Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_434 | Hacker News Reader

Creating a throwaway as I have a controversial take on this (maybe even the minority opinion here):

In my opinion, Ruble will become stable in few months (once the dust has settled that is). The sanctions are only imposed by the West (many Asian countries abstained from voting in UNSC). Russia will use Chinese Unionpay in-lieu of Mastercard/Visa and might integrate with Chinese CIPS (alternative to SWIFT). Probably even Indian Rupay in the future. It also has its own homegrown Mir Payment System. The sanctions jolt is going to be temporary. Ultimately SWIFT is going to not be dominant anymore. This is some hard reality that the West has to come to terms with. If anything, these sanctions have fast-tracked establishment of a multi-polar World and rejig of alliances.

Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting.

They'll all have a rethink on what it means to be allied with the West and follow a "Rules based order" that only applies to countries excluding the West. It naturally follows that they will want to balance out their National interests and not place all their eggs in one basket.

One thing is for sure. These circumstances will only boost alternative forms of currency/payment systems. Imagine having the entire payment infrastructure controlled by handful of countries who can act with impunity. For whom, the so called "rules" don't apply but do apply for everyone else.

View on HN

"NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions"

This is not an honest take on what happened in Libya. The actions taken were initiated and sanctioned by the UN, as part of a security council resolution. Per Wikipedia:

"The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on 26 February, freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his inner circle and restricting their travel, and referred the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation. In early March, Gaddafi's forces rallied, pushed eastwards and re-took several coastal cities before reaching Benghazi. A further UN resolution authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, and to use "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians, which turned into a bombing campaign by the forces of NATO against military installations and civilian infrastructure of Libya."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Libyan_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

Have provided a detail answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30641837

These concern-trolling throwaway accounts don't also account for the fact that Russia clearly didn't give that much of a shit about the Libya situation, otherewise as permanent members of the UNSC, they could have veto'ed the resolution.

> they could have veto'ed the resolution

Have you read the UNSC resolution? The UNSC resolution did not call for invasion of Libya. Read it if you haven't. The main point of the UNSC resolution was establishing a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using Libyan Air Force to bomb rebels and for protection of civilians. It did not order NATO to invade. Rather, NATO used the UNSC resolution as an excuse to invade. So don't blame the UNSC for this (though UNSC is to be blamed for other things: including wording the resolution vaguely/poorly that it allowed for this loophole for NATO intervention).

> concern-trolling throwaway accounts

I am not concern-trolling. I just gave my perspective/opinion. The primary reason for creating a throwaway account is because of it inevitably ending up with being labelled as a "Russian Propagandist" or a "Troll". The "Free-world" has lost appetite for debate with everything that is not mainstream being cancelled/dismissed. Which is sad unfortunately.

First you say sanctions won’t work and name alternatives to SWIFT. People were already expecting them to switch. No one thought Russia would sit on his hands if a banking standard was banned. And SWIFT isn’t the only sanction. Companies refusing to do business there and the eventual brain drain will do more damage than SWIFT.

Your next point was China will support Russia, but do you really think they’re trying to help? They probably want to milk Russia of all their oil on the low.

I’m not familiar with the UNSC and Libya conflict so I won’t comment on that, but I don’t see the analogy to what Russia is doing and the sanctions imposed.

> Companies refusing to do business there and the eventual brain drain will do more damage than SWIFT.

Only Western companies you mean?

> but do you really think they’re trying to help?

They are already helping. Russia has already integrated with Unionpay as we speak. Russian Sovcombank and Sberbank have already completed integrations.

> They probably want to milk Russia of all their oil on the low.

Not just China but India will also purchase oil from Russia [1]. Billions of dollars more than any European nation at discounted rates. And with population of India and China, and demand for rising energy requirements, I don't see Russia being inconvenienced by these Sanctions in the long term.

The West is overestimating the impact of Sanctions on Russia. All it did was cut off Russia from the West and make it a pariah in the West. You haven't considered Africa and Asia in this mix at all and that will be the decisive factor that rescues Russia. Even Putin knows this.

The biggest mistake West is doing is undermining its adversaries. Especially Putin (calling him a madman, that he is suffering from cancer or long covid and what not — i heard this crap before with Saddam Hussein — who was supposedly diagnosed with lymph cancer LMAO). It is not the first time and it won't be the last time that the West is trying these tactics.

[1]: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/russia-offers-more-oi...

I havent lost my appetite for debate I have lost my appetite for Russian propaganda on social media

Aye, innit the truth.

2 months ago no one was talking about NATO & Libya. Now it's everywhere, a deliberate propaganda push.

Rumor has it Putin is obsessed with Quaddafi due to how quickly he was overthrown, and this push makes me think those rumors are correct. Long serving dictators sitting on an ever-growing pile of resentment, fear of overthrow, etc.

> I am not concern-trolling.

Don't take it personally. Most HN readers take their marching orders from NPR, CNN, BBC, r/poltics, etc.

Engineers are notorious for their Gel-Mann amnesia and assume that the same Western propaganda arms that get computer security, cryptography, venture capital, genomics, spaceflight, battery chemistry, and software development so catastrophically wrong happen to be paragons of unassailable truth when reporting on the actions and motivations of nations and leaders that coincidentally happen to be potential threats to FVEY power.

Offering a slightly different analysis or opinion than the lockstep talking points provided by the FVEY-aligned "free" press is, by default, going to be construed as trolling or foreign influence, at best.

Just speak your truth, accept the downvotes, and be happy with the gnashing of teeth.

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am actually positively surprised that I wasn't downvoted to oblivion and most of the commenters engaged without considering it as "Russian Propaganda" or "Troll" (some of them did but I expected the reaction to be much worse — hence the surprise).

I really hope one day we all can discuss critical issues without attaching labels to each other. Attaching labels requires no real effort.

> Just speak your truth, accept the downvotes, and be happy with the gnashing of teeth.

I agree wholeheartedly. I just can't stand bullshit being propagated as "Truth" and suppressing of counter-narratives. Especially when things are bereft of facts/logic/common sense. One commenter was arguing that it is justified to invade Libya, Iraq, Syria etc because they are not Sovereign States because they are Dictatorships. Such dangerous, illogical points have to be countered. Many don't even know the definition of "State Sovereignty" and confuse it with "Individual Sovereignty".

Russia's GDP is something like 4% of the EU GDP. Everybody will get hurt from these sanctions but Russia will get hurt about 20 times more than the EU on average. Some EU countries will have bigger impact than others but they may get help from the EU, so it can be mitigated to some extent.

Russia will try to find a way around these sanctions generally but it will be less efficient. It is not that easy to substitute everything. Russians may not care about latest brand items but domestic substitutions will not be always of good quality or functionality. It wasn't during Soviet Union and depending how long these sanctions last, it will gradually impact Russia.

