Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

znak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 428 posts

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#251

Post by bee_rider »

throw1234651234 wrote: post #132
bitcharmer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when does Ukraine have nukes? They gave it up for empty promises from the west, no?

They gave them up for empty promises from Russia and the West*. I like how you conveniently "forgot" that Russia signed that too. "The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force a…

What security assurances are you talking about, specifically?

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#252

Post by zauguin »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #93
rpadovani wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Will NATO come for let’s say Latvia or Lithuania? I don't know about NATO, but I strongly hope that EU defends its territory integrity. And I am not sure Russia wants to find out either…

Paradoxically, the USA seems more active in the current conflict over Ukraine than the rest of the EU. And it was Germany who blocked the delivery of NATO weapons to Ukraine.

What does "the rest of the EU" mean here? It's not like the USA are a member.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#253

Post by speeder »

bigbizisverywyz wrote: post #203
georgecmu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a much more evenhanded -- and hence rare -- take, you may wish to read this very recent commentary from Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the USSR[1]. He has the advantage of being an observer who is (a) very informed and (b) disinterested. The following paragraphs are worth reading, even if you fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint[2]. Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adja…

>However, the Crimea is quite different in one key respect: most of its people, being Russian, prefer to be in Russia. In fact, one can >argue that it is in the political interest of Ukrainian nationalists to have Crimea in Russia. Without the votes from Crimea, Viktor >Yanukovich would never have been elected president. This is actually a very interesting point, and would explain Ukraine's recent shift to more natio…

I dunno how accurate this is, but back when protests against Yanukovich started, I saw people on reddit predicting his ouster and civil war, because of the history of Poland...

Seemly Poland in the run up to WW2 got parts of it conquered by URSS, and later when WW2 was over, some territory that was part of Germany became part of Poland to "restore" its territory, effectively shifting Poland westward, this means that eastern Ukraine had polish people inside it.

The guy then explained that Ukraine east side is full of ethnic Russians, even if they consider themselves Ukranians, while west side is filled with ethnic Polish and related groups.

He predicted then (the violent protests didn't had started yet when I read this) that the ethnic EU people would be pro-EU, and would oust Yanukovich in violent protests, and the ethnic Russians would retaliate in some form, either trying to retake the capital by force, or splitting away.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#254

Post by illuminati1911 »

scottLobster wrote: post #197
underscore_ku wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are already NATO battalions in Latvia and Lithuania. Albania, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain contribute to the Canadian-led battlegroup in Latvia; Belgium, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway provide contributions to the German-led battlegroup in Lithuania; France and Iceland contribute to the UK-led battlegroup in Estonia; an…

The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members. I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia…

”The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members.”

Not acting on this would completely destroy NATO and also permanently destroy US credibility on the world politics and in terms of military power. Realistically speaking NATO and US could not afford not to go to a war or at least armed conflict with Russia.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#255

Post by varjag »

mercy_dude wrote: post #223
varjag wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are wrong. USSR (and then Russia) were selling gas via existing lines to Western Europe since 1970s. The new pipeline is a bypass around Ukraine to remove any leverage against an invasion. Ukraine would love to join NATO (and no, you are not proposed there by other countries that's not how it works). However the US and other allies have cold feet to avoid pissing off Putin.

Fair but you are not arguing why the events are not to be thought of being correlated. So if the natural gas deal with Germany is settled in EUR that seems to be a good enough reason to piss US off and start a proxy war. Why is the momentum for getting Ukraine to EU so strong now?

EUR (unlike say China's RMB, Cuban pesos or whatever they have in NK for money) is a freely convertible currency. Can you explain the mechanism by which settlements in Euros undermine anything, such that three (mutually confrontational) US administrations engage into conspiracy against Mother Russia?

