←back to thread

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

(www.reuters.com)
970 points homarp | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.583s | source
Show context
idlewords ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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] ◴[] No.32659645[source]
me_me_me ◴[] 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 #
nivenkos ◴[] 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 #
simonh ◴[] 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 #
1. nivenkos ◴[] 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 #
2. simonh ◴[] No.32660879[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.

3. mvc ◴[] No.32669942[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?