28 ms·

As a side question, how similar is Putin's war in Ukraine to the numerous wars started by U.S. (say, in the middle East, Yugoslavia)? Are these fair to compare?

by gnull 5y ago

As a side question, how similar is Putin's war in Ukraine to the numerous wars started by U.S. (say, in the middle East, Yugoslavia)? Are these fair to compare? I'm trying to understand the scale of Putin's decision, not to justify it or engage in whataboutism.

marcell 5y ago
Putin launched a war against Ukraine in order to conquer it the traditional sense, ie to replace the existing government with his own government. The long term goal is for Russia to control this country's government. The wars started by the US typically have the goal of establishing a democratic government. Japan is an example of a successful outcome. Iraq has a functioning democracy now. This policy is often criticized as "nation building." The long term goal is not for the US government to control these countries.
- pcmoney 5y ago
  I would add the US did not unilaterally start the war in Iraq or Yugoslavia and definitely not the one with Japan. In the case of Japan, the US rebuilt an enemy after they attacked the US without a declaration of war and made them an ally and trading partner.
  - gpt5 5y ago
    It's actually quite interesting that US has managed to convert quite a few of its rivals to allies. Japan, Vietnam, Mexico, Germany and its allies, many Arab countries come to mind. I'd argue that even China and Russia, while not allies - are also not enemies.
  - travisgriggs 5y ago
    This highlights one of my growing ethical dillemas. I am a US citizen, and sometimes I am really ashamed of my country. We have done some really bad stuff. We’ve done a whole lot of shady stuff that is complicated to pass simple judgement on. But the US has done good stuff as well. They loan money, send aid, rebuild, provide. Some times the motives are duplicitous in these acts of good. But the bottom line is, when I travel abroad I feel like I can confidently say “we’re like a two year old, sometimes we do sweet/good things, and other times we’re naughty.” When it comes to USSR/Russia, I am not aware of the good acts. It’s not just that thy do bad things, it’s that I never hear of any of the good things they do in the world at large. And so I’m honestly curious, is Russia as a foreign actor just that much more self interested? Or do we not hear about it in the West, because it doesn’t pay to report on it.
    - vincnetas 5y ago
      I would say not only abroad, but also at home only small fraction of Russian population can thank their government for what they are doing. It's a kleptocracy rich in natural resources.
    - sneak 5y ago
      > When it comes to USSR/Russia, I am not aware of the good acts. It’s not just that thy do bad things, it’s that I never hear of any of the good things they do in the world at large. The red army took Berlin and ended the Nazis. It was an Allied victory but it came about because Russia put their full might into stopping Hitler. This is not insignificant if you don't like what the third reich was up to. It came at a tremendous cost to mother Russia, 20M of her sons died in the process. I encourage you to visit the war memorial in Treptower Park. It is built out of the red marble stripped from Hitler's Reichschancellery, and it is a hauntingly powerful place.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        That was 80 years ago and since then the Soviet Communist regime killed more people than Hitler. Their "good deeds" are becoming thinner and thinner.
      - lb1lf 5y ago
        While undoubtedly true, one should keep in mind that Stalin first cynically entered into a non-aggression pact with the nazi regime, showing blatant disregard for Poland in the process. Not to mention that a significant part of the Soviet Union's losses in WW2 came about from a similar disregard for the lives of its own soldiers. This is not to discount the sacrifice made by those who fought and died, though. (And Treptower Park is, as you say, hauntingly powerful. I've been there on three occasions when visiting Berlin.)
      - pcmoney 5y ago
        Remember the USSR was allies with the Nazis and only turned on them because they were betrayed. Spending your citizens lives cheaply is not a noble thing. The US had nukes and its manufacturing and soldier population was massive. Coupled with the Western allies Germany was going to lose once America entered the war (see Churchill’s memoirs). USSR did accelerate it though.
  - tomp 5y ago
    Think of Cuba. US tried to invade then imposed sanctions simply because it didn’t want Cuban allies and the fact that they were supplying them arms. US would 100% attack and invade any country in their “sphere of influence” if they felt threatened, it’s just that their soft power is better and nobody even dares to try.
    - pcmoney 5y ago
      That was also after Cuba nationalized its industries, many of which had US shareholders without paying them, had political purges that murdered hundreds of thousands (Che shirts celebrate a mass murderer) got in bed with the USSR and tried to put nukes on the island. The idea that Cuba was minding its own business is laughable. Nobody wants a psychopath neighbor on a moscow leash with nukes 90mi from their border…
      - tomp 5y ago
        You're factually wrong. US tried to invade Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and then (as a result) nukes were put on the island. I guess Russia doesn't want a neighbor on a US leash with military bases on their border either...
        pcmoney 5y ago
        Yes on order of timing around nukes or when we knew of them. But fidel was a tyrant who impoverished his people. The funniest thing was his hearse braking down and having to be pushed by his soldiers. Really summed the mans contributions…
- readthenotes1 5y ago
  Or to remove the democratic government...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The US replaced the governments of multiple countries with its puppets, see Afghanistan. Try to tell me with a straight face that the previous Afghan government was democratic and represented the will of the Afghan people. You cannot. Iraq's democracy is about as successful as Russia's, that is, not at all. The US installed a dictatorship in South Korea, and overthrew or contributed in the overthrow of many more.
  - roca 5y ago
    The US-supported Afghan government wasn't worse than the governments before or after it. South Korea's an interesting example. It was a dictatorship, now it's a thriving democracy. Ditto for Japan, Taiwan, West Germany. Sometimes things turn out alright.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I still don't see how that's an excuse for killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, though.
      - roca 5y ago
