Hacker News Reader

Comment by tiatia | Hacker News Reader

"they need some pretext." Russian law would give this pretext. Putin would be obligated by the constitution to protect "Russians" abroad. Ukraine has a huge Russian minority.

" Also even if they wanted to, they don't have the forces to occupy Kiev." Ukraine is currently on the level of a 3rd world country. Russia would have air superiority within 24 hours. And the Russian military is still a formidable opponent, even for the US. I think the argument that Russia can't occupy Ukraine, if she wanted, is absurd.

View on HN

> Russian law would give this pretext. Putin would be obligated by the constitution to protect "Russians" abroad. Ukraine has a huge Russian minority.

Russian law is not recognized outside of Russia. Besides, that logic would give him legal authority to conquer half of Eastern Europe.

> Ukraine is currently on the level of a 3rd world country. Russia would have air superiority within 24 hours

Do you have any idea what occupation means? It's soldiers, hundreds of thousands of them, and money/supplies to remain for years. Russia's economy is in decline, their armed forces are already deployed and stretched around the world.

This isn't a video game.

"Russian law is not recognized outside of Russia. Besides, that logic would give him legal authority to conquer half of Eastern Europe." In a way it does. But how are "Russians" in danger in Easter Europe? https://www.loc.gov/law/help/russian-georgia-war.php#Russia%...

"Do you have any idea what occupation means? " Actually I do. And I don't think it would be a big issue. Please consider that the regime currently in power in Ukraine is liked only by a small part of the population. The background and intent of the "color revolutions" in such countries is very questionable. Besides that, the military of Ukraine is basically non existent.

Do you know what the Ukrainian military bases on the Crimea Island did? They just raised the Russian flag.

And don't forget, Russia has troops even in the West of Ukraine. (Transnistia).

> Actually I do. And I don't think it would be a big issue.

What a stupid and dangerous thing to say.

They need some pretext that most of the rest of the world will recognize as having some validity.

You mean, like WMD in Iraq? Or Libya? "We came, we saw, he died"?

Ukraine is not in the Nato. If Putin had serious interest in "claiming" it he could do it. And it would make more sense than occupying the Baltic states. He would be able to take the Baltic states. But the Baltic states ARE in the Nato. And they provide little advantage.

How did a Russian say about the Crimea Island? "Another poor region we have to feed...".

I currently see very little interest on Russia's side for geographic expansion. But geography is still on their agenda since "buffer states" have always and will always be part of Russian military strategy.

> But geography is still on their agenda since "buffer states" have always and will always be part of Russian military strategy.

It was, back when countries used to invade each other and there was no international law and order. And it seems Russia's main geopolitical goal is to return us to those days, or at least prepare themselves for when it comes. What a cynical way to approach things like Syria or Ukraine. Kill as many as possible, scorch the earth so the homeland isn't exposed in a theoretical future war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com