Hacker News Reader

Comment by gspetr | Hacker News Reader

If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined.

US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster.

Also, if the Cold war was over - why did NATO even expand? A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?

View on HN

> If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined.

Many reasons. One can simply be good salespeople. Another could be an effective role as world police. Another could be to constrain violent dictatorships from invading neighboring countries. But sure it’s just so very aggressive toward little ole’ Russia.

> US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster.

What argument?

> Also, if the Cold war was over -

I guess you can debate this with someone but everyone alive who anybody cares to listen to recognizes that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.

> why did NATO even expand?

Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries. Georgia. Moldova. Ukraine. Why wouldn’t you want to be protected from that?

> A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?

Don’t care.

>could be an effective role as world police.

There's war in Yemen right now, with one of the sides heavily backed by Saudi Arabia, where's the world police? Or does it only respond to calls when land changes hands?

>starting wars against neighboring countries.

1/3 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia.

3/7 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia.

0/4 of those admitted after that.

>Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries.

There's no denying it being a mafia state, but that may not necessarily be the only or even the dominant explanation.

Even Wikipedia (which Russia had repeatedly considered banning on its territory) cites quite different reasons: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence."

>Georgia

The situation with Georgia reads very similar to the current conflict, except Georgia had taken the Russian role in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Abkhaz_confli...

Because your neighbors may not act in good will.

It's a valid reason for sure.

But why not just say that and stop saying stuff like "no-no, those anti-ballistic missiles we deployed in Poland are against potential Iranian aggression."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com