Hacker News Reader

For one thing, NATO does not propose membership, something Russians seem to think though [0]. Countries apply to join.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...

That's a really literal way of looking at the world. For major decisions, usually there is discussion and understanding (and possibly carrots thrown in) before an application is submitted. It's not like sending resumes into an HR black hole.

The key point, whatever incentives exist, is that it was the choice of Ukraine. Fundamentally they had to take the first official step.

This makes some sense, thank you. I still do not know why the original commenter was flagged, it does not sound like his theory is completely ridiculous.

And NATO could just as easily have said no. The issue isn't Ukraine's interest, but NATO's posture towards accepting Ukraine's application.

According to that article, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but NATO told him "join the queue with all the other countries". Russia argued it should get special treatment (for obvious reasons) but NATO didn't agree with that.

I wonder, how would the world have turned out if NATO had made a different decision here?

(Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that NATO decisions justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.)

I don't think Russia meets all of the following NATO requirements.

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

> --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

NATO's founding members in 1949 included Portugal, at the time ruled by a right-wing dictatorship (1926–1974). Turkey and Greece both joined in 1952, and both have gone through periods of brutal military rule even while remaining NATO members. For the majority of NATO's existence, most of these "requirements" you cite have been mere lip service at best.

Many political scientists classify Erdogan's Turkey as an anocracy – a hybrid form of government which is part-way between dictatorship and democracy, mixing elements of both systems. Yet, Turkey remains a full member in good standing of NATO. Putin's Russia is also often classified as an anocracy. Why demand genuine democracy as a condition to join NATO when its current membership includes a state which isn't one? Indeed, according to the Polity data series [0], Putin's Russia is actually more free than Erdogan's Turkey.

Don't get me wrong, democracy is a truly wonderful thing – but if welcoming non-democratic Russia into NATO might have prevented this war, wouldn't that have been a wonderful thing too?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series

While there was talk of Russia joining NATO prior to the rise of Putin, Putin's specific comments on this matter were just empty political rhetoric done as a throw away sound bite to score a few points, not an actual genuine request to join NATO.

If NATO and its leading members (such as the US) had made a serious overture to invite Russia into NATO – laying out the welcome mat, without imposing any significant conditions, maybe even offering some inducements – would Putin have said No?

100%

What makes you so sure?

Maybe because the U.S. military isn't bombing the Ukrainian cities right now?

And it wasn't the U.S.A. who sent troops to the Crimea and annexed in 2014?

My understanding is that no one (serious) is defending Russia, but claiming that Ukraine is a new battleground for the West vs. Russia and that the NATO membership proposal/the 2014 coup was antagonistic like the annexation of Crimea. What is wrong with that claim?

Of course what is happening is tragic. We can all agree it should have been avoided, and I am curious if it could have been avoided.

I think it boils down to this:

1) Some parts of the Ukraine (the Crimea and Southern regions of the Ukraine) have a significant pro Russian population, e.g. they wouldn't protest a lot against Russian influence.

2) On the other hand the Western parts of the Ukraine are more EU/Western aligned, hence they don't want to do anything with the Putin's regime.

From Putin's perspective an independent Ukraine is no-no. And the West isn't willing to start WW3 over the Ukraine.

All of that seems sensible, but I am not sure it clears up my confusion: if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application? If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?

I think that this is the primary argument of people claiming that the USA MIC is partly to blame here. I do not have a good response to it.

Ukraine has made no NATO application (they last had a membership action plan in 2009). They've been told that they would not succeed or meet the criteria currently.

Thanks. I typed from memory - the demand was that Ukraine not enter NATO, not related to an application.

Yah. One can't really let Russia make NATO promise to never let a certain country in. But NATO wasn't really eager to admit Ukraine.

Of course, Ukraine really wanted to be in NATO, for obvious reasons...

Here's the deal, from my standpoint. Russia is declining in relevance.

* Demographically, they're shrinking and aging.

* Economically, post-Crimea sanctions have blunted any growth.

* Trade / exchange--- petroleum becomes less relevant with time.

* Diplomatically, they're already pariahs from many past misdeeds.

* Culturally/socially, they've stagnated as well.

Clawing for land around them-- through proxy conflicts in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, etc-- offers them a small chance of continued relevance. It's probably not a winning strategy, but it's at least one which could be winning. When you're in a bad situation, if you want to keep playing the game, you need to make the moves that at least could lead to a win.

>if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application?