Some think that sanctions will be gradually weakened. I think it will be the opposite. The war is just started and as Ukraine will suffer more and more casualties, countries will make sanctions even stronger. It is surprising that the reaction was so severe in this short time. Usually it requires longer time to agree on things and it is expected that more sanctions will follow.

I am very sorry for all my Russians friends who now will have to suffer. It is not an easy situation to deal and no way out.

> Russia will try to find a way around these sanctions generally but it will be less efficient. It is not that easy to substitute everything. Russians may not care about latest brand items but domestic substitutions will not be always of good quality or functionality. It wasn't during Soviet Union and depending how long these sanctions last, it will gradually impact Russia.

You are forgetting China here. 70% of mobile phone market in India is dominated by Chinese phones which are honestly far more feature packed than the latest iPhone. Of course one does not have any idea about privacy/security aspects of it. Will definitely not be as secure as an iPhone. But for a regular user, does this actually matter? Especially in developing countries? More so in Russia?

When Soviet Union collapsed, China's GDP was slightly higher than India's GDP. It wasn't yet the manufacturing base and supply chain of the World. The West propped China up for 3 decades. Now Russia/Russians won't miss out much to be honest with you. There are alternatives for everything Western and then some.

> countries will make sanctions even stronger

In what way? The sanctions are already the strongest. There is nothing more "stronger" that can be done now. What can be "stronger" than cutting off financial telecommunications (through SWIFT)? Cutting off oil? That can be easily re-routed to India and China. India and China will love discounted Russian oil.

I think the West is overestimating the impact of Sanctions.

It is not the phones that have value today but apps. Also IT brain drain is already happening.

Yes, there will be an option to use cracked software etc. Not a good substitute when you cannot get proper support, localization etc.

Russian supremacists will view this even as a victory, no more degrading western influence. Most people, however, will have a different opinion even if not allowed to state it openly. They simply will not be happy about their limited choices.

The second part – Europe is seriously thinking about divesting from gas and oil and Germany may keep old nuclear plants running. There is space for more sanctions.

Sales of Chinese phones in Russia already dropped by half.

Also, generally speaking: Russia isn’t a partner for China; they just happened to have some common interests. China simply buy out Russia for peanuts, they are already buying Russian oil at price lower than it costs Russia to extract it. China won’t put their sales to the West at risk, Russian market isn’t worth it.

If sanctions are not effective enough, refugee visas to valuable Russian citizens are likely to be the cherry on top. Finish draining the country of its future economic productivity, leave the scraps for Putin. And frankly, those workers deserve better than what Russia offers. Pair that strategy with rapid transitions off of fossil fuels by the US and Europe.

Phones are by far the least concerning issue for Russians. Every major semiconductor foundries have stopped supplying Russia, setting them back decades technologically. Supply chains will be hit hard, especially since no one had the time and information to prepare and make some stocks for the transition.

The risk for financial collapse is definitely >0, especially since 2/3 of Russia reserve is frozen abroad and unavailable to keep the banks afloat in case of a crisis.

Oil and gas exports have slowed down a lot too, so few foreign currencies are coming in.

China will need to play it finely to stay out of trouble with the west (which is a way bigger market for them). If they do business, I see them keeping every chain of production in their country and selling only end products, which mean a massive brain drain and the loss of cutting-edge industries for Russia.

I don't have a lot of experience on this topic but to me, it looks like a hard blow on short, medium, and long term with a high risk of an economic collapse.

Honestly I’m skeptical of this narrative about Russia you’re trying to provide here. I think any reasonable person would agree that having China as an ally is at best a 50/50 beneficial experience… Remember, China is trying to do exactly what Russia is only dreaming of, attaining an economic/military ascendency like the US has. China will take from Russia what it wants and then do what it will. Also, these conversations ignore a few other key facts that totally screw Russia: Brain drain, military morale/the government after this is “over”, the total free fall the economy is currently in(which you appear to believe will go away “once the dust has settled”…) If I were a betting man I wouldn’t be investing in Russia right now, the domestic situation is way too unpredictable with the war going on to be certain an investment in Russia today is totally lost to a revolution in a month or two.

How many times has a reigning autocrat in Russia been severely hobbled, discredited, or ultimately killed because of a terrible military loss that the public was sold on as an easy win?

The most interesting thing about Russia economically, in terms of settling dust, is that Putin has been revealed to be weak and very incompetent. The native mythology and position of Putin is based heavily on strength projection, and now the world is seeing that his military is a joke compared to what it was thought to be. Putin's power is heavily derived from the belief that Russia had a very potent military. Important figures (important to Putin's reign) in their domestic audience are also seeing their weakness on display. The facade was agreed upon (don't talk about the reality of the situation, everyone pretend Russia is strong), and now their context is revealed to be fragile. The reality of their military power debases Putin's image, his own mythology, his own power projection. The worst damage to Russia isn't the economic sanctions, it's the revealing of its decrepitness and national weakness; it's revealing that the tsar has no clothes (as is so often the case).

Putin will have to kill a lot of people in Russia and clamp down massively, extremely violently, to continue holding power over the next decade. It'll only further crush Russia. He didn't have to do that to the extent that people believed he was a competent autocrat, with a hyper powerful military at his behest. Now he'll have to compensate for the loss of that image (an image which was preventing some inevitable challenge to his authority), with raw brutality.

The sharks will begin circling around Russia and Putin's weakness. The thing to be revealed yet is what exactly that's going to look like, what form that will take (for example, China being emboldened to put the squeeze on Russia to its own benefit (whether in trade or otherwise), knowing how weak Russia really is).

I appreciate what youre saying, but youre eliding so many important details I have to believe you are dishonestly bolstering the truthyness of your implications (That the us/nato/eu/un are just as bad as warmongering russia). I’m down to give you the benefit of the doubt, but for example- Nato did not invade Libya, the UNSC enforced a resolution. These distinctions are incredibly important. Literally what is supposed to happen, did happen in the case of Libya. You are making terribly false equivalences, which even if done in ignorance still rise, imo, to intentional dishonesty.

> Nato did not invade Libya

This is not true at all. NATO did invade Libya on 31st March 2011. The UNSC resolution enforced a no-fly zone. It did not order a NATO invasion. Please read the resolution again (UNSC 1973). NATO flew 26,500 sorties. NATO invasion ended on 31st October 2011. Article 5 wasn't invoked either (the only time it was invoked was when 9/11 happened). So there was no need for NATO to intervene. But it still did.

Even the no-fly zone was farcical. It was meant to protect civilians. General Carter Ham (Head of US Africa Command) said that he was unable to differentiate between civilians/rebels/Gaddafi forces etc [1]. It was up to the pilot to take a call on whether he wants to bomb or not. This was reported in April of 2011 as well where NATO planes erroneously bombed row of tanks that belong to the rebels [2] clearly violating UNSC resolution of protecting "civilians".

