Comment by khokhol | Hacker News Reader

Comment by khokhol | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Whereas the nonsense you're providing us here is not hallucinated (by you), but rather cut-and-pasted from the usual pro-Russian sources.

Putin gave an "explicit warning that Russia perceived NATO's eastward expansion as a threat to its national security" as early as 2007 in his Munich speech.

And as a result (in combination with other factors) Ukraine's NATO aspirations were effectively halted by 2009. Simply put - some hawks in the U.S. wanted it, but it never got traction in Europe - not even after the initial invasion in 2014. In other words - in regard to the NATO-Ukraine question Putin had by that time already achieved a successful, non-violent containment strategy. But ultimately he opted for the full-scale invasion in 2022 anyway.

Why? Because it was never his real reason in the first place.

The Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014 with the ouster of Yanukovych, who was pro-Russia and opposed closer ties with the EU.

First, it wasn't an "ouster" - he fled to escape likely imminent charges of corruption and complicity in murder. Second - if you really believe that whatever happens in the internal politics of one country is a "reason for", or can "provoke" another country into launching a full-scale invasion -- then I don't know what to tell you.

> if you really believe that whatever happens in the internal politics of one country is a "reason for", or can "provoke" another country into launching a full-scale invasion -- then I don't know what to tell you.

what do you mean? internal politics is just a label and the issue will most certainly not be contained by a border.

> in regard to the NATO-Ukraine question Putin had by that time already achieved a successful, non-violent containment strategy. But ultimately he opted for the full-scale invasion in 2022 anyway.

Beginning in 2019, Ukraine went full-press on seeking NATO membership. In fact, they "voted 334 to 17 to amend the constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objectives as joining the European Union and NATO" [0]. Again, Ukraine went as far as amending their constitution to codify the goal of joining the EU and NATO.

Now, was that Putin's "real" motive for the 2022 invasion? Who knows, I'm sure there are a number of reasons. Putin frankly denied Ukraine's right to exist. But regardless, it is very clear that his rhetoric over the past 17 years, and subsequent actions, are at least consistent with the NATO issue.

> First, it wasn't an "ouster" - he fled to escape likely imminent charges of corruption and complicity in murder.

There was a revolution in Ukraine in 2014 and he was overthrown. On February 22, 2014 the "Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office by 328 to 0" [1]. He fled that evening. I have no doubt corruption and any number of other things led to the revolution. Regardless, he was very anti-EU and pro-Russia and his removal from office directly led to the 2014 Crimea invasion and the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war. In fact, Russia began organizing troops outside of Ukraine the very same day Yanukovych was voted out and the invasion began 5 days after his removal [2].

> Second - if you really believe that whatever happens in the internal politics of one country is a "reason for", or can "provoke" another country into launching a full-scale invasion -- then I don't know what to tell you.

If one country has been saying for nearly 2 decades that if another country joins NATO it means war, and then that country ratifies their constitution to seek NATO membership, and then a war happens, is it really that surprising? When the two countries are already at war over allegiances in the first place?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#2004_a...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

Beginning in 2019, Ukraine went full-press on seeking NATO membership.

We've gone through this already. Yes, Ukraine wanted to join NATO - but the bigger fact was that Europe was against it. So it wasn't going to happen.

If one country has been saying for almost 2 decades that if another country joins NATO it means war

Have you actually read the Munich speech? It doesn't even mention Ukraine, and doesn't come close to using the belligerent language that you're saying it does.

I suggest that you develop a practice of reading original source materials, such as for the the 2007 Munich speech, directly -- rather than uncritically relying on random snippets from Wikipedia quoting what certain pro-Russia commentators (like Mearsheimer and Cohen) say about them.

> If one country has been saying for nearly 2 decades that if another country joins NATO it means war, and then that country ratifies their constitution to seek NATO membership, and then a war happens, is it really that surprising?

I don't recall any direct threats of war. In fact, in the first few years of the war, Russia denied that their soldiers were even in Ukraine. They tried to portray the war as a civil conflict within Ukraine.

As to indirect threats and vague hints of total annihilation, Russia has been threatening everyone in Eastern Europe over everything they don't like; from EU and NATO to insignificant things like parking fines that their diplomats have been raking up, and this bullshit has been going on straight from USSR's collapse in early 1990s. Russia's permanent unwillingness to offer peaceful and mutually respectful relations is a key driver behind Eastern Europe seeking closer relations with Western Europe. Handing national sovereignty to Russia over threats is not a serious option.

Ukraine's mistake is not that they seeked NATO membership, but that they underestimated the Russian threat and didn't hurry with EU and NATO integration like other countries did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com