why is it that even in the face of evidence, people still give Russia so much benefit of the doubt? Putin has been playing chess since the early 2000s and is it so far fetched to think creating a dependence on its energy resources is definitely in his playbook at achieving its goal of attaining power and influence in the region?
I mean my god, have you not been paying attention to the migrant crisis, the funneling of Rosneft incentives to far-right political parties in Western Europe? It's all just a conspiracy to suggest these are successfully weakening the EU?
What? I'm not saying russia didn't pay off far right parties or whatever. The comment i was replying to was talking about anti nuclear sentiment. Changing public opinion to that extant would require a much much more involved process than just bribing a few officials.
It's not giving russia the benefit of the doubt, I'm just very doubtful that russian intelligence services are so competent while being much less well funded and having a lot less material reach than their american counterparts. Yet, it would be ludicrous to just assume that even the CIA could have the means to manipulate the public opinion so much that you'd get such a widespread anti nuclear sentiment in big country like germany, right? All of that without getting detected.
Here in Germany many small independent journalists were able to discover the industrial figures regularly interacting/receiving gifts, trips, stock certificates from Rosneft executives and oligarchs who are essentially actors for Russian government.
but still people seem genuinely shocked and continue to fall back on their myopic cold war view of the geopolitical european landscape by their mainstream media (without any suspicion or question of the narrative) it seems largely the result of being separated by the Atlantic ocean and a bulk of European countries that the average American cannot name.
Already I can see people from Poland and EU countries furiously downvoting and flagging my comments as "Russian Propaganda"
None of this is a surprise to us here in Germany, our relationship with Russia might be shocking to someone sitting in front of FOX or ABC news.
Even more shocking might be how the German elite and the working class view the Ukraine situation. To them, Ukraine was a source of worry due to its cheap labor wages and proximity to Russia would create a competing industrial center.
Even more outrageous might be how many in Germany are actually in favor of Russia's actions to take Ukraine away from EU/NATO.
It's funny to me how people still think EU can last like this.
> Even more shocking might be how the German elite and the working class view the Ukraine situation. To them, Ukraine was a source of worry due to its cheap labor wages and proximity to Russia would create a competing industrial center.
> Even more outrageous might be how many in Germany are actually in favor of Russia's actions to take Ukraine away from EU/NATO.
Both of those are very strong claims. What are your sources?
Hey, i too am a german and can confirm, that ur comment about our politic view is completly wrong. Even former kanzlerin Angela Merkel said, that we need to stoo putin now. So please stop activly missinforming people
Still loads of Europeans dont trust the US. 3 months ago Russia wasn't that bad and I'd expect most Europeans would be as happy to trade with Russia as the USA.
A bit of this but mostly as others pointed out, EU nations reliant on Russian gas also happen to hold large sway over other members is what is causing reluctance to destroy their own economy to serve the interests of US security umbrella.
One EU country went as far as to remove ALL nuclear source of energy to increase dependence on Rosneft. In this same country many DO NOT WANT another Greece mooching off them and WANT putin to take Ukraine out of the picture before other EU smaller member states with US backing will demand them in.
Likely some talk took place between Xi and Putin to create a barter system, to trade Grain for Oil and vice versa. This explains why Putin is totally unphased by threats of Western sanctions because he realizes the EU's interest is not aligned with NATO/US security goals.
Think about this by supplying cheap Russian gas, they could overnight dictate where the next industrial region in Europe would form. They could sell to Berlin at several times the markup it used to receive while supplying its industrial outsourcing in other European countries with cheaper gas to force to spread out Germany's production chain.
There's just so many ways to manipulate Europe, its no longer clear who holds the ultimate veto power in Europe. Is it the nuclear armed and hesitant Western Europe nations or is it the nuclear armed and hostile Russia?
Financial sanctions just do not make an impact if a country is determined to take its national security concerns known to its enemies.
Putin is not only cunning, he is proving to be far more capable and adventurous than any other leader in the region. Like in a game of poker, fortune favors the bold, or whoever risks more stands to gain/lose more.
Kiev will fall in a few weeks and Russia has barely used its full capacity, most likely to avoid collateral damage that would impact its political objectives: decapitation of the central Ukranian authority
This might be an unpopular opinion obviously being part of the l'occident world but NATO/US alignment of conflicting regional interests of EU members dependant on Russia's energy goods might be to blame.
