throwaway_434

> Clearly, the GP is completely rational and quite well-informed.

Yep you believe everything under the Sun when it comes to your Governments and institutions, when it has been proven time and time again that they have been involved in regime change ops and covert ops.

It is quite evident you don't have any ability to introspect and question your own Government.

Also, it is not just Homi J Bhabha we are talking about. There is a list of at least 11 nuclear scientists that died unnatural deaths. These are just nuclear scientists. Total 684 scientists have died unnaturally in just the past 15 years.

You can keep dismissing all this as "conspiracy theory" but we all know how the 3-letter agencies operates.

> The fact that there is zero such efforts visible leads me to the conclusion that Modi just doesn't give a fuck.

Modi cares about Indians more than he cares about US citizens. Indians come first. Just like Trump cares about US citizens more than he cares about Indian citizens. So when it comes to protecting Indians from scammers in Kolkata, West Bengal and other islamo-commie places Modi Government has done an excellent job. We get regular messages warning us against scams and even educating us on how these scams work.

Why doesn't Modi warn US or prevent it from targeting Western citizens? Because Modi has bigger things to worry about when it comes to India itself. If Trump personally asks Modi, then yes there will be a change (depending on how Trump reciprocates for that gesture, especially considering US has back-stabbed India too many times to even count, Modi will be weary).

> Particularly when the state in question is run by the opposition, I would expect the federal government party to use this as political ammunition.

And then what? Western institutions demonize Modi and fund regime change operations in India with their unlimited wealth? Modi won't fall into that trap. If your Governments were not so prolific in regime change operations and interfering politically in other Countries, we would have definitely done a lot to fix this issue. Right now, for any non-Western Government, it is like walking on eggshells. We never know what might piss you guys off (even if the step is in your favor) and you unleash your regime change ops in our Country. The best example that comes to my mind is India sending thousands of deportation requests for wanted criminals, terrorists and gangsters who have taken shelter in Canada, US, UK and Australia. Most of those deportation requests were rejected by your Governments. Guess who these scammers work under? Yep you guessed it right! These very same criminals, gangsters, terrorists who have found refuge in your Country.

There is a lot I can unpack. But I have only provided you with what is the tip of the iceberg.

> For one year. 14 other countries sanctioned India too.

And what about it? When US sanctions any country, rest of the World follows. It is nothing new.

> I couldn't find anything on this besides articles on Indian/Bangladeshi InfoWars-tier websites.

Just google "Daniel Stephen Courney" [1]. Ex-US military. Supplying weapons and drones to Kuki narco-terrorists. It is a CIA op. We have seized US weapons in Manipur. US weapons don't magically reach far-flung Eastern region of India if not for external assistance.

Also, how does US made M16 rifle find its way into Manipur, India? [2]

1: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/us-man-gifted-drone-ma...

2: https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/large-cache-of-ar...

> Like what?

I don't have patience to give you the list of things US has done that is viewed negatively against India. The topmost being trying to nuke India in 1971, when US allied itself with Islamic dictatorship in Pakistan.

> This phenomenon is large enough that I'm shocked it hasn't openly caused a diplomatic rift between the US and India, and New Delhi should have a vested interested in combating it.

It is only large enough to you probably. India has been sanctioned by US in the 90s for doing reciprocal nuclear tests (after China detonated its bomb) and suffered billions of dollars in trade. US gained nothing from the sanctions except to push India into more poverty. It ended up being counter-productive. Even now Trump is threatening India with billions of dollars in trade sanctions that far outweighs anything caused by scams (if you take absolute numbers).

> What "mercenaries" are you referring to?

The CIA is currently fuelling and instigating Manipur riots in India by supplying arms and ammunitions to Kuki narco-terrorists. Prior to this we had USAID that was influencing electoral politics within India. Apart from that, we just witnessed regime change operations in Bangladesh where Pro-India Shiekh Hasina was toppled for a Pro-US Jihadi Muhammad Yunus. All of these run the US taxpayers in hundreds of billions of dollars. Far more than any scam conducted by Indian call centers.

For an average US citizen, sure it feels like a lot, since you guys are at the receiving end. But since you mentioned why US Government is not bringing this up, it is because it pales in comparison to what US Government has done to India over the past 7 decades. India can bring up a lot of counterpoints that will only cause US diplomats to shut up. We haven't even touched on killing of our nuclear scientists. Too many skeletons in their closet.

