Hacker News Reader

Comment by JasonFruit | Hacker News Reader

Why should we? Is Ukraine really that important to the United States? Is provoking greater enmity from Russia on behalf of a faraway irrelevance really in our best interests? Would we have been wiser to have acceded to Russian requests that we abandon the idea of NATO membership and participation for Ukraine several years ago when this invasion could have been avoided?

Americans have short memories, and don't recall President Obama saying that, while Ukraine is a critical security matter for Russians, it is not so for America, and that we shouldn't allow concern over Ukraine to overshadow our greater national interest. It's a pity that neither his administration nor the two following ones have consistently followed that principle. Our meddling in Ukraine is a large part, though by no means the whole, of the cause of this action.

View on HN

> Is Ukraine really that important to the United States?

We confront this now or relearn the lesson from almost exactly a century ago about the compounding cost, in blood and money, of appeasing a despot ruling a country with falling living standards.

> would we have been wiser to have acceded to Russian requests that we abandon the idea of NATO membership and participation for Ukraine several years ago

This happened. NATO membership for Ukraine was all but abandoned after the financial crisis. Years before Putin rolled tanks into Crimea. Had we actually accepted Ukraine in 2008, the last time consultations were seriously held, we'd likely have avoided this mess.

Just last year, NATO reaffirmed plans to let Ukraine to membership, after dropping the issue since 2008. This and increasing training and arms sales and donations to Ukraine played into the situation.

One has to ask, why are some NATO members intent on continued eastward expansion.

> why do some NATO members intent on continued eastward expansion

If Russia rolling tanks into Ukraine doesn’t show why expanding mutual protection makes sense, I don’t know what would. As a direct result of these moves Putin has all but guaranteed NATO forces in Sweden, possibly even Finland.

I totally get why Ukraine wants in NATO, but don't see why NATO wanted to have them.

First, nobody says we want them, their membership was not on current NATO's agenda. Nobody is forcing them to join, just as we don't put any pressure on Finnland or Sweden. But the more the merrier - you have another ally you can at least half-count on the safer you are. The same applies to EU membership.

Why do you think it is not on the agenda?

In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programmes and Trust Funds.

In 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status.

In 2021 NATO reaffirmed that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP)", which is the most traction on the topic since 2008.

In parallel to all this, joint military exercises and arms shipments have been ramped up.

I found this old article from the Ukrainian perspective to be informative:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/06/15/the-2021-brussels-nat...

>But the more the merrier - you have another ally you can at least half-count on the safer you are.

This seems to be the critical question. I think that current NATO members are safer without expanding east. I certainly feel that way today! In the future, I don't think conflict is less likely if Ukraine joins NATO and there are more us missiles and troops stationed on the Russian border.

> Why do you think it is not on the agenda?

Because the Ukraine does not fulfill the criteria for membership. The article you linked says "In spring 2021, Ukraine pointed out little progress in NATO’s “open-door” policy" and "U.S. Department of State spokesman, noted that the “open door” policy is applicable for states meeting the standard for membership and emphasized that Ukraine should do its homework"

> I think that current NATO members are safer without expanding east.

Well, this may be true but the problem is that this requires a lot of trust. You have to trust that if you do nothing, the other party also does nothing. I understand that Russians are scared and that they are acting out of fear but we (Poles) are acting out of fear too. In the past ~230 years for only ~50 we were not occupied by Russia.

I hope that one day we can talk honestly with Russians and address each others fears, but well, right now we are where we are :(

Ukraine wasn’t a NATO priority until now. Given what Putin has done, and his oligarchs have permitted, it is clear Ukraine must be a NATO member to keep Europe stable. Russia can be attended to by China. They will grant them financial access. In exchange, they will make Russia their vassal and keep them in check. What an idiot of a society they have been…

I can speak from perspective of Poland. We simply don't want to have a border with Russia. If our eastern neighbors were part of NATO we could sleep more peacefully. We feared of what just happened with Belarus - Putin effectively took it over and we now have Russian troops near our border. Now, instead of worrying about cigarettes smugglers, we need to secure the border from Putin. Just two months ago we had to deal with the immigrants crisis that he's caused.

Interesting, so is the idea that neutral buffer states are impractical in the long term, and it would be better to have them in NATO than Russian control?

Generally speaking, yes (but again this is only Poland's perspective). Tbh you can't take anything for granted, being a NATO member does not guarantee that another member won't stab you in the back one day, but it makes it less likely.

I can understand that from the Polish perspective. From the American perspective, I know that the United States is one of the only countries that is more aggressive and interventionist then Russia in the world. I don't want our military bumping up against Russia any more than it has to. I think there are risks to Poland from this as well.

What about Finland and Sweden, are those important to the United States? Because those two countries were threatened by Putin today with the same actions he's taking in Ukraine. Your line of argument assumes he'll stop with Ukraine. It's a fair line, but he's recently sent troops into Kazakhstan and Belarus, and remember he played by the same playbook in Georgia - "they are killing ethnic Russians let me recognize those 'republics' and pacify them".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com