In fact, the Indian and Brazilian representatives made the same point, when the UNSC 1973 was tabled, that the resolution was too vague and poorly drafted. That is why both countries abstained from voting for the intervention in Libya.

[1]: https://www.wired.com/2011/03/u-s-general-we-wont-help-libya...

[2]: https://www.france24.com/en/20110408-doubt-over-nato-militar...

I am sure everyone is learning from walled gardens.

Sure, there will be some impact of sanctions. But note that wealthy individuals will find a way.

EU or US is never going to ban UAE, Saudi Arabia or India from they list for trading with Russia. Note that Iran has been successfully exporting gas to India by opening accounts with state banks in India.

These are complex issues.

All these headlines in the West for PR and public consumption. Eventually, the average Western European is more bothered about their jobs. Sure they happily opened borders, but wait a month or two. One these Ukrainians apply for jobs the locals get annoyed. Example: In Germany, Syrians were welcomed with open arms, then eventually the tabloid news turned around once they settled.

Note that the average Russian (or Chinese or Indian) is poor. They do not care about what people in Western Europe think. They do business to better themselves (just like average American that helps quell uprising in UAE by developing software or working for NSO).

This elides so many significant differences I am not surprised you created a throwaway account.

NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus.

It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face.

One of these actions was a failed multi-state peacekeeping effort. The other is plainly imperial ambition dressed up with lies even told to the Russian people, who are not free to disagree with it.

> NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus.

Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit. You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period. No "consensus" can justify the invasion. You just don't invade. If the Government calls for help, then and only then you have a right to go help. If it is a Civil War, you let the people decide. You do not interfere. This is the rules-based order that the West keeps thrusting on everyone else. But the West doesn't follow itself. Hypocritical.

Which is what empowers deviants like Putin to do what he is doing. The West has set precedent for it through "consensus" and "justifications". Putin is also giving his "justifications". This nonsense has to stop. Respect territorial sovereignty. No matter how ugly the situation is in a country that is NOT YOURS, you plainly, simply, do not INVADE IT. Unless the Country itself has threatened you.

> It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face.

Even though I am against Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he also has a "justification" like the West does (for its invasions of 84 countries). NATO has expanded 5 times to the East and now borders Russia. Placed its nukes, ballistic missiles on all the member states. All pointing at Russia 24/7. Now you are telling me that Putin has "no good intent"? Is this not good enough intent? Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis? Isn't it hypocritical that the West did not want Soviet nukes in Cuba but is actively placing nukes in NATO member states and bringing NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders?

Did the West not promise Russia that it won't expand NATO after fall of Soviet Union? Professor Trachtenberg unearthed declassified documents from British National Archives which reveals that such promises were indeed made [1]. The actual archived declassified document [2].

[1]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1...

[2]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1...

So many Western scholars, politicians, diplomats have, for the past 30 years, repeatedly warned the West of not expanding NATO. That it will antagonize Russia. The flashpoint will be in Ukraine. Not to risk poking the bear. Yet the West did not care for the viewpoints of these experts. All of them have now turned out to be right.

Now you are telling me that the West follows "rules-based order" and is morally better than Putin. Yet the West unilaterally breaks treaties: Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty to Treaty on Open Skies and faces no repercussions or sanctions?

When China conducted Nuclear tests in 1990s the West did not sanction China. But when India conducted reciprocal Nuclear tests as a response to Chinese Nuclear tests, India was sanctioned by the West. Do you still not see the hypocrisy here?

I can keep giving umpteen examples of flagrant International Law violations by the West. Yet somehow it is morally superior compared to other countries that also break the same laws.

> Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit.

If you're this sure, why not use your main account?

Or are you using that for the downvotes? :-)

> If you're this sure, why not use your main account?

Maybe they don't want to get cancelled i.e. sanctioned?

For what? Calling the West hypocritical? That's not even controversial on Hacker News.

It’s the quickest way to get downvoted on Hacker News.

It's not the quickest way.

The quickest way is to make a joke and not provide references for the punchline in advance.

> Even though I am against Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he also has a "justification" like the West does (for its invasions of 84 countries). NATO has expanded 5 times to the East and now borders Russia. Placed its nukes, ballistic missiles on all the member states. All pointing at Russia 24/7.

Maybe Putin should have formed a defensive organization like NATO to give it some padding, instead of trying to take over.

> Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis?

Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis looked anything like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now?

> Maybe Putin should have formed a defensive organization like NATO to give it some padding, instead of trying to take over.

Like Soviet Union all over again? Not again. Why not just stay in your own borders and not try to place nukes in other countries for starters? That is far more easier right? Just respect each others sovereignty and not threaten a country by pointing nukes at it 24/7? That would be a good place to start!

> Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis looked anything like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now?

We almost faced Nuclear Armageddon. So it was far worse. Right now, the situation is lopsided with Russia having clear dominance over Ukraine when it comes to nukes. Cuban Missile Crisis was even worse as it was two nuclear powers facing off. Check out "Black Saturday". US Navy dropped "signaling" depth charges on Soviet B-59 (which was a nuclear submarine). The captain of the submarine thought the War started and wanted to launch a nuke. It was averted thanks to a Commander who was onboard. If not for the Commander, it would have lead to end of the World as both countries would have launched counter nukes.

> Why not just stay in your own borders and not try to place nukes in other countries for starters?

I think that's a really great question that a lot of people want to ask Putin.

> I think that's a really great question that a lot of people want to ask Putin.

But not ask NATO? You don't see the hypocrisy here? Both Putin and NATO are wrong.

Why is it so hard to just admit faults?

They’re both wrong, absolutely, but only one of them is actively invading another country and killing civilians. So only one of those questions is particular relevant right now.

I like how you simultaneously blame NATO for ot attacking every single dictator and for attacking some.

All those countries wanted to be in NATO. Some of them explicitly to be protected from Russia. They are proven right now in Ukraine, non NATO states are sitting ducks for Russian aggression.

> Yet somehow it is morally superior compared to other countries that also break the same laws.

That's because it actually is.

> NATO has expanded 5 times to the East and now borders Russia. Placed its nukes, ballistic missiles on all the member states. All pointing at Russia 24/7. Now you are telling me that Putin has "no good intent"? Is this not good enough intent?

They're sovereign countries aren't they? Should NATO have invaded Belarus for signing on with Russia in an alliance?

"You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period."

Why do you think those missiles are aimed at Russia? I'll give you a hint: it's because it's a country run by mobsters and thieves who are pillaging their people and holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons. Nobody would be pointing anything at them if, ya know, they at least tried to be a democracy and respect human rights. All of this is self-inflicted.

> Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis? Isn't it hypocritical that the West did not want Soviet nukes in Cuba but is actively placing nukes in NATO member states and bringing NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders?

How many years ago was the Cuban Missile Crisis? Are the same people in power? Are they even alive? Does the Soviet Union even exist? People keep bringing that up like it's somehow relevant to anything. It's not. Whatsoever.

