Hacker News Reader

Near as I can tell, it’s just making his power base double down.

And ‘punishing civilians’ when they are part of a society (yes, society) who is allowing a dictator to hungrily invade a neighbor is about the only way anyone can do anything here.

Sanctions CAN impact the economy enough that it starved the ability of the nation to make war - but if the country keeps doubling down, that is going to require extreme measures and produce extreme misery. It would be a blockade essentially.

Russia has experience switching to a war time economy, and if anything it makes a ‘strong dictator’ more appealing. Stalin did quite well during this time, despite making massive mistakes that cost an insane number of Russian lives.

In the west we seem to be under the impression some relatively cheap to us financial sanctions will solve this, but don’t bet on it.

The equivalent post WW1 in Germany just stoked WW2. Not the same scenario, but there are similarities.

There are rumors Russia is going to impose martial law. Even if those rumors are merely propaganda by the Ukrainian government, there isn't a clear broad base of support for the invasion.

That doesn't sound like a country that is rallying behind the flag in support of an offensive war against Ukraine.

By punishing and cutting off everyday Russians doesn't that increase anti-west support?

The alternative isn't people thankful for not being hit by sanctions, the alternative is people indulging in victory posturing. (in the old days, when soldiers were actually told that they were sent into a war, victory posturing often started before even the first shot was fired)

I wouldn’t be so sure, but also I don’t have reliable data.

At this point, I also doubt anyone (including Putin) has reliable data - from what I do know, it’s common place for all the low level folks (equivalent of mayors, low level bureaucrats, city police departments) to fudge numbers the way it’s expected to look.

Even opposition politicians, independent reporters (even those that have fled the country), and folks I know with family there have been pretty straightforward in saying he has historically been very popular however.

The 60-70% polled support number has seemed quite legit to them. Propaganda is powerful, and most of the base of support he needs to keep the country running isn’t (ever) going to hang out on Twitter, post on Reddit, etc.

And the propaganda for a long time has been how the west is trying to bring otherwise strong Russia down. Which is, rather explicitly what the west is doing now (albeit for legit imo reasons).

If the opposition can muster enough support to meaningfully impact things, then that’s awesome!

That he does seem to be sweating means maybe it will work, I hope it does.

I’m just hoping to make the dynamic more visible, and caution against the same kind of thinking that had everyone seemingly convinced that Trump wouldn’t get elected in 2016.

Let's cut off some of the western countries first then as well. US has actively destroyed/destabilized countries in the Middle East and South America to install a friendlier government. You've US who voted to invade Iraq based on a lie (along with UK), invaded Libya, bombed Syria, invaded Afghanistan among other things. You've Canada, US and other nations selling arms to Saudi Arabia that continue to bomb the fuck out of Yemen. You've Israel occupying Palestine. Let's cut all the countries off as well. Or are you implying that Russian invasion of Ukraine matter more than all these examples, and if you do so, I wonder why that is? (fyi, it's a rhetorical question, I know why that is)

> Let's cut off some of the western countries first then as well.

... first? Why first? Which western country is actively invading anyone right now? Which western country started a land-war in Europe last week? Why would I cut off someone not doing anything for something that happened 20 years ago when there's a land-war in the Ukraine now?

> You've US who voted to invade Iraq based on a lie (along with UK).

On bad pretenses sure, but to overturn a despot who used chemical weapons against his own people. He wasn't a threat to the US, and the pretenses were wrong - and I didn't support the war at the time. But is it the same thing? Not even close.

> Or are you implying that Russian invasion of Ukraine matter more than all these examples, and if you do so, I wonder why that is? (fyi, it's a rhetorical question, I know why that is)

Yeah because the Russians launched an un-provoked land war in Europe to re-create the Soviet Union - on the premise of "de-Nazifying" a country run by a Jewish PM.

Save your whataboutism for once this is resolved.

Well, you've Saudi with the support of Western countries and US weapons that is bombing the shit of Yemen. I don't see you calling for sanctions there. Where was the outrage while that is happening? I like how you choose the timeline of right now/last week. US just got out of Afghanistan few months, have destroyed countries and families for generations to come in the past 10-15 years, but you know what let's only count two weeks.

> On bad pretenses sure, but to overturn a despot who used chemical weapons against his own people. He wasn't a threat to the US, and the pretenses were wrong - and I didn't support the war at the time.

