Hacker News Reader

Comment by friedturkey | Hacker News Reader

"Expansion" makes it sound like something that happened to Eastern Europe against their will--not that those countries actively wanted to join.

Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified.

View on HN

2018 Macedonian referendum is one example of the contrarian. It was invalid as the turnout was mere 36.89% (most were probably Albanians). And (I think) in non other country that is a NATO member now, there was a referendum.

For a broader perspective: NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” (from the horse's mouth)

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

EDIT: For even broader perspective: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world. — Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hi...

Unless there was foul play involved, if among 36.89% majority voted to join NATO and the rest didn't care enough to vote - isn't that an argument in favor of joining?

Referendums, especially binding referendums, generally have high thresholds.

Maybe an argument, but a very weak one.

According to the Macedonian constitution, the turnout must be over 50%. Hence the boycot.

And, what does that say about the oh-so-democratic West if less than 40% people turn out and it still "accepts" a country as a member?

Was it a boycott or indifference?

That's where more context is needed - was the low turn over a protest vote (or protest lack of vote)? Was it indifference? Was it sabotage by the government (making voting hard)? I think these questions will determine the answer.

There is no open door policy with NATO. Russia and the Soviet union have tried to join NATO at least a few times publicly and were rejected every time. What's the point of NATO again?

In order to join NATO, one of the current requirements is having a liberal democratic government with civilian control over the military. Russia (and the old Soviet Union) didn't meet that requirement.

Perhaps Russia should try transitioning to becoming a liberal democracy first?

Considering how poorly neoliberalism has been doing, why should countries be forced to join otherwise risk becoming a target?

The point of NATO is exactly why Russia fears it - consolidated strength that makes it impossible to pick off member states one by one by a stronger power (namely Russia). Russia and the USSR weren’t invited because they explicitly were the threat.

So if Iraq or Vietnam joined NATO would that defended them against US aggression?

They are not geographically contiguous or traditionally aligned with Western Europe and the US, and so would never be allowed to join.

It’s basically a Western European ‘neighborhood watch’ that the US is also in as the representative for ‘the police’ (based on spending/contribution).

Which part of the neighborhood watch were Libya, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia?

Wouldn't that explicitly prevent them from doing just that? Also, so far NATO has been used to bomb Yugoslavia and Libya. It appears it's NATO doing the picking off, doesn't it?

This is true, but only in the same sense as shop owners willingly accepting mafia protection as soon as this is "offered". "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your shop".

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a country expresses interest to join NATO, the general sentiment must be "my my what a lovely club to join, I feel so safe here". You're literally signing a pact of war. Basically it's "choose which mafia family you prefer" and simply not choosing one is probably the worst choice.

Even western polls show around 54% population support for Ukraine to join NATO [1]. Not by a huge majority. And I suspect the Eastern parts the number is substantially lower. When Ukraine is discussed, a lot of western media assumes east and west in same terms which is really not the case.

[1] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support...

I think it's a bit misleading to state that 54% figure without also mentioning that 18% didn't answer the question.

So 54% supported joining NATO and 28% opposed, almost a 2 to 1 ratio of support to opposition.

polling is way higher on EU trade and EU membership though and strong support !== necessarily mean strong opposition.

Just a couple google sources before the invasion put it at 69%, 57%, 58% join EU versus 21% wanting the opposite of an economic union with ussr countries.

IDK xtabs or if there is a poll with strong/lean scale, but a strong plurality above 50% is pretty big regardless see another example last link below showing decent majority strong yes with relatively small no.

Main point is that NATO wasn't even on the table for Ukraine.

The first invasion happened after the Ukrainian people chose a new government because Yanukovych refused to sign the EU trade agreement.

I think a lot of countries in their position (like finland) the citizens were rightly worried about poking the nuclear bear by trying to join NATO.

There are more than a few articles and polls out now showing the sentiment has changed now with this recent war.

