Yes and no. For example, production of Soviet-compatible ammunition is restored in some NATO countries. However, production rate is not high enough to have parity with RF. IMHO, Ukraine should capture Russian stocks in Transnistria to match RF stocks. Taiwan has no such option. Moreover, Taiwan sea routes can be easily interrupted with sea mines. If the war will start this year, then it's too late to bump up weapon production.
The Ukraine war has demonstrated you don’t need parity in shells. A dozen or two HIMARS turned the tide against hundreds of artillery pieces; mobility, range, and accuracy mattered more than being able to send hundreds of shells in a general direction.
While we’re comparing Ukraine and Taiwan, Taiwan has significant defensive advantages; tougher terrain, no land border, and they’ve been fortifying for decades. Even river crossings in Ukraine are fraught with peril, let alone an ocean strait.
People in Ukraine had reasons to break out of Jail of Nations, but I see no single reason to join RF instead of EU and NATO. Most Slavic nations are already in EU, except Ukraine and Belarus. Why Ukraine should join former Golden Horde?
The flamewar you started (and perpetuated) here is among the worst I've ever seen. That's seriously not ok, regardless of how right your cause is or you feel it is.
How deluded by propaganda do people need to believe that Russia is the former Golden Horde.
Here is some education. Ukraine and Russia share a common, ethnic, linguistic and cultural heritage. They also share a common political heritage with the name of the country meaning borderland (of Russia). In fact Ukraine was no more an independent country than Wales until about 30 years ago.
While Russia economically recovered in the early 2000s ukraine stagnated, in part due to pervasive corruption.
Finally in 2014 the elected president of Ukraine was illegally driven out by a mob fired up by pie in the sky hopes of prosperity in the EU / Nato fold.
Now almost a decade later Ukraine is neither in the EU nor NATO and its territory has been ravaged by war.
Meanwhile a former comedian whose first language is Russian is president.
Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. This hell is not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> While Russia economically recovered in the early 2000s ukraine stagnated, in part due to pervasive corruption.
That economic recovery was largely driven by a commodities boom, and the economic benefits of such are poorly distributed among Russians. That is to say, when you look at the poorer, rural sections of the country, the Ukrainians have done much better post-USSR than Russians have.
> Is this what winning looks like?
Well, in almost a year of war, Russia has managed to only temporarily capture one major city, failed to capture two more major cities (one of which is literally a day's march away from the border, and the other one only thrice as far). It also lost a flagship (to someone who doesn't really have a navy!), and the pride project in Crimea was put out of commission by Ukraine and still hasn't been restored for satisfactory military usage. Let's not forget the sheer number of officers and seasoned soldiers who are now dead.
In wider political ramifications, the non-aligned neighbors near it have suddenly decided that it is in their interest to join an opposing alliance. Russia's proxies in other countries have been undercut, but especially in Ukraine where pro-Russia sentiment has collapsed from about on par with pro-Western sentiment to near nonexistence. The largest customer of its primary export is planning on never buying from them ever again.
In contrast to all of that, yes, Ukraine is winning.
> Ukraine and Russia share a common, ethnic, linguistic and cultural heritage.
Ukraine is the mix of Slavs and historic Russians (русичи) (from the town of Russia, now Old Russa, on Russia river, now Porussia river). "Russians" from Russian Federations are members of Russian orthodox church or citizens of Russian Federation. There was a split between "Polish" (Catholics) and "Russian" (Eastern Orthodox) members in Ukraine a few centuries ago.
> They also share a common political heritage with the name of the country meaning borderland (of Russia).
Nope. Ukraine is the original Russia, now called Kievan Rus by RF. "Ukraine" share same word root with such words as "ukryttia" (shelter), "ukriplennia" (reinforced structure). Modern equivalent world for "ukraine" is "ukripraion" (reinforced area of defense). Poland built multiple areas of defense ("ukraines") on their eastern border, so the whole area got name "Ukraine".
> In fact Ukraine was no more an independent country than Wales until about 30 years ago.
Bohdan Khmelnytskyi was Hetman of Ukraine since 1654, almost century before Russian Empire was created in 1721.
Ukrainian ethnogenesis is happening in real time. If that is worth fighting for is up to Ukrainians and their native Russian speaking president.
