Hacker News Reader

Comment by pastacacioepepe | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The only message that this position would send is that wars of conquest are acceptable and the EU will sit idly by while war rages around them.

You’re basically describing the start of WWII.

The US has already effectively conquered parts of Syria and is busy looting oil from the oil fields. The world stands idly by. Israel is busy reducing Gaza to rubble. The world stands idly by.

It’s reasonable to act to prevent one’s neighbour from being conquered, without having an obligation to be world police.

Europe has a strong memory of what happens when you don’t act to protect your neighbours from aggressors: those aggressors soon come for you too.

> The only message that this position would send is that wars of conquest are acceptable

If the only thing that makes a war bad in your eyes is the goal of conquest, than that seems rather hypocritical in my eyes. Whether land is taken or not, what really makes a country independent is who governs it. Who cares about land, it's just soil and it's not worth human lives.

At least the citizens of eastern UA had referenda to decide if they wanted to be with Russia. I don't think we granted Iraqis or Afghans the same privilege.

> You’re basically describing the start of WWII.

This is such an absurd statement I won't waste my time debating it.

Before the attack on Ukraine people said the same about Russia attacking Ukraine. There is no reason why Russia would do that, and look where we are now.

As the farmer said, "I'm not greedy, all I want is the land next to mine.

> There is also no reason to believe Russia will go any further than Ukraine

It's exactly the opposite: Russia has no reason to stop. Arms industry is ramping up, domestic population has been beaten into submission and can't even organize a single major protest, and governments in the west are under complacent illusion that Putin will stop any moment now. Why stop at Ukraine? You say NATO and nuclear weapons. Are you going to press the button if you are afraid of sending long-range conventional missiles? Of course not.

Long shots like flirting with MAGA to delay tens of billions worth of military aid have also paid off spectacularly.

Russia is punching way above their weight because of foolish illusions about their intentions.

This is very reminiscent of the Phony War phase of WWII. Poland had been invaded, but international support for Poland was much weaker than it could've been, because UK, France and others were irrationally afraid of Germany. They had 110 divisions in the west against German 23, but did not put them into action. After the war, multiple German generals (Alfred Jodl, for example, chief of operations at German high command) said that had allied forces attacked them from the west, Germany would've held on for only 2 weeks at best. Hesitation gave the initiative to Germans and we all know how that went.

It's about the people living on the land, not the land itself.

If it was about your own home would you frame it the same way of „some land“? If it was your own family shelled or your own country would you argue the same way?

> At least the citizens of eastern UA had referenda to decide if they wanted to be with Russia.

Ah, there it is. Explains all now. The idea of a referendum under hostile military occupation is completely absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com