Finland for example is now above 53% join nato for while only 28% against.

Another example of lopsided enthusiasm painting a different picture of support.

https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support...

https://www.statista.com/chart/26933/ukrainians-survey-nato-...

https://www.eureporter.co/world/ukraine/2021/03/16/ukrainian...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/03/business/finnish-swed...

I don't think Ucraine will ever be a member of the EU since that requires the agreement of all member countries.

Maybe. We'll see how this shakes out.

One point I was trying to make was Russia's actions have galvanized support in the opposite direction Putin wanted.

I don't know why what I contributed is worth downvotes. I provided sources showing a difference in EU support compared to NATO support to parent comment and gave reasonable arguments that even a majority in mid 50s of support does not mean the opposition is -100*-1 it's usually way less.

I don't think Ukraine was even being seriously considered for NATO until Russia decided to surround the country with its military recently.

It's like punching someone, some guy passing by tells you to stop, then you justify your reason for punching that person because you were worried that the person who told you to stop was going to attack you.

Nobody was going to do anything to say anything to you if you hadn't gone out of your way to attack someone.

> I don't think Ukraine was even being seriously considered for NATO until Russia decided to surround the country with its military recently.

NATO, in a statement from the NATO Summit, explicitly indicated last June (so, before the late 2021 encirclement) the intention that Ukraine would join the alliance through the Membership Action Plan.

This reiterated a 2008 policy statement that had effectively been shelved by the Yanukovych governments anti-NATO position, but never formally restated after a more NATO-friendly government had emerged in Ukraine and sought to advance towards membership.

Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?

Or maybe going back farther Russia's sudden seizure of Crimea with a fraudulent vote with 97% in support could've been what made Ukraine nervous that they'd be invaded and seek support from other countries?

Or maybe going back a little farther to the USSR's atrocities against Ukraine, including Holodomor--the outright genocide of the Ukrainian people--might've been the thing that makes Ukraine want to ally with literally any country but Russia?

The idea that Ukraine should want to associate with Russia is the most bizarre political claim there ever was. Their history is nothing but being ravaged and literally raped by Russia, so them considering joining NATO is nothing but a big "no shit". Putin deserves to be surrounded for his actions. All he's done is shown that the Russia's intentions to destroy the Ukrainian people haven't changed in 100 years.

A big part of the general population of Ukraine never wanted to do anything with NATO, even at the peak of the crisis western backed poll found the support for NATO only around 54%. Your count of history of Ukraine being raped and ravaged by Russia is generally not supported by large part of Ukrainian population, as supported even the western polls.

> Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?

What? Eastern Ukraine including Donbass and Crimea has a large majority of Russian speakers with ties with Russia. Ukrainian parliament decided to deny minority languages meant to provoke Russia http://www.iconnectblog.com/2021/04/minority-rights-ukraines...

America has a large portion of English speakers. It historically had a large portion of people with direct ties to the UK. Haiti had plenty of people with ties to France and still has French speakers. Taiwan has Chinese speakers and people with family in China.

There's a clear pattern here. But Russia pays people to pretend that Russian speakers means it's their land to stabilize. When in reality, it's a completely irrelevant statement.

Maybe you read some history? To learn how parts of Russia, Hungary, Romania, Slovacia and Poland were forcefully integrated into Ucrainei along with their respective populations by Soviet leaders?

> NATO only around 54%

And opposition to NATO was only 28%. Twice as many people want to join NATO as those who oppose joining.

That's a huge majority and the way you are trying to undersell it means you are either being intentionally misleading or didn't understand how the poll worked.

> Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?

You are maybe confused with neo-Nazi Azov battalion and co. also funded and trained by the USA, which have committed documented war crimes against civilians.

The very first paragraph of Wikipedia even says Azov formed as a consequence of something.

That reason? To push Russian forces out of their country.