Euromaidan happened 2013. Putin already lost the Ukraine back then. By annexing the Crimea and sending Russian troops now he is taking the Ukraine back.

I may be mistaken but I think whether the Ukraine was actually joining NATO or not wasn't really relevant in this conflict IMHO.

>If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?

For the couples months there were negotiations. Was there a possibility to avoid the current conflict?

I think unless you're the U.S./Russian diplomat it's impossible to answer this question.

Do you think this was right?:

NATO proposed Ukrainian and Georgian membership of NATO in 2005-2008, in the clear knowledge that this would destabilize the situation.

France, Germany, and others were against this. The proposal began the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJBQikfYyKs

We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.

"F* the EU" said Diplomat Victoria Nuland -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine.

Meanwhile, once again, soon after the Iraq debacle: here we are getting dragged into another "war for democracy".

Russia and America turned Ukraine into a "if we can't have, burn it to the ground" situation. Further American intervention in Ukraine will just turn it into another Syria.

What would be the use of trying to negotiate with that man, unless backed up by credible military threat?

The good news is that at almost 70, he doesn't have eternal life. The bad news is his replacement will probably be a similar sociopath.

Sure, it all could've been avoided.

Say, by similar vassalization as Belarus has gone through.

Ukraine was too free of a society for that as many of its members did not want that.

Thank you for having the patience to say what I wanted to say.

I am not a pro-Putin guy, but, if we don't recognize our part in this chaos, then, we're just promoting more of it.

I can only vouch so much, I agree with you. The post may be insightful or irrelevant, but I see no reason it should be flagged. I suppose some view message boards as an information battleground and find it's their duty to maintain a single narrative.

I flagged it because that person copy-pasted several their comments from another thread into one rambling comment here.

Ah, that's fair, thanks for the response.

Nobody likes seeing Realpolitik in action. When you have been drip fed ideology about the LIO your whole life, it is very difficult to accept anything else. Unfortunately, today Thucydides wakes. It is unfortunate that international relations is not a part of the engineering curriculum of your typical HN user. Through the lens of realism, Ukraine is but another Cuban missile event. Pretending that joining NATO is a strictly defensive alliance and therefore more morally "right" will not change geopolitical realities. This is a failure of leadership on every side. Media soundbites and cool reprimands were chosen over recognising the harsh truth of Great Power politics. When it becomes more important to be an ardent defender of ideology on tiktok and television than to negotiate and compromise, this is what happens.

Buffer, yes. But the Maidan protests started because Russia made the first power grab. The very openly pro-Russian government of the time had just passed legislation that put Ukraine on a direct path towards becoming what is now Belarus. TBH, if that hadn't happen, we'd just have Ukraine more or less locked by Putin now. So no, we're not talking about a buffer zone, sorry. Not even in the strict military sense - the invasion today came from Belarus as well, and some reports even claim Belarusian troops, not that it matters much. So without that regime change, we'd most likely see Ukraine as part of the Russian Federation in a military capacity as well.

We _had_ a buffer zone until yesterday. NATO was supporting Ukraine without much real intention of having it join, while Russia had Crimea and half of Donbass. This could have gone for decades - see Transnistria, which does exactly the same for Moldova for 30 years.

Sending them weapons is a pathway. Pledging neutrality is not.

Now the original comment is flagged and gone. I will still leave this reply here because it expands on the original comments claim with more sources than just Wikipedia;

> We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.

This is an aspect to this that way too many people just ignore as "Russian misinformation".

The Orange revolution was a prior US attempt [0] at facilitating a regime-change in Ukraine from pro-Russian politics to pro-Western politics, which failed.

In 2014 there was the next attempt McCain not only riling up protesters [1], but meeting with the future PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk and leader of right-wing militias Oleh Tyahnybok [2] that were the muscle behind the 2014 revolution [3].

Arseniy Yatsenyuk was already declared the US's "man" during the leaked "Fuck the EU Nuland" calls [4], same Victoria Nuland that was literally handing out cookies to Ukrainian protesters [5].

Yatsenyuk wasn't even too shy about these connections; His OpenUkraine foundation's list of partners reads like the who is who of US regime change actors, down to the CIA's a National Endowment for Democracy and literal NATO itself [6].

Tho it was a bit too blatant, so they ended up putting his wife in charge of the foundation and removing the partners list.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-uk...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahn...

[3] https://youtu.be/KfD_CaSIxmQ

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[5] https://euobserver.com/tickers/122437

[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20140407065419/http://openukrain...

Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine?

