It is but maybe it’s not just tourism. Many russians invested good money in Crimea, bought propery there post 2014 and are going there to develop on their properies.
In high school many moons ago, I had a history/economics teacher who did a Master's thesis on the (original) Crimean War. He predicted in ~1995 that post-Soviet Russia would annex Crimea and it would lead to another regional war.
Unfortunately, the Crimean War was the Russian Empire's Afghanistan/Vietnam War. One can only hope that history repeats itself because the only workable offramp is one were Russia concedes. That may take months to years to never.
> It was stolen from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and 'gifted' to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by a man [0] who used to the head of Ukrainian Communist party before becoming the leader of the USSR.
So what you're saying it was transferred from one state to another by the head of that state, under the laws and rules of the state at the time?.
Nothing was stolen, you're just mad of Russias past actions.
"stolen from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic"
That's quite a frivolous use of the word 'stolen' devoiding it of any meaning besides 'bad!!!!!!!!1'.
Doesn't make any practical difference. Soviet "republics" were as independent as Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Internal borders were freely redrawn and native populations resettled to satisfy Soviet colonial policies. If you want to start settling old scores and reversing "historical injustices", you can demonstrate good faith by giving Estonia back the 5% of its territory that is still occupied by Russia. Not to mention China's grievances about "humiliations" and "injustices" regarding the Russian Far East.
Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
"Soviet colonial policies"
That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
"If you want to start settling old scores"
It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
"you can demonstrate good faith"
USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
Of all the Russian propaganda you pick the one piece that was super easy to debunk, Gorbachev himself said this never happened.
The negotiations were always about NATO expanding into east Germany and not east in general.
NATO still isn’t in the former east Germany anyway.
I’m pretty sure I or others have told you this many times before though so I have to start questioning is you are posting in good faith or if your posting to push an agenda?.
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
That isn't a counter to a primary source that says he never discussed it.
Although I do know that NATO Expansion is another historical grievance Russia has (getting lots of these aren't they) because Russia is very much pro being able to invade states, and NATO stops that.
These documents are primary sources. Gorbachev says contradictory things.
"Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east" inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others." [0]
Here is what Gorbachev was saying in 2008.
"Relations have further deteriorated after Nato promised eventual membership to Georgia and Ukraine, a move interpreted by Mr Gorbachev as an attempt to extend America's sphere of influence into Russia's backyard.
"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."" [1]
>> Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
There is no practical difference between the two. All Soviet "republics" were run by Politburo in Moscow, the same way all orders in Nazi Germany came from Berlin, bypassing whatever formal structures existed. Both loved to micromanage. Whenever a local puppet didn't dance as Moscow expected, he was replaced. Leaders of "republics" couldn't even select deputies (second secretaries); they were assigned directly from Moscow to keep a close eye on formal heads of "republics".
If you want to play games, then sure, we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either. It was run by an Austrian painter who illegitimately seized power, and in its heyday, most people in the vast Nazi empire were not even ethnic Germans, so Germans had nothing to do with it all, naturally.
>> That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
I have no colonial past.
>> It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
Indeed, all was fine and dandy until Putin needed justifications for the invasion. Then it was suddenly discovered that a Soviet leader illegitimately "gifted" Crimea away. What's next, some error in the sale of Alaska too maybe? Can we please have it back, our emperor was too fond of America when he signed it?
>> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east.
It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion - but never brought up when Eastern Europe actually joined NATO two decades ago. On top of that, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have explicitly denied this hoax, the only one claiming this was a street thug in St Petersburg at the time.
This talking point is irrelevant anyway, as NATO did not place any permanent ground forces in Eastern Europe until the invasion of Ukraine. And whatever was left in Western Europe after the Cold War saw a reduction by an order of a magnitude, skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia.
"There is no practical difference between the two."
Soviet leadership acted in the interests of the Soviet Union (and their own), not in the interests of RSFSR.
"we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either"
No, you can't. Nazi Germany proclaimed the superiority of Germans (and of so called 'Arian race') and tried to achieve ethnic purity. Soviet Union was a multiethnic state, ethnic Russians constituted about half of Soviet population and the idea of the 'friendship of ethnicities' was heavily promoted.
