Hacker News Reader

Comment by freebuju | Hacker News Reader

There isn't much the world can do now.

Calling Putin's bluff on invading Ukraine was the biggest mistake the West made. NATO should have seeked to recruit new member countries from other regions. They forced Putin into action.

If you are calling for an assault on Russia in the hopes of making Putin bow out of this war, you would be effectively starting WWIII. Putin has just recently called bluff on readying the nuclear warheads, I don't think any leader wants to antagonize the situation any further.

The most reasonable course of action IMO (with the least amount of casualties) is to let Putin have his way for now, and let him deal with the consequences later on.

View on HN

Nobody forced Putin to invade. That was Putin's decision. Ukraine joining or not joining NATO is irrelevant, a canard, a red herring, a strawman.

The world can do much now. Even from just a humanitarian perspective, accepting refugees, making sure people don't starve (Ukraine, also Afghanistan, and elsewhere).

>Ukraine joining or not joining NATO is irrelevant, a canard, a red herring, a strawman.

It's the number one reason why this is is happening.

Putin said it was a red line on about 75 separate occasions. Ukraine ignored and pushed ahead anyway. NATO ignored and pushed ahead anyway.

Two days before the invasion as Putin announced a "semi" pull out of amassed, Zelensky reiterated his commitment to joining NATO.

NATO destroyed Libya (now on its second civil war). I doubt they'd leave Russia alone after incorporating Ukraine. It would be irrational to not fear its encroachment.

An excuse is not a defense.

A reason isnt an excuse.

Sovereign means sovereign.

What Putin thinks about what Ukraine should or should not do stops at the borders of the Russian Federation.

Russia could decide to stop trading with Ukraine, or impose sanctions on Ukraine, or any of a number of other legal options.

Instead, they chose to militarily invade a country.

As I recall this was Cuba's argument after the failed bay of pigs invasion. They asked for nuclear weapons on their soil and the USSR agreed to provide them.

The US took a dim view of it if I recall correctly.

When the defence of the heartland is threatened, notions such as sovereignty tend to take a back seat and invasion is very much on the table.

Strategically the Ukrainian border is kind of like Russia's jugular. Hence the insistence that NATO membership is a red line.

> Strategically the Ukrainian border is kind of like Russia's jugular.

How true is this since circa 1950, though? There are very few plausible scenarios involving a ground invasion and most of Russia is exposed to modern weaponry so it’s not like the primary threat is a bunch of B-52s flying out of Kyiv. It’s true that distance affects reaction times but they already have similar range borders & submarine launches substantially affected that, too.

Long range, aircraft launched, deployed hypersonic nuclear delivery systems will render this even more moot, relative to the current status quo, in the next 20 years.

At the end of the day, it appears Russia wants eastern Europe politically.

Until they can accept it as independent and sovereign, any protestations about military systems are smoke screens for their general unhappiness with an independent eastern Europe.

The US sponsored and equiped Cuban dissidents to invade Cuba.

Russia sponsored and equiped Ukrainian dissidents to seize eastern Ukraine.

The US embargoed Cuba after the failed invasion.

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and has now invaded Ukraine.

The first step was the same, but the US military didn't invade Cuba when it failed.

He also wrote 5000 words long essay last year how Ukraine shouldn't really exist and is really just a part of Russia and in his long rant announcing the invasion barely mentioned NATO at all.

But sure, all that NATO name dropping surely is the reason for this aggression on a sovereign nation.

Yeah he said that he wanted to "denazify" the place too which is bollocks as well. These were both pretexts. He probably believes the crap about them being brothers but it wouldnt be enough to trigger an invasion.

NATO as a threat is very real, though. It is enough.

NATO until this week was full of countries who couldn't bother equipping their armies with basic necessities. German soldiers used broomsticks during one NATO exercise and even those with somewhat competent armies were optimising for "surgical" interventions instead of large conflicts. Threat was more rhetorical than real.

All that went out of the window now.

Angry heavily armed NATO troops in Warsaw matter less to Moscow than the potential for NATO troops in Mariupol poised to cut Russia off from the caucauses and the black sea.

It's like the geopolitical equivalent of shouting aggressively at a bear from a mile away vs just being between her and her cubs.

Ukrainian-Russian border is where Russia is at its most vulnerable, hence why the reaction to projected NATO encroachment is so violent.

Good point.

What changed since you wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30464986

You seem to want to rewrite your position on this.

I don't really see how anything changed. The strategic criticality of the Ukrainian coast hasnt changed. The Russian position on NATO hasnt changed.

From day 1 of the invasion it seemed clear to me that their goal was not to occupy all of Ukraine but to "break" it and potentially to cleave off strategic pieces in negotiations and extract a promise of neutrality/demilitarization.

Your position does not pass the test of logic. There are much simpler ways to achieve that without risking any Russian lives.

