Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcxdude | Hacker News Reader

Pretty much everything about the US's actions regarding Russia and Ukraine indicate the opposite: they want to end the war and Russia's ambitions of expansion without a regime change (mostly because nukes: Putin getting close to losing power is one of the plausible scenarios where he would use them, to say nothing of whoever's in the mix in the power vacuum that will exist afterwards). If they just wanted Russia to collapse they'd be sending way more stuff to Ukraine (who is A-OK with Russia collapsing if it gets them off their land) as opposed to drip-feeding it in. NATO is far from a unified block in this regard: some members (generally the ones bordering Ukraine) are pretty aligned with Ukraine and basically sending everything they can, some are even more nervous about escalation than the US.

View on HN

Try researching these: 1. When was the last time Biden or anybody in the administration tried talking to the Kremlin to use diplomacy to end the conflict? 2. Try finding any evidence that Russia wants to expand its federation into Europe.

Russia is twice the size of the US with half the population. They have $81T of resources in the ground. They don't need any more land. They need people.

What diplomacy would you suggest, given the other goal of "Russia cannot gain anything from the war in Ukraine"? Russia has made blantently clear with their war in Ukraine that they want the good old USSR back, and I (and most of the population of Eastern Europe) have little faith they'd stop there. That's the reason Ukraine is getting so much support: if Russia gets even a little bit more land from this war, they'll just try again. They got Crimea basically for free and they took that as a signal they could keep going. Why would they stop taking land if no-one bothers to stop them?

And, yeah, duh. I would suggest, if they want people, that they treat their population with some respect so that fertility rates aren't in the ground, they don't have a massive brain drain as everyone tries to leave, maybe some people might want to immigrate, and oh yeah, maybe don't have a war which absolutely decimates their population of young men? Russia could be so much better if they sorted their own shit out before making it everyone else's problem, but that would involve Putin loosening his grip on power.

I suggest maintaining a neutral buffer zone between NATO and RF by not bringing Ukraine and other bordering nations into NATO. You found zero evidence that Russia wants to expand its borders. Although the communist party is the second largest in RF, its influence is relatively small and sees little likelihood of gaining significant power to restore the USSR.

The Donbas is populated mainly by Russian people who had been in a civil war with western Ukraine since the 2014 Maidan coup. They wanted to join the Russian Federation for years, but Russia did not want that until the situation became untenable.

Russia's economy is growing faster than the US and Europe. Perhaps that will encourage immigration. RF is implementing many policies to aid families to have more children and encourage controlled immigration. They could use about another billion people in that vast and rich territory.

I didn't read the whole thread but this seems incorrect to me:

    You found zero evidence that Russia wants to expand its borders

doesn't acquiring Crimea speak against that? Or you don't consider it an expansion of borders because people speak russian there?

Crimea is history at this point. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/official-results-97-of-crimea-v...

I was referring to claims we hear that Russia wants to expand its empire into European countries outside of Ukraine. RF expressly did not want to take in the Donbas as is shown in the Minsk treaties and its actions repeatedly. It tried to exert influence to stop the civil war with subsequent peace treaty negotiations, but those were thwarted. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-john... RF was left with little options at this point.

These aren't "claims"; Putin and his crew are quite open and unapologetic about their intentions in this regard.

March 31, 2014:

  After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has “conquered” Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.

  According to Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin. 

  Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests”.

  “Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” Mr Illarionov said.

  “Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership.

  He added: “The West’s leaders seem, from what they say, entirely to have forgotten that there are some leaders in the world who want to conquer other countries.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-put...

May 17, 2023:

  The former Russian Prime Minister referred to the three Baltic states as "ours" on Tuesday, adding Poland was "temporarily occupied".

https://www.euronews.com/2023/05/17/russias-dmitry-medvedev-...

July 21, 2023:

  “The western territories of present-day Poland are a gift from Stalin to the Poles, have our friends in Warsaw forgotten about this?” Putin said. “We will remind you.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/21/putin-warn-pol...

More likely what he seeks from most of these countries (except the Baltics) is a "sphere of influence" with significant restrictions on the sovereignty of these countries, rather than direct annexation. But either way, and unmistakably -- a modern-day "empire" is what he's after, by every available indication.

[Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal]

Though often repeated, this is simply misinformation. I don't have time to unpack it for you; but the source quoted in the article (VR faction leader David Arakhamiya) explicitly denies the overall spin of events as presented in the article.

Crimea is history at this point.

Not to the Ukrainians, and certainly not to the Tatars.

These are mostly statements from other people rather than Kremlin officials speaking in any official capacity. I am sure some people in Russia in high positions of power fascinate about a greater Russia. The problem as I tried to explain is that Russia already has a massive country but not enough people to tap its massive natural wealth. Taking over other countries is a massive drain and doomed to fail when that population does not want to be ruled by another country. It simply makes no rational sense for RF to forcibly overtake other European countries. Ukraine conflict was forced upon them. They may debilitate the current government in Kiev, but they will not ultimately take over all the country that includes the staunch anti Russian Ukrainian population. That is called swallowing a porcupine.

These are mostly statements from other people rather than Kremlin officials speaking in any official capacity.

One of the statements was from Putin himself; another was from Dmitry Medvedev.

Taking over other countries is a massive drain and doomed to fail when that population does not want to be ruled by another country.

Of course the war is completely insane, and against Russia's interest by every possible metric and axis of consideration.

Ukraine conflict was forced upon them.

Not by any rational analysis of the situation.

I don't know who Andrej Illarionov is or why I should trust what he says Putin wants.

To understand why this conflict was imposed upon them, look at the history. Russia was invaded by Napoleon and Hitler through Ukraine costing Russia ~23M people in the latter. James Baker and US representatives promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany back in 92. They lied and many countries were brought under NATO. There is a long documented strategy to surround Russia, cause regime change, split up the country to smaller states, and exploit its $81T in resources in the ground. There is much more, but I think I have said enough.

