Comment by arghnoname | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arghnoname | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've been following this issue since the Maiden events of 2014 (trying to use neutral terms here) and much more closely since the onset of what the Russians call the special military operation.

It's been surreal to see the consensus opinion on this issues here in the west. As the old saying goes, the first casualty in war is the truth. I don't pretend to know what's going on from my vantage point, but I'm struck by the simplistic, moralistic, and confident view that I constantly hear from western sources.

Personally, I think this war has been very costly for Russia. Wars usually are, but that this has been extremely costly for Ukraine, orders of magnitude worse. Further, as bad as the economic sanctions are for Russia, the boomeranging economic harm of the sanctions on Europe will probably have severe consequences with unpredictable political repercussions. Further, I think western sources misunderstand Russian motives and goals and have an incomplete understanding of who is doing the actual fighting in Ukraine. Both sides of the war in Ukraine are largely fought by Ukrainian citizens (i.e., the "Russians" in the east are mostly Ukrainian separatists, to some extent Russia is fighting the war by proxy too).

Unmistakably, this is a massive tragedy for Ukrainians and I think it was avoidable. I wish we were more introspective about what role the west has played in this conflict and continues to play to minimize future catastrophes and hopefully bring this to a resolution more quickly. I don't and can't know who is "winning," but I'm pretty sure we're all losers in this conflict. In the end, Russia will probably control the regions of the DPR and LPR and its primary trading partners (particularly for energy) will be the east. China and India long term are probably the only winners--they will get subsidized energy and be economically more competitive compared to European industry. The American goal of weakening and isolating Russia may ultimately be a success; I don't think it will have been worth it. I sure wish the Minsk accords had just been followed and this all could have been avoided.

I think people in the Russosphere (or indeed generally) tend to overstate the 'role' of the West. The West tends to be very muddled, and at no point has it been more muddled than in the Trump era, and Russia began their invasion at a nadir of NATO coherency and vitality. My impression is that the role of the west was basically one of blithe ignorance, and mild disinterest, until the tanks started rolling over the border.

If you look at a chart of Russia's GDP since 2014, you can see what these adventures have already done to the Russian people. There's a lot of talk about pivoting to the east, but I'll believe it when I see it. Chinese businesses don't like operating in Russia for the same reason Russians don't like operating in Russia: you get ripped off all the time. Moreover, you can't just redirect gas wherever you like: you have to build giant pipelines. That typically takes about a decade.

Thanks for the insightful comments.

I think Ukraine is certainly in a civil war based on regional lines and Russia is in a proxy civil war based on the idea of what the future Russia should look like. It's a mess and no side can claim the moral high ground. Land wars in Asia are best avoided!

I think you misunderstand both Russia and the West.

Russia wants to conquer Ukraine and the EU wants to prevent it. While the ways to do it diplomatically may have been wrong and therefore failed, it primary is the responsibility of the aggressor (Russia) for high count of casualties both Russian and Ukrainian.

>> Unmistakably, this is a massive tragedy for Ukrainians and I think it was avoidable.

What exactly you think should have been done to avoid this?

Both sides could have respected the Minsk agreement.

NATO could have resisted expansion to the East.

A federalized option agreeable to the Ukrainian secessionist provinces promising some autonomy might have been successful.

The West could have declared an eastern European buffer zone between NATO and Russia. ("Little Entente" v2.0)

Some sort of internationally-monitored plebiscite in the Ukrainian secessionist states and Crimea.

There's thirty plus years of historical context that's boiled over into a shooting war, but that context is important for understanding where we are now without relying on simplistic abstractions like nationalism or "democracy".

1) of course, but it is not something that the west and Ukraine could do on their own when Russia was starting a war in 2014.

2) That's incorrect. It wouldn't have stopped Putin but only given him more than Ukraine.

3) Probably had little impact on Russia's decision to start a war.

4) The same as (2). It wouldn't have stopped Putin but only encouraged him even more to subjugate Ukraine, if it didn't want to play by Russia's rules.

In other words, I don't think you have any suggestions that would have helped to avoid this war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com