If Russia weren't terrorizing the region, Azov would not exist. Russia pays to astroturf the claim that Azov is some thing that appeared out of nowhere when it's a group that formed directly to keep Russia and its violent militias out.

I can't help but notice that instead of condemning Azov crimes and recognizing that they too are a terrorizing force in the region, you conveniently blamed their existence on Russia. The hypocrisy here is blaring. We are now at the point of tolerating, hiding and in some extreme cases even justify the crimes committed by these people. All the while forgetting the fact that the US has provided them with military training, money and weapons.

In fact, if the US can interfere in a country that's thousands miles away by funding extremist military groups, I find it way more legitimate for Russia to fund Russian separatists in the Donbas region, which has historically had strong ties with Russia and whose population would rather stay there than join the "Western" side. It's also interesting how everybody always talks about self-determination, but only in the case where people want to "self-determine" themselves in the right direction. I would be interested in knowing why it doesn't apply in this case.

To conclude: the Ukrainian army along with this these neo-Nazi groups (that have been effectively integrated into the army) has destroyed several hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure and killed more than 3000 civilians since 2014 in the Donbas. Ignoring this situation and blaming everything on Russia is one of the reason that we are in this situation right now, and surely one very myopic way of assessing what's going on.

If you look at the actions of Russia it seems pretty clear that this conflict is nothing else than a protracted attempt to subjugate and destroy ukraine. All those legions of justifications are just noise to sow dissent so russia can do as it wants.

And yes, if a nation is under constant attack by a far more powerful neighbour that denies its right to exist ugly things and strange bedfellows are bound to happen. The ukraines didnt turn away the Nazis of the Azov and russia is using the Wagner Group Nazis and thugs like Igor Girkin whose people shoot down passenger flights.

Putin is practicing the kind of politics that was the norm for most of human history, there really is no reason to be flummoxed by it.

Actually,

I think the US is on a long campaign for regime change in Russia.

Part of baking that cake includes ingredients like destabilizing former soviet republics, weakening their borders, utilizing hostile NGOs in Russia, and in former soviet republics, and the economic warfare. Fomenting a coup in Ukraine was part of that plan.

Unfortunately, we've driven Russia rather straight into the arms to China, and set up the conditions for de-dollarization. Russia + China + Pakistan + Venezuela + North Korea + many others have now the means and motive to counterbalance and resist.

Russia invading Ukraine is merely seizing territory before it becomes weaponized against them in the form of an invasion staging ground. Given Russian gaps in incoming missile awareness, and the respective short distance to Moscow, they have reasons to be concerned about a hostile enemy on their border. Given Russian experience and nearness, they are likely to be incredibly scrappy as this is an existential threat to them.

The same with missiles in Cuba for us, and look what we did as a response?

I dont think the west was especially interested in a regime change for the most part. Why? Nobody cared. Russia has to sell its ressources anyway and its cleptocracy is unable to transform the economy into a powerful contender. Its going to be fun to see russia as a chinese vassal and how china will put up with Putins paranoia and egomania.

Putin is just like a bigger version of Kim Jong Un who needs to be coddled and given a place on the world stage otherwise he will generate some stink one way or the other.

Those NGOs have been in russia since the fall of the SU and it was the russian state that changed and turned hostile to them. I dont think that this has been anticipated at that time.

Can you please describe a plausible scenario to me where an NATO invasion on moscow generating from ukraine does not end in a nuclear holocaust, same as from the baltics or any other place?

Yep, the US response during the cuba missile crisis was a pretty insane shitshow. Thankfully cooler and wiser heads in the SU were able to defuse the situation.

Putin already told G. W. Bush 2008 that ukraine was no real country and he spent the last 8 years trying to fix that historic mistake.

It seems to me that both sides, through negotiation, arrived at the "correct" answer to the problem, which was withdrawal of missiles from Cuba and Turkey. In what way was the US response considered a shitshow, and why are US negotiators not considered as cool and wise as the SU ones here, considering they had to ultimately arrive at the same place?

