Hacker News Reader

Comment by spaceheater | Hacker News Reader

I don't see why you're presenting those options as mutually exclusive. When you have an aggressive imperialist neighbour which has expressed interest in your territory, you both try to strengthen diplomatic relations with them to try to avoid a confrontation, but you may also wish to enter into defensive military alliances to be prepared if diplomacy fails. Anything else would honestly be irresponsible.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

If only Ukraine had tried diplomacy!

Did they though? They knew Putin wouldn't allow a NATO membership to come through.

I'm more worried that Russia is gonna fuck with us (Sweden) if we join NATO. This is going to be a deciding factor for my vote, I do not want to be a part of big brother USAs extended military arm, I want us to stay true to what we've been doing for the last 200 years, staying neutral and peaceful. If we chose a side we're in the same boat as everyone else.

>I want us to stay true to what we've been doing for the last 200 years, staying neutral and peaceful. If we chose a side we're in the same boat as everyone else.

Good to know we can count on you Sweden if we get invaded by Russia. Glad that you also stayed neutral and peaceful during WWII. Not really sure how you managed that, seems really hard.

- Finland

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10710541/Russia-mov...

I guess the option of joining one of the gangs has it's merits, like having military moved towards your border. Yes the article says the video is unconfirmed so I guess it's just speculation. But when the war breaks out in our countries I won't have any pleasure in the "I told you so".

There's quite an obvious difference between helping your neighboring country (like we did in WW2) and joining a war pact that infuriates the enemy even further.

- Sweden, the non-aggressive Scandinavian country...

Helping your neighbouring country? You're referring to Nazi Germany, right?

If you don’t choose a side you may find Russia choosing one for you. That’s the whole point of NATO from the perspective of the member states.

So the last 200 years of peace doesn't account for any kind of stability? I highly doubt Russia would start messing with us out of nowhere. If we start talking about joining NATO though, then he's got the same leverage on us as Ukraine.

“I highly doubt Russia would start messing with us out of nowhere”

Said millions in Kyiv, right before missiles were launched at their apartments.

But it wasn't out of nowhere, Putin didn't want Ukraine to join with the west, so he took action.

I'm all with Ukraine but can we at least realize that the war didn't just fall out of the sky, that there's been some back and forth political stuff that lead up to this. Maybe something like joining NATO, the EU or maybe because he just woke up one day and said "I feel like I want Ukraine to be Russian".

It's been brewing since before Crimea, and I don't see Putin eyeing Gotland that hard yet.

Not only it wasn't out of nowhere but there was an actual war going on for 8 years before the Russian invasion started.

> Maybe something like joining NATO, the EU

Ukraine did not joined either.

> maybe because he just woke up one day and said "I feel like I want Ukraine to be Russian".

There was progression of Putin theories. He expressed some of them in written form, others in speeches. Both about Ukraine and about Russian place in a world he envisions.

Zelenskiy was even considered the friendly-to-Russia alternative in the election:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6946395/Russia-welc...

Zelenskiy's #1 campaign promise was to negotiate peace with Russia - meaning fulfilling Ukraine's part of the Minsk accords, perhaps with some concessions. Overall, about 65% of the votes went to parties supporting it. ~72% if Donbas is included. There was a clear democratic mandate to do it

To his credit, he did try to set things in motion. Mere days after, ultra-nationalist right-wing militias threw violent protests, in which they tossed grenades at police, killing three, calling Zelenskiy a traitor and threatening to take his life if peace is enacted. The peace negotiator was arrested for treason. Zelenskiy backed down, reneged on his #1 campaign promise, and started ramping up the tensions. As a result, the polling results for his party dropped from ~50% to mere 17% at the onset of the war. We don't know what happened behind the doors to cause such a 180 turn, but it sure wasn't pretty

Yes, they did. Russia did not, tho. For the record, Putin did not wanted to allow EU membership either and meddled into Ukraine politics, eu politics and American politics constantly.

The principal thing here however is, Putin thinking he can rule other countries and nations is the core issue here.

I agree that Putin is the issue, but he's been quite clear of his demands and that there will be repercussions if not upheld.

