10 ms·

Creating a throwaway as I have a controversial take on this (maybe even the minority opinion here): In my opinion, Ruble will become stable in few months (once

Creating a throwaway as I have a controversial take on this (maybe even the minority opinion here): In my opinion, Ruble will become stable in few months (once the dust has settled that is). The sanctions are only imposed by the West (many Asian countries abstained from voting in UNSC). Russia will use Chinese Unionpay in-lieu of Mastercard/Visa and might integrate with Chinese CIPS (alternative to SWIFT). Probably even Indian Rupay in the future. It also has its own homegrown Mir Payment System. The sanctions jolt is going to be temporary. Ultimately SWIFT is going to not be dominant anymore. This is some hard reality that the West has to come to terms with. If anything, these sanctions have fast-tracked establishment of a multi-polar World and rejig of alliances. Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting. They'll all have a rethink on what it means to be allied with the West and follow a "Rules based order" that only applies to countries excluding the West. It naturally follows that they will want to balance out their National interests and not place all their eggs in one basket. One thing is for sure. These circumstances will only boost alternative forms of currency/payment systems. Imagine having the entire payment infrastructure controlled by handful of countries who can act with impunity. For whom, the so called "rules" don't apply but do apply for everyone else.

redwood 5y ago
I certainly hear what you are saying. You are correct there is a free world and there's a totalitarian world. What is sad is that the people in the totalitarian world don't know what they are missing
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  Rather, do you in the free World see what is being shown to you in the free World as the Truth? Are you 100% sure that you aren't being shown a filtered version of what is actually happening? You just believe you are in a free World and that all actors are acting, not out of self interests, but for the greater good? Don't forget that it is the "free World" which allowed Bay of Pigs, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Vietnam, invasion of Syria, invasion of Libya etc etc. 84 countries have been invaded by the so called "free World". Even Grenada wasn't spared (11th tiniest country in the World) with hardly any military. Bombed by USA. The Prime Minister of Grenada assassinated. When you look at it, from this perspective, you begin to question who is the actual totalitarian here? How many countries have dictators invaded? We all talk about Mao killing millions in China. True. Not going to defend it. But do you question Churchill who deliberately, as a matter of written policy, caused the Bengal Famine which resulted in millions of Bengalis dying? When he was told that Bengalis are dying, Churchil asked "if Gandhi had died yet?". I don't see Churchil being compared to Hitler anywhere. How about Regan? When the media questioned him about invasion of Grenada. That it was a flagrant violation of International Laws. That the UN General Assembly voted 108-9 against US invasion of Grenada. He famously said: "it didn't upset my breakfast at all". So where is this "Free World"? What use is a Democracy if you cannot stop an unjust War? What is the difference between your State and the so called "Totalitarian State"? Just that you can shout on the streets and register your protest? Is that the only difference? That won't get back millions of people who were killed by invasions from the so called "Free World". I belong to this so called "Free World" too. Yet I won't shy away from admitting that we are bloody hypocrites. We preach to the World on morality but we have done the worst of the worst things known to mankind. So what moral standing do I have to say: "Russia bad"? Nothing at all. We have done even worse. History is a witness to it. We can't lie our way out of it.
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    Obvious Russian propaganda is obvious, but I will bite. "what moral standing do I have to say: 'Russia bad'?" A. Two things can be bad at the same time - Russia's unprovoked slaughter of the Ukrainian population is bad, and the US government fabricating reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 is also bad. I would not be surprised if a vast majority of people hated both Putin and Dubya for these wars of aggression. B. Some atrocities are worse than others. Clusterbombing hospitals and nurseries on a nationwide scale in a war of aggression, or threatening to blow up nuclear power plants and release radiation in the same war are fairly high up that scale of atrocities.
- ccdan 5y ago
  There's no free world. There are just different degrees of totalitarianism. The highest level of totalitarianism is in the country with the highest number of criminal laws - that by definition reduce freedom, and the highest percentage of population in prison. Guess which country is that? In lots of wanna-be "free" countries, people can no longer live their normal lives because they can get thrown in prison for some of the most absurd reasons - like leaving your children play in the street, insulting someone on facebook, having an open bottle of alcohol in a car - and thousands upon thousands other such fictive, victimless "crimes". In these countries people get indoctrinated that political freedom is the only freedom that's needed but that's colossal lie! Most people don't care about political activism, don't really need such freedoms!
