Most active commenters
  • nivenkos(6)

←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 18 comments | 30 Aug 22 20:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
idlewords ◴[30 Aug 22 21:20 UTC] No.32655237[source]▶
Gorbachev secured his place in history by what he didn't do. While never endorsing the end of the eastern bloc, he made it clear beginning in the late 1980's that unlike his predecessors, he would not oppose democratic reforms in Eastern Europe by force. To general astonishment, he kept this promise, and with the regrettable exception of Lithuania this commitment to not repeating the crimes of his predecessors is Gorbachev's greatest legacy. In 1988 you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who could imagine the mostly peaceful collapse of the Eastern Bloc, but Gorbachev had the moral courage to accept this once unimaginable consequence of his policy and to see it through.
replies(5): >>32658309 #>>32659086 #>>32659566 #>>32661746 #>>32667131 #
rixrax ◴[31 Aug 22 07:59 UTC] No.32659566[source]▶
But the dissolution of soviet union is not over yet. You can see this nowhere as clearly as in russias attack on Ukraine[0] where imperialistic russians that dream of restoring the glory and borders of soviet union[1] are waging their genocidal war. Meanwhile they are using hunger[2] and energy as their weapons against the rest of the world[3].

If the russians are not stopped in Ukraine, then there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't rinse and repeat in Baltic states, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and all other now independent former russian states. Including Alaska[4], should opportunity represent itself.

To truly secure Gorbachevs place in history, world must decisively say no to the russians agressions in Ukraine, and help Ukraine deliver a humiliating defeat to the russians and the dissolution of soviet union reach it's logical conclusion by stripping russia and their dreams off of any status as military, or world power.

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481 [2] https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/russia/957367/russ... [3] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-en... [4] https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/03/19/does-russia-want-alas...

replies(5): >>32659645 #>>32659728 #>>32659988 #>>32660262 #>>32660279 #
nivenkos[dead post] ◴[31 Aug 22 08:13 UTC] No.32659645[source]▶
me_me_me ◴[31 Aug 22 08:23 UTC] No.32659707[source]▶
> Imagine if Trump had really been a Russian agent and had returned Alaska to Russia, would you expect all subsequent administrations to just respect that it is Russian now?

Huh? You mean: Imagine if Russia just annexed Alaska after they sent their green men over-there, to disrupt and takeover the region.

Since when Ukraine just gave up on crimea? They were bullied off it and same with donbass. Their military was weak and disorganization so puting took advantage then.

replies(2): >>32659853 #>>32660235 #
1. nivenkos ◴[31 Aug 22 08:46 UTC] No.32659853[source]▶
No, I was referring to when Khrushchev just arbitrarily transferred the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR.

It had been independent / Tatar before, and Russification meant it was mainly populated by Russians.

The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan. Why can't they just allow internationally managed referendums to take place? This would be far better than warfare and paramilitary killings, etc. for both sides.

replies(5): >>32660010 #>>32660032 #>>32660040 #>>32660348 #>>32662688 #
2. maltris ◴[31 Aug 22 09:12 UTC] No.32660010[source]▶
How do you see a referendum working out fairly when the population that sees itself as ukrainian has been forced out and forced to flee and only the russian locals will be able to vote? "Referendum" haha
replies(1): >>32660356 #
3. notahacker ◴[31 Aug 22 09:17 UTC] No.32660032[source]▶
> The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan. Why can't they just allow internationally managed referendums to take place?

The internationally managed referendums Russia has never asked for and would never permit?

Arguments that "real issue" with Russia repeatedly invading its smaller neighbours is that one of the neighbours won't grant something never asked for are not made in good faith.

replies(1): >>32660113 #
4. daminimal ◴[31 Aug 22 09:18 UTC] No.32660040[source]▶
Russification does not give _any_ right over land. Russification was a crime of the Soviet Union and should be treated as such.
replies(1): >>32660117 #
5. nivenkos ◴[31 Aug 22 09:35 UTC] No.32660113[source]▶
I'm not pro-Russia either, I just don't understand why we're completely destroying our economies for a conflict that has nothing to do with us (post-USSR border division and nationalism).
replies(3): >>32660528 #>>32660723 #>>32663447 #
6. nivenkos ◴[31 Aug 22 09:36 UTC] No.32660117[source]▶
Yeah, like the Trail Of Tears in the USA, etc.

