> In Austria, Chancellor Karl Nehammer stated that “of course we will take in refugees, if necessary”. Meanwhile, just last fall and in his then-role as interior minister, Nehammer was known as a hardliner against resettling Afghan refugees in Austria and as a politician who insisted on Austria’s right to forcibly deport rejected Afghan asylum seekers, even if that meant returning them to the Taliban. “It’s different in Ukraine than in countries like Afghanistan,” he told Austrian TV. “We’re talking about neighborhood help.”
But he wants the entire world to get involved in this "neighborhood war."
Black and brown countries should take note of this conflict very seriously. Western imperialism never died. The West is perfectly okay with black on black and brown on brown violence. It is only in the case of black/brown on white or white on white violence that they interfere with such ferocity.
> Its about the contrast of men in track suits throwing rocks and climbing fences versus women with children.
He is openly talking about neighborhood help. All the media reports are full of "they look like us," "blue eyes" and "blond hair."
I am not passing moral judgment on his choices; cultural incompatibility will eventually lead to conflict. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding that the whole world join the "isolate Russia" project while simultaneously claiming that it is a neighborhood affair.
Perhaps you do not realize this but when you live in homogeneous community, differences on other dimension amplify. Saying that they look like us might simply mean that people should put other prejudices aside.
An alternative take would be that the West is more okay with 3rd-world country violence rather than 1st-world country violence (like Ukraine). It happens to be the case that all countries that have recently seen conflict without significant US intervention were both brown and 3rd-world.
I would assume that if the Saudis, Indians, Israelis, or others were to see this same type of conflict, you'd see a much greater US commitment. If we instead jump on every conflict that arises, we'd be stuck in regional conflicts in 3rd-world countries forever.
Already ongoing. We know which sides everyone has picked.
> Indians
We have been targeted by Pakistan-based terrorists for forty years and tens of thousands of people have been murdered. No one bothered to do anything. Instead, Pakistan was promoted to a strategic ally after 9/11 because white people died.
We have fought two wars with China. It is a mortal enemy, nuclear power and occupies Indian territory. But when we conducted nuclear tests in 1998 to develop a deterrence, sanctions were imposed on us. When China killed 20 of our soldiers in 2020 - they were bludgeoned to death with barbwire-wrapped clubs - the advice from the world was to peacefully resolve the problem.
Edit: it looks like your account has been using HN primarily, if not exclusively, for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Therefore I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Edit: since you've been using HN primarily for political flamewar, repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, and have ignored our requests to stop, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Edit: it looks like your account has been using HN primarily, if not exclusively, for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Therefore I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
West has demonstrated the ability to coalesce massive, unprecedented, response to illegal wars was always possible, but they simply do not care enough about non-white people. Even now, shaming, condemning and pressuring neutral countries for importing wheat or gas to feed and heat their own. Seems like even non-white diaspora in the west are seeing past the charade.
>This isn't "white on white violence", and it is racist to cast it in such terms.
This is how conflicts are framed when black people are involved in the US. "white on white crime" sounds like a fair description even if it's a somewhat vague term.
> "What about Iraq and Afghanistan" is literally reasoning Vladimir Putin is using to invade Ukraine.
Why wouldn't he? The US provided him with a perfect template to justify his invasion.
People often forget that the consequences of current actions extend far into the future.
The current Ukraine-Russia conflict that will result in the re-militarization of Germany as well as the Chinese threat that led to the same thing happening in Japan will have similar consequences decades from now.[1]
Please note that this person has been arguing that Zelenskyy is to be blamed for the civilians that Russia is killing during their invasion, because he did not surrender to an invasion from a foreign power.
> "There's three internets now. There's China's, there's the internet of the European Union and the U.S., and then there's distorted internets in between," in countries like Russia, Watts said.
> "The idea of being a global company in the tech space is dead," he said. "They have to choose."
This was always going to happen.
Different countries have different cultural and legal systems as well as differing perceptions of national security. At some point, these things are going to clash without there being a technical work around.
