Hacker News Reader

Comment by howmayiannoyyou | Hacker News Reader

Russia scholar Stephen Kotkin, in a recent interview, explains the definition of 'win' may not be what we think it is.

https://www.hoover.org/research/5-questions-stephen-kotkin

He believes, and I agree, that it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military. And, militarily speaking, Russia lacks the precision weapons to do much else. Put another way, I think Russia has made its point, that perceived (or contrived) threats on its border will be addressed. One hopes, having made the point, they will withdraw; otherwise Putin is facing regime change or worse IMHO.

EDIT: I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and *influence* concern. Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Again, not an invasion justification, but an important consideration for a lasting diplomatic resolution... that doesn't require further fighting, escalation or heaven forbid WMD use.

View on HN

Ukraine was never a threat to Russia's borders. Quite the opposite, Ukraine lost territory due to Russia's aggression.

A facts based explanation of Russia's perspective can be found here: https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str...

Judging by the protests against this war in Russia itself, it is more likely the perspective of the Russian government not the Russian people.

Protests means that a minimal discontentment exist. But not necessarily more than this. The fact that there are protests do not mean that the manifestants are the majority or have much power. They can be, but they can be not.

Really? From what I've seen reported it seems like there were minor protests and the rest is either scared or support the move.

It’s complicated.

There’re people who support war because the Russian government maintains an information blockade about the topic. Saying anything about the war that was not previously said by the government is going to become a criminal offence tomorrow. Two independent media (TV Rain and Echo of Moscow) were recently banned for telling too much. At the same time, every state-controlled media is spreading propaganda non-stop.

Many citizens genuinely think that Ukraine is ruled by Nazis, and Russian military is successfully removing these Nazis without damaging non-combatants. It’s hard to spread the truth because government is going all-in on stopping opposition.

CNN showed a pro-war protestor who said something to the effect of "Ukraine today, the rest of Europe tomorrow". There's definitely a faction that wants to see a new Soviet Union.

Idiots exist, but this isn’t even a common opinion among pro-Putin people.

This is a purely wargames matter, so obviously.

Am I missing something or is the argument really:

1. Russia continuously invades and annexes ex soviet neighbors

2. Neighbors join defensive alliance against Russia for protection

3. Russia claims this is provocation against them and uses it as justification to invade another neighboring country

No, you have it exactly correct. https://imgur.com/a/KbuYT7h

That’s an absurd statement, akin to saying there was never a threat from Soviet missiles in Cuba.

This is an argument that would appear to mitigate a Russian attack on Finland.

If they tried to join NATO, absolutely. Russia has tremendous national interest in not allowing a hostile military alliance to absorb states on its border.

I guess I just wonder if you have any arguments that would be persuasive to those who believe Finland should be its own sovereign country, rather than a client of Russia's with fully devolved domestic policy authority.

Any dissatisfaction the Fins have with that answer has to do with the facts of life--they're a country with a smaller population than Maryland--not my argument. If you're a border state to a major power, you don't get to adopt a foreign policy that antagonizes your neighbor. Bangladesh doesn't get to do anything that would cause India to feel threatened; Mexico (and realistically speaking, all of Latin America) doesn't get to do anything that would cause the United States to feel threatened; etc.

That's just straightforwardly not true, right? You can't park nuclear missiles in Cuba, but you can do everything short of that. Cuba remained a COMECON member after the crisis. The USSR ran SIGINT missions out of Cuba. They were treaty partners in all but name --- far more involved than the US is with Ukraine in 2022, or, really, than they would be as a NATO member.

I think Teesta watershed issue is still pissing a lot of Bangladeshis off regardless of whatever India says.

The west only perceives Russia as a threat because it makes itself a threat. Russia’s biggest enemy is its own paranoia and tendency towards unprovoked attacks on other countries e.g. the Litvinenko attack on UK being a prime example of Russia attacking another country for basically no reason whatsoever.

The west is perfectly happy to have Russia as a friend and to respect its autonomy if it would just stop attacking other countries.

While I wouldn't call Russia justified at all, Ukraine presented a number of threats to Putin's desire to be a superpower. The main threat to Putin is Ukraine's growing but still undeveloped natural gas resources. One of the biggest parts of the Russian economy is fossil fuels. There's large amounts of underwater gas right around Crimea that are now under Russian control. And there's large deposits of shale gas in the eastern edge of Ukraine that Russia could at least disrupt long term with the war. On top of that, Ukraine charges Russia tariffs on the Soviet era gas pipelines running through it.

If considering NATO a threat, the further west Russia can put it's troops, the easier time it would have defending it's territory. The flat open lands of northern Europe expand the further east you go, all the way to the Urals. If they have troops at the western end of Ukraine, then it's a smaller front line to guard with the Carpathian mountains to the south and the Baltic sea to the north.

