Hacker News Reader

Comment by thriftwy | Hacker News Reader

Learn how to overthrow your government, lose several regions to a larger neighbour's invasion, become significantly poorer, and then get dragged to die on the front in a hot war against it?

But at least they don't have that president they didn't like, who was an obstacle for them joining the EU.

Learning things from Euromaidan is arguably why Russia is still in coherent state under so much pressure. Russians are very aware of the abyss that may open in place of an even previously super peaceful country when a revolution happens. Got three shots of that vaccine.

View on HN

Somehow the assumption is that without Euromaidan, Ukraine would still be intact and not in a war.

"Not in a war" part is correct. The government was preparing to give Ukraine to Russia as a whole. Ukrainian paratroopers has an exercise in Summer 2013 to subdue an insurgency in Western Ukraine.

If Russians are afraid to get to jail or get shot, they can always commit self-immolation in protest. (There was a case actually last year, but not against the war. Only against conscription.)

Nobody suggested that it was a smooth or easy path to remove yourself as a vassal state of Moscow. But in the long run, the process will likely be worth it.

Russia is still in a coherent state because they’re just sending all their rural poor, ethnic minorities, and prisoners to die in Ukraine. Once they’ve sacrificed all their undesirables and need to conscript from their major cities, we will see how “non-political” Russians actually are.

Who do you think Ukraine is sending? Rural poor. The rich males have fled. Ukraine software developers are working abroad not shooting weapons. The US and Canada do the same.

Trying to draw a line is difficult when both groups are on the same side. The rich decide on wars and the poor fight them.

Some of the urbanized, well-off guys with that specific inclination volunteer to fight, on both sides. They also end up dead eventually.

Of course, they try to find an arrangement to do it on their own terms.

Some of even more rich and powerful will participate in some "tik tok batallion" where they're fairly sure they're the last ones to actually risk their lives. But once it ends they will boast their military prowess and use it as social capital.

Otherwise, spot on.

Ah OK. "Both sides same". You should have started your post with "But what about"

In the end they are two sides of the same coin. If you think there are good guys and bad guys and the good guys are always on my side then I will remind you that this isn't a movie. For every action any actor took there is a reason and justification that can be made.

Would Trudeau and Freeland be so pro war if Freeland and her sister owned 5 apartment buildings in Russia instead of the Ukraine? Would Biden be so pro war if his sin had dealings with Russia instead of the Ukraine?

Find me a pure moral action and I'll raise you two selfish actions.

Two sides of the same coin. One side is an imperialist aggressor seeking revanchism. The other side is defending their lands trying to get out from under the boot of Russian subjugation.

But sure, same coin.

I don't believe that imperialistic tanks and infantry vs. freedom loving tanks and infantry are a thing.

It's just tanks made out of steel, and infantry recruited (or mobilized) from rural (or rust belt) poor. They work in the same way.

If you feel that way, surely you wouldn’t mind me moving into your house, sleeping in your bed, eating your food, etc. After all, there is no right or wrong, everything is grey, and reductionist logic can be applied to deflect from any argument that is inconvenient to one’s simplistic worldviews.

So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course.

To the contrary, you are saying this course of action was right and should be taken as a guidance, because it averted even larger catastrophe (which I have trouble contemplating) and because it will all pay off at the end (are they gambling?)

That's not even grey area, that's bungee jumping.

Another piece of discussion where a person suggested self-immolation to other parties.

Reminds me of 3 reasons why one would consider sitting on a hedgehog.

> So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course.

What if what led a country to become involved in a hot war its larger neighbour was entirely on its larger neighbour.

As a gingerbread man, your first priority would be that you make sure nobody eats you. This is very important!

As a country, your first priority is that nobody attacks you, especially a larger party. On whom this is, becomes irrelevant.

I've often seen tourist guides telling tourists to not flash expensive jewelry and electronics on the street. They never seem to say "do what you want, you are an independent human being, if somebody decides to rob you it's entirely on them".