        In Afghanistan? Unlikely to be hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by Americans/allies. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/af... says "at least 71,000 civilians killed" and many of those would have been killed by other side(s). "Justified"? Probably not, but we'd have to determine what alternative actions America/allies should have taken instead and compare. I mean, "avoid all US-caused civilian deaths by letting AQ continue to operate from Afghanistan with impunity after 9/11" would not obviously have been the right thing to do.
- d0mine 5y ago
  I wanted to live in a world you presented: benevolent power spreads the wealth around the world. Unfortunately, it is just a fairytale for little children.
  - pcmoney 5y ago
    So why has wealth been spread around the world during a period of US hegemony and naval dominance?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vemv 5y ago
I'll point out the obvious: Ukraine is simply too close to home for many of us Europeans - they're our neighbors, colleagues, friends, we vacation in Kiev, they're our football rivals. We broadly share culture, race, etc. Few of those can be said about Iraq which is far away enough to seem some sort of abstract topic. So, having war at home (vs. in a newspaper) is completely novel for us and therefore unacceptable.
- pishpash 5y ago
  So, racism?
  - f-jin 5y ago
    not racism, more like discrimination. It's not strange to pay more attention to your neighbor getting shot than some guy in another city getting shot.
    - imranhou 5y ago
      Racism = discrimination based on race.
      - Ourgon 5y ago
        No, discrimination is discrimination. Racism is the assumption of a person's "race" - for most people that equates to skin colour and other physical properties but for some it goes deeper - being related to that person's character and abilities. I live in Sweden but I'm not allowed to vote in national elections while I look just as Scandinavian as your average Sven. There are hundreds of thousands of people living in Sweden who do not look like Sven at all but are allowed to vote. Is Sweden being racist against me? No, they're just discriminating in who is allowed to vote, only those with Swedish nationality have that right. I´m not a Swede, hence I do not get to vote. This is a form of discrimination, but discrimination does not equate "bad" - I would not advice any country to allow foreign nationals to vote in their national elections.
  - daminimal 5y ago
watwut 5y ago
Fair to compare in what terms? I think that in this case, multiple nato members think this makes Russia direct threat to them. You know, Poland is possibly next, because Russia always wants Poland. Eastern Germany used to be under Russian control too, what it means to Germans? Estonia probably sees themselves as target too. All satelite previously occupied by Russia republics. Russia is expanding again toward Europe and if Ukraine is easy, other European/NATO countries expect same treatment. If NATO countries further West did nothing, it would be sign that these countries will abandon others again . Basically, Ukrainians fight for Polish, Slovak and what not freedom too.
- darebak 5y ago
  There is nothing suggesting that Russia is interested in anything other than Ukraine and everything else is just fear mongering.
  - watwut 5y ago
    That is not how quite a few Polish, Slovak and so on people see it. Slovak president said literally that too. There is nothing absolutely nothing to suggest Russia is interested only in Ukraine in the long term. They will stop only if they have to. Putin arguments about Russian history points toward expansion. Putin arguments about being entitled to Ukraine due to them being forced into USSR or Ukraine not being real nation points toward expansion. Russian recent history is not a history of peaceful trustworthy nation either. --------------------- Edited to add: the material help is not coming there from pure empathy alone. Germany did not provided actual guns able to kill because of them feeling bad for refugees. This was major change against previous policies and cant be explained by "we feel bad for their president after seeing his cool videos". It can be explained only by "we think we have stake in outcome and it matters to us".
    - darebak 5y ago
      There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Russia is interested in anything other than Ukraine. Everything else is just fear mongering, atleast Slovak media does that well.
readthenotes1 5y ago
A big difference is that by and large, Ukraine has won the narrative. There are no "Ukrainian artillery: go fuck yourself" stories. There's also no barely veiled threats by the US that we would nuke Iraq or Afghanistan etc. nor drop the ISS on them.
- darebak 5y ago
  Ukraine has won the narrative in the West because Western countries wanted it that way, it's actually pretty easy to do when you cut out opposing propaganda.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tverbeure 5y ago
    It's also much easier to do when you're not the one doing the invading.
    - darebak 5y ago
      Not really, that doesn't seem to have that much bearing. I still remember Western news about Serbia during the Kosovo conflict where Serbia was doing basically what Ukraine is doing now.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Serbia was an aggressor in the Yugoslavian Wars. Ukraine is just defending from an invasion.
        darebak 5y ago
        yywwbbn 5y ago
BerislavLopac 5y ago
I can't speak about Middle East, but the wars in Yugoslavia were most definitely not started by the U.S.
- faaal 5y ago
  "Throughout the 1980-90s, the US, with the aid of the IMF and NATO, actively destabilized and aided in the breakup of Yugoslavia, with the goal of weakening and destroying the last surviving socialist bloc in Europe." -- https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md#europe https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti...
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Oh, you're even quoting a source! Because some rando on GitHub is such an authoritative one! Sheesh...
MrDisposable 5y ago
> I'm trying to understand the scale of Putin's decision Drastic. Catastrophic. Suicidal. World-changing. The country (Russia) in its current form has just ceased to exist. The entire parasitic elite class just got cut off from everything they stole during all these years. The entire human potential of Russia just got nullified for at lest 20 years. The push towards green energy (and I hope nuclear fusion) just got accelerated. NATO and EU memberships just became essential for any European country. The prospects of nuclear disarmamant are nullified. The war isn't exactly a blitzkrieg now, but it still has a good chance to succeed -- but that's not what matters. It's the consequences that matter. They will affect the course of human history. I think the west (Europe and USA) will be perfectly fine. It's we Russians who are fucked for the rest of our lives.
- hans_castorp 5y ago
