Hacker News Reader

Comment by throckmortra | Hacker News Reader

You're assuming that Russia would feel like it needed to conquer its neighbors in a peaceful world. Again, analysts argue that we propped up the imperialist ideologues of Russia and created the current climate

Edit: I think most of you aren't really engaging with the substance of my comment. The idea being that all this bloodthirst that Russia currently has is due to conditions that we knew about and could have avoided.

Also, Russian government of 1991 =/= Stalin

View on HN

>You're assuming that Russia would feel like it needed to conquer its neighbors in a peaceful world

I mean after 45 years of Soviet occupation of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc. didn't know what people expect from those countries. Of course they don't want to see any russians ever again.

Or once again: is it their fate that they always have to be the vassal of Russia just because of their location?

Most of these countries were historically and culturally always closer to Germany, "the west", than Russia.

NATO didn't conquer the Eastern European countries who joined — they applied of their own volition. A Russia that can't accept that and feels the need to brutalize neighbors who turn away just illustrates why those neighbors are absolutely justified in seeking shelter.

Russia always feels the need to conquer neighbors and its neighbors feel a need to not let it, hence we join NATO to stop the bad guys.

Since the start 1920s countries in central Europe are in constant fear of Soviet/Russian attack.

Go back to 1580 when Russia started to invade their fellow neighbors. Never stopped since.

> I think most of you aren't really engaging with the substance of my comment.

That is because it doesn’t have any.

The idea that NATO expansion caused Putin to be have in this manner is simply not a credible argument. The countries of Eastern Europe have the same right to self determination as those of Western Europe, the US or Russia itself. Being an apologist does not make you a substantive debater, it makes you a patsy.

Please don't sink to ad-hom on hackernews. Nowhere in my comment is apologia, merely context. Ukraine should be defended and helped in any of way we can (without causing nuclear war) not in spite of our history of saber-rattling, but because of it. It is now our responsibility to clean up a mess that we are partially to blame for. People far more intelligent and credible than both of us are making these arguments so I think you're going to need something a bit stronger than sticking your fingers in your ears

Some analysts may argue that but Putin's own speech of recently clearly indicated that he wants to expand. I don't see how anyone could argue in good faith that his actions are defensive in nature.

"You're assuming that Russia would feel like it needed to conquer its neighbors in a peaceful world."

? Yes, Putin has been trying that for 20 years.

Putin + Kremlin believe that Ukraine is 'not a country' and is a 'vassal of Russia'.

Straight up.

They have been actively doing things to support this for a very long time.

See: Yanukovich, the laughably clown dirtbag who is the Belarus/Lukashenko analogue.

Here is a good articulation of the Geostrategic and Historical Russian Nationalism:

(Article was put up by accident in Russia but taken down)

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...

here is the English translation:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z7zQiS-99mhqmJqJ-r-a2MJc...

This is not about 'defence and NATO'.

Have you not heard that Putin lamented the end of the Soviet union and his goal has been building Russia into an empire again?

You are assuming that Russia will stop conquering it's neighbours. Or that it would be a good neighbour if "it was left alone by the west" - what ever that means?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com