Comment by yucky | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yucky | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sure, there was a coup in which a regime favorable to their biggest enemy was installed, and then the Constitution was changed to put NATO back on the menu, which if we're honest about it NATO = US Military (again, their biggest enemy). And then we expect Russia to trust the legitimacy of the new US-backed regime who just overthrew the government and made moves to bring the US/NATO to their doorstep, all because they later held "elections"?

If there were a coup here in the US, let's say the January 6th brigade succeeded, then they changed the US Constitution, would we then immediately start trusting the next set of elections? Or would we rightfully see that as fruit from a poison tree? That's Mearsheimer's point, you don't have to agree with Putin's response to accept that it was the obvious and inevitable response from our actions meddling in Ukraine.

Try this analogy - If I walk up to Mike Tyson at a bar and start talking shit to him, spitting on the ground, taunting him and challenging him should I not expect him to punch me in the face? Wouldn't most people acknowledge that I had it coming, even if it was unnecessary and disproportionate to my actions? Does pointing it out mean I'm tacitly approving of his actions, or am I just being logical and saying if you mess with a bull you will get the horns?

Are you saying that Russia is in Ukraine to defend Ukrainian democracy? Because that sounds like pretty novel theory, considering Russia itself is pretty oppressive state. And considering how Russian puppet states (Belarus, Chechenia) behave.

It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence. Yanukovych himself cited pressure from Russia for the decision to not join EU. It was Russian pressure that made Ukrainian president to throw away efforts to join EU - and Russia did not cared about legitimacy at all when pressuring him.

> It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence

Yep. It's a world view in which everyone has agency except the Ukrainian people. Which isn't a description of reality at all, in 2014 or in the last month. Ukraine should be able choose it's own path, this "can't poke the bear" nonsense suggests that only other powers get to choose.

it's a position that the parent poster is very eager to push. Repetitively.

The argument isn't that they can't poke the bear. The argument is that if you poke a bear, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes after you. And expecting the rest of the world to wonder why the bear would respond to a poke, is silly. Bears do what bears do.

> The argument isn't that they can't poke the bear. The argument is that if you poke a bear, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes after you.

Russia has poked the Ukrainian bear, and now the bear is coming after Russia. Bears do what bears do.

If an argument works, it works both ways. Anything else is propagandistic.

Sure, after all Ukraine has a right to defend itself. But we need to stop pretending nobody knows why Russia invaded. We knew exactly what they would do, so the question is...why did we think this was a good idea?

That seems to be the question going largely unanswered.

The answer is simple: imperialism. Moscow cannot deal with the fact that Ukraine does not want to be vassal state of a dying has been empire

>The answer is simple: imperialism.

Who is being imperial though? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hi...

> But we need to stop pretending nobody knows why Russia invaded.

No, that's not accurate. There doesn't seem to be any "nobody knows" sentiment, the other responses from cuteboy19 and watwut cover it well. There is no need to throw doubt here.

But you're right, in that the surprise is that Russia thought that it would be a good idea.

Yeah, we do. Nato expansion is NOT the reason.

> why did we think this was a good idea?

I thought it is good idea to join NATO, because then NATO has to help you defend if/when Russia gets expansive again. Or someone else, but realistically it is Russia who is most likely to do it.

> Nato expansion is NOT the reason.

Ahem - https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-...

This has been widely known for 25 years that it would lead to war. This is also why the Russian border states not threatening to join NATO are not under attack. Only Ukraine.

Look at this map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hi... and ask yourself why wouldn't Russia feel this as an evergrowing encroachment by their enemies. Keeping in mind that NATO = US Military.

The contra argument is that bear can and will come at you whether you poke it or not. I fact, you can be hanging out in forrest, minding own business, actively avoiding bear and he/she will come at you to attack you.

Bears do what bears do. No reason to make up feel good rationales about how attacked people actually deserves it nor how the bear attack was actually caused by a Wolf over the next hill.

NATO = US Military

I'm amazed that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around why Russia might see it as a threat.

Would the US see it as a threat if the Chinese military moved weapons, people and military training into Mexico? Or if the Soviets had tried the same with Cuba during the Cold War?

I think some people just see us as the good guys because of course we are. But everyone tends to see themselves as the good guys...

>around why Russia might see it as a threat.

except that russia already has NATO neigbours.

Let us apply this logic to other countries. Maybe Poland or Lithuania are threatened but a Russian presence in Kaliningrad. So I guess maybe they too should stage a special operation to rid the area of Putin's Neo fascists?

The point is that this kind of thinking only considers Russia as an active agent, and everyone else is just some sort of NPC. It's extremely convenient that it aligns with Putin's propaganda of course

No, it speaks to what Mearsheaimer is saying which is essentially - don't be surprised if you threaten Mike Tyson and he punches you in the face. And if some 3rd party (ie the US) talked you into threatening Mike Tyson, understand that they also knew you were going to get punched in the face. Understanding that doesn't mean you support Mike Tyson, it just means you know how to understand consequences of messing with someone bigger and stronger than you.

The problem with imperialists is that they consider the very thought of independence to be an attack.

Mearsheaimer would have to show that absent NATO expansion, Moscow would let Ukraine live in peace.

There was no risk of Ukraine joining NATO anytime soon.

Seems you're forgetting the timeline. Immediately after the 2014 coup the new US-approved government changed the Constitution to the 2004 version which allowed for a vote to join NATO[1]. Then Russia invaded Crimea as a result, since a country not in control of its borders would not be eligible to join NATO. Then in December 2014 Ukraine voted to abandon neutrality and begin the process of getting into NATO anyway.[2]

Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, but now that Biden is back on top the clock has started ticking again. So yes, Ukraine was very much on its way into NATO, but they needed to either officially cede Crimea and Donbass to Russia, or expel Russia to be eligible. So something had to give.

[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html

[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com