  > It's we Russians who are fucked for the rest of our lives. I sure hope, you know who to thank for that.
- astrange 5y ago
  > The country (Russia) in its current form has just ceased to exist. I’m not too sure about this. The main problem is there isn’t a new form to replace it with, or a new government to replace Putin with that would act any different - for instance, not constantly assassinating people in Europe with chemical weapons. It does seem like a good time to leave, although an even better time would’ve been before the currency collapsed.
  - MrDisposable 5y ago
    > It does seem like a good time to leave Alas, too late for me...
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > or a new government to replace Putin with that would act any different This. I'm tired of the personalisation of the behaviour of the Russian government. Putin didn't launch this war all on his own; he's the head of government, he isn't Napoleon Bonaparte. I'm uncomfortable about the sanctions regime that is being imposed. If the Russian economy is destroyed the result will be chaos, even if the war ends tomorrow, and Putin is deposed. I don't relish the prospect of political chaos in a country with more nuclear warheads than any other.
sudosysgen 5y ago
Yes, US invasions are comparable, and quite similar. Putin's decision is of scale because Russia isn't a hegemon and is threatening an international order where it's only okay for the US and its allies to do it to countries whose habitants are considered less human.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Putin's allies (the few that are left) are other dictators and madmen. The free world has a duty to protect and fight against them and others like them.
randomsearch 5y ago
Well, intervention in Yugoslavia wasn’t a war started by the US. The Kuwait war was after an invasion by Iraq and at the invitation of the government there, and the US were restrained enough to halt at the Iraq border. The Syrian war was not started by the US, and it has played a minor part there. In fact, it is Russia that has indiscriminately bombed Syrian cities and targeted civilians and hospitals there. Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 and the refusal of the Taliban to end their protection of a terrorist organisation that had repeatedly attacked American targets internationally before their deliberate targeted murder of thousands of American civilians. This does not seem comparable to Ukraine. The Iraq war stands out for me as the unjustified and imperialist war of modern times. It seems to me that the atmosphere post 9/11 was used as a pretence. But even Iraq does seem different: Hussein was a brutal dictator and, at least initially, Americans were welcomed as liberators. In Ukraine we are seeing widespread civilian resistance to the invasion. But Blair and Bush should answer for their war crimes. By far the biggest difference here, I think, is that by being a European war and through the potential for further conflict and nuclear conflict, this war has far larger international ramifications and strategic risks attached to it. To see European cities bombed is to be reminded of what has happened in the past and that it can happen again. That is why it is receiving so much attention.
- darebak 5y ago
  >By far the biggest difference here, I think, is that by being a European war and through the potential for further conflict and nuclear conflict, this war has far larger international ramifications and strategic risks attached to it. To see European cities bombed is to be reminded of what has happened in the past and that it can happen again. That is why it is receiving so much attention. Bombing of Serbia was a bombing of European cities, specifically bombing of civilian population centers far from the front to terrorize the population. Also without UN approval.
  - ardit33 5y ago
    Serbia did commit massive attrocities and genocide against both Bosnians and Albanians in Kosovo. They also had wars with Slovenia, and Croatia. They last gesture was massive ethnic cleansing. The US intervened when things went out of hand. Putin risks to end up like Milosevic, a war criminal.
tcmart14 5y ago
Yugoslavia is the case here that isn't like the others. After the fall of yugoslavia, certain ethnic groups went back to ethnic cleansing. Important to note, the time for Yugoslavia up to that point is probably one of the longest periods where ethnic wars/cleansing didn't take place. Essentially, Tito put a stop to quiet a bit of it. When Yugoslavia disintegrated, ethnic cleansing came back. Long history of it there. US and NATO partners stepped intervened to put a stop to it.
- darebak 5y ago
  This is so false that I don't know where to begin. Maybe it's best at the end, when in 2004 after all the wars, when UN and NATO troops were actually stationed there, a pogrom of a minority happened just because the majority heard a rumour that they killed some children somewhere bin the country.
Ajef 5y ago
In my opinions, the more interesting question is why is the response in this war so fast and comprehensive... and my guess would be that it has the unified political willpower of most western nations behind it. Poland, Germany, France have no interest of seeing Putin succeed at a military show of force less and a days train ride from their borders. When it comes to the middle east and further away places (geographically and culturally) the political willpower is often more oriented toward alliance contracts with other nations and idealogical reasoning... not perceived existential threat. [edit] changed wording (socially -> culturally)
- xornox 5y ago
  The response is fast because Putin directly said that he is planning to conquer half of free nations in Europe. All people in eastern Europe fear him and russians. We will do anything to stop the grazy wannabe-Hitler and russians.
vegai_ 5y ago
Key differences: - Ukraine is a democracy (not without its problems but getting better) and part of the west - Casus belli were 95% lies (ok, this one is similar to some US wars) - The attacker uses "culture wars" as casus belli (Putin refers to "degenerates" et al) - The part of the attacker's casus belli that mentions Russian Empire also touches on several other east and north european countries -- perhaps this wasn't intended and the whole thing was just crazy rambling or perhaps there's something there - The attacker is a crazed dictator who has been in power for 22 years and who might be lashing out due to his own deteriorating health - The goal is to annex the whole country (there was extensive lying that it wouldn't be, but the actual goal has been revealed several times by video representations and accidentally published documents) - The leader of the attacking nation has lost all credibility in the world's eyes
jopsen 5y ago
The US never said: "it's just an exercise, we have no plans to invade". Not lying means that diplomacy has a chance. Nor does the US act unilaterally. It's always a coalition.

