Comment by Pigalowda | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pigalowda | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

He’s foisting himself into geopolitics and he’s going to be viewed through a lens of jingoism.

Do you also try to find context and understand the facets of every geopolitical player?

Do you figure the Russian federation needs to invade Ukraine because the western alliance against it has expanded along its border without buffer zones and competing client states?

Kim Jong Un has to be brutal because if he isn’t than he’ll lose the great game of palace politics and he and his family will be killed.

Israel has to destroy Hamas and Palestinian civilian collateral damage is inconsequential because 10 million people surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who despise them will end just like it did with Hadrian.

Hamas has to fight Israel with brutal tactics because the land its people were on is being reclaimed and soon they will all have no place to go but as a diaspora. And after that they will disappear into cultural homogeneity of where they immigrated.

You want to give Musk context? He’s a billionaire in the United States who has business ambitions in a major competing power (China). He can’t look too pro American so he supports Russia because his Chinese partners silently support Russia.

Musk is deeply interested in himself and acquiring more wealth. He’s not a good guy he just wants to be the world’s first trillionaire outside of the Saudi royalty. In short, he sucks and he’s a greedy ass.

Nuance? Context? Pick a side. You’re not a billionaire and you never will be. Musk doesn’t love you.

> Do you figure the Russian federation needs to invade Ukraine because the western alliance against it has expanded along its border without buffer zones and competing client states?

The February 2022 events were triggered because Kyiv wasn't fulfilling the peace agreement with Donetsk for years. You can check OSCE reports for the week before the invasion and see that the ceasefire was completely trashed, as well as check out what Ukrainian leaders had said regarding the Minks agreements. One of them (Poroshenko) non-jokingly claimed that lying about peace agreements was a Sun Tsy tactics. In a world based on rules, lying about a peace agreement while preparing for war will only end badly (and it did).

> who has business ambitions in a major competing power (China)

Who hasn't? Lockheed Martin?

> Nuance? Context? Pick a side. Musk doesn’t love you.

Thanks, but no. I don’t need to “pick a side” and I am extremely suspicious of rationality and motives of everyone who pushes me to both abandon my principles and reason, and to fall into perceiving everything as a perfect mortal dichotomy with no escape. I’m neither that suicidal nor brutal. And it is definitely not about someone’s “love”, objective reality exists.

Picking sides already got half-a-million people dead.

russians are very selective with their truth and which agreements they like keep for the day.

Remember Budapest Memorandum? Remember the MRP pact with Hitler?

> russians are very selective with their truth > Remember the MRP pact with Hitler?

I am always in awe by the bitter-sweet irony of this particular bit. Because Russians actually remember MRP, as well as the fact that it was a direct response to the Munich Agreement and Poland and Hungary each tearing itself a piece of Czechoslovakia (yes, with Hitler), while Europeans desperately try to forget the later and play the victim of the former, despite them literally doing the same thing first and opening this can of worms themselves. But of course its the Russians who are being selective about truth.

I honestly don't understand where did people in the west even got the idea that Russians don't know about about MRP.

> Remember Budapest Memorandum?

The one that was thrown away by US and EU when they had actively supported the coup/revolution of 2014? Sorry, you were saying something about selectively honoring agreements?

You know, you probably should try having a serious talk with real Russians instead of relying on some thirdparty to build you a strawman.

You picked a side, the Russian federation. I’m not sure why you are so averse to owning that you picked it. The objective reality that everyone outside of your own mind is able to perceive is that you picked a side. So yes, you are that brutal. Just own it instead of vacillating and squirming.

I too am also extremely suspicious of strangers on the internet describing how neutral they are but then pushing Russian talking points. It’s very typical for their culture to rationalize as you have. So have a great day!

> You picked a side

Don't project your ying-yang dichotomic views on me. I'm just being objective about the cause-effect. And yeah, I do live here and this is too serious to ignore bullshit.

> I’m not sure why you are so averse to owning that you picked it.

> So yes, you are that brutal. Just own it instead of vacillating and squirming.

Because I see people who picked a side screaming "ceasefire is not an option", "they died for Democracy/Motherland", "total military victory or bust" and that's just fucking disgusting. Yet somehow I am the brutal one, awesome.

