> And now look what a mess resulted from that: a world war has already quietly started in Europe...

I'd rephrase it as "Europe has already quietly started a (world) war". The EU started to try to incorporate Ukraine. It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU.

And it's no coincidence that there are now heavyweights on the worldstage now saying: "The only solution to this conflict is an independent Ukraine". By that they don't mean "Ukraine not annexed by Russia". They mean "Ukraine not annexed by the EU".

The EU wans to annex Ukraine and a war was started because of that.

▲

aguaviva 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

I'd rephrase it as "Europe has already quietly started a (world) war".

Apparently you would, even though there's absolutely no reason to believe the line of causality ("Europe did X, which started the war") that you're implying.

Starting a war from scratch like this (as Putin did) requires agency, and it's very obvious what the source of agency was in this case.

"Ukraine not annexed by the EU".

That's just hyperbole and nonsense.

It was never being "annexed" by anyone (until Russia started invading in 2014).

▲

amanaplanacanal 7 months ago | parent [-]

In some people's minds Ukraine is not allowed to choose its own alliances.

	▲	aguaviva 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		It's even deeper than that. In essence, the view is that Ukraine as such never really existed as a coherent society or country, anyway. So how can it have the agency to decide the integrate with the EU, or to form other alliances? See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42232758

▲

deepnet 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The USA & Russia made a pact to defend the Ukraine, based on the Ukraine giving up their nukes.

“ As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.”

If the USA doesn’t defend them adequately the USA will have broken their 1994 agreement - with all the trust implications for future agreements.

By invading the Ukraine, Russia broke its 1994 deal.

The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want - which gives the lie to NATO membership as a cause !

Russia agreed in 1994 that the Ukraine had the right to join NATO or anything else it wanted to do - that is the the definition of autonomy and sovereignty.

Thus implicitly, in fact, Russia agreed to defend the Ukraine’s right to join NATO.

Russia has broken treaties to invade many of it neighbours recently, this needs to be questioned not apologised for.

▲

mrguyorama 7 months ago | parent [-]

More concretely, if Russia is allowed ANY success in Ukraine, it puts the nail in the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation. If the only thing the world does is bow to anyone who can hold it hostage with a nuclear threat, the only defense is your own nukes. If you want to avoid countries fighting nuclear war, you are better off fucking over Russia right now, and understanding that their nuclear talk is all bluff (for now) rather than wait until hundreds of tiny and unstable countries have nukes that they want to fire at each other.

If the West defends Ukraine from a nuclear armed nation, then we can convincingly tell the rest of the world "You don't need nukes, so don't build them".

	▲	deepnet 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed this is the risk if Trump breaches the USA’s 1994 treaty agreement by surrendering territory in a ‘peace-deal’ then not only will the USA be oath breakers but who will trust a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the future. Perhaps Trump will not want to look weak and stand firm but it seems not unlikely that he will Kowtow to Russia and give them what they want at the expense of our Ukrainian allies.

▲

ImPostingOnHN 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked [, raped, tortured, and genocided Ukrainians] had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU

It's even less likely that putin would have done all that if he weren't alive, or had he simply minded his own business, yet I don't see you advocating for either of those paths to resolution.

Instead, you advocate for an independent country of tens of millions of people to lose their independence, to lose their agency, to lose their sovereignty, to lose their identity, to lose their lives, simply because russia wants them to.

Curious.