Yeah, looks like US actively knew and helped him gas his own people though because Iran would've been too powerful otherwise, and US can't have that.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro...

> But is it the same thing? Not even close.

Yeah it isn't, while the world looks to sanction Russia (which they should btw), US blackmailed other countries into invading Iraq and no country got sanctioned. But like you said, US only got pretenses wrong, s who whore cares that millions of lives were lost as a result and a country has been destabilized and destroyed.

> Save your whataboutism for once this is resolved.

Reddit's favourite term to use when you point out double standards. I don't support this invasion either, it's just the hypocrisy in the outrage that is astonishing. But hey I guess, as the media puts it, world cares more when it's white people with blonde hair and blue eyes that are dying and not brown people you've in middle east, so it's different this time.

Nothing you raised has anything to do with this situation which is what we're talking about. Pointing fingers wildly in every direction isn't going to solve this problem. I'll never say the US has a pristine track record, however what they are doing right now, I'm in support of. Even if they haven't acted appropriately in the past.

I can oppose Yemen, I can support Palestine, I can oppose the coup in Guatemala - all while I reject the actions of the Russians in Ukraine. These are not mutually exclusive positions and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

But the US is supporting Saudi Arabia in Yemen right now. It's just as much of an ongoing situation so there isn't even that excuse of "that was before and now is now".

And I don't support it. But that has nothing to do with the current situation in Russia or the Ukraine. Focus please, one problem at a time.

Pointing out double standards is not futile or pointless. It exposes the true intentions and interests of those who have them. In this case, for example, the double standards of Western governments and elites show that they do not really care about the suffering of people, rather they act based on their (geopolitical? economical? general?) interests. So, in some occasions they themselves help destroy countries and have no problem with it (Not caring about people's suffering: confirmed), then an opponent creates suffering and they react (is it because of the suffering? No, they proved they do not care.). It is relevant to this, past and future situations, because it helps (those who wish to understand things, at least) shake off pretenses of the various players and see the real motives clearer. Repeat for any other section where double standards exist to get a clearer picture.

If we had reacted the way the world is reacting now when the USA invaded Iraq under false pretense, perhaps other countries would've taken notice that there's actual consequences for world bullies and this wouldn't be happening now.

dont bother as cliche as it sounds, some lives are worth less than others to westerners they either consciously block out all their governments’ actions or are simply unaware of them which i find hard to believe i know this is selfish of me, but when i saw all the support for ukraine, it bothered me inside.

What makes you think this is about saving lives? This is about the security of Europe / NATO. If Ukraine was on the other side of Russia we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Having Russia missile a few steps away frim Germany has caused them to bring back their military.

People act in their own self interest. What other lives do you think did not get their due?

I am talking about people’s reaction to this. People are painting it as a moral type of good/evil situation.

i know and understand that governments are supposed to be acting in their own interests. This does not surprise me one bit.

What bothers me ( again I understand this is selfish), is that the same people that preach about democracy/human rights/freedom know their governments are guilty of egregious crimes like Russia’s and arguably worse. I find it hypocritical when they started lecturing and posturing about respecting a country’s independence.

I hope this explains my pov better.

> I am talking about people’s reaction to this. People are painting it as a moral type of good/evil situation.

It can absolutely be a moral good/evil situation. As would such a war on the other side of Russia even if folks reacted differently.

> I find it hypocritical when they started lecturing and posturing about respecting a country’s independence.

They can be right this time, and wrong other times. I do think supporting them when they're right and opposing them when they're wrong is the play.

South America and Saudi/Yemen are the only things approaching the same level of realpolitik assholery as Ukraine now.

Iraq? Evil dictator. Libya? Evil dictator. Syria? Gruesome terrorists/evil dictator.

Israel/Palestine? Messed up and the world still doesn't like it, but not on the same scale and certainly more complicated.

please go educate yourself on how those evil dictators were propped up by the USA itself.

You’re wildly out of touch if you actually believe if those dictators didn’t do everything with blessings from the US..

yemen is also 100 times worse off than ukraine its not even close

> Iraq? Evil dictator. Libya? Evil dictator.

Look at what Iraq and Libya is right now. Libya has literal slaves right now, I'm sure US feels pretty good about themselves. Heck Obama won a noble peace price for it.

US supported Pakistan in 1971 when Pakistan was committing mass genocide in East Pakistan (Bangladesh now). They overthrew a government that people wanted in Iran because that govt. was going to nationalize oil and take it away from western oil companies. These things have been happening forever in the third world, but because it's brown people dying, people didn't care as much.