Sorry, but from where I stand, it's the sidepickers who have to squirm, shill, reinvent reality, and call things that you've acknowledged few years ago as totally non-existent and propaganda few years later.

The further you are from exploding things and death, the more heroic you feel about picking a side.

At least my views are solidly grounded in facts distilled by cross-referrensing distinct sources datasources, backed by opposing interests and a desire for a just resolution for everyone.

> describing how neutral they are but then pushing Russian talking points

Oh I am not neutral, I am pro-me! I just recognize the cause-effect and don't pretend that everything that doesn't fit my views is "talking points". Real life is a bit more complicated, you know.

> It’s very typical for their culture to rationalize as you have. So have a great day!

It's typical for any human to rationalize. Look how you rationalized dismissing my points, look how you rationalize hate and perpetuating war.

The February 2022 events were triggered because ...

A very warped, and highly misleading description of events is all that time permits me to say.

Just stop pretending you haven't picked a side, please.

> A very warped, and highly misleading description of events is all that time permits me to say.

Oh please, you just don't have anything substantial to say.

> Just stop pretending you haven't picked a side, please.

But I haven't.

If I did, I'd be making donations on drones and fancy equipment or volunteering my engineering skills. My current situation so far allows me not to get involved.

And I honestly find it super-weird how people here seem to push me into picking one. If I am forced to, I'll likely act the same way many ordinary Ukrainians did - naturally just pick a side closer to my family and friends.

I do sympathize the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, due to the fact that they basically get treated as an empty spot and I saw their own former compatriots being absolutely horrible and dehumanizing towards them (thanks to the power of the internet). It probably would be fair to say that it's the core reason Russia gets any support. The fact that the other side wasn't able to quickly turn tables on that matter indicates that there really is a serious problem and these are not really such good guys doing it all right.

> The February 2022 events were triggered because Kyiv wasn't fulfilling the peace agreement with Donetsk for years.

I want you to go down the list of points in the Minsk II agreement and explain how Russia didn't make an absolute farce out of them - in particular, points 9 and 10. And what's more they repeatedly engaged in massive cyber attacks against Ukraine - actual destructive attacks intended to shut down their power grid and destroy banking data amongst other things.

I'd also like to hear you explain why there even needed to be a Minsk II in the first place, given that you think it was Ukraine doing all of the violations. Hint: it was not. There are even Russian documentaries about the war where, during the supposed ceasefire, they filmed themselves crossing over to Ukrainian trenches at night to bury mines in them.

> I want you to go down the list of points in the Minsk II agreement and explain how Russia didn't make an absolute farce out of them

And I don't want to serve your attitude and play a Russel's teapot guessing game.

I am not going to try and guess counter-arguments to something you can't even properly put in words, since it makes it easier for you to avoid thinking about it too much.

> And what's more they repeatedly engaged in massive cyber attacks against Ukraine - actual destructive attacks intended to shut down their power grid and destroy banking data amongst other things.

Poor banking data. Sucks to suck when you happen do be the one on hacktivist's receiving end, doesn't it? Kyiv is a willing and a nasty belligerent, not a victim. Try hosting and securing something in Russia and see just how much of a pain in the ass you'll get.

I know of enough literal CTOs getting so pissed about it, that they engaged in hacktivism themselves just to make a point. Obviously in each case it only made things worse and generated more mutual hatred.

And don't get me started on all those personal data repositories hacks and scamming campaigns.

> given that you think it was Ukraine doing all of the violations. Hint: it was not

You should read what was actually written. Not what you've imagined.

> There are even Russian documentaries about the war where, during the supposed ceasefire, they filmed themselves crossing over to Ukrainian trenches at night to bury mines in them.

There are documented cases of Kyiv engaging in airstrikes on Donetsk and then claiming those were merely air conditioners exploding. This lasted until Donetsk rebels started shooting down aircrafts, followed by the tragedy with the civilian plane.

Your argument boils down to "things happening during a steaming barely frozen conflict - bad". Well of-f-ing-course they are. That's why you have to tackle core issues, otherwise good luck treating symptoms by trying to contain thousands of motivated individuals each with their own petty vengeance and a tragic story behind it.

Kyiv literally didn't do shit to actually resolve it: they didn't do amnesty; they didn't do the constitutional reform; they were demanding Donetsk to surrender and give up all the leverage and a chance for defense BEFORE holding elections, denying Steinmeier formula and elections under OSCE observers.

