Compromise would be a peace deal that actually guarantees Ukraine's future safety (e.g. NATO membership or nuclear weapons) without further compromising their sovereignty (forcing them to give up more territory or recognize Russian territorial claims).
We don't have the ability to compel Ukraine to take a bad deal, and if we did it would be wrong to.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h... https://archive.ph/7qYtE
Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine.
>Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse.
There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in that same meeting, not turned into any official agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to an entity which also no longer existed.
Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were not in NATO.
My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion to Russia's borders. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in 2002 and 2004...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring...
And recall that Putin took Crimea in 2014 right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
To say Russia's aggression was entirely unprovoked represents an ignorance of recent history.
However, there's a big difference between expanding your sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through military invasion, as Russia is doing.
The two are not at all comparable.
Regarding the distinction between soft and hard power, however, I think both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would disagree:
"Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight."
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
The almost unescapable conclusion is that the Neocons' soft power forced Putin's hand, perhaps by design.
Realists try to wrap Putin's decisionmaking in layers of geopolitical reasoning, when the dude literally compares himself to Peter the Great and uses 17th century maps to claim that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation. This is bog-standard nationalist stuff.
Tucker Carlson literally sat down with Putin and did everything he could to tee up this nonsense about NATO that Westerners want to hear and believe was the real reason, and instead Putin dropped 45 minutes worth of nationalist pseudohistory on him that had nothing to do with NATO. Nobody in Russia pretends the war is about NATO. It's just not really part of their narrative at all.
In summary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9...
And I would appreciate backing evidence beyond Office memes.
You can't blame NATO expansion for Russian aggression (and call it "threatening") while at the same time literally admitting that Russia is strongly nationalist and would love to reclaim all of its former territories (which is why all of those countries desperately wanted to join NATO).
Fuck dude, Russia is the largest country on earth (see: expansionism) and has the first or second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They have no right to feel "threatened" by their smaller neighbors banding together.
Seen in that light, a US strategy of overt and steady NATO encroachment combined with covert action to foment rebellion in multiple ex-Soviet states isn’t far fetched. And even if we didn’t secretly fund the latter, a paranoid Putin certainly wouldn’t doubt it and would react accordingly.
The reasons why Eastern Europe was very passionate about joining NATO are clear from their history. And getting accepted into the organization was a major and very widely documented struggle. The Polish government went as far as threatening to sink Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996 by urging Polish-Americans to vote for Republicans unless Clinton agreed to admitting Poland into NATO.
Now, people like you are trying to depict this as some sort of grand anti-Russian masterplan laid out in Washington. Nobody, not even Russians from that era, support this fringe story.
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Here are the facts of NATO encroachment from the fall of the Berlin wall to the annexation of Crimea:
1. Feb 1990: The US, through West German chancellor Helmut Kohl, hints at freezing NATO’s borders in order to secure German reunification.
"Kohl thus found himself in a complicated position as he prepared to meet with Gorbachev on February 10, 1990. He had received two letters, one on either end of his flight from West Germany to the Soviet Union, the first from Bush and the second from Baker, and the two contained different wording on the same issue. Bush’s letter suggested that NATO’s border would begin moving eastward; Baker’s suggested that it would not.
According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany.”
Outcome: the former Warsaw-Pact East Germany joins NATO as part of unified Germany.
2. Partnership for Peace membership (NATO program for creating trust and cooperation between member states and other states mostly in Europe)
Ukraine Feb 8, 1994
Georgia Mar 23, 1994
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace#Member...
3. Official NATO expansion
Poland Mar 12, 1999
Estonia Mar 29, 2004
Latvia “
Lithuania "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring...
Outcome: NATO is now on Russia's borders on multiple flanks.
4. Feb/Mar 2014: Putin takes Crimea right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is ousted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_...
---
European motivations for joining NATO are obvious and beyond debate: what formerly war-torn nation wouldn't want shelter under our nuclear umbrella?
But while whether or not gradual, but deliberate NATO encroachment was a Neocon stratagem may be debatable to you and me, I doubt Putin, a paranoid autocrat who considers the fall of the USSR one of history's great calamaties, looking at these facts, would have the least question whatsoever.
