Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Using nuclear power if Putin crosses into Eastern Europe is complete madness. Eastern Europe is Russia’s back yard, not ours.

View on HN

I live in an independent country thanks to NATO and EU. This place used to be Russia's back yard for 50 years. I'd like it to remain not-Russia's back yard, thankyouverymuch.

Ukraine is not part of NATO. It’s not our job.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

What is so weird about these things: every time you read a history book you go like 'Oh, I recognize that', and then it plays out exactly the same. This whole wave of isolationism and so called neutrality was an important factor in why WWII went as far as it did, if the world had stood united against Hitler/Germany from day #1 he would have had not nearly gone as far.

Not everything is an analogy to WWII.

Countries tending to their own border security isn’t a matter of “good” and “evil.” Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea.

Russia has no basis for this at all, hence all the pathetic excuses they've been showering the gullible with.

And yes, it's evil, and no, it has nothing to do with their border security, that's a ridiculous suggestion, in the same vein, you would be ok with Russia annexing Poland, Lithuania, Finland or Estonia because they are armed and bordering Russia.

As for the whataboutism, that wasn't the subject.

A perspective you don't share is ridiculous, so your explanation is "evil"? Maybe, it's more likely that you just don't understand it.

Sure, that must be it. Russia has a perfect right to encroach on whatever territories border their nation because they can't handle having sovereign nations at their borders. And of course after that they get to do it again.

No, it's ridiculous.

Again, something being ridiculous (to you) does not make it evil. And your straw man has nothing to do with my response

I'm happy calling initiating a completely preventable conflict that nobody wanted that has resulted in the deaths of 137, 17 of whom are Ukrainian civilians, and 316 wounded evil. There's no meaningful moral difference between what Putin did and outright murdering 17 people. He knew innocent Ukrainians (and, for that matter, innocent Russians) would die and didn't care.

Well that’s not how anything works. E.g. how many babies might be saved by Russian economic development from having access to the sea through Ukraine? At this scale the moral calculus isn’t easy.

Of all the disgusting comments this really takes the cake.

Russian economic development through war doesn't save Russian babies, it will kill them.

War has led to plenty of development through history, and development saves babies. Do you think Italy or Germany would have been better off as bickering principalities, without Giribaldi or Bismarck? Do you think China would have been better off as a bunch of warring states?

So we got it wrong with the sanctions then. We should actually be providing economic stimulus to Russia right now

We shouldn’t be economically sanctioning countries that aren’t threatening us directly. It causes tremendous suffering and death, e.g. in Iran: https://mcgillbusinessreview.com/articles/the-human-cost-of-...

I agree on Iran but this is different. We could have sold steel and fuel to the Germans and Japanese in WW2, but we didn’t because they were engaged in something evil.

The Germans were engaged in the holocaust, which was evil. The Russians are invading a sovereign country to replace the government, which the US has done twice in as many decades.

MH17 ring a bell? Seriously done with Russia apologists for today.

Call me what you wish, but it's not true. If you're done then log off and stop spamming your replies to every single comment in this thread, and leave some space for any other opinion. You're just ranting

I won't be told to shut up by you or anybody else for that matter, nine years on HN and this is what brings you out to comment with a bunch of disinformation? Pretty clear which side you are on.

That's not the case. But anyway, after a night to clear my head I realize this is an emotional time for everyone, and I'm sorry for stirring you up. I was reacting to my own things. I definitely don't support this war, nor any further bloodshed. I wish for peace, and peace to you as well. Have a good day

A country on Russia’s border massing weapons isn’t a border security issue?

Massing weapons in what sense? Not in any way that poses a threat to Russia, and the reason they were increasing their arms is because of the obvious threat Russia poses to them.

"Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea."

Ukraine's attempts to prepare against invasion do not justify said invasion.

if tanks show up in estonia, latvia and lithuania, will you say 'but they're too small and not worth much?'

you don't have to be the head of intelligence to understand importance of ukraine, even if it isn't technically our job to defend it. Germany, UK and Italy have scored an own goal, as has US policy of russian reset. zero upside, heavy downside, bad trade.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that that will be exactly the response. If that happens NATO is done for, but the fact that today Germany is one of the two countries that stop stronger sanctions against Russia is a strong sign that Putin will get away with this and more if we let him.

Nothing I disagree with, Germany's reaction is pathetic. I'm also very concerned with Italy, didn't expect that. I hope they'll sort this out. Only thing left.

I don't think NATO survives another decade with the way incentives have realigned for the state members over the last couple of decades.

You may well be right.

NATO is obsolete so that’s good. The triple alliance isn’t anywhere to be found either.

Where do you even get this nonsense?

NATO is now more relevant than ever before.

For who?

Germany has to have its cheap Russian gas, I suppose

Interestingly, that had nothing to do with it.

> Eastern Europe is Russia’s back yard, not ours.

Wow, this must be a new low in these threads.

