Hacker News Reader

Comment by csense | Hacker News Reader

We told them we wouldn't expand NATO further toward Russia. Then we went back on our word and did it.

Russia responds to Western meddling in its "backyard" with geopolitical moves in Crimea and Ukraine, and meddling in the US election.

When the Russians started messing about in Cuba, we nearly went full WW3 on them.

For what purpose did we go back on our word? We won the cold war. The best path forward would have been to strengthen ties so the two superpowers could work together to deal with the world's problems.

Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians, and the pro-west Yeltsin was eventually replaced by the nationalist Putin.

Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking?

View on HN

They were thinking:

"Hm, these Russians haven't rooted out corruption and there is a decent chance that they'll backslide into an illiberal state. Best to take the countries that want democracy and peace while we still can."

Though I agree that Ukraine has led to a lot of trouble. Still probably worth it in the long run though.

I wonder if this isn't a systemic problem with democracies and foreign policy. The new government simply doesn't care what commitments the previous one made. (See the Paris Agreement.) They often don't even care to find out what private commitments the previous government made. Of course other forms of government go back on their word, but it may be almost inevitable for democracies to do so, particularly to foreigners. Voters don't have "keeping our word with people who speak with funny accents" at the top of their agenda.

>The new government simply doesn't care what commitments the previous one made. (See the Paris Agreement.)

No, Trump is a real exception here. The US has traditionally honored treaties signed by past administrations, and even most private agreements. I am not saying it is perfect here, but no country is.

>Voters don't have "keeping our word with people who speak with funny accents" at the top of their agenda.

But the American foreign policy establishment has long made this a priority. And part of the reason is its members stay in positions of influence over many decades. And another is they realize that a nation will not get very far in the world over the long run if it doesn't keep its promises. And Trump has made it quite clear that he wants to overturn the Washington establishment in general, and this most definitely includes the foreign affairs establishment.

My first sentence should have been clearer - by commitments I specifically meant promises AS OPPOSED TO treaties. (The Paris Agreement wasn't a treaty, precisely because the U.S. insisted it not be one because the Republican Congress wouldn't swallow that.)

The foreign policy establishment can't contradict voters too directly, or rather are directed by a President chosen by them. Therefore U.S. has cheerfully reversed policy and commitments many times. Still, even the average voter understands something of the ancient holiness surrounding treaties, and the consequences of breaking those. (The ancient Greeks believed that the Gods would come down on you for breaking treaties since treaties were promises to those Gods.)

> Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians

By providing billions of dollars to them in humanitarian help, credits and jobs?

Humiliation, for sure.

> Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking?

I don't think Bill Clinton was generally thinking of much at all. He wasn't a terribly good executive, but was in fact a failed governor of a poor state who got doubly lucky: first, that he was the challenger during a recession; and second, that a third-party challenger siphoned votes for the incumbent.

Fortunately for America, clueless disinterest worked pretty well for eight years, allowing the Internet to take off. Unfortunately, cluelessness also set the scene for the geopolitical worlds of 2001 & 2003 …

> For what purpose did we go back on our word? ... so the two superpowers

why have 2 superpowers, when you can have one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com