> And yes, I'd like particularly Narendra Modi to kneel

Umm you are targeting the wrong person here. Majority of the scam call centers come from West Bengal, particularly Kolkata. Which is headed by Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee.

India has a federal structure, with cooperation between Center and States. Similar to USA. Modi just can't invade Kolkata using Indian Armed Forces and dismantle the operations without facing significant legal challenges in the Supreme Court of India.

West Bengal is a islamo-commie state. Nearly impossible to flip the state electorally for BJP to win (Narendra Modi heads BJP). The state is a stronghold of Mamta Banerjee who heads the TMC party. She came to power after nearly 4 decades of Communist rule.

> Companies refusing to do business there and the eventual brain drain will do more damage than SWIFT.

Only Western companies you mean?

> but do you really think they’re trying to help?

They are already helping. Russia has already integrated with Unionpay as we speak. Russian Sovcombank and Sberbank have already completed integrations.

> They probably want to milk Russia of all their oil on the low.

Not just China but India will also purchase oil from Russia [1]. Billions of dollars more than any European nation at discounted rates. And with population of India and China, and demand for rising energy requirements, I don't see Russia being inconvenienced by these Sanctions in the long term.

The West is overestimating the impact of Sanctions on Russia. All it did was cut off Russia from the West and make it a pariah in the West. You haven't considered Africa and Asia in this mix at all and that will be the decisive factor that rescues Russia. Even Putin knows this.

The biggest mistake West is doing is undermining its adversaries. Especially Putin (calling him a madman, that he is suffering from cancer or long covid and what not — i heard this crap before with Saddam Hussein — who was supposedly diagnosed with lymph cancer LMAO). It is not the first time and it won't be the last time that the West is trying these tactics.

[1]: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/russia-offers-more-oi...

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am actually positively surprised that I wasn't downvoted to oblivion and most of the commenters engaged without considering it as "Russian Propaganda" or "Troll" (some of them did but I expected the reaction to be much worse — hence the surprise).

I really hope one day we all can discuss critical issues without attaching labels to each other. Attaching labels requires no real effort.

> Just speak your truth, accept the downvotes, and be happy with the gnashing of teeth.

I agree wholeheartedly. I just can't stand bullshit being propagated as "Truth" and suppressing of counter-narratives. Especially when things are bereft of facts/logic/common sense. One commenter was arguing that it is justified to invade Libya, Iraq, Syria etc because they are not Sovereign States because they are Dictatorships. Such dangerous, illogical points have to be countered. Many don't even know the definition of "State Sovereignty" and confuse it with "Individual Sovereignty".

> The people of Libya did not have power over themselves

Read the definition again. Then again. Then one more time. The definition states: "their government is under their own control". "Their" here means the State. Not the people. When India was a Colony of British Empire, India was not a Sovereign State. As Indian Government was under the control of the British Empire. Not under the control of India. Here "their" does not mean the "people". Which is why you have two definitions: "State Sovereignty" and "Individual Sovereignty".

In Dictatorships, the State Sovereignty is embodied into the Dictator. However, the State Sovereignty still exists. It is the Individual Sovereignty that is abolished. Please understand the distinction between the two things.

> A sovereign nation of slaves is a contradiction in terms.

It is not. A Sovereign Nation of Slaves is: A Sovereign Nation of people who have no Individual Sovereignty. The Nation dictates to the Individual. The Nation by itself is Independent and All Powerful and is not a vassal state or a Colony of another Nation. Which is why in a Dictatorship, the Nation is still Sovereign (as it hasn't been Colonized by any other Nation), but the Individuals within the Nation do not enjoy Sovereignty. This distinction is extremely important.

Anyways, your argument falls flat because United Nations only inducts Sovereign Nations as Members. When ROC lost to CCP, UN recognized CCP and de-recognized ROC. Which is why Taiwan is not a member of UN. Do you understand the definition of a Sovereign State now at least?

> You have a moral right to step in and end the attack if you so chose (and again, if you can and if it makes sense in terms of self-interest).

You have that right because you were given that right by your Government. There are laws that govern self-defense, humanitarian help etc. You are protected by the Government in these instances.