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Your criticism of the US incarceration aside, which is nonetheless a good point, of course if you philosophically deconstruct the world there is no freedom. You are subject to constraints of the natural world at a minimum, and really technology and the modern world were created to possibly give more freedom than the constraints of a "natural existence". But the stack of technologies and institutions that relies on obviously have both practical limitations (with guns you have the ability to kill far more than you can with bare hands, but we'll restrict that with prohibitions on murder than you wouldn't have in primitive existence) and political (arbitrary declarations of property and ownership and therefore power). Thus "freedom" is the range/opportunity/ability to do things with modern technologies and society. The idealistic freedom is laid out in the laws and structure of governance, and the practical freedom is access to resources, technology, and services to accomplish something. With "totalitarianism", what I think is meant within what I just wrote is that the central powers both restrict the ideals AND dominate the practical access to resources to degrees that trigger the palpable instincts of unfairness and existential danger in humans, especially in comparison to other societies. I guess with respect to incarceration, we look at what they are in jail for. Incarceration is generally due to the war on drugs in the US, and then unfair enforcement of the war on drugs against minorities over white people. To some degree (bullshit possession charges and other similar atrocities of the prosecution of the war on drugs) a great deal of the incarcerations are for laws that have somewhat of some line of thought (deterring the drug trade) even if it is actually creating perverse economic incentives to encourage/enrich the drug trade. But am I more "free" in Russia/China or the US? I would say both practically and idealistically I am clearly more free in the US. Not to the degree that the US markets itself as ("propaganda") but clearly better than my perception of Russia and China.
vero2 5y ago
I am sure everyone is learning from walled gardens. Sure, there will be some impact of sanctions. But note that wealthy individuals will find a way. EU or US is never going to ban UAE, Saudi Arabia or India from they list for trading with Russia. Note that Iran has been successfully exporting gas to India by opening accounts with state banks in India. These are complex issues. All these headlines in the West for PR and public consumption. Eventually, the average Western European is more bothered about their jobs. Sure they happily opened borders, but wait a month or two. One these Ukrainians apply for jobs the locals get annoyed. Example: In Germany, Syrians were welcomed with open arms, then eventually the tabloid news turned around once they settled. Note that the average Russian (or Chinese or Indian) is poor. They do not care about what people in Western Europe think. They do business to better themselves (just like average American that helps quell uprising in UAE by developing software or working for NSO).
DFHippie 5y ago
> Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting. Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  > Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf? Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause. > People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position. Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.
  - adventured 5y ago
NoPie 5y ago
Russia's GDP is something like 4% of the EU GDP. Everybody will get hurt from these sanctions but Russia will get hurt about 20 times more than the EU on average. Some EU countries will have bigger impact than others but they may get help from the EU, so it can be mitigated to some extent. Russia will try to find a way around these sanctions generally but it will be less efficient. It is not that easy to substitute everything. Russians may not care about latest brand items but domestic substitutions will not be always of good quality or functionality. It wasn't during Soviet Union and depending how long these sanctions last, it will gradually impact Russia. Some think that sanctions will be gradually weakened. I think it will be the opposite. The war is just started and as Ukraine will suffer more and more casualties, countries will make sanctions even stronger. It is surprising that the reaction was so severe in this short time. Usually it requires longer time to agree on things and it is expected that more sanctions will follow. I am very sorry for all my Russians friends who now will have to suffer. It is not an easy situation to deal and no way out.
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  > Russia will try to find a way around these sanctions generally but it will be less efficient. It is not that easy to substitute everything. Russians may not care about latest brand items but domestic substitutions will not be always of good quality or functionality. It wasn't during Soviet Union and depending how long these sanctions last, it will gradually impact Russia. You are forgetting China here. 70% of mobile phone market in India is dominated by Chinese phones which are honestly far more feature packed than the latest iPhone. Of course one does not have any idea about privacy/security aspects of it. Will definitely not be as secure as an iPhone. But for a regular user, does this actually matter? Especially in developing countries? More so in Russia? When Soviet Union collapsed, China's GDP was slightly higher than India's GDP. It wasn't yet the manufacturing base and supply chain of the World. The West propped China up for 3 decades. Now Russia/Russians won't miss out much to be honest with you. There are alternatives for everything Western and then some. > countries will make sanctions even stronger In what way? The sanctions are already the strongest. There is nothing more "stronger" that can be done now. What can be "stronger" than cutting off financial telecommunications (through SWIFT)? Cutting off oil? That can be easily re-routed to India and China. India and China will love discounted Russian oil. I think the West is overestimating the impact of Sanctions.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. This elides so many significant differences I am not surprised you created a throwaway account. NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus. It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face. One of these actions was a failed multi-state peacekeeping effort. The other is plainly imperial ambition dressed up with lies even told to the Russian people, who are not free to disagree with it.
