Comment by dsomers | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsomers | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I know you’re going to disagree with this using some silly rationalization, I won’t respond to after this because it fundamentally sounds like you don’t believe is Ukraine’s right to self determination and you think that they should be bound by deals the US or Russia have made on its behalf in the past which Ukraine had no say in.

Here it is, NATO is fundamentally a defensive organization, and Ukraine is a democratic country they should be free to choose who they do deals with, I’d feel the same way if they freely and democracy decided to align closer with Russia.

I think saying NATO antagonize this is people treating Ukraine like a colonial holding of Russia and that Ukraine doesn’t have sovereignty. This is fundamentally wrong and goes against any countries right to self determination. I don’t care if it’s the US or Russia trying to dictate terms to a third country, it’s wrong either way.

What I really think this is about is Russians are fundamentally humiliated that other former Soviet countries like the Baltic states and Poland have a fair greater standard of living than Russia exactly because they embrace democracy and cooperated with western countries. Russia just wants to wreck Ukraine for aligning more with the West and improving their economy because they’re afraid of having another example of a former Soviet country prospering of their doorsteps making it ever more obvious how badly the rulers of Russia treat their people.

They did, in 2014 their democratically elected president chose to stop/delay EU talks because it would cost the country much more at the time (Russia was giving them 1/3 price for the gas and much more money than EU wanted to give). Then Maidan happened and the rest is history.

I agree with you in principle, but it is a sad reality that we live in a world where it is not the case. If you had a bully in a classroom, you would not go around provoke him, you would try to live with him even though you don't like him.

As for the NATO membership, yes Ukraine can want to join, but NATO had to accept them, all members had to approve before that happening. NATO could have said publicly that they would not accept Ukraine into NATO for at least 20-30 years, and that they would not put NATO equipment or troops in Ukraine, that would not prevent Ukraine from doing whatever they wanted with their own military.

There is a reason why not European countries are in the EU. Ukraine wanting to be in NATO does not automatically make it wise for NATO to accept them. Kosovo (which US recognizes as a separate country) cries on all bells to be accepted in NATO, but it is not happening, why? Because it is unwise at the time to do that. NATO loses nothing, and bully is not provoked.

> They did, in 2014 their democratically elected president chose to stop/delay EU talks because it would cost the country much more at the time (Russia was giving them 1/3 price for the gas and much more money than EU wanted to give). Then Maidan happened and the rest is history.

Sounds like he severely misread the room, turned dictator in the people's eyes for wanting to sell out their freedom for thirty pieces of silver, and was deposed in a revolution. You know, like sometimes happens (and sometimes not) when democratically elected leaders turn dictator.

> If you had a bully in a classroom, you would not go around provoke him, you would try to live with him even though you don't like him.

Maybe you wouldn't. But that never works in the long run; sooner or later someone has to give the bully his comeuppance. Better sooner than later.

>Here it is, NATO is fundamentally a defensive organization

"We came. We saw. He died."

This was the victory speech at the end of a NATO led incursion that destroyed Libya, turning it into a failed state. It's now on its second civil war.

> destroyed Libya

I guess you seem to forget the civil war that was happening before NATO got there. The one the was so atrocious that not even China or Russia vetoed it when the proposal of interfering was voted on at the UN.

This is not morally equivalent to what is being done to Ukraine, not even close. There is criticism to be put on the mission in Libya, but it should be that NATO didn’t stay long enough to stabilize the country and support peaceful nation building.

Or maybe you think war crimes are just fine and no one should ever try to do anything about them.

I’d like to see you defend that position to people that survived nazi concentration camps. Or a Rwandan who saw their family butchered over arbitrary tribalism.

You’re a cowered.

I never said it was morally equivalent. However, it makes NATO an offensive organization.

It makes NATO a threat to Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com