Hacker News Reader

The thing about this archaic, old-fashioned "power politics" is that it's self-defeating in the age of late-stage modernity. You want to talk about power? China has certainly gained plenty of real-world power since the days of Mao Zedong. Japan has power. South Korea has power. But the thing is that, invariably, they did not gain that power by playing zero-sum "power politics" games, but rather as a side-effect of broad-based economic development, mutually beneficial trade and successful multi-national cooperation. Russia has just willfully thrown away a lot of their potential power and influence for the foreseeable future, with no gains whatsoever to make up for that - and they're yet to look down into the abyss and face that situation. They seem incredibly complacent - that's ultimately what's so strikingly irrational about their current stance.

Mearsheimer talks about this in other talks. He likes speaking in China because “he’s among his people”, that is, people who understand Great Power Politics is as relevant today as it’s always been.

Most East Asian countries have a huge advantage in labor cost. If they don’t have one now, they often did in the past during the ascent. That’s basically the definition of zero-sum. Yes, worker productivity increases over time, so the size of the pie grows, but how those gains are distributed is zero-sum. It’s not clear to me that growing your power, e.g. receiving more of the pie, somehow leads to you increasing productivity more later.

>>You want to talk about power? China has certainly gained plenty of real-world power since the days of Mao Zedong.

From the perspective of power maximizing their willingness to go to war is puzzling. But most research suggests states are not power maximizing but rather security maximizing. States don't consider their military potential in a vacuum but rather relative to other states that could disrupt their security. ( see: Collateral Damage Sino-Soviet Rivalry and the Termination of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance)

In this regard, Russia's decision for war is very easy to understand even if it comes across as blindingly machiavellian and immoral. Even if the Russian economy is wrecked and the people of Russia are materially worse off Russia the state will be more secure with Ukraine destroyed.

I might agree but "states" here should really mean "decision making elites within states". It's not like "Russia" as a country fears for her security (that's of course a category error!), it's more that there's a pretty well-defined elite of people with decision making power within Russia who fear that their current power might not be stable.

Democracy helps solve these screwed up incentives by vesting sovereignty (the source for legitimacy of that sort of power) in the people as a whole, and making the status as an "elite" highly time-limited and contestable. So nobody has to fear more for their security than anyone else.

I don't mean of course that states are somehow sentient entities but decision makers in charge of states are, not surprisingly, very interested in the security of the thing they are in charge of.

I disagree that the decision makers in Russia who made the decision for war were motivated mostly in their own hold on power. If they were, they probably would not engage in such a risky business as a major war. Power is more secure in a stable political environment. To take one example, decision makers in Germany before the first world war had no illusions that a major industrialized european war was risky for the political order and its outcome was very uncertain. One reason why Germany refused to expand conscription was the fear the aristocratic class would lose power in any new citizen army with mass conscription( which in fact, happened).

So even in an autocracy this incentive problem still exists. Democracy certainly reduces the incentives for decision makers to go to war over security concerns but even in a democratic states these cross cutting concerns of political stability and economic well being could find themselves at odds with having to ensure the security of the state that makes such prosperity possible.

>Russia the state will be more secure with Ukraine destroyed.

I don't get that. How does having a democratic neighbour like say Estonia, or a democratic Ukraine, make Russia insecure? No one's going to go invading them with them having the world's largest nuke stockpile and people were happy trading.

Now Putin personally, I can see how he might have issues.

MAD is insufficient. There are a vast array of security threats that nukes dont protect you from. This is true for all nuclear powers.

Given that the US has nukes, why have any other military at all? You could ask the same China.

Conventional military and geopolitics are relevant for everything that you wont launch a nuke over. Without conventional power, any nuclear power can be bled to death with 1000 small cuts nukes cant stop.

What is NATO's objective except to defend the member countries from aggressors? As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, perhaps what is happening is about the control of natural resources. The entire situation is then politically motivated. Aren't NATO and Ukraine then simply actors that have been strung along? (Obviously at great cost to Ukraine now.) This would also explain why EU has been so quick to respond with sanctions. This is about cause and effect. Russia attacking Ukraine is obviously very wrong. It seems philosophical to discuss if the cause should be blamed. However, Mearsheimer has warned about this aggression for a very long time. The history seems to indicate that this outcome has been forced.

I think Russia fears an Embrace, Extend, Extinguish approach to geopolitics where their historic power is diminished or extinguished by an encroaching NATO as it absorbs nations at the periphery of the previous local hegemon.

I think that is part of it, but I think they also fear direct attack, or the threat of direct attack being used to undermine their geopolitical goals and autonomy.

People who view this as paranoid are simply not being rational. MAD is a defense against complete invasion, but not a defense against strangulation via power projection. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone.

NATOs objective has always been to eliminate or minimize the Russian threat to NATO.

An armed an strong Ukraine furthers this goal.

A bloody war between Ukraine and Russia also furthers this goal.

> But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.

My take on it is: if you willingly push a bear in a tight corner, you have it coming when he starts biting and fighting.

Now, this is no valid excuse for me when it comes to nation states and their actions, but nations are just run by humans, aren't they?

Invading Russia would be pushing the bear into a tight corner.

This is setting up camp in another ecosystem where the bear isn’t supposed to be at all, has no claim.

How close would you let your enemy put a knife to your throat before stopping them?

The best way to avoid a knife fight is for two people to stay far apart. If you keep getting closer to someone with a knife, you shouldn't be surprised when you get stabbed.

But Russia has thousands of nukes, and that's not a secret. Russia knows that nobody would dare attack them, ever. And the rest of the world knows that too.

The whole thing about Russia feeling "threatened" is just total BS. Putin just knows that in this day and age you need to play the victim, and lots of people instinctively would take your side. It doesn't matter how absurd the claim is.

MAD is a defense against complete invasion, but not a defense against strangulation via power projection.

Non nuclear military projection matters because not everything is a nuclear war. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone.

It still matters where bases are.

If it comes to nuclear war, it also matters where bases are.

> strangulation via power projection.

Cool metaphor there, but exactly what do you have in mind? Let's say every single neighbor of Russia becomes a NATO member, how does that strangulation via power projection work?

Or in our concrete case, let's say Ukraine becomes a NATO member, who is going to threaten Russia, and how? Preferably in more concrete terms, rather than metaphors.

In concrete examples if a future conflict of interests arises:

They could shut down more airspace to russian reinforcement of allies.

They could more easily cut off access access ports in the black sea.

They could invade Belarus on a new front.

They could move conventional and nuclear bombers closer to moscow.

They could arm Russian revolutionaries using the land boarder.

Being encircled makes it harder for Russia to respond to many many threats.

In the last 20 years, the US attacked and toppled Russian friendly governments in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and lybia. Close bases were very helpful in each case.

All these could be valid grievances. Great powers keep poking and prodding each other all the time. Russia does all sorts of chicanery back. They are mounting right not psy ops in Eastern Europe (e.g. the current "word" over there is that they are in danger of being nuked because of the US bases, and it's all US's fault, they'd be just fine if US got out of there... and some people swallow that stuff hook, line and sinker).

Russia and the US spy each other. The US sanctioned Russia because of the Manitsky assassination. One can easily claim that this is economic warfare, and the if it weren't for that assassination, some other pretext could have been found. On the other hand Russia does kill people (and in the process they increase the popular awareness to such technical tems as Polonium and Novichok).

This is again, just to say Russia and the US keep taking shots of each other. That does not mean Russia needs to start a real war, where tens of thousands of people die. And if Russia does, that's in no way the US's fault.

Ukraine was a game of chicken where Russia had something to lose from backing down and they do had nothing to lose from backing down

Problem is that Putins mindset seems to be exactly opposite to your statement. He sees the west setting up camp in an ecosystem he should not be.

Hint: I do not endorse that thinking but I can understand that someone with this mindset might react strongly to us (the west) starting to play in “his” front yard.

""Not one inch", said NATO some decades ago. "

I don't think there was any kind of commitment about this. Definitely not in a form of a signed treaty.

https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/312636...

> But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.

He's saying it is US's fault because Russia has been accommodating the US for decades. Russia allowed NATO to gobble up country after country all the way to Russia's borders.

> People say one thing and do another thing all the time, that's the way you play the game.

Hence it's NATO's fault. It is NATO's greed that resulted in Georgians dying. It's NATO's greed that resulted in ukrainians dying.

> But, one thing is to not keep your word about this or that, another thing is to start killing people. By the thousands. And destroy their homes. And make them leave their countries. Is really Mearsheimer incapable of understanding this difference?

War is politics by other means. As you said "well, welcome to politics.". Yes, ukrainians are dying. You can thank NATO.

The war in ukraine is a result of NATO's ( ultimately america's ) actions. NATO was the first mover ( aka the cause of it ). Nobody who has taken a class in international politics will debate it. None. And the biggest beneficiary of the ukraine war is NATO. Ukraine suffers, Russia suffer. NATO is sitting pretty.

US told the Soviet Union putting nukes in cuba would lead to nuclear war. The soviet union backed off. Russia said NATO expansion to Ukraine or Georgia would lead to war. NATO discarded it. If the soviet union had put nukes on cuba and got attacked, it would be the soviet union's fault. Just like the blame for ukraine lies entirely with NATO. But that's academics. In reality, the propaganda will tell you who is to be blamed for what in each country.

Can't wait to see what our meddling in Taiwan will lead to. Hopefully a serious punch in the mouth so we'll quit the empire business once and for all.

> Russia allowed NATO to gobble up country after country all the way to Russia's borders.

NATO didn't gobble them up, they voluntarily joined, and they weren't Russian colonies such that it was a matter of Russia “letting” anyone do anything.

Russia is the one that has been literally gobbling up (at least parts of, prior to the most recent attempt) neighboring cointries.

That's a very naive take. They weren't russian colonies but they were within its sphere of influence. Just like cuba, canada and the entire western hemisphere is within our sphere of influence. Do you know what would have lead to an invasion of canada? Canada's request to join the soviet union. Every major power has its sphere of influence and limits. The only shame is that we don't get to feel the pain of our actions. It will be ukrainians and eventually taiwanese who will feel the pain of our meddling. Just like in iraq, iran, syria, libya, etc. Hopefully that comes to an end sooner than later so we'll stop causing trouble everywhere in the world. When you actually look all the wars and death and suffering in the past few decades, we've had a hand in practically all of them.

No we basically begged nato to take us under protection. There are many things people don't like in Eastern Europe about America but no one doubt Russia is the greater evil. Only Americans can afford self reflection and self criticism. There is no such thing in Russia and no one wants to live under baron robber regime, its objective reality. Some countries have been born to wrong geopolitical location and don't have much choice.

> That's a very naive take.

No, it's factual.

> They weren't russian colonies but they were within its sphere of influence

A “sphere of influence” is a collection of peripheries of metropolitan state, a geographically compact set of colonies. Your explanation is self-contradictory.

> Just like cuba, canada and the entire western hemisphere is within our sphere of influence.

They... aren't. Yes, the US asserted something like that with the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th C, but it's not at all the case now. The US has many allies in the Western Hemisphere, some of who might reasonably be viewed as client states, but it definitely doesn't include Cuba or the whole hemisphere.

> Do you know what would have lead to an invasion of canada? Canada's request to join the soviet union.

Whataboutism is silliest when it has to rely on speculative assumptions about ridiculous counterfactuals.

> The only shame is that we don't get to feel the pain of our actions

If you really feel it is a shame that you don't get to feel the pain of the crisis in Ukraine, that's...easily fixable.

Maybe they don’t want to be ruled by Russia? This whole comment is pointless as you just discard what the actual people and countries want. Smaller countries are not just chess pieces.

Naive it not, these countries have a right to self-determination and sovereignty, especially after what the USSR has been doing to them for decades.

Defensive realism? “My theory, which I label “offensive realism,” is essentially realist in nature; it falls thus in the tradition of realist thinkers such as E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Kenneth Waltz.”: John J. Mearsheimer. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

>>That being said, I think on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, Mearsheimer is not consistent with his own theory (defensive realism). I completely understand why Putin is doing what he's doing, his actions are very well explained by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily).

Except Mearsheimer explicity didn't predict a major war between Ukraine and russia. He has commented on this situation repeatedly and failed to accurately predict the outbreak of major war. Mearsheimer has a problem here: Russia is weakening its military potential against other major states by going to war against ukraine. His formulation of offensive realism does not really produce a testable prediction in this case.

Good point, it's offensive realism, not defensive realism.

Here's how this war fits into Mearsheimer's framework: great powers have a certain amount of power. There are 3 great powers today, the US, China and Russia. The power of a nation depends on its population and GDP, and lots of other things as well. Russia's population is going down, its GDP is just a fraction of China's or America's. So, their great power standing is on the decline.

A conquest of Ukraine, if speedy and decisive, would convince all the other former Soviet Republics to submit to Russia voluntarily, maybe with the exception of the Baltic republics which are part of NATO.

If Putin reincorporates the Russian Empire, the population doubles overnight, a feat not achieved even by Bismark. The GDP also increases, although not that much. Still, under such a scenario, Russia under Putin would achieve a huge leap in great power standing. It would probably still not be number 1, but it could be number 2, because, despite having much lower population and GDP than China, it would have fresh war experience.

Given that this fits so well in Mearsheimer's framework, it's obvious that all of Putin's rhetoric about the NATO transgressions is just that, rhetoric.