[itsoktocry]

>Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war.

Uh, they can't protect their own territory.

>Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive

This is a child-like representation of the conflict. Good and bad, bullies and those standing up to them. This didn't start in 2022, believe it or not.

Russia should not have invaded. But they did, it happened. Unless you or your children are ready to go over there and fight in the conflict, what do you think the outcome here should be? Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing?

I truly don't understand. This idea of "oh my gosh, one country invaded another" as if this hasn't been the entirety of the history of civilization is strange.

[yulker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Promises were made. Why should they defend themselves on their own?

[jemmyw]

> Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing?

Given the track record of the US and Russia since getting nuclear weapons, yes?

Nukes might be pretty good at stopping someone invading your country but they're probably not a great help if you're the invader and you want to occupy the place you're invading. Especially if it's right next door

[XorNot]

It's only clear they're good at stopping invasions by history. You could (and possibly are) seeing the precedent set that border disputes can escalate to kinetic conflicts without nukes getting involved - the problem is no one knows where the line is and historically that kept things calm.

Who even knows if that's still the case though? If India goes after Kashmir so they genuinely think Pakistan would risk annihilation defending it if it was lost?

Russia could easily dispose of NATO as an ongoing problem by losing a war with the Baltics if the US then disregards Article 5 because "well it's just not worth risking nuclear war".

Appeasement doesn't work, but apparently we all forgot even the simplified history of WW2.

[Qwertious]

Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes - just like the EU/US only refuses to invade Russia for fear of nukes.

If you show the world that having been a good citizen in the rules based order isn't enough to avoid being invaded, but nukes are, the consequences are quite predictable: everyone who can afford to do so will start a nuclear program.

[CapricornNoble]

I've been arguing that nations already concluded that nukes were the only defense against regime change. The major impetus was the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

[kristiandupont]

>This is a child-like representation of the conflict

No, it really is that simple. Similar to WWII. There are good and bad guys here.

[mopsi]

> Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing?

Judging by the track record so far, we can expect vague comments seething with resentment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...

[blackeyeblitzar]

> This didn't start in 2022, believe it or not.

It’s remarkable that instead of curiosity about your argument or the past history of Russia and Ukraine and NATO, the responses you’re getting immediately jump to “Putin koolaid”. It’s not surprising given that almost no one in America has even basic knowledge on this issue, like being aware of the 2014 coup.

But also if you go against HN political orthodoxy, prepare for downvotes. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter if you’re correct or spend the time to write out a really thoughtful comment. The downvotes and low value responses will still come. It’s probably not the right platform for debate outside its Overton window.

[kelnos]

That's only if you believe it was a "coup". Which it wasn't.

[mopsi]

The "2014 coup" excuse has been so thoroughly debunked that anyone who mentions it at this point is either completely out of touch or just malicious.

[blackeyeblitzar]

Saying something is debunked in this way isn’t a debunking. It’s just an attempt at minimizing.

[mopsi]

But it is debunked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42986476

[blackeyeblitzar]

Nothing you posted debunks it. You are acknowledging that the duly elected leader was removed from his position without following the constitutional process. The rest is just noise, including that unanimous vote - yea of course people are going to vote that way when there are violent armed insurrectionists around.

[mopsi]

No, there was nothing unconstitutional about the process. The Ukrainian parliament correctly followed the procedure for holding snap elections.

Snap elections might be a novel idea for Americans who are used to presidents always serving the full term, but they are fairly common in rest of the world. Germany held snap elections just last Sunday, after the government lost its majority in parliament.

[drawkward]

So you are saying that a unanimous vote is more likely a coup than a reaction to the horror of the president ordering an attack on innocent protesters? An attack that killed some hundred people, in fact.

I guess you could call that a "coup." I guess I could argue that war is peace, too. Both could be called propaganda.

[drawkward]

We are aware that some people call it a coup, and we point out their factual errors, which are many.