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

141–150 of 241 posts

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

#141

Post by The_Colonel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137
The_Colonel wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> This wouldn't work without military occupation, since such dictator wouldn't have support of Ukrainian military/population Not necessarily a permanent presence. Belarus and Kazakhstan's rulers aren't popular and don't require permanent support. Parachuting in soldiers lets Moscow amplify its strength. (America does this too.)

Belarus and Kazakhstan dictators have support of local military.

Ukrainian military these days is pretty built up and indoctrinated. It's not doing 180-degree turn-around just like that.

Russia won't be able to control the situation remotely with just a threat of a parachute operation.

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

#142

Post by remarkEon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122
remarkEon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, no…

>Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements.

I'm going to go ahead and take the word of the former ambassador to Soviet Union at face value. You can reject it based on your own analysis as you see fit. I'm not necessarily trying to take a particular side here, but one thing I have a problem with is that the "Status Quo" of "America runs security for Europe" isn't really a relevant or wise way to view things anymore. That perspective seems to drive the vast majority of discussion on this topic and it portends a level of competency and reach that I don't think the US military has anymore. So some realism is needed.

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

#143

Post by dirtyid »

scottLobster wrote: post #57
danjac wrote: post #10

The bigger question is "why now". Ukraine is not joining NATO or the EU any time soon. Russia has de facto annexed Crimea and its ongoing support for separatists in Donbas keeps the region unstable to its advantage. I suspect two reasons: Putin's flagging domestic support and Russia's (and to be honest, the world's) perception that America is currently so divided and weak it will be unable to offer much resistance th…

Difference, at least with regard to China/Taiwan, is timeline. Russia could likely steamroll much of Ukraine in a short period of time, and the US/NATO has few assets available for immediate response to hundreds of thousands of Russian troops. The conflict could potentially be over before any meaningful military response could be mounted outside of what Ukraine can muster (which compared to the Russians only goes so…

US has 2x more troops forward deployed in East Europe for Russian contingency and decades worth of equipment stocked piled as result of cold war. There's also all of NATO. Versus TW where PRC concentration of forces overwhelm US air/naval assets and reinforcement is far away in time and logistics and there's no US allies in region willing to credibly contribute to TW defense.

The entire current TW defense strategy is to line up on the beach to be blown up based off 90s PLA invasion plans not 2020 PLA plans based off US stomping Iraq with high tech weapons and complete air supremacy. The "tough nut to crack" / porcupine strategy are asymmetric doctrine US think tanks want TW to adopt so US can respond it time. It's not reality, currently PRC can stomp TW before US help arrives. And it's questionable US has any supremacy within 1st island chain for TW defense. Also PLA isn't filled elites, certainly not combat roles, and what few there are will have strings pulled not to be deployed anyway. The entire one-child will disincentivize TW war meme is also nonsensical, PLA wants martyrs after decades of relative peace and frankly having a dead hero is going to come with a golden parachute for the family.

The real answer is PRC still prioritizes peaceful reunion because time is on their side.

Where as time is not on side of Russia, simultaneously because force balance could shift away for Russian favor and Putin has actually managed to credibly modernize Russian military that it's at peak power to pursue/restore it's security environment that has been devolving for the last 20 years. Ultimately, Russia is currently powerful enough to fight for her interests, because on balance capability is in RU favor. US isn't going to intervene, EU underinvested in defense while Russia invested enough despite how poor they are.

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

#144

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#145

Post by mrguyorama »

pc86 wrote: post #117
mrguyorama wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just about to say: The vast majority of northern maine, including most of my family, is "French Canadian", some of them even having French as a first language. Go ahead and try telling them they should belong to Canada and it wouldn't be a big deal if Canada invaded and annexed them. You won't have many friends

I'm not sure how you can get that sentiment from my comment.

I was agreeing, not disagreeing

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

#147

Post by tomjen3 »

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?

It is easily reconciled, both cases where wrong.

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

#148

Post by remarkEon »

somedude895 wrote: post #133
loourr wrote: post #67

I feel that these articles rarely give any perspective on Russia's issue which is that Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements and would result in armaments being placed at their boarder which they view as a risk and security breach. The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections and then pretending Russia threatening military action is unilateral host…

> The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections By framing this whole thing as a hostility by the US towards Russia, you're saying that Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation, which can choose to ally with whomever and join whichever organization they want. So yeah that's Putin's narrative: Ukraine is a part of Russia and doesn't get to make those choices. That's the Russian per…

>So yeah that's Putin's narrative: Ukraine is a part of Russia and doesn't get to make those choices. That's the Russian perspective.

Ukraine choose Yanukovych and what it got in return was a western-backed revolution to oust him. If we're keeping score, only one side has actually done a color revolution in this country and it isn't Russia.

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

#149

Post by VictorPath »

pc86 wrote: post #86
koheripbal wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't they have the right of self-determination if they want to join Russia?

They can move to Russia. They have as much right to move Crimea to Russia as citizens of Maine do to leave the US and join Canada - e.g. not much. This is all hypothetical though. What happened in reality is that Russia rolled tanks into a neighboring sovereign country, invading it, and stole a part of it. It's a blatant and egregious act of war.

Someone should tell that to the Kosovans who broke off from Serbia 14 years ago, to jubilation in the US and western Europe.

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

#150

Post by ozheleztsov »

baal80spam wrote: post #13
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?"

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

It is indeed an annexation. But it is also true that the majority of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russians and wanted to return to join Russia. But all the consequences, not the cause. The reason, in my opinion, is the global conflict between the West and Russia. And, obviously, the fall of Russia is just a matter of time. Despite the fact that they have weapons, in everyday life, all residents use technologies and products made in the west. Everyone has an iPhone, Laptop, Internet, car, etc. How can you win a conflict if every inhabitant of your country is completely dependent on technology, software, products and money created by a conditional "enemy"?
Post reply on HN