Hacker News Reader

Comment by elintknower | Hacker News Reader

What if we just didn't start WW3 and reached a diplomatic solution?

I supported the war early on, but it's clear now that things have gone on long enough and this is nothing but NATO saber rattling.

I like how all other "war" content on HN gets tons of hate, but as long as it's ukraine / russia hating it gets a pass.

peace is the solution.

View on HN

Peace seems achievable by Ukraine successfully defending its original borders until Russia decides to stop its invasion. It’s not like Ukraine is trying to invade and annex Russian land. This war has a very unilateral cause.

Most other war is criticized on HN in the same way. i.e. USA should leave Iraq/Afghanistan, China shouldn’t invade Taiwan, NATO shouldn’t attack Libya. HN generally sides against the aggressors. So this is consistent.

Don't be naive. There is no diplomatic "solution". Any truce would be only temporary while Russia rearms to attack again in a few years.

I’m fairly certain Ukraine would accept any truce that included Russia withdrawing all forces from the border, even if it was obviously just to rearm and redeploy later. Ukraine doesn’t have any goals beyond removal of Russian forces from its 2013 borders — what else would they negotiate for?

You make it sound like Ukraine wouldn’t agree to a truce unless Russia agreed to more than that, but I think that’s a strange take. Did you mean “cease fire” instead of truce?

Russia withdrawing to 2013 borders is a pretty absurd possible diplomatic solution. If Russia withdrew to the stalemate of 2020 with no discussion would the Ukraine actually risk reopening the entire hot war again or try to find a manageable level of tit-for-tat skirmishes?

Certainly Russia would prefer to try to reachieve that stalemate than enter a discussion that arrives at 2013 borders..

Perhaps in a situation where it was actually diplomatically solved and Russia actually wanted to accept 2013 borders there's something else on the line that is far more important than anything in the conflict.

But realistically, most ends to the hot conflict probably will end in suspicion and a continued stockpiling of arms by both sides.

I don't think anything will be resolvable until Putin is politically incapacitated and a replacement possibly doesn't see the conflict as worthwhile for their own political needs.

> Certainly Russia would prefer to try to reachieve that stalemate than enter a discussion that arrives at 2013 borders..

Unlikely. Right there on the Ukraine invasion first target list was the blowing of the dam that stopped Ukraine water from going to Crimea.

Resource analysts would say that lack of water to Crimea was a major, perhaps the major, reason for invading. The gain of taking Crimea was almost reversed by Ukraine cutting off water supply for almost a decade.

Retreating to the 2019 situation is not an acceptable outcome either for Russia, yet it is several levels above the proposed diplomatic outcome. I.e. they can run a base with limited water and forcibly move civilians so 2013 and 2019 are different positions.

The war can end tomorrow. All Russia needs to do is get out of Ukraine. All of it.

Simple to do, easy to achieve. No more Russians need to die.

> this is nothing but NATO saber rattling.

This is nothing but Russia committing Genocide and NATO countries sending aid to help Ukraine defend itself. (note that NATO isn't, it's purely a defence alliance).

> peace is the solution.

Giving Russia a pass and letting them continue raping, murdering and committing genocide is not "peace".

Well, maybe that's what "Russian peace" means?

Why is it always Ukraine and NATO who needs to make concessions? Why people like you never talk about Russia who is actually aggressor here waging war of conquest and genocide?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com