Ask HN: What do you read for a more objective view on the Russia-Ukraine war?

I think you're confusing 'being nice to both sides' with 'being balanced'. It is totally balanced to call Russia the aggressor in this conflict, because they essentially decided the war would happen when it did. In the same sense, it's balanced to call the US the aggressor in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There are, sadly, not many articles that shed light on the situation. That's largely because the situation itself is murky. If you want a more objective take, wait until everything is done, then read academic treatments.

Bear in mind that 'balance' is not always a logically coherent thing to look for: there is no such thing as a balanced middle point between 7 and fish. It's still possible for interested parties to deliver sound analysis and to uncover or fairly present facts.

US was the aggressor in Iraq but did not suffer the same repercussions as Russia has mostly because of its economic influence but also because a European theater attracts more eyeballs than killing brown people far off somewhere.

I think the repercussions of Iraq have been slow to emerge, but they have been profound. First, a precipitous decline in the moral authority of the US. Second, a collapse in trust in US intelligence. Third, a collapse in the reputation of the US as a reliable and rational partner.

At the time, bear in mind that this was the heyday of liberal interventionism, and people saw Saddam Hussein as a bloody-handed dictator, engaged in sectarian and ethnic cleansing, who was destabilizing the region. The experiences of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia suggested that this problem could be resolved through regime change. It wasn't possible to know at the time how badly this would turn out.

That’s one read. There is also the idea that lashing out against real or perceived threats to America was seen as justified in the wake of 9/11. And the US squandered whatever sympathy they had by screwing around in Iraq and conveniently ignoring the likelihood that Bin Laden had fled out of Afghanistan into Pakistan.

I have found Professor Sakwa's account after the 2014 kerfuffle to be illuminating and reasonably detailed[1]. He splits the story into the "Ukrainian problem" which are purely domestic that lead to the "Ukraine problem" which has wider geopolitcal implications. Sakwa's position was shared by some very illustrious names such as George F. Kennan of containment fame[2][3], unfortunately it seems to be a minority opinion among the policy makers of the West. It's depressing to see that the situation has not improved since 2014 and have festered instead.

>I don't remember seeing this level of solidarity back when the US did similar things (in my opinion at least). Isn't that a sign of double standards depending on the country?

Unfortunately as the global hegemon, the US (and to a lesser extent its allies) can and do get away with waging aggressive war, that's just how it is. Although the example comes to my mind is the Indian annexation of Goa in 1961, which is an aggressive war waged explicitly for irredentist aims based on historical claims (Goa was conquered by the Portuguese in 1510(!)). The world reaction to that was largely a shrug and India more or less got away with it.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24717077-frontline-ukrai...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n...

The Grayzone recently did an interesting interview with Sakwa.

> why weren't European states interested in the war occurring in Donetsk and Lugansk starting from 2014?

They were; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...

Now, you could certainly argue that the response that time was far too light-touch.

> I mean, some articles I have seen so far call Putin an aggressor right in the title and then there is only one side considered.

I mean... who invaded Ukraine? Putin's Russia. That seems like a very clear case for Putin being the aggressor; outside of Russian state propaganda I don't think that's terribly controversial.

Having unbiased news these days is impossible. Reporting 100% truth online would be probably boring. At the end, it is always up to you, if you believe those information or not. Narration is always shaped in some way. Even personal verification is shaped. I wouldn't say it is bad or good. It is how it is. We are people, we are different.

I'm much more worried about general sanctions and censorship. This is first step to make conflict deeper in future and eventually could be used against anyone. Just imagine that asking this questions could be sanctioned or persecuted because it would be considered as proX or proY propaganda.

We should think about each other more and not let media think for us. Do not let them create virtual enemies and justify evil things.

I've been in the same boat. Putin's comments about "denazification seemed so absurd that I did a little digging. I found neonazis had a big role in the 2014 revolution, which started to look more like a coup. The more I dug, the stranger things got. Like Israel arming Ukrainian neonazis. WTF!?

