Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulryanrogers | Hacker News Reader

Didn't Ukraine already give up nukes for security assurances in 1994? And here they are being invaded by one of the signatories?!

Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.

View on HN

It's often framed as that, but Ukraine didn't really have nuclear weapons at the dissolution of USSR. There were nuclear weapons located on its territory, but they were all controlled by military units that regarded themselves as answerable to Moscow, not Kyiv. What Ukraine really agreed to was to agree that they didn't own them, and allow them to be physically removed, in exchange for the security guarantee.

This podcast is well worth a listen: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...

In other words, Ukraine "had" nuclear weapons in the same sense that North Dakota does: the bombs were just parked there under someone else's control and authority. The locals were never in the position to use them.

But approaching NATO membership is a huge factor in causing the invasion to happen (not to excuse Putin's aggression and other war crimes, but it is true, this was a foreseeable consequence, and many foresaw it). You can read Russia's public statements and Wikileaks' US diplomatic cables from 2007/2008 giving credit to this position, and the trail of evidence carries all the way to the present and to policy thinkers like Mearsheimer (who I don't agree with at all philosophically, but he's one of the "realists" who is excellent at analyzing where the pressure points lie and what are the degrees of freedom). Abkhazia and South Ossetia should also be taken as further evidence that leaning too heavily towards NATO membership is what spurs invasion in the first place.

As for foreseeing things, I have to admit that I got several things horribly wrong in the lead up to the invasion. I was far too focused on criticizing NATO powers for ignoring the diplomatic track (where was the pressure to implement Minsk 2?) and for only shouting about invasion. The reason this deserved criticism is that such errant focus meant that eventually there might be an invasion. But my rhetoric and even train of thought focused almost exclusively on criticizing NATO on the basis of warnings that turned out to be quite accurate.

Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?

Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.

But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse.

By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve.

In this case, Russia deserves none.

Not trying to hijack this thread, but I think that logic doesn't hold, because the US Monroe doctrine is backed up by a lot of "inappropriate" actions. There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda.

And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. And if it came to that (basically another World War), those making that claim have to justify how a World War later is worse than a World War now, which is often, though not always, the implied anti-"appeasement" approach.

> There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda.

Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time.

> And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen.

Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.

It's hard to militarily inflict a limp on an opponent who may use nukes, without creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. And NATO policy has always been that first-strike on nuclear-armed opponents is always an option. Election debates in the UK have hinged on whether the candidate will commit to first-strike, with staunch establishment criticism if the answer is not a clear "yes". China officially forecloses the idea of any first-strike, and the SU did too in the 80s, but that was reneged on by Russia when it broke up in the 90s. Just in the last 4 years, the US head of state referred to using them, relatively transparently. The point is that it is shockingly common to reserve the nuclear option, and even to highlight it. I am absolutely not saying "therefore it's not that bad" -- quite the opposite, I'm saying that we should be glad that nations seem don't have a knee-jerk reaction to such psychotic statements from their opponents, and we should follow suit. Let cooler heads prevail.

And economic sanctions can be just a slow version of carpet bombing. The figures are disputed, but some claim hundreds of thousands of children alone died under the Iraq sanctions. I haven't read enough to judge the issue, but the official position was that even if true, it "is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it." I wouldn't support that kind of logic in trying to inflict a limp either.

So my main point is that it's hard to come up with any "harder the better" approach that isn't suicidal or pure cruelty for ordinary Ukrainians and Russians, and bad for NATO member citizens too. I think the invasion is evil too, but the punishment talk is just empty talk -- everyone's getting punished pretty hard right now as it is.

The same treatment should apply to the US or any other great/middle power. You’re responsible for predictable consequences. Especially when nuclear weapons enter the equation.

There is no sense or satisfaction in ascribing the “blame” to Putin when the ICBMs are in the air. Some even explicitly extend your logic to those ludicrous ends, though I don’t presume to know your own thoughts.

Moral considerations of course matter, but there is no such thing as “morally” doing something that leads to an innocent people being invaded for “just” reasons, when perfectly reasonable alternatives exist. Never mind that no major power reaches the level of minimal moral integrity.

And to be clear, NATO is not guilty of war crimes (for Ukraine), but the Russian government is — not that Ukrainians will feel the difference of my moral ranking either way. It’s clear who deserves more moral consternation. But I have zero influence over Putin. I have almost, but not exactly zero influence over NATO. I have no responsibility for Russian actions, and some for NATO’s. And the comment I was replying to was advocating for what I think is the diametric opposite of what NATO should do. Those policy choices are the kinds of actions that will have a material effect on peace or war in Ukraine.

