Comment by drysine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drysine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward".

You argue like you haven't seen it.

>just some the NATO members were positive

That's not true, the alliance itself gave the assurances.[0]

>the request was so unpopular

The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request.

>Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway".

And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation.

>This is the literal quote of what I said

You forgot to quote "Just like". "the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014" isn't "just like" what you wrote. Besides, you haven't even offered any sources for your statements. Is it because you blame Russia for anything you don't like?

[0] https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resource...

  > I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward".

Eduard Shevardnadze, the USSR's minister of foreign affairs at the time, clarified that the context was the potential stationing of foreign NATO troops (US, UK, etc) in East Germany after reunification. There was nowhere further "east" to move at the time, since East Germany bordered the Warsaw Pact. German reunification was agreed upon with the understanding that foreign troops would not be moved directly to the border with the Warsaw Pact, because the Pact had not yet had time to establish military infrastructure after retreating from East Germany. That was the agreement and parties adhered to it.

Shevardnadze also said that in 1990, it was unimaginable to the Soviet leadership that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself would dissolve. Therefore, there was no reason to discuss potential NATO membership of countries and territories that were under Soviet control at the time. And according to him, this was indeed not discussed at all during his tenure (1985-1991); not internally, and not with foreign partners either.

The putinesque sob story that NATO promised never to accept any new members is an anachronistic perversion of these events.

> though it was not a legally binding assurance

Oh no, really?

> The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request.

Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further? Or that multiple NATO members opposed Ukrainian membership (you have to get approval from all NATO members)? Or that the whole thing was derailed by Russian involvement in Georgia?

> And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation.

I've yet to see you assign any responsibility to Russia for its actions.

> You forgot to quote "Just like".

1. you have to actually provide a source that what happened in Ukraine was a coup. Hint: Ukrainians are quite happy to remove anyone in power through popular movements

2. I clearly literally described what Russia was doing. You keep trying to move the discussion to your own very narrow (and quite invalid) definition of a coup.

3. I've yet to see you assign any reponisbility to Russia for Russia's actions. Russia is blameless, spotless, and purely justified in its 4-year invasion of Ukraine.

>Oh no, really?

Maybe you should reread my first comment?

I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing

Yes, yes you do.

If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"?

I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.

You really should reread my first comment.

As for the treaty you could read other articles in that treaty[0] while you at it:

Article 6

Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party.

Article 7

If a situation arises which, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, poses a threat to peace, violates the peace or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity, it may propose to the other High Contracting Party that consultations on the subject be held without delay. The States shall exchange relevant information and, if necessary, carry out coordinated or joint measures with a view to overcoming the situation

Article 11

The High Contracting Parties shall, in their territory, take the necessary measures, including the adoption of appropriate legislative acts, to prevent and suppress any activities that constitute an incitement to violence or violence against individuals or groups of citizens, based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance.

Article 12

The High Contracting Parties shall protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity. Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their will.

[0] https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b7nedx/pdf

So:

1. Ukraine had a very strong ipposition to joining NATO prior to 2014. And according to Putin himself, other countries (Ukraine, Sweden, Finland etc.) joining NATO is those countries' own decision and he's okay with it. If he was against it, has he called any consultation etc.? No he didnt't. He waited until all the way of the end if Yanukovich's term to bribe him... to not sign association agreement with the EU (not even NATO).

As it turns out, Ukraine should've joined NATO waaaay before 2014.

2. Any "action to affect security" calls for a consultation. Russia instead invaded and grabbed Crimea, and invaded and made Donbass a permanent gray zone. And then started a full-scale invasion

3. Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution. Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war.

To the point that National Russian Drama Theater didn't change its name or repertoire until Russia's invasion.

See how you keep absolving Russia of literally any responsibility.

>Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution

The first thing Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was repelling the law protecting Russian language[0] I recommend reading the whole article, it all went downhill from there.

>Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war.

Now children are beating children in kindergarten for saying "hello" in Russian. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Att...

[1] https://t.me/ASupersharij/14855

> The first thing Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was repelling the law protecting Russian language

You mean bullshit law that Yanukovich passed for populist reasons. A law that had no meaning or force. Read Ukranian Constitution. Article 10.

It went downhill from there? Really? Russia itself had literally nothing to do with that?

> Now children are beating children in kindergarten for saying "hello" in Russian.

Yes, there are bound to be issues now. I wonder, what could be the reason? It couldn't be the war Russia is waging to eradicate Ukraine, could it?

---

In 5 answers to me alone you haven't once acknowledged Russia's actions. You haven't once said that Russia bears any responsibility. You keep grasping at thinner and thinner straws to basically keep saying (through your silence) thatRusdia is pristine, blameless, and totally justified in any and all its actions.

Oh. But then in you worldview Russia "evacuates orphans from war zone" [0] (and not "removes children in war Russia itself started") and "Russia doesn't target civilians" (when Russia explicitly targets civilian buildings) [1]

So before I break HN rules by saying what exactly I think about people like you...

Adieu

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47347616

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47228812

Reply on news.ycombinator.com