cardanome 5y ago

> When it comes to USSR/Russia, I am not aware of the good acts. It’s not just that thy do bad things, it’s that I never hear of any of the good things they do in the world at large. There is an interview from Yale University with Vladimir Pozner that is very worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ It is absolutely insane that western media does not report anything positive on Russia and I hope it is obvious that it can't be a the case that a state can be that comically evil. And if not foreign policy at least cultural stuff should at least receive some positive attention with Russia having a rich tradition in theater, ballet, music and so on. The USSR did plenty to support its lesser developed republics. In fact that is is why many Russian nationalist saw it very critically, seeing as their land would give more that it received. Even today Russia has extremely good relations with the countries of central asia. As for foreign aid not only did it sent lots of aid to other socialist regimes but also many national liberation movements speeding up massively the de-colonization of Africa. The Russian Federation is also doing plenty of good. They help keeping the massive dominance of the US and it allies at least a little bit in check supporting many countries that are shunned by them. Syria would have been overrun by terrorists by now if Russia had not helped them. Of course you can twist every good news to make Russia look bad. Russian athletes are successful? Only the result of doping. Stability in Syria? Supporting a bloody dictator. Protecting Snowden? Ugh, just cheap propaganda. Developed Covid Vaccine? Totally rushed and fake numbers. If you believe "the West" to be the good guys then everything that Russia does will appear bad.

pcmoney 5y ago
This is a shockingly bad take. Nobody else is poisoning political rivals with radioactive umbrellas in London. Nobody else had a Gulag Archipelago. Not even Hitler killed half as many people in concentration camps. Russian Fed is an organized crime family with a hundred million hostages controlled by mob bosses Putin is a dictator.

watwut 5y ago
Yeah, they have history of being truth-telling peaceful nation, always happy with what they have /s
- darebak 5y ago
  What does ethnicity have to do with anything? Nothing even hinted that Russia is interested expanding beyond Ukraine, and not even the whole of Ukraine. So like I've said, it's fear mongering by our politicians to keep people living in fear, it's getting to comical levels now, I get offers for psychological counseling at work due to the Ykrainey situation.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > What does ethnicity have to do with anything? Russia is a nation, why are you taking offense on that statement? It is not an insult. > Nothing even hinted that Russia is interested expanding beyond Ukraine, and not even the whole of Ukraine I mean, except Putin talking about how Ukraine is fake nation that should be part of Russia.
    - darebak 5y ago
      It very clearly is an insult against people because of their nationality but I discovered these days that online communities are a lot more accepting of such statements. >I mean, except Putin talking about how Ukraine is fake nation that should be part of Russia. Source?
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Source? first full English transcript I could find: (the English language Kremlin site where it was hosted is nonresponsive, and most major media is just carrying excerpts.) https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/president-putins-full-text-of-february-21-2022-speech-to-the-nation/ https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censor...
        darebak 5y ago
        I can't open it.
        roca 5y ago
        Interesting. I can open it fine. Here's some relevant text: > So, I will start with the fact that modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia. This process started practically right after the 1917 revolution, and Lenin and his associates did it in a way that was extremely harsh on Russia – by separating, severing what is historically Russian land. Read the whole thing. If you're going to defend Russian policy online you should have a clear idea what you're defending.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I mean, except Putin talking about how Ukraine is fake nation that should be part of Russia. And the pre-written victory announcement state media recently published and then pulled back announcing the reformation of a single union of all the Russias (Belarus, “Greater” Russia [i.e., just plain Russia], and “Little” Russia [Ukraine]).
xorfish 5y ago
Except the explicit words of the dictator of Russia. There is nothing to contradict the view, that Putin doesn't want to restore the old Tsar or Soviet borders.
- aa-jv 5y ago
  Which explicit words?

bsaul 5y ago

i know it's very easy to say, but if you're russian right now, it seems to me that the only sane choice is to actively organize the overthrow of putin. It's one of the rare case (nuclear war threats), where it may be the safest solution. Especially now that a few public figures in Russia have officially standed against that war. There may be an opportunity to reach a critical mass at home.

MrDisposable 5y ago
It may work in a country where private business (i.e. state-independent source of income) is dominant, but a lot of Russians have jobs at state-owned institutions now (various administrations etc.) where they work for a meager wage. If they go out protesting, they will be fired from their jobs -- their only source of income. Not exactly a good decision, especially during the crisis times.
- bsaul 5y ago
  That’s why i mentioned a critical mass. If you protest with 1000 people, you’re in danger, but if you’re 500k much less so. Now the question being, how do you organize a 500k people protest in russia at the moment, and that i have no idea. But if it’s possible, then now would be a good time IMHO.
- willis936 5y ago
  The sky is falling and you think workers should be concerned with a wage that can't even afford bread and a roof? The sanction squeeze shifts the calculus.
  - jq-r 5y ago
    The sky is not falling for those government employed workers yet. First the private sector will degrade and government will try to squeeze every last cent out of it to pay the public sector workers. So when that dries up, then you can expect trouble. But this process can last for some time, it doesn't usually happen overnight. I know that there are major sanctions and West is trying to tank Russian economy, but don't expect to see public sector workers on the streets just yet.
  - MrDisposable 5y ago
    If they don't have that wage, how do they eat?
    - willis936 5y ago
      If they have that wage, how do they eat? Russia is not self-sufficient. Going it alone means people will starve to death. They won't starve to death in March, but it won't be long before buffers are empty. There is a window to do something about it.
iamshs 5y ago
People living paycheck to paycheck cannot fight oppressive regimes. Sanctions are meaningless if you want to make people rise up. Protests need a supply chain in itself.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago

Can I ask, how are these economic restrictions affecting you in your daily life? Are people able to access money at their banks? Do you predict any future food security issues? Also in your opinion, what is the likely end game now for Putin? Putin is unlikely to win this war, Ukraine have been given near unlimited anti-tank weapons by the EU/US, and have air superiority now with extra MiG's donated by NATO and TB2 drones from Turkey. Locals are set and prepared for guerrilla warfare. All the usual allies have distanced themselves from Russia. The writing is on the wall. Is it likely that another oligarch will take his place? Is there any indication that top military might force his replacement? Is any of the economic suffering imposed now likely to force everyone to come out to the streets? Edited: 'gorilla warfare'

vegai_ 5y ago
>gorilla warfare Sorry for being that guy but even though gorilla warfare would be genuinely horrifying, the term is actually guerrilla warfare. Which funnily enough can be translated as "warfare warfare".
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  Edited to avoid distracting from the argument.
nradov 5y ago
NATO hasn't actually provided any replacement MiGs to Ukraine yet. Ukraine hasn't established air superiority. At best the airspace is still contested. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44501/reports-that-ukraine-is-about-to-get-70-donated-fighter-jets-dont-add-up https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44501/reports-that-ukr...
MrDisposable 5y ago
> Can I ask, how are these economic restrictions affecting you in your daily life? My company may soon be unable to receive revenue from western customers. My company has two ongoing long-term projects (both took about 10 years), which now increasingly look like wasted time and money. If I'm cut off from my income source, I won't be able to retain key people, and will have to halt the development on both projects. > what is the likely end game now for Putin? Endgame for Putin: Live safely in a bunker, for 10-15 more years, then die from natural causes, happy that he made (literally, _made_) history. Endgame for Russia: after the death of Putin, in about 20 years from now we go the old tried-and-true route: crash, Perestroika, re-integration with the west -- but this time, we will be disarmed and de-fanged. Then we remain in that subdued state until the next drastic world-changing event (such as the advent of strong AI), and after that all bets are off.
- hnov 5y ago
  I think people miss that the world is largely zero-sum and a subdued Russia is good for the status quo
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  Hope you and your loved ones stay safe, and that this russian epoch is a brief as possible.
  - MrDisposable 5y ago
    Thank you. Given that from now on we are the most hated nation on the globe, this means a lot.
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      Actually I do think the majority of people understand that this is caused/lead mostly by Putin with the aid of handful of key russians. Most people in the world just want to get on with their lifes, keep their children safe and watch them grow. I am not sure you are aware of this in Russian media, but most of the media shown in the west about Russian military, is of young conscripts who clear have no desire to be in the war, and claim they had no debriefing they would be deployed in Ukraine. The narrative (true or not) in western media is that Putin is using non-ethnic russians and young concripts as cannon fodder in the frontlines to wear off the ukrainian forces. My point is that the general sentiment in the west is that the economic choke is necessary to avoid escalating NATO involvement (And nuclear threats). But in the west the sentiment is (for the majority) not antagonist to the Russian population itself .

