian government turned pro-US, they threatened to stop the all-important flow of gas; this is something Russia simply cannot allow to happen, it would destroy the country.

The (elected) government of Ukraine has just been deposed by street protests directed by right-wing extremists, half of the country is in shambles and the newly established government's first act was to attempt to abolish a language law aimed at favouring Russian-speaking minorities (not exactly a priority, when the economy is tanking and half your police force has been disbanded). It's reasonable to believe that gas pipelines are threatened and that a revolutionary government might choose not to respect previous agreements, since there is a fairly recent precedent (2009, iirc); also, it's fair to expect that such a ragtag of right-wing ideologues will likely make the life of Crimean-Russians very uncomfortable very quickly.

I personally don't see Putin's actions as "baseless" or irrational -- he's defending Russian interests that are clearly threatened. It's very simple and quite unsophisticated, but I don't see the moral scandal.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#242

Post by toyg »

danmaz74 wrote: post #3

It looks to me like it was all organized from the start: If using the economic pressure of gas prices wasn't enough to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence, they were ready to seize Crimea and maybe something more...

Do you think the US invasion of Panama was drawn on a napkin?

Of course the Russians would have plans, like the US military have plans to take over Mexico or Canada. It's their job to come up with such plans, even if war has not been declared or is unlikely to ever be declared.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#243

Post by enraged_camel »

davidw wrote: post #234
asveikau wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you read the commentary here? A lot of it is really bad. I agree a lot of it is pretty far from the mark, but I object more strongly to the idea that one must dogmatically follow the rules. Also, I do think folks here sometimes get carried away with the "no politics" rule in particular, as if to define politics too broadly or kind of miss the point. (OK, so this has political implications, but imagining some s…

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 g…

>>But 99% of internet discussions about politics are crap.

So are 99% of HN discussions about guidelines. You do notice the irony, right?

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#244

Post by [deleted] »

vixen99 wrote: post #232
bananas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you're wiping with it ;) Thanks for posting a more balanced and altogether less scary sounding article with references.

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 w…

[deleted]

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#245

Post by afterburner »

smsm42 wrote: post #160
afterburner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm being realistic about what it means to push Russia on this point. They're serious about Crimea, handling this well will require consideration. The law matters, yes. And so does how Russia feels about Crimea. Both need to be considered.

Japanese feel strongly about Kunashir too. But you don't see them sending in the military. I think thuggish behavior means you should consider their feelings less, not more. Get the military out, then talk about feelings.

It's brinksmanship of the most professional kind, there's no doubt about that. Russia can push harder than the US in this case. But of course the world needs to push back, I'm not saying take it lying down.

However, I will be surprised if Russia doesn't retain control of Crimea.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#246

Post by danmaz74 »

toyg wrote: post #241
danmaz74 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the Ukrainian government wasn't bent on stopping Russian anything, AFAIK. Second, I morally condemned many acts from the USA, like the second war in Iraq based on evidently fake accusations of weapons of mass destruction. So, why shouldn't I condemn even more baseless acts from Russia?

"Baseless"? Crimea is populated by a majority of ethnic Russians, it's the most strategic base for the Russian Fleet to access the hugely-critical Mediterranean Sea, and it's a potentially key location to get gas from Russia to the European market without going through central Ukraine. In the last decade, when a Ukrainian government turned pro-US, they threatened to stop the all-important flow of gas; this is somethi…

Baseless accusations = nothing was happening in Crimea. You yourself said that the new government "might", that "it's fair to expect", etc. For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine.

And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation. Otherwise, every war would be justified.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#247

Post by [deleted] »

toyg wrote: post #241
danmaz74 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the Ukrainian government wasn't bent on stopping Russian anything, AFAIK. Second, I morally condemned many acts from the USA, like the second war in Iraq based on evidently fake accusations of weapons of mass destruction. So, why shouldn't I condemn even more baseless acts from Russia?

"Baseless"? Crimea is populated by a majority of ethnic Russians, it's the most strategic base for the Russian Fleet to access the hugely-critical Mediterranean Sea, and it's a potentially key location to get gas from Russia to the European market without going through central Ukraine. In the last decade, when a Ukrainian government turned pro-US, they threatened to stop the all-important flow of gas; this is somethi…

[deleted]

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#248

Post by toyg »

danmaz74 wrote: post #246
toyg wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Baseless"? Crimea is populated by a majority of ethnic Russians, it's the most strategic base for the Russian Fleet to access the hugely-critical Mediterranean Sea, and it's a potentially key location to get gas from Russia to the European market without going through central Ukraine. In the last decade, when a Ukrainian government turned pro-US, they threatened to stop the all-important flow of gas; this is somethi…

Baseless accusations = nothing was happening in Crimea. You yourself said that the new government "might", that "it's fair to expect", etc. For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine. And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation. Otherwise, every war would be justified.

>For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine.

Nuland's call clearly shows that the US administration has actively supported the overthrowing of an elected government. This comes after $5bn of investments to "democratise" (i.e. de-russify) Ukraine in the last 10 years. Is that "respecting previous agreements"?

>And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation.

I admire your "black & white" thinking, but history is not that clear cut. Was Reagan justified in invading Grenada? Was Bush I justified in invading Panama? Big countries must look after their interests, or they wouldn't be big countries.

Crimea is a majority-russian enclave, on which Russia maintains historical dibs, and which is irreplaceable from a strategic point of view. Ukraine as a whole is almost not a "foreign nation" in many ways (it has holy cities for the Russian Orthodox and a long history shared with Russia that only sort-of ended 20 years ago). There is no way a Russian government will ever leave Crimea to NATO or the EU, end of; as I said elsewhere, it would be like Panama being left to the Chinese or the Russians.

A sane US/EU strategy would have worked to peacefully de-federate Crimea from West Ukraine first, before bidding for Kiev. That's the realistic, win-win approach. Trying to get that peninsula out of Russian control is an overreach that Putin will not accept. The '90s are long gone, Putin is not Eltsin, if we want to keep weakening the old bear we have to play smarter than this.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#249

Post by nadvorny »

toyg wrote: post #205
ardit33 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big difference. Serbians under Milosevic were committing mass murder and ethnic cleansing (as they had done with Bosnia and Croatia few years earlier), while here, Ukrainians are not kicking people from Crimea out. This is just a land grab.

>Ukrainians are not kicking people from Crimea out. Not yet. Still, the first act of the new regime was to revoke language rights from ethnic minorities, i.e. Russians in Crimea. When this sort of thing happens, ethnic cleansing is not far away.

This law does not affect Crimea as Autonomous Republic of Crimea has its own constitution, and Russian language is used as an official since 1998.

Re: Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

#250

Post by loceng »

gph wrote: post #73
loceng wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite an ancient "war" technique to simply have population over decades or centuries slowly migrate to a region, and then either through voting power or simply creating a new group of who have a common interest or similar values are now in this new region and can leverage their numbers.

So Latin America is at war with the US? And the Russian migration to Crimea is just a "war" technique carried on from Tsar Nicolas to Putin over the course of 150 years and multiple revolutions. How much clearer do I see these things now. Oh wait, you're using a nonsensical argument to explain migratory patterns.

Or you're conflating two different possibilities to try to form an argument that I'm nonsensical. Natural migratory patterns are also a possibility.
Post reply on HN