For instance, some, like you, think civilians killed by an invading force should be blamed on their leader for not surrendering to invasion, rather than on the people actually killing them.
The conflict is localized to parts of Ukraine. There is no impending doom as long as NATO does not directly intervene. And I simply don't see Biden or Johnson sacrificing American and British cities for the sake of Ukraine.
To their credit, the US administration has been fairly calm given the circumstances. It is the European leaders that have been issuing belligerent statements and walking them back. They keep using the term "war" when referring to their actions against Russia.
No, it cannot. The US and Europe accusing Russia of acting without provocation is like a serial killer with 600 dead girls buried in his basement complaining to the cops about his noisy neighbor.
> intolerance of another country's sovereignty,
2003. Iraq. Ukraine was a part of the "coalition of the willing" which invaded the sovereignty of another country.
>Not the world community, only the West. Most of the world has no problems with Russia and Russians.
Russia hates asians. During the financial crisis in around 2009... Russians were killing racial minorities. There aren't many asians in Russia anymore...and there never will be.
India? Well Russians just killed some Indian citizens and were trying to prevent them from leaving Ukraine. Probably not going to go well for their relations. Historically certainly strong relations between the 2. India and Russia are long term friends. So are they with the USA. Not to mention, india is probably pretty uneasy about Russia and Pakistan becoming friends all of a sudden. Especially given it's entirely because of India. Hence why India has decreased the amount of military equipment coming from Russia. India sure is concerned about China lately as well. Multiple skirmishes with China. Then they have Pakistan becoming very friendly with Russia on the other side? India is probably seeing what Russia is doing to them. Smartly no side taken but is calling for peace.
Pakistan? Pakistan has hated Russia for as long as I have been alive and longer. Yet here we are today and Pakistan is urgently making friends with Russia. Pakistan even paid to fix their trade relationship. Why are they doing it? They fear India. They don't like Russia, the Russians know this because how many Russians have been killed by Pakistan? Hell, Pakistan boycotted the Russian olympics. Pakistan supports Russia in Ukraine? No... I would agree with you there. Pakistan is certainly gigantic friends with Russia all of a sudden.
China? China hates Russia. Russia owns chinese land and purged all chinese from the land. China wants Manchuria back. HK and Macau were justly given back to China. Was it really settled 15 years ago? You also can check out: https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-tells-xi-that-russia-wil...
It looks like China got blind sided. Russia used China as a shield for their invasion. China probably knew Russia was about to recognize the 2 new republics but didn't know about the invasion. Xi immediately picked up the phone telling Putin to start peace talks and Russia complied.What a gigantic slap in the face to China.
I think something being evaluated as well. Has all this talk about China being about to invade the USA, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all been Russian propaganda? Is there reciprocal propaganda? Mind you, talk with any Canadian or Australian and we'll tell you how shit the USA is with their constant world police and warring. Lots of easy justification there.
Its basically public knowledge that Russian propaganda had gotten control of Canadian news media. Certainly seems likely that Australia was as well.
What do you think? You think China is about to invade the USA?
> Russia should no longer be allowed to communicate with or influence the global community.
The West does not get to control who Asian and African countries can and cannot communicate with. It does not own the internet. If it claims that it has that right and that it will unilaterally enforce it, we are looking at a fundamental breakdown of international relations.
Imperialism by white powers will no longer be tolerated.
Who would have thunk that the US and Europe would be fighting on the side of actual Nazis in 2022 after spending a decade labeling every political opponent a nazi.
These people have no shame and no sense of morality and they weaponize those feelings within those that do.
Doesn't Russia has its own Nazi problem at the domestic level? I think it's disingenuous to conflate the different problems. It does not justify the invasion at this scale against a functioning democracy.
The article said the Neo Nazis are effectively part of the actual armed forces. It showed them being given mainstream acceptance too.
How does this relate to Russia’s nazi problem?
