Hacker News Reader

Comment by papito | Hacker News Reader

There is no "civil war" in Ukraine. It is well-known at this point to have been instigated by agents of Russia. There are more tanks in the occupied territories than in multiple NATO countries combined. Drones, artillery, anti-mine vehicles, and equipment exclusive to the Russian Federation. Let's not use big misleading phrases.

Not to mention that being ethnic anything does not give you the right to start a war. I suggest you imagine a situation where ethnic non-Russians, in Russia, decide to break off a piece. Does Russia have the right to ruthlessly end that? Because it wouldn't even be a question.

Phillip Karber, an American military scholar, has been to the front many times to study Russian military equipment and tactics there:

https://mwi.usma.edu/video-dr-phillip-karber-ukraine-russian...

View on HN

As a thought experiment I'd encourage you to imagine what would happen if America were a weak and powerless (but feared) mess and Russia were the world's superpower.

Suppose then that Alaska, now a nominally independent state, was on the verge of voting to rejoin Russia.

I imagine the Moscow liberals would think much like you do about the "American" uprising that would inevitably follow. It wouldn't even be visible to them - they would only "see" a war of aggression being waged against a foreign state, directed entitely from DC.

With the key difference being that Alaska is a part of the US, and Ukraine is not a part of Russia.

I am not sure why you thought that is key. I thought Alaska breaking away from the US as a newly independent country fed up with the lower 48 stripmining it and giving nothing back is the most plausible part of that scenario.

Similar to how Ukraine broke away from the USSR.

That isn't exactly how Ukraine broke away from the USSR. Ukraine broke away by the USSR dissolving.

So if the US dissolves into, say, Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico and the "other 48", and then Alaska votes to rejoin Russia, then the 48 would be unhappy, sure. But they wouldn't have any say, because in this scenario Alaska wouldn't be part of the US any longer. In the same way, Russia has no (legitimate) say, because Ukraine isn't part of the USSR any longer.

It's kind of like how the UK didn't have any say over the US after that 1776 thing, and when they tried to act like they did, it turned into the War of 1812.

Whom has a "say" is an interesting although altogether different question to whether the English speaking Alaskan Americans would repudiate rule from Moscow and revolt without taking orders from DC.

Historic landmarks are not relevant at all. If a people wants to join a different nation - while shouldn't they? Nations are the nautilus shells of the hermit crabs that are people.

In Recognition of the soon the posted argument of the: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Russia failed to attract its potential citizens, to offer a cooler, more vital society other people wanted to join

Alaska is by far a "nominally" independent state. They rely on massive federal spending. It's besides the point that a secessionist movement is very possible in the near future in the United States - I just fail to see how it is at all relevant to this conversation. At least my scenario is confined to the region.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com