darebak 5y ago
It did not, if you have any international court verdict that says that Serbia conducted a genocide, I would like to see it. Also Serbia was not at war with Slovenia. Those are the basic facts. Now, even if those things were true, they are claimed by the proponents of bombing, enemies if you will, the same way that Putin is claiming there is a genocide of million Ukrainians in Ukraine. Do you believe your enemies?
- nickpp 5y ago
  Motives matter too. Bombing of Serbia was to stop a bellicose regime and the humanitarian crisis it was creating. It was like bombing Russia right now, which I'd support fully hearted, if it was a possibility.
  - darebak 5y ago
    It was not. Serbia was establishing order within its territory when NATO bombed it without any approval from the UN, basically doing something just because they could. Remind you of anyone?
    - sokols 5y ago
      Saying that Serbia was establishing order within its territory is a bit cynical take. What they did is that they systematically[1] cleansed villages and settlements in order to decrease the percentage of Albanian population in Kosovo. In a way, they were implementing a century old policy of a guy named Vaso Cubrilovic who argued that Albanians should be expelled[2] from the lands Serbia (precursor of Yugoslavia) took in 1913. What NATO did, is stopping exactly this from happening. [1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2001/10/26/under-orders/war-crimes-kosovo https://www.hrw.org/report/2001/10/26/under-orders/war-crime... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expulsion_of_the_Albanians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expulsion_of_the_Albania...
      - darebak 5y ago
        It's not cynical, it's exactly what was happening. It was the police that was cracking down on terrorists, not army. Army only became involved with NATO involment. And before you say that Albanian guerilla organizations were not terrorist, the US state department classified them that way up to less than one year before the bombing happened. And as for that supposed policy of Albanian expulsion, by how much did the percentage of Albanians diminish during the Serbian rule of Kosovo? And by how much did the number of Serbs diminish during the Albanian rule of Kosovo?
- lucky1759 5y ago
  Here you go: https://www.rferl.org/a/yugoslavia-hague-tribunal-major-moments/31334488.html https://www.rferl.org/a/yugoslavia-hague-tribunal-major-mome... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bosnian-serb-military-leader-mladic-will-hear-final-verdict-genocide-case-2021-06-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bosnian-serb-military-l... Multiple ethnic "serbs" were convicted of genociding muslims.
  - darebak 5y ago
    That's not a source that tells Serbia committed a genocide, because such source doesn't exist. Ethnic Serbs in Bosnia are a different thing, same as ethnic Bosniak in Serbia are a different thing. Also I found it telling that used Serbs in quotation marks.
    - imranhou 5y ago
      Just arguing about naming doesn't erase the bottom line that lots of people were grouped in camps, murdered and raped...
      - darebak 5y ago
        It's not arguing about nameing, it's about command line of control. Serb Republic ním Bosnia was a completely different entity than the Republic of Serbia. I mean, Serbia even put sanctions on Serb Republic during some period of the war. Justifying bombing of Serbia because of Bosnia would be like justifying bombing of Belgium because of the Netherlands. Yeah, sure they are kinda allies but that's it.
- cleancoder0 5y ago
  Yeah, technically it was the head of Yugoslavia that started a war with Slovenia the moment it left the federation (after Croatia left too). Luckily, war lasted 10 days. Not Serbia, I guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-Day_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-Day_War NATO bombing was not out of the blue. The head of Yugoslavia was a similar mad man (to Putin), just warring out of desperation. The best proof one has of his lunacy is the fact that Montenegro split from Serbia without any deaths. How did this happen? Due to the mad man dying in 2000. I'm pretty sure he would have enacted order by butchering civilians again, inside "his" borders. Serbia is also the only country out of these conflicts that does not guarantee seat in the parliament for the exYugoslav minorities. Even though the leadership displayed aggression that was successfully deflected, the defenders made a deal to guarantee inclusion of the Serbian minority in the parliament (Croatia, Kosovo etc.) Still, we have a country like Germany, that self-flagellates for decades and the sentiment of the majority is quite clear. While the general sentiment of people/press in Serbia is that NATO bombing is equivalent to Putin bombing Ukraine. and yeah, every now and then, the most popular Serbian (Monacoan) tennis player will say things like "Kosovo is Serbia" with complete indifference and still be the Jesus like figure his father makes him out to be.
  - darebak 5y ago
    >NATO bombing was not really out of the blue. The head of Yugoslavia was a similar mad man, just warring out of desperation. Nobody said it was out of the blue, but it was illegal, wrong and plain terrorist like. >The best proof one has of his lunacy is the fact that Montenegro split from Serbia without any issues. How did this happen? Lucikly, the mad man died in 2000. And the best proof of NATO lunacy is that Kosovo declared independence in 2008 because they feared Serbia which at that point wasn't in Kosovo for almost 10 years, during which Kosovar population carried out pogroms of Serbs while the UN forces just watched. Also Milošević died in 2006, never convicted of any war crimes. Later rulings on other people incriminated him but the same can be said for Tuđman. So, I guess if you die early you are not a war criminal. >Serbia is also the only country out of these conflicts that does not guarantee seat in the parliament for the exYugoslav minorities. It guarantees us a seat in the parliament, you just have to pass a laughably low percentage of the general vote. As a minority from Serbia, there's lot of problems in that country but minority representation is not one of them. If I wanted I could go through life without ever using Serbian language, I am not sure the same can be said for a lot of EU countries. >While the general sentiment of people/press in Serbia is that NATO bombing is equivalent to Putin bombing Ukraine. Because it is the same, a territory within a country decided it wanted to be independent and it is supported by an outside imperial force.

sto_hristo 5y ago

Iraq war while justified by wrong evidence, it was a necessity. Saddam did use WMDs on Kurdish villages - he bombed them with Sarin gas - that is HAVING WMDs. It has nothing to do with imperialism as i don't see any annexations made by the US, nor puppet governments. Ukraine, on the other hand, had territories chipped away from it, separatists backed up Russia for years and years, and now a surprise attack without forward notice. It's completely incomparable to Iraq.

saiya-jin 5y ago
Yeah, Saddam did that in 80s, US was still cooperating with him due to Iran/Iraq war (remember that Saddam-Rumsfeld photo? It wasn't staged or some freak coincidence but regular business/military talks and pats on the back). Those attacks didn't stop the cooperation. I don't think anybody powerful really cared about those poor civilians, it was just pretext but in this case a real one. Anyway back to the topic - we europeans look at this war as existential threat to our democracy, its not about just Ukraine anymore. That's why thousands javelins and stingers were provided by US, UK and other states which allowed them to defend till now. After Ukraine, it would be increasing russian circle towards west - baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania. Thats 100 million of people who know very well how horrible the life is under russian oppression and terror. Its also in US interests that this pans out with russians losing and stopping their imperialism - Europe is by far the biggest US ally (count 500 million relatively rich people), losing it would mean US power becomes progressively marginal in this world. Nobody free wants that, there are plenty of bullies out there, small and big.
- pishpash 5y ago
  I mean sure, but then you'd understand why eastward expansion of a military alliance could be construed as an existential threat, too. There's just a lot of unnecessary hypocrisy all around. It should also be said that, who is a bully depends on whose interests one happens to align with. Maybe transatlantic interests are always magically aligned forever but somehow I doubt it. One should wonder why or how that comes about, and at whose expense.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Sorry but no. I hate when people, ie when talking truth and outright lie, try to drag discussion into 'its somewhere in between', or 'consider the side of this murderer, he has needs and insecurities too'. Who gives a f*k what some murderous dictator wants or not. That's undefendable position these days. He had done enough evil in this world in past 20 years and cost lives of millions civilians including many children that he can shake hands with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Anything Russian is a big no-go. I guess they really have to build their tanks from wood now, since they failed with Armata tanks so badly (but for Russia predictably). Do you also point out some traumatic events from Hitler's childhood as some form of excuse for his actions? He was also just trying to expand his country to what he seemed as more ideal setup and give it better future. This abhorable little man stands against everything western democracies value very dearly. He managed to do 1 thing almost perfectly though - unify whole Europe and in fact most of the world in a way that leaders were failing for decades. Its just that its against him and his crooks and murderers. Hopefully the momentum will remain for long. As they say, the society is defined by common enemy, and well he is the best there could be right now. He would be comical if his actions were not killing hundreds of people every single day right now.
    - pishpash 5y ago
      When we discuss WWII these days we look at what led to it pre-war, policy mistakes, etc. That isn't condoning war or invasion, just cold, hard analysis. The lesson was: more integration, less punitive extraction from the defeated. That lesson was learned and largely applied to the defeated side of WWII. The same lesson should have been applied after defeating the USSR in the Cold War, but it was not. There is a straight line from there to here. With each action based on emotion and ideology even at this late juncture we're going down the path of more war, not more peace, so probably Europe is fucked for the next generation regardless, due to its own stupidity.

