Ask HN: As non-nuke power, why fight a nuke power, esp if you have an easy out?

>I'm not interested in hippie-dippie morality right and wrong stuff, here

>If there's not a moral reason for it,

Make up your mind. There IS a moral reason for it. But you said you don't care about that. I think what is happening here is that you can not see why you would ever choose to fight for something so cannot see why others would. So this boils down to a flaw in your character and not an issue with the Ukrainian people.

> Maybe you can just give the bully your lunchtime scooby-doo snack and live to fight another day?

Maybe you can just give the bully your lunchtime scooby-doo snack and go hungry, and again tomorrow when the bully demands your fruit and your money, and the day after tomorrow when he just punches you in the face for fun...? It's easy!

And why is Michael getting in the middle of this?! The bully is strong, isn't it better to continue being friendly to the bully while he expands his bullying to other kids in your class as long as they are not your closest friends?

Why doesn't everybody just either kneel before the bully or let him do his thing to others? I mean, the bully is just acting logically, trying to establish himself.

On November 1st 1956 the Hungarian people declared the country neutrality following the austrian model, hoping on UN help that never materialized, the Security Council met in NY on November 2nd without deciding anything. On November 3rd 1956 the Soviet Red Army occupied Hungary, destroying the peaceful aspiration of Hungary, to simply be a neutral country and live its own life. Maybe this is the answer... Maybe in Ukraine they remember Hungary... Maybe we forgot...or not

Difference being: Hungary was part of SU, Ukraine is independent. Russia needs Ukraine as a buffer between NATO. Also, being Neutral doesn't mean being disarmed, just look at Switzerland. Neutral means not associating your military views with West OR East.

> Difference being: Hungary was part of SU

Hungary was never part of Soviet Union.

Hungary was theoretically independent, member of Warsaw pact, and Russia claimed it under its sphere of influence.

> Hungary was part of SU

Hungary was never part of the Soviet Union, though it was subjugated by the invasion.

> Ukraine is independent.

Not in any meaningful sense if it lets Russia dictate that it can not secure itself against Russia.

> Russia needs Ukraine as a buffer between NATO.

Yeah, when countries tell you they need your country for elbow-room, that’s not a positive sign of how the relationship is going to work out. Did you learn nothing from 20th Century Europe?

Also, what Russia is trying to build with a swathe through Eastern and Southern Ukraine and into Eastern Moldova isn’t a neutral buffer state, its an expanded Russian ethnonationalist state (or, at a minimum, a set of Russian ethnonationalist puppet states.)

> Also, being Neutral doesn’t mean being disarmed

Yeah, which why it is extraordinarily dishonest to portray Russia’s demands for Ukrainian demilitarization as mere demands for neutrality.

During the cold war the Soviet Union needed buffer States. Are we now, 70 years later, having the Soviet Union again? I thought it dissolved in the '90, exactly when the Austrian and Hungarian PM cut the barbed wire between their Countries. Hungary was NEVER part of the SU. In fact Austria risked the same fate of Hungary: after 10 years of Allied occupation they were willing to sign ANYTHING to get rid of foreign armed forces, they accepted VOLUNTARILY to be a neutral State. The same thing someone asks Ukraine to do today. History repeats.

> The easy out for Ukraine was to just go neutral

No, it wasn’t.

Heck, Russia’s ultimatum before attacking Ukraine wasn’t mostly directed at Ukraine, but at NATO, and at withdrawing from the entire Eastern European part of NATO, giving up further expansion, and not even doing exercises in the Eastern part of NATO (much less with non-NATO partners in Eastern Europe) without advance permission from (not notice to) Russia. (It also included a permanent ban on Ukraine joining NATO, but since it featured a permanent ban on NATO expansion as well, that was kind of redundant.)

> Europe was _so_ intent on pleasing their master, the US, that they intentionally and recklessly followed _this_ path?

The Eastern European members of the EU and NATO (which are virtually the same) have more concern about checking Russian bullying of its neighbors than either Western Europe or the US.

> If there’s not a moral reason for it

There is. The moral reason is not rewarding Russia's fairly consistent warmongering and bullying against its neighbors for the last couple decades.