However to portray it as something with a long history is fundamentally dishonest.
It is somewhat similar to the American revolution where people with common language and history rebelled against their parent nation and over time formed a new national identity of their own.
Bohdan Khmelynytski was a medieval peasant warlord. He can only be considered a founder of the Ukrainian nation in retrospect. At his time the main mission of his calvary was slaughtering poles and jews unfortunate enough to live in territory he controlled, as a kind of precursor to NAZI death squads several centuries later.
It is a historical fact that Ukraine and Russia are two branches of the same tree and are essentially the same ethnicity speaking different but mostly mutually intelligible dialects.
I mean Zelensky (who Khmelnytskyi would have killed) speaks Russian as his first language.
> Nope. Ukraine is the original Russia, now called Kievan Rus by RF.
False. As per historical findings, the current scientific consensus is that the origins of the Rus people (who ruled Kyiv/Kiev/Kievan Rus') are traced back to Norsemen from modern Sweden. As early as from Hellquist (published in 1922), p. 668 Ryssland, in Swedish (https://archive.org/details/svensketymologis00hell/page/668/...):
ryss (i.e. Rus'), folkslagsnamn, i ä. sv. ofta även rysse såsom alltjämt i Finnland; ännu Karl XII skriver rytzen, fsv. rysser, ryz, ryze, ryza — fno. ruzzar plur., da. russer, mlty. ruze, fhty. ruz(o), mhty. ruz (ty. russe) o. riuze (kvarlevan de i namnet på det forna tyska småfursten dömet Reuss, efter tillnamnet på regenthusets stamfader) — samtliga hty. former med sljud; av slav. rusi el. rus (enl. Ekblom kvar i en mängd ortnamn i guvernementet Novgorod m. m.; jfr ry. russkij, plur. russkije), varav mgrek. ros. Enl. vanlig uppfattning från fin. Ruolsi, Sverige, svensk, jfr ruoisalainen, svensk, i sin tur sannol., enl. Thomsen m. fl., till fsv. röper, rodd, ledung m. m., el. det därmed identiska fsv. Röpin, Roslagen o. angränsande delar av östkusten, varifrån en stor del vikingar o. nylnggare kommo. — De finska o. ryska formerna meds visa hän på en fsv. sammans. röp(r)s- (jfr Roslagen, ro spigg, ävensom Rrate Ant. tidskr. XX. 3: 30 f.) växl. med röpa(r)- i fsv. röparum, röparaitter. — Ryssland var in på 1000-t. ett svenskt skatteland. — Helt annorlunda t. ex. Knauer senast i IF 31: 67 f.: av ett Rusa, forntida namn på Volga; alltså: Volga-folk (jfr under bulgar). Osannolikt. — Härtill: Ryssland, fsv. Ryzaland. — Jfr ryss lä der.
Abbreviations are difficult to read, but this appears to be a recap:
(Swedish): «… av slav. rusi el. rus (enl. Ekblom kvar i en mängd ortnamn i guvernementet Novgorod m. m.; jfr ry. russkij, plur. russkije), varav mgrek. ros. Enl. vanlig uppfattning från fin. Ruolsi, Sverige, svensk, jfr ruoisalainen, svensk, i sin tur sannol., enl. Thomsen m. fl., till fsv. röper, rodd, ledung m. m., el. det därmed identiska fsv. Röpin, Roslagen o. angränsande delar av östkusten, varifrån en stor del vikingar o. nylnggare kommo …»
(English): «… of Slavic Rusi and likewise Rus (according to Ekblom remains in a number of place names in the governorate of Novgorod, etc.; cf. ry. russkij, plur. russkije), of which mgr. Rose. According to common perception from Finnish «Ruolsi», Sweden, Swedish, cf. «ruoisalainen», Swedish, in turn sannol., acc. Thomsen et al., to fsv. roper, rowing, lead, etc., etc. the thus identical fsv. Röpin, Roslagen and neighboring parts of the east coast, from where a large number of Vikings and newcomers came …».
«neighboring parts of the east coast, from where a large number of Vikings and newcomers came…» appears to be the cinch.
