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

141–150 of 613 posts

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#141

Post by hef19898 »

rightbyte wrote: post #67
reitanqild wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for pointing out. I'm comparing Germanys "helpful" occupations of neighboring countries "to help the poor Germans there against abuse" inhabitants to Putin's attempt to occupy Ukraine "to protect all the poor Russians there against genocide."

There was no German enclave uprising in Poland with an 8 year stalemate. The situation in Ukraine has been very unstable.

Well, there were Danzig (a free city state) and Königsberg. Not that I would consider that being a reason to invade anyone so. Unless you are a crazed war monger in search of an excuse.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#142

Post by catlikesshrimp »

sofixa wrote: post #68
CodeArtisan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now.

> When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now. That would have escalated the situation further and would have helped Putin's narrative, like the Russian mobilisation in WWI which only pushed things over the edge.

What would have been the difference to what Ukranians have now? More material support.

I understand for politicians in other countries that would have been very expensive

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#143

Post by kgwgk »

elric wrote: post #115
d3ckard wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Otherwise you let Putin have Ukraine and basically show your ass. We’re all afraid of nukes, but that fear can’t make us allow for everything. I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~200k people. Any target worth nuking, (say Nato HQ) will result in millions of casualties. Urbanization & increased population density have many benefits, but they make for mind-bogglingly disastrous targets of nukes. If there's a choice between nukes raining down and between Putin ruling the world, I'll happily choose the latter. No matter the cost, there cannot be a nucl…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich

"Although appeasement, which is conventionally defined as the act of satisfying grievances by concessions with the aim of avoiding war, was once regarded as an effective and even honourable strategy of foreign policy, the term has since the Munich Conference symbolised cowardice, failure and weakness. Winston Churchill described appeasement as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#144

Post by melony »

glogla wrote: post #106
winrid wrote: post #95

I'm curious, do folks here think Putin would have still invaded if Ukraine didn't consider joining NATO? While yes, Putin very much wants his old USSR back, it seems he's doing this in response to potentially having more NATO missiles on his borders. He's basically been saying "fuck around and find out" since 2008 when we said Ukraine would have the option of joining NATO.

"Putin is only doing this because of NATO missiles" is a Russian propaganda line. It is disheartening to hear it repeated on HN.

Said the great software engineers who have never sat through a single geopolitics class.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#145

Post by [deleted] »

gambiting wrote: post #72
CodeArtisan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now.

>> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? Because like....there is no other good option out of this you know. By placing American(or NATO) troops and assets in the harms way, you need to be prepared for what you are going to do if those…

[deleted]

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#146

Post by jollybean »

thepra wrote: post #110
winrid wrote: post #95

I'm curious, do folks here think Putin would have still invaded if Ukraine didn't consider joining NATO? While yes, Putin very much wants his old USSR back, it seems he's doing this in response to potentially having more NATO missiles on his borders. He's basically been saying "fuck around and find out" since 2008 when we said Ukraine would have the option of joining NATO.

From Putins interview he does explicitly say that he wouldn't be in this position if the NATO didn't push for Ukraine, as simple as that.

"From Putins interview he does explicitly say that he wouldn't be in this position if the NATO didn't push for Ukraine, as simple as that."

No, it's definitely not that. Taking Putin's word at face value is completely irrational.

His actions and other policy objectives have made it clear that he and the Russian State do not view Ukraine as a legit country and have literally been invading it for the last decade wile the West twiddled their thumbs.

Taking Ukraine is a primary objective of the Russian State under Putin - that's the more 'simple' thing to understand.

Anything he says on the news is a 'game'. It's not even really a complicated game, we have all of their books, their doctrine, we know exactly how they think it's just a matter of applying it.

In hindsight it will be hard for anyone to fathom how we didn't see all of this coming. We're literally watching it happen in real-time, from a very well established playbook.

FYI have a read [1]

This is Putin's grand thesis. He basically narrates a history in which Ukraine is just part of Russia.

This has nothing to do with NATO.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#147

Post by tobylane »

nomercy400 wrote: post #131
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.

Like Russia cares. They have a growing, energy-hungering neighbor (China) buying their gas in the east, and a Europe committed to reduce their gas and oil usage in the next 10 years in the west.

Russia cares in the short and medium term, while their gas setup is nearer to and pointed towards Europe.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#148

Post by RobertoG »

watwut wrote: post #26
hef19898 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They consider their security to be threatened, and requested NATO to discuss it. Officially. Which is kind of a big deal. Article 5 can be invoked once, intentionally or by accident, e.g. a NATO plane is attacked over Ukraine. This whole thing is a mess. Despite history since the end of the cold war (which makes some of Russia's positions somewhat understandable, and the fact that NATO didn't do anything different in…

What makes Russia position understandable? What gives them right to occupy Ukraine?

Ukraine is in the middle of two "powers" and the proper role would be one of buffer. They could even benefit from that. Unfortunately, the Russian and the USA have both tried to take that part of the board for them and the Ukrainian population is split on their loyalties.

Russian, simply can't allow more of the board, specially one part so close, to be dominated by the opponent.

Anyone that think this conflict in terms of "good" or "bad" have been drinking the kool-aid.

My prediction: A repetition of Crimea. The Donbas will be incorporate to the Russian area of influence, but not the rest of Ukraine, some noises will be done by the West about sanctions or whatever and in five years nobody will remember. Hope to be right, because other scenarios are really scary.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#149

Post by MattGaiser »

georgeplusplus wrote: post #134
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.

China benefits most from the electrical energy economy. Let that sink in. The reason why we arrived at today is people not thinking through the effects of their actions and desires.

Chinese at least care about their material prosperity. Russia seems fine with whatever sanctions fall on their lap.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#150

Post by slg »

gambiting wrote: post #120
slg wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? If we are going by the game theory, mutually assured destruction only works if both sides believe the other is willing to engage. If one side knows the other side will not engage, it becomes easy for the aggressive side to take advantage of the passive side. Putin also doesn't want to…

Like I said above - Putin has literally made a career out of calling west's bluffs. Would he call that one? Would he literally attack American/NATO troops to see if we'll really end the world over it? I really don't want to find out. It's one hell of a gamble.

>Putin has literally made a career out of calling west's bluffs. Would he call that one?

Well that is the point. As I said the west needs to make it clear that an invasion would lead to war. It can't be a bluff. But we all know the west wasn't willing to end civilization over this so here we are. Seems like Putin is going to keep prodding the west until he finds the line he is convinced we won't let him cross. That line was never going to be Georgia, Crimea, or the whole of Ukraine.

Post reply on HN