But the cuban missile crisis incurred the cost of risking nuclear war.

And what for?

Both parties had sufficient capabilities to achieve total destruction of the enemy, missiles in cuba and turkey or not. Plus there already were 150+ nuclear weapons on cuba that the US didnt know about and that the SU was prepared to gift to Castro to placate him. But Castro seemed to unstable so the SU retrieved those in the end.

The US response nearly led to a nuclear war for no strategic gain and even then it nearly led to a nuclear armed Cuba on its doorstep.

It's the same as acknowledging that the Taliban wouldn't exist without American and Russian interference in the region.

Azov and the Taliban are bad, yeah. But they appeared because of foreign threats. None of this would happen if Russia didn't repeatedly murder people in neighboring countries then backpedal and retroactively justify their invasion by saying radical defense forces are defending themselves from Russia.

Don't want your country to be attacked by extremists? Don't invade and push people to radical groups. Your paycheck signer deserves the blame for Azov 100%.

> Your paycheck signer

Very classy argument.

>In fact, if the US can interfere in a country that's thousands miles away by funding extremist military groups, I find it way more legitimate for Russia to fund Russian separatists in the Donbas region, which has historically had strong ties with Russia and whose population would rather stay there than join the "Western" side. It's also interesting how everybody always talks about self-determination, but only in the case where people want to "self-determine" themselves in the right direction. I would be interested in knowing why it doesn't apply in this case.

US bombed Yogoslavia into Oblivion for not agreeing to secession of a historical Serbian territory, Kosovo.

Sure, those bombs killed innocent civilians and even children but no one from the West decried those murders.

The Azov Battalion was formed out of at least three groups, Patriot of Ukraine [1], the Social-National Assembley [2] , and Right Sector [3]. Right Sector, or Right Sektor, was the one most talked about in the West PRIOR to any invasion, mainly because they were neo-nazis. While I have spent a good amount of time in Ukraine prior to any of these events, if you want see something on it, watch the VICE Media video on Right Sektor. This issue was not politicized at the time.

Since all of their foundings predate the Russian re-entry into Ukraine, I think your history is a little bit wrong.

When the CIA supported coup happened in Kiev, and a Pro-Russian leader forcefully deposed, Pro-Russian forces in Ukraine were burned alive [4]. This is just one of many atrocities that happened . Given that like half the country is Russian, most of which is on the East, this gave Russia Casus Belli to seize territory that was historically Russian, and to protect the Ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

So, long before Ukraine became a client state of the US State Department, and Rich Oligarchs supported by the US formed nationalist groups into Ukrainian elite units, these neo-fascists existed. Media on the left, center and right confirm this, to deny it is merely convenient revisionism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_of_Ukraine

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Assembly

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector

[4] https://www.exposingtruth.com/media-wont-tell-odessa-massacr...

> I don't think Ukraine was even being seriously considered for NATO until Russia decided to surround the country with its military recently.

West backed Ukraine leadership applied for NATO membership as early as 2008.

http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-287949.html

And Putin came personally to 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest to tell that Russia won't tolerate this.

>Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified.

The same way Cuba bid for the Soviet Nukes to defend them?

What would you say if Mexic and Canada would bid for a military alliance with Russia and China and some tens of thousands of soldiers and tanks, rockets, planes, would sit near the US border?

PS. Before voting down, I am not trying to justify Russia's invasion but merely trying to explain the reasons behind it.

didn't russia try to join nato?

Yeah, and since it was obviously a troll move, they said no.

what made it a troll move?

'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'

Words of the first NATO secretary. So, if people start a club to avoid you and you know it, applying to it is a troll move, no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhLkwmSu98

because they didn't fit the requirements. Mainly have to be a Democracy with more fair law & government.

looking at some of these member states: you sure about that?

Yes. My god man, google the issue.

