Hacker News Reader

Comment by distances | Hacker News Reader

> We should all be lobbying for a large neutral buffer zone between US-aligned Europe and Russia

As long as that buffer is inside Russia, I would be fine with it as I suppose most others would.

It's not OK to suggest that countries can have a sphere of influence in 21st century. Each country chooses their alignment and alliance independently. Russia has repeatedly shown to be a poor neighbour, so it shouldn't be a surprise to them if independent countries decide to turn away from Russia.

US and Russia simply can not agree between themselves what should be Ukraine's place in the world. That kind of world order does not exist any more.

View on HN

Do you not think that the US has a huge sphere of influence? It seems to me that the US can and does take any action it wishes to outside its borders. Sometimes those actions have a good moral justification and sometimes they don’t.

>US and Russia simply can not agree between themselves what should be Ukraine's place in the world.

I’ll argue the opposite. The Ukraine has no inherent right to join NATO. Ukraine isn’t going to join NATO unless the US wants it to join and this is morally correct in every way considering the obligations of article 5. Additionally every other NATO member has the right to veto expanding the alliance (this is fact btw not opinion).

Additionally the US has every right to negotiate with Russia over Ukraine joining should the US wish to.

> The Ukraine has no inherent right to join NATO.

This is not what is argued. I agree with you, it's of course up to NATO and EU to decide who they accept as members, and they may include Russian interests in the decision if they want.

Point is that Russia has no say over Ukraine's ambitions. The war started because Ukraine wanted away from Russia and moved towards Western values. This is unquestionably Ukraine's right. And if they don't succeed at joining the EU, then their place may be a non-aligned country with Western values and ambitions. That Russia must simply accept and move on.

Sorry, it seems I misinterpreted your comment.

>Point is that Russia has no say over Ukraine's ambitions...That Russia must simply accept and move on.

Well, that's the crux of the matter isn't it. They've not accepted it and haven't moved on and unless/until they are expelled from Ukraine they have a rather large amount of influence over what happens there.

It's interesting to watch that's for sure. One way or another the world is going to look different when this is over.

Ukraine has inherent freedom to join NATO.

It needs NATO's permission because that's how NATO works, but it doesn't need Russian permission

>Ukraine has inherent freedom to join NATO.

>It needs NATO's permission because that's how NATO works

Sorry to be a pedantic asshole but those statements are in opposition to each other. What you want to say is that they should they should have the freedom to apply and join if accepted.

>but it doesn't need Russian permission

In an ideal world they shouldn't need Russian permission, unfortunately we seem to live in a world where might makes right.

>It's not OK to suggest that countries can have a sphere of influence in 21st century

Ask your Congressman about pulling out of Guam and closing all overseas military bases.

>That kind of world order does not exist any more.

This is, ironically, enough, something that Putin started saying to us since he came into power. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. He lobbied the west to adhere to a rules based international order rather than couping or invading whomever we damn well pleased.

In 2003 he said "please respect Iraq's national sovereignty and international law". Oh how we laughed.

What did you think the result of ignoring that was gonna be?

For me it was fairly predictable. He treated it both as a threat and a precedent. That said, Im not in denial about America being an empire.

> Ask your Congressman about pulling out of Guam and closing all overseas military bases.

I'm from a small country by the Russian northern border, so I don't have anything to do with Guam but of course do have pretty strong opinions about who should be able to dictate our future.

This probably means that your country (maybe reluctantly, maybe not) lent its support to the Iraqi occupation under pressure from the US government.

That was due to those competing spheres of influence.

When you join a criminal gang for protection youve gotta prove your loyalty to the top dog and respect his power.

The dynamics arent all that different to when a 15 year old kid joins a gang in south central - sometimes after demonstrating loyalty he gets protection and sometimes he gets chewed up and spat out as cannon fodder in a wider turf war.

It's Finland, so not that much to do with Iraq either. Instead, Finland has a lot of experience about being in the USSR sphere of influence (see Finlandization), and thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment.

> When you join a criminal gang for protection

I think we agree that in this context you choose to join a gang, and the opposing gang doesn't get to prevent you from leaving them. Nobody has promised NATO membership to Ukraine. However, they are free to align with Western values and apply for any membership they wish, be it EU or NATO. And when they join, yes that membership comes with certain obligations too.

>thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment.

I would agree but I would also argue that unless you also wholeheartedly support Crimea and the Donbass's right to choose their alignment (something Kiev and the west both publicly reject), you are probably somewhat halfhearted in your belief in people's right to self determination.

This is the litmus test of whether you are just flashing a geopolitical gang sign or demonstrating an actual commitment to democracy. Most Westerners will do the former, and are, for example, enthusiastic supporters of a (NATO) troop presence acting as an enabler for Kosovo's referendum.... while simultaneously supporting Kiev's position of "Crimeans dont get to choose".

I'm no expert in Ukrainian demographics so I won't weigh in too much on that.

I will however say this much: what makes the situation of any Russian neighbour difficult is the Russian history of forced relocations and genocide, Russian imperialism and irredentism, and their lack of any resemblance of fair elections and referendums. Russian modus operandi is forced russification. So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? I definitely understand if there are opinions to both directions on that topic.

>So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will?

If it happened in the 19th century I think so. At some point you have to simply accept that the democraphics changed and the sins of the ancestors arent the sins of the descendants and the descendants are just as deserving of democracy as anyone else.

A group of Serbs rather famously didnt subscribe to this view and committed genocide on Bosnians in the 90s to avenge what the ottomans "did to them" in, like, the 1700s.

To be consistent with the notion that historical lands belong to historical residents you'd have to cancel democracy and give back the United States to the native americans (or mexicans, even).

Do you believe in just handing back the United States to the people whom they genocided when they took it over and letting them rule? I suspect not. I dont. Most people dont.

The awkwardness of this double standard on closer inspection underscores the fact that what you espouse here is less of a moral principle and more of a geopolitical gang sign, even though you might not realize it.

> Ask your Congressman about pulling out of Guam and closing all overseas military bases.

Guam is a US territory - not a foreign base.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com