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  > NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus. Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit. You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period. No "consensus" can justify the invasion. You just don't invade. If the Government calls for help, then and only then you have a right to go help. If it is a Civil War, you let the people decide. You do not interfere. This is the rules-based order that the West keeps thrusting on everyone else. But the West doesn't follow itself. Hypocritical. Which is what empowers deviants like Putin to do what he is doing. The West has set precedent for it through "consensus" and "justifications". Putin is also giving his "justifications". This nonsense has to stop. Respect territorial sovereignty. No matter how ugly the situation is in a country that is NOT YOURS, you plainly, simply, do not INVADE IT. Unless the Country itself has threatened you. > It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face. Even though I am against Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he also has a "justification" like the West does (for its invasions of 84 countries). NATO has expanded 5 times to the East and now borders Russia. Placed its nukes, ballistic missiles on all the member states. All pointing at Russia 24/7. Now you are telling me that Putin has "no good intent"? Is this not good enough intent? Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis? Isn't it hypocritical that the West did not want Soviet nukes in Cuba but is actively placing nukes in NATO member states and bringing NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders? Did the West not promise Russia that it won't expand NATO after fall of Soviet Union? Professor Trachtenberg unearthed declassified documents from British National Archives which reveals that such promises were indeed made [1]. The actual archived declassified document [2]. [1]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1990.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1... [2]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/19910307.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1... So many Western scholars, politicians, diplomats have, for the past 30 years, repeatedly warned the West of not expanding NATO. That it will antagonize Russia. The flashpoint will be in Ukraine. Not to risk poking the bear. Yet the West did not care for the viewpoints of these experts. All of them have now turned out to be right. Now you are telling me that the West follows "rules-based order" and is morally better than Putin. Yet the West unilaterally breaks treaties: Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty to Treaty on Open Skies and faces no repercussions or sanctions? When China conducted Nuclear tests in 1990s the West did not sanction China. But when India conducted reciprocal Nuclear tests as a response to Chinese Nuclear tests, India was sanctioned by the West. Do you still not see the hypocrisy here? I can keep giving umpteen examples of flagrant International Law violations by the West. Yet somehow it is morally superior compared to other countries that also break the same laws.
gii2 5y ago
You signed up 1h ago, just the give us this insightful analysis?
- MrMan 5y ago
  have to collect a paycheck from FSB
- necovek 5y ago
  I think you missed where they said they created a throwaway account (suggesting they've got a regular one they don't want downvoted into oblivion), and even named the account throwaway_foo (all pretty much the standard on HN afaics). If you are looking for a propaganda troll, you are likely barking at the wrong tree.
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    > they don't want downvoted into oblivion I don't expect people to care too much abut that, because even if you get a thousand of downvotes, your karma is reduced only by -4. I think the problem is that risk that the comment may cause people to report it to Facebook and get her/him deplataformed, or report it to the employer and get her/him fired using the employment at will. The chilling effect is real.
    - romanhn 5y ago
      Fascinating! I've been on HN for years and this is the first time I've heard this.
nkrisc 5y ago
> They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting. I'm not going to refute this, because I believe you're essentially correct. But let's not pretend that it's a direct comparison. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator whose regime tortured, raped, and murdered Libyans with impunity. He, his sons, and his close circle were sadistic psychopaths. He also directly supported, sponsored, and tolerated terrorism which reached out beyond his own borders and killed civilians from other countries. The Gaddafi regime was a menace not only to Libyans but to rest of the world as well. I still believe removing him from power was a net benefit to the world. And it was Libyans who lynched him (not surprising given what he had done to them), not NATO forces. I think it's fair to draw parallels in the abstract between these two scenarios, but they are not the same.
- MrRiddle 5y ago
  One might say the same for Ukraine. Nazi Azov Battalion was the main attacker of Donbas, Nazi structures are definitely embedded into Ukrainian state. It’s just a prism you look through. Was Pinochet a good guy? Was attack on Cuba justified? Vietnam, Korea etc? They’re always good vs bad? Life is not Holywood.
  - nkrisc 5y ago
    > One might say the same for Ukraine. Nazi Azov Battalion was the main attacker of Donbas, Nazi structures are definitely embedded into Ukrainian state. One might say the same. Do you? I don't.
- melony 5y ago
  International relations does not differentiate between Ukraine and Libya in terms of sovereignty. To deny one is to deny the other as both are internationally recognized states.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Jeema101 5y ago
"NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions" This is not an honest take on what happened in Libya. The actions taken were initiated and sanctioned by the UN, as part of a security council resolution. Per Wikipedia: "The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on 26 February, freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his inner circle and restricting their travel, and referred the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation. In early March, Gaddafi's forces rallied, pushed eastwards and re-took several coastal cities before reaching Benghazi. A further UN resolution authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, and to use "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians, which turned into a bombing campaign by the forces of NATO against military installations and civilian infrastructure of Libya." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Libyan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Libyan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  Have provided a detail answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30641837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30641837