But what do you do now? You can't just get the Tatars back, even if Crimea were made independent.

replies(1): >>32660732 #
7. simonh ◴[31 Aug 22 10:18 UTC] No.32660348[source]▶
>The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan.

Wow, just wow. And how exactly were they supposed to do that?

The unity government was declared on 24th February and was formally convened on 27th February 2014.

How long did Russia wait to see if the new government would accept regional referendums?

Well, Russian forces seized control of key strategic sites across Crimea on, er, 27th February 2014. The same day the new government formed. The idea that genuine free and fair regional referendums were ever an option, or even something Russia had any interest in pursuing or allowing whatsoever, is pure fiction.

Suppose the regions did hold referendums and chose to stay part of Ukraine, do you think that would have been the end of it? Russia would have just backed off and respected Ukrainian sovereignty? That's just not how the Russian leadership thinks. Putin had no interest in allowing even the possibility of any such thing.

replies(1): >>32660383 #
8. nivenkos ◴[31 Aug 22 10:19 UTC] No.32660356[source]▶
This is a real problem - like how does this end?

Even if Ukraine "wins"? Then what?

What happens to the Russians in the Crimea? Do they just let Right Sector and the Azov Battalion carry out their persecution, and move Ukrainians in just like the RSFSR did to the Tatars?

Likewise how do they control the DPR and LPR? They previously elected Yanukovych, the problem isn't just going to disappear.

9. nivenkos ◴[31 Aug 22 10:24 UTC] No.32660383[source]▶
Yeah, Russia is aggressive and opportunistic.

Peacekeepers should be sent to carry that out (e.g. from the UN directly).

But dragging out open war like this is just terrible for everyone.

replies(2): >>32660879 #>>32669942 #
10. Const-me ◴[31 Aug 22 10:48 UTC] No.32660528{3}[source]▶
Ukraine wasn't Putin's first military offence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

It's reasonable to assume if we fail to stop Russians in Ukraine, they continue restoring Russian empire with military force.

In the past, Baltic states and Poland were part of Russia, yet now all of them are NATO member states. A real opportunity to start a nuclear WW3.

replies(1): >>32660588 #
11. nivenkos ◴[31 Aug 22 11:01 UTC] No.32660588{4}[source]▶
The Georgian war was instigated by Georgia though, that authoritarian president wanted to reclaim South Ossetia - read the unresolved conflicts part of the article you linked yourself! Sure, Russia took advantage of the situation, but there's no way that extrapolates to them invading Poland and Europe.
12. qikInNdOutReply ◴[31 Aug 22 11:19 UTC] No.32660723{3}[source]▶
No, but you are definatly following a script. Once the "Due Process self determination" runs out, you fall back to economics. Just dump the dialog tree?
13. qikInNdOutReply ◴[31 Aug 22 11:20 UTC] No.32660732{3}[source]▶
Of course you can. If jews can move to israel, tartars can return from anywhere.
replies(1): >>32661501 #
14. simonh ◴[31 Aug 22 11:39 UTC] No.32660879{3}[source]▶
Isn't that up to them? I mean the Ukrainians? It's not as if the west is forcing them against their will to keep on fighting for their country and freedom.

In the first months of the war hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians returned to their country to sign up to fight. We either support them, or abandon them to their fate. I don't see how you can credibly claim that abandoning them, despite their appeals for support, is better for them and in their interests. It's clearly in the interests of the Russian government, but why should the west care about that?

Sending UN peace keepers is a nice idea, but unfortunately Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council, with a veto.

15. Ygg2 ◴[31 Aug 22 12:59 UTC] No.32661501{4}[source]▶
> jews can move to israel

That's been going... Swimmingly for everyone involved. No violation of human rights, whatsoever.

16. krzyk ◴[31 Aug 22 14:45 UTC] No.32662688[source]▶
> It had been independent / Tatar before, and Russification meant it was mainly populated by Russians.

And before Russification it was Tatars, so either way it is Russian like e.g. India or Japan.

17. CRConrad ◴[31 Aug 22 15:29 UTC] No.32663447{3}[source]▶
> I'm not pro-Russia either

Yes you are. If you really think you aren't, you are deluded.

18. mvc ◴[31 Aug 22 23:59 UTC] No.32669942{3}[source]▶
> Peacekeepers should be sent to carry that out (e.g. from the UN directly).

And how would that happen when Russia can just veto the UN action?