5 ms·
Nobody forced Putin to invade. That was Putin's decision. Ukraine joining or not joining NATO is irrelevant, a canard, a red herring, a strawman. The world can
by greesil 5y ago
Nobody forced Putin to invade. That was Putin's decision. Ukraine joining or not joining NATO is irrelevant, a canard, a red herring, a strawman.
The world can do much now. Even from just a humanitarian perspective, accepting refugees, making sure people don't starve (Ukraine, also Afghanistan, and elsewhere).
- pydry 5y ago>Ukraine joining or not joining NATO is irrelevant, a canard, a red herring, a strawman. It's the number one reason why this is is happening. Putin said it was a red line on about 75 separate occasions. Ukraine ignored and pushed ahead anyway. NATO ignored and pushed ahead anyway. Two days before the invasion as Putin announced a "semi" pull out of amassed, Zelensky reiterated his commitment to joining NATO. NATO destroyed Libya (now on its second civil war). I doubt they'd leave Russia alone after incorporating Ukraine. It would be irrational to not fear its encroachment.
- lupire 5y agoAn excuse is not a defense.
- pydry 5y agoA reason isnt an excuse.
- ethbr0 5y agoSovereign means sovereign. What Putin thinks about what Ukraine should or should not do stops at the borders of the Russian Federation. Russia could decide to stop trading with Ukraine, or impose sanctions on Ukraine, or any of a number of other legal options. Instead, they chose to militarily invade a country.
- pydry 5y agoAs I recall this was Cuba's argument after the failed bay of pigs invasion. They asked for nuclear weapons on their soil and the USSR agreed to provide them. The US took a dim view of it if I recall correctly. When the defence of the heartland is threatened, notions such as sovereignty tend to take a back seat and invasion is very much on the table. Strategically the Ukrainian border is kind of like Russia's jugular. Hence the insistence that NATO membership is a red line.
- acdha 5y ago> Strategically the Ukrainian border is kind of like Russia's jugular. How true is this since circa 1950, though? There are very few plausible scenarios involving a ground invasion and most of Russia is exposed to modern weaponry so it’s not like the primary threat is a bunch of B-52s flying out of Kyiv. It’s true that distance affects reaction times but they already have similar range borders & submarine launches substantially affected that, too.
- ethbr0 5y agoLong range, aircraft launched, deployed hypersonic nuclear delivery systems will render this even more moot, relative to the current status quo, in the next 20 years. At the end of the day, it appears Russia wants eastern Europe politically. Until they can accept it as independent and sovereign, any protestations about military systems are smoke screens for their general unhappiness with an independent eastern Europe.
- ethbr0 5y agoThe US sponsored and equiped Cuban dissidents to invade Cuba. Russia sponsored and equiped Ukrainian dissidents to seize eastern Ukraine. The US embargoed Cuba after the failed invasion. Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and has now invaded Ukraine. The first step was the same, but the US military didn't invade Cuba when it failed.
- samastur 5y agoHe also wrote 5000 words long essay last year how Ukraine shouldn't really exist and is really just a part of Russia and in his long rant announcing the invasion barely mentioned NATO at all. But sure, all that NATO name dropping surely is the reason for this aggression on a sovereign nation.
- pydry 5y agoYeah he said that he wanted to "denazify" the place too which is bollocks as well. These were both pretexts. He probably believes the crap about them being brothers but it wouldnt be enough to trigger an invasion. NATO as a threat is very real, though. It is enough.
- samastur 5y agoNATO until this week was full of countries who couldn't bother equipping their armies with basic necessities. German soldiers used broomsticks during one NATO exercise and even those with somewhat competent armies were optimising for "surgical" interventions instead of large conflicts. Threat was more rhetorical than real. All that went out of the window now.
- pydry 5y agoAngry heavily armed NATO troops in Warsaw matter less to Moscow than the potential for NATO troops in Mariupol poised to cut Russia off from the caucauses and the black sea. It's like the geopolitical equivalent of shouting aggressively at a bear from a mile away vs just being between her and her cubs. Ukrainian-Russian border is where Russia is at its most vulnerable, hence why the reaction to projected NATO encroachment is so violent.
- samastur 5y agoGood point.
- jacquesm 5y agoWhat changed since you wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30464986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30464986 You seem to want to rewrite your position on this.
- pydry 5y agoI don't really see how anything changed. The strategic criticality of the Ukrainian coast hasnt changed. The Russian position on NATO hasnt changed. From day 1 of the invasion it seemed clear to me that their goal was not to occupy all of Ukraine but to "break" it and potentially to cleave off strategic pieces in negotiations and extract a promise of neutrality/demilitarization.
- jacquesm 5y agoYour position does not pass the test of logic. There are much simpler ways to achieve that without risking any Russian lives.
- pydry 5y agoSuch as? With respect to NATO membership it was fairly plain that everything from asking nicely all the way up to 200,000 troops deployed on the border wasnt enough to deter either NATO or Zelensky.
- jacquesm 5y agoYou don't seem to understand the concept of Sovereignty, what other countries do is not up to Putin, and if they don't do what he wants that does not give him a right to invade or dictate terms.
- pydry 5y agoI'm never said he did have a "right to invade". I'm just trying to explain, against MUCH resistance, why he did. Because I think the real reason why this all happened A) matters rather a lot B) is being swept under the carpet. NATO's (lack of) respect for Libya's sovereignty can perhaps explain why Putin didnt think that it would have much respect for Russia's sovereignty which is, in turn, why he didnt have much respect for Ukraine's. No country respects the sovereignty of another when it feels threatened.
- throwaway_4ever 5y agoIf Putin isn’t afraid of NATO even defending an invasion of Ukraine, what makes you think he’s actually afraid of NATO attacking Russian soil? Btw the Russian troop “pullout” was a fabricated lie. It was a few tanks sent back needing mechanical repairs from heavy drills. So it appears we’ve already established you’re falling for Russian state propaganda talking points that turned out to be false.
- freebuju 5y agoIf NATO isn't the reason why Putin is invading Ukraine, then tell us the real reason according to your perspective. Unless you are in Ukraine, you cannot do anything to influence the outcome of this war.
- greedo 5y agoNATO membership is a canard. Putin's real objection is Ukraine being a western facing democracy right on his door step. That makes the Russian Federation look like what it is: a bunch of stooge kleptocrats who hold on to power through murder and intimidation.
- throwaway_4ever 5y agoIf Putin isn’t afraid of NATO even defending an invasion of Ukraine, what makes you think he’s actually afraid of NATO attacking Russian soil?
- greesil 5y agoBecause he made a huge blunder. Because he thinks this is how he stays in power. He set up this whole situation with a lot of optimism about Ukraine capitulating, or getting some concessions, and it didn't work out. Now he's attacking because he doesn't want to look weak by withdrawing the buildup. That might lead to him losing power, in his mind. Or he's insane. The above is the only rational explanation I can think of.