This MR Online article does a good job summing up some of the historical context. It's a socialist rag, but the facts fit with many other sources.

The gist is that, yeah, Putin is an evil autocrat invading a soverign country, but the West has really pushed Russia to the brink, mostly to make Eastern Europe exploitable by Western capital. And NATO has expanded to the point where there are nukes on Russias border. If Russia put nukes on the Mexican border we would freak the fuck out.

Heres the article, keep looking and you'll find more. Look up the Azov Brigade and the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine too for neonazi stuff.

https://mronline.org/2022/02/24/what-you-should-really-know-...

About de-nazification read:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/vladimir-putin...

https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-ukraine-attack-world...

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/maidan-protests-in-ukraine-wer...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26468720

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neo-nazis-far-righ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/vladimir-putin...

https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-ukraine-attack-world...

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/maidan-protests-in-ukraine-wer...

Read Ivan Katchanovsk, Ukranian scholar, as well

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299383810_The_Separ...

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PtRnfFQAAAAJ&hl=en...

Interview in second half of the video. https://youtu.be/SkCIlc11OgU

Thanks! Great selection of articles to dig into.

Here is one: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/united-states-europe-wa...

A good summary of the half-arsed, tepid and hypocritical "official" motives seemingly at play in this crisis. Spoiler: skip to the last line - China did it.

The article doesn’t say China did it, it says China benefits from this. Big difference.

That was a figure of speech my friend, as in "The Butler did it".

> One thing is clear to me: both sides of the conflict actively use propaganda, fake news and other dirty methods to nudge people in doubt in the right direction.

Where social media is always going to result in the spread of disinformation and propaganda on both sides of this crisis and such content from there should be taken with a grain of salt and scepticism. Even the original Russian proverb of 'Trust, But Verify' is flawed here in this case. Instead:

Don't Trust. Verify.

> One thing I find a bit strange is that there is so much focus on Putin's actions now with huge support from Europe, but I don't remember seeing this level of solidarity back when the US did similar things (in my opinion at least). Isn't that a sign of double standards depending on the country?

Possibly? At least a news source suggested that point. [0]

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-cover...

> Don't Trust. Verify

How would someone verify something like this, aside traveling to Ukraine right now.

Sadly there is no sources of the kind to my knowledge.

Unfortunately all sources are overloaded with extreme simplification where Ukraine is angel and Russia is evil. It's tempting to believe in, although it's very far from truth.

Perhaps the only way to understand reasons and way of thinking each side has - listen to what Russia is saying over course of years, read about atrocities ukrainian army and nazi-style battalions did in eastern Ukraine for last 8 years. Read about nazi-style military camps growing in Ukraine last years.

All those things are rarely getting light in media. Putting a crying girl and "fuck you Putin" sells much better than in depth analysis or understanding why Putin did what he did. Hopefully I am wrong, but this kind of ignorance can lead to much much bigger troubles than current ones.

Try to read more of what both sides are saying, but be aware that ukrainian media is propaganda at it's best (would be better to put worst) so whatever they say should be taken with huge grin of salt.

Simplication is evil, I agree. I don't know why trying to criticize false dichotomies is perceived as support for aggression or war.

As you said, it doesn't require a lot of intellectual efforts to attach simplistic labels and be satisfied. I am not, however,satisifed with definite answers whether it's in software engineering or even global events

Absolutely so. You see why this comment is downvoted? I've said something that doesn't fit narratives and people just downvote. Easy peasy, no intellectual efforts needed, just put a like or ukraininan flag in support and it will feel good. If only things would have been so simple..

Thank you for being intellectually curious. Regrettably not many people venture into it nowadays.

You cannot have all information, and trying to analyze things too far and “fairly” leads to paralysis by analysis. In software, but also in real life. Russia knows that the West is prone to that, so it’s been used in their propaganda for 50+ years. Interestingly, their propaganda has degraded in quality lately.

