Hacker News Reader

Comment by tumanian | Hacker News Reader

Putin's administration justifies the current economic state and the rampant corruption in Russia by that Russia has is own 'special way' of development which is limited the history and the socio-economic heritage of the communist regime. If Ukraine(or any other ex-Soviet country) manages to get rid of the current cleptocratic system and launches succesfull socio-economic reforms that tackle corruption, it will be a strong signal to the broad russian population that the current regime is not the driver, but a hindrance to the overall development. That is why any regime change in ex-Ussr countries is viewed by suspicion or even open hostility by the elites in Russia.

View on HN

Ukraine is broke. They owe Russia millions of dollars and have been living on pretty much free gas (courtesy of Russia).

I assume you live in US? Do you not find it ironic that you blame Russia for taking this seriously (in their own backyard) while US have been staging government coups within other countries (with multiple death tolls) for decades?

And in regards to corruption:

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Perhaps you should focus on your own backyard first ;)

Ukraine is broke to a large extent because it's economy has been essentially taken over by corrupt oligarchs with close Kremlin ties. As far as comparisons with U.S., in the context of the cold war U.S. has done some nasty things. But look at all the countries which U.S. was heavily involed in. Taiwan? South Korea? Chile? Germany ? Japan? How are they doing 20, 30 years later. Now look at countries that have had heavy Russian / Soviet involvement. Cuba? North Korea? Sorry, but the comparison doesn't quite compute.

South Korea definitely had a period of dictatorship and hard knock life for it's citizens. I think Taiwan also had a period of such oppressive rule. Chile as well had dictatorship up to 90s.

At least South Korea is doing well because it has seen so much sacrifice of it's own people by enriching the nation's government and it's handful of conglomerates. They may be doing well but South Korea and Japan has the highest suicide rates, a sign that although economically prosperous do not equate to collective happiness. Chile for instance has a higher happiness index than of South Korea or Japan.

However, I will add that such economic progress is not at all miserable and unwanted situation. U.S. has provided much of the security guarantees and the environment for such successes.

You are entirely correct. All of these Asian economic successes were under a military dictatorship. The work week in South Korea is 6 days, 16 hours a day. It's not magic, it's really hard work and strictness.

How was Ukraine doing when it was taken over by uncorrupt Ushenko, whos wife is openly a CIA agent?

No need to look at countries with different history than Ukraine. Look at Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia or Romania.

All former soviet republics or sattelites. 20 years later all are modern democracies with much better economy than countries that had the bad luck to still be in "Russian sphere of influence".

From someone external to all of this, I don't think the US really has a foot to stand on when it comes to telling the rest of the world what to do militarily. The Iraq and Afganistan wars really leave a bad taste in my mouth. Where are those WMDs that the entire war was based on? I still remember seeing Cheney standing in front of the entire world and showing those bullshit pictures to the UN. They invaded a foreign country and killed people based on that bullshit.

First, you're conflating Afghanistan and Iraq. If you think that the US would sit by while Mullah Omar supported Al Qaeda camps after 9/11, you're greatly mistaken. Though the war in Afghanistan should have never entered a nation-building phase, it's hard to lump it with a war of choice in Iraq.

Also, I believe that you meant Colin Powell speaking to the UN. I don't believe VP Cheney made any presentations to the UN in the run up to the Iraq War.

I do see your point. US has to a certain degree have lost a lot of credibility especially with Afghanistan and Iraq. I definitely think Russia has the right to look out for it's own interests especially when US have been doing so for a long time now, often behind the veil of covert operations aimed at puppeteering elite ruling social class in different countries often through the usage of economic warfare through fronts like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund by freely giving loans and aids and in return taking their resources, be it oil or soldiers to fight their other armed conflicts. US is able to achieve this most of the time without the usage of force.

Ah, good old one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Well, not quite. I won't waste my time to point out all the atrocities, millions of lives taken, billions of lives that usa destroyed all over the world so a bunch of corporations could get their hands on resources, new markets, so you could strengthen your military and economical grip of the world. All empires commit atrocities, you can be assured that where ever power is concentrated, innocent lives will be destroyed. Regardless of your education, your background, the amount of hours you spend on economic conventions being brainwashed to believe you are entitled, enlightened-enough to do "unpopular" decisions - biologically we all are the same animals we were 100, 200, 500 or even 5000 years ago. if we won't sober up from our overconfidence and ideological world-view of our selves as humanity, all we can hope for are different types of oppressive regimes changing periodically. .. everyone is corruptible - its time to build governments and institutions that take this as a fact(as you might guess I'm advocating measures against power concentration, and - since we're all selfish egocentric pigs who won't care about public matters until we see a direct, clear link to our wallets/environments etc .. OK I went already waaay too far..)