"I have no colonial past."
But your country does.
"Then it was suddenly discovered"
Again, that's not how it was. Some people in Russia remembered it pretty well, like Moscow major Luzhkov who was helping Sevastopol with money, but all the presidents and governments consistently refused to support this idea.
"It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion"
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
"but never brought up"
What's the point to complain and to be told to know your place?
Anyway, ever heard of Putin's Munich speech in 2006?
"skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia"
"And how did Russia come to "own" the peninsula again?"
By fighting the Ottoman Empire and their protectorate -- the remains of the Golden Horde known as Crimean Khanate [0]. The last was busy raiding Russia and selling captured slaves to Ottomans [1]. The Golden Horde, in case you don't know, is itself one the remains of the Mongol Empire.
"What happened to its original inhabitants?"
Scythians [2] and Tauri [3] were assimilated by Sarmatians and later were partly destroyed and party assimilated by Goths. Why did you ask?
"Which treaty"
It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
Probably because you keep neglecting to mention, for some strange reason, the ethnic group that made up some 90 percent of the population the peninsula at the time of the (not so peaceful) 1783 annexation. Let alone what, specifically, happened to them in the summer of '44.
And how obscenely ridiculous it is, as a result -- to say that the peninsula was "Russian for 200 years" prior to the 1955 transfer.
ABM
Except the US didn't just thumb their noses at, and start violating willy-nilly (like Russia did with the 1994 treaty you are so hesitant to name). Rather - it had an opt-out clause which Bush chose to enact, giving the required 6 months notice.
No more obscenely ridiculous than saying that the US exists for 200 years. Ever heard of Native Americans who inhabited the North America?
Crimea was conquered by Russia, not by the Ukraine which didn't even exists as a state at that time, and Russia was busy building cities there and in all of Novorossiya.
"not so peaceful"
Why would it be peaceful? Crimean Khanate was raiding Russia and capturing slaves for centuries. Didn't end well for them.
"Except"
I didn't say it's equivalent, just an example of a treaty outliving its utility for one of the parties.
Crimean Tatars were deported by Stalin, many died in the process, and in the late 80s they and their descendants returned back to Crimea. It was a case of collective punishment for collaboration with Nazis of some of Crimean Tatars and has been many times officially condemned both in the USSR and Russia just like other acts of collective punishment by Stalin. All of it is well known.
> It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
Sweet so since the Budapest memorandum is out we can start rearming Ukraine with nukes after the war.
I'll bet be the US will never do it. They pushed the Ukraine to disarm for a reason and that reason still stands -- no one wants them selling warheads to the highest bidder.
> I'll bet be the US will never do it. They pushed the Ukraine to disarm for a reason and that reason still stands -- no one wants them selling warheads to the highest bidder.
The reason was to try and stop nuclear proliferation, not whatever made up reason your coming with today.
But Ukraine doesn't need Americas approval to make nuclear weapons they are more than capable of making them themselves.
They should also never sign another treaty with Russia ever, as clearly Russia just makes treaties "obsolete" when it benefits them.
Russia has always been unreliable partner I guess thats why they will only understand force in Ukraine.
Edit: I took a closer look, and it turns out that you've been posting abusively to HN for quite some time and using the site primarily for battle and flamewar. I've therefore banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
All I can say, dan (and knowing this won't change your action): this wasn't my intent.
You've got some straight-up trolls running around, posting blatantly pernicious nonsense in regard to these topics -- obviously without sincere intent, simply to push buttons.
Mixed with some merely woefully naive and/or highly obstinate folks, posting basically noise (wildly inaccurate narratives about extremely basic historical matters or recent events).
If there is a better strategy or tone to use for countering this kind of negative behavior -- I wish I knew what it was.
In my experience, internet commenters are far too quick to assume that others are pernicious trolls without sincere intent. This is basically a Russell conjugation.
Once you've framed the other that way, it's easy to feel that you no longer need to follow the rules—since if the other person is pernicious and insincere, they should obviously just be annihilated.
This is how we end up in the flamewar situation where we end up having to ban accounts. Since everyone is following this logic, everyone is trying to annihilate the other. From an outside point of view, the interesting thing is how similarly all the parties are behaving, even as they perceive each other as enemies and opposites.
