Hacker News Reader

Comment by yks | Hacker News Reader

Yep, Ukraine has already been neutral before and then Russians took Crimea. And now they don’t mind committing war crimes and terrorizing civilians to achieve the annexation of Ukraine so why would they care about any new agreements. They would just wait until pro-Russian figures take over the Western governments and attack again.

View on HN

Ukraine has not been neutral. NATO integration wasn't proceeded with legally but it did continue. US increased arms deliveries as well as military training. Ever tighter diplomatic bonds were formed. At no point was NATO integration off the table.

Russians certainly do not want to annex Ukraine either. They want to destroy it.

I am by no means justifying the armed Russian aggression, but Ukraine was not neutral. There was a forceful overthrow of the democratically elected government in 2014:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

and Ukraine has been forming deep military ties to the NATO states since then.

This move to alignment with the West is popularly supported in Ukraine mind you, but the reaction it would elicit has been anticipated and warned about for years.

I'm Swiss, a third of Russian cash is in my country and 80% of oil/ore trading is made in Geneva. My country also has been a CIA office for half a century.

Can you explain me what neutrality is?

As a fellow Swiss citizen i believe it is a lie propagated so our banks can fill their pockets with the dirtiest money available.

Here is everything you want to know: https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/de/home/aussenpolitik/voelkerre.... Hard to believe you're Swiss; didn't you pay attention in civics class? Or is it simply about pleasing a few people here?

Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing.

I think Russia has a point to be worried and concerned about a Ukraine in NATO or the EU, however they went about it in a terrible fashion. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Not to mention, they moved to annex Crimea and supported civil war in other parts of the country. What did Russia expect?

A populous overthrow is not a democratic election.. the group capable of organizing the largest protests and riots is not necessarily the group with the most popular support. It could be a minority faction, but just the best organized, trained and funded one.

We hold elections to put every one on an equal playing field, where each person has the same amount of say.

> where each person has the same amount of say.

Theoretically

> Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing

Does that also apply if the "populous forceful overthrow" is being directed by foreign powers?[0][1][2]

[0] It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-...

[2] How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-will...

> Does that also apply if the "populous forceful overthrow" is being directed by foreign powers?

I pointed out that this was false / not as your comment implies a few hours ago when you posted something similarly incorrect:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30588114

tl;dr: Putin (with the help of Paul Manafort) got a Russian puppet elected in Ukraine, once he did a 180 on campaign promises and the populous recognized him from the puppet he was he was deposed and fled to Russia.

You are literally justifying the Russian aggression, also with the historically inaccurate information

Great, now any discussion on what Russia's motivations are in this war are the same as "literally justifying the Russian aggression"

I am implying that those previous events, even if they mark Ukraine as not neutral, did not justify the current armed Russian aggression. The Russian response, as far as I can see, is a substantial escalation/over-reaction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com