5 ms·

Keep in mind that Russia has gathered hundreds of thousands of troops & their equipment on the border of Ukraine, for zero good reason other than to bully, inti

Keep in mind that Russia has gathered hundreds of thousands of troops & their equipment on the border of Ukraine, for zero good reason other than to bully, intimidate, or invade. This is entirely a crisis of Russia's making.

mistrial9 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    apologies to all involved if that seemed too personal; I can't edit it, so rephrase that point of view exactly is the result of ... no personal hard feelings, I wish peace for all here, sorry to appear otherwise
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
huhtenberg 5y ago
This is a rather shallow and naive way of looking at things. Put bluntly, Ukraine is a strategic buffer between Russia and the West, keeping their nukes and armed forces at arm's length. Ukraine didn't like this role, it wanted out, but it underestimated how much this would tip the balance. They moved too fast and against a now-pissed former and powerful ally. Hence the result. That is, there is a pretty good reason for Russia to do all this even if their methods are painfully crude.
- lordleft 5y ago
  It's a good reason if you're an autocrat threatened by pro-democracy movements and polities.
- nabla9 5y ago
  >Ukraine is a strategic buffer between Russia That's what Russians say, but if you stop thinking it, it makes no sense.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Ukraine is an independent country, and that gives it the right to manage its own foreign policy. Russia is upset that Ukraine, like almost every other post-Soviet country, would rather be in the US/EU sphere of influence than the Russian sphere of influence, but that is Russia's problem, not Ukraine's problem.
  - lom 5y ago
    To add to this, this is entirely Russia’s fault. Before the invasion of crimea eastern, former soviet countries, were more pro-russia and against the “west”. Obviously nobody likes to interact with someone annexing parts of countries, and displacing many civilians, or even worse. So to nobodies surprise the tides turned and the majority in Ukraine and other countries are now pro joining the Nato.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    Ukraine does not manage its membership in NATO or in EU. It is the sovereign right of NATO members to decide on expansion policy and they have no intention currently to offer membership to Ukraine. For some weird reason they are at the same time not ready to commit to that, just because this will look like it's happening due to pressure from Russia. Childish.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Commit to what? Never letting Ukraine in? That's an unreasonable ask. Meanwhile, they don't have to say anything about letting Ukraine in now: they're demonstrably not.
_dain_ 5y ago
And expanding NATO right up to their borders after we promised them we wouldn't, has nothing to do with it? https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassifie...
- shirly88 5y ago
- eternalban 5y ago
  To get a sense of the propaganda aspect of this "promised" business you need to ask yourself the question "Why did not the Soviets/Russians accept verbal private promises as the basis for arms control?" Agreements regarding matters of such strategic gravity are always written down and signed by the involved parties. The expansion of NATO clearly was and remains as strategic a concern (to all parties) whether then or now. Note, for example, Russia's current demand for a "written legally binding response". So we are either to assume Soviet team (Gorbachev et al.) were either incompetent or assets of the West, or, USSR capitulated and was not in a position to make legal binding demands regarding NATO and had to be satisfied with warm non-binding backroom reassurances. I think it is the latter, and now, post Soviet Russia (caught between a pincer of Europe and China) believes it has a stronger hand and wants to re-negotiate.
- satori99 5y ago
  Were those assurances made to The Soviet Union or the Russian Federation that followed it?
  - eternalban 5y ago
    It is irrelevant and a red-herring. Great power agreements are written legal documents. There was no agreement and thus the question of continuity of the non-agreement is meaningless.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Were actual binding commitments made, Russia would have inherited them as successor in interest. But no one pushing this Russian propaganda line can point to anything that even remotely resembles even a personal (much less binding international) commitment, just a few instances around 1990-1991 where Western leaders indicated that they (depending on which statement or communication it is) either were not immediately prepared for or did not immediately envision further eastward deployment of troops of expansion of NATO.

mistrial9 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  apologies to all involved if that seemed too personal; I can't edit it, so rephrase that point of view exactly is the result of ... no personal hard feelings, I wish peace for all here, sorry to appear otherwise

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

huhtenberg 5y ago

This is a rather shallow and naive way of looking at things. Put bluntly, Ukraine is a strategic buffer between Russia and the West, keeping their nukes and armed forces at arm's length. Ukraine didn't like this role, it wanted out, but it underestimated how much this would tip the balance. They moved too fast and against a now-pissed former and powerful ally. Hence the result. That is, there is a pretty good reason for Russia to do all this even if their methods are painfully crude.

lordleft 5y ago
It's a good reason if you're an autocrat threatened by pro-democracy movements and polities.
nabla9 5y ago
>Ukraine is a strategic buffer between Russia That's what Russians say, but if you stop thinking it, it makes no sense.
jcranmer 5y ago
Ukraine is an independent country, and that gives it the right to manage its own foreign policy. Russia is upset that Ukraine, like almost every other post-Soviet country, would rather be in the US/EU sphere of influence than the Russian sphere of influence, but that is Russia's problem, not Ukraine's problem.
- lom 5y ago
  To add to this, this is entirely Russia’s fault. Before the invasion of crimea eastern, former soviet countries, were more pro-russia and against the “west”. Obviously nobody likes to interact with someone annexing parts of countries, and displacing many civilians, or even worse. So to nobodies surprise the tides turned and the majority in Ukraine and other countries are now pro joining the Nato.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Ukraine does not manage its membership in NATO or in EU. It is the sovereign right of NATO members to decide on expansion policy and they have no intention currently to offer membership to Ukraine. For some weird reason they are at the same time not ready to commit to that, just because this will look like it's happening due to pressure from Russia. Childish.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Commit to what? Never letting Ukraine in? That's an unreasonable ask. Meanwhile, they don't have to say anything about letting Ukraine in now: they're demonstrably not.

_dain_ 5y ago

And expanding NATO right up to their borders after we promised them we wouldn't, has nothing to do with it? https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassifie...

shirly88 5y ago
eternalban 5y ago
To get a sense of the propaganda aspect of this "promised" business you need to ask yourself the question "Why did not the Soviets/Russians accept verbal private promises as the basis for arms control?" Agreements regarding matters of such strategic gravity are always written down and signed by the involved parties. The expansion of NATO clearly was and remains as strategic a concern (to all parties) whether then or now. Note, for example, Russia's current demand for a "written legally binding response". So we are either to assume Soviet team (Gorbachev et al.) were either incompetent or assets of the West, or, USSR capitulated and was not in a position to make legal binding demands regarding NATO and had to be satisfied with warm non-binding backroom reassurances. I think it is the latter, and now, post Soviet Russia (caught between a pincer of Europe and China) believes it has a stronger hand and wants to re-negotiate.
satori99 5y ago
Were those assurances made to The Soviet Union or the Russian Federation that followed it?
- eternalban 5y ago
  It is irrelevant and a red-herring. Great power agreements are written legal documents. There was no agreement and thus the question of continuity of the non-agreement is meaningless.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Were actual binding commitments made, Russia would have inherited them as successor in interest. But no one pushing this Russian propaganda line can point to anything that even remotely resembles even a personal (much less binding international) commitment, just a few instances around 1990-1991 where Western leaders indicated that they (depending on which statement or communication it is) either were not immediately prepared for or did not immediately envision further eastward deployment of troops of expansion of NATO.