3 ms·

You are right about large majority of Russians being complicit, and right when saying "what seems to be a dictator going mad". Because it's not a dictator going

You are right about large majority of Russians being complicit, and right when saying "what seems to be a dictator going mad". Because it's not a dictator going mad, in fact Putin has quite clear goals and is quite predictable. He repeatedly was warning the West about the balance of power being skewed in their favor and Russia's interests being neglected since 2007. I'm not going to get into much details, and I feel I will be downvoted no matter how I try to reason Putin's behavior, but there are clear reasons behind it. I think with right political moves Russia could achieve the same goals, however looks like Russian diplomacy is in much worse shape than the army, thus there's this conflict going into hot phase. Western media again as always are portraying Putin as a crazy dictator who just needs more blood, however I hope YCombinator folks being critical thinking and curious enough will dig a bit more into the history of this conflict and try to understand the motives of each side. As usual in this world there's no bad guys vs good guys, there's hundreds shades of grey that are actually interesting to research if you wish to. Similar problem is Taiwan by the way.

csmpltn 5y ago
> "You are right about large majority of Russians being complicit" Honest question. How do you know a large majority of Russian citizens are being complicit in supporting these acts of war? This is such a broad, generalizing statement. It's not like they were asked to vote on it?
jdrc 5y ago
I 'm watching RT to try to understand the russian propaganda, and it seems even the reporters are caught by surprise by the scale of the invasion. What you said does not justify launching a full scale attack against the entirety of ukraine. It does seem like a madman doing mad things thinking this is the 1930s again. As if occupying ukraine would solve the problem you re mentioning...
- realcertify 5y ago
  This doesn't look much different from the US attacking Iraq or Yugoslavia. All these attacks have serious reasons behind them (and those reasons are not protecting poor children as mass media would tell you).
  - jdrc 5y ago
    i just dont get this mindset in which people draw up ahistorical parallels to make up excuses for something. You stated that the invasion has something to do with geopolitical danger for russia, and was not in retaliation for what US did in Iraq. Is it nationalism? Sense of isolation? Feeling of being denigrated/humiliated by the west? Just blatant personal cult?
    - realcertify 5y ago
      My point is that in all of those cases there were reasons behind the attacks. You are not calling Bush or Clinton crazy for what they did right? Same for Russians.
      - jdrc 5y ago
        Nationalism should be classified as mental illness
  - abandonliberty 5y ago
    Iraq was quite questionable. The motive, oil/currency, was understandable though reprehensible. The terrorists weren't from Iraq, but Afghanistan/SA; GWB's decision to attack, and destabilize both a country and international order (as we're now experiencing) is his legacy. The difference here is that Ukraine did their best to appease Russia, including promising to never join the EU/Nato for promises of security. It seems like Ukraine was ready to give everything for independence, but their independence was unacceptable. What does RF have to gain from this? Most publications say very little. What are they missing?
    - realcertify 5y ago
      Ukraine did not appease Russia, that's the problem. If you look up the news 2 weeks ago you'll see that Putin sent a note to NATO demanding guarantees that Ukraine will never join that organization. West told Putin to mind his own business. This war wouldn't happen if the response was different.
shepardrtc 5y ago
> He repeatedly was warning the West about the balance of power being skewed in their favor He had the previous US president wrapped around his finger, and he was able to take Crimea with barely any effort. How is the balance of power skewed in favor of the West?

csmpltn 5y ago

> "You are right about large majority of Russians being complicit" Honest question. How do you know a large majority of Russian citizens are being complicit in supporting these acts of war? This is such a broad, generalizing statement. It's not like they were asked to vote on it?

jdrc 5y ago

I 'm watching RT to try to understand the russian propaganda, and it seems even the reporters are caught by surprise by the scale of the invasion. What you said does not justify launching a full scale attack against the entirety of ukraine. It does seem like a madman doing mad things thinking this is the 1930s again. As if occupying ukraine would solve the problem you re mentioning...

realcertify 5y ago
This doesn't look much different from the US attacking Iraq or Yugoslavia. All these attacks have serious reasons behind them (and those reasons are not protecting poor children as mass media would tell you).
- jdrc 5y ago
  i just dont get this mindset in which people draw up ahistorical parallels to make up excuses for something. You stated that the invasion has something to do with geopolitical danger for russia, and was not in retaliation for what US did in Iraq. Is it nationalism? Sense of isolation? Feeling of being denigrated/humiliated by the west? Just blatant personal cult?
  - realcertify 5y ago
    My point is that in all of those cases there were reasons behind the attacks. You are not calling Bush or Clinton crazy for what they did right? Same for Russians.
    - jdrc 5y ago
      Nationalism should be classified as mental illness
- abandonliberty 5y ago
  Iraq was quite questionable. The motive, oil/currency, was understandable though reprehensible. The terrorists weren't from Iraq, but Afghanistan/SA; GWB's decision to attack, and destabilize both a country and international order (as we're now experiencing) is his legacy. The difference here is that Ukraine did their best to appease Russia, including promising to never join the EU/Nato for promises of security. It seems like Ukraine was ready to give everything for independence, but their independence was unacceptable. What does RF have to gain from this? Most publications say very little. What are they missing?
  - realcertify 5y ago
    Ukraine did not appease Russia, that's the problem. If you look up the news 2 weeks ago you'll see that Putin sent a note to NATO demanding guarantees that Ukraine will never join that organization. West told Putin to mind his own business. This war wouldn't happen if the response was different.

shepardrtc 5y ago

> He repeatedly was warning the West about the balance of power being skewed in their favor He had the previous US president wrapped around his finger, and he was able to take Crimea with barely any effort. How is the balance of power skewed in favor of the West?