Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

Lot of Russian Apologist.

Russia invades Ukraine -> It is Biden's fault, he ordered it.

Russia actually invading and killing -> It was NATO's fault for discussing admission.

Like, Russia is actually 'doing the bad things'.

Ukraine has never infringed on Russia's sovereignty or territorial integrity before it was attacked. Therefor this war is entirely Russia's fault.

The world is mostly shades of gray. But this case it black and white.

I am neither Russian nor European, so I don't have any horse in this race. But Russia's concerns sure seen valid from the outside.

It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.

No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor.

You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.

How long has NATO been on russia's border? This is an important question. Please try to answer it.

Which parts of those are "good" in your opinion? Do you believe Russia's "denazification" claim?

There are no international laws that legitimized Russia's invasion of Ukraine. If Ukraine was in violation of something, there's procedures in place to declare war legitimately - but before that there's the nonviolent approach, which Russia skipped.

If anything, Russia has put themselves in serious shit for invading Ukraine. If they hadn't started this, over 600.000 of their people wouldn't be dead or wounded.

How many countries has NATO invaded?

No, you don't.

And neither do the Russians.

So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?

Not to defend the regime in power then (nor now!), but if you ask Serbia they might offer some other lived experiences on how consensual Operation Allied Force was.

Yes, Russia is doing bad things.. But do we really need or want a third World War because of it? It’s not Ukraine’s fault that Russia invaded, but Ukraine bears responsibility for having been so corrupt over the past 20 years and for being irresponsible given its proximity to Russia. We still don’t know how much of the aid sent to Ukraine is being lost to corruption... So I am not willing to fight this War.

From Russia's perspective, NATO has been infringing on both Russia's sphere of influence and on her buffer states. Russia has _twice_ been invaded by the Europeans, she hasn't forgotten that. And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia.

Need I remind you how the US responded when the USSR set up missile positions in Cuba?

  > NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia

Would you feel threatened if your neighbours set up weapons right outside your property line, ostensibly to defend in case you attack? And especially if they've already invaded your property twice (France and Germany both invaded Russia).

  > Russia's "concerns" are not valid.

  > It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.

> No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor.

Then you know nothing of US doctrine. The Central Americans will tell you how the US will even invade just to lower the price of bananas - no joke.

  > You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.

I have already asked you in another comment to tell me how long NATO has been literally on Russia’s border.

Why are you dodging the question?

The Russian viewpoint is that Eastern Europe would be much easier to conquer if they were internationally isolated and could be picked off one by one like in the 1940s. The current war against Ukraine is an excellent example of this; international cooperation is a leading reason for the failure of the invasion. All the complaints about NATO lead back to the fact that for Russia it elevates the cost of invading Eastern Europe. Without NATO, they would face only limited conventional forces in Poland. With NATO, an attack on Poland go as far as activating American carrier groups or even a nuclear response.

> NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance” and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn’t even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine.

A little bit more competent Googling would fill in the context you’ve clearly missed:

(1) The 2008 statement was a way of mollifying Ukraine after acceding to Russia’s demand that Ukraine and Georgia be denied NATO Membership Action Plans at the 2008 summit. (Russia responded, by the way, to this accession to their demands by invading Georgia. Might have done the same to the Ukraine soon after, except by the time they were at a stable point with Georgia, they’d already managed to get a Russia-friendly government in Ukraine.)

(2) Ukraine publicly abandoned any interest in a foreign military alliance between the 2008 summit and the 2014 invasion by Russia.

(3) Ukraine abandoned its neutrality stance and restarted attempts to join NATO only after the 2014 invasion.

(4) The 2021 statement was, again, a way of putting a nice face for Ukraine on NATO again rejecting Ukraine’s attempts to join in the near term.

Provided one accepts that those concerns are valid.

And that its stated "concerns" were in fact its actual reasons for starting the war.

But there is no compelling logical basis for us to accept either of these premises.

I don't have time to fully dissect what you're saying about the NATO issue -- other than that you are leaving out some very important details which for some reason were not presented to you in whatever sources you are reading from. (Which is a polite way of telling you: your sources are apparently misinformed, or worse).