My view on Putin is that he failed in many respects. He seemed to hope that NATO could be trusted to do business with. He may have been delusional or may not have had the support to strike back sooner. All trust between the two powers is now gone, and we are in a dangerous place now.

I don't know who Andrej Illarionov is

I'm pretty sure you know what Wikipedia is; he's on there. Even that Russian-owned search engine that you prefer to use for some reason will answer your question for you. Except there's no need, because his intro was also in one of the article snippets above that you presumably read very carefully:

   Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005,

So I'm pretty sure you could know exactly who he is, and indeed could find out pretty much everything you need to know about him if you wanted to.

Plus, isn't it strange that you said

   These are mostly statements from other people rather than Kremlin officials

When in fact all the 3 persons quoted were "Kremlin officials", including Putin himself and his right-hand man, Medvedev?

That's all I have time for. This discussion has gotten very weird indeed, so I'll have to bow out.

I enjoyed exploring the weird argument: Based on some vague statements in unknown context related second hand by an advisor and reported through a NATO outlet, we sacrificed the lives of over half a million Ukrainians and over $200B of our taxes to ensure that both houses of the Russian parliament do not approve conquering another European country.

Never mind that RF already has a vast territory of land and resources with not enough people to populate and tap it. Never mind that such an invasion would invoke article four of NATO and lead to world war three and probably go thermonuclear. Never mind that if RF survived the war, they would not be able to hold onto a territory where the residents oppose the occupiers.

Other countries must see us as stupid, insane, or both.

The Donbas is populated mainly by Russian people

False. The regions in question identified as Ukrainian, and by a solid majority (55-45) in the most recent census. Yes -- even Russian speakers identified as "Ukrainian" when given the choice. And just because 45 percent identified as "Russian", for most this was a matter of linguistic identification, nothing more. It doesn't mean they were irredentist, or actually wanted to live in Putin's Russia.

Who had been in a civil war

False. In no sense was the 2014 conflict ever a "civil war". It was led, orchestrated, and fought by Russian nationals from the very start. This is openly acknowledged by Russian sources, including the very people who organized the initial skirmishes, and there's really no controversy about it.

2014 Maidan coup

There was no "coup" either, and these factual inversions are starting to get very tedious to correct.

But for those interested in more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481317

They wanted to join the Russian Federation for years

Not "they" as in a majority, or even a near-majority. Some did, but the Novorossiya movement as such was quite small pre-2014.

You found zero evidence that Russia wants to expand its borders.

Putin has already openly expressed his wish to annex the currently occupied territories (and then some) into the RF.

Yes I should have stated more clearly that most of the people in the Donbas were either ethnic Russian or Russian speaking. Regardless of that, the majority wanted to join the RF. https://nationalfile.com/donbas-region-overwhelmingly-votes-...

2014 may not have looked like a coup from the media and is difficult to prove as one. Too much US state department involvement makes it look like one if you did deeper. Countless analyses by others with inside knowledge believe it was in the style of a color revolution. Too many sources to list here.

(1) Do you actually trust information posted on websites run by Alex Jones?

(2) The "referendum" you're referring to has been widely denounced as a sham by many international organizations (such as the UN and OSCE), and nearly every government on the planet for that matter, except for North Korea. Even close Russian allies such as Hungary and Serbia refused to recognize the results.

Are these facts of no concern to you -- or do you simply prefer to take the occupying power's word on the matter?

1. This is not run by Alex Jones, but to answer your question, I trust very little. Alex Jones is more trustworthy than most mainstream media. He voices much opinion and speculation, but he and his crew do not lie to manipulate us into war.

2. International observers oversaw the election and determined the elections to be free and fair. You are free to deny election results, but you should provide some kind of evidence to back your claims that it was unfair in some way.

Re: Alex Jones -- so he created the site, but lets other people run it now. Either way, it's his baby.

He voices much opinion and speculation, but he and his crew do not lie to manipulate us into war.

Instead they lie and manipulate us (some of us, anyway) into accepting Putin's narratives as to how the war started, and into an eventual settlement favorable to his demands. And into believing that nearly everyone in the occupied regions happily voted to be reabsorbed into the Motherland. In an election that was of course free and fair, and overseen by international "observers".

International observers oversaw the election and determined the elections to be free and fair.

Not from any major organizations that usually see to these things, such as the OSCE or the Council of Europe.

Instead -- it's not surprising that the sham referendum also had sham "observers". Here's a report from one who deeply regrets having taken part, saying he felt used by the Russians, and that "I was so naive as to think I could separate the technical aspects of vote counting from the political dimensions of the situation":

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/deutscher-beobachtete-sc...

You are free to deny election results, but you should provide some kind of evidence to back your claims that it was unfair in some way.

So what is your explanation as to why no government on the planet, besides North Korea, has stepped forward the recognize the results of these so-called "referendums"?

I provided only one article about the elections there, but it is well documented from many sources. https://yandex.com/search/?text=donbas+elections+joining+rus... The results were overwhelmingly in support of joining RF. The ease with which the Russians annexed the region is also evidence of how welcomed they were. Every election everywhere has challenges. Other than minor complaints, there is no evidence of significant election tampering.

Try finding any evidence that Russia wants to expand its federation into Europe.

Ukraine is in Europe, last we checked, and Putin is openly seeking to expand the Federation's borders there as we speak.

They don't need any more land.

The regime's core delusion is that it needs a "sphere of privileged influence" (in its own words) over former Soviet republics, and Eastern Slavic peoples in particular. And that it has a right to assert control over pretty much any piece of land the Russian Empire has ever sat on for any length of time, as it sees fit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com