Hacker News Reader

Comment by vasergen | Hacker News Reader

> but they've been sold a narrative that NATO's expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat to them

When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine. After the war started Finland joined NATO and it is the longest border between NATO and Russia and nobody from Russia said anything about that.

View on HN

> When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine

Ukraine adopted a policy of seeking to join NATO after the current Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014.

Immediately prior to the war it had focussed on seeking to join the EU, but had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO.

There was plenty of talking about it before the war, you just werent listening to the right channels. No one said anything about Finland joining because the bridges are already burned, it is too late.

Finland decided to join before they, too, were invaded. They have after all been here before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

Can you point us to those channels?

> https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm

>> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process

> https://www.dw.com/en/russia-putin-addresses-ukraine-nato-te...

> https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text

>> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)

That statement was made 7 years after the war began in 2014, not before the war, and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began, which had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO (thouh after the war started, this changed.)

> and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began

Are you suggesting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?

> Are you suggeting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?

Specifically between the government in 2008 and the post-Maidan government, during which there was an arguable auto-coup followed by a definite revolution?

Yeah, there is a pretty severe discontinuity, not least of all on policy toward both NATO and Russia. Also, even insofar as the post-Maidan government might be seen as in general continuity of the pre-Yanukovych government that had sought NATO membership, NATO’s decision not to extend a MAP in 2008 in direct response to Putin’s objections, cooled Ukrainian interest, even in the pro-Western faction, because NATO was seen as unwilling to stand up for Ukraine against Russia. Putin had already won on NATO expansion before launching the war.

Somehow I doubt that that understanding between NATO and Ukraine that was 13 years old when Russia invaded is what OP had in mind when they referred to “plenty of talk before the war” and “not listening to the right channels”—13 years going on 100 I might add given all that had transpired during those years. I believe the OP was suggesting that there was current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO, which if true, would obviously justify Russia’s attempt to obliterate the country. /s

I had in mind the entire 30 year history since independence during which certain factions have been pushing for NATO presence and eventual membership. The person below who says Putin "had already won on NATO" is wrong, from Putin's perspective, since his win condition was a guarantee that Ukraine would never join. This exact point was a sticking condition in the failed negotiations before 2022.

I think the poster has some point though, in that it is not all Ukrainian factions that have been pushing for this, and was perhaps not them as much as western powers which prevented this concession (their policy is influenced by their more powerful neighbours and backers!)

In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible."

I never "justified" Russia's actions.

> When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine.

You were replying to a comment that’s clearly referring to current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO at the time of the invasion.

> In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible.”

Yes, obviously things are different now. Ukraine may very well be the next step in the NATO expansion that Putin has imposed upon himself.

> > https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)

This was superseded by the new constitution that was adopted in 1996 as the Ukrainian SSR no longer exists this document no longer applies.

But I’m curious if you are saying that Ukraine is forced to follow this why isn’t Russia forced to follow the Budapest memorandum in which in pledged along with other nuclear powers at the time not to invade or threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com