Hacker News Reader

>, you lose absolutely nothing pursuing a diplomatic end to this. [...] There's no downside.

But your simplification of "losing absolutely nothing" is not how Ukraine sees it.

Because Russia (currently) has the upper hand in military strength, a "diplomatic end" means ceding more territory to Russia including the southern Black Sea coastline. Becoming a landlocked country beholden to Putin would be a big downside.

Proposed solutions to end wars are "easy" if one over-simplifies the problem.

Notice that your option #3 (diplomatic end) actually overlaps with your #1 (Russia rule) based on today's military situation. #1 & #3 are not mutually exclusive choices.

Your comment suggests the best outcome of any situation is the least violence. But it's not what I believe or I imagine what most people believe, I would rather fight for certain values to be upheld - in this case the freedom to agree as a collective rather than bow to the person with the most force. If someone comes to your house and takes it by force you should let him because it's the path to least violence right?

Putin and Lavrov have said Ukraine is a historical mistake. They want to assimilate Ukraine into Russia and commit cultural genocide.

Ukrainians have every right to kill the Russian invaders. The West has every right to put sanctions on Russia and support the Ukrainian resistance.

he said the ukranian statehood is a mistake. where does this cultural genocide thing comes from? there are at least two public appearances when putin switches to ukranian (briefly).

no one doubts that the west has every right to do that but i fail to see how it helps to stop casualties

Awesome!! Does the same principles apply to other countries outside US and Europe? I see this a massive racist and hypocritical statement by US and EU to the rest of the world that they only care if the country is majority white. Where was the same outrage for all the brown and black people?

The only sane justification anyone can make is that we have progressed, but the tragedy for the rest continues.

US and EU war economies need an enemy and for long time, it was something abstract like drugs, terror etc. Now, they have something concrete in Russia and I see the rest as propaganda set to grow the outrage and anger to start another long war so that money can be minted.

Of course the same principles apply, if there is injustice I'm not aware of we can also fight I am more than happy to fight with you just tell me where you want me to spend my effort. But I wouldn't mistake ignorance for malice. And worse I wouldn't forgo someone else help because I didn't receive help myself.

> Your comment suggests the best outcome of any situation is the least violence.

No, it doesn't. It says that different rules apply when you're fighting a nuclear power. There is no military option here. None. That's the point. When there are no military options your only options are a proxy war (GGs for Ukraine) or a diplomatic solution.

> I would rather fight for certain values

You're not fighting for anything, most likely. It's pretty easy to sit in perfect safety thousands of miles from a war and tell other people they should fight for certain values.

But you've actually made my point. You're more interested in the principle (being right) than the outcome (winning).

> If someone comes to your house and takes it by force you should let him because it's the path to least violence right?

Does that person have 6000 nuclear weapons?

I think we can simply agree different values then, if the person had 6000 nuclear weapons not only would I still fight for my house, I would fight for your house. I did offer to go to Ukraine actually but they are not taking untrained civilians.

What we can agree on is you're overly susceptible to appeals to emotion ("what if your house was invaded?"), your analogies are bad and you have no conception of the consequences of what you're suggesting.

Russia being a nuclear power, "winning" probably means the house is destroyed and the land its own is littered with weapons and mines for years to come and I can't possibly afford to rebuild it.

> I did offer to go to Ukraine ...

Noble.

> ... but they are not taking untrained civilians.

Ok, I get it now. You simply have no conception of the realities of war and the aftermath. Got it.

You're signing up to fight yourself then? Or just want other people to fight for you

I did offer yes, but they arn't taking untrained civilians who don't speak the language.

You didn't even mention the name of one european country outside Ukraine and Russia. Your vision is US centric.

Because the US is the driving force bheind this. European countries such as Germany opposed Ukraine joining NATO [1]. European opposition blunted Bush's effort to set a timetable on Ukraine and Georgia, which is how it became a noncommittal open-ended "open door" policy.

What's more, countries like Germany have deeper econmic ties to Russia because of natural gas in particular. European countries are, as a general rule, less interested in alienating and isolating Russia.

And there's really no difference between political parties in the US either. George W Bush's open door policy from 2008 has survived 3 subsequent administration from both parties.

It's US foreign policy that drove invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Israel in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html

> None of this matters. What matters is ending this war. It's the best outcome for pretty much everyone who isn't Lockheed, Boeing or Northrop. Or I guess the hawks in Washington who see the strategic value in Russia being mired in Afghanistan 2.0.

You can easily end this war and any war by always surrendering.

Tell that to the Ukrainians taking up arms and risking their lives. Do you think they care more about the items on your list of 'things that don't matter', or about ending the war at any cost?

Are you seriously suggesting Ukrainians want a war with Russia? There is no outcome of a protracted war with Russia where Ukraine "wins". None. Even if they expel a Russian occupation, at what cost? How much of the country is levelled in the meantime? How many people have died?

And even after the Russians leave, the country is awash with weapons and newly-emboldened extremist groups. With the uniting threat of an invader gone, the country becomes fractured. Extremist groups are bound to decide whatever administration Ukraine has at that point isn't doing enough and now they're a problem.

We've seen how this plays out so many times and it always ends badly.

- Intervention in Syria created Asaad.

- Intervention in Iran created a fundamentalist regime that has been an issue for decades;

- Intervention in Iraq to counterbalance the Iranian fundamentalist regime created Saddam Hussein;

- Intervention in Vietnam wrecked the country;

- Intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation wrecked the country and created Osama bin Laden; and

- 20 years of intervention in Afghanistan resulted in the exact same regime (the Taliban) controlling the country.

But yes, this time will be different.

Yes. Ukrainian wants a war with Russia. Often people want the results of their actions. Ukrainians are taking actions that result in war. They are shooting at Russians, Russians are shooting at them, that is a war. If one of the sides is not shooting, then it's no longer a war. Ukraine could lay down and simply give up the 'things that don't matter' (from your OP) and war would end. Ukraine could capitulate. Ukraine could end the war by surrendering. Why don't they?

To be clear: War is very low on the list of Ukrainian's wants, but Ukraine wants war more than it wants surrender.

>Are you seriously suggesting Ukrainians want a war with Russia?

Yes, they want to wage a defensive war against the invaders.

Putin and Lavrov have said Ukraine is a historical mistake. They want to assimilate Ukraine into Russia and commit cultural genocide.

Ukrainians have every right to kill the Russian invaders. The West has every right to put sanctions on Russia and support the Ukrainian resistance.

> and (from Putin's POV) justifying the invasion.

Or more importantly perhaps: the big supporters like China and India that might otherwise have been able to get a word in edgewise and seen sanctions as justified to some degree.

(Edit to clarify: "big" here refers to the countries' size/population/power, not that their support is as "big" as Syria's or North Korea's.)

"Putin dying or his regime getting toppled is going to create a huge power vacuum, lots of instability and is probably not going to be good for anyone"

Ironically, this is the same logic used by many Russians who support Putin.