- shrikant 5y ago
  These concern-trolling throwaway accounts don't also account for the fact that Russia clearly didn't give that much of a shit about the Libya situation, otherewise as permanent members of the UNSC, they could have veto'ed the resolution.
  - throwaway_434 5y ago
    > they could have veto'ed the resolution Have you read the UNSC resolution? The UNSC resolution did not call for invasion of Libya. Read it if you haven't. The main point of the UNSC resolution was establishing a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using Libyan Air Force to bomb rebels and for protection of civilians. It did not order NATO to invade. Rather, NATO used the UNSC resolution as an excuse to invade. So don't blame the UNSC for this (though UNSC is to be blamed for other things: including wording the resolution vaguely/poorly that it allowed for this loophole for NATO intervention). > concern-trolling throwaway accounts I am not concern-trolling. I just gave my perspective/opinion. The primary reason for creating a throwaway account is because of it inevitably ending up with being labelled as a "Russian Propagandist" or a "Troll". The "Free-world" has lost appetite for debate with everything that is not mainstream being cancelled/dismissed. Which is sad unfortunately.
turndown 5y ago
Honestly I’m skeptical of this narrative about Russia you’re trying to provide here. I think any reasonable person would agree that having China as an ally is at best a 50/50 beneficial experience… Remember, China is trying to do exactly what Russia is only dreaming of, attaining an economic/military ascendency like the US has. China will take from Russia what it wants and then do what it will. Also, these conversations ignore a few other key facts that totally screw Russia: Brain drain, military morale/the government after this is “over”, the total free fall the economy is currently in(which you appear to believe will go away “once the dust has settled”…) If I were a betting man I wouldn’t be investing in Russia right now, the domestic situation is way too unpredictable with the war going on to be certain an investment in Russia today is totally lost to a revolution in a month or two. How many times has a reigning autocrat in Russia been severely hobbled, discredited, or ultimately killed because of a terrible military loss that the public was sold on as an easy win?
- adventured 5y ago
  The most interesting thing about Russia economically, in terms of settling dust, is that Putin has been revealed to be weak and very incompetent. The native mythology and position of Putin is based heavily on strength projection, and now the world is seeing that his military is a joke compared to what it was thought to be. Putin's power is heavily derived from the belief that Russia had a very potent military. Important figures (important to Putin's reign) in their domestic audience are also seeing their weakness on display. The facade was agreed upon (don't talk about the reality of the situation, everyone pretend Russia is strong), and now their context is revealed to be fragile. The reality of their military power debases Putin's image, his own mythology, his own power projection. The worst damage to Russia isn't the economic sanctions, it's the revealing of its decrepitness and national weakness; it's revealing that the tsar has no clothes (as is so often the case). Putin will have to kill a lot of people in Russia and clamp down massively, extremely violently, to continue holding power over the next decade. It'll only further crush Russia. He didn't have to do that to the extent that people believed he was a competent autocrat, with a hyper powerful military at his behest. Now he'll have to compensate for the loss of that image (an image which was preventing some inevitable challenge to his authority), with raw brutality. The sharks will begin circling around Russia and Putin's weakness. The thing to be revealed yet is what exactly that's going to look like, what form that will take (for example, China being emboldened to put the squeeze on Russia to its own benefit (whether in trade or otherwise), knowing how weak Russia really is).
halJordan 5y ago
I appreciate what youre saying, but youre eliding so many important details I have to believe you are dishonestly bolstering the truthyness of your implications (That the us/nato/eu/un are just as bad as warmongering russia). I’m down to give you the benefit of the doubt, but for example- Nato did not invade Libya, the UNSC enforced a resolution. These distinctions are incredibly important. Literally what is supposed to happen, did happen in the case of Libya. You are making terribly false equivalences, which even if done in ignorance still rise, imo, to intentional dishonesty.
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  > Nato did not invade Libya This is not true at all. NATO did invade Libya on 31st March 2011. The UNSC resolution enforced a no-fly zone. It did not order a NATO invasion. Please read the resolution again (UNSC 1973). NATO flew 26,500 sorties. NATO invasion ended on 31st October 2011. Article 5 wasn't invoked either (the only time it was invoked was when 9/11 happened). So there was no need for NATO to intervene. But it still did. Even the no-fly zone was farcical. It was meant to protect civilians. General Carter Ham (Head of US Africa Command) said that he was unable to differentiate between civilians/rebels/Gaddafi forces etc [1]. It was up to the pilot to take a call on whether he wants to bomb or not. This was reported in April of 2011 as well where NATO planes erroneously bombed row of tanks that belong to the rebels [2] clearly violating UNSC resolution of protecting "civilians". In fact, the Indian and Brazilian representatives made the same point, when the UNSC 1973 was tabled, that the resolution was too vague and poorly drafted. That is why both countries abstained from voting for the intervention in Libya. [1]: https://www.wired.com/2011/03/u-s-general-we-wont-help-libyas-rebels-unless-we-do/ https://www.wired.com/2011/03/u-s-general-we-wont-help-libya... [2]: https://www.france24.com/en/20110408-doubt-over-nato-military-action-reports-casualties-rise-libya https://www.france24.com/en/20110408-doubt-over-nato-militar...