By far the better strategy is to resist this temptation altogether—to look for interpretations of the other as not pernicious or insincere, but rather sincere and legitimate—and then to try to meet them respectfully. This is a massively more effective way to go about it, and also won't get you banned here.
Edit: I took a closer look, and it turns out that you've been posting abusively to HN for quite some time and using the site primarily for battle and flamewar. I've therefore banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
Edit: I took a closer look, and it turns out that you've been posting abusively to HN for quite some time and using the site primarily for battle and flamewar. I've therefore banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
It isn't a problem that you've been arguing for views that aren't in the majority here—as moderators we're interested in protecting minority views. The problem is that you've been doing it so aggressively, without considering the intended use of the site, or the guidelines that we ask people to follow.
All I can tell you is that I spend tons of time interacting with commenters, trying to help people understand that line (https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=dang). It looks like that has included multiple explanations to you over the years:
I've posted thousands of explanations like that. The reason is not just to persuade/explain to individual commenters, but also to give everybody else a sense of where the lines are.
My sense is that if someone really wants to grok the intended spirit and make a good faith attempt to follow HN's guidelines, it's not that hard to do. Sometimes, though, people take the more obstreperous approach of "I don't agree with your rules and I don't see why I should follow them" (<-- I'm not quoting anyone specifically and I'm not imputing this attitude to you). In those cases, arguing about where the lines are doesn't help, and ultimately we don't have much choice but to ban such accounts. Often they then say "you're just banning me because you don't like my views", but that rarely has anything to do with it.
Some of this is cultural, meaning some people have a greater distance to "travel" behaviorally in order to fit the culture here. That may not be fair but there's not much we can do about it; there is a culture here that we're trying to foster, and that's only possible if commenters abide by it.
Actually, the last two were about someone else's comments and the one before that was a misunderstanding ("you've made yourself a straw man" wasn't a "personal attack and name-calling", what I meant was "you've made a straw man out of my comments for yourself to attack"). Just don't want to look like serial offender :)
I have absolutely no argument with everything else you wrote.
However, the problem with the line begins when I see comments that seem to violate the rules and yet elicit no reaction from mods.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
It's unsubstantive because it's snarky, uncurious, and adds no interesting information.
Commenters frequently react to the mods as if they're opposing-side-sympathizers, but in reality, we're just reacting to your breaking the rules. We'd react the same way if you held the opposite opinions, and often do.
I agree, it adds no interesting information, however the fact that you only commented on anti-Russian comment makes it super obvious you are not commenting on it in a good faith.
Could be their moral compass has been warped by Russian propagandists who find the death of civilians in the Ukraine ‘SMO’ to be a cause of great celebration.
And who and where exactly is finding "the death of civilians ... to be a cause of great celebration"? Citation needed, as they say in Wikipedia.
Anyway, you surely will find all sorts of people among 146 millions of Russians including serial killers and the likes. How does it justify being a person who is laughing over the death of civilian couple and orphaned and injured girl?
Russian propagandist, on Russian tv. You just have to wait for some horrendous act of indiscriminate killing by Russia to occur in Ukraine and they come out to justify or glorify the horror.
I don’t particularly blame them for their cynical actions, it’s their job.
It's like somebody saying 'It's funny that girls still walk in mini-skirts in the park' under the news that a girl was raped. And then you appear: 'Nowhere did *** say it was funny that the girl was raped'.
No actually it's pretty clear that _you_ are ignoring the poster's words and twisting them to try to make your own point. The poster was pointing out how ridiculous it is that people are vacationing in a war zone. I find it ridiculous as well.
Russia tries its best to lure civilians into using the war supply routes to Crimea. They serve as a human shield of a kind. How do you like the idea of using large landing ships to shuttle tourists to Crimea? [0] Note this was before the latest attack on the bridge.
1. Life in Russia is much less safe than in any 1st world country (even the US) so people living there have higher risk tolerance. I suspect many probably think now is not the best time to visit Crimea but very few would consider this recklessly dangerous - so far not many civilians were killed either in Crimea or on the bridge (during the previous attack).