> "Ukraine" share same word root with such words as "ukryttia" (shelter), "ukriplennia" (reinforced structure). Modern equivalent world for "ukraine" is "ukripraion" (reinforced area of defense). Poland built multiple areas of defense ("ukraines") on their eastern border, so the whole area got name "Ukraine".
Also false. Existing historical and linguistic evidence do not support it:
1. From Tymchenko, E. K., editor (published in 1930, https://archive.org/details/staroukr2/page/474/mode/1up?view...), “вкраина; украина”, in Історичний словник українського язика [Historical Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] (in Ukrainian), volume 1: notebook 1: А – Г, Kharkiv, Kyiv: State Publishing House of Ukraine, page 262:
«ОУКРАИНА ж. (1) (погранична територія) окраїна: ажь богь дасть по(д)ближаємься та(м) по(д) оукраини к тьімь нашимь паньствомь и огьтоуль дасть богь виправимь и шлємь до тебе нши(х) пословь о прия(з)ни и о мироу (б. м. н., 1496 ПДСВВ)»
(dated back to the year of 1496, an approximate translation): «ОУКРАИНА» – (1) (a border territory – «погранична територія») «the fringe» / «outskirts» / «the edge» («окраїна»): as God giveth [a chance] to approach «the edge» / «the fringe» of [the land] («оукраини») of those of our overloards (note the use of a Polish word – «паньствомь») and [огьтоуль (?)] giveth to God to remedie (remedy, fix) and [giveth] the helm to you to hear our words (or, speech) of accceptance and peace».
2. From Hrynchyshyn, D. H., editor (published in 1978, https://archive.org/details/tymch1930/page/262/mode/1up?view...), “оукраина”, in Словник староукраїнської мови XIV–XV ст. [Dictionary of the Old Ukrainian Language of the 14ᵗʰ–15ᵗʰ cc.] (in Ukrainian), volume 2: Н – Ѳ, Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, page 474:
ВКРАИНА, рж. Див. Украйна.
XVI. Ино тими рази на вкраинахь оть татар многим таковая ся пригода и шкода пригожаєть Арх. ЮЗР. VIII, IV, 172 (1501). – (an approximate translation) «on those occasions at fringes (borderlands / edges – «вкраинахь») will be becoming useful and [шкода] will become useful (?)». The context is incomplete, therefore it is difficult to make sense out of it. The reference dates back to 1501.
ХУІI. Не єдно царство, князетво, земля, вкраина, повіть, вь жалоеньїх и лідво значньїхь руинахь зостають поверженьї Ак. ЗР. V, 141 (1667) – (an approximate translation) «Not a single kingdom, or a princedom, or a land, or a borderland («вкраина»), повіть (?), the granted [people] and important people are found defeated». The reference dates back to 1667.
> False. As per historical findings, the current scientific consensus is that the origins of the Rus people (who ruled Kyiv/Kiev/Kievan Rus') are traced back to Norsemen from modern Sweden.
Before Plague of Justinian, original Russia (Русся) lived in the town of Russia. After the start of plague, they abandoned their town and spread over large territory, from Caspian Sea to Spain, so, after 541, original Russians can be traced back to a lot of places.
> Also false. Existing historical and linguistic evidence do not support it
> ВКРАИНА, рж. Див. Украйна. XVI. Ино тими рази на вкраинахь оть татар многим таковая ся пригода и шкода пригожаєть Арх. ЮЗР. VIII, IV, 172 (1501). – (an approximate translation) «on those occasions at fringes (borderlands / edges – «вкраинахь») will be becoming useful and [шкода] will become useful (?)». The context is incomplete, therefore it is difficult to make sense out of it. The reference dates back to 1501.
I'm the native speaker. You are just lying there. It's clearly written, "Vkraine, See Ukraine. ...".
Also, your attempts to convince that native speakers don't know the meaning of the word are pathetic.
We've banned you for nationalistic flamewar before and have asked you repeatedly to stop. Since you're still abusing HN in this way, I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
These rules apply regardless of how right your side is or you feel it is.
Ukrainian language is closer to Czech and Slovak than to Russian. Ukrainian culture is closer to Polish and Slovak culture than Russian.
