4 ms·

> We're all more likely to get what we want. Ideally peace and prosperity. As sovereign citizens of their own country, Ukrainians have the right to decide unde

> We're all more likely to get what we want. Ideally peace and prosperity. As sovereign citizens of their own country, Ukrainians have the right to decide under which flag they want to collectively pursue peace and prosperity. I believe they have made that choice clear through democratic means, something Russians have not experienced in a long time. If Russia is allowed to take Ukraine, it will move on to Poland next, and then to claim the remaining former Soviet states. A line must be drawn somewhere.

roenxi 1mo ago
> As sovereign citizens of their own country, Ukrainians have the right to decide under which flag they want to collectively pursue peace and prosperity. Much like Iran. And yet we took out their leadership just this year (again) because we think they picked the wrong flag. Apparently such behaviour is tolerable. If it is tolerable, we should tolerate the Russians doing it too, even if it is on their own border instead of the other side of the world.
- ben_w 1mo ago
  > Apparently such behaviour is tolerable. No, it was incredibly stupid for the US to do so, everyone who has done more than a cursory look at the results of wargames and previous interventions knew this. It wasn't even a good idea in Iraq with Saddam Hussein (second time, the first at least was to stop him invading Kuwait), probably not even Afghanistan.
  - rbanffy 1mo ago
    > No, it was incredibly stupid for the US to do so, everyone who has done more than a cursory look at the results of wargames and previous interventions knew this And yet there are no sanctions against the US for its obviously reckless interference in other countries.
    - ben_w 1mo ago
      No disagreement there, if you look at "sanctions" then yes, there have been none of relevance for a very long time. I guess "tolerable" has more than one meaning, so I should have checked which one was intended before starting my previous comment with just plain "No", but before reading your reply I hadn't considered that. The lack of sanctions is due to how power works rather than anyone else agreeing with them in any specific case: the USA has got too much of the money that everyone else wants, and too many weapons which everyone else wants pointed in the right direction rather than to find they're now standing in a position to read the sign saying "front towards enemy" with a wire trailing off to a nearby bush. This does not change that it was incredibly stupid for the US to attack Iran in particular, so stupid that it cost the US a significant part of its own matériel, made the remaining matériel less scary as a threat, and reduced the economic relevance of the USA's money, all at the same time. Every US leader before Trump made sure to not damage those things, and thus retained both hard and soft power. Trump's throwing both away rapidly, at such a pace that it's no longer inconceivable that the rest of the world will be able to sanction the US without fear of what retaliation may result. Consider that Trump's poor choices mean in particular that the EU got away with telling Trump to take a hike over Greenland, and China got away with telling Trump to take a hike over tariffs. With the kind of damage he's doing to the USA's power, this shift may be shockingly sudden when it does happen, with nobody being able to see exactly how close the transition is even 12 months before the world order changes. (I am not saying this is 12 months away today, I'm saying nobody will know even when it is 12 months away). So, stuff is shifting today specifically because of the USA's "reckless interference in other countries", with emphasis on the "reckless" part. There is a degree of governmental tolerance for the "interference" part, out of fear, meaning the condemnation (such as it is) is somewhere between "toothless" and simply not joining in with the misadventures. Trump appears to be trying to punish every nation who didn't help him attack Iran, but between them and all the nations the US failed to defend from Iranian counterstrikes are rather a lot of nations who are all now looking to each other for military and economic collaborations. It may not look much on paper; it remains to be seen if it is much in practice. China will of course be happy to substitute for the USA everywhere, but for the rest of us this changes which hyperpower we find ourselves forced to kowtow to, this time less metaphorically and more literally. Reasonable chance a lot of nations make their own nuclear deterrents either way, with all the extra risk that comes with. I didn't want to predict anything past 2031 even before all this geopolitical rifting started.
