We need, first and foremost, a guarantee that if the war stops today, that Russia will not launch an invasion for the third time in a few years.
This war didn't start in 2022. They invaded in 2014, and "peace" was negotiated in Minsk. Worked out swimmingly.
There are several ways we can get this guarantee:
-A complete withdrawal and de-nuclearization of Russia, plus referendums held in Chechnya, Tatarstan, Syberia, Yakutia and other Moscow-controlled Republics in the Federation on whether the people there want to continue being a part on Moscow's imperial ambitions, or choose independence.
Side note: Tatarstan had such a referendum in 1992. It would be great if its results were, at last, honored.
Return of occupied territories is a means to an end. The end is peace. If Russia gets rewarded in any way for its invasion with acceptance of its territorial gains, they WILL do it again; the calculus is that simple.
-Alternatively, NATO and EU membership and/or any sort of multilateral security agreement (not a promise) that would guarantee us boots-on-the-ground assistance in case of another invasion, backed by something more than a piece of paper.
Say, NATO stations ammo depots, rockets, warplanes in Ukraine in sealed warehouses, and we promise not to take and use any of that stuff as long as NATO holds up to its own promises.
-Ukraine develops nuclear weapons
That's about all I can think of. Everything else has been tried before. The war started in 2014, and the invasion in 2022 took place after all the nuke-fearing pearl-clutchers suggested was already done.
Funny thing, the only thing that makes Russia use nuclear weapons more likely is impunity, which is exactly what that sort of people is asking for. They are bringing their own doom, and are pulling us along with it.
Trying to, in any case. We won't go. With or without them.
And "why would something that was put in motion stop, the roots remaining unchanged".
As a Ukrainian, sincerely, fuck you.
We aren't pawns, and we aren't used. What we are is being fucked over by unreliable "partners" who cultivate fear of nukes as a religion that justifies doing fuck-all.
As a reminder, we gave up our more than a handful of nukes on a promise from the US that our territorial integrity will be respected[1].
We got the Russians out of Kyiv before military aid from the US in any quantity or quality that matters was even of the table. 2022 Ramstein conference was in April.
Putin has already been negotiated with before. Everything you said has been said in 2014. That's how we got the current war.
Russia can only be negotiated with from a position of strength.
Stop trying to weaken us. We've been let down enough.
>The price may also be paid in the form of a handful of nukes.
You mean, the nukes that we gave up at the insistence of US, which is the entire reason Russia felt bold enough to invade us?
Awesome. That means you owe us that price. Take it from the US president that engineered that "deal"[2].
Pay. Up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-ukraine-war-russia-nuc...
It's not a matter of opinion. That's what calling people "pawns" does.
More so when it's so laughably delusional. Russian aggression in Ukraine goes back hundreds of years, as is Ukraine standing up to it[1]. We fought Russian forces when the US didn't yet exist.
And in 2022, we pushed Russians out of Kyiv before any of the following was even on the table:
- HIMARS rocket artillery
- IRIS-T air defense
- PATRIOT air defense
- Harpoon missiles
- Western armor (Leopard 1/2, Abrams, Challenger, ...)
- F-16 warplanes
- ATACMS missiles (..and their use on Russian land)
These are the things getting which ostensibly makes us "pawns".
We didn't have any of that to push Russia out of Bucha. What we got to stave the invasion off was generous offers, like... hmm... 5,000 helmets from Germany[2].
The comment I'm responding to suggests that we are "pawns", "used" by Western psychos to fight Russia (in the 18th century) to get 5,000 helmets (in the 21st).
That comment is as deranged as it is insulting. By all means, it should not be allowed on this forum.
Yet something tells me you will neither delete it, nor reprimand the commenter in any way. Understanding why that is necessary requires understanding of the context of the discussion you are moderating.
The context that you lack - since nobody is omniscient, and you already* have the understanding of tech and science contexts that would take lifetimes for others to attain. It would no be reasonable for you to know of all the nuances of history and geopolitics.
That's what the community is for. When you let us do that job, that is, and not accuse us of being "nationalistic" when we respond to direct attacks.
Can't wait to hear from you why calling Ukrainians "pawns used by psychos" is acceptable, while Ukrainians telling them to follow the Russian warship[4] in response is uncivil.
