6 ms·

I assume you are commenting in good faith. So, regarding "cui prodest", who would benefit from blowing up a munitions factory in the Czech republic where muniti

I assume you are commenting in good faith. So, regarding "cui prodest", who would benefit from blowing up a munitions factory in the Czech republic where munitions were stored that were supposed to be transported to Ukraine later so that Ukrainians could protect themselves against the Russian invasion?

The_Colonel 3y ago
[flagged]
- thriftwy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    For the victims of Russia's imperialism, there have been many downsides, starting with deaths counting millions.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        We already got to whataboutism and hypocrisy, no need to continue here.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        But it was you who started it. You've attacked my identity by bringing up things that are not directly related to me. Then you complain about hypocricy. I've not asked you to assault me based on my ethnic identity.
        krab 3y ago
        I don't see any attack on ethnic identity. Supporting Russian imperialism doesn't have anything to do with ethnicity. If anything, such support only hurts the Russian nation. I'm talking not only about the current loss of life. For at least the next twenty years, the Russians will have much harder time doing business with EU/USA. Such attitude has downgraded Russia in the world's eyes into an "armed gas station". I. e. can buy from them when they'll behave more or less, but don't expect to do any serious partnership.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        If you ask me, "what's better, do business with EU/USA or have Crimea", of course I will pick Crimea every time. It's just feels pragmatically more useful to me, like how co-owning a bungalow on a sea shore is better than holding a Costco membership, if you had to pick just one. That would be before the war, and as the war has started, based on the actions of EU/USA I have very little desire for Russia to engage in much business with either one. Let's keep it formal from now. I can see in neighbour thread somebody perceiving there is no room for dialogue, which they treat as an optional thing and the one which is mostly benefical for the other party. Guess what, many Russians now treat business with USA/EU in the same fashion. Nice to have, but not essential and may be downwound on occasions.
        krab 3y ago
        How do you (or anyone) personally benefit from "having Crimea"?
        thriftwy 3y ago
        You can obviously travel there and see all the Imperial palaces and gardens, swim the sea, visit the museums and have a really good time. In awesome weather, which is of short supply in what's left of mainland Russia. On the other hand, the usefulness of cordial relations with EU/USA is debatable. You could make a point that if Russia had good relations with Ukraine, Russians could travel there on their own by just crossing that border. However, Ukraine shown by their repeated maidan coups and anti-Russian rhetoric that they can't be relied upon.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
        > > For the victims of Russia's imperialism, there have been many downsides, starting with deaths counting millions. > Oh come on, communism had a hundred million of confirmed victims and I see Californians arguing for communism every week. On HN. You are changing the subject completely. We are not talking about communism, it has another set of victims, but about Russian imperialism.
  - older 3y ago
    Over 51 thousands of "downsides" so far, and counting: https://t.me/s/pechalbeda200 https://t.me/s/pechalbeda200
  - dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
    The downside is that Russia as a state has few friends. Had you decided not to go the imperial route, we could have normal, civilized relations like with the rest of the world. At some point we could even have something like EU-Russia union (why not?) with people traveling, living and working where they choose.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      As it is known, Russia has only two friends: its army and its navy. And if you ask me, even the latter is in doubt. Prior to 2014 I don't remember any serious prospects of EU-Russia integration. EU did not even bother to have visa waiver for Russian citizens. Russians also didn't have any special education opportunities coming from EU. Basically Russians could only visit EU on short term visas as tourists to spend their money there. And a tourist can always switch to a different destination. You don't need visa or border checks to visit Crimea anymore, though. Pandemics do not shut off its borders.