- def_true_false 1mo ago
  Why do you only care about being fair to the Russians? It's not a two player game. This is not the cold war. Russia is a borderline failed state, not a superpower. Yes, they have nukes, but so does Pakistan and I don't see Americans talking about Pakistan's sphere of influence.
  - smallstepforman 1mo ago
    By what metric do you consider them a failed state? You’re on HackerNews, this website attracts free thinkers, we’re not the group that our influenced easily by propaganda, open your mind, read some data, visit the country and then form an opinion. Dont parrot the propaganda of non-free media.
    - goatlover 1mo ago
      How about visit Ukraine, the country that was invaded who doesn't want to be absorbed by Russia. The country whose civilian population is deliberately targeted. Russia is run by a cold war dictator who doesn't care how many lives he wastes.
    - def_true_false 1mo ago
      This website has nearly no moderation and attracts tankies, the alt-right and various contrarians, not to mention Chinese, Russian and Iranian bots. I don't need to read our media (that's perfectly free, thanks for your concern), to have an opinion about Russia. Especially on this very day.
Lumich 1mo ago
« Ukrainians have the right to decide » – Well, they did decide, but the U.S. didn't appreciate, so overthrew their government back in 2014, remember? “The most blatant coup in history”, see Nuland/Pyatt intercept. Instead, the U.S. (and UK) decided there would be a war, as simple as that. Good for business (“make America great again”).
- rbanffy 1mo ago
  In Brazil, 2014, President Dilma Rousseff was reelected and the US intensified their effort, resulting in a coup that opened the way to Bolsonaro, which is kind of not what the US wanted (they usually prefer more moderate and controllable authoritarians) but still happened because the only credible opposition to him was the party they ousted in 2015/16
justsomehnguy 1mo ago
> As sovereign citizens of their own country, Ukrainians have the right to decide under which flag they want to collectively pursue peace and prosperity. I believe they have made that choice clear through democratic means It's always amusing to hear this and point out what some Ukrainians are... not equal to other Ukrainians and therefore are not allowed to have the right to decide under which flag they want to collectively pursue peace and prosperity. Somehow it's always only one flag what is 'right' and anything other is 'not right'.
- ben_w 1mo ago
  Most nations do not allow regions to become independent. The USA famously had a kerfuffle over this. And that's even without statements like "it's really obvious that Russia fakes votes".
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    Eh, I think there's lots of valid cases for secession. In the case of the South though, I believe they could have had a peaceful secession had they not fallen victim to their own version of the "sphere of influence" argument: they refused to tolerate a free North to which slaves could escape, resulting in opening fire on Fort Sumter.
    - p_j_w 1mo ago
      That you think it’s valid for the South to break away so they could continue to treat black people as property says a lot of things, none of them good.
      - ben_w 1mo ago
        > That you think it’s valid for the South to break away so they could continue to treat black people as property says a lot of things, none of them good. They didn't actually say that, though I can see how one might read it that way. valid cases for secession. In the case of the South though Is two things. I wrote a thing and an example, he's replied to both the thing and the example. It's like Al Gore "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" being taken as "I invented" rather than "This was invented, I took the initiative in supporting it when that happened".
edgyquant 1mo ago
Sovereignty is contingent on the ability to prevent others from telling you what to do. Ukraine has not yet proven this ability
- ben_w 1mo ago
  I would argue that the continuation of the war is Ukraine preventing Russia from telling Ukraine what to do. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia is still strong enough to count as a sovereign nation, Russia is not yet weak enough that it is unable to prevent others (Ukraine) from telling them (Russia) to stop throwing high velocity explosives over the border. That had too many negatives in a row, I hope I phrased that right.
- lovich 1mo ago
  That’s crazy. I guess Ukraine must have fallen in the 3 day operation and definitely hasn’t stalemated the larger country. Might as well pack it up and go home since they’ve lost all their territory and resources.