The largest threat to Russia becoming a superpower was Putin allowing himself and the other ultra rich to take so much out of the Russia economy and keep it for themselves. Had they not down this and actually grown the economy he might have been able to get what he wanted.

I agree that Putin and co are the primary cause of Russia not prospering. I honestly think that Russia joining the EU would be great for the Russian people and the EU, but it's not great for plutocrats.

On one hand yeah but on the other it would require a ludicrous amount of change that we won't see for the forseeable future. Additionally Russia and Turkey's populations are too big would create power imbalances in the EU that Italy, Germany and France wouldn't like. Oh and eastern EU countries are absolutely (and justifiably) paranoid over Russia of course

Not Ukraine, but NATO. US and NATO knew since 2008 that an invasion, civil war and Ukraine being split in two were a probable outcome of trying to expand NATO there: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

John Mearscheimer said the same in 2016[1]. Stephen Cohen apparently said the same. They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone. The Q/A at the end of John Mearscheimers talk is actually quite interesting.

Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West. If it had been they would have integrated it into NATO already. They tried the same with Georgia and right away Russia attacked Georgia.

More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China, because once China becomes an actual threat it will become incomparable to any previous threat. Throwing Russia into China's arms over something that is not of vital interest to the US is insane.

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

I argue that the preservation and expansion of democratic societies and the diminution of autocracies is a vital interest to the US. A free Ukraine strengthens the power of people to rule themselves rather than be ruled by elites without jeopardizing the people of Russia. It does threaten those that wish to give autocracies more of a chance in the modern world.

Not invade with conventional troops vital but publish all the intel around the invasion and send money missiles and veterans.

By recent events, Mr John Mearscheimer joins the list of pundits who were hilariously, massively wrong.

> More importantly he said that the west actually needs Russia against China

But based on this, was also completely out of touch to start with.

> They don't need to "take" Ukraine. They just want it as a buffer zone.

They want it tho, the argument is not that they need it. The argument is that they want it. And the "just want it as a buffer" is completely unsupported and hard to believe.

> Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West.

When they decide they want part of Poland and Estonia too, will you say those countries dont matter for the west too? Will their membership in NATO then matter?

> Ukraine is not of vital interested to the West.

Is distinguished professor Mearscheimer perhaps forgetting that Ukraine is of vital interest to the Ukrainians?

Damaging a few buildings and killing some civilians and then leaving seems like the worst possible outcome for Russia, unless the goal is to appear so weak that Ukraine don’t join NATO because they believe they can beat Russia just with their citizens. I like your optimism but it seems unmoored from reality. I hope you’re right though.

The whole point of the war was to sabotage Ukraine prosperity on the long term and increase Putin's approval on the short term. Ukraine and Russia are very close culturally and it's prosperity is a powerful message against Putin's regime.

Undeniably this war is ravaging Ukraine but the sanctions will be far much worse for Russia on the long term. He already lost on all his goals. If Russia doesn't agree or at least move forward with a ceasefire today this will be a signal that Putin is really insane.

> Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Not as much as Russia imposed on Eastern Europe after WWII.

Which point did Russia make exactly, if this causes Finland and Sweden to join NATO?

They better hurry:

"Four Russian fighter jets violate Swedish airspace over Baltic Sea"

https://www.thelocal.se/20220302/four-russian-fighter-jets-v...

They do that all the time.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/su-24-violated-swedish... for example

They also violate NATO airspace

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-fighter-jet-violates...

And more

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29956277

It's quite rare, it makes headlines everytime they do it. If you think that it's a common occurence and just shrug you shoulders then you are wrong. Especially since it was political this time.

To be fair this type of border probing is something that's happened every now and then since the cold war.

Yes but the timing here is not an accident. Four airplanes at the same time lost of where they are?

Yeah I don't really think it's ever been an accident.

The timing of these regular border transgressions, or the simulated bombing runs on radar stations along the Swedish coastline, have never been accidents. They always follow Swedish political decisions and statements that disgruntle the Kremlin.

This stuff happens all the time in Scandinavia. The timing for the deliberate airspace violation is definitely on purpose, but Russia has been probing the airspace boundaries of Sweden, Finland and Norway like clockwork since the 1960s. It's just a minor escalation of the play-fighting their doctrine dictates.

It is very frequent, even in Norway. It's data mining, probing for response time and response type.

There was a military exercise with Sweden and Finland in that region at that time, they could have just wanted to have a little look and see and their signal recon from a distance probably sucks like everything else.

It's of course provocative but still less than 2013 when 4 fighter jets and 2 bombers flew in attack formation against Sweden in a simulated nuclear attack.