      - benterix 3y ago
        > As it is known, Russia has only two friends: its army and its navy. This sounds a bit sad, doesn't it? Do you really believe it? Because this way of saying is typical of autocrats looking for an external enemy in order to cement their own power. The reality is that Europe had enough of wars and we made an effort to integrate and collaborate peacefully. It's not always easy but it's working better than ever. And we did collaborate with Russia as much as we could - but there was no political will on the other side to extend it. Personally I have many Russian friends, they are normal people and want to live happily. There is no reason why one country should invade another because the result is always suffering.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        Yes Europe made efforts to integrate and collaborate peacefully between yourselves, but these plans didn't include Russia. There was literally no place for Russia in your layout other than "you stay here with your mouth shut, buy our trinkets and provide us with cheap oil and gas while we digest all of your neighbours". There was a meaningful framework of participation for Poland, for Bosnia, even for Turkey, but none for Russia. So in 2014, Europe and the US didn't have any levers that it could pull. You couldn't meaningfully distance from Russia because we were never any close.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    >"and what are the downsides" It works the same was in the US. Your taxes pay for the CIA, the CIA overthrows governments for United Fruit, and you buy products from United Fruit. You're paying for bananas twice and they are receiving "security" (wink, wink) for free[1]. Later, CIA high-ups get high-paid sinecures at the United Fruit company, making them the only ones getting compensated for the deployment of the government's resources. Russian citizens are not going to get parcels of land from occupied Ukraine. The soldiers who survive the war aren't going to get mineral rights. Instead of asking, "what are the downsides," a more pertinent question is, "who's getting the upsides?" (It is never you or me.) In practice, at least since the British Empire, wars of imperial expansion have served as another method of transferring resources from the public to a few influential business owners - corruption in so many words, not any different from stealing the funds for a highway. In the middle ages and earlier, soldiers would be rewarded in the form of titles of nobility, or in the Roman Empire, with land and prisoners of war to use as slaves. If that was a practice anywhere in the world today, perhaps I'd comprehend the argument for war from the pursuit of economic interests. Then, at least, it would be a moral issue - otherwise, as it is today, it's another pretext for the few to steal from the many. That means you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I don't think that Russians are obliged to act imperialistically, especially to their loss. It's just I don't view the creation of Russian Empire in a bad light - quite contrary, most other historical options would likely been worse, up and until 1917 at least. And as a Russian I believe that Russian Empire is a part of essential legacy of the humankind. Same with USSR despite its tragic and cruel history. So when I see "Russian imperialism" being thrown around as a casual insult I stop being constructive in response. This is not the right way to discuss histories, and especially you shouldn't try to frame any ethnic and religious group for their history in serious faith. I see a lot of political zealots doing that kind of slander, not really understanding what they are doing and why.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > As we say in Russia, "and what are the downsides"? Tremendous wasted potential. You could be living the kind of life Norwegians are enjoying, but you are unable to climb out of the self-destructive pattern that leads to low development, lack of freedoms, retarded economy and general despair that makes 1 in 4 men to drink themselves to death before the age of 55. As much as you like to shake fists at the "rotting West", in the end it's you who are living shorter, unhappier and less productive lives. It's true now, it was true in Soviet days, and it was true during czars and empresses. The rest of us would happily leave you alone in that misery if only you stopped trying to drag us down with you.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      [flagged]