> Nations are a collection of people, in the case of Libya (or Iraq) it was a collection of weaker people temporarily being tortured by a stronger bully.

No laws exist on how to deal with Nations that turn against their own people. Simply because if such laws exist, it should be framed by UN and it should be accepted by all member states. But no member state would want to be Governed by a Supranational body. Which is why the intervention in Libya/Syrian Civil Wars etc were violation of State Sovereignty. No doubts about that.

> One of your bizarre, rambling non-counters is that Libya didn't end up as a bastion of freedom as a consequence of Gaddafi being removed

How is it a non-counter? LMAO. You were the one who said that the invasion is justified as it was to re-establish Sovereignty as per your definition of the word. That failed miserably. Today Libya is in utter chaos.

> the free allies still had every moral right to invade France, invade numerous other European nations, invade Germany, and end Nazi Germany and free as many nations as they could from occupation.

They had the right because Germany invaded first. In the case of Libya, Libya did not invade anyone. It was an internal Civil War that was anyways going to end in the ouster of Gaddafi. There was literally no reason for invasion of Libya apart from stealing oil and gold reserves. So no: there was no justification for the invasion. Gaddafi regime would have collapsed anyways.

> The moral basis to invade Libya is identical to the moral basis for invading Nazi Germany (even if invading Nazi Germany obviously had a far greater national self-interest for the allies).

Bullshit. Not at all identical. Nazi Germany invaded neighboring countries. That is why invading Nazi Germany was justified. Libya did not invade any country. It is not at all identical.

> Russia, being a non-free nation, did not have a moral right to invade Germany (and of course the resulting outcome of that non-free nation invading, is that Soviet Russia did nothing more than enslave part of Europe that it invaded, taking over the role of Nazi Germany as conquerer of part of Europe).

Again bullshit. Bereft of facts. Read up on Operation Barbossa. Soviet Union invaded Germany because Germany first invaded Russia.

> Judging from your reply comment and your other responses in the thread, it's pretty clear why you had to set up a throw-away account.

Thank God I did. Just look at your replies. You did not even know that Soviet Union was invaded by Germany. You equated Nazi Germany with Libya. Are you crazy?

> Now I get why you created a throwaway... what's the difference between France and Afghanistan ? What's the difference between Germany and North Korea ? What's the difference between Switzerland and Saudi Arabia ?

Were the French citizens able to stop France from invading Libya, Syria, Iraq even after knowing that the causes/reasons were wrong? No. So how do you call it a "Democracy"?

To answer your point directly: no country in the World is truly Democratic. Most of them have varying degrees of Authoritarianism built into their structures. Your "Democratic Rights" typically extend only to voting your representatives, free speech/expression and other fundamental rights. Beyond that, most of the State actually functions like an Authoritarian regime with wide powers to do whatever it wants to do for the most part. Even checks and balances are only effective if there is no nepotism/political affinity/lobbying etc. Which is why, even with widespread anti-War sentiment during the second Iraq War, the elected Governments did not care. Many still went ahead with the War. All based on lies that Saddam had WMDs.

> You shy away from admitting authoritarian states are a bad place to live in if you want to do anythign other than drinking the governmental kool aid and give up a lot of your personal liberties

Of course it is bad place to live. I don't even need to admit something that is so obvious. I am just saying that the "Free-World" is slightly better than the Authoritarian regimes. The "slightly better" aspect is fundamental rights and ability to vote. But what I find amusing is that everyone only harps on that as if it is the be all and end all. Fundamental rights are just a stepping stone. The rest of the structure is still Authoritarian and that needs to change. It cannot change if you keep comparing the Free World to Authoritarian regimes in only the good parts. Compare the bad parts too and see how much better/worse you are. That is the only way to improve existing structures. Even in the "Free World" you have maximum incarcerations (US tops the list surpassing China — not something to be proud of) with people being jailed for frivolous things.

> he is trying to lull you into a feeling that you have no moral ground and you should just do nothing, because nothing matters and must let it all happen.

No I am not lulling him into anything. I am introspecting and speaking my mind. Not everything is propaganda. The time to do nothing should have been 30 years ago after the fall of Soviet Union. The time to do nothing was when multiple Western scholars, politicians and diplomats advised against NATO expansion to the East. That time is long gone. Ukraine is already invaded. Other non-NATO countries might be next (based on the outcome of this War). We are way past "propaganda influencing opinion" here. We are already at point of introspecting failures of the past.

