Hacker News Reader

I upvoted your first comment because I felt that you were making a valid if controversial point.

But the concept of "handing over" Ukraine really underlines why the rest of the world views Russia as such a threat to world peace.

Ukrainians should decide their own future. It's not Russia's to hand over nor is it America's to take. Sometimes you hear quotes by high ranking Russian military officials and it feels like there is this persistent belief that NATO somehow "stole" Eastern Europe from Russia when the reality was that Eastern Europe fled to NATO to deter Russia after several brutal decades in the Soviet sphere of influence.

Certainly the concept of some countries being good and others being bad is outdated. The West has engaged in more than it's share of evil. But that doesn't justify moral relativism in international affairs. Nor does it allow one country to attempt annexation of another against its will.

So, hypothetically, let's say Canada decided to elect a Communist government tomorrow. Do you honestly think the USA would let Canadians decide their fate?

A contrived comparison as nothing close to this happened in Ukraine.

Yeah, Ukrainians only elected a hostile (to Russia) government that would threaten the viability of a major gas pipeline to Europe. These exports are basically the only real means of income for Russia. At the same time Russia would lose access to the Black Sea. Like it or not, a military's job is the preservation of the well-being of their country. If they had allowed this to happen they'd have been asleep at the switch.

Also, it's funny how all the countries suddenly wanting to change things up government-wise just happen to be on the path of major gas pipelines from Russia. Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia. A coincidence, that. Environmentalists also spoke up about the dangers of undersea pipelines with perfect timing (see Nort Stream 2).

And so you have a country whose power structure is literally facing an existential threat. Now, maybe you think that Russian power structure really is better off disappearing into the sunset (and I may even agree with you). But to think it'll do so without a fight is naive.

This thing is bigger than Ukraine. This is a well-orchestrated multi-year operation to change the balance of power in Europe and potentially force a regime change in Russia. Ukrainians have their dreams and admirable spirit, but I think when the dust settles they will be disappointed to find themselves to have been used as pawns in a much bigger game.

The British elected a hostile (to the EU) government. I have yet to see French or German tanks roll in to British territory.

It's their country. It's their right to decide whether they want to have gas pipelines there. That this is an existential threat to Russia is kind of a problem of their own making and, quite frankly, not Ukraine's problem. Don't bully 42 million people because you can't solve your own problems.

You do realize what you're advocating for is that Ukraine should be a Russian puppet state?

This went way off topic, and apparently one cannot make devil's advocate arguments on this site (or anywhere) without getting branded the devil.

My opinion is that there is no such thing as 100% self determination, whether for people or for groups of them called countries. We are social creatures and there is no way for us to exist without connections, social norms, etc. A group leaving one sphere of influence will necessarily fall into another one. Puppet or not is a matter of degree of control.

Ukraine's fight for independence is 90% financed by the USA (NPR's number, not mine). Is that really independent? I guess it is for the people already within the US sphere of influence: to them the story is "they are leaving the baddies and we are helping them do it".

To be within the US sphere of influence is self-defined as being free. Is it? Depends on who's making up the definitions I suppose. And now we are back on topic: there's probably no way to write a completely neutral article on a topic like this conflict. The sides can't even agree on what the phrases mean!

> Ukraine's fight for independence is 90% financed by the USA (NPR's number, not mine)

I have personally donated thousands of dollars to help Ukraine's fight for independence, and I know people who donated more than me. Just because someone in Ukraine received USD from abroad does not mean USA's financing.

> there's probably no way to write a completely neutral article on a topic like this conflict

In this case, Russians even deny the topic.

In your comments your position is evil but at least somewhat reasonable. You admit there's a war between Russia and Ukraine, and explain how Russian government is stupid enough to think that's a good idea. Despite I don't share that political position I would like to see that info in Wikipedia, it's interesting and relevant.

But Wikipedia's position (which happens to match the official Russian propaganda) is that Russia ain't involved, and Ukraine is fighting a civil war against local rebels. For 7 years and counting.

Apparently, we have very different political positions. But that should not be relevant. Wikipedia’s declared goal is not about politics. It’s about preserving knowledge about notable enough subjects.

Russians have started the war, and have been fighting the war from the very beginning in March 2012. That’s not a controversial theory, but a well-established fact with verifiable references all over the internets.

Yet Russian version of Wikipedia seems unaware.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes have to do with the matter being discussed. Regardless of the fact if you support the war, the truth remains that the war is happening between Ukraine and Russia. For Russian wikipedia to conceal that fact is censorship.

"the truth remains that the war is happening between Ukraine and Russia."

Interesting point to illustrate, why wikipedia's articles are not as good as the scientific ones. Because don't you think, this truth is a matter of perspective?

Because to my understanding, a real war between Ukraine and Russia would look a bit different and would have been over long ago.

There are definitely strong elements of a civil war, despite russias covert and open engagement. And with the US and EU involvment on the pro west Ukrainian side - it is complicated geopolitics. Hard to find simple truths there, when all involved sides are engaged with disinformation and propaganda.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "real war". Is it just because there aren't fighter jets and nukes involved that makes it a fake war?

If there are Russian soldiers firing guns and occupying Ukrainian territory then it's not a "matter of perspective"; it's an act of war.

> supporting handing Ukraine over to the USA

That's up for Ukrainians to decide, not Russia.

It continues to surprise me how many people don't seem to recognize the basic right of self-determination – ranging from the status of Ukraine to Scotland to Puerto Rico – from all sorts of different ideologies. e.g. non-Puerto Ricans argueing in favour of statehood well before it was clear the population actually wanted it (only since Nov 2020 is there a referendum with a small majority in favour of it).

I'm from the EU/NATO side of this. It does help to understand how the other side in a conflict thinks! It helps to establish context.

From Russia's perspective NATO has been progressively taking over countries that were previously part of Russia's safety buffer.

Ukraine entering talks to join the NATO sphere of influence was one step too far for them. Russia has a major naval base at Sevastopol that threatened to "fall into NATO hands." From their own strategic viewpoint they could never allow this to happen without a fight!

And of course, everyone is the good guy in their own story.