2. For many people living in Russia Crimea and Krasnodar Krai are only two options for a seaside holidays. Number of people who can afford international travel was not huge to begin with and then diminished further after the war started. Krasnodar resorts likely booked months ahead given influx of new visitors (who in the past were able to travel to other countries).
It is kind of a big deal, but I'm kind of disappointed the bridge is still standing. This is the second attack, and the damage seems to be something the Russians are going to fix. Don't get me wrong, with the amount of defense Russia threw at this bridge, it is an accomplishment and yet another embarrassment for the Russians.
84 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadSucks to be them.
Unfortunately, the Crimean War was the Russian Empire's Afghanistan/Vietnam War. One can only hope that history repeats itself because the only workable offramp is one were Russia concedes. That may take months to years to never.
I see your back with your delusions.
How exactly did the USSR which had control of Crimea exactly steal Crimea from itself, to give it to a part of itself?.
Don't worry the terrorist occupiers in Crimea will be removed soon enough.
So what you're saying it was transferred from one state to another by the head of that state, under the laws and rules of the state at the time?.
Nothing was stolen, you're just mad of Russias past actions.
"stolen from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic"
That's quite a frivolous use of the word 'stolen' devoiding it of any meaning besides 'bad!!!!!!!!1'.
Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
"Soviet colonial policies"
That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
"If you want to start settling old scores"
It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
"you can demonstrate good faith"
USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
Of all the Russian propaganda you pick the one piece that was super easy to debunk, Gorbachev himself said this never happened.
The negotiations were always about NATO expanding into east Germany and not east in general.
NATO still isn’t in the former east Germany anyway.
I’m pretty sure I or others have told you this many times before though so I have to start questioning is you are posting in good faith or if your posting to push an agenda?.
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
Although I do know that NATO Expansion is another historical grievance Russia has (getting lots of these aren't they) because Russia is very much pro being able to invade states, and NATO stops that.
"Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east" inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others." [0]
Here is what Gorbachev was saying in 2008.
"Relations have further deteriorated after Nato promised eventual membership to Georgia and Ukraine, a move interpreted by Mr Gorbachev as an attempt to extend America's sphere of influence into Russia's backyard.
"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."" [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regardin...
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/193...
There is no practical difference between the two. All Soviet "republics" were run by Politburo in Moscow, the same way all orders in Nazi Germany came from Berlin, bypassing whatever formal structures existed. Both loved to micromanage. Whenever a local puppet didn't dance as Moscow expected, he was replaced. Leaders of "republics" couldn't even select deputies (second secretaries); they were assigned directly from Moscow to keep a close eye on formal heads of "republics".
If you want to play games, then sure, we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either. It was run by an Austrian painter who illegitimately seized power, and in its heyday, most people in the vast Nazi empire were not even ethnic Germans, so Germans had nothing to do with it all, naturally.
>> That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
I have no colonial past.
>> It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
Indeed, all was fine and dandy until Putin needed justifications for the invasion. Then it was suddenly discovered that a Soviet leader illegitimately "gifted" Crimea away. What's next, some error in the sale of Alaska too maybe? Can we please have it back, our emperor was too fond of America when he signed it?
>> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east.
It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion - but never brought up when Eastern Europe actually joined NATO two decades ago. On top of that, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have explicitly denied this hoax, the only one claiming this was a street thug in St Petersburg at the time.
This talking point is irrelevant anyway, as NATO did not place any permanent ground forces in Eastern Europe until the invasion of Ukraine. And whatever was left in Western Europe after the Cold War saw a reduction by an order of a magnitude, skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia.
Soviet leadership acted in the interests of the Soviet Union (and their own), not in the interests of RSFSR.
"we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either"
No, you can't. Nazi Germany proclaimed the superiority of Germans (and of so called 'Arian race') and tried to achieve ethnic purity. Soviet Union was a multiethnic state, ethnic Russians constituted about half of Soviet population and the idea of the 'friendship of ethnicities' was heavily promoted.
"I have no colonial past."
But your country does.
"Then it was suddenly discovered"
Again, that's not how it was. Some people in Russia remembered it pretty well, like Moscow major Luzhkov who was helping Sevastopol with money, but all the presidents and governments consistently refused to support this idea.