—-
If you want to try talking about “what about Y”. What about the children being murdered every hour by the backing of the US and parts of Europe in Saudi’s assault on Yemen? How does any of that square with the morality you are espousing here of it being so wrong to go to war, and so on. Which it most certainly is for Russia to do. They are bad for this.
I am not saying what “what about Y”. My whole point is he is conflating internal problem and regional conflict with external war - i.e, I am pointing out his “what about Y” which tried to justify Putin's action. And I fear the day where Taiwan get invaded.
Based on the same logic, I would agree that you are right on Yemen too! I would blame Saudi and US's preferential treatment. Do you see my point now?
> Doesn't Russia has its own Nazi problem at the domestic level?
Every western country has some localized neo-nazi phenomenon. But I don't think any of them have official sanction or form part of that country's armed forces. This might be a first.
> It does not justify the invasion at this scale against a functioning democracy.
The only thing that matters here is Putin's words because he has the military power to back them. He says Russians have been murdered in large numbers. And there is some evidence that things like that happen.[1][2]
But starting a total war and trying decapitate the capital vs local conflicts is completely different.
NATO and US did not fight side by side either(at least for now). They just provide equipment and money. And it's very clear from the start only Putin wanted this war proactively and there is only reaction from the other side.
No. He could have done this any time he wanted over the last 8 years. So why now? I don't know what, but some thing has changed in the strategic calculus after the Trump administration went out. That is when he wrote about the historical unity of the Rus peoples. And everything else follows from there.
> there is only reaction from the other side.
They lit the fuse with the eastward expansion of NATO and the attempts to place ABMs close to Russia back in the 2000s. It is not as if Russia invaded some country in Africa or South America. It has invaded a neighbor, a former Soviet state for reasons of national security.
You only list what are favors Putin's stance while totally writes off all the other points like nuclear agreement, mirrored Taiwan situation. How about Russia tried to join NATO too? I am not going through every points in such biased manner.
None of the above justify the total war and kill civilians of another sovereign state like this, end of story. You can keep wasting your time on this site.
Why does NATO exist? Your bias is possibly just as much as your claiming of the other person.
> nuclear agreement
How was Ukraine ever going to use the nukes on their land? They didn’t have control of them, did they?
—-
You brought up different conflicts and issues again. So again. What about America and part of Europe’s involvement with the ruthless murdering of innocents in Yemen? Or Palestine? Or the downfall and continued problems of Libya after taking out Gaddafi?
> History will not look kindly on those who insisted on a neutral stance on the face of evil.
In that case, let us start with the war criminals in the US and Europe, and their enablers in the media, technology and think tank space, who illegally invaded Afghanistan and countries in the Middle East (and Africa) and unleashed a reign of terror for 20 years.
What exactly is your position? Do you really think the right course of action is tell the country being actively invaded that we'll get back to them right after we're done with a decade of prosecutions?
It's double standards; the US is guilty of war crimes and has yet to face any consequences or even condemnation. They got away with labeling people as a category putting them outside of the US's own legal system, international law, and the Geneva Convention; oh no they're not enemy soldiers / POWs, they are terrorists, it's Different. That led to them being put in CIA black sites and Gitmo and made them victims of inhumane treatment and routine torture. Some have been incarcerated for twenty years now without trial. The world knows, footage from the humiliation and sexual abuse in gitmo came out years and years ago... and nothing happened.
If this was e.g. a central or eastern European country, its leaders would be on trial in The Hague by now.
> "get the rest later" never actually ever seems to happen when it comes to the US and EU.
This.
The neocon-influenced US addiction to spreading freedom and democracy to authoritarian countries has been almost universally deadly to their citizens. While these dictators are bad, it is the unfortunate truth that their brutality helps keep sectarian conflict in check. Look at every place that has had the US gift of democracy forcibly shoved down its throat.
But he wants the entire world to get involved in this "neighborhood war."
Black and brown countries should take note of this conflict very seriously. Western imperialism never died. The West is perfectly okay with black on black and brown on brown violence. It is only in the case of black/brown on white or white on white violence that they interfere with such ferocity.