It's also funny how Putin now lies about how invading Ukraine is all about NATO, when in the first few years of the war, Russia denied any involvement and claimed that the tens of thousands of unmarked soldiers with Russian tanks, artillery and anti-air systems capable of shooting down high-altitude airliners were just disgruntled secessionist Ukrainians fighting against nazis in Kyiv with weapons from military surplus stores. According to Putin, it was a civil war in Ukraine, and Russia had nothing to do with it.
Please clarify how NATO encroachment is non-threatening to a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age.
One of the pre-Putin foreign ministers of Russia has maintained for decades that NATO offers free security on Russia's western border. Its rules, especially those related to civilian oversight of military affairs, ensure that NATO members remain stable and predictable. The mutual defense guarantee acts as a moderating force that reduces the likelihood of unexpected moves by a single country. What normal country wouldn't want to border a military alliance dominated by overly cautious pacifists?
The fact that the Cold War ended peacefully, and with the USSR‘s dissolution to boot, is one of history’s great miracles. With the world’s return to its default multi-polar state, we really shouldn’t press our luck.
Give Russia and China their spheres of influence while we protect our own. The tail risk of nuclear war just isn’t worth whatever gains Neocons promise. After all, how did their Iraqi and Afghan experiments in democracy turn out?
The UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Mongolia, and many others were vast empires at some point in history. They have all had to adopt a self-image that reflects their true political, cultural, and economic weight in the present world. Russian ambitions are too detached from reality, given that they account for only a percentage or two of global GDP and population, and are in a downward trend.
There are five major ones:
Korean War (1950-1953) Vietnam War (1955-1975) Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) Iraq War (2003-2011)
If you count proxy wars, it wouldn't be such a stretch to say we've been fighting almost continuously since we dropped the bomb.
Russia's desire to not have NATO neighbors rather makes the point of why there can be no peace between Ukraine and Russia - Ukraine understands that without real guarantees of security, any 'peace' with Russia is a farce that only lets them prepare for the next invasion, except this one will start closer to home and be better planned.
Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. This is a good hint that you MIGHT not be on the good guys team as much as you think you are.
Which is exactly what Zelenskyy was trying to say, when they kept shouting over him. And what at least one reporter asked about, which question Trump then dodged.
If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is that people who are willing to kill for profit win.
If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that behavior unprofitable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
We did appeasement in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Totally solved the problem didn't it. Just like Chamberlain prevented the meat grinder of WWII.
That's a fallacy.
It might be true if Dick Cheney said or did something controversial that everybody disagrees with, like initiate a completely unnecessary war with Iraq. But in this case, everybody across the political spectrum who understands the situation and its context, agrees that it is vital to defend Ukraine.
Answer me this: do you think that in WW2, everybody should just have surrendered to Germany and Japan in order to bring the war to a quick end? Would that have been better than 5 years of destruction?
This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders of the countries involved had been able to recognize that years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from even happening.
This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia, Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and we should be trying to do so not only because we’re spending a lot of money on it but because we are perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.
Sure, taking a step back and examining the evidence is always a good idea, but the evidence is pretty damn clear here.
> This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2.
Only tactically. Both WW2 and this war were initiated by a single aggressor starting multiple wars in a row. WW1 by contrast had lots of countries equally itching for a fight, even countries that had nothing to do with the initial trigger. And assassination in Sarajevo should not logically lead to endless trench warfare in Flanders. But in Russia's invasion, everybody else is really careful to keep the fighting contained to just Ukraine.
Just think for a sec, if AOC and Dick Cheney can agree "person X is horrible", there's a good chance that person is horrible.
Which would entail trusting the US and Russia.
Under Trump the US signed a trade deal with MX and CA and is now going after them. So why trust Trump?
And why would you trust Russia when their goal is to wipe UA from the map?
There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of their names did not survive because they weren't around afterward to write the histories.
“What could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to agree!”
If both Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders are allied against someone, they’re probably bad news.
I appreciate I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the realpolitik, but the fastest way to end the war is to mercilessly crush the aggressor state that invaded and annexed a sovereign nation twice. The mistake of both the US and the EU was to be far, far too timid in their responses to an obvious existential threat.
I said aligning yourself with a famous war monger is a good hint that you may not be a good guy and that it is a good reason for reflection. I did not attack OP’s character or motivations.
>very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.
Likewise it is even more easy to be cavalier about continuing to fund a war and depopulating entire nations when you’re not the one being conscripted to fight and die.
It’s easy to be a war monger when you’re not the one doing the dying.
The current situation is very similar to the trench warfare of WW1. Despite there being a clear initiator of WW1, BOTH sides absolutely had a huge reason to compromise. Over 8 million lives were lost, the reason to compromise was saving those 8 million lives.
And they are. They want the people back that Russia abducted, and the people who still live in the occupied territories. They can't bring back the dead obviously, but they can fight for the living. And for the future.
To understand Ukraine's will to fight, you need to understand that they have lived under Moscow's yoke for generations. Their grandparents lived through the Holodomor, their parents lived under Soviet oppression. The current generation has known 30 years of freedom. And now they're faced with the possibility of their children living under Moscow rule again.
This is why they fight so hard.
But when a victimized population like Ukraine decides it wants to keep fighting. Especially given:
> Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself.
Then you gotta ask yourself:
Given they would rather die than suffer the consequences of a compromise.
Then maybe they know something about the consequences of that compromise that you and I can’t? and if so, maybe we should continue trusting the victims to not compromise ?
As things stand now, 5 years from now USA could become overrun with russian mobs and oligarch running rampant, and EU faces the real possibility of another continental conflict. I don't think many people around the world are going to enjoy that scenario.
I am extremely anti-war, but capitulating to Russia and rewarding them for invading a neighbor would guarantee more war and killing, not less.
Yes, yes, I am opposed to punching random people on the street. It is bad manners. That does not mean I have to stand by and watch someone else get attacked for no reason.
Ukraine is a western country invaded by an enemy of the west. You can still be anti violence but it’s a different situation.
We are funding a meat grinder that has no sign of victory for either side anywhere in sight. This has been going on for years now. Long enough where we need to consider a diplomatic compromise, we can’t just keep pumping money into another country waiting for enough men to die, it is fundamentally evil.
I know people feel that they are morally justified in funding the conflict forever because Russia is the aggressor. But at a certain point it becomes evil not to seek an end to the killing. Have you watched videos of the horrific things that are happening over there with drone warfare? How can you watch that and say “it’s okay to let this go on forever because technically Russia is the invader”?
And then his mind changed when confronted with WWII. “I am a pacifist in principle, but I am not an absolute pacifist.”
>“it’s okay to let this go on forever because technically Russia is the invader”?
There is no "technically". Russia is the invader. Russia can leave at any time and there will be peace very quickly.
Certainly applying the Einstein solution of a spread of nukes would end the war, very quickly.
Nobody likes war, but letting your country be subjugated by an evil dictator is worse.
I am not sure of course, but I guess the same would be true of other similar center left parties in europe
I doubt many people want war, I know I don't. But once you have a warring nation going rouge, there aren't many options left on the table.
With an insane 50% mineral rights demand by the USA in particular which should not be on the table in a deal between Ukraine and Russia?
I'm not sure how you can post what you've posted with a straight face.
Zelensky won't agree?
You cannot possibly imagine how disgusted people are by Trump and by statements like yours. It's just disgusting.
I am anti-war. I truly want peace.
Sorry I don't have any other word for it. It's disgusting behavior.
The United States has given Ukraine billions. That hasn't seemed to resolved the issue?
Why? Because it's the morally right thing to do. It's as simple as that.
The Ukrainian leadership has suspended all elections. Polling indicates that Zelensky would almost certainly lose an election if one were held.
If you really care about the principles of democracy wouldn't you be in support of giving the people of Ukraine the chance to vote for leaders that would seek to end the war?
