Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanbond | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, he annexed it covertly, denied it was him, his loyal supporters denied it was him, and then when it turned out it was him, suddenly his loyal supporters justified with "lots of history and lots of US meddling."

That does make you a Russophile.

View on HN

The logic of Putin apologists never ceases to amaze me.

I remember when the situation in Ukraine/Crimea was just unfolding and I was discussing it with a friend. At first his position was "There is no proof Russia is in Ukraine, that is just Western propaganda. What do you think, Putin is trying to annex Ukraine? Come on, that's ridiculous" a few months later, Putin annexes Crimea. All of a sudden, his argument changes to "Well Crimea has a very interesting history, and plus, all the people living there really want to be part of Russia" you can't win with these people. They will keep changing their argument. If Putin annexes all of Ukraine tomorrow, you will see the same changes in their arguments with justifications for his terrible decisions.

Also, you can always bet on them saying something along the lines of "Well the US did X, so that totally validates Russia doing Y"

Ukraine is not an isolated event. It's yet another chess piece in a long and drawn out American/Russian chess game that's been played since WW2.

Yes, Russia is being bullish on Ukraine. This is happening after America has expanded NATO into multiple ex-Warsaw pact countries eastward of the Berlin Wall after an agreement was made for that not to happen. http://spiegel.de/international/world/a-663315.html

Given that there is evidence that America was also meddling in the future of Ukrainian government, it's not hard to see that Ukraine is an important geopolitical asset that both superpowers are willing to manipulate. It's not as simple as Putin annexing Ukraine for some evil world domination plan, it looks more defensive than offensive on their part in the grand scheme of things.

The fact that your friend was wrong does not make all geopolitical analyses that are more complex than Russia being the bad guy and America being the good guy incorrect. Any argument that the situation is morally clear cut is overly simplistic and harmful.

Which country joined NATO due to tanks rolling through it?

It's intellectually dishonest to act like a country choosing to join an alliance is the same as a country being invaded and annexed. If that region wanted to become part of Russia, why did tanks have to do it? If it's defensible that Russia rolled tanks through a sovereign state, why did Russia deny it was them?

NATO arguably going against its word does not warrant a clear cut violation of state sovereignty.

Both countries have been meddling in other countries for decades but the key difference is that Russia annexed a part of another country, the US has not. That is a very important difference you need to appreciate.

I never said I didn't appreciate it but context also matters. Tactics matter, I agree, but so do intentions. Russia has more to lose than America has to gain. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russian then borders NATO. Ukraine is essentially their queen on the European front. There would be no Ukraine crisis if we hadn't courted ex-Warsaw pact countries into NATO in the first place. You need to appreciate that, unless you think Russia should be destroyed. I'm an advocate for peace and balance so we would subjectively disagree at that juncture.

There is a reason we gave Poland to Russia after WW2. Buffer countries ease tensions between superpowers.

Of course context matters, and I fully understand that no country here is innocent, but it is important to gauge the severity of one action over another. In this case, the US is making allies with Russia's neighbors, and Russia is annexing another country. Do you agree that Russia's actions are much more severe than the US's? One could also argue that Russia's actions in this instance has sped up the exact thing they do not want (more countries joining NATO). What was the ideal outcome for Putin in Crimea? Ruin relationships with Ukraine and the US while scaring many bordering neighbors into joining NATO and/or building up their military? For what?

As for wanting Russia destroyed, why would I wish that on my home country? I love Russia and its culture and ~5 years ago I was excited to finally see the relations between Russia and the US finally maturing and opening up to one another. Putin's terrible decision in Crimea (among others) has ruined any chance of that happening anytime soon.

Yes Russia's actions were more severe, that much is true. I'm simply putting it into context. Ukraine is of the utmost importance, so I can see severe circumstances culminating in severe actions. Again, these present circumstances were slowly aggravated by the US over the passed 20 years, that can't just be ignored. There are lots more chapters to this story that we haven't even discussed.

I don't see Russia offensively invading other countries right now, Ukraine seems more like a defensive move after lots of US-led political meddling in Ukraine specifically (this is NOT normal http://youtu.be/AmkvO_IwsZ0). When Russia initiates unprovoked military invasions on other countries (which some publications have speculated on) then I will gladly unilaterally condemn their foreign policy. Right now it all seems very gray.

How are you still denying that a covert military operation to seize land from another country is the very definition of an unprovoked military invasion.

Unless "provocation" to you includes "they started to like America?"

Ukraine was in total disarray due to a violent revolution to depose its democratically elected president. The Russian annexation, i.e. intervention, was arguably done to stabilize the situation on their part. A referendum was held after the fact. Not to mention that Crimea was previously a Russian subject not 60 years prior.

I don't see this as unprovoked in the same vein as the invasion of Iraq, for instance.

The Ukrainian conflict is ineffably more complicated than they "started to like America." This sort of thinking is not productive when trying to make sense of world events. There are lots of factors at play here, economic, cultural, historical, political, and so forth.

This has been my only thesis from my OP. If you disagree with me, you're saying the Ukraine situation is as simple as Putin being an evil invader. I think that is a flawed, incomplete, and unproductive analysis of the situation. If you are interpreting me as defending Russia you are totally missing the point.

I don't believe I justified any of Russia's actions. It's a complicated situation and there are lots of questionable actors...

For example, there is credible speculation that the US funded anti-Russian neonazis in Ukraine http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-...

Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.

Betteridge's law of headlines applies to your linked article.

> The House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’”

> This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld.

So, no, the US is not intentionally funding neonazis and in fact, is trying very hard not to. They are providing training requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior against a Russian aggressor that has shot down a civilian passenger aircraft, among many other crimes.

It's undeniable that the euromaidan protests had a strong right-wing nationalist component. They were violent and essentially terrorized the country.

This essentially led the president of Ukraine to resign. That right-wing faction then controlled Ukraine's government, and is still very strong in Ukraine.

We immediately recognized that new government and provided them with aid. That is insane! In the west, their only saving grace was that they were anti-Russian.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com