Hacker News Reader

Comment by zpeti | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The only way this war could "have been avoided" is if Russia didn't decide to invade it. Anything else is just victim blaming Russian propaganda that tries to justify Russia's naked imperialism.

It could have also been avoided by not offering Ukraine an Association Agreement - or retracting it when it became clear that this was a red line for Russia, and there was a deep societal divide within Ukraine on whether to align with the West or Russia. The Maidan protests had barely 50% support across all of Ukraine (but much higher in Kiev and the western regions of Ukraine). The risk of Ukraine fracturing over this was very obvious, but apparently completely acceptable to European leaders.

> Anything else is just victim blaming Russian propaganda that tries to justify Russia's naked imperialism.

That's such a narrow and poor way to talk about international politics, and it is exactly the reason why we have a war in Europe, and broken countries like Syria and Libya on our doorstep. Even if your intentions are good, it is worthless if the consequences are terrible. In general the "everything that doesn't align with my worldview is propaganda" is a pretty good sign someone loves eating propaganda.

Do you have any proof for your first paragraph?

Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin is a lunatic who wanted Ukrainian land to be part of Russia because he things that would cement his legacy. That is the only reason. Everything else is lies. The invasion has caused Finland to join NATO, which was a predictable consequence of the invasion.

The blame lays squarely on Russia. No argument about it. The point was that with the right policies in the beginning of 2000s the US could have prevented this outcome but had chosen not to. The EU could've done the same at the time but it always plays poodle. After Putin's second return to power it was probably too late anyways.

Yeh if you go that far back we could have done some things better.

I am sorry, but that is straight up from the Russian propaganda talking point list.

How is saying the US (who spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense) should destroy Russia - Russian propaganda?

By actually pushing idea that everything is "great powers" game and no one else has any agency.

Russians desperately want to present the idea that they truly fight powerful US and NATO and still pushing; and not getting kicked ass by Ukraine getting 5% of US defense budget.

i was just about to post a reply telling the parent poster that his mind is being controlled by putin. and here you beat me to it ... except ur serious :(

EU includes a bunch of countries that either directly border Russia, or border Belarus, which now has to be considered a Russian puppet state. Russia has long (as in literally decades; I remember such talk in late 90s growing up in Russia!) directed rhetoric at some of those countries that is similar to what was said about Ukraine before the invasion. Thus, for them, the benefit of supporting Ukraine right now is to avoid having to fight a war like that on their own territory.

>German industry, the driver of the EU economy is basically destroyed without cheap Russian energy.

Because Germany was dumb enough to make itself energy dependent on gas from Russia, a warmongering country lead by an autocrat, that having invaded several countries in recent years (Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria) and supporting military separatists in various European countries (Transnistria in Moldova), and despite the US warning them several times about this risk.

But chasing the sweet teat of cheap Russian gas like a dog in heat was too good too pass for German industrialists who saw only easy money, so all national security concerns went out the window despite all the warnings they got.

Maybe Germans will vote better next time and realize you can't have be Europe's heavy industry nation while being non-nuclear and also energy dependent on an antagonizing adversary with expansionist tendencies.

>"a warmongering country lead by an autocrat, that having invaded several countries in recent years (Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria)"

Chechnya is part of Russia. Country can not invade itself. It can commit atrocities against their own and this is what Russia did during the war. This happened because Chechnya tried to secede. Unilateral secession of the region will not be appreciated in any country and will likely lead to internal war and this is what did happen.

In Syria Russia was invited by their official government. You might not like the government and for good reasons but it is irrelevant. Btw what legal basis other countries have being in Syria?

Try doing a bit of fact checking when posting.

And while you bitch about Germany - The US and Canada for example had industry / manufacturing largely destroyed by moving it to China. If for example China disappears tomorrow we are fucked big time for a while. Not sure how long it'll take to restore our independence from 3rd world manufacturing. It is general trait - if companies can earn extra buck doing something they would do it no matter what unless stopped by Government (which they largely own).

Chechnya is not really "part of" Russia. It was conquered by the Empire, then declared independence after the dissolution of said Empire, then was reconquered by the Soviets. Same as happened to Ukraine. Same as happened to Georgia.

And yes, no real difference from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.' If those places wanted to secede, and the US bombed them flat, would many be supportive of the US "legal right" to do so?