Sweden and Finland may not be in NATO yet, but still, if Russia moves on those countries, NATO is much more likely to get involved than with Ukraine.

Even without NATO, Russia can't afford to engage Finland and Sweden in the coming years.

People forget that the EU has it's own mutual defence clause that calls everyone into war.

I'm pretty sure Russia considers the price of Finland and Sweden joining NATO to be well worth the price of Ukraine never joining.

Ukraine's border is much more significant than Finland's.

But the border of Finland is like 50 miles from St. Petersburg...the city of the Czar's

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

It's not terrain you ever want to be invading through, though.

Check out the "winter war". Invading would be a crapshoot both ways.

The Ukrainian border has no geographic features that would impede an invasion though, and would let NATO cut Russia off from its oil fields, form a land bridge to the caspian sea and cut Russia off from the black sea entirely all within about a day.

Its strategic significance cant be underestimated.

You don't need to invade, it's within artillery range

> But the border of Finland is like 50 miles from St. Petersburg...the city of the Czar's

Yes but it doesn’t go anywhere

Look at Ukraine and Poland on the map - they can close off Russia to Europe

If Russia withdraws, Ukraine is going to join NATO the second it's not in hostilities.

And it'll be accepted, because what Europe wants is not to have to sanction Russia so it can continue buying its gas. And that is now easier to do when Russia is locked out of being able to prosecute border wars.

That's the thing: the only interest anyone had in Ukraine not being in NATO was if Russia didn't cause more problems because it wasn't. That's gone.

>If Russia withdraws, Ukraine is going to join NATO the second it's not in hostilities.

Ukraine has spent the last two years begging NATO to hurry up and approving their accession and Putin sitting on the border with tanks for three months only served to make Zelensky more insistent.

I suspect NATO would be a lot more willing to let them in in one piece than if they were militarily destroyed, but who knows.

Ukraine was kept out because the theory was Putin would leave them be (since he kept saying that was the issue), and that that would be better for everyone.

But Putin has shot the hostage now: Russia occupying Ukraine means Russia has a NATO border anyway, Europe has a refugee crisis again, and no one can sit around and just get rich off of gas pipelines.

Ukraine wasnt "kept out". They just hadnt progressed to full membership yet.

NATO had already expressed its desire quite clearly both in Bucharest in 2008 and in Brussels in 2021 to put and keep Ukraine on the path to full membership.

Putin's gamble is that reducing the country to rubble now makes it unviable as a member and hence lowers the likelihood of him ending up like Gadaffi and Russia ending up like Libya.

It could backfire and it may be the worst gamble anybody ever made but it's not irrational.

Putin ending up like Gadaffi and Russia like Libya was never going to happen, because Russia has nukes. Just like the US hasn't taken out the Pakistani government despite them literally harbouring Osama Bin Laden.

The day after which, Ukraine will submit its NATO membership application.

It virtually has but NATO doesn't universally want Ukraine. It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers.

Legitimate question— why does everyone kind of not mention Estonia and Latvia when talking about NATO-Russia border states?

Because it shows how ridiculous "buffer zone" argument is.

>It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers

I am not a strategist so why is this? And why for example wouldn't Russia tried to sign an alliance with this countries where they promise to respect each other territories and not participate in aggressive actions against each other. Isn't this a good enough buffer? it won't work if you don't want to renounce at teritory claims though

They already did sign such a treaty with Ukraine.

So I am biased since I am from Romania, but IMo is clear Russia wants the natural resources and the strategical position from the Black Sea not to defend itself from the small easter European countries but just from pure greed, like in a cmputer game you rush to grab the natural resources to prevent the others to use them and grow, after you grow you invade and destroy their shit until they surrender. Defensive alliances would make sense if you want to protect yourself and this is what the eastern european countries want from NATO.

30% of Ukraine is Russians. The border conflict is deeply rooted and unavoidable, just like with India and Pakistan.

Russian speaking Ukrainians are not the same as Russians.

As one of them, I 100% agree.

Neither are Bangla speaking Indians or Muslim Indians, but nonetheless this sort of thing is an extremely common basis for regional conflict that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Be cautious not to fall for propaganda. From both sides.

I've read conflicting statements about how Russian speaking Ukrainians are treated in Ukraine but it's also not obvious to me why it should be so much worse in Donbass versus the rest of Ukraine.

Just because there is a different language doesn't mean that there is automatically a cultural divide.

Does that go for the the Baltic states as well where 25% are Russian speakers.

There are many countries that have similar conditions, minorities outside theyr borders, historical claims but when we entered EU and NATO we all had to make peace with our neighbors and give up or old grudges, I hope the young Russian generation would prefer to enter EU then reviewing some old empire.