Since Sweden hasn't ever been part of NATO nor felt the need to, why now all of a sudden when that was part of what triggered the conflict putting an entire country into ruins.

Because contrary what you appear to believe, Russia's war on Ukraine was never about NATO expansion.

The context you are missing is outlined quite clearly in Timofei Sergeitsev's RIA Novosti article, What Russia should do in Ukraine.

Not to say you're wrong, but what says you're right other than this one article? There's usually more sides to something than a coin. The US just needs a terror threat to invade countries for oil, so I see that it might just be an excuse.

I still don't wanna join NATO, that's a reason for Putin to take Gotland from us.

Did you actually read the article? Have you actually listened to Putin's speeches which reveal his true intentions? Do you actually understand the ideology that motivated the invasion?

You appear to be trying to take a reasoned position after taking the Kremlin's arguments at face value, which is a pretty big mistake.

Here's the CliffsNotes version for you: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/into-the-heart-of-darkness-what-russi...

> this one article

…Are you aware that this one article was published by RIA Novosti, which means it's the Kremlin's official position?

> Not to say you're wrong, but what says you're right other than this one article?

I mean this is not even true? It is not like this one article was the only source or place where this is claimed.

His actions also clearly show he will invade and push boundaries whether his demands are met or not. And that he lies a lot and constantly.

Anyway, the question was whether Ukraine tried diplomacy. Answer is, yes they did and it did not worked.

> he's been quite clear of his demands and that there will be repercussions if not upheld

Ah yeah, the crazy logic of every abusive ex. “Don’t you dare looking at anyone else or else I snap your neck” Very persuasive.

Ukraine was nowhere close to be even considered for EU or NATO membership. So what exactly “triggered” the conflict? Other than the fact that Putin decided to send in troops to grab larger and larger pieces of Ukraine?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10710541/Russia-mov...

So this just happened, apparently Russia doesn't want us to be part of NATO.

Those of us from Poland definitely appreciate Sweden's "neutral and peaceful" stance, which meant selling resources to Germany so that the Nazis could slaughter our ancestors.

Thanks mate.

There's that way of looking at it, or that we have self-preservation. Do you hold every single German accountable for WW2 too?

Also this is hardly an apples to apples comparison to compare current Russia to any stage of WW2.

I'm sorry that you're finding the truth inconvenient, but yes, those who can't bring themselves to outright condemnation of the war — which includes torture, rape of women and children, mass destruction of civilian homes, war crimes, and genocide — are also morally reprehensible.

So which side are you on?

I'm on the side of not joining NATO to trigger further actions to be taken by the crazy man to the east.

I condemn war, I don't want there to be a war, therefore I don't want more countries to join NATO as it would be another reason for conflict.

If war broke out here because we joined NATO, what would you say then?

Ukraine didn't join NATO. It wasn't on the brink of joining NATO. It got invaded anyway. So if Finland, say, joins NATO and gets invaded, did it get invaded because it joined? Or would it have been invaded anyway?

I also condemn war. I don't want there to be war. But given the crazy man in the east, I'd rather have people to help me shoot back if it came to that.

As I explained to you in another comment[0], it's not about NATO expansion.

Furthermore, your pacifism is exactly what fuels Russia's aggression.

If you want fewer people to die and fewer nations to be subject to terrorism of the kind that Russia is subjecting Ukraine to, then you should be in favour of Russia's swift and crushing military defeat on the battlefield.

You can't appease a tyrant by singing kumbaya and cowering in the corner. Hitler and his buddies had to die for peace in Europe to be restored. The current administration of the Russian Federation is no different.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30991398

> to trigger further actions to be taken by the crazy man to the east

You are trying to argue that Putin is both crazy and rational in the same line.

> I condemn war, I don't want there to be a war, therefore I don't want more countries to join NATO as it would be another reason for conflict.

If someone wants conflict, anything will be a valid pretext for that conflict and if not one will be conveniently provided by a false flag operation. Standard Russian playbook since time immemorial.

> If war broke out here because we joined NATO, what would you say then?

The chances of that are roughly just as large as the chances of war breaking out if Sweden did not join NATO. But if you did join NATO then at least you would not be in the position that Ukraine finds itself in today.