jsmith99 5y ago

The Iraq war was a terrible error but it still can't be compared to Ukraine. America had no plans to colonise Iraq or absorb it into its empire. Despite the enormous death and suffering the war caused, America's aim was naive altruism: getting rid of an unquestionably evil dictator who used WMDs on his own people. There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible.

youarethebest 5y ago
WMDs? That was a lie. They invaded to preserve the dollar regime/oil. Not plausible? I think you've been watching too many Marvel movies where good vs evil is "obvious"
- jsmith99 5y ago
  How would the invasion preserve the dollar regime? As for the WMDs, I referred to Saddam's history, not to America's discredited invasion pretext.
  - Ambolia 5y ago
    https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000911 https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000911
yongjik 5y ago
> America had no plans to colonise Iraq or absorb it into its empire. Well, of course, because then America would have had to give Iraqis the same rights as other Americans, or build a discriminatory system where "real" Americans enjoy more rights than them. Not that colonizing Iraq would have been justified, but since the war wasn't justifiable anyway - the decision to not colonize Iraq was not out of goodwill, but because it was cheaper that way.
hnhg 5y ago
It should be assessed on its own merits, including the aftermath, in all its glory, such as: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/21/new-study-documents-depleted-uranium-impacts-on-children-in-iraq/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/21/new-study-do... I'd also remind you that we have insufficient evidence to suggest that the aim was naive altruism. It could have been naively ideological: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
spacechild1 5y ago
> There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. Did you forget the /s? Honestly can't tell if this is satire or not...
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
> There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
randomsearch 5y ago
Much as I’ve defended the US in some other cases, I think that view on Iraq is somewhat naive. Yes, some wanted to get rid of an evil dictator, but it was motivated more by geopolitics than any sense of altruism.
- jopsen 5y ago
  Probably true, hehe... But there was a coalition of naive countries going along with the US. And it wasn't a surprise attack without serious diplomatic attempts. And even then, the US did actually worry about the legality of the invasion. It was a mistake, but it's not the same.
modo_mario 5y ago
Greenspan who was US chair of the fed at the time is a bit less naive about the matter. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimel...
cracrecry 5y ago
>Despite the enormous death and suffering the war caused, America's aim was naive altruism. Invading Iraq was on the agenda way before 9/11. The people that decided it are anything but naive. >There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. Why not? The second largest oil producer in the world is invaded because of altruism out of their great heart. Geopolitics have nothing to do with that. I believe is someone is naive here is you. At least you should respect as a valid and plausible theory(not calling it conspiracy in order to denigrate it) that the biggest army in the world are interested in controlling the energy producing countries just like any other empires before. And remember that was USA the ones that ousted the British Empire from Persia and the ones that toppled the democracy there.
- jsmith99 5y ago
  Perhaps I am naive about it, and I certainly agree that Iraq's oil is relevant, although more in the sense of ensuring availability than stealing it. But my point was that America's seemingly uncontrollable urge to export democracy is not always based on $$$, rather Bush and Blair had a messianic ideal that was often well intentioned.
- roca 5y ago
  > Why not? If America's plan was to take Iraq's oil, what went wrong with the plan, given Iraqis still control their oil?

dotancohen 5y ago

> But even Iraq does seem different: Hussein was a brutal dictator and, at least initially, Americans were welcomed as liberators. In some areas in Eastern Ukraine, the Russians have been suffering "genocide" (whatever that term has been redefined to mean, but obviously not systematic murder) and the Russian forces were welcomed as liberators.

