Hacker News Reader

Comment by medo-bear | Hacker News Reader

I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries. Mind you, they want to go to war but they DEMAND that other NATO countries help them. US and UK, on the other hand, also have obvious economic interests in screwing up Russia and will not hesitate to sacrifice Western Europe's well-being to drive their interests. Also US has been behaving more and more in an Anglo-centric (as opposed to NATO-centric) way, which also raises concerns

View on HN

People in eastern Europe aren't eager to go to war, we're just vocal about doing something because we know we're next after Ukraine.

If war starts, the sanctions need to be painful, whereas Germany is like "we're okay with sanctions so long as they don't affect us in any way whatsoever at all".

You are not going to be next after Ukraine, that’s just irrational fear. Russia has no capabilities for invasion beyond ex-USSR borders (according to the assessment of DoD-affiliated American think tanks) and no incentives to invade Baltics. Baltic states are already in NATO, it’s a done deal and Russia got used to it long time ago. In any case existing NATO members have Article 5. Ukraine has not access to it yet.

This feels like something an Englishman that was pro appeasement would have stated to a Pole right before it was invaded.

When you feel something like that, it is better to do a reality check. There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939. Historical traumas are subject for therapy, not basis for political decisions.

Sounds like something the Englishman would follow up with except about 1914s geopolitical state vs 1939s

> There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939

A better example is that it's just like what lots of Americans were saying about Russia and Ukraine immediately before the invasions and occupations that are still ongoing began, but with “beyond Ukraine” replacing “Ukraine” now that facts on the ground have made the latter more obviously indefensible as a claim.

Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5.

Things only really get very dangerous, if the Russians got the idea that NATO wouldn't stand together.

Deploying a few thousand troops from various NATO countries to eastern European NATO members is just posturing that serves to ensure that an attack on one is an attack on all.

Besides, increasing troops in eastern European NATO countries is allows negotiators to offer a joint de-escalation. It carries little risk, and small cost.

> Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5

or ... perhaps ... posturing like gorillas beating their chests in front of the home of a nuclear armed and scared ape can have catastrophic consequences

MAD was always a bit mad.

But not posturing could be worse. It's worse if Russia can't predict our response.

you see i can not make my mind up if russia wants to attack ukraine (why?) or if US wants russia to attack so that US gains the european gas market from russia

i am from eastern europe eu nato country too, so please do not speak in my name. probably unlike most people i have seen what war looks like (as a child). it is definitely not something you want for people dearbto you. talking and taking into account everyone's concerns should definitely be the first approach. russia says that NATO encroaching on its borders is a huge security issue for them (remember that NATO promissed not to do this in the 90s). also stationing anti missile systems on its border is a security threat (it deminishes their deterrant). is it so hard to understand these are real concerns? it is hard to immagine US acting differently if a hostile alliance formed in South America

No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented. It was discussed, but that’s it. It is Russia-propagated myth.

it is certainly not a myth and it is not propagated by only russia [0]. russia was only stupid not to demand a written agreement

[0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...

Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is “ U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.””

That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.

the article does mention sources. read it. its an article not an essay. anyway i think it is very hard to argue that us and nato were honest. it is even harder to argue that nato is not a threat to russia. i find that in politics just as in life the simplest explanation is often the right one

Every Eastern and Central European country joined NATO because of their fear of Russian aggression. Every former Pact country switched sides not to repeat history of being commandeered by Russia. That whole alliance was born to protect members from Russia. The simplest explanation is no one wants to be occupied by Russia so that Russia does not feel “threatened”.

your argument works only if russia actually wanted to invade these countries, for which there is zero evidence, esspecially at the time those countries joined nato. if anything, if you take your argument of threat from russia seriously, their security decreased.

on the other hand, russia was attacked multiple times by western european countries and lost millions of its citizens. i think their unease at an alliamce which you yourself say is hostile, is justified

While that op-ed spins a nice narrative, the actual facts it rely on point only to the US suggesting that a freeze on further expansion could be on the table as part of German reunification talks.

But whether or not it was open for discussion, no commitment was, in fact, made and Gorbachev has himself—after inspiring the myth by a vague statement about a feeling of betrayal at NATO expansion—acknowledged that and gone further and saying that a commitment on the issue was never even discussed as part of the negotiations.

Saying something could be part of a deal as an inducement to get someone to the negotiating table doesn't automatically insert it into the deal, or even guarantee it gets talked about in the negotiation.

> No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented

Gorbachev, whose ambiguous statement about a feeling of betrayal when NATO did expand in the east beyond the reunited Germany is the source of the myth of the promise, later explicitly stated that no promise was made and the issue was never even brought up.

(And it's not as if the USSR and the USA didn’t understand the use of memorializing important agreements in writing to prevent later disputes about their scope and content.)

> I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries.

It is funny how all these warmongering Eastern Europeans always have war with Russia on their own territory. Really makes you think who starts those wars...

> Eastern Europeans always have war with Russia on their own territory

oh you mean when 250000 Romanians, 250000 Hungarians and some Croats decided it's a good idea to fight the battle on the Volga? (look at the map). That _is_ funny!

> I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries.

Wait, who? Preparing to defend yourself in case Russia decides to go to war with you isn't the same thing as being willing to go to war with Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com