> So many Western scholars, politicians, diplomats have, for the past 30 years, repeatedly warned the West of not expanding NATO. That it will antagonize Russia. The flashpoint will be in Ukraine. Not to risk poking the bear. Yet the West did not care for the viewpoints of these experts. All of them have now turned out to be right.

You want your rules-based order, but then you want might-makes-right too? In an international rules-based order, Ukraine is a sovereign territory that is free to choose how it conducts its international affairs which includes potentially joining organizations like the European Union and/or NATO. What "risk" is there in "provoking the bear - more like a teddy bear"? Oh that's right, because you use rules-based order when it fits your narrative, and might-makes-right when it fits your narrative. So which is it? Does little ole' Russia respect the rules-based order or not? Notice how all of these former Soviet Union countries are rejecting Russia? I wonder why that is. If Russia is so nice and peaceful why don't they ally with Russia? Build strong relations? That's a rhetorical question.

> Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit. You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period. No "consensus" can justify the invasion. You just don't invade. If the Government calls for help, then and only then you have a right to go help. If it is a Civil War, you let the people decide. You do not interfere. This is the rules-based order that the West keeps thrusting on everyone else. But the West doesn't follow itself. Hypocritical.

I don't think that's a good summary of the rules.

It's permissable to invade soverign states for lots of reasons.

a) if the UN Security Council says it's ok, it's ok

b) if there's a real civil war or genocide going on, it's usually fine to invade to 'keep the peace', and the occupiers often get to choose who gets to control after. You're supposed to ask the UN Security Council, and it's nice to wear the UN uniforms, but whatevs.

c) if the soverign nation is invading others without Security Council approval, it's fair game to be invaded; but caution is advised, because it could trigger a larger conflict. Again, it's best to get Security Council approval, but not really needed. Regular border skirmishes don't count; has to be a real invasion to trigger a responsive invasion, not just planting a flag on an island or fifty feet from the consensus border.

d) It's always permissable to provide advice and training to armed guerrilas (or the current government); and to arm them if necessary. If neccesarry, you can do d, until it triggers the conditions for b, and it's permissable.

None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

The only time it is "permissible" is when you have been directly attacked by a Country or you have actionable intelligence that your Country will be threatened.

Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

I really feel we need to respect the territorial boundaries of all countries. Doesn't matter if it is Russia, China, India, USA or any European country. Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.

But as you pointed out, every major power, including the UNSC, has violated territorial integrity of various countries on frivolous grounds. I guess it ultimately boils down to human nature: to break and twist rules and definitions to justify invasions/genocide/terrorism etc. The hypocrisy is only when one side is whitewashed while other side is castigated. Depending on which camp you are, you are either declared a Hero or a Villain. But at the end of the day, both sides are doing the same thing: Killing human beings, destroying the environment and causing untold suffering of millions of living creatures.

> None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

Article 1, section 1 is

> To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

Which to me seems to suggest consensus measures to 'remove threats to the peace' and 'suppression of acts of aggression', or in other words, if the UN Security Council says it's cool, it's cool.

If you read further, article 42 explicitly authorizes use of force as may be necessary:

> Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

> Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

Yeah, but good luck codifying anything of that nature. You can take an absolutist stance and say even in such times, the territorial integrity is paramount. Or you could say, you can only violate territorial integrity if you're invited in --- but then it becomes a question of who is qualified to invite. Should a genocide be permitted because it's done by the lawful government of the territory? (I mean, sometimes they are; I'm not arguing that past history of intervention or non-intervention was perfect or even good, just that it followed something like rules)

That's why it's best if you can get UNSC sign off on invasions, because then it's clear it was permissible. But, if you go in, claiming it's justified and the world community disagrees with you, they can go to the UNSC to repremand you (unless you're one of the permanent members, in which case you're beyond reproof, whoops).

yes multi party from within nato. It was not justa peace keeping mission, they literally provided air support for the rebels (who I supported, but let's not lie to ourselves). Btw, "good intentions" is a laughable concept in international relations and it's always always the excuse for invasions. You will obviously find good intentions in the side you support, and bad intentions from the side you are against. Especially when you consider the extremely shady relationship between Sarkozy and Gaddafi at the time, which could've been the reason why France actually pushed for intervening in Libya against the dictator. It was a major scandal in france and got Sarkozy sentenced to jail just a couple of years ago

The reality is that on the ground, Libya is now doing a lot worse than a decade ago and no matter how you twist it and justify it, it was due to a European led and American supported aggression. Europe has an extremely neocolonial attitude towards Africa, and it's just seen like their rightful little backyard that they can do whatever with, too bad if what they did led to slave markets or whatever. Just like russia sees ukraine. It's okay to focus on the current invasion, but that does not mean it's okay to turn into neocolonial apologia just to try and discredit the russians even more.

I disagree with you almost completely, but you don't deserve downvoting, not least because you're not the throwaway account in this discussion.

I really don't mind it no worries. I realized that it could come off as pro russian or whatever as I was writing the comment. But just to clarify: what I said does not justify in any way the russian invasion. You can be both against what's happening now and what happened in 2011, and I get that what's happening now is more relevant. My comment was just on the merits of the Libyan war specifically.

I appreciate your comment though and I totally get that it's not as simple as the evil American imperialists doing bad things first. If anything, I'm looking into moving south, to the US! But me being middle eastern makes it hard to not have strong opinion on the politics of the region haha.

Are you Libyan? I have never heard the views of someone who is inside the country about the "Arab spring" (as we called it) and the UN's intervention.

I understand that Gaddafi was a bad dictator unless you were in his chosen group. Is life for the average Libyan now better and less fearful than when he was dictator?

I'm moroccan but I'm very active in the Muslim community so I have a few Libyan friends. From what I gathered, their opinion is usually a mix of yearning for the "good old days" when the Libyan state was somewhat functional and the standards of of living were actually pretty high for the region... but also a deep hatred for ghaddafi too. They don't miss him or think he was a good leader, they just miss a functional state that wasn't ruled by warlords. That nostalgic feeling is pretty universal too. The corruption was centralized so much easier to deal with and much more predictable. Those I know who still live in Libya are not doing too badly, but their quality of life has taken a nosedive and everything is more uncertain.

They don't (usually) blame nato or have a deep resentment towards the intervention, but there's the impression that they have been played and used like pawns. So the very cynical view is that getting rid of ghaddafi was the goal, not helping the Libyan people at all. A cynical outlook at geopolitics is almost universal in the middle east though. But it's very far from the total hatred some felt towards America after the iraqi invasion.

I guess the insane politics around the current libyan civil war that's happening there right now doesn't exactly disprove that impression.

This was useful and informative.