> and there’s not a realpolitik reason for it

There’s that too. Its in part the same as the moral reason (to the extent that it can be described with the same words), but not because of the morality of rewarding the behavior, but because of the reasonably forseeable consequences of rewarding it, and how for everyone concerned who isn’t Ukraine (but especially the other Eastern European countries), its better that the hard fighting that is inevitable wherever the line is drawn is drawn where the conflict is now than where it would be next time.

We don't live in the cold war era anymore, the new USSR doesn't have the backing it used to, at best it will be a chinese puppet, nukes or not.

Historic analogies never work

> What was Europe thinking?

That russia is too weak (geopolitically) to make such a move - which it is. Also, it's not like the EU 'pushed' ukraine into this, they chose it themselves.

> esp if you have an easy out?

You seem to think that Ukraine "declaring neutrality" would actually change something in the current situation. I doubt Ukraine would "live happily ever after" after being occupied. Being neutral hasn't stopped invasions in the past. Belgium is one example of many.

In case you haven't noticed, America kinda really is as bad ass as you say.

> "gain near-absolute freedom to act lawlessly and unilaterly around the world with impunity"

We have that. That's what you're witnessing. The United States has 750 military bases across the world. We have more strategic power stationed in foreign countries than the local military. Our navy has 19 ships which could be considered aircraft carriers. We have the most space based defense assets of anyone in space. Space Command is just that, with a real dominating view of orbit. We can project our authority ANYWHERE on earth at a moments notice. And when we come; you don't see us coming. We earned this reputation.

You just witnessed russia spend 10% of its ground units to gain virtually nothing. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq after destroying their military in mere days. We still lost.

Russia can not, will not, win. They just embarrassed themselves in front of the world. A retired US General recently put it best when he compared the strength of the Russian military to the Vermont National Guard.

Russia thought they had modernized their military but obviously they just blew it so out of proportion that they can no longer effectively control or maintain it.

I see no reason to bend to russia. They are obviously losing and they are embarrassing themselves in the process. If anything, more countries will join NATO after seeing such a pathetic offensive from an obviously broken Russia.

This isn't about being neutral, you're copying Russian propaganda here.

A large amount of gas was found in Crimea, Russia doesn't like it and shortly after they started the gray zone war.

What Russia claims, does and thinks are different things. This is about commodity monopoly and they won't accept Ukraine being neutral.

Their neutral = having a Russian proxy government.

> The easy out for Ukraine was to just go neutral, like Austria.

Russia wants both neutral status and demilitarization. That's to make it easy to invade and they would be fools to do so. Neutral status was de facto there, they couldn't join NATO on account of Crimea. (Joining NATO would mean no Russian invasion so they would be fools not to pursue that regardless...)

Also, what Russia says it wants is irrelevant, judging by the fact this was planned out since November last year. Russia just wants to annex the whole of Ukraine and partition it as per plans Lukashenko presented, anything else they say is lies.

I'd say stop being so naive / start double checking your assumptions.

Some more things as I read:

> Putin could have easily wiped Ukraine off the map

How?, nukes?, Russia would be next to be wiped off the map, and the rest of us with it. Conventionally?, well, that's not working out too well now is it?

> Is there another explanation for Ukraine's/Zelenskyy's behavior here

Patriotism, courage?, you see your country invaded by Russia you stay and fight. If you meant demilitarizing, that would be stupid as Russia would have invaded anyway and it would have made things simpler as there would be no fighting back.

Where's Putin right now btw?, hiding in a bunker?

> I'm also curious why Europe supported this.

Ukraine was already de facto neutral. What exactly did Europe support?, you wanted Europe to tell Zelensky to dismiss his army and let the Russians roll in?

Or you mean military support right now?

This is because of what Russia is doing in Ukraine and I'd say its not enough.

NSFL: (parents and children dead taking their kids to daycare, hit by grad rocket artillery) https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t12lna/akhtyrka_uk...

NSFL: (6 year old dead due to shrapnel) https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-a8bb96288aa...

And many more like the bombing of a maternity hospital, bombing people's homes, bombing people trying to evacuate and ignoring negotiated ceasefires...

> Russia -- try to establish yourself as a powerful nation once again, and don't let the US box you in

If anything, the war proved Russia is a paper tiger and would get obliterated without nukes. It also cut it off from the international market and destroyed its economy, if anything it's not logical for them, it's just old school imperialism and delusion from Putin. Nobody was threatening it with nukes.

Ukraine was not "de facto" neutral. Certainly not since all that happened in 2014. Government has been pro-West and were receiving military help from the West, and that's why some were proposing a formal agreement of neutrality, although that would not have resolved territorial issues.