Most of the countries are pretty high on Democracy index. Some higher than US.

Turkey comes to mind as the only standout. There is a general trend towards autocracy in the last years in places like that.

Which is sad and a threat to the world imho.

But even Turkey (which is probably the least democratic nato member?) isn't comparable to Russia. looking at a map the rest of NATO all fits in the green shade on the democracy index.

And also just the basic membership requirement: consensus vote by existing members.

So kind of pointless it's trolling from the start.

Plus respecting borders one of the founding principles lol.

Could look at civ control of military too. turkey is super complicated there. the autocrat definitely does not have control, the opposite. Unlike putin. But in turkey that's also scary and no so comforting for collaboration.

It was no more obviously a troll move than seeing if they could join the EU. If they had been given a “Yes”, even with many, many conditions they’d probably have jumped at it. The prospect of EU membership was a big enough carrot for the Turkish military to relinquish control of the state to the electorate. NATO and EU membership? That would have been massive. Even EFTA membership would have been enormous. There was a brief period when Russia and its leadership sure looked like they wanted to be a normal country. Could have been a con. If not it was an enormous squandered opportunity.

Both of those were troll moves. They don’t come close to meeting or being on track to meet the requirements for either. Their goal is to trick you, personally, into making comments like you just made.

> bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe

the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).

I think they must give up this notion. If russia turned into what germany is today after the fall of the USSR, they'd be prosperous. It would mean capitulation (to the "west"). Of course, this would mean that the oligarchs do not get their wealth, so there's no impetus for this course of action from anyone. The US is also not keep to have a "marshall plan" like they had with the post WW2 period to rebuild.

So perhaps this war in ukraine is "inevitable".

> the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).

Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.

The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.

But Washington hasn't invaded Ukraine to force it to submit to its domination. In a free world, nations should be free to decide whether they want to be "influenced" by other nations, and to what extent.

The issue is that the kremlin does not believe that any country would "freely" make this choice - it must be some sort of coercion from the west.

But it kind of is. They are basically saying that if we don't deem you as "democratic" according to our standards, we won't allow you to conduct trade.

No, but US invaded countless other countries. One of the points of the article is that a financial war can produce as much casualties as an old fashioned war. And US can both wage financial wars and threat with such a war. So, no, US does not always need to physically invade another country. It can produce some damage by other means.

Many Ukrainians and Russians would disagree vis-a-vis the deadly 2014 coup.

> Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.

Moscow is trying to but failing; and the global response to cut off Russia has been lead by Washington.

> Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.

The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO. Because they lack our equivalent situational awareness around missiles, there is a definite logic to their actions.

> The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.

Excellent point. I've been amazed how completely Russian the East of Ukraine is.

Just like we protect Mexico & Canada, and we have the Monroe Doctrine around Old European Powers playing in the Western Hemisphere, so also, do other great powers have an obligation to protect their turf. It doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We were willing to blockade Cuba to get our Russian missiles. And yet, our Mainstream Media and Political Class is beating the War Drum to further escalate the situation.

Careful, you will get downvoted and flagged if you bring up Realpolitik and international relations on HN. Many idealistic people here get real sensitive about subjects that do not conform to their narrow world view.

> The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO.

Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014.

Similarly, Finland and Sweden had almost zero interest in NATO until Russia did their full invasion of Ukraine this year.

Russia's actions simply make no sense under the theory that Russia is trying to protect their borders from NATO.

It does if you think like an abusive spouse. ‘Stop looking at the neighbor or I’ll beat you silly’ kinda looks like it works and all, until they sneak away anyway.

Technically, Yanukovych was removed 2 days after the Russian invasion started.

>Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014.

Ucraine applied to NATO in 2008.

The concept of sphere of influence is antiquated and barbaric.

...says the nation with 700 overseas military bases and the global reserve currency.

"Competition is wasteful and antiquated, said the monopoly-holder"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com