But that's exactly what the world was telling Ukraine for decades. Still keeps telling. Teaches others to follow that history of success.

From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.

> From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.

I think Russia would have attacked and taken over Ukraine either way (either by political force or military might) and that the plan was always to do this.

I don’t think Ukraine could have avoided this fate by not keeping its belongings its car.

Sometimes cars get broken into anyway, and I think this is that case.

I think it’s very telling that the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddenly on what would be the 4 or 5th day of the war talked heavily about writing historical wrongs (Ukraines independence) and didn’t really mention a coup or NATO or anything like that.

As far as I remember, the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddently, also did not really mention annexing Ukraine or even parts of it. I suggest you dust off that text and re-read it.

Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation.

Indeed there is an example of Belarus, which is a smaller country that is still independent (in the sense that it has its own statehood, laws and international relations) and intact. If that is what you mean by independence, then if Belarus pulls it, Ukraine could also.

If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you.

And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries.

> Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation.

That was off the table in 2014 when they did the exact same thing to Crimea, so theres no real change there, not that it changes the status of any of the territory they still remain areas of Ukraine (like Crimea) they are just temporarily occupied.

> If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you.

Independence means the right to choose whatever you want for your alliance. Which Ukraine has the right to do.

> And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries.

I think it should be desirable for other countries to be independent and not subjugated by their bigger neighbours.

Of course, nobody was going to give Crimea to them in this case. But they could end up with Medvedchuk and all the remaining regions, some of them in federative state. The thing is, every next option they get is progressively worse.

> it should be desirable for other countries to be independent

So you are OK with some other people dying so that you have a pleasant feeling about them. Much like when you read in a newspaper how a brave tourist has resisted the thugs who tried to rob him. But the actual good advice to tourists is to stay out of trouble, and if it is already happening, try not to die by complying.

Anything that got you in a brawl with local thugs over your fancy camera is bad advice.

It's not that I think countries should not be independent and get subjugated by their bigger neighbours. It's just they should find a way to do this in a smart fashion and without full scale war. Ukraine is actually getting subjugated by their bigger neighbour right now. The policy you recommend led to an outcome that you find undesirable. Then you say the policy is not to blame, the outcome could not be avoided in the first place.

So the US Founding Fathers were wrong to declare independence from Britain because the Revolutionary War was bloody and painful? Instead the US should have remained colonies and everything would have turned out better?

That is actually a great question.

There is USA, there is Canada which has never declared independence, and I can't say outright that Canada is a worse country than USA, or has less self-determination, after taking population and geography into account. USA did lose quite a large amount of men in independence-related wars, though.

The same question about the French Revolution. Yes, they have no choice but praise it now, but Britain had no revolution and we are all now writing in English. Had France averted Revolution, it is likely that we would all be writing in French now, and English would be a niche language of England and some very backwards African ex-colonies. Was it worth it? Sure, French Revolution led to Napoleon, who could be a success had he not jump under the Russian steamroller.

The best thing about revolutions is not having them and waiting for a bigger sucker to have one. The benefits of somebody out there having a revolution seem to be shared, whereas the cost seems to be footed by the ones who did it to their country.

These suckers then have no choice but to make their largest failure the central point of their ideology. France did, so did USSR and arguably USA, however here it's not as clear-cut.

Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin.

You thought it was a movie? Good vs Evil

> Two sides. One does not exist without the other. Russia vs NATO. NATO fired first shots trying to extend their reach and Russia is firing back. Ukraine is the coin.

I think this kinda of language takes agency away from countries like Russia, Russia chose to invade and was not forced by anyone, given the rhetoric in some of there now deleted articles I think theres evidence that it was for imperialistic reasons and not because of NATO.

After all NATO doesn't appear at all in the now deleted Russian media victory article.

NATO fired the first shots? Believe me, if NATO was firing anything there would be tanks in the streets of Moscow right now. NATO is winning this war with Russia without sacrificing a single soldier, and by largely using up their stockpiles of Cold War-era hand-me-downs. How humiliating for Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com