"It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion"
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
"but never brought up"
What's the point to complain and to be told to know your place? Anyway, ever heard of Putin's Munich speech in 2006?
"skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia"
Doesn't look like it.
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
What happened to its original inhabitants?
Which treaty did the RF sign in 1994 pledging to respect existing borders of Ukraine -- including its sovereignty over the Crimea -- for perpetuity?
Tell us more, please.
By fighting the Ottoman Empire and their protectorate -- the remains of the Golden Horde known as Crimean Khanate [0]. The last was busy raiding Russia and selling captured slaves to Ottomans [1]. The Golden Horde, in case you don't know, is itself one the remains of the Mongol Empire.
"What happened to its original inhabitants?"
Scythians [2] and Tauri [3] were assimilated by Sarmatians and later were partly destroyed and party assimilated by Goths. Why did you ask?
"Which treaty"
It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_the_Crimean_Khan...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean%E2%80%93Nogai_slave_ra...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia_Minor_(Crimea)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauri
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
Probably because you keep neglecting to mention, for some strange reason, the ethnic group that made up some 90 percent of the population the peninsula at the time of the (not so peaceful) 1783 annexation. Let alone what, specifically, happened to them in the summer of '44.
And how obscenely ridiculous it is, as a result -- to say that the peninsula was "Russian for 200 years" prior to the 1955 transfer.
ABM
Except the US didn't just thumb their noses at, and start violating willy-nilly (like Russia did with the 1994 treaty you are so hesitant to name). Rather - it had an opt-out clause which Bush chose to enact, giving the required 6 months notice.
But I did mention. [0]
"how obscenely ridiculous it is"
No more obscenely ridiculous than saying that the US exists for 200 years. Ever heard of Native Americans who inhabited the North America?
Crimea was conquered by Russia, not by the Ukraine which didn't even exists as a state at that time, and Russia was busy building cities there and in all of Novorossiya.
"not so peaceful"
Why would it be peaceful? Crimean Khanate was raiding Russia and capturing slaves for centuries. Didn't end well for them.
"Except"
I didn't say it's equivalent, just an example of a treaty outliving its utility for one of the parties.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36743879
But you keep talking around it.
You still can't bring yourself to say who these people were. Or what happened to their descendants.
Crimean Tatars were deported by Stalin, many died in the process, and in the late 80s they and their descendants returned back to Crimea. It was a case of collective punishment for collaboration with Nazis of some of Crimean Tatars and has been many times officially condemned both in the USSR and Russia just like other acts of collective punishment by Stalin. All of it is well known.
Now how does this make Crimea Ukrainian?
Sweet so since the Budapest memorandum is out we can start rearming Ukraine with nukes after the war.
After all the treaty is obsolete right?.
The reason was to try and stop nuclear proliferation, not whatever made up reason your coming with today.
But Ukraine doesn't need Americas approval to make nuclear weapons they are more than capable of making them themselves.
They should also never sign another treaty with Russia ever, as clearly Russia just makes treaties "obsolete" when it benefits them.
Russia has always been unreliable partner I guess thats why they will only understand force in Ukraine.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You've got some straight-up trolls running around, posting blatantly pernicious nonsense in regard to these topics -- obviously without sincere intent, simply to push buttons.
Mixed with some merely woefully naive and/or highly obstinate folks, posting basically noise (wildly inaccurate narratives about extremely basic historical matters or recent events).
If there is a better strategy or tone to use for countering this kind of negative behavior -- I wish I knew what it was.
Once you've framed the other that way, it's easy to feel that you no longer need to follow the rules—since if the other person is pernicious and insincere, they should obviously just be annihilated.
This is how we end up in the flamewar situation where we end up having to ban accounts. Since everyone is following this logic, everyone is trying to annihilate the other. From an outside point of view, the interesting thing is how similarly all the parties are behaving, even as they perceive each other as enemies and opposites.
By far the better strategy is to resist this temptation altogether—to look for interpretations of the other as not pernicious or insincere, but rather sincere and legitimate—and then to try to meet them respectfully. This is a massively more effective way to go about it, and also won't get you banned here.
So a non-reciprocal response would be more effective.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That's a little detail that people like you seemed to conveniently leave out.
