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

Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 241 posts

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#121

Post by avmich »

VictorPath wrote: post #69
baal80spam wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Remember that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea "to save Russian citizens".

> Russia invaded and annexed Crimea Russia invaded Crimea back when British red coats were stationed in New York City. The Russian military has been there ever since. When did the US invade the Guantanamo section of Cuba?

> When did the US invade the Guantanamo section of Cuba?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo#United_States_...

About 15 km away from the city lies the Guantánamo Bay, a superior natural harbor which has been utilized by the United States since 1898, when it was captured from Spain in the Battle of Guantánamo Bay. In 1903 Cuba leased it to the U.S. as it had committed to in the Cuban–American Treaty of Relations, and remains the site of a US Navy base, as well as the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#122

Post by JumpCrisscross »

remarkEon wrote: post #111
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements This purported promise is a myth, see my comments here [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836

Calling it a "myth" misses the forest for the trees. What possible benefit to existing NATO members does Ukraine joining serve? I can't think of any, unless you define "benefit" as "intentionally antagonizing the former Cold War adversary". From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union[1]: >When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990…

> while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has

Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements. The supposed agreement was made in the context of Germany's reunification, something the Soviets not only agreed to but memorialized in various written agreements, none of which mention this supposed understanding.

Also, wasn't the motivation for the 2014 invasion Ukraine's potential membership in the EU?

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#123

Post by andreygrehov »

ch_123 wrote: post #25
labster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy idea of the day: why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor. Entangling alliances are like abstraction. The only thing that solves it is more of it.

The USSR attempted to join NATO in the 1950s: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantray... https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-t...

Putin also wanted to join NATO in 2000-2001, but it didn't work out.

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#124

Post by alkonaut »

bsedlm wrote: post #39
nickpp wrote: post #3

It's funny when the aggressor is "negotiating" to attack or not. The biggest bully in the region feeling "threatened" by its neighbours seeking any possible way to protect themselves from it. Like a government-level "Why are you hitting yourself?"

from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since.

How is it an act of aggression? Aren’t Ukraine sovereign in the sense that they are free to choose freely any alliance they please?

Besides - Ukraine haven’t been offered NATO membership have they?

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#125

Post by nullifidian »

shashurup wrote: post #94
nullifidian wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't blame Russia's stance. As a Russian I say you are completely wrong. The current crisis is entirely manufactured by Putin and his authoritarian needs, which are contrary to the actual needs of the Russian people. The Baltic states joined NATO in 2004, and there isn't much difference in nuke flight time between a launch from Latvia or from Kharkiv, so the entire premise that Ukraine potentially joining NATO so…

> b) to fullfill the imperialistic need that has been propagandized out of every hole for the last 15+ years I honestly cannot grasp where does this narrative come from. I live in Russia and read local media and I don't see the idea being pushed. Putin himself once considered USSR disbanding as catastrophic but nothng beyond that.

So the idea of "Russkiy mir", USSR falling apart being a "_geopolitical_ catastrophe" (only an imperialist would say something like that), USSR in general being viewed positively by the media, its every act of imperialism like Prague Spring, or the attempt to keep Latvia in the USSR viewed exclusively positively in "documentaries", even positive coverage of the imperialism of the Russian empire (the Great Game) and so on, propagandists saying things from that point of view, and attacking the "straw-men" propagandists who said something against, Putin insisting that Russians and Ukrainians are one and the same ( https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-oliver-stone-europe... ), Medvedev denying the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state ( https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/10/11/russia-shouldnt-ne... ) are not all imperialistic narrative for you?

In general if you turn on Russian news, almost every sentence said reeks of imperialism, imperialistic assumptions one way or another. If you don't notice that, I can't help you. Sorry.

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#126

Post by mrguyorama »

reducesuffering wrote: post #101
nullifidian wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A foreign country joining an alliance could be an act of aggression only if you believe that that foreign country is yours, and shouldn't have the freedom to decide its associations or the way it secures itself. The Russians are talking about "spheres of influence", which is an entirely imperialistic concept, and demand to have their's respected, which is imperialistic behavior.

How is this reconciled with the US not allowing Cuba to receive armaments from the USSR or goods from other countries due to sanctions? Is country A violating country B and C's sovereignty when A imposes sanctions on C preventing free trade between B and C?

Nothing asks for it to be reconciled. The US can be a bad guy too. One's crimes do not justify another's criminal actions

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#127

Post by The_Colonel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78
The_Colonel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why now?" is also a question I was wondering about. But also, "What's the goal?". They obviously can't occupy the whole country (Ukraine is large and populous, that would be way too expensive). Do they want the eastern part (with a big Russian minority), land bridge to Crimea, or just extend Donbas/Luhansk or just reheat the conflict, destabilize the Ukraine? It has to be something worthy. Ukrainian army is in a muc…

> "What's the goal?" Reinstate a pliant dictator, like the one who was removed in 2014 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych

This wouldn't work without military occupation, since such dictator wouldn't have support of Ukrainian military/population.

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#129

Post by alkonaut »

uejfiweun wrote: post #118

Posted elsewhere, but there seems to be good discussion going on here: I hate to say it, but the US is clearly the provocateur here. There is no real reason that the US needs Ukraine, a state that has historically been part of Russia, in NATO. Having Ukraine in NATO does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me, a regular peasant in the US. Imagine if the US lost the cold war and the USSR decided to invite…

> the US is clearly the provocateur here

In what sense exactly? What is the provocation? Remember - Ukraine isn’t offered a NATO membership.

Also remember, in 2014 the same story unfolded but then the boogeyman was the EU.

Re: Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

#130

Post by avmich »

spaced-out wrote: post #42
labster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy idea of the day: why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor. Entangling alliances are like abstraction. The only thing that solves it is more of it.

>Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor. The reason Ukraine hasn't been allowed to join NATO already is because the rest of the alliance isn't willing to make that promise (that they'll go to war with Russia to protect Ukraine).

Russia's recent demonstrations, like Admiral Kuznetsov's problems, leaving Armenia faced with Turkey and Azerbaijan, weak drone program shows that in reality Russian military isn't that strong against serious opponent. Even more importantly, a serious military operations will undermine the power within the country.

It's doubtful Russia would go to fight Ukraine even now (it would be rather disastrous), but even more doubtful if Ukraine would join NATO.

Ukraine has its own internal problems for now.

Post reply on HN