(For the reference, the old pipeline gas was also paid for in Euros)

As to momentum for Ukraine ascension to NATO, I would love to live in that reality. Over here, Germany, France and several other NATO members strongly oppose even allowing Ukraine onto the roadmap.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#256

Post by mszcz »

baud147258 wrote: post #213
ivan_gammel wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The invasion already happened according to the article, it's just Russia lost plausible deniability for it with this document. Full scale invasion to defeat Ukrainian government is very unlikely: Russian military prefers information wars to the offline operations now and makes them part of the strategy. The news about troops deployed on the border are intended to create sense of danger and uncertainty that can be use…

> Full scale invasion to defeat Ukrainian government is very unlikely I don't think that Russia would be even interested to take control of the rest of Ukraine, as the current situation seems to fit their goals: they're keeping control over Crimea, so they're keeping their access to the sea there. And with the Donbass situation, Ukraine won't join NATO anytime soon, so they won't see US bases and missiles being insta…

Still, hope for the best, plan for the worst. You guys got any ideas how to protect your assets (no matter how little), how everything will move on the markets if the shit hits the fan?

I mean, sure, we can argue will they, won't they. I just don't want to be caught with my pants down if shit really hits the fan.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#257

Post by batushka3 »

georgecmu wrote: post #159
lnsru wrote: post #27

There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Especially for countries near unfriendly countries like Russia in this submission. Because all the treaties and documents signed by politicians are absolutely worthless. Ukraine got rid of all the Soviet nuclear weapons and got lots of promises: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur... Now they…

For a much more evenhanded -- and hence rare -- take, you may wish to read this very recent commentary from Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the USSR[1]. He has the advantage of being an observer who is (a) very informed and (b) disinterested. The following paragraphs are worth reading, even if you fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint[2]. Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adja…

> Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand

It's a myth perpetuated by Russia

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#258

Post by xxpor »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #244
lebuffon wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does this obsession with the external come from. Russia has the largest national landmass yet still they look outwards despite the many improvements that they could make internally. It's bizarre to me.

They are not looking for expansion outwards. The only real expansion that has happened so far was Crimea, which was part of Russia before, has significant Russian population which at least once voted for independence, but more importantly it is vital for Russian defence on the south.

The Philippines was part of the US back in the day too. Itd also provide a convenient base for countering China. Should the US invade and annex it?

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#259

Post by skissane »

lnsru wrote: post #27

There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Especially for countries near unfriendly countries like Russia in this submission. Because all the treaties and documents signed by politicians are absolutely worthless. Ukraine got rid of all the Soviet nuclear weapons and got lots of promises: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur... Now they…

> There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army.

Significant chunks of the Israeli population are de facto exempted from conscription (and with a low rate of voluntary enlistment from those communities as well)-most Haredi Jews, and most Israeli Arabs. Those two minorities together make up over 30% of Israeli citizens, and both minorities have an above average population growth rate (due to having more children and starting families at a younger age). The long-term risk this situation poses to Israel’s military security is a perennial topic of concern in Israeli media and politics

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#260

Post by mytailorisrich »

bigbizisverywyz wrote: post #234
mytailorisrich wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not 'only'. That's key. Different countries have different interests. Powerful enough countries can remain independent and pursue them as they see fit. The US want to keep control of Europe, that's partly what NATO is for. There's no reason for Russia to be OK with that. In fact no European country should be OK with that but for historically reasons I think they reckon that this is better than the fear of letting the…

> In fact no European country should be OK with that Russia's brutal annexations in the east following WWII pretty much assured that all European countries were, in fact OK with it.

WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. That led to Eastern Europe being invaded/liberated by the USSR and Western Europe being invaded/liberated by the US.

It's not correct to say that all Western European countries were/are OK with US power and presence. The major powers were divided on that. Germany obviously did not really have any say, France did not want the US to stay, the UK thought that it'd help them look more important than they had become. But smaller countries may see the US as a guarantee against larger neighbours trying to invade again, as I mentioned, a bit like South Korea does.

Post reply on HN