Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_w | Hacker News Reader

Please explain how Trump stops the war short of allowing a Russian genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Please explain how Harris stops the war.

That’s not how this works. You made a statement, now back it up.

Eventually the Russian economy would've caved in. The ruble was in a free fall up until Trump decided to betray the free world.

The Russian economy still can cave in. The war isn't over.

Sure, but at this point it seems like Trump will soon start to actively support the Russian economy.

Why is it the responsibility of the US to single handedly stop the war?

We don’t know what Harris would or wouldn’t have done. But we know that what Trump is doing is not going to end up well for Ukraine.

Dealing directly with Russia as if it was up to the US to decide for everyone else isn’t just callous, it’s extremely dangerous.

You are aware that Trump has _not_ stopped this war right? He has floated certain some possible agreements with Ukraine, but his terms have not been agreeable to the Ukrainians. If Trump actually wants Ukraine to come to an agreement with the US, he'll have to come up with a deal that is acceptable to them.

So yeah up until now Trump has done _nothing_ to stop this war. He's really only proved to all the US' supposed allies, that the US is not trustworthy. At this point, Trump should just shut up and stop pretending like he's trying to reach some peace agreement. He should just stop sending funds to Ukraine as he obviously wants to do and just leave the discussion because he's really no longer relevant.

I don't think Trump will bring peace to Ukraine and he seems to be operating on an "America-First, forget about Europe" policy.

However, if by "genociding Ukrainian people" you mean eradicating the population of Ukraine that considers itself distinct from Russia, Trump could conceivably stop the war by letting Russia hold onto territories it owns, while having the rest of Ukraine as a protectorate of various European powers that may eventually bring it into the EU.

This might result in a populatin exchange as Russian speakers get sent to the Russian-held parts of Ukraine and vice-versa. This would not be good but it would not be a genocide either. You can also look at the Indian partition for an example of how this could go horribly wrong.

That is not a possible outcome.

Russia does not care the slightest about the territory, it is purely a war about ideology and influence.

The only acceptable outcome from a Russian perspective is a Russia aligned government in Kiev, or a peace deal where they will rebuild their army and end up stronger than Ukraine followed by restarting the war.

Problem is I don't think Russia is ever going to agree to to the point of Ukraine becoming a protectorate of the EU without having legal authority to veto EU military intervention in Ukraine. And I severely doubt Ukraine's is going to agree to give up to give up those lands without a security guarantee that Russia can't veto.

Sides, Russia's got nukes. It's nuke's are the whole reason why the US and Europe has been reluctant to intervene. If, in this scenario, Russia invades Ukraine again and then simple say that it will launch it's warheads at any nation that attempts to intervene, what then?

> Trump could conceivably stop the war by letting Russia hold onto territories it owns

So, only ethnically cleanse the areas they already started on. Genocide in a limited and specific way is still genocde.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com