Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animatronio | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Nobody is demanding anything of NATO. I am retroactively demanding that the Ukrainian leadership should have rooted out corruption and got Ukraine’s ducks in a row so that it could join NATO. And the whole point of NATO is that most smaller countries do not benefit NATO as much as the alliance benefits them. Yet the cumulative effect is more world peace.

Besides, did you not notice the effect the war in Ukraine had on things like gas prices in the US?

Ukraine's inability to root out corruption so that it could join the EU/NATO wasn't some national failing as much as a very active Russian FSB/SVR presence inside Ukraine that prevented any significant reforms. The invasion was an admittance that their underhanded techniques were failing and a more active method of intervention into Ukrainian politics was necessary.

I'm pretty certain that it was Ukraine's increasingly successful campaigns to purge its corruption that prompted Russia to invade.

Absolutely correct. Reading my post, I realize my conclusion was unclear: each successive elimination of corruption within Ukraine, starting in the 2010's, was more and more threatening to Putin and his oligarch cronies until pressure on their theft of oil revenues become unbearable.

Ukrainian NATO membership does benefit NATO in several ways:

- Ukraine is the only country in Europe to have fought off NATO's main adversary

- Ukraine has a large, powerful and experienced army, much larger than those of most NATO countries

- Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the older NATO members as a adding another buffer state

- Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the newer NATO members such as the Baltic countries or Poland, as having another ally bordering Russia

- Ukraine is a new democracy and is (was) a rising economy. It benefits NATO to include these in NATO

- The populations of most European NATO countries are in favor of Ukrainian membership.

- Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany.

- Ukraine's army if frankly in tatters, being propped by massive supplies of ammo, weapons and mercs

- Ukraine is already a buffer state by virtue of its geographical position

- your last 3 points are simply appeals to emotions and in no way arguments for Ukraine's membership.

All these wars were before NATO existed.

Ukraine’s defense is a formidable army which has stopped the advance of what most experts thought was the second most powerful army in the world, and the fact that Ukraine is supplied weapons, training and ammunition from NATO countries doesn’t change that. It only adds to the point that NATO itself recognizes that Ukraine belongs in the alliance.

If Ukraine loses the war it will cease to be a buffer and become part of Russia.

Then one could also argue that no NATO country has ever fought off Russia.

Ukraine barely stopped the Russians, even with the massive help of NATO (both before and after the 2021 invasion). It doesn't follow at all that NATO thinks Ukr is a member. Ukr is just that - a buffer country that should not be taken by Russia. This is not meant in an offensive way, think of it as a neutral country like Switzerland or Austria.

> Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany.

It (presuming it succeeds) will be the only country to have fought off the Russian Federation, or anything referred to (even if only somewhat loosely) as “Russia” in the third millenium.

Fought (and in some of the cases you cited got steamrolled by) the USSR in WWII is... not particularly relevant.

> Ukraine is already a buffer state by virtue of its geographical position

Its not if it becomes a Russian satellite.

>Its not if it becomes a Russian satellite.

Indeed Ukr has always been in a tough spot. Align with NATO or Russia and become a target for the other - that was the only choice I guess, but it was never explained why actual neutrality was never sought (like Switzerland). The only explanation I have is that both the US and Russia run covert ops to put puppet regimes in place.

> it was never explained why actual neutrality was never sought (like Switzerland).

Have you looked at a map? (Moreover, it was sought, and it didn’t work, so they choose another option to avoid the outcome.whuch had happened that they didn’t like.)

Not only have I looked at a map, I have the misfortune of living quite close to Ukr. You probably don't even need to bc you live far enough to be safe and lecture others on the internet.

> Ukraine is already a buffer state by virtue of its geographical position

Ever heard of Belarus?

Same thing, it's just that they have aligned themselves with Russia. Your point is?

That geographical location alone is insufficient.

Didn't stop you from commenting on that alone.

>Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany.

Finland sure but the Winter War ended due as much to the valor of the Fins as to Stalin getting ready to fight Nazi Germany. Also Russia won the rest of your list taking took over Poland, Lithuania, and half of Germany. that was the whole WWII easterrn front/cold war warsaw pact thing.

How much has been spent on the Ukraine Russia conflict that could’ve been avoided if Russia had feared a NATO response (assuming existing Ukraine membership)? Avoided spending that now must be spent to defang Russia. The numbers I’ve seen thrown around are $100B+ in conflict cost. Cheaper to have done the paperwork and meetings imho, not to mention the exceptional loss of life in aggregate.

It probably would have deterred Russia from invading and saved most NATO countries a ton of money. Basically the entire point of NATO is to stop Russia going to war with its neighbiors.

And now Ukraine is going to be quite a week equipped and experienced ally. Certainly a country NATO should be happy to have on its side.

But NATO literally (and I also mean geographically) NATO has Ukr on its side. So what more would a country like say Portugal gain from Ukraine's NATO membership, except perhaps having to contribute to their defense even more?

Portugal has barely hit the 2% goal for defense spending that NATO members are supposed to be targeting. So it's not like they'd be spending more to protect Ukraine.

the whole point is by having this big block of countries agreeing to cooperatively fight Russia is if any of them are attacked, is that we don't actually have to fallow through because its to big of a risk for Russia to act up. If they had been part of NATO to begin with none of us would actually had to of sent any aid like we are now. NATO membership is as much about mutual coordination and defense as is is about deterring Russia from starting war in Europe.

Portugal was only an example. They could however find themselves pressured to send soldiers, and not only supplies, should NATO decide to openly declare war on Russia.

So 2% too?

Getting hung up on the transactional piece of this is tragic. Ukraine constitutes a society that has embraced (evidenced by their revolution, stiff resistance so far, etc.) enlightenment values - the worth of an individual, a rules based society, meritocracy, etc. Before we run to all the counterfactuals, these values are generally instilled in the culture (particularly the younger demographics). NATO essentially exists to protect this common, values-based order.

Not granting membership earlier was those countries (mentioned in other comments) over-rotating on transactional-based benefits, over value-based ones. That's why there's such frustration now over getting Ukraine into NATO now. Will it happen? No, diplomatically impossible while they're engaged in hot war. But the moral outrage is reasonable given the bloody price they've paid in defense of the values NATO exists to protect. To clearly connect the dots...considering Ukraine as part of NATO benefits NATO in that it allows them to uphold those values it exists to serve, giving it purpose and strength from the unity of its member countries (and moral investment of the individuals who serve its armies).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com