fabian2k 5y ago
That is Russian propaganda and simply not true. There is no genocide against Russians in Ukraine.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Thre is no systematic murder in Ukraine. But this is how the UN defines genocide: > a. Killing members of the group; > b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; > d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. There are credible reports of b. and c. in Eastern Ukraine against Russians. Therefore, by UN definition, genocide. You and I might not like that definition, but Putin has a leg to stand on.
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    This is a pure war of agression, it is an invasion. There is no justification at all for this.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      That's what the Western propaganda machine pushes (I'm Western too, certainly not pro-Russian) but do you really think that there is no rational Russian justification from the Russian perspective?
      - daminimal 5y ago
        Justification for what? If Russia wanted to support russian ethnic people in Ukraine it would not invade Ukraine, but offer non-destructive help to those people.
    - aa-jv 5y ago
      It is a crime against humanity to cut water supplies into populated areas. What would your state do if water was being diverted away from Los Angeles by Canada?
  - nradov 5y ago
    Where are those credible reports?
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      Completely buried in anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian propaganda. I'm not pro-Putin or pro-Russia, but I'm looking at things objectively. If I had a browser history I could pull them from there but now the search engines are inundated with propaganda and I cannot find them. It is too late to get objective facts right now, unfortunately. It is scary how facts become "facts" and now for you it is heresay from some random HN poster (me). Disinformation campaigns are effective.
      - nradov 5y ago
        The dog ate my homework?
        dotancohen 5y ago
        Yes, it appears so )). Sorry. Again, I'm not pro-Russia but just look at this thread to see that the pro-Ukraine crowd silence anything not 100% in their favour. We see the same thing in anti-Israel discourse online as well, where both sides vehemently do their best to silence any voice not on "their side", no matter how factual.
        aa-jv 5y ago
        For future reference, the starving of Crimea of its water resources is considered genocidal behaviour.
    - aa-jv 5y ago
      Cutting off water supplies to entire human populations is a crime against humanity and genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/world/europe/ukraine-russia-canal-crimea.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/world/europe/ukraine-russ...

cleancoder0 5y ago
> Also Milošević died in 2006. Yeah, I guess he stopped existing in 2000 and had nothing to do with the peaceful referendum. > Because it is the same, a territory within a country decided it wanted to be independent and it is supported by an outside imperial force. How can you believe this? Which part of Ukraine declared independence? What country was supposed to be created out of this independence? Which leaders decided they wanted to create a new independent territory? > I am not sure the same can be said for a lot of EU countries. Well, if your country is in EU, the citizens of EU are not forced to learn any language, even if they live outside of their country of origin. Language requirements for non-EU exist due to EU being an extremely lucrative place to live. Moving to Serbia and trying to hop on social benefits will not be as lucrative, so language requirement for citizenship might be unnecessary. > It guarantees us a seat in the parliament, you just have to pass a laughably low percentage of the general vote. In Croatia and Kosovo, there is no low percentage threshold. You are automatically in. There's no reason to believe the threshold is achievable, given that people in general do not vote.
- darebak 5y ago
  >How can you believe this? Which part of Ukraine declared independence? Didn't those two breakaway republics declare independence? >Well, if your country is in EU, the citizens of EU are not forced to learn any language, even if they live outside of their country of origin. Language requirements for non-EU exist due to EU being an extremely lucrative place to live. Moving to Serbia and trying to hop on social benefits will not be as lucrative, so language requirement for citizenship might be unnecessary. I am not talking about EU citizens moving to another country, I am talking about minorities living in Serbia. I am a part of minority that lived in the now Serbian territory for over 250 years and there's no legal requirement for us to learn Serbian. You can live your perfectly happy life without it. We have our schools, our communities so learning the Serbian language is not a requisite although most people learn it because it offers some benefits. I found it odd that you thought I was talking about foreigners.
  - cleancoder0 5y ago
    > I found it odd that you thought I was talking about foreigners. You mentioned that this cannot be said for a lot of EU countries. Turks born in EU do not have to learn German. Immigration within EU is free from language requirement too. I do not even understand why do you think minorities not learning Serbian is impressive? Croatia and Kosovo both have schools that can use Serbian in their curriculum and no one is forcing Croatian on them. Similar things exist for Czech and Hungarian. No one is forcing these minorities to go to schools to learn Croatian. > Didn't those two breakaway republics declare independence? And were immediately annexed by Russia? How independent is that? Who's the new cultural head of these independent republics?
    - darebak 5y ago
      >You mentioned that this cannot be said for a lot of EU countries. Turks born in EU do not have to learn German. Immigration within EU is free from language requirement too. So Turks in Germany can have schools in Turkish for their children? Do you have a source for this? >I do not even understand why do you think minorities not learning Serbian is impressive? Because language rights are central for the survival of minority communities. >Croatia and Kosovo both have schools that can use Serbian in their curriculum and no one is forcing Croatian on them. Yeah, when they are not being stoned in Kosovo or have their Cyrillic signs smashed in Croatia.
      - alphager 5y ago
        > So Turks in Germany can have schools in Turkish for their children? Do you have a source for this? Sure: https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/materialdatenbank/material/download/3755 https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/materialdatenbank/materi... That's the official lesson plan for non-German lessons in NRW; other German states have similar plans (teaching is devolved to the states in Germany). Notice that this is the plan used in the state-sponsored lessons; private schools are free to use their own plans.
        tuukkah 5y ago
        Umm guys, education is about children's rights and it has to be mandatory so that your parents won't be able to override your rights even if they have something against their minority language or against the language majority. 1. The right to mother tongue: wherever in the world, the child must learn the mother tongue(s) of their parents to support the cognitive and psychological development. 2. The right to participate in the society as an equal: the child must learn the official language(s) of the society well enough to be able to understand and participate in the democracy, business, art etc. On top of that, the bulk of the school curriculum can be in a yet another language, no problem, as long as these rights are ensured as well.
    - darebak 5y ago
      And oh, I forgot about this part. >And were immediately annexed by Russia? How independent is that? Who's the new cultural head of these independent republics? They were not immediately annexed, no. Russia didn't even recognize them for a couple of years.