But the main point is: none of the NATO stuff ever amounted to an actual physical threat against the Russian state, or otherwise any rational reason for Russia's regime to start a war.

More to the point, it wasn't the real reason it chose to the start the war. It's just something it says, for internal and external propaganda purposes.

So no - we don't have to "accept that Russia's concerns are valid".

Russia refused to withdraw from Moldova to implement CFE II. This is not the action of a state worried that it's disadvantage in conventional arms will lead to invasion.

We can safely say "no", as the US never set up missile positions in Ukraine, or had any plan to.

There's simply no analogy between the two situations.

Except that never happened in Ukraine, or in any of the other NATO countries close to Russia.

You know that, right?

Actually it was effectively impossible, as NATO's bylaws prevent the admission of states with active border conflicts. This is most likely (a large part of) why Putin invaded both Georgia and Ukraine -- to create permanent border conflicts, to prevent them from becoming NATO states.

So in fact there was no imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO state at the time of the 2022 invasion. Which makes perfect sense, as it was never the reason Putin chose to launch the full-scale invasion, anyway.

"USSR, why bother pushing back, not my problem, can't I just go to the mall and hang out?"

In any case, I'm not on HN constantly. Maybe once every hour or so I'll take a look. Aggressiveness and impatience are not appreciated on HN, if I get around to answering you I will. And maybe not if I don't feel that _I_ have something to learn from the conversation. I'm not here promoting some dogma, and I don't have to answer your questions.

Again, you are dodging the question.

Either you will say they aren’t, in service of your argument that russia invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO from coming up to their border, in which case you would be wrong since NATO has shared a border with russia in Europe for at least the past 24 years.

Or, you will say at least the past 24 years, which undermines your argument that russia only invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO appearing at their immediate borders, since they were already there. For at least the past 24 years.

We can do this all day.

I’ve got another question for you. Almost certainly you will dodge it, because it is blindingly obvious that you are not impartial as you pretend to be, and that you have a strong bias for the Putin regime and its illegal war and genocide, but let’s go through the motions anyway.

How did the Moskva sink?

You were absolutely, unequivocally were dodging the commenter's question.

I don't care one way or the other.

If you plainly don't care, and won't answer questions, and since you obviously don't invest the time to keep even basic tabs on the actual situation on the ground anyway -- then it's extremely difficult to see why you're bothering to engage at all, here. It looks like you're just out to stir the pot, basically.

No. Russia invading a peaceful, friendly and neutral neighbor with unmarked military units is what lead to this war.

> NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit

FR, ES and DE made it clear that Ukraine would not be a candidate for NATO and nothing came of it. The first step in admitting a nation into NATO is a Membership Action Plan (MAP) - there never was a such for Ukraine. NATO membership for Ukraine was dead in the water in 2014, when Russia heinously attacked with unmarked military units.

But that is besides the point, really; Ukraine is sovereign. It is a sovereign nation that can itself decide which alliances to join. Ukraine is not beholden to Russia and Russia doesn't get a say in Ukrainian politics. Russia is not the Soviet Union and Ukraine is not the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

> Then you know nothing of US doctrine.

Ah, yes. The "this one over there is a murderer too" defense. You're still defending imperialism, you're just defending imperialism with more imperialism.

> I'm simply presenting Russia's viewpoint as I understand it.

Russia's viewpoint is that Ukraine has no right so sovereignty. That's in direct violation with multiple treaties with Ukraine that Russia has signed.

Russia does not want an independent Ukraine. That's why they have been attacking Ukraine for 10 years now, first clandestine and then ever more openly. That's why they have been bombing civilians, that's why the formally annexed Ukrainian territory, that's why they will not grant peace to their neighbor.

Because without Ukraine, there can be no Russian Empire.

This has nothing to do with NATO. Only with Russian imperialism.

The actual Russian perspective is "Let's quickly grab Ukraine before they completely turn towards Europe, otherwise Russia cannot be an empire again."

That's known, and already implicit in what I said.

During the Cold War, the US and Russia were not 'At War'. But US did financial support a ton of countries, with a lot of money.

So why not do that now? Still fighting Russia. Still not 'head to head', but with Proxies.

This seems like arguing to stop supporting our Proxy and let Russia take them. But there is still an argument to not give up.