And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers, that's why he became a PM, not because Americans have put him there.

> Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine?

It has to do with the fact that the country has been in a civil war [0] since he came into power after the "revolution of dignity", not only him, but literally Americans who were fast tracked Ukrainian citizenship [1] so they could act as minister.

But a whole lot of people in those East Ukrainian territories liked the old government, they voted for it, and they saw their votes burned in a revolution to be replaced with Americans and people sponsored by them.

Which prompted them to do the same in their parts of Ukraine, leading to the separatists territories and a low to high intensity civil war that has by now been lasting 8 years.

> And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers

In elections where the old party was not even allowed to be voted for anymore, consequently, those elections were boycotted in territories that voted for the old government.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Jaresko

Are you seriously giving me links on this? I was there, I participated in those elections. Yanukovych was nearing the end of his term, he ordered snipers to shoot at protesters, it was only right for him to step down. The next step was re-elections.

And believe me, people never really liked Yanukovych so much to take arms. The leaders of “separatists” were literal nobodies, nobody knew who they are. Members of Yanukovych party themselves did not en masse supported separatists.

Second, politicians from Party of Regions participated in both 2014 and 2019 parliamentary elections. Same politicians, top Yanukovych lieutenants, with the same oligarchic sponsors.

Third, those elections were not “boycotted” people still participated, on territory controlled by Ukrainian government.

> I was there

You were there and then missed the following 8 years of civil war, complete with separatist territories, to now ask "What has any of that to do with the invasion?"?

> Yanukovych was nearing the end of his term, he ordered snipers to shoot at protesters, it was only right for him to step down.

Afaik there was no order for government snipers to shoot protesters, those sniper shots hit protesters and police alike, using hunting cartridges, and the government probe into those shootings was extremely flawed [0]

Just like to this day nobody was ever charged for shooting police officers.

> The next step was re-elections.

As somebody who was apparently there, do you remember who provided "security" for those elections at the Rada?

> The leaders of “separatists” were literal nobodies, nobody knew who they are.

Quite an accomplishment for "nobodies that nobody knows" to be representatives of state parliaments, like that of Crimea.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-killings-probe-sp...

The narrative of NATO expansion is a PR meme. It was created by Russians for the 2007 Munich security conference, where Putin made a speech.

NATO is a defensive pact and existing members have always been very hesitant about accepting new members, because it is intended as a cooperation platform between equals and not a substitute for building up own defense force. The initiative to join NATO has always been driven by Eastern European countries seeking to maintain independence and reduce the risk of Russian invasion. Together with EU membership, it's the holy grail of foreign policy.

The referenced Mearsheimer et al are irrelevant. They depict everything as a grand Russia vs USA standoff as if it were a board game, and ignore the delicate histories and current relationships between countries in Europe.

If you are a fan of history, I recommend rejecting grand narratives and reading a general history of every country in Europe. How has Sweden fared in the past 500 years? Why Russians have an inferiority complex with Finns? Why isn't Austria in NATO? The more you read, the more you'll see the complex network of relationships and understand what every country seeks to achieve. To treat all of them as pawns of the US or Russia is unbelivably ignorant. Even countries as small as Iceland have their own foreign policy, and sometimes have a great impact on international relations.

Now do you understand the neo-McCarthyism raging through our country?

If you even say something other than "Putin is Satan" or "Russia bad", you get downvoted to oblivion. Enjoy. Don't bother mentioning the complexities of this situation or once again, you'll be downvoted.

It is pretty wild. When engaging with the same people downvoting you, they do not even seem to disagree with this take violently, but think you are pro-Russia just because you bring up problems with how NATO/the West reacted to this.

We could've avoided this:

(1) https://i.redd.it/iq2zlt0ldrj81.jpg

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfk-qaqP2Ws

(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PPaqnReu8

We still continued in order to destabilize all of Europe and prevent them from merging Central European industrial capital with Eastern European natural resources. It's the same old policy -- everything else is just bread and circuses.

Well, we still have Russia by the throat, now I just think we shouldn't squeeze so hard that they collapse -- which would lead to a complete and utter destabilization of a huge chunk of the world, and it would be detrimental to our short and long-term interests. Miscreants would take over and have a field day.

> Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it?

Do the people in Ukraine want to be 'used' as a buffer? What do they want?

Because without addressing that your comment has a ‘I’m in favour of sacrificing people’ vibe.

Ukrainian people can decide themselves what they can do.

The comment above is pushing Russian propaganda.