> I think that's a really great question that a lot of people want to ask Putin.

But not ask NATO? You don't see the hypocrisy here? Both Putin and NATO are wrong.

Why is it so hard to just admit faults?

None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

The only time it is "permissible" is when you have been directly attacked by a Country or you have actionable intelligence that your Country will be threatened.

Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

I really feel we need to respect the territorial boundaries of all countries. Doesn't matter if it is Russia, China, India, USA or any European country. Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.

But as you pointed out, every major power, including the UNSC, has violated territorial integrity of various countries on frivolous grounds. I guess it ultimately boils down to human nature: to break and twist rules and definitions to justify invasions/genocide/terrorism etc. The hypocrisy is only when one side is whitewashed while other side is castigated. Depending on which camp you are, you are either declared a Hero or a Villain. But at the end of the day, both sides are doing the same thing: Killing human beings, destroying the environment and causing untold suffering of millions of living creatures.

> Maybe Putin should have formed a defensive organization like NATO to give it some padding, instead of trying to take over.

Like Soviet Union all over again? Not again. Why not just stay in your own borders and not try to place nukes in other countries for starters? That is far more easier right? Just respect each others sovereignty and not threaten a country by pointing nukes at it 24/7? That would be a good place to start!

> Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis looked anything like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now?

We almost faced Nuclear Armageddon. So it was far worse. Right now, the situation is lopsided with Russia having clear dominance over Ukraine when it comes to nukes. Cuban Missile Crisis was even worse as it was two nuclear powers facing off. Check out "Black Saturday". US Navy dropped "signaling" depth charges on Soviet B-59 (which was a nuclear submarine). The captain of the submarine thought the War started and wanted to launch a nuke. It was averted thanks to a Commander who was onboard. If not for the Commander, it would have lead to end of the World as both countries would have launched counter nukes.

I am not defending Gaddafi. He was a brutal dictator. No doubt about it. I am just exposing hypocrisy of the "Free World" which I am a part of as well. I am just saying that there was already a Civil War being waged within Libya to oust Gaddafi. He would have been ousted anyways by the people. There was no need to do an invasion, by breaking all rules.

Ultimately, in the International Arena, Countries represent themselves. It doesn't matter if they are Dictatorships, Theocracies, Democracies etc. The nature of a Country is not important at all. All Countries adhere to a set of International Standards/Conventions/Charters. The "Free-World" wants to differentiate itself from the rest by "claiming" that it follows the rules. Yet, the facts state otherwise. 84 countries were invaded by the "Free-World". 84 out of 193 countries. USA has fought with 43% of the World. This is just too many countries to even consider it as an exception.

You can give a lot of justifications for why each invasion took place (you can even justify invading the 11th smallest country in the World: Grenada) but then you shouldn't frown when Putin gives his justifications too. I am just showing the mirror to the "Free-World" and hoping it starts to act on TRULY differentiating itself from the Totalitarian dictatorships. To show that it TRULY follows the rules. Just saying it "follows the rules" won't cut it anymore in this day and age.

Even Hitler (the worst Dictator in recent history) pales in comparison to how many countries the West has bombed and destroyed. Millions dying. Millions more homeless. Millions moving from one country to the next as refugees. All this happened post World War 2, in relative "peace time".

Churchill is not a false analogy. He actually was responsible, single handedly, for the Bengal Famine of 1943 which killed 3 million Bengalis.

USA has invaded 84 countries. I would like you to give me one Dictator who has invaded as many countries as USA alone has. Just one will do. That will really put things into perspective.

> they could have veto'ed the resolution

Have you read the UNSC resolution? The UNSC resolution did not call for invasion of Libya. Read it if you haven't. The main point of the UNSC resolution was establishing a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using Libyan Air Force to bomb rebels and for protection of civilians. It did not order NATO to invade. Rather, NATO used the UNSC resolution as an excuse to invade. So don't blame the UNSC for this (though UNSC is to be blamed for other things: including wording the resolution vaguely/poorly that it allowed for this loophole for NATO intervention).

> concern-trolling throwaway accounts

I am not concern-trolling. I just gave my perspective/opinion. The primary reason for creating a throwaway account is because of it inevitably ending up with being labelled as a "Russian Propagandist" or a "Troll". The "Free-world" has lost appetite for debate with everything that is not mainstream being cancelled/dismissed. Which is sad unfortunately.

Have provided a detail answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30641837

> Nato did not invade Libya

This is not true at all. NATO did invade Libya on 31st March 2011. The UNSC resolution enforced a no-fly zone. It did not order a NATO invasion. Please read the resolution again (UNSC 1973). NATO flew 26,500 sorties. NATO invasion ended on 31st October 2011. Article 5 wasn't invoked either (the only time it was invoked was when 9/11 happened). So there was no need for NATO to intervene. But it still did.

Even the no-fly zone was farcical. It was meant to protect civilians. General Carter Ham (Head of US Africa Command) said that he was unable to differentiate between civilians/rebels/Gaddafi forces etc [1]. It was up to the pilot to take a call on whether he wants to bomb or not. This was reported in April of 2011 as well where NATO planes erroneously bombed row of tanks that belong to the rebels [2] clearly violating UNSC resolution of protecting "civilians".

In fact, the Indian and Brazilian representatives made the same point, when the UNSC 1973 was tabled, that the resolution was too vague and poorly drafted. That is why both countries abstained from voting for the intervention in Libya.

[1]: https://www.wired.com/2011/03/u-s-general-we-wont-help-libya...

[2]: https://www.france24.com/en/20110408-doubt-over-nato-militar...

HN has limited me so I am posting a comment here. First of all, I am happy that people are actually engaging instead of dismissing the comment as Russian Propaganda (though few have). Secondly, there are some important misconceptions:

1. One commenter said that "Nato did not invade Libya" and quoted UNSC resolution as the basis for intervention.

This is not true at all. NATO did invade Libya on 31st March 2011. The UNSC resolution enforced a no-fly zone. It did not order a NATO invasion. Please read the resolution again (UNSC 1973). NATO flew 26,500 sorties. NATO invasion ended on 31st October 2011. Article 5 wasn't invoked either (the only time it was invoked was when 9/11 happened). So there was no need for NATO to intervene. But it still did.

Even the no-fly zone was farcical. It was meant to protect civilians. General Carter Ham (Head of US Africa Command) said that he was unable to differentiate between civilians/rebels/Gaddafi forces etc [1]. It was up to the pilot to take a call on whether he wants to bomb or not. This was reported in April of 2011 as well where NATO planes erroneously bombed row of tanks that belong to the rebels [2] clearly violating UNSC resolution of protecting "civilians".

In fact, the Indian and Brazilian representatives made the same point, when the UNSC 1973 was tabled, that the resolution was too vague and poorly drafted. That is why both countries abstained from voting for the intervention in Libya.

[1]: https://www.wired.com/2011/03/u-s-general-we-wont-help-libya...

[2]: https://www.france24.com/en/20110408-doubt-over-nato-militar...

2. One commenter asked: "Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis looked anything like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now?"

We almost faced Nuclear Armageddon. So it was far worse. Right now, the situation is lopsided with Russia having clear dominance over Ukraine when it comes to nukes. Cuban Missile Crisis was even worse as it was two nuclear powers facing off. Check out "Black Saturday". US Navy dropped "signaling" depth charges on Soviet B-59 (which was a nuclear submarine). The captain of the submarine thought the War started and wanted to launch a nuke. It was averted thanks to a Commander who was onboard. If not for the Commander, it would have lead to end of the World as both countries would have launched counter nukes.

3. Why aren't you condemning Dictators/Authoritarians/Totalitarians etc?

I am condemning them. But I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy that we in the "Free World" exhibit. We try to project that we are "Angels" and here to rescue people from all evil. Yet we are the biggest perpetrators of violence in the World.

It is the "Free World" which invaded 84 countries, killed millions and displaced millions more. Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/Putin/Mao/etc etc are all faces of evil. Just by statistics alone, we beat all of them combined. It is high time we acknowledge this and act on it. Stop unnecessary Wars. Stop setting precedents for others (Dictators/Extremists) to justify their wrongdoings.