I will say for sure that almost nobody in the UK understands how badly we screwed up, unless they are from a military background, particularly anti-Boris-Johnson, or, weirdly, fans of the band, Fat White Family, who got into a kind of "de-platforming" trouble for daring to point out Boris's callous indifference to our failures.

> So the very cynical view is that getting rid of ghaddafi was the goal, not helping the Libyan people at all.

I don't know how cynical that is, to be fair. I think there was some adventurism from NATO for sure -- a well-intentioned belief that NATO was helping Libyans to get rid of Gaddafi, to mutual self-defence benefit. (Which they ultimately did; his death being the form of departure Putin apparently most fears.)

Like I say -- it was disastrous and I don't think we talk enough about how disastrous.

Thank you, that was a really helpful insight into how Libyans feel and I appreciate you taking the time to share it.

If you can find a copy of "Hard Choices: The Making and Unmaking of Global Britain" by Peter Ricketts (ISBN-10: 1838951830, ISBN-13: 978-1838951832) you may find the contents relating to Libya of interest. Peter Ricketts was the UK's National Security Advisor at the time and is not complementary about the decisions the UK made and how the UK and other nations treated Libya. I finished reading it shortly before I read your comment, and it prompted my question.

> Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting.

Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine.

People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.

> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine.

Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf?

Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause.

> People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.

Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.

Libya wasn't a sovereign state. There's no such thing as a legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign.

Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves. Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship.

Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.

Is Saudi Arabia a sovereign state? Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.

Saudi Arabia, as with Iran, is a theocracy that also enslaves its population. Saudi Arabia merely throws in a ruling family aspect to it.

No, Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign state. Its people are not remotely close to being free, they are de facto slaves of the House of Saud.

You seem to have missed a critical point. Free countries do not have a moral imperative to invade and free enslaved nations, they have a moral right to do so, at their choosing (insofar as it aligns with their national self-interest for example).

> Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.

Did you really think my answer would change because of US support or lack thereof as it pertains to a given dictatorship? I'm not in Russia, in the US I'm free to say what I actually believe about my own country, good or bad. I have no problem calling the US out for its negatives, most people are familiar with such already anyway.

The US also made a pact with the devil in its alliance with Soviet Russia during WW2. Historically the US has held alliances with vile regimes from time to time for strategic reasons.

Here are some of the primary US allies: Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia, Poland, Portugal Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel. And you can probably realistically add Finland and Sweden to the list.

Just a large collection of the free, affluent nations of the world.

Now show me Russia's allies. Then let's compare the levels of corruption and the style of government of each nation's allies.

What do you suppose that says about the US and Russia? It's obvious and everyone - without exception - understands exactly what it says. It says the same thing it said 35, 50, 70 years ago: Russia is still on the wrong side of history.

> Libya wasn't a sovereign state

It was and still is a Sovereign State. Except now it is a failed State thanks to Western invasion. I don't know where you get your definition of "Sovereign State" from but in the dictionary it has a clear definition: "a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power."

Merriam Webster: "Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority".

It doesn't talk about "Democracy" anywhere. Nor does it state that the State is Sovereign only when it is by the people.

> legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign.

Bullshit.

> Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves

Bullshit again.

> Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship.

More bullshit.

"Sovereign State" has nothing to do with political nature/structure of the State: it can be a Democracy, Dictatorship, Religious State (like Vatican or Islamic countries) or anything it wishes to be. You, me or anyone else in the World have no moral standing to bomb it to oblivion and destroy it. Period. It is for the people to decide. If they want to overthrow the Dictatorship it is their Right to do it. They can do it. There was already a Civil War in Libya to oust Gaddafi. The people would have decided to bring down Gaddafi on their own. There was no need for Western invasion of Libya. The Western invasion was for nefarious purposes. But I'll be digressing.

Also, if Libya wasn't a "Sovereign State" it wouldn't even be a member of the United Nations.

Do you mean to say you have every right to invade most Islamic Nations because they aren't democracies? What about the Vatican? You feel you should invade it and "free" the people because it is not a Democracy? It is a Theocracy and a Dictatorship too.

> Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.

Russia is wrong too. Not going to defend Russia here. No country has any moral standing to invade another country unless the Government in power, in that country, asks for help or the country attacked your country.

Anyways, even if I go by your definition of it being a "moral right" to invade a Dictatorship and "free the slaves", even in that mission the West failed miserably. The West replaced Dictator Gaddafi in Libya with Islamic Terror groups/warlords + Slave markets. The West replaced Dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq with ISIS + Slave markets. Demolished all Civilization and turned them into literal ghost towns. The West invaded Afghanistan to catch Osama Bin Laden and get rid of Taliban, demolished everything, rebuilt everything, and when we were all going to exclaim that finally one US intervention led to peaceful Afghanistan with Democracy, the US left, without cleaning out the Taliban, with Taliban taking over the Country + 85 billion dollars worth of advanced weapon systems.

So even by your own definition of establishing a "Sovereign Nation", the West failed in achieving its objectives.

> Merriam Webster: "Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority".

You just acknowledged I'm right in quoting that. You're admitting that Libya didn't meet the definition of a sovereign state. The people of Libya did not have power over themselves (the people of Libya were not sovereign over themselves, their own being, as such they could not be nationally sovereign as a people); their government was not under their control - they were hostages or slaves of a regime, stripped of most human rights.

A sovereign nation of slaves is a contradiction in terms.

The moral basis for stepping in, is identical to if you witness a weak person being pummelled on the street by a stronger person. You have a moral right to step in and end the attack if you so chose (and again, if you can and if it makes sense in terms of self-interest). Nations are a collection of people, in the case of Libya (or Iraq) it was a collection of weaker people temporarily being tortured by a stronger bully.

One of your bizarre, rambling non-counters is that Libya didn't end up as a bastion of freedom as a consequence of Gaddafi being removed. That doesn't alter anything about the fact that free nations had a moral right to step in and attempt to dislodge Gaddafi's regime from enslaving the population. The success or failure of the attempt doesn't change the moral basis for the action. If the allies had lost in WW2 to the axis powers, that wouldn't have made their effort immoral; the free allies still had every moral right to invade France, invade numerous other European nations, invade Germany, and end Nazi Germany and free as many nations as they could from occupation.

The moral basis to invade Libya is identical to the moral basis for invading Nazi Germany (even if invading Nazi Germany obviously had a far greater national self-interest for the allies). Any free nation had a moral right to do so. Russia, being a non-free nation, did not have a moral right to invade Germany (and of course the resulting outcome of that non-free nation invading, is that Soviet Russia did nothing more than enslave part of Europe that it invaded, taking over the role of Nazi Germany as conquerer of part of Europe).

> Bullshit.

> Bullshit again.

> More bullshit.

Judging from your reply comment and your other responses in the thread, it's pretty clear why you had to set up a throw-away account.

