6 ms·

Negotiate a truce with Putin that involved decoupling NATO from Ukraine and devolve centralized power to Ukrainian states.

by pydry 5y ago

ajross 5y ago
A settlement like that is what ended hostilities in 2014, and yet he's back for more. What happens when he comes for the rest of Ukraine in another 8 years, or Moldova? Or Finland. What then? Negotiated peace only works if it works, and it clearly doesn't with Putin. We tried your suggestion already and it failed.
- pydry 5y ago
  Except hostilities werent ended in 2014 and the Ukrainian government was pretty explicit that they didnt like the minsk protocol and didnt particularly feel obliged to adhere to it. So they didnt and the war continued for another 8 years. The point is we DIDNT try adhering to minsk, zelensky decided he 100% wanted to be NATO rather than neutral and NOW look where we are. A bit of decentralization, some restored Russian language rights and a promise for NATO to back off would ALL have been easier. >What happens when he comes for the rest of Ukraine in another 8 years, or Moldova? How exactly does neutral make that happen? What happens when NATO tries to do to Russia what it did to Libya?
ericmay 5y ago
So only some countries have the right to decide their international affairs? Might as well make the same argument for Germany or France. Putin is mad so therefore decouple these countries from NATO. Ya know The Us feels very threatened by Belarus. They should have to withdraw from their alliance from Russia and decouple. Otherwise we’ll invade and neutralize it ourselves.
- pydry 5y ago
  >So only some countries have the right to decide their international affairs? Should Russia schedule a delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba for this week or next? >Ya know The Us feels very threatened by Belarus. They should have to withdraw from their alliance from Russia and decouple Is that because of its close proximity to Maine? I guess it's closer than Iraq...
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > Should Russia schedule a delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba for this week or next? Frankly, I couldn’t care less. But if you think a country choosing to ally with a country is the same as positioning nuclear weapons, well, that’s your problem. Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls, which were the result of an insane arms buildup and included activities like putting missiles in Cuba. Even the Soviet Union got it. > Is that because of its close proximity to Maine? So you can only feel threatened by a country that you share a border with? > I guess it's closer than Iraq... This is called whataboutism and it can safely be rejected.
    - gspetr 5y ago
      >Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls From game theory stand point that is the only course of action to maintain MAD. If you're falling behind in drones and high precision weapons, it would be very disadvantageous if everyone went nukeless.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Which only holds true if you want to be an adversary. NATO countries don’t care about Russia as a military adversary except to the degree that they want to be one. The Cold War is over. Russia could just grow into a prosperous economy and ally with the west. They choose not to.
        gspetr 5y ago
        If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined. US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster. Also, if the Cold war was over - why did NATO even expand? A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?

Negotiate a truce with Putin that involved decoupling NATO from Ukraine and devolve centralized power to Ukrainian states.

by pydry 5y ago

Negotiate a truce with Putin that involved decoupling NATO from Ukraine and devolve centralized power to Ukrainian states.

ajross 5y ago

A settlement like that is what ended hostilities in 2014, and yet he's back for more. What happens when he comes for the rest of Ukraine in another 8 years, or Moldova? Or Finland. What then? Negotiated peace only works if it works, and it clearly doesn't with Putin. We tried your suggestion already and it failed.

pydry 5y ago
Except hostilities werent ended in 2014 and the Ukrainian government was pretty explicit that they didnt like the minsk protocol and didnt particularly feel obliged to adhere to it. So they didnt and the war continued for another 8 years. The point is we DIDNT try adhering to minsk, zelensky decided he 100% wanted to be NATO rather than neutral and NOW look where we are. A bit of decentralization, some restored Russian language rights and a promise for NATO to back off would ALL have been easier. >What happens when he comes for the rest of Ukraine in another 8 years, or Moldova? How exactly does neutral make that happen? What happens when NATO tries to do to Russia what it did to Libya?

ericmay 5y ago

So only some countries have the right to decide their international affairs? Might as well make the same argument for Germany or France. Putin is mad so therefore decouple these countries from NATO. Ya know The Us feels very threatened by Belarus. They should have to withdraw from their alliance from Russia and decouple. Otherwise we’ll invade and neutralize it ourselves.

pydry 5y ago
>So only some countries have the right to decide their international affairs? Should Russia schedule a delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba for this week or next? >Ya know The Us feels very threatened by Belarus. They should have to withdraw from their alliance from Russia and decouple Is that because of its close proximity to Maine? I guess it's closer than Iraq...
- ericmay 5y ago
  > Should Russia schedule a delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba for this week or next? Frankly, I couldn’t care less. But if you think a country choosing to ally with a country is the same as positioning nuclear weapons, well, that’s your problem. Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls, which were the result of an insane arms buildup and included activities like putting missiles in Cuba. Even the Soviet Union got it. > Is that because of its close proximity to Maine? So you can only feel threatened by a country that you share a border with? > I guess it's closer than Iraq... This is called whataboutism and it can safely be rejected.
  - gspetr 5y ago
    >Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls From game theory stand point that is the only course of action to maintain MAD. If you're falling behind in drones and high precision weapons, it would be very disadvantageous if everyone went nukeless.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Which only holds true if you want to be an adversary. NATO countries don’t care about Russia as a military adversary except to the degree that they want to be one. The Cold War is over. Russia could just grow into a prosperous economy and ally with the west. They choose not to.
      - gspetr 5y ago
        If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined. US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster. Also, if the Cold war was over - why did NATO even expand? A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?