Also speaking of democracy, Trump campaigned on ending the Ukraine war and he solidly won the election, including the house, senate, and popular vote. Using diplomatic means to bring an end to the killing and an end to sending our taxpayer dollars to fund foreign wars is absolutely what the American people voted for.
Zelensky has even offered to step down as a president in exchange for tangible security guarantees for his country, yet you people continue to parrot Russian propaganda. It's absolute insanity how brainwashed people are by this cheap Russian propaganda. Think before you write!
Arm Ukraine until Russia leaves.
Excluding proxy wars for simplicity's sake and only counting those where we had boots on the ground, from our engagements in Korea to Afghanistan, how has the world become a better place?
Besides (arguably) Korea, it seems our blood and treasure could've been better spent.
However the Ukrainians also want a country where they can live in peace. Not under Russian occupation, not in fear of Russia breaking the agreement, again. (After agreeing to Ukrainian souveranity while Ukraine gave up their Nukes, after agreeing to the Minsk Memorandum after occupying Crimea)
That's cool. Go convince the aggressor to stand down and never attack anyone again so there can be peace.
Then you should know a temporary pause in the fighting while Russian remains in Ukraine is not peace.
You should know that.
Everyone here needs to make an extra effort to assume good faith, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Otherwise we're just going to get in a downward spiral.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
The question is how to organize incentives to make anti-war ideal a reality.
As the last 70 odd years have demonstrated, Economic development as a carrot alone seems to have not worked. The stick of MAD unfortunately seems to required.
Perhaps the playbook is:
* Russia takes part of Northern Canada (oil and lots of it, Northern passage aka the new Panama Canal)
* Canada fights, but Russia remains
* US says "If you were the 51st state, we could protect you"
US gets Canada, Russia the Ukraine, neither side objects.
* Canada should be annexed
* I'll use my powers to crush Canada's economy so they are forced to join the US
* I'll use my powers to disrupt trade, and influence others to not trade with Canada
* I want to conquer and take over other "things" as well (Panama Canal, Greenland)
And:
* Makes up stories about there being issues with immigrants and fentanyl from Canada, to put aside trade agreements using powers assigned for emergency use, by Congress, in 1977
* Executes orders about tariffs, inline with the above threats
* Makes up wild, unfounded numbers about trade deficits
* Other members of the the US government says "He's going to make you the 51st state" and "he's entirely serious"
* General discussion among many members of his party saying "We should annex Canada"
And when:
* That same president spreads false information, at one point claiming the Ukraine "started the war"
* Decides to give up the Ukraine to a country run by a dictator
* Tries to undermine other countries from helping the Ukraine
* Thinks Russia is an ally, and everything will be just fine via appeasement
Then I don't care what other Americans think, or say. I care that someone with immense power, and the capability to do these things, says he will. I care what the ruling party has said the goal is.
You speak of "serious people". Only a very unserious person would ignore all of the above. With respect, when you threaten a people with loss of their entire country, telling them they shouldn't take it serious is absolutely absurd.
Nothing else but what has been said is important. No excuses for "he won't do it". No "don't worry about it" is reasonable.
In the last couple of months, the US has entirely destroyed its relationship with Canada. It will literally take half a century to recover it, if ever.
You don't play with another nations security and autonomy. You don't joke about taking someone's country over.
And like it or not?
Your president is your face to the world, and he's doing these things, and there are sadly repercussions of all of us.
The fact is, none of this talk has resulted in real steps towards action. And if you take seriously everything Trump says, you can draw any number of conclusions that aren't based in reality.
And I reiterate, when it comes to the loss of nationhood, the requirement to go to war if that happens, Canadians cannot simply ignore direct threats.
Frankly, your words seem quite offensive to me. You're simply telling all 40 million of us to just ignore a threat to our very existence, because, oh well, who cares, it's obviously just noise.
Meanwhile as I said, it's not just Trump, but his party, cabinet, and others saying the goal is real.
How can I take you seriously, when you ignore that it's not just Trump?
That it's at least millions of Americans repeating and agreeing with these things?