That's before we get to the part where the liberty of floating ideas about military assistance to Ukraine being characterized as "psychos' chess game" comes at the expense of Ukrainian lives - as is fearmongering about Russian nukes.
Each of the line items above was considered, at a time, a "red line" over which Russia may use nuclear weapons[3].
An argument that military assistance to Ukraine is doing anything but stopping Russia from using nuclear weapons is not based in data, and is purely speculative in nature.
Still, it is an argument, one that I can provide insights into and discuss. I know a lot on the subject, being from Ukraine and having spent a lot of time educating people about Ukraine since the war started.
But instead, I find myself at a place where bigoted accusations are accepted, but responses to them are not.
Will it really foster enlightened discussions to give voices to people that consider Ukrainians "pawns", and take them away from Ukrainians for being unhappy about that?
I don't know what else to say, dang.
Oh wait, I do.
Perhaps take a look at the comment history of the people I tell to go and fuck themselves. It invariably turns out that these people have little to give to this world, and in particular - to this forum.
They have scant life experiences, no achievements to speak of, and nearly no comment history. Invariably. But they feel important enough to log into HackerNews with their One Hot Take that Ukrainians are "pawns", or the autistic people are socipaths.
And you, dang, stand up for them, and reprimand me for making them feel uncomfortable.
Great. Look at my contribution history here. Look at my LinkedIn if needs be.
I am bringing value to this forum. I have enough things to share that people have found insightful or useful, and keep finding insightful or useful.
Math PhD; work experience in Google, Meta, Roblox; ACM world finalist, educator - wouldn't that be the kind of people (and subjects) you want on HN?
Well, you're voting with your reprimands. It appears that what you want is a space where people like me are called "pawns" and sociopaths by the people who have little else to say, and little life experience worth sharing.
I am not comfortable with being called a pawn or a sociopath in general, more so on the basis of what, in the US, is a protected category. If HN were a workplace, it would be, legally, a hostile working environment.
That's the environment you're currently shaping as a moderator.
HN is a special place because it attracts special people. You are turning it into a safe space for bullies to harass us for who we are.
PS: no need to tell me of the "flag" button or community moderation - by the time it works (if it works), the damage is already done.
HN is too large at this point for you alone to handle. Your attempts to make it a safe space for everyone make it a safe space for people who come here to trash the place, and a hostile place for people like me.
(Yay for still being rate-limited here, on that note. Tells me everything about which viewpoints are granted a podium here, but I digress).
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/11q76sj/psa_the_hi...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/27/germanys-offer-to-send-5000-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_warship,_go_fuck_yours...
Because the cost of keeping them is way too high, generally. Like, historically, even when someone wins a war they often end up pulling out anyway.
if it's a choice between all of Crimea or an hours drive worth of greater Kursk it's no contest; the Russians aren't going to give up the jewel of the Black Sea for a small chunk of Kursk.
totally fucking tiny, and no strategic value, unless hunting wales becomes useful again.
[citation needed]
Ukraine has been fighting Russia since the 17th century, long before NATO (and powers like the US or Germany) existed[0]. The current war is a continuation of that.
The fact that Finland joined NATO without consequence indicates that the "some" in question are.. Kremlin.
> and I agree with that analysis
That's not an "analysis", that's wishful thinking, at best, and is not grounded in reality.
"The invasion was caused by Ukraine's intent to join a defensive alliance to protect itself from such an invasion" is a leap of logic that comes from a singular place on this planet.
On that note:
>There are some who argue that the whole war could have been avoided...
...if Ukraine was not pushed to give up its own nuclear weapons by the US.
Those "some" people being:
- Bill Clinton[1], who made that push (and admirably, took responsibility for this), and
- John Mearsheimer[2], who made a case for Ukrainian nuclear deterrent back in 1993.
I tend to listen to people with credibility and credentials, not randos spreading misinformation, sorry.
>Not that they cared about those territories anyway. Ukraine was shelling the people who live there in recent years. It's no wonder that they voted to join Russia.
Abscond and perish.
On the way there, let me know when the million or two people who were forced out of Donbas by Russian invaders (and are now internal refugees in Ukraine) got a chance to vote to "join Russia".
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/11q76sj/psa_the_hi...
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-ukraine-war-russia-nuc...
[2] https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears...