Hacker News Reader

Comment by secabeen | Hacker News Reader

I took a number of classes with Mearshiemer in college. He's right on many things, wrong on others. In this case, he's right that NATO expansion at least contributed to the current situation, but I think he's wrong in undervaluing the great increases in peace and prosperity that have been gained in those countries that did join NATO.

View on HN

He is wrong, eastern Europe countries joined NATO because they were scared of Russia, and they were right, Russia has a long history of invasions.

His answer always seems to be, "No it's all a big political game, that's the only lens from which we can view this." The politics may be the most important thing from a geopolitical perspective, but they aren't the only thing.

The best question to ask those who are on a fence... Would Russia attack Ukraine if it was a NATO member? :)

Maybe Russia should just join NATO.

This would require Russia to change in a lot of ways from how Putin runs things, but who would that be bad for, really?

> Maybe Russia should just join NATO.

Putin asked Bill Clinton about this in 2000; was rebuffed.

Cannot remember the US general defining the purpose of the NATO as below:

"Keeping the US in, the Russia out and the Germany down"

Was that Russia more consistent with Western values than now? https://time.com/5564207/russia-nato-relationship/ Here's a Dutch ex-NATO Secretary General saying Russia would have to change quite a bit.

> Putin asked Bill Clinton about this in 2000; was rebuffed.

This is misleading. Russia was admitted to the NATO Partnership for Peace, an onramp to membership, before Putin came to power. What Putin asked for, and was rebuffed on, was to skip the political, military compatibility, etc. readiness process then being required of aspiring members and be directly admitted.

Maybe rather the EU instead of NATO?

It would be bad for China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com