Eastern portion of Ukraine is heavily in favor of joining Russia as most speak Russian while he central and western parts want to join the EU but this is largely a one sided love affair. EU has repeatedly stalled and delayed Ukraine's membership seeing that it would be the second poorest member state after Greece, and thus would be against the interest of Germany, who stand to gain a lot by using Russia's gas pipeline.
Enter Maidan revolution, while not outright instigated by the US, one does raise questions about the role of Facebook in previous revolutions namely the Arab Spring movement, Syrian rebellion, etc, and how quickly they were able to spread a the Maidan propaganda that EU/NATO membership was imminent when it couldn't be further from the truth.
The 2014 invasion was relatively well restrained campaign at reminding who the master of Ukraine is which was promptly ignored by the following administrations. Rather than choose peace with Russia by remaining neutral, they chose to go down the impossibly difficult act of trying to gain NATO membership with a border dispute in Donetsk/Lukansk region.
It might very well be said that Putin planned to take Ukraine anyways and 2014 was a test run and a good platform to encircle and hook into Moldova, another potential hotspot. The fact remains that leaving the Ukraine flatlands to NATO troops would open up Moscow to an indefensible flank, the upkeep cost of maintaining a wide frontline the size of Ukraine-Russia border would bankrupt Russia.
Simply put the cost of inaction was calculated to be far greater than the risk of action.
Imagine if you will, Mexico wanted to join China's security umbrella and it was receiving Chinese troops, tanks, hardware right across the US-Mexico border. Next Canada joins the party.
How quickly do you think the US would put down such strategic positioning?
You are repeating Russian propaganda, several points of which were repeatedly refuted (for example the polls about eastern Ukraine wanting to join Russia).
Absolutely fascinating to see brand new accounts (all made within the last ~2 months) repeating the same propaganda here on HN, of all places. And not just one, but several -- exactly the same language, too: "Mexico ICBMs," "Azov Battalion," etc. I don't want to accuse anyone of disinfo ops, but spending literally all my day on social media today (reddit/Twitter/FB/HN/etc.), I've started to notice patterns.
You don’t have to understand these “patterns” as just disinfo though, there’s plenty of reasons why people would make new accounts just to start political debates, other than being “hired by Russia/China” as both the mainstream liberals/conservatives of the US often default to. It’s just that some people want to post their political opinions separate from their main accounts; when they really have some arguments they want to say about current events, they simply create throwaway accounts. And if you’ve ever done even a modicum of Twitter, you’ll know that some people are just very enthusiastic about their political opinions even without any financial incentives (even when what they’re spouting can be very polemic and seem like state propaganda).
I’m totally fine for criticizing the OP in factual, political, or ideological terms, but think that shrugging these comments off as “disinfo” actually deter any civil debate and actively increase the amount of hysteria among people and make things worse (you’ve said you’ve been all day on social media… maybe this is why you’re currently overtly hysterical about paid state actors on the Internet?)
And you are simply refusing to see reality as it is because you have biases going in, I'm simply trying to see why this is happening and who really started it but if you keep trying to reduce this to an us-vs-them juvenility then knock yourself out. I have no interest in this region other than figuring out what got us here.
Also I have no intention of backing a country like Russia but I also don't feel any sort of ideological camaraderie just because I am from the West. This coldness is largely how I deal with human attrocities, I take the emotion out of it and reduce biases to accurately gauge reality.
Can't do that when you let somebody tell you what is propaganda or an entire country are the baddies and we are the goodies....I mean that was fun in high school but surely you realize the duality and hypocritical nature of our modern reality....or at least might have been too much to ask during the war itself.
Perhaps when Ukraine becomes part of Russia which it inevitably will be through a forced federalization, will it strike just how badly the Ukranian leadership screwed up in misjudging Ukraine's geopolitical importance—if not obvious from the West's lack of military reaction.
I'm sorry but Ukraine does not produce any derivative goods like Taiwan's semiconductor industry which is of critical strategic importance to the West and one which US signaled military action against China in the event Xi tries to take it.
> I'm simply trying to see why this is happening and who really started it
Great. Do you see the missiles sent in from the territory of Russia to blow stuff up in Ukrain? Or the Russian tanks moving about in Ukraine? Or the Russian attack helicopters delivering troops to Ukraine?
It is happening because someone controlling the Russian military ordered it to happen.
