Hacker News Reader

Comment by propagandist | Hacker News Reader

And the same frequencies that were dominant in 2003 are now shutting out the other voices. The Bill Kristols and David Frums are going to awaken from their hibernation.

It's pointless to argue really--there's 0 hope that we'll do anything differently.

To be clear, there are limited options now wrt to Ukraine. Nobody wants to go to war with Russia. But being hardline and not pragmatic means we'll set ourselves up for similar issues in the next few years and decades.

We strung Ukraine along knowing we wouldn't come to their six when it counted. Honesty has to be the preferable approach.

View on HN

There is only one thing that will secure peace in Europe

NATO has to invite Russia to join. Or Russia has to apply.

Someone has to go first, but neither country’s nationalist cold war war hawks would do it. That’s why we need moderates in office.

Trump should have done it, but it never occurred to him to di that!

It's not really an easy situation. There were many complications even with states like Greece, Turkey, and (North) Macedonia. I cannot imagine what Poland and the other formerly occupied states would do if Russia were invited.

At the end of the day, NATO was created to counter the USSR. When the USSR collapsed, we had an opening to integrate Russia, and we squandered it. That was the real opportunity.

A Russia under a dictator has no place in NATO.

Would you be willing to risk nuclear armaggeddon for pedantic principles of NATO membership? I’d gladly violate them to literally eliminate a whole host of terrible scenarios once and for all.

George W Bush wasn’t a “dictator” but he and his inner circle got us into the war in Iraq which destroyed huge swaths of the middle east. Perhaps in practice, the US President can wreak just as much if not more havoc than a Russian one?

Ah, the good old 'if you don't do what we want you to do we'll nuke you' argument.

Let me know what borders for the renewed USSR you find acceptable. Should they include Poland? Maybe former East Germany or France perhaps?

None. Just invite Russia into NATO. Why not? Pride? Cant sell as many weapons anymore?

I think many war hawks in the West just want to cut Russia down to size, one less “superpower” to worry about. If it is invited into NATO them the whole raison d’etre of NATO kind of disappears: the big bad enemy is only Russia.

Don't worry. Territories of Russian Federation will join the NATO.

Yes, that’s what many people want. To just break up the Russian federation, they hate that it’s so big.

Personally, I don’t care too much for imperialism. But we all know how well USA or China would react to secession. USA’s bloodiest was began to “preserve the union”. EU and USSR was actually kind of nice to have a way to let some members secede.

NATO is not Russia, members don't get included against their will.

To become a member, a country must apply and agree to settle disputes using peaceful means. Does not look like Russia has any interest in that.

It looks to me like Russia has interest in that. Russia has been bringing up its geopolitical security concerns and bright lines consistently for years and no one in NATO cared enough to “appease” them in any lasting way. It called on Ukraine for years to continue talks w the separatists based on the Minsk agreements but they didn’t. What peaceful means does Russia have available to them? They had a referendum in Crimea where no one was killed — seems far more peaceful than USA or China, the other two “superpowers”. What if USA agrees to settle disputes using peaceful means but then, ya know, just goes and bullies people? It is a founding member of NATO.

What should Russia do if Georgia is massacring separatists in Ossetia? (Similar situation to Ukraine.) Just stand by and watch? Should Georgia be inducted into NATO but Russia not?

What should anyone do if Pakistan is massacring separtists in Bangladesh?

Just curious what is the standard really for when a country should intervene.

> It called on Ukraine for years to continue talks w the separatists

Come on, man. This is such bullshit it's just insulting. How many "separatists" will there be left after Russia stops paying their wages?

I have developers in Kharkiv and other areas of southeast Ukraine so I speak to them

They tell me Kiev’s attitude towards the Russian speaking population there. You can ask them yourself. Where do you live?

The situation is exactly as you’d expect … some guerilla fighters shoot rockets and then Kiev shoots back and civilians have to sit in basements… so there is escalation and the local residents feel that Kiev is bombing them… just like in any other separatist situation.

Hardly a “genocide” as Putin characterized it but also not exactly welcomed by Kiev. They say they offered Kiev to be an autonomous region with its own Russian language etc. and not bother anyone but Kiev sends troops.

I just listen, I am trying to piece together what the situation was like on the ground from people who are there.

Russia in NATO would by no means "literally eliminate a whole host of terrible scenarios". Putin would still be in power, in fact he'd probably have swallowed up more territory by now using his ability to paralyze NATO, and he'd be no less likely to use nukes than he is today.

I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory. Rather, I have seen them try to hold on to what they have, as more and more republics want to secede. We all know how USA dealt with secession…

I honestly think Russia is motivated only by NATO being a long term geopolitical existential threat. And what it sees as the wresting of its allies by “the West”. Honestly, seeing how nations fare after trusting the USA (eg Kurds) I can’t really blame them for that.

What I do blame them for is sucking at public dialogue and messaging and then lashing out militarily. I blame the USA and others for that last part too. But at least the USA is good at meesaging so people know what we are concerned about.

Remember, after all, this is the prevailing sentiment around the world every year: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-demo...

(I bet that poll will change this year, though)

South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donetsk, and Luhansk weren't part of Russia post-USSR.

> And what it sees as the wresting of its allies by “the West”. Honestly, seeing how nations fare after trusting the USA (eg Kurds) I can’t really blame them for that.

I think the USA treated the Kurds poorly, but how is that relevant to this? The Baltics were eager to join NATO and are very happy they did. Are you arguing that Russia invaded Ukraine so that they wouldn't join NATO and be treated badly by America in the future?

Honestly I think it’s basically a combination of four things at once:

Separatists overreacting to news of civil war in Odessa and moving to declare independence from Ukraine

Kyiv blowing the separatists out of proportion and sending its army in a protracted siege war against them instead of sitting down based on Minsk agreements

Putin blowing the “fascist Kyiv government genociding Russians” thing out of proportion and sending his army in a blitzkrieg to destroy Ukrainian capabilities instead of sitting down with Zelenskiy’s government at the highest levels

NATO ignoring Russia’s repeated concerns over the years about expansion and surrounding it with the same kind of thing that made JFK ready to go to war during the Cuban missile crisis

Basically on every level, sending an army backfires. Better to just not react with violence and use diplomacy. But seems that cooler heads do NOT prevail

You're totally ignoring Putin's speech where he explicitly stated Ukraine always was and always should be part of a Russian empire.

> I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory.

How can you not have seen the invasion of Ukraine that started yesterday?

Is that your only example? So the last 30 years Russia didn’t expand and now it finally took over Ukraine temporarily and will probably let them keep their government and stay relatively independent (but demilitarized) proves they love annexing things?

That is like saying Israel took Golan Heights because of its ambitions to expand and take over as much Arab land as it can. Rather than limited strategic control for security guarantees.

Every country wants to have a buffer against enemy troops so they can’t shoot as far into its main population centees. In my opinion this is not going to be a thing in the 21st century but it was a thing all throughout history before.

USA is just “lucky” to be surrounded by two oceans because frankly they managed to either exterminate or ethnically cleanse and demilitarize all the previous inhabitants on the continent through war or disease. Otherwise it would act the same way. (The Monroe doctrine kind of declares the whole hemisphere to be under USA protectorate btw.)

I proved you wrong. I rest my case.

> I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory.

It might pay off to regain parity with current affairs then.

And maybe read a bit about Chechnya while you're at it or any one of the pages linked from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-Soviet_conflicts

Russia rejected the reforms and path towards NATO membership in the 2000s. They chose to re-establish their geopolitical sphere of influence.

No, true democracy in Russia is needed. Anything else would not work.

That would implode NATO from inside.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com