If you felt compelled to acknowledge the exceedingly small influence you have on NATO, why not acknowledge the exceedingly small chance you would cause a Russian revolution by leaving a five star review on the website of an eatery in Moscow?

I mean this as a genuine question, but is your comment just to say that I was technically wrong to say I have “exactly zero” influence over Russian government policy, given unlikely butterfly effects exist?

Would you dispute that I have a tiny influence on all government policy, but I have orders of magnitude less over Russia compared to the US where I live? I covered responsibility also: do you agree that I am not responsible for Russian government actions (here I think exactly zero would be correct) but I have some responsibility for NATO actions, which are notionally done for my benefit?

I liked your comment and didn't mean to come across overly critical. But one of the scenarios I hear discussed in the media I consume is for this crisis to be resolved through internal changes in Russia, and that de-escalation through western actions is unlikely. I don't know enough to know how realistic that is. But in that case support for Russians could be more valuable than our voting power toward NATO.

There is a path to a peace agreement. Obviously these wouldn't be unilateral actions, but offerings or part of a final agreement with concessions on all sides:

- no NATO membership for Ukraine (it has already been invaded, there is no loss in taking this position now, and much to gain even if it leads to Russian withdrawal)

- some wider security agreement for the region -- if this means no more events like the NATO bombing of Serbia without UN authorization, that is perfectly acceptable

- repeal of discriminatory language laws, etc., and implement some meaningful degree regional autonomy for eastern parts of Ukraine (and western if they want it), basically Minsk 2 clause 4; or some internationally observed (so not like Crimea) referenda in those regions

- relax and withdraw most/all sanctions, but absolutely those on the central bank and SWIFT (though Russia will obviously and rationally accelerate economic links outside of Western control, as will many other countries)

I think a crucial condition should be no imposed change of government in Ukraine (so like what Russia wants in its military intervention in Syria, and not what the US wanted in military interventions in Libya, Iraq, and wants in Syria, etc.)

As for supporting Russians, I totally agree. One of the problems with the sanctions is that they are going to hurt ordinary Russian people, and are just as likely to strengthen the authorities as much as "encourage" ordinary Russians to change their government ("encourage" through collective punishment). The long legacy of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc., shows that this tactic far more often just hurts and even kills ordinary people rather than anything else.

There are many news pundits and analysts with prominent positions and exposure in print and television news in the US, who say things like, "There are no neutral Russian citizens now, they are all responsible for the invasion now" (this is paraphrasing, but not an exaggeration), at least on their personal twitter feeds. Unfortunately, I think most of the focus on "internal changes" is focused on severe collective punishment of ordinary people, rather than anything else, and so I find most of it counter-productive and cruel.

This is my issue with your use of word "cause". To me it insinuated culpability by NATO and the lack of agency from Russia.

So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade.

I wish to clarify that I am not talking about blame or morality, but simply to address the underlying implication that one that caused it ought to be the one to make concessions to fix it, and by removing agency from Russia and placing cause on NATO, you essentially suggests that NATO ought to be the party that ought to make concessions, and my post should've be abundantly clear that I don't agree with that position.

I think causation is not a binary, and tried to mitigate thinking along those lines by saying "factor in causing to happen" not just "causing", but admittedly I didn't make that aspect fully clear. I meant "influenced a chain of events" not "is the absolute most significant factor in the chain of events". I think NATO's actions were a hugely significant factor though, because it's the factor that we control! As I said, we don't control or have responsibility for the actions of the Russian government, so in our decision-making process, we must take those largely as a given. I support the various stop-the-war movements that were making this all plain -- an invasion would be evil, and it would be evil for us to knowingly fail to take reasonable actions to avoid invasion, and likewise for us to knowingly pour fuel on the kindling of war.

> So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade.

I'd quibble with the negation of causation for NATO's actions and the use of "simply", but, if I understand the final clause correctly, then yes I ultimately agree, there was absolutely a reasonable chain of events under our control that would have lead to there being no invasion, but also, there absolutely exists a plausible Russian government that would not have invaded. But we don't live in a world with such a government, and we have no control over that fact.

I don't disagree with the premise that "we ought to avoid war if we can", but pacifism and appeasement to an actor not acting rationally or in good faith is not fruitful, historically speaking.

My question to you is, where do you draw the line between "I am willing to make such a concession to avoid a war" and "then let there be war"?

I am clearly more hawkish but I am curious to where you stand.

