Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChomskyNormal4m | Hacker News Reader

> [Putin] consolidated all the political and judicial power. Destroyed, physically, politically or judicially all the opponents.

You are writing in English, and thus aimed at a US/UK audience - the president of the US (Clinton) and PM of the UK (Major) celebrated the 1993 shelling by the military of the Russian parliament that consolidated Yeltsin's power, and that of his chosen successor, Putin. Putin didn't consolidate power and destroy opposition, this was done in 1993 to celebration in the West.

The problem with this in the West really started in 2007 when Putin announced in Munich that Russia would no longer tolerate the US's continual encroachment against Russia. Suddenly all these events going back to 1993 which had been celebrated were cast as nefarious.

View on HN

Yeltsin certainly began the process, but it's hard to argue that Putin hasn't acted very aggressively to consolidate power. The idea that just because it was a process that started under a previous ruler, the currently ruler shouldn't be blamed for embracing and expanding the corrupt policies makes no sense.

Also, what is the encroachment you are talking about against Russia? Are you talking about allowing the people of the former Soviet Union to choose to move away from Russia toward the West and enter into a defensive military alliance? Because that's not encroachment. That's helping those people get out from under Russian encroachment. Russia does not get to play the victim card because we're letting people outside of Russia choose to move away from them. That's not how reality works. Just because Russia neighbors the Baltics, Georgia, and Ukraine does not give them any right to demand they follow specific domestic policies. But that is exactly what Putin is trying to assert.

Just remember what happened when Cuba followed some domestic policies US didn't like in 1962.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a domestic policy?

Technically, yes. A sovereign country can invite another sovereign country to host their missiles, especially if they have a powerful enemy nearby, ready to launch theirs.

> placing foreign nuclear missiles in your country to threaten another country

Clearly that's not "domestic".

Threaten another country? That's only one interpretation. I would say, to protect own soil.

lol - just noticed your stealth edit. I was quoting you.

First, let's not play whataboutism. Certainly the US isn't perfect. That doesn't make what Russia is doing ok. Second, Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship. That's probably not the best example.

Yes, this is indeed the "encroachment" GP talks about. The Russocentric worldview does not see non-Russian easterners as sentient beings capable of making choices, they are little more than mooks and serfs which rightfully belong to them. A Czech or a Georgian cannot decide to join NATO or the EU, it is "The West" stealing Russia's stuff.

This is perfectly fine view if you're Russian (who wouldn't want to control giant serf armies?), but it's pretty depressing to see it take off the western discourse.

The reason for that, of course, is that Russia, like any right-thinking country, wants to be surrounded by friendly or neutral buffer states.

If Mexico and Canada entered a military alliance with China, how do you think Washington would react? How long would it take until we would see regime change in Ottawa?

It's not a 'perfectly fine' view, it is just a natural consequence of being encircled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com