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

Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 613 posts

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#461

Post by sampo »

ajuc wrote: post #404
ayngg wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is happening because the west has no leverage and asymmetrical priorities. Russia -really- cares that Ukraine stays out of NATO, probably to the point where they would scorched earth the country before it joined, and the west only kinda cares about Ukraine comparatively, as demonstrated in 2014 and 2008. If they actually really care, sanctions don't mean much. Makes me wonder why the west thought the third time…

Ukraine wasn't going to be accepted into NATO anyway. They asked. Weren't accepted. Ukraine knows this, Russia knows this, NATO countries know this. It's just Russian excuse for propaganda reasons. The real reason is that Russians consider Ukrainians "the same nation" and if Ukrainians entered EU or some sort of association with it, and got richer than Russians like Poles, Slovaks, Czechs, Balts etc. - it would be ve…

Here's a 2022 The Atlantic article suggesting the same:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/putin-ukra...

And a 2014 blog post also suggesting the same:

https://skibinsky.com/no-russian/

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#462

Post by notahacker »

periheli0n wrote: post #394
ed_balls wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They care deeply. China is >10x in pretty much everything. They don't to be a vassal state of China. Russia has lost the independence twice - threat from Asia and threat for united countries between Moscow and Berlin. I'd speculate the whole action is to force the West to a new deal with Russia, so they can balance China.

> I'd speculate the whole action is to force the West to a new deal with Russia, so they can balance China. I think any trust that Russia still enjoyed in the west is gone as of today. A few days ago the official Russian position was "Nobody is planning an invasion of Ukraine." Today, Russia has invaded Ukraine. This is not how you make deals.

If anything, I'd have thought it's likely to go the other way: China gets to play the relatively responsible global citizen that doesn't send in tanks to resolve its territorial claims. Also new potential export markets.

I thought Putin was doing the show of power for domestic consumption where he'd embarass the West by actually withdrawing the armies slightly after he promised and it'd all end in a summit with both sides claiming they 'won', but he's gone well beyond that now.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#463

Post by VincentEvans »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #184
wiz21c wrote: post #118

Why does Putin try to invade parts of Ukraine ? What's its interest ? Is it economical ? is it for interior politics ? is it to destabilize Europe ? does someone can conjecture a bit ?

He's trying to protect the russian speaking communities in Luhansk and Donetsk. There would be no point to him occupying mkre than that.

There’s nothing to protect them from.

You should look up sometimes the types of characters, e.g. Pushilin for instance, that Russia installed to govern those territories. They are murderous sociopathic criminals, comparisons with territories ruled by cartel gangs are appropriate. It isn’t governments - its no-limit gangs, supported by Russia.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#464

Post by danhor »

xroche wrote: post #303
jl6 wrote: post #121

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products. The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.

> The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.

(all numbers for germany) Only ~14% of gas used is used for electrical energy. About 50% of the gas we use is imported from russia. 77% of the gas is used by households for heating (and also cooking, but that's negliable) and industry

To not depend on russian gas by reducing gas usage, the gas heating systems need to be replaced with heat pumps or something else and industry needs to shift, presumably to electricity (since it's unlikely that we have enough green hydrogen that's not produced from fossil fuels without depending on russia). This isn't going to be easy and unlikely to happen at a large enough scale in the next 5 years.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#465

Post by desmosxxx »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #111
int_19h wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually did consider joining the EU, and even NATO at one point, but it wasn't taken seriously by either. The NATO intervention in Kosovo was also a major stumbling block. Internally, democratic reforms in the 90s became associated with 1) corruption far worse than Soviets had, and 2) right-wing economic measures ("liberalization") that messed up the economy and created a lot of hardship for the population at the…

Yes, the US did not get this right. At all. Russia could have been Germany-fied with a friendlier and supportive hand. Instead it was handed over to evangelical neoliberals, whose imposed economics guaranteed that only the most feral opportunists and violent gangsters would thrive. Russia could have become a modern social democracy, but now it's a crumbling militaristic dictatorship state run by a raging senile paran…

>> This completely undermines MAD as a doctrine.

#1 no it doesn't - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

#2 Any other NATO country & non-nato can launch nukes.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#466

Post by yesplorer »

trhway wrote: post #306
rebuilder wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what that reflects. Sanctions would not be very popular among the Russian population, is this just the regime calming down the populace? Or does it genuinely reflect the calculus here?

Realistically Russia can't occupy any significant part of Ukraine, nor Kiev in particular - tens of millions of pissed-off resisting Ukrainians with many taking up arms (on Ukrainian TV they said that they already give arms to such civilians as former police, and Zelenskiy said that they would give arms to all "willing and capable to defend the country") would shake off any army, and any such occupation attempt would…

Afghanistan under Taliban makes your claim invalid.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#467

Post by roca »

gadders wrote: post #399
wiz21c wrote: post #118

Why does Putin try to invade parts of Ukraine ? What's its interest ? Is it economical ? is it for interior politics ? is it to destabilize Europe ? does someone can conjecture a bit ?

Because despite agreements to the contrary, NATO keeps trying to expand into Ukraine.

You mean, Ukrainians keep wanting to join NATO.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#468

Post by oceanofsolaris »

WJW wrote: post #346
sgjohnson wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting to full energy independence with renewables is a project that will take a decade or more. Try at least 2-3 decades. Personally I'm still a firm believer in nuclear power.

Not that I'm against nuclear, but getting to full energy independence with nuclear seems like it would need several decades as well. For example, the Blue Castle project in Utah ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project ) started on the drawing board in 2007, started looking for contractors in 2016, hopes to start construction in 2023 and hopes to be fully operational in 2030. That is if construction is not…

China needs five to six years from starting to build a nuclear reactor to making it operational. I don’t see why western countries should be inherently unable to do this. They currently don’t want to (because they don’t need to and people dislike nuclear power).

But if they cared, they should be able to.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#469

Post by pmontra »

deepsun wrote: post #365

I've grew up near Russia, and I can describe you their mindset: all "agreements", "sanctions", "borders" etc don't matter. They are just distractions to prepare positions and advance their military. All that matters is force. There's a Russian proverb: "All territories are ours, it's just someone temporary occupied them". They also think in terms of territories (not people or economy) and victories. If they start los…

Estonia is NATO since 2004. If Russia attacks Estonia ICBMs are launched and all wars are over for a long time.

I expect that in the next days some member of the US government, maybe the President, will publicly remember that Mutual Assured Destruction is what kept the world mostly at peace since the 50s, except small scale wars by proxy or with only one of the USA and SSSR directly involved.

So Russia won't invade, ICBMs won't fly and Ukraine becomes the next Afghanistan for Russia. Fast forward 20 years, Putin is in Lenin's Mausoleum and the new Iron Curtain could start to be lifted.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#470

Post by thiagoharry »

mopsi wrote: post #305
vetinari wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to use nukes effectively, you need to have second strike capabilities. You know, the 'M' in 'MAD'. Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. It would be similar to Russia placing their bases and weapons into Canada or Mexico.

> Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. No, it does not. A number of Eastern European countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons. Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member? Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every…

> Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every month.

Say that to Libya or Yugoslavia that were attacked. NATO is not exactly just a "defensive agreement" as is being currently propagandized.

Post reply on HN