> They also share a common political heritage with the name of the country meaning borderland (of Russia)
"Kraj" means land or country. Borderland would be "O-krajina". Meanwhile Ukraine is "U-kraijina". Cyrillic О vs У.
The first historic mention of "Ukrajina" also predates Moscow and the Russian Empire.
And you want to talk democracy, Ukraine has had 5 presidents since Putin came to power. Versus 1 in Belarus and 1.5 in Russia (Medvedev counts as half).
> Now almost a decade later Ukraine is neither in the EU nor NATO and its territory has been ravaged by war.
That was Russia's doing not Ukraine's. This is some serious blame the victim mentality. No one made Russia invade.
And if Ukraine would rather suffer through a war than Russian occupation maybe that should be a sign of just how shitty Russia is...
Sorry but no one wants to be in the Russian world. Telling that your only allies are North Korea and Iran and that Lukashenko has even low-key sabotaged your invasion and refused to directly help...
I'm currently in the Czech Republic and I can tell you, everyone here would go to war before becoming a Russian sattelite again... Since joining the EU, this country has become quite rich. Higher GDP per capita and wages than Portugal. Almost at Spain's level. Versus Russia, Ukraine and Belarus being very poor... As for sentiment on Ukraine, there's Ukrainian flags absolutely everywhere. Ukrainian people too. They're even about to elect a former general and NATO Chairman as president...
We've had to ask you many times to avoid political and nationalistic flamewar on this site. You're still doing it, badly. If you keep doing it we will ban you.
Edit 2: your other comments in this thread have been so abusive that I can no longer justify not banning you. I've therefore banned the account. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34492947.
Since this is usually the point at which someone with strong ideological/nationalistic views usually says "you're just banning me because you're against me", I suppose I'll add that (1) I have no idea which side you're on—I don't scan comments that way; (2) we enforce these rules regardless of what people are arguing for or against; and (3) you've crossed the line countless times in the past and I specifically held off banning you—for years actually. Eventually the assumption of good faith just no longer holds up under this degree of abuse.
With all due respect, historical and linguistic assertions are borderline nonsense.
> Ukrainian language is closer to Czech and Slovak than to Russian. Ukrainian culture is closer to Polish and Slovak culture than Russian.
Which Ukrainian language? Western Ukrainian is closer to Polish due to a historical affiliation with and influence of the medieval Polish Kingdom first and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth later. Eastern Ukrainian is most likely closest to the Ruthenian language. Both are independent and separate developments from the Russian language. Modern Standard Ukrainian is a fairly recent linguistic development and is an amalgamation of multiple branches of Ukrainian languages that took place throughout the course of the 19th century as the result of the almost clandestine work of many Ukrainian scholars during the times of the late Russian Empire.
> "Kraj" means land or country. Borderland would be "O-krajina". Meanwhile Ukraine is "U-kraijina". Cyrillic О vs У.
«kraj» has descended from a Proto-Slavic of *krajь. It can mean «region», «country» or «land», but it can also mean «outskirt», «edge» or «fringe». See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/край for the explanation. "O-krajina" that you are citing can mean «fringe» or «edge» but not «borderland».
Semantically, «у» is a preposition that governs the genitive noun case and is translated as «at» or «by» into English in this and similar contexts, which means that «Ukraine» can also be translated as «at the edge/fringe/outskirt» or «by the edge», and such a meaning is shared across multiple East Slavic languages. See «Old East Slavic» section, the first meaning in https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/у for the explanation.
Whether «Ukraine» means «in the land/country» or «at/by the edge/fringe» has been hotly debated (oftentimes fuelled by nationalistic or political rhetoric from both, Russian and Ukrainian, sides) with no conclusive agreement having ever been reached.
> The first historic mention of "Ukrajina" also predates Moscow and the Russian Empire.
The historical name of Ukraine is «Ruthenia» in Western sources as it was the name it was known by to Papal legates in early mediaeval times, and is «Princedom (kingdom in English sources) of Galicia–Volhynia» in local sources. When exactly «Ukraina» emerged as the current name is still not very clear.
Princedom/Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia emerged after the collapse of the Kievan Rus' in the aftermath of the Mongolian invasion and existed for slightly over a century until the Polish Kingdom forcibly absorbed it into Catholic Poland.