The notion that entering the EU is some magic thing that will make those go away is incredibly naive. I think more likely is the EU ceasing to existing within the next 50 years as the US continues its withdrawal from the world.

There are many factors that make it so the new generations are more connected and emphasize better. EU membership makes it possible for students to study in different places and learn more, from my experience younger generations are less racist/xenophobic/nationalistic. It will take time to fix the issue but it things improve and with less Russian propaganda and dirty money in our politics it will improve even faster.

By your reasoning 95% of America is English. This conflict was totally avoidable.

If some great of English people think they’re different enough from some other group of English people to want to be a separate country, that’s a regional conflict that doesn’t warrant the involvement of anyone else. Same as Ireland separating from Britain or Bangladesh separating from Pakistan or India/Pakistan border disputes.

By his reasoning, 18% of the US is hispanic and we should expect to be at war with Mexico.

We did go to war with Mexico and took a bunch of their land. And if our military power wasn’t so overwhelmingly superior we absolutely would have border conflicts with Mexico.

The buffer states argument is dead. Russia killed it. Europe now has to logistically support Ukraine, pivot it's energy market and disrupt its economy because Russia just showed the world it views buffer states as consumable components for future Russia.

Buffer states are now a liability with Russia.

NATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first.

And I think even with all the excitement, clear heads will seriously question how well this strategy has worked.

> NATO membership requires territorial integrity. A lot would have to change first.

That’s the Schengen area, not NATO.

But NATO does require that there are no outstanding territorial disputes. So Russian occupation of part of Georgia is a tactic. Furthermore, to say that this NATO "requirement" was papered over when Greece and Turkey were admitted would be an understatement.

Is it really a formal requirement? I’ve only heard of Cyprus as an example, but this Cyprus is a flawed example, because NATO accession vote has to be unanimous, and Turkey is likely to veto it.

Also if that was the case, then Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were dead as soon as Russia took Crimea, making this entire ordeal completely pointless.

Good point. Probably Ukraine would be asked to renounce their claims ?

It wouldn’t be renouncing claims, it would be de jure ceding territory (that is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine) to Russia, and there’s no way that would be okay.

> there’s no way that would be okay.

What does 'ok' mean here?

I was Ukraine, if I got NATO I would drop Crimea like its nothing. Crimea was always practically controlled by Russia anyway. And its by far the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.

See no reason why Russia should not be forced to withdraw completely - leaving Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk. It's Ukraine time to retake their lands from the occupier.

If you can do that ok, but to get Russia out of Crimea, good luck with that.

Already submitted and de-facto rejected. Nobody wants Article 5 triggered over the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

That ship sailed in 2008 with the Bucharest conference. The membership process was stalled and unstalled but it's been underway for a while now. The NATO incursion in Libya leading to Gadaffi getting a rusty bayonet up his backside in 2011 seems to be the point where Putin viewed further expansion as red line though.

Zelensky has spent the last two years begging them to hurry the membership application up.

Not really, Russia's previous aggressions in 2014 are the reason Ukraine even has a military in the first place and from the past few days it appears that said military's existence came as a shock to the invader. It is fair to say that Putin expected another special operation like in Chechenya, Syria, etc., where he would just bomb the terrorists for a while with no actual opposition showing up. There's a decent analysis thread outlining the background and doing a lot of historical legwork. [0]

This is a real problem and a cause for worry though since insane escalation may very well occur with the singular goal of saving faces of russian heads of state.

[0] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204

> I should probably add that Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Not as a justification for its invasion, but as a legitimate security and influence concern.

Now, there is of course point of view of Eastern European countries who see Russia as legitimate security and influence concern. These are NATO members and became NATO members specifically to be protected against what you call legitimate security concern of Russia (read inability to expand).

> Much was imposed on Russia after WWI, after the Kosovo conflict, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Now, how much of that "imposition" is Poland not wanting to be occupied by Russia anymore?

> Russia has a point-of-view on Eastern Europe that shouldn't be ignored.

Eastern Europe (and now especially Ukraine) has a point-of-view on Russia that you seem to be ignoring.

Ah, so this is the goalpost-shifting that will allow Putin to save face.

Better him saving face than going farther!

Totally, that is called diplomacy.

Hopefully. I'm totally fine with Putin saving face to end his BS war and avoid escalating.

“Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.”

-- Sun Tzu

> it might be enough for Russia to have "ruined" Kyiv, etc., and to have significantly degraded Ukraine's military.

Well, that's more or less what Putin said he wanted to do, right? De-militarize and "de-nazify" (he actually means change the regime to one that, like the Ukrainian government prior to 2014, supports Russia) Ukraine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com