I don't think there's a need to create much in the way of hypotheticals, because there is nothing in the 13 clauses of Minsk 2, even extrapolating out to the most concessionary outcomes of the clauses that are effectively TODOs, that is a concession "too far" that would justify war -- even IR so-called "realists" don't see the strategic logic. You can find a reasonable summary of the clauses of the Minsk agreements here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreemen...

The faults for the failure of Minsk 2 lie with both Russia and Ukraine, and NATO for effectively incentivizing the Ukrainian government to fail to implement key clauses, and for publicly signaling and pushing for continued talk of NATO membership, which effectively shuts down meaningful action on clause 13.

And note that I am in no way a pacifist. I have no problem with NATO article 5 (up to a point -- I don't want any conflict to go to nuclear war, of course).

Final note: this type of conversion comes up very frequently when anti-war arguments are made. Someone asks "is there nothing you would go to war to defend?", when, regarding the issue under discussion, there are usually relatively clear and reasonable terms already on the table that are totally absent from the public discussion. It's nobody's fault but that of our politicians and media that the discussion is so hollow and bombastic at the same time, but it is frustrating.

By that point Crimea has already been annexed so I cannot exactly fault Ukraine for trying to join a defensive alliance instead of trying to re-kindle the relationship with the invader.

To me, that ship sailed a while ago.

The chain of causation for Crimea annexation was very similar to the one for the current invasion. Just being practical, doing more of the thing that has led to two invasions is not going to end, shorten, or curtail the current one -- we don't like the logic, but as I said, this has been the official Russian government stance for about 15 years, and the cost of going against that stance has been very high and the cost of accepting it would be very low. And I see no practical way for Crimea to ever return to Ukraine, no matter what. I know territorial integrity is a thing countries hold very dear, for a lot of good reasons, but Crimea is as much an artifact of the breakup of the Soviet Union as anything to do with NATO expansion. That is truly a lost cause at this point.

> The chain of causation for Crimea annexation was very similar to the one for the current invasion.

Yes, Putin’s desire for territorial aggrandizement for both image and resources reasons.

> Just being practical, doing more of the thing that has led to two invasions

Having land that the national mythology Putin appeals to views as Russian and/or has economically and strategically useful resources and features is all anyone else has done which has led to the invasions (and it's more than two; as Georgia bears witness to.)

Can't really insist people stop doing that.

> this has been the official Russian government stance for about 15 years

You are confusing pretext with causation (and also ignoring much of the public pretext, like the claims of WMD programs.)

I am ignoring much of the pretext. Much like the Iraq War, I'm trying to focus on the real ideology and material factors driving the decisions, not the rationalizations designed for the public and the salons. Obviously this is not an exact process and there is no way to verify, so here we are.

Given there's a clear historical parallel (not identical, but appropriate enough) with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Monroe doctrine, I don't think it's rational to ignore the NATO "encirclement" argument as pretext. Look through the Wikileaks cables for all the talk of particular "neuralgia" over Ukraine entering NATO, and even talk of Crimea, all the way back in 2008.

One reason I'm so unconvinced this is pure pretext, is that I think it's highly unlikely that the same few people (Lavrov, Putin, etc.) would be making these specific claims and complaints in advance, just to be used a decade and a half later as pretext.

Another is that there are numerous high ranking people in the US foreign policy establishment, both in actual positions of power and attached to semi-official think-tanks, etc., that have agreed with their argument or at the very least identified it as sincere on the part of the Russian government.

As for me saying two wars, I was speaking about Ukraine only (depends on how you count, but I was counting Crimea, and the current invasion, though you could add another for the "breakaway" regions where Russian forces have been involved for years now). I'm aware of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I think you and I might have already discussed those regions on HN in the past.

> Given there's a clear historical parallel (not identical, but appropriate enough) with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Monroe doctrine, I don't think it's rational to ignore the NATO "encirclement" argument as pretext

Given that there is much more recent precedent (e.g., Iraq 2003, including the preceding advocacy by groups like PNAC from which key Bush policy officials were selected) that actually fits the chain of events much better, I don't think it's rational to ignore “false and exaggerated claims of geopolitical threat, ideological terrorism, and WMD as a pretext for a war for economic gain and imperialism from people who don't even bother to not keep saying the imperialist parts out loud”, either.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about Iraq 2003, and I'm not saying that claims like that are always true or always false (I think it's obvious that it only makes sense to assess such claims in context). All Putin's talk of "de-nazification" as a war aim, of WMD, and a whole host of other stuff is total pretextual fiction, and absolutely makes it harder to negotiate any kind of end to the war now, because pretext has a zombie-like ability to live on and prevent peace, even if there is agreement to resolve the real causes.