Moscow was founded in 1147 and was a backwater town for quite some time, whereas Princedom of Galicia–Volhynia came into existence almost a century later. Both existed in parallel and independently of each other.
These are plain and bland historical and linguistic facts, and there is no need to distort them with homebrewn armchair theories.
There was far more concerted Russification of Ukraine than Polish-ification...
The Ukrainian language is the Ukrainian language, what's spoken in the east is considered a Creole that's a combination of Russian and Ukrainian due to, well, centuries of Russification.
> «kraj» has descended from a Proto-Slavic of *krajь. It can mean «region», «country» or «land»,
Obviously. Every second place here is called "X Kraj". Literally the word used for region still.
> O-krajina" that you are citing can mean «fringe» or «edge» but not «borderland».
Okraj literally means border but it doesn't really matter, edge and border are literally the same thing in English. Dunno why you are insinuating it's different.
Language does evolve though, now there's different words (and more words) for edge, border, suburb, periphery, etc...
It's not clear that Kraj on it's own was "edge" or "border" though. Okraj definitely was however
> Moscow was founded in 1147
So I got one date wrong (I was thinking of Moscow's rise as an actual city state post-Mongol yoke, not the date they made a fort in a swamp especially since the first town was completely destroyed by the Mongols) but first mention of "Ukraine" is 1187. Long before the Russian Empire, before the Mongol invasions, long before Moscow was anything more than a small fort.
Duly noted. Ignorance, the lack of historical as well as linguistic knowledge, and the lack of reputable and verifiable counterpoints on your behalf is now officialy Russian propaganda.
> The Ukrainian language is the Ukrainian language, what's spoken in the east is considered a Creole that's a combination of Russian and Ukrainian due to, well, centuries of Russification.
Please cease and desist. The prior statement had specifically called out the fact that Ukrainian has most likely descended – and please do yourself a favour to read it thrice – from the Ruthenian language which was an independent and a separate lingustic development and a separate language from the not yet existing Russian language, however with influences from Polish in what we now know as Western Ukraine. Ukranian being an insignificant dialect of Russian is the Russian Empire time propaganda. I fail to comprehend why you have chosen to contort previously stated facts so blatantly and obviously.
> Obviously. Every second place here is called "X Kraj". Literally the word used for region still.
> Okraj literally means border but it doesn't really matter, edge and border are literally the same thing in English. Dunno why you are insinuating it's different.
I beseech you to allow me to graciously lift the veil of your linguistic confusion. Consider the following examples (languages are listed out strictly in the alphabetical order):
Example 1:
English: the city fringe
Czech: okraj města
Polish: obrzeża miasta
Russian: окраина города (okraina goroda)
Slovak: okraj mesta
Ukrainian: околиця міста (okolycja mista)
Example 2:
English: at the city fringe / at the outskirts of the city
Czech: na okraji města
Polish: na obrzeżach miasta
Russian: на краю города (na kraju goroda)
Slovak: na okraji mesta
Ukrainian: на околиці міста (na okolyci mista)
Example 3:
English: the edge of the world
Czech: okraj světa
Polish: kraniec świata
Russian: край света (metaphorical or archaic) / край земли (kraj sveta / kraj zemli)
Slovak: okraj sveta
Ukrainian: краю світу (kraju svitu)
Example 4:
English: at the edge of the bed
Czech: na okraji postele
Polish: na skraju łóżka
Russian: на краю кровати / на краю постели (na kraju krovati / na kraju posteli)
Slovak: na okraji postele
Ukrainian: на краю ліжка (na kraju ližka)
What is obvious is that in some «kraj» related examples Russian is closer to Czech and Slovak with Ukrainian and Polish being closer to each other rather than Ukrainian being closer to Czech or Slovak (which is utter nonsense from both, historical and linguistic, points of view. But it won't convince you since Czech, Polish, Slovak and Ukranian are all Russian propaganda and are all admittedly Creole languages).
Should you have reputable lingustic counterpoints that can be cross-referenced, please provide them.
> So I got one date wrong […]
You have got too many things wrong, and you have to own up to it, stop spouting nonsense and admit to misrepresenting facts either out of sheer ignorance, or pushing your own personal agenda, or expressing a unsubstantiated strong opinion, or merely possessing a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Most likely a combination thereof.