The_Colonel 3y ago

[flagged]

thriftwy 3y ago
[flagged]
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  For the victims of Russia's imperialism, there have been many downsides, starting with deaths counting millions.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      We already got to whataboutism and hypocrisy, no need to continue here.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        But it was you who started it. You've attacked my identity by bringing up things that are not directly related to me. Then you complain about hypocricy. I've not asked you to assault me based on my ethnic identity.
        krab 3y ago
        I don't see any attack on ethnic identity. Supporting Russian imperialism doesn't have anything to do with ethnicity. If anything, such support only hurts the Russian nation. I'm talking not only about the current loss of life. For at least the next twenty years, the Russians will have much harder time doing business with EU/USA. Such attitude has downgraded Russia in the world's eyes into an "armed gas station". I. e. can buy from them when they'll behave more or less, but don't expect to do any serious partnership.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        If you ask me, "what's better, do business with EU/USA or have Crimea", of course I will pick Crimea every time. It's just feels pragmatically more useful to me, like how co-owning a bungalow on a sea shore is better than holding a Costco membership, if you had to pick just one. That would be before the war, and as the war has started, based on the actions of EU/USA I have very little desire for Russia to engage in much business with either one. Let's keep it formal from now. I can see in neighbour thread somebody perceiving there is no room for dialogue, which they treat as an optional thing and the one which is mostly benefical for the other party. Guess what, many Russians now treat business with USA/EU in the same fashion. Nice to have, but not essential and may be downwound on occasions.
        krab 3y ago
        How do you (or anyone) personally benefit from "having Crimea"?
        thriftwy 3y ago
        You can obviously travel there and see all the Imperial palaces and gardens, swim the sea, visit the museums and have a really good time. In awesome weather, which is of short supply in what's left of mainland Russia. On the other hand, the usefulness of cordial relations with EU/USA is debatable. You could make a point that if Russia had good relations with Ukraine, Russians could travel there on their own by just crossing that border. However, Ukraine shown by their repeated maidan coups and anti-Russian rhetoric that they can't be relied upon.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
      > > For the victims of Russia's imperialism, there have been many downsides, starting with deaths counting millions. > Oh come on, communism had a hundred million of confirmed victims and I see Californians arguing for communism every week. On HN. You are changing the subject completely. We are not talking about communism, it has another set of victims, but about Russian imperialism.
- older 3y ago
  Over 51 thousands of "downsides" so far, and counting: https://t.me/s/pechalbeda200 https://t.me/s/pechalbeda200
- dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
  The downside is that Russia as a state has few friends. Had you decided not to go the imperial route, we could have normal, civilized relations like with the rest of the world. At some point we could even have something like EU-Russia union (why not?) with people traveling, living and working where they choose.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    As it is known, Russia has only two friends: its army and its navy. And if you ask me, even the latter is in doubt. Prior to 2014 I don't remember any serious prospects of EU-Russia integration. EU did not even bother to have visa waiver for Russian citizens. Russians also didn't have any special education opportunities coming from EU. Basically Russians could only visit EU on short term visas as tourists to spend their money there. And a tourist can always switch to a different destination. You don't need visa or border checks to visit Crimea anymore, though. Pandemics do not shut off its borders.
    - benterix 3y ago
      > As it is known, Russia has only two friends: its army and its navy. This sounds a bit sad, doesn't it? Do you really believe it? Because this way of saying is typical of autocrats looking for an external enemy in order to cement their own power. The reality is that Europe had enough of wars and we made an effort to integrate and collaborate peacefully. It's not always easy but it's working better than ever. And we did collaborate with Russia as much as we could - but there was no political will on the other side to extend it. Personally I have many Russian friends, they are normal people and want to live happily. There is no reason why one country should invade another because the result is always suffering.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        Yes Europe made efforts to integrate and collaborate peacefully between yourselves, but these plans didn't include Russia. There was literally no place for Russia in your layout other than "you stay here with your mouth shut, buy our trinkets and provide us with cheap oil and gas while we digest all of your neighbours". There was a meaningful framework of participation for Poland, for Bosnia, even for Turkey, but none for Russia. So in 2014, Europe and the US didn't have any levers that it could pull. You couldn't meaningfully distance from Russia because we were never any close.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  >"and what are the downsides" It works the same was in the US. Your taxes pay for the CIA, the CIA overthrows governments for United Fruit, and you buy products from United Fruit. You're paying for bananas twice and they are receiving "security" (wink, wink) for free[1]. Later, CIA high-ups get high-paid sinecures at the United Fruit company, making them the only ones getting compensated for the deployment of the government's resources. Russian citizens are not going to get parcels of land from occupied Ukraine. The soldiers who survive the war aren't going to get mineral rights. Instead of asking, "what are the downsides," a more pertinent question is, "who's getting the upsides?" (It is never you or me.) In practice, at least since the British Empire, wars of imperial expansion have served as another method of transferring resources from the public to a few influential business owners - corruption in so many words, not any different from stealing the funds for a highway. In the middle ages and earlier, soldiers would be rewarded in the form of titles of nobility, or in the Roman Empire, with land and prisoners of war to use as slaves. If that was a practice anywhere in the world today, perhaps I'd comprehend the argument for war from the pursuit of economic interests. Then, at least, it would be a moral issue - otherwise, as it is today, it's another pretext for the few to steal from the many. That means you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    I don't think that Russians are obliged to act imperialistically, especially to their loss. It's just I don't view the creation of Russian Empire in a bad light - quite contrary, most other historical options would likely been worse, up and until 1917 at least. And as a Russian I believe that Russian Empire is a part of essential legacy of the humankind. Same with USSR despite its tragic and cruel history. So when I see "Russian imperialism" being thrown around as a casual insult I stop being constructive in response. This is not the right way to discuss histories, and especially you shouldn't try to frame any ethnic and religious group for their history in serious faith. I see a lot of political zealots doing that kind of slander, not really understanding what they are doing and why.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- mopsi 3y ago
  > As we say in Russia, "and what are the downsides"? Tremendous wasted potential. You could be living the kind of life Norwegians are enjoying, but you are unable to climb out of the self-destructive pattern that leads to low development, lack of freedoms, retarded economy and general despair that makes 1 in 4 men to drink themselves to death before the age of 55. As much as you like to shake fists at the "rotting West", in the end it's you who are living shorter, unhappier and less productive lives. It's true now, it was true in Soviet days, and it was true during czars and empresses. The rest of us would happily leave you alone in that misery if only you stopped trying to drag us down with you.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    [flagged]