I guess it just blends in with all the other ethnic cleansing and genocide that the Russian chauvinist USSR and Russian Empire before it undertook.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_T...
"people like you"
What's that supposed to mean?
"it just blends in with all the other ethnic cleansing and genocide"
It's ironic to hear that from a citizen of the United States. I heard something bad happened to Native Americans who used to live in North America.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
At the same time I'm not sure where exactly contradicting someone ends and 'battle and flamewar' starts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32759008 (Sept 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21932634 (Jan 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20456414 (July 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18991797 (Jan 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18984737 (Jan 2019)
I've posted thousands of explanations like that. The reason is not just to persuade/explain to individual commenters, but also to give everybody else a sense of where the lines are.
My sense is that if someone really wants to grok the intended spirit and make a good faith attempt to follow HN's guidelines, it's not that hard to do. Sometimes, though, people take the more obstreperous approach of "I don't agree with your rules and I don't see why I should follow them" (<-- I'm not quoting anyone specifically and I'm not imputing this attitude to you). In those cases, arguing about where the lines are doesn't help, and ultimately we don't have much choice but to ban such accounts. Often they then say "you're just banning me because you don't like my views", but that rarely has anything to do with it.
Some of this is cultural, meaning some people have a greater distance to "travel" behaviorally in order to fit the culture here. That may not be fair but there's not much we can do about it; there is a culture here that we're trying to foster, and that's only possible if commenters abide by it.
Actually, the last two were about someone else's comments and the one before that was a misunderstanding ("you've made yourself a straw man" wasn't a "personal attack and name-calling", what I meant was "you've made a straw man out of my comments for yourself to attack"). Just don't want to look like serial offender :)
I have absolutely no argument with everything else you wrote.
However, the problem with the line begins when I see comments that seem to violate the rules and yet elicit no reaction from mods.
Off the top of my head: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270224 .
Or somewhat milder case https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32901464 with the follow up below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32909607 (especially the last one).
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Commenters frequently react to the mods as if they're opposing-side-sympathizers, but in reality, we're just reacting to your breaking the rules. We'd react the same way if you held the opposite opinions, and often do.
Mind you, even if one is trying to be a war profiteer, perhaps best not to go into a war zone just for money, either.
Anyway, you surely will find all sorts of people among 146 millions of Russians including serial killers and the likes. How does it justify being a person who is laughing over the death of civilian couple and orphaned and injured girl?
Russian propagandist, on Russian tv. You just have to wait for some horrendous act of indiscriminate killing by Russia to occur in Ukraine and they come out to justify or glorify the horror.
I don’t particularly blame them for their cynical actions, it’s their job.
What were three civilians doing on a bridge that is not only in an active war zone but has successfully targeted before?.
A bridge that Ukraine has said multiple times they will target and that people should not use it?.
I have sympathy for the child who was at the mercy of her parents, but her parents clearly make very bad decisions.
They should of been smarter and not gone on the bridge that has a tendency to explode.
No it’s not, most of the Ukrainians aren’t holidaying in an active war zone they are just trying to live.
Who purposely goes holidaying form a safe area into an active war zone?.
Nowhere did /u/Giorgi say it was funny that two civilians died.
It's like somebody saying 'It's funny that girls still walk in mini-skirts in the park' under the news that a girl was raped. And then you appear: 'Nowhere did *** say it was funny that the girl was raped'.
Not driving on Crimean bridge after the attack last year is as meaningful as leaving NY skyscrapers after 9/11.
0. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2023/07/northern-...
2. For many people living in Russia Crimea and Krasnodar Krai are only two options for a seaside holidays. Number of people who can afford international travel was not huge to begin with and then diminished further after the war started. Krasnodar resorts likely booked months ahead given influx of new visitors (who in the past were able to travel to other countries).
That bridge is protected by a lot of systems, I mean they even tried smoke covers on it.
So if this is at reach of Ukraine missiles and those can't be stopped by Russian system, this could be huge.
It is kind of a big deal, but I'm kind of disappointed the bridge is still standing. This is the second attack, and the damage seems to be something the Russians are going to fix. Don't get me wrong, with the amount of defense Russia threw at this bridge, it is an accomplishment and yet another embarrassment for the Russians.