Comment by saynsedit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by saynsedit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com