Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> "sensible"

According to what idea of "sensible"?

> encourage a Ukrainian surrender early on and send them some food/whatnot in a care package, then fortify the Polish border.

This would still have resulted in millions of refugees, plus some unknown number of people killed by Russian forces exterminating any local pro-Europe political supporters. Remember Euromaidan. It also snuffs out a democracy, which is not a good precedent to set.

The second motivation is the belief that the invasion, if permitted, will not stop at Ukraine. This is why Finland and Sweden joined NATO after it happened.

> Keeping a conflict worthy of WWII smouldering in the area for more than 4 years now?

Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time.

> Can we please be honest about our motivations here?

Can we be honest about the motivations of Russia in capturing and annexing other countries, something forbidden by both the post-WW2 international order and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum (which also justifies Europe's security provision to Ukraine)?

« Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time. »

The US has around 900 military bases abroad. Far more than all other countries combined. These bases are a constant source of threats and bullying, deploying and projecting a GDP largely based on death and destruction. Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders?

The simple answer is that those bases aren't considered US territory and do not constitute annexation, and in most cases are there by invitation, such as to defend against the other, worse, hegemon.

(Some exceptions apply for e.g. the Chagossians)

If those bases aren't considered US territory whose territory are they?

In case of United States Army installations in Germany:

" The legal status of Americans stationed in Germany is governed by special international agreements including the NATO Status of Forces Agreement.

People stationed at overseas bases or posts must remember German laws apply to them, too. To protect yourself, know what rights you have as an American. Whether German authorities exercise their right of jurisdiction depends on the circumstances of the case. "

https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Articl...

In case of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base:

"At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base to Cuba."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold...

Guantanamo is leased like Hong Kong used to be, and has been since the Spanish-American war. It is an exception because the US refuses to normalize relations with Cuba. That is not the case for Ramstein and the European bases, which are generally just there by agreement which does not convey sovereignty.

Another special case is the UK sovereign bases in Cyprus, which really are UK territory; I only know about those because during Brexit they kept getting mentioned in the treaty documents.

Bonus pull out sovereignty section: to whom does Transnistria belong? How about Nagorno-Karabakh?

It's German territory where we granted an ally special rights to enforce their own rules to some large degree.

> Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders?

Mostly they were allowed there by the government of the place.

They are criticised for the exceptions.

> GDP largely based on death and destruction

For all the flaws of the USA, this is not really what their GDP is "based on", though perhaps one could say that functionally they hide conscription by giving many unemployed men a Hobson's choice of signing up vs. going hungry.

As the current situation in Middle East shows, these military bases loose their military function very fast in 21st century.

Yes, the increased effectiveness of cheap weapons is positive for the global underdogs. And the enormous military network the US entertains is costly. Which is why they have vassals (to foot the bills, at least in part). We'll see how this is going to develop – development of effective counter-measures shouldn't be ruled out.

If “nukes” existed many of these bases, being somewhat removed from human settlements, could be destroyed much more effectively and without much “collateral damage”. As the US and NATO hide behind Ukraine, other “players” could hide behind just any type of “terrorist”, just as the US/UK have done again and again.

Crazy comparison, military bases based on political agreements has nothing to do with invading a country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com