redwood 5y ago

I certainly hear what you are saying. You are correct there is a free world and there's a totalitarian world. What is sad is that the people in the totalitarian world don't know what they are missing

throwaway_434 5y ago
Rather, do you in the free World see what is being shown to you in the free World as the Truth? Are you 100% sure that you aren't being shown a filtered version of what is actually happening? You just believe you are in a free World and that all actors are acting, not out of self interests, but for the greater good? Don't forget that it is the "free World" which allowed Bay of Pigs, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Vietnam, invasion of Syria, invasion of Libya etc etc. 84 countries have been invaded by the so called "free World". Even Grenada wasn't spared (11th tiniest country in the World) with hardly any military. Bombed by USA. The Prime Minister of Grenada assassinated. When you look at it, from this perspective, you begin to question who is the actual totalitarian here? How many countries have dictators invaded? We all talk about Mao killing millions in China. True. Not going to defend it. But do you question Churchill who deliberately, as a matter of written policy, caused the Bengal Famine which resulted in millions of Bengalis dying? When he was told that Bengalis are dying, Churchil asked "if Gandhi had died yet?". I don't see Churchil being compared to Hitler anywhere. How about Regan? When the media questioned him about invasion of Grenada. That it was a flagrant violation of International Laws. That the UN General Assembly voted 108-9 against US invasion of Grenada. He famously said: "it didn't upset my breakfast at all". So where is this "Free World"? What use is a Democracy if you cannot stop an unjust War? What is the difference between your State and the so called "Totalitarian State"? Just that you can shout on the streets and register your protest? Is that the only difference? That won't get back millions of people who were killed by invasions from the so called "Free World". I belong to this so called "Free World" too. Yet I won't shy away from admitting that we are bloody hypocrites. We preach to the World on morality but we have done the worst of the worst things known to mankind. So what moral standing do I have to say: "Russia bad"? Nothing at all. We have done even worse. History is a witness to it. We can't lie our way out of it.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  Obvious Russian propaganda is obvious, but I will bite. "what moral standing do I have to say: 'Russia bad'?" A. Two things can be bad at the same time - Russia's unprovoked slaughter of the Ukrainian population is bad, and the US government fabricating reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 is also bad. I would not be surprised if a vast majority of people hated both Putin and Dubya for these wars of aggression. B. Some atrocities are worse than others. Clusterbombing hospitals and nurseries on a nationwide scale in a war of aggression, or threatening to blow up nuclear power plants and release radiation in the same war are fairly high up that scale of atrocities.
ccdan 5y ago
There's no free world. There are just different degrees of totalitarianism. The highest level of totalitarianism is in the country with the highest number of criminal laws - that by definition reduce freedom, and the highest percentage of population in prison. Guess which country is that? In lots of wanna-be "free" countries, people can no longer live their normal lives because they can get thrown in prison for some of the most absurd reasons - like leaving your children play in the street, insulting someone on facebook, having an open bottle of alcohol in a car - and thousands upon thousands other such fictive, victimless "crimes". In these countries people get indoctrinated that political freedom is the only freedom that's needed but that's colossal lie! Most people don't care about political activism, don't really need such freedoms!
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Your criticism of the US incarceration aside, which is nonetheless a good point, of course if you philosophically deconstruct the world there is no freedom. You are subject to constraints of the natural world at a minimum, and really technology and the modern world were created to possibly give more freedom than the constraints of a "natural existence". But the stack of technologies and institutions that relies on obviously have both practical limitations (with guns you have the ability to kill far more than you can with bare hands, but we'll restrict that with prohibitions on murder than you wouldn't have in primitive existence) and political (arbitrary declarations of property and ownership and therefore power). Thus "freedom" is the range/opportunity/ability to do things with modern technologies and society. The idealistic freedom is laid out in the laws and structure of governance, and the practical freedom is access to resources, technology, and services to accomplish something. With "totalitarianism", what I think is meant within what I just wrote is that the central powers both restrict the ideals AND dominate the practical access to resources to degrees that trigger the palpable instincts of unfairness and existential danger in humans, especially in comparison to other societies. I guess with respect to incarceration, we look at what they are in jail for. Incarceration is generally due to the war on drugs in the US, and then unfair enforcement of the war on drugs against minorities over white people. To some degree (bullshit possession charges and other similar atrocities of the prosecution of the war on drugs) a great deal of the incarcerations are for laws that have somewhat of some line of thought (deterring the drug trade) even if it is actually creating perverse economic incentives to encourage/enrich the drug trade. But am I more "free" in Russia/China or the US? I would say both practically and idealistically I am clearly more free in the US. Not to the degree that the US markets itself as ("propaganda") but clearly better than my perception of Russia and China.