Neutrality is a great thing, right up to the point where you are attacked yourself, and then everybody remembers that you took great pains to be neutral. I assume you do expect the rest of Europe and NATO to come and aid Sweden if it does get attacked?

Considering Sweden being completely surrounded by Nazi-held territory and that of a potentially hostile Nazi ally (Finland), what was it supposed to do exactly? Be "brave" while it gets dismembered just like Poland? They made a pragmatic accommodation towards what they considered the lesser evil for their territory, and on the balance, it at least let that country harbor hundreds of thousands of refugees in relative safety during the course of the war.

Arguably, Sweden's bravery could have only extended as far as banning the sale of iron ore which would have halted the Nazi war machine and brought the war to a close in a matter of months, saving tens of millions of lives.

It's wild to me that any Swede could be proud of this part of their history.

Had Sweden banned the sale of vital iron ore to the Reich, Hitler would have had it invaded in weeks, full stop, and his occupation would have been vengeful in typical Nazi style. The country was able to stay neutral largely by luck, unlike Switzerland, which the Nazis knew to be a very difficult and painful invasion target (aside from it being convenient as a money haven for stolen wealth). The Swedish government was pragmatic without a doubt, but given their geographical circumstances, I hardly see how they had much choice.

Since banning or not banning sales of ore would have in either case not stopped rapid and raveneous Nazi acquisition of said ore, allowing it, staying neutral and uninvaded and thus harbouring thousands of refugees was the better outcome in a sea of moral greyness. One wonderful example, the smuggling of Denmark's entire Jewish population to Sweden during the early days of the war.

Is neutrality the best way to stay peaceful?

If the option is joining one of the opposing gangs I'd say yes, yes it is

Ukraine was neutral, now begging to be let into the EU, and in practice entirely dependent on weapons and training from NATO for national survival.

Why do you think Russia picks on Ukraine (neutral) and not Lithuania (allied)?

My assumption would be because Ukraine "was last".

Which one would you choose if you were Britain in 1938?

Also curious about "strengthening diplomatic relations" with a country whose soldiers enthusiastically commit "bottom-up" mass murder and rape while its government joyfully obliterates civilian targets like apartment blocks as a matter of deliberate "top-down" policy. Like, how does it work? Do you simply ignore reality while holding said relations and focus on the positives?

That depends whether

  - the country can be trusted to not invade you if you try to accommodate.
  - sees willingness to accommodate as weakness to be exploited by pushing boundaries again and again.

That being said, if defensive military is others is likely to result in war initiated by the other country, the safe bet is that no amount of diplomatic relations will protect you.

Non-interventionism is great until it becomes your problem.

Maybe the United States can afford to not care, but Europe can’t.

If you're sensible, and your neighbour is Russia, you do a and b.

>a. spend the next 3 years strengthening your diplomatic relations with them.

How much do you think that would have helped Ukraine?

I don't think anyone trusts Putin or Russia at this point. That really defeats the point of trying for a diplomatic solution with them unfortunately.

Yes. People talk about about empathy, but it is the rarest thing in humanity - the ability to see things from your opponent's point of view and then predict their response.

Ukrainians did use "the ability to see things from your opponent's point of view and then predict their response." That's why they prepared for this war and knew that it will start about 2021-2022. They already knew in 2019[0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3aeTu0N3c

Well, the purpose of NATO is to enrich defence contractors. LM, Boeing, BAE... Each new member country is an empty powder keg, ready to be filled with fighter jets and tanks. We're all like sticks of dynamite connected by fuse wires. It's great fun.

Sweden's defence spending is 1.22% of GDP, above Slovenia, Belgium, Luxembourg.

Finland's is 1.53%, also above Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Czechia, North Macedonia.

The EU average is 1.56%.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?most_...

Finland increased its military budget by 70% last week.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-05/finland-a...

Sweden and Finland already have quite capable military. Joining NATO isn't some historical shift in their positions, it's more an insurance, made cheap by Russia's failure to conquer Ukraine.

The purpose of NATO is to prevent a Russian conquest of Europe. Full stop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com