Ignorance is a bliss, and your linguistic and historical ignorance is admirable as well as it continues to push new limits.
Russian, as a distinct language, is a fairly recent historical development that is slightly over 400 years old, and dates back to the end of Times of Troubles and the end of the Polish–Muscovite War of 1609–1618 when Catholic Poland – after sacking Moscow and keeping it for two years under its rule – eventually ceased to be a threat. Old Ukrainian, as another distinct language, predates the emergence of Russian by a few centuries (if we are to trace its origins back to the Ruthenian language). Granted, it is all Russian propaganda to you nevertheless.
> "… Ukrainian inherent intelligibility of Russian is close to zero."
False. Previously cited, non-representative, examples point to varying degrees of the mutual intelligibility amongst Czech, Polish, Russian, Slovakian and Ukranian. Intellligibility hovers at the 50% level at least. So, no, it is not zero. You are yet to provide a single credible example other than handwaving and vacuous references to a pub style banter.
> On the name, including various discussions about the meaning of "Kraj". And the fact that "Krai" is still a type of division of land in Russia.
Also false. It is one of the many meanings, and you are persevering with twisting facts to suit your own narrative. I have pointed to sources in the Old Ukrainian dating back to 1496 and 1667 in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34471179#34477841, both of which state otherwise. Namely, that «ОУКРАИНА» and «ВКРАИНА» mean [at] «the fringe», «outskirts» or «the edge» (i.e. «окраїна»). You have provided no credible sources to back up your counterpoints so far.
Edit: please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34492828 also. We have to ban accounts that abuse HN the way you have done in this thread. I don't want to ban you, so we need you not to do this again.
What exactly is the credibility of Robert Lindsay who describes themselves as:
«BA Journalism […] teaching credential. Political activist, linguist, amateur cold case murders sleuth, psychological counselor (!), long-time K-12 schoolteacher. Former paralegal, freelance journalist, magazine editor, field linguist, and cultural anthropologist. Founder of the Alt Left political movement. Interviewed on radio multiple times. Multiple offers to be on TV and in movies […]».
As well as describing the study method in the «Method» section on p.2:
«First, a Net search was done of forums where speakers of Slavic languages were discussing how much of other Slavic languages and lects they understand»
Also in the «Limitations» section on p. 5:
«The first limitation in this study is that it relies heavily on self-reports from native speakers on how much they understand of the other language. Although this would seem to be an excellent way to study this question, the problem is that speaker reports can be off by quite a bit».
Nevertheless. The paper reports the following results:
(Ukrainian is not clearly defined here, so I assume Standard Ukrainian is meant) «Ukrainian: Oral intelligibility: 90% of Balachka, 85% of Eastern Ukrainian, Transcarpathian Rusyn and Surzyk; 75% of Belarussian, 72% of Podlachian, 67% of Lemko Rusyn, 50% of Russian, 45% of Eastern Slovak, 40% of Polish, 35% of Russian, 25% of Kashubian, 20% of Slovak and Serbo-Croatian, and 12% of Hutsul Rusyn. Written intelligibility: 90% of Slovak, 85% of Russian, 60% of Bulgarian, and 50% of Polish».
Reported oral intelligibility of Russian by Ukrainians is cited at 50% followed by 35% in the same sentence and stands at 85% for written Russian. Even for such highly questionable numbers (50 and 35 – being stated merely a few words apart) and a more reassuring 85% figure, the result is clearly not «… Ukrainian inherent intelligibility of Russian is close to zero».
«Canadian Ukrainian: Oral intelligibility: 5% of Russian».
I am not sure what Canadian Ukrainian is.
«Western Ukrainian: Oral intelligibility: 79% of Lemko Rusyn, 75% of Rusyn, 60% of Eastern Ukrainian, 57% of Polish and Eastern Slovak, 40% of Slovak, and 30% of Russian».
30% intelligibility of spoken Russian. Sufficiently not a zero.
«Eastern Ukrainian: Oral intelligibility: 85% of Ukrainian, 70% of Russian, and 60% of Western Ukrainian».
Stands at 70% of the intelligibility for the spoken Russian. Not close to zero by any definition.