vero2 5y ago

I am sure everyone is learning from walled gardens. Sure, there will be some impact of sanctions. But note that wealthy individuals will find a way. EU or US is never going to ban UAE, Saudi Arabia or India from they list for trading with Russia. Note that Iran has been successfully exporting gas to India by opening accounts with state banks in India. These are complex issues. All these headlines in the West for PR and public consumption. Eventually, the average Western European is more bothered about their jobs. Sure they happily opened borders, but wait a month or two. One these Ukrainians apply for jobs the locals get annoyed. Example: In Germany, Syrians were welcomed with open arms, then eventually the tabloid news turned around once they settled. Note that the average Russian (or Chinese or Indian) is poor. They do not care about what people in Western Europe think. They do business to better themselves (just like average American that helps quell uprising in UAE by developing software or working for NSO).

DFHippie 5y ago

> Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting. Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.

throwaway_434 5y ago
> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf? Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause. > People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position. Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.
- adventured 5y ago

NoPie 5y ago

Russia's GDP is something like 4% of the EU GDP. Everybody will get hurt from these sanctions but Russia will get hurt about 20 times more than the EU on average. Some EU countries will have bigger impact than others but they may get help from the EU, so it can be mitigated to some extent. Russia will try to find a way around these sanctions generally but it will be less efficient. It is not that easy to substitute everything. Russians may not care about latest brand items but domestic substitutions will not be always of good quality or functionality. It wasn't during Soviet Union and depending how long these sanctions last, it will gradually impact Russia. Some think that sanctions will be gradually weakened. I think it will be the opposite. The war is just started and as Ukraine will suffer more and more casualties, countries will make sanctions even stronger. It is surprising that the reaction was so severe in this short time. Usually it requires longer time to agree on things and it is expected that more sanctions will follow. I am very sorry for all my Russians friends who now will have to suffer. It is not an easy situation to deal and no way out.

throwaway_434 5y ago
> Russia will try to find a way around these sanctions generally but it will be less efficient. It is not that easy to substitute everything. Russians may not care about latest brand items but domestic substitutions will not be always of good quality or functionality. It wasn't during Soviet Union and depending how long these sanctions last, it will gradually impact Russia. You are forgetting China here. 70% of mobile phone market in India is dominated by Chinese phones which are honestly far more feature packed than the latest iPhone. Of course one does not have any idea about privacy/security aspects of it. Will definitely not be as secure as an iPhone. But for a regular user, does this actually matter? Especially in developing countries? More so in Russia? When Soviet Union collapsed, China's GDP was slightly higher than India's GDP. It wasn't yet the manufacturing base and supply chain of the World. The West propped China up for 3 decades. Now Russia/Russians won't miss out much to be honest with you. There are alternatives for everything Western and then some. > countries will make sanctions even stronger In what way? The sanctions are already the strongest. There is nothing more "stronger" that can be done now. What can be "stronger" than cutting off financial telecommunications (through SWIFT)? Cutting off oil? That can be easily re-routed to India and China. India and China will love discounted Russian oil. I think the West is overestimating the impact of Sanctions.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

> They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. This elides so many significant differences I am not surprised you created a throwaway account. NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus. It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face. One of these actions was a failed multi-state peacekeeping effort. The other is plainly imperial ambition dressed up with lies even told to the Russian people, who are not free to disagree with it.

