Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tycho | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

This question is irrelevant because we all know that if Ukraine secedes Donbas/Crimea today, next decade Russia will attack again for other lands. There is no end to this. You cannot appease dictators by letting them do exactly what they want. They will come back for more. This rhetoric of "let's secede some land to Russia to stop the war" feeds into Russia's hand.

Even if Russia withdrew its forces, they would still have the potential to attack again. So the the choice is really between pursuing a compromise now, or losing perhaps a million troops trying to weaken Russia’s future negotiating position by retaking separatist territories (and probably failing to do so).

That isn't a compromise, it's just delaying the inevitable. The Ukrainians can decide for themselves how much they're willing to sacrifice. As long as they're willing to fight we should give them whatever weapons they need. The more Russian soldiers they kill, the better it is for all NATO members. Bleed the Russian Empire to death.

You say they can decide for themselves, but in reality the troops are conscripted and forced to fight at the behest of the leadership or its suzerain. Massive agency problem.

Not at all. Ukraine is a democracy. If the troops didn't want to be conscripted then they should have voted for leaders who favored appeasement and surrender.

This is called appeasement. It did not worked in 1930s, it is not going to work today.

The goal of WW2 appeasement was not avoiding war but gaining enough time to prepare for the inevitable. It worked well enough for Britain.

Did not really worked out for France. And they had opportunities to end the war before it even started

* When Rheinland was reoccupied and they did nothing

* When Austria was annexed and they did nothing

* When Poland was attacked and all German armies were in the east and they did, basically nothing.

The last time they tried to "compromise" was called the Minsk accords, and Putin quickly taught the Ukrainians an important lesson about trusting anything he says. Compromise is simply not an option. Unfortunately, the only options are victory or defeat. The vast majority of Ukrainians are very clear eyed about this.

Merkel has stated that the West had no intention of honoring the Minsk agreement. The purpose was to buy time for Ukraine to build up its army. The West negotiated in bad faith.

Who is invading who again?

If the west knew that Russia wouldn't honor any agreement and prepared for their inevitable attack I don't how is that 'in bad faith', they were right after all

I would say that technically the US invaded Ukraine by installing a subservient government after the ousting of Yanukovich. This is why Hunter Biden's laptop was buried as much as possible, it would reveal the connections and the financial interests. If Putin truly wanted to conquer Ukraine, he would have taken out the electricity and water supply, things of that nature.

This is not Ukraine vs Russia, this is the US/NATO vs Russia

> If Putin truly wanted to conquer Ukraine, he would have taken out the electricity and water supply, things of that nature.

This is exactly what Putin is doing.

> This is not Ukraine vs Russia, this is the US/NATO vs Russia

If this was _actually_ US/NATO vs Russia the war would be over in a matter of months.

That is what you believe. It is an irrational belief with no logical basis.

I believe that Putin has no desire to conquer Ukraine. The days of empire building are a relic from the past. Everybody in Donbas/Crimea speaks Russian anyway.

> How many Ukranian lives do you think it’s worth spending to retake the occupied territories of Donbas and Crimea?

I think that’s up to the Ukrainians.

Not the ones who are being conscripted and sent to the frontline to be slaughtered. I wouldn’t really say it was “up to them.”

Especially not the Russian ones.

How many Ukranians will be tortured to death like in Izium on the occupied territories if they are never liberated?

How many lives should be spent to prevent Russia taking the next bite out of some other country? Do we just need to give them more 'breathing room'? That didn't go well last time.

> How many lives should be spent to prevent Russia taking the next bite out of some other country?

At least the one, taken out surgically with the Rods from God Ginsu kinetic weapon.

I suggest reading the military history of dictators.

How many Russian lives do you think it’s worth spending to keep these territories occupied? (Wars are almost like natural catastrophes, they do not give people much choice.)

Lets just imagine the world you prefer where every leader like Putin decides it's okay to grab a pieces of neighboring countries.

I mean Poland wasn't a separate country for a long time and should be part of the new Russian Empire. Right? Ditto Finland. Maybe China needs to take some of Northern Vietnam. Return Korea to it's proper status as a Vassal State. And Taiwan of course. And Crete, Syria, and Greece need to be returned to the Turks. And Israel can retake Jordon and Lebanon. Next we can get to all the countries in Africa where you have ethnic groups straddling borders.

Are you suggesting that nations wage war on a sort of copy-cat, meme basis?

I'm suggesting that letting Russia annex Ukraine without any push back will open the floodgates to that sort of thing. And if you think it won't you are an absolute utter fool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com