If you have to twist your mind into pretzels to explain that this all happened because Russia felt so threatened that they had no other choice then have at it. There is no rational basis for that.
> entire country are the baddies and we are the goodies
That is ridiculous and nobody said anything like that in the whole thread.
"In recent months, Russia has once again been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, with the US and Western media loudly proclaiming (since November) that Russia is planning an imminent invasion of the Ukraine, though Russia has repeatedly denied that fact and it's not exactly clear what Russia is waiting for, or what advantage it could expect to derive from lying about its intentions at this point (the whole Western world expects an invasion and the US has pulled embassy staff from Kiev)."
Given that it's now obvious that Russia in fact has been planning an invasion of the Ukraine, for months, which furthermore undermines the author's later claim that there was some peaceful concession that Putin would've accepted... I'm not sure why I should take this author's argument seriously. They seem naive and under informed.
Well, here’s a talk at Yale that makes the same points. I don’t know if everything in there is factually correct. But it does very clearly why Putin is acting the way he is.
No, that's not a strawman at all. International relations are a mess, trying to figure the interests of both parties out isn't a propaganda campaign to justify anything. Actually, not trying to that and painting one side as universally evil seems to be propaganda.
I do understand why this is necessary so, because without unity those conflicts tend to be so much easier to loose. Again, as always, I don't justify Putin's actions here. I try understand hos motivation so, and political leadership around the globe should too, because if it works he won't stop. And Ukraine isn't the only region with disputed borders and conflicting territorial interests involving nuclear powers. If we want to find peaceful solutions for those conflicts, we need to understand them first. Just saying "other side evil and crazy, we good" is too shallow.
Thanks for explaining this much better than me. I totally get why people are upset, watching Twitter feeds and videos can get to some people, perhaps I should've been more sensitive that my opinions might be construed as defending Russia's action which I am certainly not since I have no horse in this fight.
I simply understand geopolitics as a game of power and its easier for me to characterize nations as weaker vs stronger in terms of geopolitical capital when I'm describing my ideas, and some people might have been off put at my description of Ukraine as slave caught between two masters.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same security concerns that America would face under similar circumstances as described, any rational individual would be cognizant that such logical deduction would be intensely rejected by an emotionally charged why-would-mainstream-media-lie-to-the-ppl types that largely act as amplifiers of pre-packaged ideological responses aimed at producing more fear and miscalculations aka war mongering.
> But please tell me again how bombing Kyiv has anything to do with "liberating" the eastern regions
This is a gross extrapolation based on your own conjectures at this point. I did not justify the bombing of Kyiv, more simply pointing out that your own emotional response towards Russia is creating blindspots in your ability to rationally figure out why a conflict is happening now suddenly.
> The same security concerns that America would face under similar circumstances as described
The fact that Russia cannot "make friends" without stepping on their throat explain how they think Mexico could entertain something as having a Chinese base on it and their corresponding reaction. It's how bullies justify their behaviour.
> This is a gross extrapolation
It is what is happening right now. In the same way the discourse last week was "Russia would not invade" and "they are mere military exercises in Belarus"
Eeh, you could say the same about the US. Please just have an objective view of these, and not taking sides when it doesn't really concern your individual self
> Imagine if you will, Mexico wanted to join China's security umbrella and it was receiving Chinese troops, tanks, hardware right across the US-Mexico border. Next Canada joins the party.
Imagine how much raping, murdering and pillaging the US would have to do beforehand to force Canada seek isolation from the US at all cost.
Whataboutists always seem to forget Russia's past actions. EE countries seeking security guarantees is not something that happened in vacuum.
> The 2014 invasion was relatively well restrained campaign at reminding who the master of Ukraine is which was promptly ignored by the following administrations.
WTF? Ukraine is a sovereign nation.
> Eastern portion of Ukraine is heavily in favor of joining Russia
This is factually incorrect, even today, and it was always so.
There is plenty of disinformation around this subject but the whole idea that one day the Donbas region decided that it wanted to join Russia and that those pesky Ukrainians in the Western part of the country wouldn't let them is bogus.
Demographically, Russian speakers in this part were reliant on Ukraine for much of its access to natural resources and capital, there is a sense of being poor and looked down upon by the Ukranians in the West and its exactly this class divide that fuels ethno-nationalism.