throwaway_434 5y ago
> NATO's involvement in Libya was certainly a disastrous failure, but a disastrous failure from good intent and from multi-party consensus. Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit. You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period. No "consensus" can justify the invasion. You just don't invade. If the Government calls for help, then and only then you have a right to go help. If it is a Civil War, you let the people decide. You do not interfere. This is the rules-based order that the West keeps thrusting on everyone else. But the West doesn't follow itself. Hypocritical. Which is what empowers deviants like Putin to do what he is doing. The West has set precedent for it through "consensus" and "justifications". Putin is also giving his "justifications". This nonsense has to stop. Respect territorial sovereignty. No matter how ugly the situation is in a country that is NOT YOURS, you plainly, simply, do not INVADE IT. Unless the Country itself has threatened you. > It is not possible to project good intent onto Putin's actions when the actual things he is doing are explicitly at odds with what he claims, when the claims themselves are farcical on their face. Even though I am against Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he also has a "justification" like the West does (for its invasions of 84 countries). NATO has expanded 5 times to the East and now borders Russia. Placed its nukes, ballistic missiles on all the member states. All pointing at Russia 24/7. Now you are telling me that Putin has "no good intent"? Is this not good enough intent? Was USA chill when Soviet Union wanted to place its nukes in Cuba? Have you forgotten the Cuban missile crisis? Isn't it hypocritical that the West did not want Soviet nukes in Cuba but is actively placing nukes in NATO member states and bringing NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders? Did the West not promise Russia that it won't expand NATO after fall of Soviet Union? Professor Trachtenberg unearthed declassified documents from British National Archives which reveals that such promises were indeed made [1]. The actual archived declassified document [2]. [1]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1990.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1... [2]: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/19910307.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/1... So many Western scholars, politicians, diplomats have, for the past 30 years, repeatedly warned the West of not expanding NATO. That it will antagonize Russia. The flashpoint will be in Ukraine. Not to risk poking the bear. Yet the West did not care for the viewpoints of these experts. All of them have now turned out to be right. Now you are telling me that the West follows "rules-based order" and is morally better than Putin. Yet the West unilaterally breaks treaties: Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty to Treaty on Open Skies and faces no repercussions or sanctions? When China conducted Nuclear tests in 1990s the West did not sanction China. But when India conducted reciprocal Nuclear tests as a response to Chinese Nuclear tests, India was sanctioned by the West. Do you still not see the hypocrisy here? I can keep giving umpteen examples of flagrant International Law violations by the West. Yet somehow it is morally superior compared to other countries that also break the same laws.

gii2 5y ago

You signed up 1h ago, just the give us this insightful analysis?

MrMan 5y ago
have to collect a paycheck from FSB
necovek 5y ago
I think you missed where they said they created a throwaway account (suggesting they've got a regular one they don't want downvoted into oblivion), and even named the account throwaway_foo (all pretty much the standard on HN afaics). If you are looking for a propaganda troll, you are likely barking at the wrong tree.
- gus_massa 5y ago
  > they don't want downvoted into oblivion I don't expect people to care too much abut that, because even if you get a thousand of downvotes, your karma is reduced only by -4. I think the problem is that risk that the comment may cause people to report it to Facebook and get her/him deplataformed, or report it to the employer and get her/him fired using the employment at will. The chilling effect is real.
  - romanhn 5y ago
    Fascinating! I've been on HN for years and this is the first time I've heard this.

nkrisc 5y ago

> They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting. I'm not going to refute this, because I believe you're essentially correct. But let's not pretend that it's a direct comparison. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator whose regime tortured, raped, and murdered Libyans with impunity. He, his sons, and his close circle were sadistic psychopaths. He also directly supported, sponsored, and tolerated terrorism which reached out beyond his own borders and killed civilians from other countries. The Gaddafi regime was a menace not only to Libyans but to rest of the world as well. I still believe removing him from power was a net benefit to the world. And it was Libyans who lynched him (not surprising given what he had done to them), not NATO forces. I think it's fair to draw parallels in the abstract between these two scenarios, but they are not the same.

MrRiddle 5y ago
One might say the same for Ukraine. Nazi Azov Battalion was the main attacker of Donbas, Nazi structures are definitely embedded into Ukrainian state. It’s just a prism you look through. Was Pinochet a good guy? Was attack on Cuba justified? Vietnam, Korea etc? They’re always good vs bad? Life is not Holywood.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  > One might say the same for Ukraine. Nazi Azov Battalion was the main attacker of Donbas, Nazi structures are definitely embedded into Ukrainian state. One might say the same. Do you? I don't.
melony 5y ago
International relations does not differentiate between Ukraine and Libya in terms of sovereignty. To deny one is to deny the other as both are internationally recognized states.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Jeema101 5y ago

"NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions" This is not an honest take on what happened in Libya. The actions taken were initiated and sanctioned by the UN, as part of a security council resolution. Per Wikipedia: "The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on 26 February, freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his inner circle and restricting their travel, and referred the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation. In early March, Gaddafi's forces rallied, pushed eastwards and re-took several coastal cities before reaching Benghazi. A further UN resolution authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, and to use "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians, which turned into a bombing campaign by the forces of NATO against military installations and civilian infrastructure of Libya." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Libyan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Libyan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

throwaway_434 5y ago
Have provided a detail answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30641837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30641837
shrikant 5y ago
These concern-trolling throwaway accounts don't also account for the fact that Russia clearly didn't give that much of a shit about the Libya situation, otherewise as permanent members of the UNSC, they could have veto'ed the resolution.
- throwaway_434 5y ago
  > they could have veto'ed the resolution Have you read the UNSC resolution? The UNSC resolution did not call for invasion of Libya. Read it if you haven't. The main point of the UNSC resolution was establishing a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using Libyan Air Force to bomb rebels and for protection of civilians. It did not order NATO to invade. Rather, NATO used the UNSC resolution as an excuse to invade. So don't blame the UNSC for this (though UNSC is to be blamed for other things: including wording the resolution vaguely/poorly that it allowed for this loophole for NATO intervention). > concern-trolling throwaway accounts I am not concern-trolling. I just gave my perspective/opinion. The primary reason for creating a throwaway account is because of it inevitably ending up with being labelled as a "Russian Propagandist" or a "Troll". The "Free-world" has lost appetite for debate with everything that is not mainstream being cancelled/dismissed. Which is sad unfortunately.