You don't underestimate words with such dire consequences. Ever.
Yes it is. Where is the U.S. military mobilization to the northern border? Or against Panama or Greenland for that matter. You can't just invade a country, you need years of expensive logistical operations to move your troops and supply lines into place (the way Russia did before Ukraine and increasingly what China is doing against Taiwan).
So if we are to take Trump seriously, where is any evidence he is doing anything besides issuing wild threats for leverage in later trade talks?
> You don't underestimate words with such dire consequences.
Trump is dismantling the post world war 2 American led global order. I am taking this very seriously, I just don't tolerate people using Trump's statements as confirmation bias of their "The U.S. is just as bad" both side-isms. Or just downright celebrating the fall of the U.S. because they think a world where China and Russia do whatever they want is somehow better.
Global conflicts and wars of conquest by authoritarian states used to be normal, if we are returning to that era, we are all worse off.
As I mentioned, it isn't. Do reply to my assertions if you wish. I'd be happy to respond to that.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and please avoid tit-for-tat spats in the future. I know how hard it is to extricate oneself, but the only worthwhile thing to do is just stop.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and please avoid tit-for-tat spats in the future. I know how hard it is to extricate oneself, but the only worthwhile thing to do is just stop.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
of course the reason to stop killing people is to stop killing people.
The left is still anti-war. But most people on the left have paid enough attention to Putin to know that surrendering to him is not going to bring peace.
This war didn't just start in 2022; Putin invaded Ukraine twice in 2014. He invaded Georgia in 2008. And very early on in his career, he completely demolished Chechnya. He's not a peace guy. And all those wars by Putin were rewarded, and so he continues. Now finally, people understand that giving Putin everything he wants is just going to make him want more and attack more.
In Russia, they're already talking about Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania and even Poland. The only way this will end is by stopping Putin.
The left didn't compromise with Hitler either. Surrendering to Hitler didn't bring anyone peace. Peace came only after defeating Hitler. And unfortunately, it's exactly the same with Putin. Except nobody is going to march on Moscow, because Putin has nukes. So the only way to stop him becomes letting him exhaust his country until it collapses. That sounds terrible, but Ukraine is actually willing and eager to be the anvil on which Russia destroys itself. All we need to do is continue to support Ukraine with everything they need and more.
I know it's terrible. You can blame Putin for that. But this may be the only way to put an end to Putin's bottomless aggression.
Technically his second given the invasion of Crimea.
Any alternative that allows Russian gains will only further cement the idea that wars of aggression can be worthwhile in the modern world, and this is the most horrendous conclusion possible for anyone actually anti-war.
The West has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and money, yet the Ukranians have made near-zero progress. They are incapable of retaking their country without direct intervention from NATO, which is not an option.
Oh but didn't you know that all that aid money is actually going to America(n weapons manufacturers, who will then lobby us into the next forever war after this one).
If you were wondering how american politicians managed to piss away trillions of dollars in the middle east instead of fixing healthcare or education, building trains, doing anything the least bit useful, this is how. You gin the people up into believing that there's a bad guy somewhere and its our job to make things right, and you're off to the races.
Works every time.
Who's going to stop Russia from re-arming and building up its army only to launch another attack in 2-3 years? Who's going to prevent them from destabilizing Ukraine until it falls?
Russia won't stop until it has destroyed Ukraine, that much is certain. Russia only understands strength, and they won't stop until stopped by force.
But hey, peace is more important right? Maybe they should just take Ukraine, capture, torture, rape and murder all the people they deem as undesirables and convert it to another Russian oblast as it was once before. Then there will be peace.
I would imagine you would also lay down at your own home if someone breaks in and tries to rape and murder your family just for the sake of peace?
If your anti-war stance means I can punch you in the face and your reaction is to compromise on "ok but no more punching", your face is going to look very bad very soon.
I am fundamentally anti-war. We can and should compromise on this. There’s a reason the neocons are aligned with the left on it. The military industrial complex is profiting massively, big banks are securing massive land grants to help “rebuild”, and meanwhile both countries are depopulating themselves.
What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?