Hacker News Reader

> But from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was so recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a full 50% and life expectancy dropped by years

You say this is because of the failure of liberal democracy and capitalism but your citation says it was most likely caused by:

"rising poverty rates, unemployment, financial insecurity, and corruption"

Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries.

> Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here, but if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving steadily eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your hands and say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it?

Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

>Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO had an aggrement with Russia on this part.

>Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries.

Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same time.

>> Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

> The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO had an aggrement with Russia on this part.

The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join NATO.

>> Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries.

>Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same time.

Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues which is my point.

>The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join NATO.

I see no contradiction here. Yes, Russia won't attack a NATO member and yes Russia will attack non-NATO member if Russia thinks this is an appropriate action. What countries did Russia attacked before NATO decided to go back on their word and started their expasion?

Offence is the best defence.

>Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues which is my point.

Corruption is high, yes, unemployment is pretty low. Some issues are being addressed better than the others surely. Things like corruption which is almost part of culture and inactivity of locals will take a long time to change.

> 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa

Russia never stopped being hostile. They were hostile long before the existence of NATO.

Nothing about their behavior has fundamentally changed. Much like China with Tibet, Taiwan or Hong Kong, they believe that they have a right to the conquest and control of numerous free countries on their borders. Any excuse will do to justify the annexations, whether cultural great nation beliefs, or NATO, or inventing conflicts & slights, or pretending that they have to protect 'ethnic Russians.'

What do poverty rates or liberal democracy have to do with NATO expansion?

Russians will be sensitive to what happens in their frontier regardless of who sits in the Kremlin, or which party dominates the Duma. They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands. That's the story. That's the WHOLE story. And it won't change even if Putin drops dead today, and Navalny is elected president tomorrow.

I was addressing two separate points, the effect of liberal democracy on Russia and the NATO expansion being treated as a threat. I probably should have made that more clear.

> They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands.

And all countries that bordered Russia don't want to see Russian military straddle their borderlands.

So... the obvious solution - counterbalance.

The obvious solution seems to have backfired.

Why? So far Russia invaded only neighbors which weren't in NATO, so apparently joining NATO was (and still is) right way to protect your country from Russian aggression.

I suppose that means Ukraine and Georgia should try to join NATO. Then Russians won't invade them anymore.

> Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

Considering that St. Petersburg is now well within NATO's artillery range, I don't see how NATO is not hostile from Russia's perspective.

St Petersburg is well within NATO artillery range from Finland is your argument that Russia should annex Finland or that Finland shoud not be a member of NATO?

Finland is not a NATO member. For that very reason and due to old agreement with USSR.

You are very right, I apologise for being very wrong. I would delete my comment but I think it's best to leave it.

USSR already did this in 1939: annexed a part of Finland [1] to move the border further from the city.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

No. I meant the Baltics. "Well within" was a wrong phrase. Apologies for that.

Finland has nothing to do it. My point was that it's not that difficult for Russians to consider NATO a hostile force even if the West calls it a defensive force. NATO already outguns Russia on many parameters. If there is a full-scale war and China supports NATO, then it's pretty much game for Russia.

> the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism

Oh, you mean when the oligarchs/mob bosses robbed the country blind and seized all power?

Yeah, that's totally the fault of the West, or some abstract notion of capitalism or democracy.

> That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire.

It's not debatable, Putin said in the recent press-conference that "they're lost Ukraine and other Soviet republics", effectively claiming other countries as "runaway" parts of Russia.

And as for NATO "expansion" - Russians can blame themselves for attacking Baltic states in 90s or messing things up in Moldova, trying to be a 'peacekeepers' there.

> What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West and friendly rulers and states on its borders, much like any state with Russia's military history would be interested in doing. Combined Russian/Soviet casualties in WW1 and WW2 were on the order of ~60mm people out ~160mm total.

Actually, Soviet Union started WW2 together with Nazi Germany by signing Molotov–Ribbentrop pact [1] and annexing Estonia [2], Finland [3], Latvia [2], Lithuania [2], Poland [4] and Romania [5]. Quite a nice buffer zone there.

So now Russia (legal successor to the USSR) is considered a victim of WW2 and is afraid of invasion from the very same countries it has annexed by force before?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabi...

> What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West

It is just an excuse. If the country wants to invade another country, they will always find a good excuse. This is not only about Russia - take any recent war US took part in or any other war. Nobody wants to look evil.

Regarding NATO expansion, of course it serves the interests of USA but it can be also good for other countries. For example, the presence of NATO troops in Baltic countries helps them to stay independent and avoid repeating the situation that has happened in 1939 [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state...

You had NATO that suddenly lost its grounds when USSR collapsed. Just to keep it afloat you would need to invent new "enemy" for it. When remnants of USSR were in ruins Middle East was wildfired, that stopped people thinking "NATO, against whom?". After that China was assigned as an imminent threat. That passed too. And now Russia.

Any idea what will be the next excuse?

Of course Russia is still a threat and NATO (while serving primarily American interests) helps to protect Eastern Europe countries from Russia. We should not forget that in 1939 USSR invaded into Finland, Baltic countries, Poland if I remember correctly. In 1968 they invaded Chekoslovakia. With NATO those countries probably feel safer.

Ukraine didn't have NATO bases - and lost its territory. This is a reminder for other countries.

You missed cause and consequence. Unprovoked expansion of NATO happened first. After years of warnings. Ukraine was in the line. That non-democratic coup was a step to NATO and inspired/supported by NATO members.

And after that Crimean people expressed that they don't like that by voting out of it.

So you are saying it is Ukraine's fault that NATO was expanding and it deserved a punishment? I cannot follow your logic.

Regarding referendum, it's results (95-96% vote for independence) are obviously falsified. There is nothing new: in 1938 Hitler also got 98-99% votes in occupied Austria [1]. Those 95% in Crimea as real as Hitler's.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Anschluss_referendum,...

Germany/Austria in 1939 is a completely different case.

Let's take a look at the ethnic groups in Crimea - 2014 census:

Russians - 65%

Ukrainians - 15%

Crimean Tatars - 11%

Please note that, of the 15% of Ukrainians living there, most (60%) speak Russian as their first language.

We may argue if the 97% referendum result was rigged or not - we may never know.

But based on the above numbers I think that the people in Crimea really prefer to be part of Russia - because they are Russian!

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

>Regarding NATO expansion, of course it serves the interests of USA but it can be also good for other countries. For example, the presence of NATO troops in Baltic countries helps them to stay independent and avoid repeating the situation that has happened in 1939

Europe in 1939 was a completely different place than it is today. To say that we need NATO because of something that is extremely unlikely to happen today is a weak excuse. Honestly if such a situation was to be repeated today I think there would be a lot more problems in Europe than just the Baltic countries.

Not that I am against NATO in any way, in fact I strongly believe that we do need a way to bridge different nations and my country has greatly benefited from the stability that NATO has brought to the area( with the annual tax paid to the American military-industrial complex for new weapon systems of course).