Anyways my enitre point is again, it's dumb to blame an average Russian person for the actions of Putin like how it would be equally dumb to blame american person for the actions of US govt. and military industrial complex.

Didn't the majority support the war in Iraq initially? Propaganda works. Consent was successfully manufactured.

That's not the fault of civilians. That goes even more so for those under authoritarian regimes. That's Russia. The people are under the thumb of a dictator and bathed in propaganda 24/7. And who the hell knows how many actually support him or do so out of fear.

How about North Korea? Should we punish their citizens too for not rising against their dictator? I think it's clear that we shouldn't.

> That's not the fault of civilian

Yes, it is, in the specific case of Iraq. The debunkings of the propaganda (and even the internal documentation of the propaganda effort) were widely published in US/UK media prior to the war.

The war was able to be sold not because the truth was concealed, but because enough people didn't want to hear the truth, they wanted a story which provided an easy outlet for their racist bloodlust.

Was that average pro-war citizens as guilty as the people actively marketing the war? No. But they weren't innocent, either.

Citizenship comes with responsibility.

Holding civilians responsible for the actions of regimes is central to all justification of terrorism. It's a slippery slope, just a heads up.

> Holding civilians responsible for the actions of regimes is central to all justification of terrorism

No, it's not, because most terrorism is, as was the thing for which the name was coined, state terrorism directed at citizens of the state (states who engage in such terrorism tend to prefer to put the focus on other terrorism, of course.) But, even for the kinds of terrorism for which it is true, this part of the rationale is not the problem with terrorism, in the same way that “people are responsible for their own actions” is central to the justification for cruel and unusual punishment for crimes, but is not the problem with that punishment.

The debunkings were published, but major media was heavily pushing the official narrative.

To quote the New York Times' ombudsman (a position that doesn't exist any more) [0]:

> To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable.

This was the message that the US government, the New York Times, and countless other media organizations were pushing. People who objected were viewed as eccentric, naive, or possibly even cowards who were doing the bidding of a dictator.

0. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/the-public-ed...

> the populace exerts sufficient pressure against leadership. That means protests, that means civil disobedience.

If this is what you want then cutting Russians out of the Internet is a terrible idea: consider that most are just now learning that they are actually at war and not in a freedom military operation (as the state media is making them believe).

> If this is what you want then cutting Russians out of the Internet is a terrible idea.

I agree. I don't think they should be cut off from the Internet. But I do wholeheartedly support economic sanctions.

I don't understand why it's my war. My congress hasn't declared war. My congressman hasn't said anything to that effect, and I'd write him a quite angry letter if he did. Some bureaucrats in the State Department might think it's their war, but that's not the same thing.

If you're in any country but Ukraine think about WHY you're picking sides and who told you to do that.

> you're in any country but Ukraine think about WHY you're picking sides and who told you to do that.

The countries near Russia expect to be next. Part of Germany was under Russian control prior Fall of USSR. Which is why European countries care. NATO has multiple members that are members for this reason. EU has multiple members that see this as an active threat to them.

The USA should care, because they promised protection to Ukraine in exchange of Ukraine getting rid of nuclear arsenal back in nineties. Not that USA would be reliable, but they should not be completely unreliable.

Thank you for giving an actual answer as to what our obligations are here. It’s the first time I’ve heard anyone make mention of that.

That nato members bordering with Russia see Russian expansion and Russian ambitions to restore old glory as direct threat is fascinatingly ignored aspect ... especially considering that "buffer zone" nonsense is being repeated as if Ukraine divided Russia from nato before

And that USA is member of nato for own interests and that first time there is actual threat to nato they should not ignore it entirely is also fascinatingly ignored argument.

And they surrounding countries taking in refugees is not not particular oddity since surrounding countries always have to take refugees when aggressor goes in is also ignored argument.

I am picking the side I have because I support representative government and liberal democracy, and am against oppression of free peoples. I am against dictatorship and cronyism. I support the rights of free people. I am against unjustified wars of conquest but am in favor of wars that will protect the principles value. I am disappointed that my country isn't doing more and faster.

In general yes but I wonder if in the case of Russia the group that would have the most impact are the other power players adjacent to the leader. If it's true that Russia is run like the Mob then I wouldn't be surprised if Putin ends up "falling out of a window" by accident.