It also inadvertently back up the fact that Eastern and Western Ukrainian are sufficiently distinct from each other.
Since you seem to have a trouble reading in general, and do not appear to have read the only (questionable) source you have provided so far, it is a moot point to carry on with the discourse, for there is none to be had. Enjoy your fermented beverage and your crack with mates down at the pub.
> Since you seem to have a trouble reading in general, and do not appear to have read the only (questionable) source you have provided so far, it is a moot point to carry on with the discourse, for there is none to be had. Enjoy your fermented beverage and your crack with mates down at the pub.
Your comments in this thread have broken the site guidelines so badly that this is easily across the line at which we ban accounts. I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted good comments. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Among other things, please avoid nationalistic flamewar in the future. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Enough is enough. Since you've broken the site guidelines repeatedly and egregiously in this thread, and have been ignoring our requests to stop for yours, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Thanks but you guys are so obsessed with "civil discourse" and allowing "both sides" this place is becoming overrun with Russian trolls who simply recycle accounts. Sorry I can't help not replying to them, especially when they're far less civil.
Internet users frequently make grandiose claims about trolls, bots, foreign agents, astroturfing, etc. about accounts they simply disagree with. If you have links, I'd be happy to take a look. When we find accounts abusing HN, we ban them—and the threshold for banning is lower when it's a serial abuser. But someone else having an opposing view to yours is obviously not an abuse.
Btw, if you can find a case in the last, say, 3 years where I've used the word "civil" in articulating HN's rules, I'd like to see it. We left that behind a long time ago.
>I'm currently in the Czech Republic and I can tell you, everyone here would go to war before becoming a Russian sattelite again... Since joining the EU, this country has become quite rich. Higher GDP per capita and wages than Portugal. Almost at Spain's level. Versus Russia, Ukraine and Belarus being very poor... As for sentiment on Ukraine, there's Ukrainian flags absolutely everywhere. Ukrainian people too. They're even about to elect a former general and NATO Chairman as president
See this massively undermine your own argument. I.e. that Ukrainians are eager to align with the west to protect their supposed distinct nationality vs. they are greedy to get a piece of Western economic prosperity (the true reason).
However there are some problems with this cargo cult mentality.
1. Ukrainians can just move to the west, it has never been easier,and leave their steppes to Russians. In fact this is what's happening.
2. The most industrialized and resource rich portion of Ukraine is so called Novo Russia (New Russia) and it is in the east. Meanwhile the most nationalistic region of Ukraine, in the West in Galicia, was formerly the poorest part of the Austro-Hungarian empire so comparisons to Czech republic for example are unfounded.
3. There is no evidence that Russia wants to reassert itself over eastern Europe vs prevent expansion of Galician zealots east (you may call them Banderites or neofascists because that is what they are). These people have made up a national myth where somehow they are the true Russians.
Most of the black sea coast including crimea were under turkish dominion until the formation of cossacks and the incorporation of the territory into Russia. That was something like 200 years ago. Until 1990 the territory was filled with people who considered themselves the same as Russians including young Zelensky, whose first language is Russian.
The city of Donetsk, for example, was founded as a steel town in the Russian Empire, by an Englishman, Hughes, and populated by Russians.
> people who considered themselves the same as Russians including young Zelensky, whose first language is Russian.
I think this is one thing that Russians are incredibly confused by: Russian-speaking does not imply that someone sees themself as Russian. The great analogy here is in Ireland: the vast majority of Irish are English-speaking monoglots, not Irish-speaking. And yet the Irish do not want to be part of Britain, and fought several rather violent conflicts towards that end. In Ukraine right now, Russian-speakers are switching to speaking Ukrainian to emphasize the degree to which they do not want to be seen as Russian.
> See this massively undermine your own argument. I.e. that Ukrainians are eager to align with the west to protect their supposed distinct nationality vs. they are greedy to get a piece of Western economic prosperity (the true reason).
Why not both? Let's face it, the Russian world is shit. Both in terms of freedom and prosperity. Everyone wants freedom and prosperity, calling Ukrainians "greedy" for it is simply insulting.