> Libya wasn't a sovereign state

It was and still is a Sovereign State. Except now it is a failed State thanks to Western invasion. I don't know where you get your definition of "Sovereign State" from but in the dictionary it has a clear definition: "a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power."

Merriam Webster: "Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority".

It doesn't talk about "Democracy" anywhere. Nor does it state that the State is Sovereign only when it is by the people.

> legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign.

Bullshit.

> Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves

Bullshit again.

> Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship.

More bullshit.

"Sovereign State" has nothing to do with political nature/structure of the State: it can be a Democracy, Dictatorship, Religious State (like Vatican or Islamic countries) or anything it wishes to be. You, me or anyone else in the World have no moral standing to bomb it to oblivion and destroy it. Period. It is for the people to decide. If they want to overthrow the Dictatorship it is their Right to do it. They can do it. There was already a Civil War in Libya to oust Gaddafi. The people would have decided to bring down Gaddafi on their own. There was no need for Western invasion of Libya. The Western invasion was for nefarious purposes. But I'll be digressing.

Also, if Libya wasn't a "Sovereign State" it wouldn't even be a member of the United Nations.

Do you mean to say you have every right to invade most Islamic Nations because they aren't democracies? What about the Vatican? You feel you should invade it and "free" the people because it is not a Democracy? It is a Theocracy and a Dictatorship too.

> Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.

Russia is wrong too. Not going to defend Russia here. No country has any moral standing to invade another country unless the Government in power, in that country, asks for help or the country attacked your country.

Anyways, even if I go by your definition of it being a "moral right" to invade a Dictatorship and "free the slaves", even in that mission the West failed miserably. The West replaced Dictator Gaddafi in Libya with Islamic Terror groups/warlords + Slave markets. The West replaced Dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq with ISIS + Slave markets. Demolished all Civilization and turned them into literal ghost towns. The West invaded Afghanistan to catch Osama Bin Laden and get rid of Taliban, demolished everything, rebuilt everything, and when we were all going to exclaim that finally one US intervention led to peaceful Afghanistan with Democracy, the US left, without cleaning out the Taliban, with Taliban taking over the Country + 85 billion dollars worth of advanced weapon systems.

So even by your own definition of establishing a "Sovereign Nation", the West failed in achieving its objectives.

> NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus.

Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit. You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period. No "consensus" can justify the invasion. You just don't invade. If the Government calls for help, then and only then you have a right to go help. If it is a Civil War, you let the people decide. You do not interfere. This is the rules-based order that the West keeps thrusting on everyone else. But the West doesn't follow itself. Hypocritical.

Which is what empowers deviants like Putin to do what he is doing. The West has set precedent for it through "consensus" and "justifications". Putin is also giving his "justifications". This nonsense has to stop. Respect territorial sovereignty. No matter how ugly the situation is in a country that is NOT YOURS, you plainly, simply, do not INVADE IT. Unless the Country itself has threatened you.

> It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face.

Even though I am against Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he also has a "justification" like the West does (for its invasions of 84 countries). NATO has expanded 5 times to the East and now borders Russia. Placed its nukes, ballistic missiles on all the member states. All pointing at Russia 24/7. Now you are telling me that Putin has "no good intent"? Is this not good enough intent? Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis? Isn't it hypocritical that the West did not want Soviet nukes in Cuba but is actively placing nukes in NATO member states and bringing NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders?

Did the West not promise Russia that it won't expand NATO after fall of Soviet Union? Professor Trachtenberg unearthed declassified documents from British National Archives which reveals that such promises were indeed made [1]. The actual archived declassified document [2].

[1]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1...

[2]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1...

So many Western scholars, politicians, diplomats have, for the past 30 years, repeatedly warned the West of not expanding NATO. That it will antagonize Russia. The flashpoint will be in Ukraine. Not to risk poking the bear. Yet the West did not care for the viewpoints of these experts. All of them have now turned out to be right.

Now you are telling me that the West follows "rules-based order" and is morally better than Putin. Yet the West unilaterally breaks treaties: Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty to Treaty on Open Skies and faces no repercussions or sanctions?

When China conducted Nuclear tests in 1990s the West did not sanction China. But when India conducted reciprocal Nuclear tests as a response to Chinese Nuclear tests, India was sanctioned by the West. Do you still not see the hypocrisy here?