But this war was a serious possibility even without those pretexts. Russia was incredibly weak, militarily and economically (both are closely linked) at the time of previous NATO expansions that mattered to Russia (1999, 2004). It's not strong now. Ukraine may be a worse quagmire than the SU in Afghanistan. But it does now seem to be able to stretch itself and probably win the immediate war against the Ukrainian military proper. They have complained about NATO expansion for 15 years, and finally have the capability to do what all great powers do: force their will through unjust means, and call it just.

The sooner there is some agreement to resolve the real causes, the less impact the pretextual bullshit will have in preventing that peace. And as I said before, if I'm wrong, possibly WW3 will just be delayed slightly, but Russia is still not strong enough to do what everyone is implying with their WW2 references, so I don't see it happening.

I should have said, they have complained about NATO expansion since the fall of the USSR (and obviously before, but that's irrelevant), when NATO gave Gorbachev assurances that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" after German reunification. They've been very vocally critical of NATO expansion into Ukraine for 15 years (and probably longer), and the West has known that Ukraine was specifically significant for 15 years (and probably longer).

If you back a scared animal in a corner, they will attack you, even if in a minority. You don't understand how the west is seen outside the west. Spoiler: we have lots of blood on our hands. We are not seen as the good ones, like our propaganda would sell to us.

How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe.

Unless one accepts the argument that because there were different historical borders in the past Russia is now entitled to demand Ukraine either remain a buffer state (with no guarantee except Russia's boyscout promise) or join the Russian federation--by force if necessary.

I think the point of the analogy is not that it generally maps to the Ukraine war, it's just that you can't really reason with a scared animal, and it's pointless to make moralistic arguments if it causes harm, so you can still be responsible even if the "other" is behaving poorly. If you insist on walking your own dog extremely close to a scared and aggressive dog, when there is ample space for you to walk with a minor diversion, then there is no sense in saying "I have a right to walk my dog here" or "it is unjust for this other dog to threaten my dog" as an excuse if your actions lead to your own dog being attacked. You are meaningfully responsible because you failed to account for very predictable consequences. Of course, others have responsibility for the situation too, but on the immediate question of whether you can justify walking your own dog extremely close, you would be hugely culpable.

Please don't take what I've said as a claim that this is a perfect analogy for the Ukraine war -- it fails to be a good analogy on so many levels. It's a suitable analogy only on the question of responsibility for predictable consequences, regardless of the just/unjust behavior of the thing/being that directly causes the harm. I can easily be the case that you are not the proximate cause, but are still meaningfully responsible.

> How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe.

Haven't you heard the news? This isn't Russia's war. This is Putin's war. Putin is in a corner. A resource endowed democracy with Russian roots next to his border with oil, gas and coal is the worst thing that can happen to an oligarch.

Europe's dependence on Russian fossil fuels makes Putin untouchable. Anything that competes with him erodes his shield against the EU.

Putin is an oligarch. He is doing what keeps himself in power. The risk he is taking on with this war can easily wipe him out. If you just want to stay a regional oligarch you simply wouldn't take this risk unless you had to.

> Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.

Sorry, this is not true. Misinformed at best.

Russia has been warning for years that they won't tolerate having another NATO country adjacent to their border.

Every single analysist knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine would have caused a conflict. And yet we went ahead and offered it.

Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated.

This is well documented and confirmed by top notch geopolitical analyst and even NATO officials.

So you want to keep Russia out of a country? Don't offer them the NATO membership.

Why would we expand NATO anyway? It is only an aggressive move and I don't understand why we keep doing it, unless we have an interest in causing conflicts like this one and then polarizing the world into a new cold war.

Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? It's not Russia, it's us! We are the imperialist here, not them.

The biggest country in the world trying to subjugate its smaller neighbors is not imperialist?

> Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world?

How often has NATO done that? Care to name some examples?

> Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated.

Where do you put the annexation of Crimea in this timeline?

How many times were the Chechens offered to join NATO?

This is more agitprop -- "it's NATO expanding, we had to do this, it's their fault". Bollocks.

These are independent, sovereign countries who have a history of being abused by Russia and the Soviet Union. You know what happens if you're not in NATO? You get abused by Russia.

Do you want to make a comparison between the populations abused by post-USSR Russia and the populations abused by USA/NATO/Europe? Trust me, it wouldn't bode well for the west. If you talk about the Chechens, I could talk about Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghan, Iraquis, Iranians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Lybians, Congolese, Palestinians, Chileans. I stop here, but we know the list goes on.

Where were you while we oppresed and slaughtered millions of innocent civilians across the world?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com