To simply whip out a PDF and scream disinformation seem awfully short sighted way to influence people's opinions especially because it is condescending to the average HN user who has access to a plethora of fact finding search engines and social media to judge what the truth is.
It's up to the readers to gather information themselves and find the truths, not have it shoved down their throat in some emotional mania state of us vs them primal instincts.
Ukraine was never part of the West and it can never be if you understand the military strategic value of its flatlands.
> Demographically, Russian speakers in this part were reliant on Ukraine for much of its access to natural resources and capital, there is a sense of being poor and looked down upon by the Ukranians in the West and its exactly this class divide that fuels ethno-nationalism.
Half of Ukraine speaks Russian, including most of Kyiv. It wasn't looked down until Russia started the aggression. If anything western Ukraine (being less wealthy) was stereotypized as less developed and Ukrainian language was associated with that.
It became fashionable for Russian speaking Ukrainians to switch to speak Ukrainian after 2014 which is understandable.
In short you're wrong about almost everything.
> Ukraine was never part of the West and it can never be if you understand the military strategic value of its flatlands.
Ukraine was part of the west for over 300 years and why should it matter anyway? Ukrainians have the right to decide what they want to do.
> Demographically, Russian speakers in this part were reliant on Ukraine for much of its access to natural resources and capital, there is a sense of being poor and looked down upon by the Ukranians in the West and its exactly this class divide that fuels ethno-nationalism.
You mean: like Latvia. Where it works just fine.
> To simply whip out a PDF and scream disinformation seem awfully short sighted way to influence people's opinions especially because it is condescending to the average HN user who has access to a plethora of fact finding search engines and social media to judge what the truth is.
Yes, the truth is: the Eastern part of Ukraine was the poorest, mostly because of the flow of capital going West-to-East, like in most countries that border even poorer countries to their East and richer countries to their West.
> It's up to the readers to gather information themselves and find the truths, not have it shoved down their throat in some emotional mania state of us vs them primal instincts.
Ah, the 'do your own research' bit. Yes, I remember that from some other context.
> Ukraine was never part of the West and it can never be if you understand the military strategic value of its flatlands.
Latvia is, at least for now, a sovereign nation. Not part of one, bigger nation. We have similar issues in Europe, Belgium, Spain, England and Scotland. It seems mankind still didn't figure a way around people's self determination that doesn't regularly end in open warfare since the end of WW1.
Ukraine is also not part of a bigger nation, it is a nation.
As for self determination: as long as it isn't financed and pushed by a foreign adversary I say have at it. But in the case of Ukraine it is pretty clear who was pulling those strings.
Ukraine is a nation, parts that might prefer not to be are no nation. Everybody is pulling strings in Ukraine, the Maidan revolution was supported by the West, the separatists are supported by Russia, organized crime is supporting corruption. And now?
The problem is that NATO and the West lost so much credibility in the last decades that we stand on shaky ground when we oppose moves such as Putin's. The West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the latter one was totally unjustified. We happily deal with Saudi Arabia and support their war in Yemen. Spain can crack down on their Catalonian independence movement as much as they want, including blocking voting access with police. The EU lets, literally, drown poor people in the Mediterranean. I could go on. Thing is, Russia has no right whatsoever to invade Ukraine. The question is, what is the world going to do about it?
> Ukraine is a nation, parts that might prefer not to be are no nation.
Might is pretty thin ice, here, they didn't and they don't.
> Everybody is pulling strings in Ukraine, the Maidan revolution was supported by the West, the separatists are supported by Russia, organized crime is supporting corruption. And now?
The separatists are a small fraction (best estimates around 23%) in the East and without Russian support they would have been overrun long ago.
> The problem is that NATO and the West lost so much credibility in the last decades that we stand on shaky ground when we oppose moves such as Putin's.
No, the problem is that NATO is a very blunt weapon that doesn't really work well against nuclear armed dictators.
> The West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the latter one was totally unjustified.
Agreed.
> We happily deal with Saudi Arabia and support their war in Yemen.
Again, agreed.
> Spain can crack down on their Catalonian independence movement as much as they want, including blocking voting access with police.
Agreed again.
> The EU lets, literally, drown poor people in the Mediterranean. I could go on.
And again. But: even if you could go on, you shouldn't because none of these have anything to do with Russia invading Ukraine.
> The question is, what is the world going to do about it?
Apparently, not a whole lot and it bothers me quite a bit.
> The question is, what is the world going to do about it?