turndown 5y ago

Honestly I’m skeptical of this narrative about Russia you’re trying to provide here. I think any reasonable person would agree that having China as an ally is at best a 50/50 beneficial experience… Remember, China is trying to do exactly what Russia is only dreaming of, attaining an economic/military ascendency like the US has. China will take from Russia what it wants and then do what it will. Also, these conversations ignore a few other key facts that totally screw Russia: Brain drain, military morale/the government after this is “over”, the total free fall the economy is currently in(which you appear to believe will go away “once the dust has settled”…) If I were a betting man I wouldn’t be investing in Russia right now, the domestic situation is way too unpredictable with the war going on to be certain an investment in Russia today is totally lost to a revolution in a month or two. How many times has a reigning autocrat in Russia been severely hobbled, discredited, or ultimately killed because of a terrible military loss that the public was sold on as an easy win?

adventured 5y ago
The most interesting thing about Russia economically, in terms of settling dust, is that Putin has been revealed to be weak and very incompetent. The native mythology and position of Putin is based heavily on strength projection, and now the world is seeing that his military is a joke compared to what it was thought to be. Putin's power is heavily derived from the belief that Russia had a very potent military. Important figures (important to Putin's reign) in their domestic audience are also seeing their weakness on display. The facade was agreed upon (don't talk about the reality of the situation, everyone pretend Russia is strong), and now their context is revealed to be fragile. The reality of their military power debases Putin's image, his own mythology, his own power projection. The worst damage to Russia isn't the economic sanctions, it's the revealing of its decrepitness and national weakness; it's revealing that the tsar has no clothes (as is so often the case). Putin will have to kill a lot of people in Russia and clamp down massively, extremely violently, to continue holding power over the next decade. It'll only further crush Russia. He didn't have to do that to the extent that people believed he was a competent autocrat, with a hyper powerful military at his behest. Now he'll have to compensate for the loss of that image (an image which was preventing some inevitable challenge to his authority), with raw brutality. The sharks will begin circling around Russia and Putin's weakness. The thing to be revealed yet is what exactly that's going to look like, what form that will take (for example, China being emboldened to put the squeeze on Russia to its own benefit (whether in trade or otherwise), knowing how weak Russia really is).

halJordan 5y ago

I appreciate what youre saying, but youre eliding so many important details I have to believe you are dishonestly bolstering the truthyness of your implications (That the us/nato/eu/un are just as bad as warmongering russia). I’m down to give you the benefit of the doubt, but for example- Nato did not invade Libya, the UNSC enforced a resolution. These distinctions are incredibly important. Literally what is supposed to happen, did happen in the case of Libya. You are making terribly false equivalences, which even if done in ignorance still rise, imo, to intentional dishonesty.

throwaway_434 5y ago
> Nato did not invade Libya This is not true at all. NATO did invade Libya on 31st March 2011. The UNSC resolution enforced a no-fly zone. It did not order a NATO invasion. Please read the resolution again (UNSC 1973). NATO flew 26,500 sorties. NATO invasion ended on 31st October 2011. Article 5 wasn't invoked either (the only time it was invoked was when 9/11 happened). So there was no need for NATO to intervene. But it still did. Even the no-fly zone was farcical. It was meant to protect civilians. General Carter Ham (Head of US Africa Command) said that he was unable to differentiate between civilians/rebels/Gaddafi forces etc [1]. It was up to the pilot to take a call on whether he wants to bomb or not. This was reported in April of 2011 as well where NATO planes erroneously bombed row of tanks that belong to the rebels [2] clearly violating UNSC resolution of protecting "civilians". In fact, the Indian and Brazilian representatives made the same point, when the UNSC 1973 was tabled, that the resolution was too vague and poorly drafted. That is why both countries abstained from voting for the intervention in Libya. [1]: https://www.wired.com/2011/03/u-s-general-we-wont-help-libyas-rebels-unless-we-do/ https://www.wired.com/2011/03/u-s-general-we-wont-help-libya... [2]: https://www.france24.com/en/20110408-doubt-over-nato-military-action-reports-casualties-rise-libya https://www.france24.com/en/20110408-doubt-over-nato-militar...