Hacker News Reader

Comment by hollerith | Hacker News Reader

I just hope the West didn't miscalculate Russian response to their economy's violent contraction.

Some say that if the US had never imposed sanctions on Japan in the 1930s, Japan wouldn't've attacked Pearl Harbor.

In that case, the sanctions made it hard for Japan to import petroleum with the result that the Japanese chose to secure their supply by conquest of countries with petroleum reserves (mainly Indonesia IIRC).

View on HN

So the West should just let Russia invade Ukraine? The reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because of the oil embargo, sure. But the oil embargo was in place because of their aggression against China. Should the US have kept selling oil to a country that was killing 100,000's of people in China? If is, where is the line drawn? When should the US have stopped supporting the Japanese war(which is what they were doing by selling the oil needed to carry it out)?

Professor John Mearsheimer (a distinguished professor of political science) gave an inciteful talk regarding these events after Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014[1]. He places the blame squarely on the US for these events. The US would react just the same if Russia started expanding its military operations on our boarders [2]. I am deeply concerned that the West keeps upping the confrontation instead of backing down. Russia is sending some of its nuclear arsenal to Belarus as we speak [3]

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

[3] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=belarus+nuclear

Also, please don't flag my comment again. Everyone who's replied to you so far has had their comment flagged.

The US did not make Putin invade Ukraine. That's like saying Iran made the US invade Iraq, because Saddam didn't give up WMDs because he was scared about Iran. The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin. The US and West are not the ones that are upping the confrontation. Putin has invaded his neighbors multiple times, is interfering in internal political processes of democracies, and is threatening nuclear weapon use constantly. You can't look at this from one side and say it's the "West's" fault without looking that the Russian actions that were just as, or more escalatory.

Edit: Also, I haven't flagged a single comment today, nor do I think I can flag a reply to my comments.

In addition to the other response you've received, NATO is the US, for all intents and purposes. If you watch the video I linked, you'll see that most (all?) countries Russia has invaded in the past was because of NATO involvement, e.g. dangling NATO membership over their heads.

NATO is not the US. This is such an absurd statement considering the measures all of the other members have been taking over the last few days, often well before the US. Saying something like that totally discounts the rest of your argument in my mind.

Well, I 've already sourced my comments. I encourage you watch the talk given by the professor.

Lets be real - NATO is effectively the US with a few European "puppet" states. Without the leadership or the military of the US military, NATO is dramatically and significantly weaker.

> The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin.

Well, yes; but when dealing with such high-stakes international politics you need to consider what consequences your actions will have, even if you think your actions are completely justified and the consequences are stupid. To say "Ukraine is the West's Fault" is a bit clickbait-y, and the actual content is more nuanced, but I do think there's truth in that we ("the west") could and should have acted with more caution and consideration of the possible consequences rather than operate on grand ideals.

Ukraine has more reason than most countries to want to be a part of NATO, given that Russia invaded it in 2014 and seized territory. This war, to the extent it was provoked by anything other than Putin's hubris, was because Ukraine wants to join the EU, not because it was going to try and join NATO. Ukraine wanting its fortunes to look more like Poland's and less like Russia's is not a crime punishable by invasion, no matter what apologists blaming NATO expansion think.

In any case, Russia has existed for decades with NATO countries on its borders and not suffered an invasion. These countries have a lot of reason to fear that Russia does indeed seek to "reintegrate" them into an imperial state, given that Putin just confirmed that he seeks to do exactly that to Ukraine. The best way Russia can discourage its neighbors from joining NATO is by not giving them huge, existential reasons for doing so.

All of your points are refuted in the video. Instead of you getting secondhand information from me, I encourage you to watch it.

This time Europe is scared as fuck, Putin already threatened Finland, Sweden and baltic states, if he succed against Ukraine then maybe other will follow. This time he shall not pass.

All of this past week's events show that John Mearsheimer was wrong - way wrong. In 2015 John Mearsheimer claimed that Putin did not want to invade the Ukraine nor did Putin want to re-establish the old Soviet empire. His reasoning was Putin was too smart for that - Putin had seen how the invasion of Afghanistan didn't go well for the Soviets, or for the Americans for that matter.

Granted, I say John Mearsheimer was wrong in 2015 with the hindsight of 20/20 vision. I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started. Now we know that Putin fully intended to invade the Ukraine and institute regime change, not just "free" Donbas and Luhansk. Putin has also indicated he wants to re-establish the old Soviet Union as much as possible.

I'm not attacking John Mearsheimer. I too thought Putin was way smarter than this. Frankly I'm shocked by what's happening, but most of all I'm shocked and surprised by Putin's short-sightedness and stupidity. I'm sure John Mearsheimer did his analysis believing he was dealing with a rational actor. Now we know otherwise.

John Mearsheimer was working with the facts he had available at the time, clearly. You even hint at that yourself. Seven years is a long time for change in a dynamic environment. One thing I am aware of:

- Ukraine sealed the canal that delivered 85% of Crimea's fresh water supply, so it's been more costly to keep Crimea with each passing year.

>I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started.

It's been five days, hardly enough time to gather information on the environment and put together a research paper on it.

Also, a wrong conclusion does not mean the underlying research or thesis is wrong.

> In 2015 John Mearsheimer claimed that Putin did not want to invade the Ukraine nor did Putin want to re-establish the old Soviet empire.

Note that could have been true in 2015; what Putin wants can change over time.

At any rate, I watched that video some months ago, but from I recall Mearsheimer's point was that this kind of response is rational when reasoned from Putin's interests and worldview. I don't recall he said there would never be a war, and IIRC actually warned against a possible war (which we now have, albeit in a different shape than Mearsheimer thought in 2015).

> I am deeply concerned that the West keeps upping the confrontation instead of backing down.

> Russia is sending some of its nuclear arsenal to Belarus as we speak

Remind me again who keeps upping the confrontation?

It's a fair point but it's contradicted by Putin's rambling speech where he seemed to talk of a sort of Russian-version of Manifest Destiny. He expressed regret at Lenin having created some of the countries as separate states, and gave the viewer a history lesson.

That's in contradiction with the "he had no choice, he was encircled" theory.

Also the claims of neo-Nazism is wildly exaggerated, even if you have Russian sympathies. It's hard not to see that as wild propaganda.

The West didn't expect anyone to intervene when we attacked Iraq over false claims about WMDs.

I don't understand your point. Iran certainly did intervene though. And I don't think there are many people you can point to that say now that the invasion was a good idea.

Iran's intervention by putting explosively formed penetrators into the field of play pales in comparison to the West mobilizing their main armies.

As cruel as it sounds: for the EU it is better to break Putin in Ukraine now rather than to wait.

Yeah it’s hard to know where / when you draw the line, but a war of choice by a despot to topple a democracy…. It’s hard not to draw the line there.

Hopefully this all ends soon, for everyone’s sake.

Not sure about that. That might be the trigger but attack USA is always in the plan to force USA out of the picture. In fact the key strategy is clean out all the aircraft carrier.

Same here, to build back Soviet Union this might be the first step not just end there. The next will force the Baltic 3 back. Then Poland. Otherwise see UKraine.

It does not work out smoothly does not mean there is no plan.

The attack on pearl harbour is not due to oil embargo. Just like invasion of Ukraine is not because of …

——

As said by others we as free people has to fight back. If no boots how about money. Can’t just sit. We will suffer as well. But better suffer now than sorry later.

You mean one of the first countries to join the axis that reffed up their military industrial complex even before the sanctions would not have joined the war? Sound logic :)

Didn't say they wouldn't've joined the war, just that they prol wouldn't've surprise-attacked the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com