Hacker News Reader

Comment by livinginfear | Hacker News Reader

This is such an awful idea. The origins of this war, and the annexation of Crimea following Euromaidan, lie in the Russian perception that Ukraine's status as a neutral buffer against NATO will change. Any European involvement of this kind would only serve to pour fuel onto this fire. I know this is not an official endorsement, however this is a patently irresponsible thing for a British politician to say.

View on HN

That ship has kinda sailed now that Russia invaded Ukraine. What would be the point in trying to make Russia feel less threatened by Ukraine now? And how would that even be possible to do?

It's not the 1950s. Stalin is dead. Russia is not fighting this war to annihilate Ukraine. They want to restore a supplicant government loyal to Russia, and keep funding them to that effect. Same playbook they're using in the rest of their satellite republics. If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya? Look at those countries. Russia pours money on them to keep them neutral. That's the alternative.

> If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war

> They want to restore a supplicant government loyal to Russia,

What exactly do you think imperialism is?

It doesn't seem like "Russia" is fighting the war at all as a society; Putin personally is, but people up to federal legislators are publicly objecting, and if you follow the battle reports it seems the soldiers so far have barely been given orders, don't want to do their jobs, not to mention keep running out of gas and abandoning their vehicles.

Somewhere between the cabinet and the rest of the military there is quite the lack of motivation.

Russia is pretty much turning Belarus into a puppet state, not a neutral buffer.

And what if Ukrainians disagree? Maybe because they prefer freedom and choosing their own destiny?

>"If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya? Look at those countries"

Chechnya is not a country and is a part of Russia. Before that it was part of the USSR.

But that is not what will happen. From all indications of Russia wins this war and installs a puppet regime that regime will meet heavy popular resistance and be overthrown as soon as Russia leaves the country. So I do not see much option here other than trying to defend Ukraine and to isolate and/or topple Putin. Your ideas about not provoking Russia are not relevant in the current climate where Putin is hated in Ukraine and where the Ukrainians do not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. Your strategy might have worked in 2010 but now it is too late.

> Russia is not fighting this war to annihilate Ukraine

https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-not-a-real-country-h...

> If Russia was in fact waging some kind of imperialist war, wouldn't they have annexed more resource rich neighbours that the world cares so much less about? Like Belarus, or Chechnya?

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/belarusalert/soft-anne...

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

Belarus and Chechnya have been annexed in all but name.

Ukraine wasn’t anywhere close to joining NATO and Russia invaded anyway.

Now they’re definitely gonna push their hardest to join NATO after the war is over, and who could blame them?

Why would an “one for all, all for one” alliance bring in a member that’s had a very recent history of armed invasion (by a super power, no less)? It seems to invite a world war.

Does it? There is exactly 0% chance if UKraine joined NATO back in 2008 Russia puts 200,000 troops on its border and has its psychopathic president give a speech that Ukraine is full of Nazis and has no right to exist.

Joining NATO means "the member" doesn't have a history of armed invasion; NATO does.

The question isn’t what it does for Ukraine (I imagine that’s clear enough); it’s what NATO risks vs what it gains.

To prevent exactly what’s happening now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com