I can keep giving umpteen examples of flagrant International Law violations by the West. Yet somehow it is morally superior compared to other countries that also break the same laws.

> Russia will try to find a way around these sanctions generally but it will be less efficient. It is not that easy to substitute everything. Russians may not care about latest brand items but domestic substitutions will not be always of good quality or functionality. It wasn't during Soviet Union and depending how long these sanctions last, it will gradually impact Russia.

You are forgetting China here. 70% of mobile phone market in India is dominated by Chinese phones which are honestly far more feature packed than the latest iPhone. Of course one does not have any idea about privacy/security aspects of it. Will definitely not be as secure as an iPhone. But for a regular user, does this actually matter? Especially in developing countries? More so in Russia?

When Soviet Union collapsed, China's GDP was slightly higher than India's GDP. It wasn't yet the manufacturing base and supply chain of the World. The West propped China up for 3 decades. Now Russia/Russians won't miss out much to be honest with you. There are alternatives for everything Western and then some.

> countries will make sanctions even stronger

In what way? The sanctions are already the strongest. There is nothing more "stronger" that can be done now. What can be "stronger" than cutting off financial telecommunications (through SWIFT)? Cutting off oil? That can be easily re-routed to India and China. India and China will love discounted Russian oil.

I think the West is overestimating the impact of Sanctions.

> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine.

Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf?

Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause.

> People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.

Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.

Rather, do you in the free World see what is being shown to you in the free World as the Truth? Are you 100% sure that you aren't being shown a filtered version of what is actually happening? You just believe you are in a free World and that all actors are acting, not out of self interests, but for the greater good?

Don't forget that it is the "free World" which allowed Bay of Pigs, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Vietnam, invasion of Syria, invasion of Libya etc etc. 84 countries have been invaded by the so called "free World". Even Grenada wasn't spared (11th tiniest country in the World) with hardly any military. Bombed by USA. The Prime Minister of Grenada assassinated.

When you look at it, from this perspective, you begin to question who is the actual totalitarian here? How many countries have dictators invaded? We all talk about Mao killing millions in China. True. Not going to defend it. But do you question Churchill who deliberately, as a matter of written policy, caused the Bengal Famine which resulted in millions of Bengalis dying? When he was told that Bengalis are dying, Churchil asked "if Gandhi had died yet?". I don't see Churchil being compared to Hitler anywhere.

How about Regan? When the media questioned him about invasion of Grenada. That it was a flagrant violation of International Laws. That the UN General Assembly voted 108-9 against US invasion of Grenada. He famously said: "it didn't upset my breakfast at all".

So where is this "Free World"?

What use is a Democracy if you cannot stop an unjust War? What is the difference between your State and the so called "Totalitarian State"? Just that you can shout on the streets and register your protest? Is that the only difference? That won't get back millions of people who were killed by invasions from the so called "Free World".

I belong to this so called "Free World" too. Yet I won't shy away from admitting that we are bloody hypocrites. We preach to the World on morality but we have done the worst of the worst things known to mankind. So what moral standing do I have to say: "Russia bad"? Nothing at all. We have done even worse. History is a witness to it. We can't lie our way out of it.

Creating a throwaway as I have a controversial take on this (maybe even the minority opinion here):

In my opinion, Ruble will become stable in few months (once the dust has settled that is). The sanctions are only imposed by the West (many Asian countries abstained from voting in UNSC). Russia will use Chinese Unionpay in-lieu of Mastercard/Visa and might integrate with Chinese CIPS (alternative to SWIFT). Probably even Indian Rupay in the future. It also has its own homegrown Mir Payment System. The sanctions jolt is going to be temporary. Ultimately SWIFT is going to not be dominant anymore. This is some hard reality that the West has to come to terms with. If anything, these sanctions have fast-tracked establishment of a multi-polar World and rejig of alliances.

Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting.

They'll all have a rethink on what it means to be allied with the West and follow a "Rules based order" that only applies to countries excluding the West. It naturally follows that they will want to balance out their National interests and not place all their eggs in one basket.

One thing is for sure. These circumstances will only boost alternative forms of currency/payment systems. Imagine having the entire payment infrastructure controlled by handful of countries who can act with impunity. For whom, the so called "rules" don't apply but do apply for everyone else.