Ask HN: What do you read for a more objective view on the Russia-Ukraine war?

Unfortunately all sources are overloaded with extreme simplification where Ukraine is angel and Russia is evil. It's tempting to believe in, although it's very far from truth.

Perhaps the only way to understand reasons and way of thinking each side has - listen to what Russia is saying over course of years, read about atrocities ukrainian army and nazi-style battalions did in eastern Ukraine for last 8 years. Read about nazi-style military camps growing in Ukraine last years.

All those things are rarely getting light in media. Putting a crying girl and "fuck you Putin" sells much better than in depth analysis or understanding why Putin did what he did. Hopefully I am wrong, but this kind of ignorance can lead to much much bigger troubles than current ones.

Try to read more of what both sides are saying, but be aware that ukrainian media is propaganda at it's best (would be better to put worst) so whatever they say should be taken with huge grin of salt.

Does CNN lie or tell the truth? They lie?

Stop falling for fake communist propaganda.

What do you expect to see? Equal words given to both the pro and the con side? Is the universe so relative that, whatever the subject, all opinions are equally correct?

What on earth is the point of news, then? Half of every article saying that something happened and the other half saying it didn't?

News isn't letters-to-the-editor.

My view... is that all the participants of the conflict only pursue their strategic interests and no one really cares about the Ukrainians (which is really sad).

That's a worldview, not news. That is letters-to-the-editor.

  I have no reason to favor either side

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Europe _definitely_ cares for Ukraine directly, but we also care about the larger security situation. A world where Putin invades countries on a whim is objectively bad for all countries (except for Russia _maybe_). Ukraine is protecting Democracy with the lives of their soldiers and brave civilians. I would be honored if Ukraine wants to join the EU after this.

There are, sadly, not many articles that shed light on the situation. That's largely because the situation itself is murky. If you want a more objective take, wait until everything is done, then read academic treatments.

Bear in mind that 'balance' is not always a logically coherent thing to look for: there is no such thing as a balanced middle point between 7 and fish. It's still possible for interested parties to deliver sound analysis and to uncover or fairly present facts.

>I don't remember seeing this level of solidarity back when the US did similar things (in my opinion at least). Isn't that a sign of double standards depending on the country?

Unfortunately as the global hegemon, the US (and to a lesser extent its allies) can and do get away with waging aggressive war, that's just how it is. Although the example comes to my mind is the Indian annexation of Goa in 1961, which is an aggressive war waged explicitly for irredentist aims based on historical claims (Goa was conquered by the Portuguese in 1510(!)). The world reaction to that was largely a shrug and India more or less got away with it.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24717077-frontline-ukrai...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n...

Where social media is always going to result in the spread of disinformation and propaganda on both sides of this crisis and such content from there should be taken with a grain of salt and scepticism. Even the original Russian proverb of 'Trust, But Verify' is flawed here in this case. Instead:

Don't Trust. Verify.

> One thing I find a bit strange is that there is so much focus on Putin's actions now with huge support from Europe, but I don't remember seeing this level of solidarity back when the US did similar things (in my opinion at least). Isn't that a sign of double standards depending on the country?

Possibly? At least a news source suggested that point. [0]

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-cover...

Here’s what I’ve learned in the last week or so.

There is a good lecture on YouTube called Why Ukraine is the West’s Fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Mearsheimer, a foreign policy expert of 50+ years, belongs to the “realist” school. I find his viewpoint helpful as it’s very much Machiavellian and not focused on demonizing the Other. I’m not sure how accurate his analysis is, but it seems worth looking at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

The gist is essentially this: - NATO, a Soviet-era military alliance, has continued to expand closer to Russia’s borders. Russia feels threatened by this.

- Russia tried to join NATO in the early 2000s but was rebuffed.

- Russia adamantly opposed including Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but America didn’t care and pushed for it in 2008.

- The US has largely driven this effort and has dragged the EU and Britain along for the ride.

- The revolution/coup in 2014 (depending on which side you believe, I guess) removed more a neutral / pro-Russian government and put in a Western-focused one. This was followed by the separatism in the Donbas and Russia’s taking of Crimea.

However, note that this lecture was before the recent escalation and Mearsheimer didn’t seem to think that Russia would actually launch a full-scale invasion.

I would also note that he doesn't cover other important issues that are relevant to the conflict, namely:

- The history of Ukraine in the last ±500 years, especially the Khmelnytsky Uprising, Cossacks, Ukrainian states in the aftermath of World War 1, the Holodomor famine in Ukraine, and how some Ukrainians helped the Nazis during WW2. In short, the history of Ukraine itself is very relevant to this conflict. There have always been competing groups in this region and it’s not a new phenomenon.

- The disaster that was Russia in the 90s and (from Russia’s perspective) how the West basically took advantage of Russia instead of helping them. This is one reason why Putin came into power in the first place. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ

- Social changes in the Western world that could be called “wokeness” or “LGBT rights” and the West’s behavior of trying to spread these values. This is interpreted as being anti-traditional by Putin and increasingly China (see the recent bans on feminine men in Chinese media as an example.) Putin mentioned this in a recent speech. You could probably describe this as a reaction to Westernization.

This MR Online article does a good job summing up some of the historical context. It's a socialist rag, but the facts fit with many other sources.

The gist is that, yeah, Putin is an evil autocrat invading a soverign country, but the West has really pushed Russia to the brink, mostly to make Eastern Europe exploitable by Western capital. And NATO has expanded to the point where there are nukes on Russias border. If Russia put nukes on the Mexican border we would freak the fuck out.

Heres the article, keep looking and you'll find more. Look up the Azov Brigade and the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine too for neonazi stuff.

https://mronline.org/2022/02/24/what-you-should-really-know-...

I'm much more worried about general sanctions and censorship. This is first step to make conflict deeper in future and eventually could be used against anyone. Just imagine that asking this questions could be sanctioned or persecuted because it would be considered as proX or proY propaganda.

We should think about each other more and not let media think for us. Do not let them create virtual enemies and justify evil things.

They were; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...

Now, you could certainly argue that the response that time was far too light-touch.

> I mean, some articles I have seen so far call Putin an aggressor right in the title and then there is only one side considered.

I mean... who invaded Ukraine? Putin's Russia. That seems like a very clear case for Putin being the aggressor; outside of Russian state propaganda I don't think that's terribly controversial.

I'm not being rude here but you're not grasping the most simple concept. Russia is the aggressor. I won't try to convince you - just try to find any evidence at all of Ukraine invading Russia.

BTW, I'm currently in Kyiv, watching Russian missile strikes.