Comment by eezurr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eezurr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You must see global leaders as a weighted average of their policies, and then place them on a spectrum. As an example, Hitler is more evil than Putin; enough so that there's a large, visible gap between the two.

>he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success.

You'll need a source for that one. But here's why I think you're wrong [1]. Note that Putin came to power in 1999/2000 as an authoritarian leader. This means he's making more policy decisions for Russia than the US President does for the US. On an economic level, Putin has done a great job. You can see each dip correlates with each time the US interfered in their backyard. [1] What the US does not want is a strong Russia.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-cap...

> Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence

I'm not a Putin apologist (I changed Russia to Putin because he's a dictator). All I do is try to look at the situation rationally. Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Ukraine is also an interesting country because the eastern half predominantly speak Russian.

> It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened

Those countries were introduced much closer to after the fall of the USSR, and they are tiny. So Russia let it go.

>Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire.

How would you feel if Russia constructed a bunch of missile silos pointed at us (USA) in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada?

>The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis a

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

We did, even though they were not our soldiers. And we would have put our own troops on their soil if the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated.

Russia could make peace with NATO at any time. They can withdraw from disputed territories and commit to a reduction in armaments. We don't need to have missiles pointed at each other. Europe and the US would be more than happy to have Russia as a peaceful trade partner.

> Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads.

I think you’re falling for for Russian propaganda here. While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members.[1]

Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO.[2] In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019[3]. A change made after 5 years of war in Donbas with Russian support, as well as the annexation of Crimera.

What did happen in 2014 was the Maidan revolution[4] as well the signing of the EU-Ukraine association agreement.[5]

I’d argue, what Putin if afraid of is not NATO at his borders (though it plays well with some of his audience), but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. And to be clear, Ukraine today (even before the invasion) is far away from all 4. But it’d be a formidable threat to Putin’s autocratic and kleptocratic government.

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html 2: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html 3: https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shc... 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukrai...

I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I want to know if my sources are provably biased.

>While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members

I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation)

>Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019

Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia.

> but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member.

Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory.

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

I watched the Mearsheimer lecture. The first point is that he gave it in 2015, so it's pretty old. Second point is that his main idea about Putin's motives are largely falsified by the recent invasion. Mearsheimer says that Putin doesn't want to annex Ukraine, then Putin invades and from his rhetoric it's clear he plans to annex it. So Mearsheimer is probably wrong.

Also, his explanation of the divisions in Ukraine are out of date. Look at the map of the most recent elections. It doesn't follow the usual east-west divide the Mearsheimer suggested. The current government is genuinely popular amongst a wide swath of the population. That was a pro-EU candidate.

Another issue with Mearsheimer's analysis is that Putin's policies in the Donbas doesn't align with the idea that Putin wants a neutral Ukraine (or just wants to "reck" it.) His demands were that Ukraine give the rebel areas autonomy which would give him direct influence in Ukrainian politics.

But all of that is sort of irrelevant because the only reason to discuss Mearsheimer's theory now is to give Russia cover for its current invasion. An invasion which clearly had different motives based on Putin's own justifications ("de-nazification" among others). And, of course, none of this great power politics discussion takes into account what the Ukrainians themselves want. It's not the US's right to tell Ukraine to be a neutral border state and they can't make them a neutral border state if they want. Ukraine has a long history of being a border state--the word "Ukraine" literally means borderland--but that history is one of repeated subjugation by more powerful neighbors. The idea that Russia has more right to security than Ukraine is wild to me and the idea that we even can make Ukraine act according to Mearsheimer's neat little scheme is wrong.

I agree the situation has changed. I think it’s fair to say his summary of the situation was correct in 2015+, and that the underlying facts and desires of all countries involved have not notably changed in 8 years, other than Russia invading (as I guessed earlier, they are forced to play the worst hand).

I’m not sure the most recent election map is important. The competition was an independent, and the current president passed a bill that removed minority rights in 2014 to limit Russian influence.

Regarding Donbas, I have no comment because I think the order of events is very important there but I’m not an expert.

As for your last paragraph, you’ve lost me. Mearsheimers video is not a conspiracy to explain away current events. You realize Putin is capable of saying one thing and doing another? Or making up an irrelevant excuse to appease his citizens?

I don’t think you understand that empires don’t care about other countries’ rights when they feel threatened. It is the US and Russias right to determine the fate of Ukraine because they have the power and motivation to make that decision, despite it not being the moral or fair. The world isn’t a fair place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com