Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

3pt14159

The west will not protect Ukraine for two giant reasons.

1. Russia has gas over Germany.

2. Amassing troops on Russia's boarder without an alliance with Ukraine is politically challenging.

3. America is sick of war and doesn't have a good looking balance sheet.

4. China is the new meta. Taiwan is tough enough.

5. Joining Nato is a process starts with have a certain level of democratic freedom and market economy that Ukraine is in the process of attaining. If we defend them right now, then it undermines the reforms we want them to make before joining. Once they're in, they're our problem.

6. Covid and knock-on effects is still the focus.

Doesn't mean I love it, but it's the reality. Personally I'd do things differently, but I don't exactly have presidential intelligence reports now do I?

View on HN

For joining NATO, isn't there also a requirement on territorial integrity which makes Ukraine joining impossible as long as the Donbass situation persists?

If that’s the case. How did West Germany join NATO given they had no control over the DDR?

Looks like you could just declare you have territorial integrity and you’re set, irrespective of reality.

West Germany and the DDR were two separate countries.

I haven't heard about it, but sounds plausible.

That said, if there was political will, it would probably be fine, or there would be a special clause, or sth.

For example, West Germany joined NATO (founding member?), even though clearly the country was divided; West Germany didn't, AFAIK, make format territorial claims on East Germany, but they clearly saw themselves as a legitimate state with an occupied territory.

Territorial integrity of the West Germany was ensured by Potsdam treaty and definition of occupation zones. West Germany could not have any territorial claims for the territory of GDR, because it recognized the treaty and the fact that GDR was the occupation zone of USSR.

There's not official requirement, and never has been. It's more a concern about the ambiguity that would arise from such a situation.

Donbass is a diversion of attention from Crimea. It will eventually settle and return back to Ukraine, as more and more countries recognize Crimea as part of Russia. It is hard to imagine Ukraine giving up on Crimea (though it would make a lot of sense by now), so it will never join NATO and it is very unlikely that they will join EU despite promises of local politicians.

That's similar to how the Kosovo situation makes it impossible for Serbia to join the EU and NATO.

> It will eventually settle and return back to Ukraine

> as more and more countries recognize Crimea as part of Russia.

What? Crimea will return to Ukraine as more countries recognise Crimea as Russian territory?

> It will eventually settle and return back to Ukraine

Crimea will never return to Ukraine, Russia historically needs port that doesn't freeze over winter. Now that Ukraine is looking towards EU/Nato and Russia cannot control it as a satellite corrupt state, Russian military will not allow losing control of their most important port.

This whole war in Ukraine is to open up possibility for a break-out state favourable and funded by Russia or even assimilation into Russia, as its a corridor to Crimea.

No, you misread it. I did not say that Crimea will be returned.

I see now, sorry for misunderstanding.

I doubt it will ever settle. See: Abkhazia and South Osetia. Russia has a history of creating frozen conflicts to make life painful for its neighbours

Reply on news.ycombinator.com