Hacker News Reader

Comment by Y-bar | Hacker News Reader

Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Chechnya. These are clear-cut with Russia as the driving aggressor. All the other 20 or so in eg. Mali and Dagestan might be less so, but should probably also be counted.

View on HN

I would take the Chechnya away from that list, you can't be in war with yourself, Chechnya is part of Russia.

By that logic the US independence war (1775-1783) was not a ”war” either because the colonies were part of England. Neither were the war of 1861-1865 between the northern and southern states. Can’t be at war with yourself?

Not really (unless it was at least recently a different country), I wouldn't call what ETA or IRA were doing a war, Google calls it (separatist) campaign and I tend to agree, though first words which came to my mind were separatist movements and terrorism (though I can see their reasoning).

With Palestine vs Israel I would tend to call it a war since Palestine's own country was taken and it is occupied by different artifically created country, so I would say it is two countries at war.

I have met a lot of revisionist historians over the years, but this you are the strangest one yet.

Apparently the US can. They have ICE ready to fight inland terrorists like people with signs or nearby a poorly maintained pool.

Operation Cyclone is largely understood as one of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia. So US again is to blame as much.

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

To blame as much as Russia, who actually invaded? No.

US invaded by proxy through arming and supporting Islamists to destabilise a fairly legitimate government because it was aligned with Russia.

Think if Russia today arms an anti-democracy militia in Canada in order to destabilise USA. Any subsequent invasion of Canada by US would be a natural order of power play.

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

"Invaded by proxy" is not actually a thing. You're trying to make arming an insurgency sound equivalent to a full-on invasion, and they are not equivalent.

The US did not arm the Islamists in order to destabilize Russia, just a Russian client. In response, Russia invaded and removed the client government - the very government that the Islamists were trying to remove.

If Russia today armed an anti-democracy militia in Canada, would the US invade Canada? No (at least, any previous administration would not). We would share intel, help cut off the flow of arms, maybe even do a joint operation against the militia. But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?

So your analogy is as flawed as your moral equivalence.

"Invasion by proxy" is very much a thing. And I am not trying to make it sound like equivalent to a full-on invasion, like the one the US did later on, but it is a thing the same way "being in a proxy war" is a thing, and of course, that is not the same as being "full-on at war".

Insisting on dichotomy between attempting to destabilise a union or one of it's bordering states, a client/satellite state is clutching at the straws.

You overlook categorical differences where it matters and then makeup binary lines for nuanced and things that happen on a spectrum like destabilisation where it is convenient for you. That is lazy at best, or dishonest at worst.

> But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?

You seem to have no idea about US is conduct with it's allies throughout history where it comes to her interests priority. Henry Kissinger didn't say "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." because he felt like it. It is a reflection of US's modus operandi. Liberia, Panama, Argentine Junta, Iraq, Iran, Iraqi Kurds of 70s, Peshmarga of 2020s, Nicaragua in 80s, endless examples.

The problem is not with the analogy, it is your lack of understanding of US's modus operandi and her historical conduct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com