Such as? With respect to NATO membership it was fairly plain that everything from asking nicely all the way up to 200,000 troops deployed on the border wasnt enough to deter either NATO or Zelensky.

You don't seem to understand the concept of Sovereignty, what other countries do is not up to Putin, and if they don't do what he wants that does not give him a right to invade or dictate terms.

I'm never said he did have a "right to invade". I'm just trying to explain, against MUCH resistance, why he did.

Because I think the real reason why this all happened A) matters rather a lot B) is being swept under the carpet.

NATO's (lack of) respect for Libya's sovereignty can perhaps explain why Putin didnt think that it would have much respect for Russia's sovereignty which is, in turn, why he didnt have much respect for Ukraine's.

No country respects the sovereignty of another when it feels threatened.

You seem to know Putin very well. Better than I think any outsider has a right to claim.

The real reason why this happened is utterly irrelevant, but you seem to be a bit stuck on that subject as though there is a possible justification to be found there.

> No country respects the sovereignty of another when it feels threatened.

There was no conceivable way in which Ukraine was a threat to Russia. Full stop.

He's always been a fairly plain speaker. We dont tend to always pay attention to what he says though. His rage in reaction to NATO's Libya incursion is pretty well documented even if we did ignore it.

It wasnt like he was unclear that pursuing NATO membership => invasion either.

>The real reason why this happened is utterly irrelevant

This is precisely the way to make this kind of thing happen again and again and again...

> He's always been a fairly plain speaker.

Are you from Russia?

> This is precisely the way to make this kind of thing happen again and again and again...

No, the way to make sure this won't happen again is to make sure that little tinpot dictators don't get their hands on nuclear arms. Apropos, North Korea...

“He's always been a fairly plain speaker.”

Putin: No plan for Ukrainian invasion. Western hysteria.

Fairly plan liar, that is…

If Putin isn’t afraid of NATO even defending an invasion of Ukraine, what makes you think he’s actually afraid of NATO attacking Russian soil?

Btw the Russian troop “pullout” was a fabricated lie. It was a few tanks sent back needing mechanical repairs from heavy drills. So it appears we’ve already established you’re falling for Russian state propaganda talking points that turned out to be false.

If NATO isn't the reason why Putin is invading Ukraine, then tell us the real reason according to your perspective.

Unless you are in Ukraine, you cannot do anything to influence the outcome of this war.

NATO membership is a canard. Putin's real objection is Ukraine being a western facing democracy right on his door step. That makes the Russian Federation look like what it is: a bunch of stooge kleptocrats who hold on to power through murder and intimidation.

If Putin isn’t afraid of NATO even defending an invasion of Ukraine, what makes you think he’s actually afraid of NATO attacking Russian soil?

Because he made a huge blunder.

Because he thinks this is how he stays in power. He set up this whole situation with a lot of optimism about Ukraine capitulating, or getting some concessions, and it didn't work out. Now he's attacking because he doesn't want to look weak by withdrawing the buildup. That might lead to him losing power, in his mind.

Or he's insane. The above is the only rational explanation I can think of.

This is not going well for Putin. He was able to set up two puppet breakaway regions in Georgia and then invade while the world did nothing. Now the entire country is a Russian puppet. He tried to call Biden's and the EU's bluff and do it again in Ukraine, thinking his control of natural gas would prevent a unified response, but that hasn't happened, with sanctions continually ratcheting and supplies pouring into Ukraine.

Yeah I don't think the sanctions have moved him one single bit. A lot of EU countries are still dependent on natural gas from Russia, including Germany. I remind you, the war is still days old.

I think it has been clearly stated by several leaders including Biden that nobody expects the sanctions to have an effect soon.

You are right though, it's early still and who knows what will happen.

He didn't think the sanctions would happen, which is why he proceeded as originally planned. They did. The difference this time is that the rest of the world had time to start discussing options because they knew what Putin would try to do.

Now he's making little progress with overthrowing the Ukrainian government and suffering economic damage on top. It's only a matter of time.

> Calling Putin's bluff

How did we do that? I think we knew he was serious from the beginning.

And we behaved accordingly, though shamefully, in my opinion. We ought to have done "to others what we would have them do to us" (i.e. send aid, supplies, and troops immediately to Ukraine, regardless of the geopolitics involved.)

> send aid, supplies, and troops immediately to Ukraine, regardless of the geopolitics involved.

How? When Ukraine's borders are surrounded by Russian armies and Pro-Russian separatists now.

If you are talking about having done that pro-actively, then that's a failure on your part. One that may have a profound effect on Ukraine's defense.

Ukraine shares an entire western border with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.

> When Ukraine's borders are surrounded by Russian armies and Pro-Russian separatists now.

This is complete nonsense.

NATO have been training Ukrainian troops since at least Euromaidan and the US have provided Ukrain with billions in military aid. Actually sending NATO troops to Ukraine is the kind of obvious provocation that clearly could have sparked a Russian invasion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com