> The people of Libya did not have power over themselves

Read the definition again. Then again. Then one more time. The definition states: "their government is under their own control". "Their" here means the State. Not the people. When India was a Colony of British Empire, India was not a Sovereign State. As Indian Government was under the control of the British Empire. Not under the control of India. Here "their" does not mean the "people". Which is why you have two definitions: "State Sovereignty" and "Individual Sovereignty".

In Dictatorships, the State Sovereignty is embodied into the Dictator. However, the State Sovereignty still exists. It is the Individual Sovereignty that is abolished. Please understand the distinction between the two things.

> A sovereign nation of slaves is a contradiction in terms.

It is not. A Sovereign Nation of Slaves is: A Sovereign Nation of people who have no Individual Sovereignty. The Nation dictates to the Individual. The Nation by itself is Independent and All Powerful and is not a vassal state or a Colony of another Nation. Which is why in a Dictatorship, the Nation is still Sovereign (as it hasn't been Colonized by any other Nation), but the Individuals within the Nation do not enjoy Sovereignty. This distinction is extremely important.

Anyways, your argument falls flat because United Nations only inducts Sovereign Nations as Members. When ROC lost to CCP, UN recognized CCP and de-recognized ROC. Which is why Taiwan is not a member of UN. Do you understand the definition of a Sovereign State now at least?

> You have a moral right to step in and end the attack if you so chose (and again, if you can and if it makes sense in terms of self-interest).

You have that right because you were given that right by your Government. There are laws that govern self-defense, humanitarian help etc. You are protected by the Government in these instances.

> Nations are a collection of people, in the case of Libya (or Iraq) it was a collection of weaker people temporarily being tortured by a stronger bully.

No laws exist on how to deal with Nations that turn against their own people. Simply because if such laws exist, it should be framed by UN and it should be accepted by all member states. But no member state would want to be Governed by a Supranational body. Which is why the intervention in Libya/Syrian Civil Wars etc were violation of State Sovereignty. No doubts about that.

> One of your bizarre, rambling non-counters is that Libya didn't end up as a bastion of freedom as a consequence of Gaddafi being removed

How is it a non-counter? LMAO. You were the one who said that the invasion is justified as it was to re-establish Sovereignty as per your definition of the word. That failed miserably. Today Libya is in utter chaos.

> the free allies still had every moral right to invade France, invade numerous other European nations, invade Germany, and end Nazi Germany and free as many nations as they could from occupation.

They had the right because Germany invaded first. In the case of Libya, Libya did not invade anyone. It was an internal Civil War that was anyways going to end in the ouster of Gaddafi. There was literally no reason for invasion of Libya apart from stealing oil and gold reserves. So no: there was no justification for the invasion. Gaddafi regime would have collapsed anyways.

> The moral basis to invade Libya is identical to the moral basis for invading Nazi Germany (even if invading Nazi Germany obviously had a far greater national self-interest for the allies).

Bullshit. Not at all identical. Nazi Germany invaded neighboring countries. That is why invading Nazi Germany was justified. Libya did not invade any country. It is not at all identical.

> Russia, being a non-free nation, did not have a moral right to invade Germany (and of course the resulting outcome of that non-free nation invading, is that Soviet Russia did nothing more than enslave part of Europe that it invaded, taking over the role of Nazi Germany as conquerer of part of Europe).

Again bullshit. Bereft of facts. Read up on Operation Barbossa. Soviet Union invaded Germany because Germany first invaded Russia.

> Judging from your reply comment and your other responses in the thread, it's pretty clear why you had to set up a throw-away account.

Thank God I did. Just look at your replies. You did not even know that Soviet Union was invaded by Germany. You equated Nazi Germany with Libya. Are you crazy?

>Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine.

However you frame it, Libya was still destroyed by the NATO intervention on the side of the rebels and it is now a failed state. As Hillary said, "We came, we saw, he died".

It's pretty clear why Putin was incandescent with rage over it.

Putin now thinks (with some justification) that this is a template for Russia. As he eyes up tiny independence movements he has to wonder if they'll suddenly grow into NATO backed rebels with major firepower.

In all likelihood the Ukrainian invasion wouldnt have happened without Libya.

> Putin now thinks (with some justification) that this is a template for Russia. As he eyes up tiny independence movements he has to wonder if they'll suddenly grow into NATO backed rebels with major firepower.

World powers backing separatist groups with funding has a much, much older history that Libya in 2011. Heck, Russia is currently funding several.

Of course it does. It was a mainstay of the British Empire. America does it all over. Russia does it too, of course. NATO doing it isnt special.

However, by doing it they do automatically become a hostile, aggressive alliance rather than a defensive alliance and that makes them a potential threat.

It's the combination of Ukraine's ultra-strategic location (for threatening russia) and the threat of joining a hostile military alliance that provoked such a violent response from Putin.

The response from Putin is because the window to conquer Ukraine and force it back under the control of the Russian Empire that Putin dreams of, was closing. He knew that if Ukraine got too built-up militarily, or got too close to NATO, his opportunity would vanish. He similarly dreams of reclaiming Belarus formally. Putin hasn't been shy about any of this, he openly admits the lust for conquering former USSR territory and rebuilding the empire.

Putin lied and claimed a big part of the core issue is not wanting NATO's borders moving any closer. So he attempts to annex Ukraine into the empire and move borders closer to NATO. Obvious lies are obvious.

Putin bombed hospital and civilians in multiple states already. He is not in rage from other countries being destroyed. He don't mind it and happily contributes.

> They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting.

I'm not going to refute this, because I believe you're essentially correct.

But let's not pretend that it's a direct comparison. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator whose regime tortured, raped, and murdered Libyans with impunity. He, his sons, and his close circle were sadistic psychopaths. He also directly supported, sponsored, and tolerated terrorism which reached out beyond his own borders and killed civilians from other countries. The Gaddafi regime was a menace not only to Libyans but to rest of the world as well. I still believe removing him from power was a net benefit to the world. And it was Libyans who lynched him (not surprising given what he had done to them), not NATO forces.

I think it's fair to draw parallels in the abstract between these two scenarios, but they are not the same.

One might say the same for Ukraine. Nazi Azov Battalion was the main attacker of Donbas, Nazi structures are definitely embedded into Ukrainian state.

It’s just a prism you look through.

Was Pinochet a good guy? Was attack on Cuba justified? Vietnam, Korea etc? They’re always good vs bad? Life is not Holywood.

> One might say the same for Ukraine. Nazi Azov Battalion was the main attacker of Donbas, Nazi structures are definitely embedded into Ukrainian state.

One might say the same. Do you? I don't.

International relations does not differentiate between Ukraine and Libya in terms of sovereignty. To deny one is to deny the other as both are internationally recognized states.

Who denied Libya sovereignty?

Maybe I'm missing some information, but I don't recall any NATO member ever stating that Libya shouldn't exist, or anything like that.

There are only the rules we choose.