> There is no evidence that Russia wants to reassert itself over eastern Europe
Just listen to what the Russians actually say... That's the evidence, they say it themselves that they want to reassert their rule over everything that was previously "Russian".
Yes, RF started preparation to war with Ukraine in 2008. I was attacked by Russians in December 2008, so I'm at war for 14 years. However, it was clear from the first day of the fall of Soviet Union that Russian will try to recapture Ukraine, because a) Ukraine is THE historical state of Russia, while Russian Federation contains no territory named "Russia", b) Russian killed 7 million adult Ukrainians in 1932-1934 (officially confirmed number by RF) and 23 million children (not accepted by RF), c) Soviet Union planted about 20 000 agents all over Ukraine for this exact scenario: to bring Ukraine back to Soviet Union when Ukraine break out.
No evidence was found that a Ukrainian (or another) S200 missile hit the plane.
20 years passed - no evidence found. Moreover, now we know the name of Russian officer of air defense who ordered to shut the plane, we know that he did that because transponder was turned off on the plane, because the plane was on mission to gather intel about air defense in EU, but you still insist on replaying Russian propaganda?
Ukrainian Ministry of Defense paid $15 mln to the victims, but then lawsuits followed demanding more money and the Ukraine suddenly started to deny its guilt. Classic story.
Tu-154 was hit by S300 rocket filled with TNT, not by S200 rocket filled by hexogen. Ukraine had no S300. End of story.
Yeah, it's the classic example of Russian propaganda machine: Russia blamed somebody else for their own error, then no evidence found for that blame, but it is too late to change opinion of peoples.
Ukraine did not pay $15 million to relatives of victims of the crash, because court decided that the Ukrainian rocket did not hit the plane. Final decision was in 2013.
It was the Ukraine who was trying to regain control of DNR and LNR.
14000 is the total number of Ukrainian citizens, both civilians and fighters, who died on both sides, not counting Russians who overtly or covertly helped rebels.
In 90s and yearly 2000s Russia was invading Russia and tens of thousands of military and civilians died.
> 14000 is the total number of Ukrainian citizens, both civilians and fighter, who died on both sides, not counting Russians who overtly or covertly helped rebels.
The local population was more than happy to set up their own autonomous zone after the central government began discriminating against Russian-speaking citizens, even passing laws against the use of the Russian language. Putin actually asked them not to hold referendums on multiple occasions— it was only until he realized late last year that Zelensky is totally controlled by the right sector and would happily sacrifice his people for US geopolitical goals that Putin acknowledged that area could never be safe for Russian-speaking people with Kiev in charge.
Ukraine will stand idly, because Ukrainian aggression against the part of Moldova will cause troubles for Ukraine with EU and NATO. The only solution I see is to promise something valuable for Moldova to take the risk. IMHO, Ukraine can promise Königsberg for Moldova in exchange for Transnistria. Seaports on two seas can make Moldova a rich country.
IMHO, Ukrainians should grab Königsberg for themselves after the end of war and then exchange it for something useful, e.g. exchange it for Transnistria with Moldova, instead of returning Königsberg to Germany.
Russian 14th army may strike from the back to support the main army, so they should be made toothless before the second wave of invasion, but Ukraine cannot attack 14th army without breaking relationships with Moldova, EU, UN, and NATO. However, Ukraine can exchange this problem (Transnistria) for another problem (Königsberg) to negate them both.
The best thing Europe could do to Kaliningrad is encourage a separatist movement there. There's not much Russia could do about it if they had a consensus to separate, and being an exclave of a pariah country in the middle of foreign hostile territory is not exactly conductive to day-to-day living. If there was a clear (if unspoken) understanding that such an entity, once it clearly breaks up with Russia, would be admitted to EU under the usual rules, I think it could be sold.
And then? You have a piece of territory that is ethnically and culturally Russian, but integrated into Europe instead of that whole "Russian World" nonsense. That can be used as an agitprop showcase to contrast with Russia proper, especially as things get worse there as economy starts feeling more long-term effects from sanctions.
Königsberg was part of Germany when annexed by Soviet Union. I see no page about Königsberg in Czech language at Wikipedia at all. Anyway, Germans were expelled, so Königsberg is populated by Russians now, which makes it similar to Transnistria, Crimea, etc.