>"Chechnya is not really "part of" Russia. It was conquered by the Empire"

If you want to go that far come back to me when you return California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming to Mexico. And this is a beef just between 2 countries. There are many more.

Besides nobody gives a fuck about your "not really". What matters is what is recognized by the other countries and they accept Chechnya being part of Russia

I do include those. They are all part of the same state-building playbook. Although really, those states were taken from the indigenous people, by Mexico. Chechnyans and their ancestors ARE the indigenous people of the area.

No, that doesn't matter. It's still an occupation. Many people in the Caucasus gave and do give a "flying fuck."

Can you please name me a country that did not conquer / occupy anything and hence according to your rules has the right to exist?

That wasn't the question. Where did i say Russia has no right to exist? Nowhere. I said Chechnya is not "Russia". None of the Caucasus were Russian before they were conquered by Russia. They then declared independence and were reconquered. That is why there was an insurgency in Chechnya, and why there was a military campaign against it by the Russian state, and why they installed a strongman afterwards who has been loyal to Putin since.

It's also why they campaigned in Georgia, and in Ukraine, and why all the ex-USSR states are convinced that they are targets.

>"That wasn't the question. Where did i say Russia has no right to exist? Nowhere. I said Chechnya is not "Russia""

Your logic seems to be completely twisted. Good luck. I've lost interest to this conversation.

It is not. Russia would exist without Chechnya just fine. They have 0 legitimate reason to be there. Non-Russian people have lived in the Caucasus since before Russians even existed as an ethnicity.

You've lost interest in the conversation because you are emotional and don't want to be wrong.

The irony is that Russia itself had a decently sized nationalist movement with "stop feeding Caucasus!" as a slogan. That is, they wanted Caucasian republics to separate so that Russia wouldn't have to "waste money" on them, and to avoid free movement of people from there into territories that are predominantly ethnically Russian.

Yup, the Caucasus are only good for two things to the Russian state. Defense (the mountains are way easier to defend than the plains of southern Russia) and oil.

>"and the US bombed them flat, would many be supportive of the US "legal right" to do so?"

I do not think the US would give a flying fuck about any country being un-supportive in this particular matter.

I was talking about general and scholarly opinion, not recognition by other states which only matters if there is enough power on their side to make the Us/whoever care. Which is not the case so the US doesnt.

sir you are espousing russian propaganda. please report to the nearest hollywood reeducation camp

when thinking about syria please remember that ASSAD MUST GO

What do you think the US could have done to convince Putin not to invade?

Do you believe that enabling the Russians in preventing countries around them from becoming more aligned with the EU would benefit Europe?

Do you think the US is the only NATO country?

what business does the US have policing the affairs in europe?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-di...

> Do you think the US is the only NATO country?

in the same way that ussr was the only country that mattered in the warsaw pact

.....

edit: it is highly likely that russia would never have invaded ukraine had the us not meddled and sponsored the overthrow of an elected ukranian government. russia and eu would have a stable energy contract. russia would not form an alliance with china and would continue to be europe orientated, eventually becoming a normal european country. ukraine would have kept its original borders, paid off its debts to russia, and have a stable country for all its citizens

> in the same way that ussr was the only country that mattered in the warsaw pact

The list of NATO interventions are: former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, and counter-piracy in Yemen.

The list of Warsaw Pact interventions: invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia when they wanted to leave.

Quite a distinction. Only one of the NATO interventions was driven by the foreign policy of the US--all of the others were being driven more by Europeans' foreign policy concerns.

im sorry. you are completely right. superb distinction

Ok, so you agree that the US couldn’t have done anything to prevent Putin from invading Ukraine. That‘s great.

Could you then explain why it would be in the interest of European countries not to react to Russia invading countries on their doorstep? It seems inconceivable to me that European countries wouldn’t have reacted with sanctions and arms for Ukraine even if the US had kept completely out of it.

It seems crystal clear to me that making sure that Russia cannot win this war is both in the interest of the US but also and especially the interest of European countries. You don’t want a dictator that invades neighbors and is successful at that at your doorstep.

Agreed. I don't even think that the Russian state would really dispute that "making sure that Russia cannot win this war" is in the interests of e.g. Polish or Lithuanian states. They just ... have other interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com