Sorry for the long(slightly off-topic) lead-in, enjoy(Harald Pinters Nobel Prize speech): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flvLfSSR1d4

I never stated that Russia was wrong. Let's make that very clear.

I'm simply amused at ignorance of people who have very little understanding of the situation but try to give their 2 cents.

If government of South Korea was overthrown by anti-US activists; US would be dispatching troops to protect their military basis and citizens within a split second.

And I will bet you that the death toll would be in hundreds within first few days.

That is the same logic as "I beat my wife because my neighbor does the same".

And then "she went to police - police should told her to keep quiet and all would be well, right now I have to beat her up and it's all the fault of police - gave her funny ideas".

that is very good insight. Another point might be the idea of creating buffer zone (Ukraine) to counter the threat of NATO military assets being placed right at the border with Russia, access to Black Sea. I understand that if Putin does not take Ukraine, NATO will.

This is like China not willing to give up North Korea, it has it's function as a buffer.

That is why it is happening. NATO was set-up to counter the Soviets (dominated by Russia) and it is a slap in the face for Russia to allow NATO right on their border when they are trying to become a real world power again.

NATO might have gotten away with limited defence/economic pacts with former Soviet satellites, but full NATO and EU membership was bound to provoke a reaction from Russia.

Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed.

> Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed.

Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West

Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea

Gotcha.

Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?

>Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West

Ukraine should have been quietly told that joining NATO or the EU was not possible.

>Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea

Strawman: This.

What Russia did is absolutely wrong IMO, but it is expected (just like the US doesn't like anyone else messing with South America or the Caribbean).

>Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?

The US has been the primary power in Western Europe since the 8th of May 1945. The US can directly control who enters NATO, and wields significant influence over the primary EU members. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU would have gone through State and should have been firmly rejected.

EDIT: Downvotes and no replies, I can't tell whether I am on Hacker News or reddit.

The concept of "should have been quietly told that joining .. was not possible" is immoral.

Nations have a right of self-determination. Russia and USA can argue for their interests, but if USA and Russia agree "oh, country X will be in your sphere of influence" without giving country X a voice and a veto-vote there - that is evil and insulting to people living in those nations, just as Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement before WW2.

Such divisions should be unacceptable to the global community.

Not directly in charge, but close...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bolivia-angered-by...

The UK's GCHQ is just as interested in nabbing Snowden as the NSA.

Well said. But...

Putin probably remembers his history. In World War II, Germany nearly overran Russia, and it started from the middle of Poland. If it had been able to start from the eastern border of Ukraine, Russia might well have not survived.

So Putin may feel, historically, that Russia's survival is at stake if Ukraine joins NATO. (I am not saying that Putin's desire to control Ukraine is moral or ethical. I am merely saying that it is understandable.)

Why should people in states bordering Russia care what Russia thinks of their independence and alliances?

Because that is political reality.

Do you see any armies marching to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity? Russia isn't a small state that can be easily threatened, and nobody in the West has the stomach for a real war. I bet Russia could take all of Ukraine with no response beyond a boycott and some air-strikes.

P.S. The US has done far worse things than what Russia is currently doing in order to keep South America and the Caribbean within their sphere of influence. Small neighbours of great powers seldom get to exercise real independence.

How does the US doing bad things justify Russia doing bad things to a territory independent of both? That makes no sense at all. And the fact that Russia can get away with it does not ethically absolve their actions.

If we followed your ideas, the Baltic states would never have broken away from Russia. That actually worked out quite well for them.

It doesn't justify it, however it explains it.

Morally/ethically: They shouldn't.

Practically: Because that is the way the world actually works. If you've got a big power like Russia, with a leader that is willing to use that power, then your choices have consequences. You'd better think about those consequences when you're making your choices.

[Edit: If you're a neighbor to a big power like Russia, then your choices have consequences. The point was not that Russia's choices have consequences, but that Ukraine's do.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com