Hacker News Reader

Comment by pydry | Hacker News Reader

It's trying to protect its western border. There are no mountains there. It's flat terrain leading right up to their heartland that has been invaded multiple times throughout history. The vulnerability they feel on this border is so intense it has shaped the national psyche.

Two countries (Latvia and Estonia) have already flipped to the west (NATO members). Ukraine is torn between Russia and the west (that's what Maidan morphed into after starting off as an anti corruption protest). Lukashenko was engaged in a struggle with pro western opponents.

There's a proxy war going on on its borders. I don't think this is about Russia trying to dominate the world. I think it's about Russia wanting to buffer its most exposed border.

If Western Canada joined in an alliance with Russia and Eastern Canada was run by a pro American dictator do you think America would behave differently?

View on HN

Given all the shenanigans Russia has been involved in in the past, say, 10 years on their Western borders, I think it has been far too offensive and controversial to “just” be about defense and protecting its border. It’s an offensive game, such as what happened with the Crimea.

I think this comment is far too apologetic.

Crimea was about protecting their naval base in Sevastopol - the only all year warm water naval base that they have.

Novorossiysk?

I figured it was 100% an economic port but you're right they do have a small part of the black sea fleet there too.

It would be an exposed chokepoint if Russia didn't also hold sevastopol, though.

I understand what you're thinking and I suspect you're correct. What I find baffling is that they feel they need to "protect" they're border at all. From whom? For why? Are the Germans going to suddenly roll their tanks towards the Urals? As a mindset it seems so... 1910.

They're trying to edge the balance of power in the region to their favor. The US is doing the opposite. It's a slow ratchet effect that's been going on since the 1950s.

If they gave up entirely on their foreign policy objectives a more likely scenario than tanks would be the Russian State ending up a fragmented, powerless mess.

I don't imagine a US led NATO coalition immediately rolling tanks into Moscow if all 5 countries flip to NATO, but stirring up a separatist movement on the borders of Belarus or Ukraine and then "helping" out? Definitely.

I don't for one second believe that the US will instantly grind to a halt after creeping up on the Russian border for 70 years.

Creeping up to their border? Yeah, let's look at how that actually happened.

As soon as Poland had a chance, they wanted into the EU or NATO, preferably both. They, Poland, desperately wanted in. Why? Because they wanted protection from Russia, and with good historical reason.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Same story. It wasn't that the US had a nefarious plot to ensnare the border countries in a US-dominated alliance. They desperately wanted in, because they have experience with being overrun by Russia.

If Russia doesn't like this, maybe they should work on making their neighbors not feel so afraid of Russia. Things like the Ukraine and Georgia? They are not helping.

Indeed. Even Finland is quite worried about war with Russia.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-12/finlan...

Well, I doubt the Winter War is covered much in Russian secondary school. "You're going to Finland" probably doesn't cause Simo Hayha[0] to visit Russian soldiers in their nightmares.

[0] https://ifunny.co/picture/select-all-squares-with-finnish-sn...

>It wasn't that the US had a nefarious plot to ensnare the border countries in a US-dominated alliance. They desperately wanted in

The US didn't admit them to NATO because of the volume of their begging. It admitted them because it let them put military bases right on the border of its geopolitical rival.

Similarly when Cuba begged the Soviet Union for nukes a year after a failed US invasion attempt, the Soviet Union didn't put them there just because it was felt sorry for them.

In both cases the countries were legitimately seeking protection from invasion though.

I'm not really sure if it's practical for Russia to try and make its neighbors "feel safe enough to quit NATO". In all likelihood any overtures would be treated as a sign of weakness. But, maybe you have ideas about practical steps Russia could take that would convince Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia to quit NATO. I'd be curious if you did.

Yes, there was a US invasion attempt into Cuba. A long time ago. There is zero risk for any invasion into Russia. Yes, the US likes to spread their influence and likes to have military bases around the world, but even interest in that is reduced. As soon as there is no one to protect against, those bases mostly lose their importance. The only state in recent history expanding their territory was Russia.

The idea of Germany rolling their tanks towards the Urals is really mind boggling. We have about 200 operational battle tanks left, not exactly a threat for anyone. And the German reunion was mind-boggling expansive. Probably in the range of 1-2 trillion dollars. There is certainly no incentive whatsoever to attack other states for territory.

If anything, in a far future some more eastern states might apply for EU membership, but with the current state of things even that isn't overly likely and would happen in an absolutely peaceful manner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com