>> Apparently, not a whole lot and it bothers me quite a bit.
Me too.
> And again. But: even if you could go on, you shouldn't because none of these have anything to do with Russia invading Ukraine.
Well, I think it does. Because doing the same (TM) thing all over the world, although for different (official) reasons, limits your credibility when you criticize others. And it makes it so much easier for, in this case Putin, to pain the West as the true aggressor (which, in this case, is wrong). In the war of disinformation it doesn't matter so. And it opens up venues within Western society to create, as limited as it might be, support for Russia's actions. There have already been the first demonstrations in Germany with people carrying pro-Putin slogans.
Actually a good write down, I think it's not to far from the mark as far as Putin's perspective is concerned.
Since more than one thing can be, and usually is, true at the same time, I think one part is exactly as you described. The other is that Putin simply really wants Ukraine back in the fold, among other countries that used to be part if the USSR.
Again, all of that is just a, potential, explanation. It is not, by any means, an excuse or justification.
Here's where I differ and as much as I detest Russia's actions and Putins kleptocracy, he is a chess player, highly rational and calculating.
The idea that Putin wants to reclaim the former USSR border is ludicrous to me because it would mean raiding his own coffers.
He comes across as an opportunistic and a highly adventurous individual focused on wealth building.
I don't know if you read Alex Litvenenko's book but Putin's roots, his associates and friends, wealth was his end goal from the start. Why someone like him would be considered to be capable of empire building (when he could barely contain Chechnya) is beyond me.
Putin is a thug and he cares more about his wealth than the interest of his own country, and the #1 threat to him isn't sanctions but Hague trials.
There is overwhelming evidence that Putin was responsible for the apartment bombings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings), and if the truth came out, it wouldn't be his own people that take him down alone but the combined threat of NATO military action and an emboldened local populace.
Again I am not a psychologist but someone this selfish and material focused (his stupid Versailles 2.0 project that went to crap) is simply NOT interested in restoring USSR glory or anything like that but rather like any good capitalist, obsessed with maintaining his wealth.
How do you know cows dont have fun too or engage in complex problem solving? Pigs seem quite intelligent also and capable of solving puzzles as do crows. Seems like having fun is a natural part of all sentient beings as boredom is inevitable.
Could it be that the novelty of discovering that octopus, a crustacean after thought, could suddenly be as intelligent if not more than the pig (thought to be more intelligent than a canine), prevent you from consuming it? Is the irony of people shouting Octopus Lives Matter protesting against its farming but not the massive industrial scale beef/pork production capacities not clear?
Why even stop there? What if tomorrow you learn plants were able to perform puzzles and solve problems, would you view your veggies differently?
An awful criteria for determining what is morally sound to consume as food, can humans also be consumed if they are unable to solve a simple Rubrik's cube? What if they are inside a box where your perception of whether the subject is having fun or not determines their life or death, upon the latter, you are morally safe and sound in partaking in cannibalism?
Their whole concept of centralized governance is based on snitching and secret police since the Tsar days.
The US is also a massive chunk of land with heavily armed populace, how does it deal with state wide enforcement?
They both utilize a three letter agency that stands ready to infiltrate, assassinate, demoralize, discredit and reward snitches.
It appears that violence seems to be the root of all power, and power has positive correlation with access to secrecy. The more secret and violent you are, the more you are feared. Fear of violence and the unknown amplify the need for careful self-regulating behaviors amongst the sentient group competing for scarce goods.
There must've been some sort of evolutionary benefit in perception of time shortening as you get older for most people.
Adulthood is rife with disappointments and positive apathy, if such cycles would seemingly get longer, existential crisis might set in and the organism might start self-destructing.
this reminds me of a small fish that used to visit me during my dives, it would take me to things he found, bottles, coins, shells.
was not the first time it happened because the same fish with the same markings (im quite sure of it) would visit me.
so im thinking what is going on here? how is it that a fish is able to recognize me in my gear and comes to me in the same vicinity?
it appears to be communicating too by leading me to stuff he finds. it lets me even pet it which it seems to enjoy.
again i dont know what its thinking but from these actions one might strongly conclude that there is some sort of sentient mutual awareness and that its able to engage in both recognition, my presence and subtle communication (by showing me treasures he find)
I guess my point is perceiving feelings is not limited between two humans only (obviously super tough with text alone, it is something else.
