Hacker News Reader

Comment by screye | Hacker News Reader

Because events never cause wars. Countries want war and then they wait for an inciting event to go in.

The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient excuse.

9/11 triggered a war with random middle eastern countries that the US wanted to invade anyway.

If Cuba downed a large cargo ship, then the US will have annexed it before midnight. If China downs one in South China sea, the US might keep it quiet because neither country wants a violent escalation into war just yet.

War is premeditated. The inciting event is just the excuse.

View on HN

> The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient excuse

If that was true, the us wouldn’t be still dragging their feet two years into the war on arming the Ukrainians with air and long range strike capabilities. It took long enough for Bradley’s and artillery to be delivered.

>The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient excuse.

This is a complete fiction. The defense apparatus was in the process of shifting its focus from the middle east to China when this broke out. It is making the preparations for a pacific war much harder.

Sibling commenters saying US did not want to provoke a war with Russia are being biased imo. US drew a line in the sand, or kept pushing on the issue for Ukraine to NOT promise it would never join NATO. These are facts. Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part.

Hint, when you hear the mainstream media constantly repeating a slogan or phrase nearly unanimously, there's probably something that language is hiding. I'm thinking about how all media called the war "unprovoked". Well, that isn't entirely true, and is some US propaganda/face-saving measure.

> Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part

No it isn’t? When America invaded Vietnam to keep it from going communist, that didn’t make Ho Chi Minh and his backers war mongerers. And it didn’t mean that we were provoked. We went to war to achieve the political objective of containing communism. We were the aggressors.

With Ukraine, Russia’s political objectives were unclear. The stated ones, about NATO expansion, have backfired. But just because Moscow was stupid doesn’t also mean it was absolutely the aggressor.

>The stated ones, about NATO expansion, have backfired. But just because Moscow was stupid doesn’t also mean it was absolutely the aggressor.

I dont think you can stake this claim without understanding the objectives, the resolution of the war, and especially exploring the counterfactual from the Russian perspective.

It is easy to sit and the west and imagine that Russia regrets its actions deep down, but as bad as this outcome is, I think you have to ask if there are even worse outcomes that were considered from inaction.

This is a separate question from those about morality or aggressors, but one of realpolitik incentives.

Conversely, you can ask the same questions about the US failed wars in Vietnam and the middle east. Obviously many or most objectives were not met, but were enough met to better the counterfactual?

> It is easy to sit and the west and imagine that Russia regrets its actions deep down, but as bad as this outcome is, I think you have to ask if there are worse outcomes that were considered even worse from inaction.

I agree. Russia does not regret anything. Russia was carrying out genocide in Chechenya in late 1990s and early 2000s while the west was giving them free money in the form of development aid. The invasion of Georgia didn't see any reprecussions either, nor did the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 see any meaningful response.

If the west retreats, then this once again validates their strategy of expanding Russia with regional wars, and they will attack Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland next.

The western fear of escalation is escalating the wars, because it lowers the risk for Russia.

The us doesn't want war with Russia. The US wants Russia to engage in the international world order peacefully. The US didn't invade Russia. Ukraine literally begs the US for help. Ukraine had a popular uprising against their pro Russia government because the people wanted to join the EU.

So then how did the US trick Putin into invading Ukraine?

That's the simple question that nobody who espouses this silly set of beliefs can ever answer.

Just because the US wanted a fight with Russia doesn't mean the US tricked Putin into it. Make hay while the sun shines and all that.

And take care of inventory management and get the military industrial complex rolling again.

> Just because the US wanted a fight

There you are repeating that claim without any evidence.

I had a more charitable reading of GP's comment: supposing, hypothetically, the US wanted a proxy war against Russia, it didn't have to "trick" Russia. This is a perfectly valid rebuttal to GP's parent imo, especially because GP's GP never suggested US "tricked" anything.

> If China downs one in South China sea, the US might keep it quiet because neither country wants a violent escalation into war just yet.