roenxi 1mo ago

> As sovereign citizens of their own country, Ukrainians have the right to decide under which flag they want to collectively pursue peace and prosperity. Much like Iran. And yet we took out their leadership just this year (again) because we think they picked the wrong flag. Apparently such behaviour is tolerable. If it is tolerable, we should tolerate the Russians doing it too, even if it is on their own border instead of the other side of the world.

ben_w 1mo ago
> Apparently such behaviour is tolerable. No, it was incredibly stupid for the US to do so, everyone who has done more than a cursory look at the results of wargames and previous interventions knew this. It wasn't even a good idea in Iraq with Saddam Hussein (second time, the first at least was to stop him invading Kuwait), probably not even Afghanistan.
- rbanffy 1mo ago
  > No, it was incredibly stupid for the US to do so, everyone who has done more than a cursory look at the results of wargames and previous interventions knew this And yet there are no sanctions against the US for its obviously reckless interference in other countries.
  - ben_w 1mo ago
    No disagreement there, if you look at "sanctions" then yes, there have been none of relevance for a very long time. I guess "tolerable" has more than one meaning, so I should have checked which one was intended before starting my previous comment with just plain "No", but before reading your reply I hadn't considered that. The lack of sanctions is due to how power works rather than anyone else agreeing with them in any specific case: the USA has got too much of the money that everyone else wants, and too many weapons which everyone else wants pointed in the right direction rather than to find they're now standing in a position to read the sign saying "front towards enemy" with a wire trailing off to a nearby bush. This does not change that it was incredibly stupid for the US to attack Iran in particular, so stupid that it cost the US a significant part of its own matériel, made the remaining matériel less scary as a threat, and reduced the economic relevance of the USA's money, all at the same time. Every US leader before Trump made sure to not damage those things, and thus retained both hard and soft power. Trump's throwing both away rapidly, at such a pace that it's no longer inconceivable that the rest of the world will be able to sanction the US without fear of what retaliation may result. Consider that Trump's poor choices mean in particular that the EU got away with telling Trump to take a hike over Greenland, and China got away with telling Trump to take a hike over tariffs. With the kind of damage he's doing to the USA's power, this shift may be shockingly sudden when it does happen, with nobody being able to see exactly how close the transition is even 12 months before the world order changes. (I am not saying this is 12 months away today, I'm saying nobody will know even when it is 12 months away). So, stuff is shifting today specifically because of the USA's "reckless interference in other countries", with emphasis on the "reckless" part. There is a degree of governmental tolerance for the "interference" part, out of fear, meaning the condemnation (such as it is) is somewhere between "toothless" and simply not joining in with the misadventures. Trump appears to be trying to punish every nation who didn't help him attack Iran, but between them and all the nations the US failed to defend from Iranian counterstrikes are rather a lot of nations who are all now looking to each other for military and economic collaborations. It may not look much on paper; it remains to be seen if it is much in practice. China will of course be happy to substitute for the USA everywhere, but for the rest of us this changes which hyperpower we find ourselves forced to kowtow to, this time less metaphorically and more literally. Reasonable chance a lot of nations make their own nuclear deterrents either way, with all the extra risk that comes with. I didn't want to predict anything past 2031 even before all this geopolitical rifting started.
def_true_false 1mo ago
Why do you only care about being fair to the Russians? It's not a two player game. This is not the cold war. Russia is a borderline failed state, not a superpower. Yes, they have nukes, but so does Pakistan and I don't see Americans talking about Pakistan's sphere of influence.
- smallstepforman 1mo ago
  By what metric do you consider them a failed state? You’re on HackerNews, this website attracts free thinkers, we’re not the group that our influenced easily by propaganda, open your mind, read some data, visit the country and then form an opinion. Dont parrot the propaganda of non-free media.
  - goatlover 1mo ago
    How about visit Ukraine, the country that was invaded who doesn't want to be absorbed by Russia. The country whose civilian population is deliberately targeted. Russia is run by a cold war dictator who doesn't care how many lives he wastes.
  - def_true_false 1mo ago
    This website has nearly no moderation and attracts tankies, the alt-right and various contrarians, not to mention Chinese, Russian and Iranian bots. I don't need to read our media (that's perfectly free, thanks for your concern), to have an opinion about Russia. Especially on this very day.

Lumich 1mo ago

« Ukrainians have the right to decide » – Well, they did decide, but the U.S. didn't appreciate, so overthrew their government back in 2014, remember? “The most blatant coup in history”, see Nuland/Pyatt intercept. Instead, the U.S. (and UK) decided there would be a war, as simple as that. Good for business (“make America great again”).

rbanffy 1mo ago
In Brazil, 2014, President Dilma Rousseff was reelected and the US intensified their effort, resulting in a coup that opened the way to Bolsonaro, which is kind of not what the US wanted (they usually prefer more moderate and controllable authoritarians) but still happened because the only credible opposition to him was the party they ousted in 2015/16

justsomehnguy 1mo ago

> As sovereign citizens of their own country, Ukrainians have the right to decide under which flag they want to collectively pursue peace and prosperity. I believe they have made that choice clear through democratic means It's always amusing to hear this and point out what some Ukrainians are... not equal to other Ukrainians and therefore are not allowed to have the right to decide under which flag they want to collectively pursue peace and prosperity. Somehow it's always only one flag what is 'right' and anything other is 'not right'.

ben_w 1mo ago
Most nations do not allow regions to become independent. The USA famously had a kerfuffle over this. And that's even without statements like "it's really obvious that Russia fakes votes".
- pjc50 1mo ago
  Eh, I think there's lots of valid cases for secession. In the case of the South though, I believe they could have had a peaceful secession had they not fallen victim to their own version of the "sphere of influence" argument: they refused to tolerate a free North to which slaves could escape, resulting in opening fire on Fort Sumter.
  - p_j_w 1mo ago
    That you think it’s valid for the South to break away so they could continue to treat black people as property says a lot of things, none of them good.
    - ben_w 1mo ago
      > That you think it’s valid for the South to break away so they could continue to treat black people as property says a lot of things, none of them good. They didn't actually say that, though I can see how one might read it that way. valid cases for secession. In the case of the South though Is two things. I wrote a thing and an example, he's replied to both the thing and the example. It's like Al Gore "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" being taken as "I invented" rather than "This was invented, I took the initiative in supporting it when that happened".

edgyquant 1mo ago

Sovereignty is contingent on the ability to prevent others from telling you what to do. Ukraine has not yet proven this ability

ben_w 1mo ago
I would argue that the continuation of the war is Ukraine preventing Russia from telling Ukraine what to do. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia is still strong enough to count as a sovereign nation, Russia is not yet weak enough that it is unable to prevent others (Ukraine) from telling them (Russia) to stop throwing high velocity explosives over the border. That had too many negatives in a row, I hope I phrased that right.
lovich 1mo ago
That’s crazy. I guess Ukraine must have fallen in the 3 day operation and definitely hasn’t stalemated the larger country. Might as well pack it up and go home since they’ve lost all their territory and resources.