I'm not saying they are different according to the conventions of international relations. I'm saying that ethically speaking, I think they are different.

The big difference is that Ukraine is a democracy run by the people. Gaddafi's Libya was a dictatorship.

I am not defending Gaddafi. He was a brutal dictator. No doubt about it. I am just exposing hypocrisy of the "Free World" which I am a part of as well. I am just saying that there was already a Civil War being waged within Libya to oust Gaddafi. He would have been ousted anyways by the people. There was no need to do an invasion, by breaking all rules.

Ultimately, in the International Arena, Countries represent themselves. It doesn't matter if they are Dictatorships, Theocracies, Democracies etc. The nature of a Country is not important at all. All Countries adhere to a set of International Standards/Conventions/Charters. The "Free-World" wants to differentiate itself from the rest by "claiming" that it follows the rules. Yet, the facts state otherwise. 84 countries were invaded by the "Free-World". 84 out of 193 countries. USA has fought with 43% of the World. This is just too many countries to even consider it as an exception.

You can give a lot of justifications for why each invasion took place (you can even justify invading the 11th smallest country in the World: Grenada) but then you shouldn't frown when Putin gives his justifications too. I am just showing the mirror to the "Free-World" and hoping it starts to act on TRULY differentiating itself from the Totalitarian dictatorships. To show that it TRULY follows the rules. Just saying it "follows the rules" won't cut it anymore in this day and age.

You're absolutely correct it is hypocritical. I can't in good faith argue it isn't. But I still think opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the right thing to do. I'll take hypocrisy over doing nothing in this case.

I certainly hear what you are saying. You are correct there is a free world and there's a totalitarian world. What is sad is that the people in the totalitarian world don't know what they are missing

Rather, do you in the free World see what is being shown to you in the free World as the Truth? Are you 100% sure that you aren't being shown a filtered version of what is actually happening? You just believe you are in a free World and that all actors are acting, not out of self interests, but for the greater good?

Don't forget that it is the "free World" which allowed Bay of Pigs, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Vietnam, invasion of Syria, invasion of Libya etc etc. 84 countries have been invaded by the so called "free World". Even Grenada wasn't spared (11th tiniest country in the World) with hardly any military. Bombed by USA. The Prime Minister of Grenada assassinated.

When you look at it, from this perspective, you begin to question who is the actual totalitarian here? How many countries have dictators invaded? We all talk about Mao killing millions in China. True. Not going to defend it. But do you question Churchill who deliberately, as a matter of written policy, caused the Bengal Famine which resulted in millions of Bengalis dying? When he was told that Bengalis are dying, Churchil asked "if Gandhi had died yet?". I don't see Churchil being compared to Hitler anywhere.

How about Regan? When the media questioned him about invasion of Grenada. That it was a flagrant violation of International Laws. That the UN General Assembly voted 108-9 against US invasion of Grenada. He famously said: "it didn't upset my breakfast at all".

So where is this "Free World"?

What use is a Democracy if you cannot stop an unjust War? What is the difference between your State and the so called "Totalitarian State"? Just that you can shout on the streets and register your protest? Is that the only difference? That won't get back millions of people who were killed by invasions from the so called "Free World".

I belong to this so called "Free World" too. Yet I won't shy away from admitting that we are bloody hypocrites. We preach to the World on morality but we have done the worst of the worst things known to mankind. So what moral standing do I have to say: "Russia bad"? Nothing at all. We have done even worse. History is a witness to it. We can't lie our way out of it.

Obvious Russian propaganda is obvious, but I will bite.

"what moral standing do I have to say: 'Russia bad'?"

A. Two things can be bad at the same time - Russia's unprovoked slaughter of the Ukrainian population is bad, and the US government fabricating reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 is also bad. I would not be surprised if a vast majority of people hated both Putin and Dubya for these wars of aggression.

B. Some atrocities are worse than others. Clusterbombing hospitals and nurseries on a nationwide scale in a war of aggression, or threatening to blow up nuclear power plants and release radiation in the same war are fairly high up that scale of atrocities.

> Are you 100% sure that you aren't being shown a filtered version of what is actually happening?

Of course we are, but I'm 100% sure I can be gay or go protest against my government without having to fear for my life or going to jail for months/years yeah. I can watch TV programs run by radical ecologists, far right or communist people. I can vote and elect people who are at least doing 25% of what they're supposed to do instead of having the same dude and his buddies running the country for their personal profit for 25 years straight

Russia or (current) Afghanistan aren't Hell on earth but if you think they're just as good as Germany you're lying to yourself more than your government is lying to you. The West is fucked up in many ways but the average westerner isn't as fucked as the average dude living under a "totalitarian" regime.

> What use is a Democracy if you cannot stop an unjust War? What is the difference between your State and the so called "Totalitarian State"?

Now I get why you created a throwaway... what's the difference between France and Afghanistan ? What's the difference between Germany and North Korea ? What's the difference between Switzerland and Saudi Arabia ?

> Yet I won't shy away from admitting that we are bloody hypocrites.

You shy away from admitting authoritarian states are a bad place to live in if you want to do anythign other than drinking the governmental kool aid and give up a lot of your personal liberties

> Now I get why you created a throwaway... what's the difference between France and Afghanistan ? What's the difference between Germany and North Korea ? What's the difference between Switzerland and Saudi Arabia ?

Were the French citizens able to stop France from invading Libya, Syria, Iraq even after knowing that the causes/reasons were wrong? No. So how do you call it a "Democracy"?

To answer your point directly: no country in the World is truly Democratic. Most of them have varying degrees of Authoritarianism built into their structures. Your "Democratic Rights" typically extend only to voting your representatives, free speech/expression and other fundamental rights. Beyond that, most of the State actually functions like an Authoritarian regime with wide powers to do whatever it wants to do for the most part. Even checks and balances are only effective if there is no nepotism/political affinity/lobbying etc. Which is why, even with widespread anti-War sentiment during the second Iraq War, the elected Governments did not care. Many still went ahead with the War. All based on lies that Saddam had WMDs.

> You shy away from admitting authoritarian states are a bad place to live in if you want to do anythign other than drinking the governmental kool aid and give up a lot of your personal liberties

Of course it is bad place to live. I don't even need to admit something that is so obvious. I am just saying that the "Free-World" is slightly better than the Authoritarian regimes. The "slightly better" aspect is fundamental rights and ability to vote. But what I find amusing is that everyone only harps on that as if it is the be all and end all. Fundamental rights are just a stepping stone. The rest of the structure is still Authoritarian and that needs to change. It cannot change if you keep comparing the Free World to Authoritarian regimes in only the good parts. Compare the bad parts too and see how much better/worse you are. That is the only way to improve existing structures. Even in the "Free World" you have maximum incarcerations (US tops the list surpassing China — not something to be proud of) with people being jailed for frivolous things.

Your "do nothing" / "everything is equivalent" sentiment is just a total abdication of thought and responsibility in my view.