>> just yet

No, sorry. Neither country wants a war. Full stop. I despise this tendentious reading of normal tension between two major world powers as a claim that war's going to break out. It's dangerous fear-mongering.

> The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient excuse.

That claim seems delusional. US was doing it’s best over the last 20 years to appease Putin so that they could ignore Europe and focus on the Pacific.

Hardly anyone in the west wanted to be dragged into this pointless war..

If the US was actually trying for moderate appeasement, it would have advocated for a militarily neutral Ukraine, and independence referendums in eastern Ukraine.

Total appeasement would have been taking an isolationist position, ignoring the situation entirely, and not being dragged into the war.

It is indisputable that the US didn't choose either of those options because it has incentives and interests that favor the current war over those outcomes. Reasonable people can discuss and debate what exactly those interests are (geoploticial, moral, economic, ect), and if they agree.

> If the US was actually trying for moderate appeasement, it would have advocated for a militarily neutral Ukraine, and independence referendums in eastern Ukraine.

Why?

There was no genuine independence movement in eastern Ukraine. It was a Russian military operation right from the start, led by their security services. Russians have a long history of establishing such fake countries on the territory of other countries through special operations, and then invade to "support" them. And then those happy "liberated" people hold another referendum at gunpoint and choose to join Russia. And Russia gladly annexes those territories, exterminates local population and replaces with Russians.

Ignoring the increasing hostility from Russia since mid-1990s and downplaying Eastern European security concerns was already appeasement. Russia invaded Georgia and half a year later Clinton was offering Russians a symbolic restart button like a lapdog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset

It was an open invitation to continue down the path and invade Ukraine in 2014, as was Obama's refusal to provide lethal aid, and Biden's declaration that he would not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Each step decreased uncertainties and risks for Russians.

Why not?

IF that is the case, than an credible election should be a landslide. It would demonstrate commitment to democratic self determination, which I think should be a global baseline.

I have never been to Ukraine, so dont claim a any definitive knowledge of what people do an don't want.

However, I do have immigrant friends from eastern Ukraine with family there with many grievances against the central government, so I believe the real situation is at least complex.

> Why not?

Eastern Ukraine had no independence movement before Russians invaded and created an illusion that one existed, to fool western observers into believing that it was some kind of "complex" local conflict and not a clear-cut foreign invasion.

After the invasion, under foreign occupation, referendums are illegitimate. How do you expect people to vote when any sign of loyalty to Ukraine can get you and your family imprisoned or executed? Voting doesn't matter anyway, because the military admin will falsify results according to their needs.

Not to mention that Russians in Ukraine don't have any legitimate claim to sovereignty in the first place. International law does not recognize the right of a random group of people to declare sovereignty. Otherwise Koreatowns and latino neighbourhoods in every US city would declare sovereignty and stop paying taxes to US authorities.

I agree that vates would not make sense in the current state post conflict and invasion.

Im talking about what what could have been an US position pre-invasion. Alternatively, the US could advocate for return to Ukraine followed by a vote, or UN adminstration pending a vote.

>Not to mention that Russians in Ukraine don't have any legitimate claim to sovereignty in the first place. International law does not recognize the right of a random group of people to declare sovereignty. Otherwise Koreatowns and latino neighbourhoods in every US city would declare sovereignty and stop paying taxes to US authorities.

What about Ukrainians in Ukraine, do they have a right to sovereignty? Americans in US cities?

I think all legitimate resident citizens have a natural right to self determination. After all, they aren't serfs or slaves. I agree there are some practical limitations on the minimum size, given the current state of government and technology.

Seeing how Putin cannot be appeased, his war with Ukraine is a pretty convenient outcome for the US. Ukraine, with some limited help from NATO countries, is doing a huge bleeding of Russian military potential. This, for a mere cost of a couple dozens of billions, seriously knocks back US's main rival in the Europe regions. As long as US wants to have any influence in Europe at all, this was is very advantageous for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com