Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hackinthebochs 585 days ago
The current status quo was unsustainable. Crimea was indefensible without a land bridge through the Donbass. Ukraine was attacking Crimea by cutting off its water supply. Ukraine was also being trained and armed by the US. Time was against Russia in terms of a conflict with Ukraine being on favorable terms. NATO in Ukraine meant that Crimea would be lost eventually. Control of the Donbass gives Russia control of Crimea's water supply while allowing a proper defense.
1 comments
int_19h 584 days ago
You know, it's almost funny how Russian "national patriots" keep saying that NATO will attack any time now for... 30 years at least? I remember reading books about this in late 90s.

Yet, somehow, it's Russia that keeps invading neighboring countries. Who then scramble to join NATO because they don't want to be next.

Have y'all considered that maybe if you tried not constantly trying to rebuild your empire on the backs of your neighbors by invading and occupying their territory, you would actually have that regional stability and peace that you claim to seek? Regardless of who is and isn't in NATO even?

link
hackinthebochs 579 days ago
30 Years is nothing on the timescales of geopolitics. How long has China been talking about unifying with Taiwan? Yet no one is under any illusion that China won't eventually make a move against Taiwan. The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting.
link
aguaviva 579 days ago
The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting.

And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes.

link
hackinthebochs 577 days ago
Funny, most of my discussions regarding Ukraine involve people making that very claim (or variations thereof)
link
aguaviva 576 days ago
Most likely what they were saying was actually quite different from that.

So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect.

link
hackinthebochs 576 days ago
Instead of linking you to some randoms comments, how about from the horses mouth:

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-h...

This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.

link