You remind me of my graduate student instructor in college that called the film Casablanca imperialist propaganda because in her view that's what WWII was.

You and she are out there. That's fine. The rest of us must act.

he is trying to lull you into a feeling that you have no moral ground and you should just do nothing, because nothing matters and must let it all happen.

this is standard propaganda on social media

> he is trying to lull you into a feeling that you have no moral ground and you should just do nothing, because nothing matters and must let it all happen.

No I am not lulling him into anything. I am introspecting and speaking my mind. Not everything is propaganda. The time to do nothing should have been 30 years ago after the fall of Soviet Union. The time to do nothing was when multiple Western scholars, politicians and diplomats advised against NATO expansion to the East. That time is long gone. Ukraine is already invaded. Other non-NATO countries might be next (based on the outcome of this War). We are way past "propaganda influencing opinion" here. We are already at point of introspecting failures of the past.

> Rather, do you in the free World see what is being shown to you in the free World as the Truth? Are you 100% sure that you aren't being shown a filtered version of what is actually happening? You just believe you are in a free World and that all actors are acting, not out of self interests, but for the greater good?

100%? Of course not. But I'm 100% sure our media is less filtered than Russia's.

Once again, there are degrees: more or less filtered, more or less distorted, more or less honest.

"How many countries have dictators invaded?"

Stalin? Mussolini? Hitler? Read a history book before making such outrageous claims and false analogies.

Even Hitler (the worst Dictator in recent history) pales in comparison to how many countries the West has bombed and destroyed. Millions dying. Millions more homeless. Millions moving from one country to the next as refugees. All this happened post World War 2, in relative "peace time".

Churchill is not a false analogy. He actually was responsible, single handedly, for the Bengal Famine of 1943 which killed 3 million Bengalis.

USA has invaded 84 countries. I would like you to give me one Dictator who has invaded as many countries as USA alone has. Just one will do. That will really put things into perspective.

Well, Russia is engaging in that behavior right now and NATO countries have larger refugees issue right now as consequence. Plus, they expect to be attacked by Russia next if the war on Ukraine goes in Russian favor.

The Churchill is completely irelevant, as irrelevant as Stalin.

> Even Grenada wasn't spared (11th tiniest country in the World) with hardly any military. Bombed by USA. The Prime Minister of Grenada assassinated.

The leftist Communist government executed its own Prime Minister; the U.S., Barbados, Jamaica, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines invaded in order to restore order, in accordance with the Governor-General of Grenada itself and in response to the appeal of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States.

It was hardly a case of unprovoked U.S. action.

There's no free world. There are just different degrees of totalitarianism. The highest level of totalitarianism is in the country with the highest number of criminal laws - that by definition reduce freedom, and the highest percentage of population in prison. Guess which country is that?

In lots of wanna-be "free" countries, people can no longer live their normal lives because they can get thrown in prison for some of the most absurd reasons - like leaving your children play in the street, insulting someone on facebook, having an open bottle of alcohol in a car - and thousands upon thousands other such fictive, victimless "crimes". In these countries people get indoctrinated that political freedom is the only freedom that's needed but that's colossal lie! Most people don't care about political activism, don't really need such freedoms!

Your criticism of the US incarceration aside, which is nonetheless a good point, of course if you philosophically deconstruct the world there is no freedom. You are subject to constraints of the natural world at a minimum, and really technology and the modern world were created to possibly give more freedom than the constraints of a "natural existence".

But the stack of technologies and institutions that relies on obviously have both practical limitations (with guns you have the ability to kill far more than you can with bare hands, but we'll restrict that with prohibitions on murder than you wouldn't have in primitive existence) and political (arbitrary declarations of property and ownership and therefore power).

Thus "freedom" is the range/opportunity/ability to do things with modern technologies and society. The idealistic freedom is laid out in the laws and structure of governance, and the practical freedom is access to resources, technology, and services to accomplish something.

With "totalitarianism", what I think is meant within what I just wrote is that the central powers both restrict the ideals AND dominate the practical access to resources to degrees that trigger the palpable instincts of unfairness and existential danger in humans, especially in comparison to other societies.

I guess with respect to incarceration, we look at what they are in jail for. Incarceration is generally due to the war on drugs in the US, and then unfair enforcement of the war on drugs against minorities over white people. To some degree (bullshit possession charges and other similar atrocities of the prosecution of the war on drugs) a great deal of the incarcerations are for laws that have somewhat of some line of thought (deterring the drug trade) even if it is actually creating perverse economic incentives to encourage/enrich the drug trade.

But am I more "free" in Russia/China or the US? I would say both practically and idealistically I am clearly more free in the US. Not to the degree that the US markets itself as ("propaganda") but clearly better than my perception of Russia and China.

When I say "freedom" I'm really referring to the most literal sense of the word: lack of restrictions! Not other philosophical meanings(like being provided with the means to do one thing or another)

We can all agree that we need A FEW, strictly NECESSARY restrictions, in order to reduce OBJECTIVE HARM being caused to us. The so-called malum in se deeds, like murder, theft, fraud, physical harm and so on. If we count all these deeds, they're no more than ONE HUNDRED!

The biggest PROBLEM we're facing today in the developed world is the fact that the legislatures and the governments GO FAR BEYOND what's strictly necessary for a functioning society in terms of criminalization and other restrictions! In the US there are somewhere between 25k and 300k criminal laws and statues or civil legislation that can turn into criminal legislation under certain circumstances.

Incarceration is a super-big problem in America, but it's far from being the only one: any conviction even without incarceration, any other kind of judicial restriction, or even mere arrests - all of these infringe on all kinds of liberties and rights, often lead to discrimination and can easily lead to actual incarceration in a variety of totally harmless situations.

Then there's ever increasing surveillance, more and more use of cctvs, more and more collection of data, the governments and certain companies get to know far too much about ordinary citizens - this can and does lead to a lot of harm!

Those in the repressive state institutions like the police, prosecutors, judges, intelligence services, the military - get more and more power and are less and less accountable for their (mis)deeds!

All these things do happen all so called "democratic" countries!

You signed up 1h ago, just the give us this insightful analysis?

I think you missed where they said they created a throwaway account (suggesting they've got a regular one they don't want downvoted into oblivion), and even named the account throwaway_foo (all pretty much the standard on HN afaics).

If you are looking for a propaganda troll, you are likely barking at the wrong tree.

> they don't want downvoted into oblivion

I don't expect people to care too much abut that, because even if you get a thousand of downvotes, your karma is reduced only by -4.

I think the problem is that risk that the comment may cause people to report it to Facebook and get her/him deplataformed, or report it to the employer and get her/him fired using the employment at will. The chilling effect is real.

Fascinating! I've been on HN for years and this is the first time I've heard this.

have to collect a paycheck from FSB

Reply on news.ycombinator.com