Russian parliament approves troop deployment in Ukraine | Hacker News Reader

Russian parliament approves troop deployment in Ukraine

bbc.co.uk

53 pointsC--20 comments

These threads are disasters. Uninformed squawking about World War 3. Flame wars about equivalence with the US and NATO. Conspiracy theories about Ukraine and the EU. The few good comments that land on the thread are wasted in a morass of crap.

This story is going to keep getting posted today, and we should be flagging them off the site every time.

I am speculating. What could Putin really hope to accomplish? And at what expense?

I am looking at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine

Ethnic groups (2001)

77.8% Ukrainians

17.3% Russians

4.9% others / unspecified

The Russians are concentrated in the eastern-most provinces, and also in the Crimea.

Russia has 145 million people, the Ukraine has 46 million people, so in terms of the ratio of people, Russia invading the Ukraine would be a bit like the USA invading Mexico. Russia also has a large per-capita GDP advantage relative to the Ukraine, sort of like the USA advantage over Mexico:

Russia:

GDP (nominal) Per capita $15,717

Ukraine:

GDP (nominal) Per capita $3,862

I'm using the nominal GDP, not the PPP numbers, because when it comes to war it is the nominal numbers that matter (the fact that your rent might be cheap, or that you can get a haircut for cheap, influences your personal standard of living, but does not effect the outcome of a war).

The USA wasted over $1 trillion in Iraq. If the USA tried to conquer Mexico the war would drag on for many years and very nearly bankrupt the USA. Likewise, I suspect a full invasion of the Ukraine would bankrupt Russia. Chechnya is much smaller, yet still caused Russia considerable pain. And also, Chechnya was isolated from Western help. The Ukraine has a border with a country that is a member of the EU. It is true that the Poles dislike the fact that famous Polish cities such as Lwów were stolen and given to the Ukraine, but if it came to war with Russia, it strikes me as likely Poland allow its border to become porous, in the sense that it would be way of getting supplies to the Ukraine. It seems to me likely that the West would be largely united in wanting to help the Ukraine.

The substantial expense makes me think that Putin would not want to try to conquer the whole country. If that is what he wants, then he has gone insane. What seems to me more likely is that he wants to seize those provinces that are majority-Russian. This would be a grievous violation of the sovereignty of the Ukraine, and would probably be regarded as a dangerous precedent. Also, if Putin can get away with it, then there are obvious parallels to Hitler's 1938 occupation of the Sudetenland (which was majority-German). Also remember that Neville Chamberlain's reputation was destroyed when he argued that this one concession to Hitler would lead to peace, when in fact it lead to world war. No Western politician would want to be cast as a modern day Chamberlain, so I suspect many politicians in the West would be inclined to take a strong stand against the partial annexation of the Ukraine to Russia.

I'm trying to think of any major powers that would be willing to support Russia. It has some minor friends: the Serbs, the Syrian government, Cuba, maybe Hungary, etc. But what major power would be willing to support this? Does China have any reason to support Russia in this invasion? I suspect many oil-producing Middle Eastern nations would love to see an economic blockade of Russia, as that would jack up the price of oil.

The USA conspiracy of these so called "revolutions" is obviously coming to an end. Starting with my own country, and going through a lot of other countries (Arabic and now not-Arabic), resulting in massive human and economical devastation and in the worsening of these countries even more.

It's clear here that the USA is the one that crossed the red-line. Ukraine used to belong/alienate with Russia. A new regime, pro-USA/EU is obviously not welcome.

Putin seems to have become confident that Obama's so called "red lines" are nothing more than empty talk.

He would be a slow learner if he didn't know that by now as the chemical weapons thing in Syria was a farce.

This sounds very much like a possible tipping point for a world war. Won't the US and NATO oppose this with force? And why would Russia want to recall the US ambassador?

Deleted comment

This time is it right next to EU Schengen border. Also there are some agreements between Ukraine and EU/USA to protect Ukraine border integrity.

GB, France and Poland agreed to attack in case of German aggression. UK and France did nothing in '39 even though that simultaneous action could've ended II world word in a year.

You can count your allies, but count only on yourself.

I believe the Budapest Memorandum is more of a guideline than an agreement.

Please note that pro-american Georgia attacked Russia and its allies back then. Russia was defending.

Ukraine is not a NATO ally. Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington is the "attack on one is an attack on all" (which is why the French fought in Afghanistan but not Iraq.)

The Alliance can still decide to do something (as they did in the Former Yugoslavian republics in the 90s) but frankly "going toe to toe with the Rooskies" is a lot less appetizing than beating up Serbia.

The US has military bases and troops deployed around the world with wars waging in the Middle East and special ops in Africa and other locations. That doesn't seem to bother people.

Russia decides sending troops to protect predominantly Russian population of Crimea and suddenly it's WW3.

> And why would Russia want to recall the US ambassador?

To signal that Russia will interpret a possible US intervention in Ukraine as an act of war against Russia.

I hope that the situation will de-escalate and differences will be settled in a democratic way.

It will deteriorate the relations, but I don't see any possibility of a world war over Crimea.

Nah, a war is very unlikely. Really very unlikely. The USA has learned from Afghanistan and Iraq that wars are very expensive and yields little results.

Revolutions are much cheaper, faster and likely to be accepted by the global community.

NATO is irrelevant here. A strict interpretation of the Budapest Memorandum, however, has Russia in violation, which would oblige the US and UK to respond.

Strict interpretation says that the latest legitimate president of UA has been overthrown in coup and asked for help. That means, the currently acting representative of Ukraine are not legitimate and do not represent the Ukraine the Budapest Memorandum was about.

Not to precipitate a debate over semantics, but I don't believe being ousted by your own parliament falls under any of the standard definitions of a coup d'état.

I feel some shame that even though I'm a quarter Ukrainian and support sovereignty I can't comprehend Crimea outside the context of a place I used to go in the summer as a Russian boy.

It's hard to think about the places I loved being destroyed by potential conflict, but I always support the resistance of Russian violation of sovereignty. Hopefully Ukraine ends up fine after all this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com