Hacker News Reader

We want peace! If your own country was invaded, would you be saying the same thing? Just roll over and let them have their way with you? I'm genuinely curious if you have the courage of what you say your convictions are.

No, I would fight them tooth and nail. As would any member of an invaded country. Duh.

But, if after several years a generation of my peers have been killed and I don't see a logic end to this war any time soon, well then I might start to re-evaluate.

But you know what's really dirty?

The pro-war people in the US are doing the opposite of what you say: gladly cheering on the slaughter of Ukrainians so long as it defeats the "boogeyman". Which side is more pro-Ukrainian? The side that results in more dead Ukrainians or less?

So it sounds like you are saying it should be for Ukraine to decide whether to continue the war or not?

> We want peace. Full stop. No more dead men, women, and children. THAT IS THE GOAL.

If that was the goal, why is Trump asking for Ukraine's natural resources? Maybe his goals are different than yours.

---

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, which is why Ukraine was seeking protection.

From Ukraine's point of view, if they make peace now, and give up territory... Russia will do the same thing again in a couple of years. Many more people will die.

Russia doesn't care about killing off its population, they have lots of poor and non-ethnic-Russian citizens, and they think nothing of having them die to get some more land.

Read my whole reply. I literally addressed that at the end. Read the whole thing before you dismiss something.

> placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?

If the US is not willing to militarily defend it, it doesn't mean anything. Russia can just take the land, and cut a deal with the US to let them extract there for some time.

A security guarantee or NATO membership would be an effective deterrent to further conflict, but Trump doesn't want it.

> Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth in first term, providing lethal aid which previous presidents did not do.

Indeed, this reads like a convincing argument to me.

> you do realize that placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?

Honestly, the best pro-Trump explanation I've read. Well done! I'm sure that wasn't easy ;)

The first is a direct lie.

The second is only as trustworthy as Trump (i.e. not at all). What would prevent Trump from striking a deal with the russians after he "legally owns it anyway".

Third: Much is said about the Budapest Memorandum and what it isn't. But I think it very clearly says that US (and others) should not use Ukraines weakness as leverage to exploit it. Which is exactly what US is trying to do now, thereby becoming the second country to clearly violate it.

This is the correct answer. Everyone here saying "We need to stand up to Putin..." won't be fighting on the frontlines and at worst, we can be entering WW3 if the US, Russia, and the EU keep escalating the conflict.

About your analogy to China and Mexico... There are already 6 NATO countries bordering Russia. It's really just about Putin being unhappy that they can't attack and annex where they please.

Trump did not "arm Ukraine to the teeth" in his first term. He send a little bit of infantry weapons, and some armored cars. That's it. It was a big break from Obama administration that essentially embargoed any weapons sales to Ukraine, but it was not in any way "arming to the teeth". Arming Ukraine in a sufficient manner would have required tens of billions each year, that did not happen.

"- There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris Johnson and European delegation shot it down."

There was no such thing. The "peace deal" in question was a Russian capitulation offer, which was never signed.

"- Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION."

There was zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO simply due to the existing territorial disputes with Russia. Russian ultimatum to US in December 2021 was clear — get NATO to pre-1997 — Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic etc should all leave NATO. That would mean dissolution of NATO effectively.

"a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?"

It can work the same with Russia occupying the same territory. There is nothing there about "Ukraine" per se.