Sometimes you have to pick a side. I choose the West and democracy (yes I know it’s very much imperfect). It’s up to you which side you’re on. But remember that inaction in the face of aggression is helping the aggressor, and paralysis by analysis is inaction.

Maybe it sounds harsh, but people around me are talking about going to Ukraine to fight. For our principles and for Ukraine. For democracy.

I agree with your point. "Analysis paralysis" is what describes my current state of mind regarding the situation.

In my case, it's even more complicated. Even though I am not living in Russia, I speak Russian and my family is for the most part of Russian origin.

The Russian community these days is broken into 2 parts which sometimes even results in serious disputes among generations.

Almost no one in Russia supports the aggression, probably except for the older generation who spend most of their time watching the official television where everything is justified

What you are feeling is not "analysis paralysis". It is right that you search for context and nuance. Only fools take action before knowing the basic facts of the matter. Keep looking for truth. It is available with a little work.

I am also interested in finding unbiased sources.

I am afraid that unfortunately it might be near to impossible with so many emotions and personal bias involved, but who knows...

Not just emotions. Lives and democracy. In Ukraine, and extension, Europe.

  I have no reason to favor either side

Yes you do. A warmongering country with a crazy dictator (that threatens the world with nukes) has vowed to crush a friendly neighboring country, and then proceeded to invade said country. This is definitely black and white and a just cause for Ukraine. You will be hard-pressed to find anything clearer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Europe _definitely_ cares for Ukraine directly, but we also care about the larger security situation. A world where Putin invades countries on a whim is objectively bad for all countries (except for Russia _maybe_). Ukraine is protecting Democracy with the lives of their soldiers and brave civilians. I would be honored if Ukraine wants to join the EU after this.

No doubt about your first part. Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting any of that as there must be no tolerance for such actions in the modern world.

To make it more clear, I want to figure it our for myself whether interventions in the past by the US supported by some European countries were any similar.

Unfortunately, I don't understand modern politics very well so it would be great to understand whether there is any bias these days towards some countries.

There is constant bias, that cannot be denied. But Putin’s actions are pretty damn blatant. His decisions are directly responsible for the current crisis, and all the blood is on his hands.

> A warmongering country with a crazy dictator (that threatens the world with nukes) has vowed to crush a friendly neighboring country

You clearly have no knowledge of things you are trying to talk about. This statement is purely emotional and has no substance in it.

To understand how "friendly" Ukraine is, try to dig what they have done for their western territories. Or how they blocked water to Crimea peninsula, causing humanitarian catastrophe.

We can certainly talk about how this may not justify what is happening now, but calling ukraine friendly is way of a stretch.

I write all of this to help others understand the issue from multiple perspectives, not to justify or defend anyone.

Here’s what I’ve learned in the last week or so.

There is a good lecture on YouTube called Why Ukraine is the West’s Fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Mearsheimer, a foreign policy expert of 50+ years, belongs to the “realist” school. I find his viewpoint helpful as it’s very much Machiavellian and not focused on demonizing the Other. I’m not sure how accurate his analysis is, but it seems worth looking at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

The gist is essentially this: - NATO, a Soviet-era military alliance, has continued to expand closer to Russia’s borders. Russia feels threatened by this.

- Russia tried to join NATO in the early 2000s but was rebuffed.

- Russia adamantly opposed including Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but America didn’t care and pushed for it in 2008.

- The US has largely driven this effort and has dragged the EU and Britain along for the ride.

- The revolution/coup in 2014 (depending on which side you believe, I guess) removed more a neutral / pro-Russian government and put in a Western-focused one. This was followed by the separatism in the Donbas and Russia’s taking of Crimea.

However, note that this lecture was before the recent escalation and Mearsheimer didn’t seem to think that Russia would actually launch a full-scale invasion.

I would also note that he doesn't cover other important issues that are relevant to the conflict, namely:

- The history of Ukraine in the last ±500 years, especially the Khmelnytsky Uprising, Cossacks, Ukrainian states in the aftermath of World War 1, the Holodomor famine in Ukraine, and how some Ukrainians helped the Nazis during WW2. In short, the history of Ukraine itself is very relevant to this conflict. There have always been competing groups in this region and it’s not a new phenomenon.