The country has been a pawn in the game between the West and Russia and it's rather clear that the West want Ukraine and that it is also very special for Russia. The country is also quite divided ethnically and historically and its current official borders are indeed the result of Soviet/Russian 'engineering'.

This map of the 2014 elections is telling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#/media/File:Ukr_electi...

I think we've reached a point where partition might be the least bad option, although good luck trying to even propose this and then to agree on how even if it has de facto already started.

Btw, posting graphic pictures of war victims does not make a geopolitical point.

> Ukraine was not "de facto" neutral.

I disagree, neutral means no military alliance to protect it.

Ukraine was not part of NATO or EU and it did not have any chance of becoming so with ongoing conflict.

> The country is also quite divided ethnically and historically and its current official borders are indeed the result of Soviet/Russian 'engineering'.

It doesn't give Russia the right to invade though.

> I think we've reached a point where partition might be the least bad option, although good luck trying to even propose this and then agreeing on how.

I'd say the least bad option is Ukraine defeating Russia.

I'd also dream of a coup in Russia with Putin getting executed.

> Btw, posting graphic pictures of war victims does not make a geopolitical point.

It's an answer to "I'm also curious why Europe supported this.".

Europe supports Ukraine because of the slaughter in Ukraine, these war crimes motivates populations, and in a democracy this influences politicians. So I guess it's a geopolitical point as well?

Also people can avoid clicking on them, warning is before them.

> Russia wants both neutral status and demilitarization.

No, it wants demilitarization and a binding commitment against allying with the West.

It has never asked for a neutrality agreement like the one imposed on Austria, and fairly overtly hopes (and would almost certainly help) a pro-Russian government to come to power once it had permanently separated Ukraine from the West, so it could establish a relationship like it has now with Belarus, and like it had with Uktraine before Yanukovych was deposed.

The Russian economy is going to be permanently damaged. It’s currently the 11th largest.

Don’t be surprised if their economy is smaller than Spain or Mexico within 6-12 months.

How do they stay neutral when they are invaded? Do you think the invasion was because they wanted to join NATO? It is more likely that Putin is scared of them joining the EU than NATO.

> I think Zelensky chose himself over his country

I think he chose his country over himself. If he was a career politician he would have taken the offer of a US flight out of there and the country would probably fall to the Russians. If you think that would go well for the people of Ukraine then I have a bridge to sell you.

Honestly if you cannot understand why a people would want to fight an agressor to remain free then perhaps you should go and live in Russia, that appears to be the norm over there. Kowtow to anyone stronger than you as long as you can have mcdonalds.

Note: I'm speaking from a geopolitical level, not at man-on-the-street level. As you know, morality, justice, fairness, and equality have very different meanings at the high level, and are translated to the common people via propaganda where necessary.

Regarding nukes:

Nukes are never "used" used. They're only used as a threat (and not a very good one at that), and as insurance against invasion. People rarely take them seriously (example N. Korea). Putin is a special case because this time it was one of the big boys issuing the threats, and so it did rattle people. But since he let it drop, it's dead.

Regarding Europe:

Europe has spent the last few decades sleepwalking. This war is actually bad for American influence because Germany has now awoken, and France is chomping at the bit to adjust the world order. Europe will look long-term to integrate all of Europe (including Russia), and hopefully make a serious run against China for the next reserve currency. This will involve cooperation with NATO in the near term, and then distancing from it as America falls further into the twilight of her influence over the next two decades (basically like what happened in England, Holland, etc).

Regarding Ukraine:

They've been separated from Russia too long and are a separate people. You can't just re-assimilate them; their resistance is only natural and will continue even if their entire country is devastated in the process. This is just human nature, and has little to do with logic or pragmatism.

Regarding Russia:

Putin gravely misjudged the situation on so many counts that it's hard to believe it's the same Putin who headed the KGB. I honestly can't fathom what happened to him that he'd make such a rookie mistake on this. His entourage is going to have to quietly get him out of the way (probably with poison so that he can die in the hospital of a heart attack or something innocuous, followed by public mourning while the reins are transferred), but of course the problem is judging when to do it. After that, Russia is in for decades of pain, as well as American gloating. Europe (in particular Macron) will do its best to keep communication lines open and hope for some kind of rapprochement in a generation or so.