All Kyiv did is complain how the sustainable peace didn't just appear from the thin air, without actually doing anything substantial to get there. Stupid war is literally the only possible thing one could achieve with that kind of policy.

> This lasted until Donetsk rebels started shooting down aircrafts, followed by the tragedy with the civilian plane.

There was no such thing as "Donetsk rebels". They were unmarked Russian military.

Ukraine signed peace agreement with what?

Kyiv signed peace agreement with Donetsk and Luhansk, while France and Germany acting as a guarantor to the former, and Russia being a guarantor for the later.

> Kim Jong Un has to be brutal because if he isn’t than he’ll lose the great game of palace politics and he and his family will be killed.

Also, it's worth giving a good thought whether North Korea is in such a sorry state because of a bad persona or maybe it could have something to do with the fact that these people get international treatement equivalent to "isolate 'em barbarian animals".

It shouldn't be surprising that a country forced into a Stone Age lives like it's a Stone Age, compared to e.g. Saudi Arabia that gets more liberal over time as life goes on relatively chill. Yet somehow it is.

DPRK was more developed and wealthier than the south at the end of the UN intervention. Also they’re clearly in the former soviet and PRC sphere of influence. Saying the DPRK was forced into the Stone Age by the west gives the west a lot of credit and power and virtually none to DPRK and its own self determination.

You know, the ancient Greeks were pretty smart. At the temple of the oracle of Delphi there apparently was an inscription that read “know thyself”. I have a feeling that if you’re a citizen of the west you fundamentally do not know who you are or where you are.

One of Musk’s Achilles heels is that he is principled almost to a fault (at least that’s what it seems like from the outside since I cannot read his mind or see into his heart).

That principled view can get in the way of being practical.

One of Starlink’s stated principles is that the network is not meant for war (see the motives section I link to above). Now it could be because of moral reasons or it could be for practical reasons (compliance with new sets of laws and regulations).

Starlink has provided Ukraine with service but it is being financed by the US government. They have refused to do the same for Russia.

Earlier in the Israel/Hamas war, Musk announced Starlink service for humanitarian aid (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/musk-says-starlink...). I haven’t followed whether that actually happened and to what degree but 6 days ago they announced service for an Emirati-run hospital in the south.

> Musk doesn’t love you

I can see how my points can come across as I’m running to the defense of the guy. What’s actually happening is that I’m trying to seek something closer to the truth than what my gut reactions and news sources lead me to conclude.

Principled to a fault is not the phrase I would use for him. That’s maybe a person like Cato.

SpaceX has defense contracts with the US DoD. It can’t do business with Russian MoD or it loses the US contracts. It’s not about principles it’s about money.

I’m not sure I understand why you’re trying “to seek something closer to the truth” here. There is no truth in politics. Do you care about the Walton family and their truth? I’m guessing no.

Musk has inserted himself into global attention and is clearly doing and saying what’s best for Musk. If the principle of self interest is what you’re talking about then yea, I guess that’s true. He’s so self interested it’s what made him and it’s what will undo him.

> I’m not sure I understand why you’re trying “to seek something closer to the truth” here.

I suppose both of us are trying to one another and others (why else debate) because we both think we have it correct. :-)

You are right and I suppose further debate isn't all that helpful as it won't move the needle in either direction. I guess here's "my truth" regarding Musk if you have time for it, if you don't that's OK too.

I believe Musk very much wants to become the first trillionaire and is trying to longitudinally orient his businesses to achieve that goal. He can't really just do that in the US so it has to be a global endeavor. He's got EV factories in NA, Asia, and Europe. He wants or wanted a solar company as well as the charging stations, and his starlink will service the entire globe and can provide service to his cars and trucks across the world.

With the US he doesn't really need to politically mesh with its foreign policy because his ambitions don't necessarily require American supremacy. If he can maintain a grip on his Chinese holdings and push product there to a population 3x that of the US then he may realize his goal. He gets to be the CEO of an international megacorp where people get their transportation, power, and communication.

I believe all of his business forays are connected and as an American peasant I don't believe he has my best interests at heart. He could care less about the US rules based world order and is happy with any system that allows him to do business across the globe. So therefore I up the greens and you up the blues. Which is fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com