Lets say Russia wins, and re-integrates Ukraine.

Now what does the world look like in 20 years when Russia is eye-balling Poland?

Military leaders are pragmatic people and this is a pragmatic approach. We have a problem. We see that the problem has grown in time and will grow further if ignored. So it's better to deal with the problem now rather than waste valuable time and face an even larger problem in 5 to 8 years.

And yet you are commenting. Ignorance and a lack of curiosity are not compelling arguments.

Maybe it's time to grow up and start paying attention.

Somebody is refusing to pay protection money and is forming a “neighbourhood watch”. We need to make example of them.

Military leaders are politicians. I am in the Military. The official position, is inline with what the political leaders want. Internally, the same Military leaders disagree with the politicians. Internally all say the same: There is no accountability and responsibility in Ukraine. Better is to concentrate our resources where matters: NATO. Ukraine is necessary strategically to consume Russian men, artillery, etc.. That's the military opinion that we hear internally.

It may be strange to modern western minds but Russians still consider their imperial project as wholesome, good and nearly sacred. To get into the correct mindstate, you can read for example how Churchill venerated the British empire. The Russians hold this same veneration to their imperial project today. They also know western audience probably would not appreciate this reasoning so they need to invent laughable excuses like ”we were afraid of NATO expansion” that clueless western commentators happily repeat as the foundational reason.

As in uses depleted uranium (because of density characteristics) or radioactive waste stuff just for being radioactive?

(Obviously mass of tomahawk is too low for any chain nuclear reaction)

It won't happen. If you think so then, you are not well informed about this topic. Russia has no manpower to "re-integrate" the whole Ukraine. Ukraine will always exist, but for the next years, maybe not as big as in 2014. Ukraine can still prepare itself to take the lost area back in the future. That's up to Ukraine, not to Europe.

Said that, one possibility, for now, which is part of the negotiations is Russia keep the conquered land, Ukraine joins EU/NATO. Realistically, it would be Ukraine joins EU and US won't block Ukraine applying to NATO.

> Now what does the world look like in 20 years when Russia is eye-balling Poland?

Poland, other than Ukraine, isn't one of the most corrupt countries in the World, and did their home-work. Beside it, other than Ukraine, Poland is NATO.

That's not the case in countries bordering Russia, starting from Finland and heading south, where military leaders take a lot of pride in being constitutionally independent like supreme court judges. Politicians would very much prefer to hide behind NATO guarantees and pretent that the risk does not exist and that the Americans would come to save us (without specifying any details), whereas military assessments are much more calculated and take into account hard facts like redeployment speed of a brigade or daily ammo expenditure. Assessments from military circles have so far been consistently the closest to how events have actually unfolded.

They case they are presenting is a no-brainer. It is by all measures significantly cheaper - by orders of magnitude - to support Ukraine in halting Russians in Eastern Ukraine than to fight invaders on our home turf.

War and killings turn up the contrast, converting shades of gray to black and white, people to friends and enemies.

I rather would live in peacetime, where it’s less obvious who is good and who is bad.

  > How did the Moskva sink?

Thought of course you knew that already since you obviously know what the operation was called, a fact basically nobody today knows (without looking it up).

Just because they weren't "defending a NATO member" doesn't mean that the operation was "offensive".

Even if you don't care one bit about Ukraine, it's still a really smart thing to do for our own sake.

But there is a reason, which curiously enough you neglected to mention. As the other commenter pointed out, it was to stop an active genocide which was being prosecuted by Slobodan Milosevic’s military and paramilitary forces.

    > Some other guy already answered you on your post with the original question: "4 April 1949 the day NATO was founded"

It also doesn’t explain why earlier you said “And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia.”

How does that make any sense at all? There have been “no natural barriers between European powers and russia” for decades already. It has nothing to do with Ukraine.

    > Didn't the Ukrainians shoot it with either an anti-ship missile or a drone jetski?

    > I really don't care who's right. But I do listen to both sides of the story.

  > You were absolutely, unequivocally were dodging the commenter's question.

Would you want nuclear-capable missiles deployed on your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city?

Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons.

I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself.

Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

Not true.

> Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...

Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?