- The disaster that was Russia in the 90s and (from Russia’s perspective) how the West basically took advantage of Russia instead of helping them. This is one reason why Putin came into power in the first place. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ

- Social changes in the Western world that could be called “wokeness” or “LGBT rights” and the West’s behavior of trying to spread these values. This is interpreted as being anti-traditional by Putin and increasingly China (see the recent bans on feminine men in Chinese media as an example.) Putin mentioned this in a recent speech. You could probably describe this as a reaction to Westernization.

This is a fantastic lecture, thank you. I am finishing to watch it now and this is the best explanation to what is going on despite the fact that it doesn't cover the recent events.

Good summary of the issues. This matches what I found while looking for context too. I wish more respondents to the question put in the work you clearly have.

"I have no reason to favor either side"

I'm not being rude here but you're not grasping the most simple concept. Russia is the aggressor. I won't try to convince you - just try to find any evidence at all of Ukraine invading Russia.

BTW, I'm currently in Kyiv, watching Russian missile strikes.

Are you there? No?

Does CNN lie or tell the truth? They lie?

Stop falling for fake communist propaganda.

I am not falling for any propaganda. I have a realistic understanding of how little is really known about what is happening.

You can read this article and share your opinion: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/united-states-europe-wa...

I personally agree 100% with the author's concerns. As much as we all condemn Putin and his actions, the situation is not black-or-white when it comes to motives.

I mean, some articles I have seen so far call Putin an aggressor right in the title and then there is only one side considered.

What do you expect to see? Equal words given to both the pro and the con side? Is the universe so relative that, whatever the subject, all opinions are equally correct?

What on earth is the point of news, then? Half of every article saying that something happened and the other half saying it didn't?

News isn't letters-to-the-editor.

My view... is that all the participants of the conflict only pursue their strategic interests and no one really cares about the Ukrainians (which is really sad).

That's a worldview, not news. That is letters-to-the-editor.

No one is asking for equal words. That said, very few things are truly black/white. Read the article in Foreign Policy linked in the thread. This for the most part is my main concern.

The whole conflict is viewed as a battle between "good" and "bad", but it's not really that simple as always. Both sides have their interest in the war so why pretend it's just one villain against knights in shining armor?

I will say that again, I hate all the propaganda around, as well as what was started 5 days ago. There is no and will never be a valid reason for starting a war. But reading the news these days (from both directions) makes me sick.

Yea, the participants have their interests: Russia wants to create a “Russian Empire”, Ukraine wants to survive as a democracy and as a country.

Decide yourself which side you want to help.

I have decided for myself and made it clear in the original post. I am against all kinds of aggression. That said, do you think that there was the same level of global support for Iraq when the USA decided to invade?

First off, I don’t care. Ukraine vs Russia is about Ukraine, Europe and Russia. Why should Ukraine suffer for things the US has done? US is only a part of this because they’re the largest member of NATO.

And secondly, the first Iraq war was a just war from US’ side — Iraq invaded a small friendly neighboring country (Kuwait.)

It has never been discussed widely in the media, but in the same manner Russia can argue that people in Donbass have been killed for 8 years by Ukraine. Isn't that the same kind of justification to military intervention?

If it’s not been widely discussed in the media yet you’re familiar with it, then what “objective” sources are you looking for? Ones that say Russia’s invasion is justified because of that?

Their stated goal for the invasion is to “demilitarize” and “denazify” the whole of Ukraine. Ukraine has a Jewish president.

And yet there are neonazis in the Ukrainian military who attack Russian-speaking separatists in the east and who were in the vanguard of the 2014 revolution. It's wacky and hard to believe but a conflict the large is never black and white.

In this case I’d say it’s pretty much black and white. It’s ok, not everything has to be nuanced.