Before that, NATO broke its promise to "not expand one-inch eastward" and to not interfere with Ukrainian sovereignty. There are no good guys here.

By the way, how many people died in the Russian invasion of Crimea and resulting occupation? Surely it was very bloody (like the current war) because Crimeans didn't want it, right?

You are repeating a Russian lie https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/exposing-the-myth-...

There was never a promise.

>Beset by chaos at home, an increasingly beleaguered Yeltsin turned to historical revisionism. He began to interpret the Two Plus Four Treaty as a ban on NATO expansion east of Germany, on the basis that it only permitted alliance activities on East German territory. He (and later Putin) claimed that the failure to mention Eastern Europe, together with the stipulated restrictions in relation to former GDR terrain, meant an implicit Western rejection of eastward enlargement.

Also later

> At preliminary bilateral talks in Helsinki in March 1997, Clinton refused to respond to Yeltsin’s call for binding restrictions on the establishment of NATO security infrastructure in new member states.

> There was never a promise.

ha ha

"Kissinger confirms US verbal promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO eastward"

> verbal promise

"ha ha" indeed.

make up your mind

"There was never a promise"

If you want to talk about promises of not expanding, maybe we should talk about that time Ukraine gave Russia a bunch of Soviet nukes for the assurance they would be left alone to govern themselves.

Here's a hint: Only one of these two promises would even be relevant.

The promise of not expanding NATO never existed, BUT EVEN IF IT DID then Russia should be invading the US, not Ukraine. There is no justification to invade Ukraine as a defense against NATO, as even if you believe NATO controls Ukraine (it doesn't), taking that land merely increases the size of Russia's border with NATO.

But you know all this.

It is supremely disingenuous to imply that Washington's Ukraine policy circa 2014 (before Russia stole Crimea) is in any way compatible with the terms and spirit of the Budapest Agreements, and that Russia was therefore the first mover in violating it.

The US' decisions in no way grant Russia the moral or legal right to invade Ukraine.

No one is arguing that.

I am countering the pro-Washington, pro-war talking point that USA-RF diplomacy isn't viable because Russia violated Budapest. Well, so did USA, before the Crimea crisis. Find a better excuse to undermine diplomacy and justify bloodshed.

You know I don't really care. I think your historical analysis is flawed. But I don't care. Fuck the US gov. Sure.

But Russia is the one launching a genocidal campaign, leveling cities, and posturing to intentionally cause a nuclear disaster at the largest nuclear plant in Europe. I don't think anyone should engage with them diplomatically until their government is completely reformed. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and wounded. Civilian targets are hit on a daily basis. They have lost the right to diplomacy. Any further tolerance of this country will lead to more instances of what we're experiencing now. Run the war to its conclusion when the government inevitably collapses.

I know your pro-war camp "doesn't really care" about the severe bloodshed and total destruction of Ukraine. Everything is hunky-dory "as long as Russians are being killed", to paraphrase prominent Senator Lindsey Graham. Anyways, this discussion clearly isn't going anywhere, much like Washington diplomacy.

You misunderstood. We don't care about your pathetic excuses for bloodshed and destruction. Day after day you keep reposting the same long-debunked conspiracy theories. For a long time, Russia's victims were seen as traumatized and overly paranoid for warning about Russia. Now the true face of Russia is for everyone to see. Bogged down in unwinnable war, it is now trying to starve the world in a temper tantrum.

Who is "we"? You are a new anonymous account that posts almost exclusively about Big Bad Russia on this tech forum. I'm genuinely interested in who this "we" is. Can you share or would you lose your so-called job?

The guys preparing to intentionally cause a nuclear disaster at the largest nuclear plant in Europe, committing genocide on an immense scale, and perpetuating an offensive invasion into Ukraine are indeed the big bads, yes.

You can't break HN's rules like this, and you've unfortunately been posting lots of flamewar comments lately. That's not cool, and we've had to warn you more than once in the past:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35843312 (May 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30593145 (March 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128649 (Jan 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29629671 (Dec 2021)

Continuing like this will get your account banned here, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended use of the site, we'd appreciate it.

Your account has been using HN primarily or even exclusively for political/nationalist battle. This isn't allowed on HN, regardless of which politics or nations you're battling for or against—it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I've therefore banned the account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Lets start by naming all western-backed coup d'états in that corrupt country in the last 2 decades prior to this unfortunate trigger for a global societal change(ban of nuclear power, monetary reform, food reform, natural resource management reform, throw in some internal conflicts and changes in major military power block(s) of the globe - another nice trigger), thank you for your service!