No, Eastern Europe is Europe's 'backyard', and in fact it isn't a backyard. Romania, Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Czechia, and so on are all solidly part of Europe.

That’s not how geopolitics works. I’m from Bangladesh—we’re sure as heck India’s back yard.

Where you are from is no excuse for what you wrote.

I’m explaining my context for why I think your point is wrong. As I recall, you’re from a little European country that thinks it has inviolable “sovereignty.” In reality you exist because Germany or France haven’t wanted to take you over recently. Countries exist amongst each other in a state of anarchy. Bangladeshis are just closer to that reality. We haven’t had as much time to cloud the reality with fantasies about “international law.”

What are you taking offense to, his idea that Russia and Eastern Europe are neighbors (which seems objectively true)? Or idea that the US should not involve itself in Eastern Europe-Russian disputes?

The term backyard implies a proprietary relationship, Ukraine isn't part of Russia's backyard and hasn't been for a long time now, and in the minds of the Ukrainians has never been part of Russia's backyard. The fact that the OP believes this to be so belies even the most basic insight into the reality for millions of people in former USSR countries who have in living memory what it means to be part of Russia's backyard and what the price to them would be if those days were to return.

Calling Siberia or Kamchatka Russia's backyard might be accurate. But just like Canada isn't America's backyard neither is Ukraine - or any other former USSR vassal state - Russia's backyard.

Neighbors is an entirely different term.

As for Europe-Russian disputes, there is such a thing as NATO, which was good enough to be relied on after 9/11, I take it that it is still in force? If not can you point me to the news that I apparently missed?

Words mean different things to different people. Personally I have never heard "backyard" as in "in my backyard" used that way. A slang dictionary yields this:

>An area nearby to a country or other jurisidiction's legal boundaries, particularly an area in which the country feels it has an interest. https://www.yourdictionary.com/backyard

Which seems spot on, I swear I didn't just write that myself. The WSJ even went so far as to call Equatorial Guinea (in West Africa) part of America's backyard: https://archive.fo/8UjYC

"In my own backyard" would connote what you are saying, but there's an extra word "own" there.

That's fine, but the implied sentiment was that if there is trouble in Europe's 'backyard' that we're on our own, loud and clear. Isolationism worked so well against mad dictators the last time we tried it, I'm sure this time around it will all be peachy.

> his idea that Russia and Eastern Europe are neighbors (which seems objectively true)

That's like saying that United States and North America are "neighbors". Is that "true"? Or is it a category error?

This is certainly a ... reductionist view on geopolitics.

Not only does this assume everyone in the thread is American, but also completely disregards the sovereignty and historic significance of many Eastern European countries.

You mean realist. A country’s sovereignty matters only as much as it’s ability to defend it (or the willingness of someone else to do so out of their own interests).

My own country only exists because India wanted to get back at Pakistan and helped us in our independence war. If they hadn’t, we’d still be part of Pakistan—which would be what it would be.

Nothing is Russia's back yard. Russia is the back yard. Russia is the graveyard of civilization, which has no claim to anything outside its miserable, ruthless territory.

I would rather die than live in a shithole under Putin.

The only madness would be not using nuclear weapons against Putin if he crosses NATO lines. If he wants to die rich, he can live a long life. Otherwise let him die with his missiles, and his daughter who dances.

Word! The backyard of a sad Mafia of outdated old Russian men still stuck in the 20th century. As things stand my guess is this lasts about five years and ends with some nuclear exchange over Europe, assassinations across the West and East, and prude dove China slowwwwly crawling east, then south, north, west.

Russia isn't going to cross NATO lines. Even if they do, NATO can defeat the Russians without nuclear weapons. I can't believe I have to say it but escalating to a nuclear war is a horrible idea.

What's stopping Russia from introducing nuclear weapons in that case?

Probably MAD, as in the Cold War times.

There's still the hope that nobody, not even an imperialist Putin, would be willing to risk the total destruction of his own country if not of human civilization over some territorial ambitions.

What if he is actually mad? Maybe terminally ill and not minding the scorched earth he'd leave behind?

Luckily, this is Russia. There is always someone willing to stab the tzsar in the back when the time comes.

"What if he is actually mad? Maybe terminally ill and not minding the scorched earth he'd leave behind?"

So the solution of the OP is to be madder than him and start nuclear war first?

I wish there were someone to replace the mad tzar, its long overdue

I would say, so far Putin is proceeding rationally. He prepared his economy for this over many years, made strategic agreements with opponents of the West, and slowly built up a force which will now take a neighboring country using classic military techniques and massive imbalance of power.

Maybe the word that better describes it is 'systemically' or 'meticulously'. When I am in a mood to get drunk, I will prepare by buying the alcohol, invite friends, prepare the food, and then get myself piss drunk. Not sure if the world 'rational' fits ill conceived plans that are just well executed.

Even Putin wants to live. And he probably doesn't want to go down in history as another Hitler - even to his own people (the remaining ones, that is).

The problem is Russia can't defeat NATO without nuclear weapons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com