Hacker News Reader

Comment by droopyEyelids | Hacker News Reader

The interesting and difficult thing to process here is whether this is a provocation without turning it into 'whatabboutism'

John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?"

Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility.

From that perspective, avoiding the issue of morality and legality, it seems like a terrifying step towards war between nuclear-armed powers.

View on HN

What we learned in this "special operation" is that NATO expansion is just a convenient excuse for Russia and that they constantly lie and lie and lie about lying.

The result is that their promises about not attacking someone if "they stay out of NATO" are worthless crap and the only way for smaller European countries to stop them is with force of arms and help of a big military alliance.

Sure, in essence of fairness, US would probably be pissed if China would make Canada allies, but in all fairness, you also need to see that there's no US missiles butchering children in Mexican train stations.

> The result is that their promises about not attacking someone if "they stay out of NATO" are worthless crap and the only way for smaller European countries to stop them is with force of arms and help of a big military alliance.

The sequence of events: 1) Ukraine government states that it is their priority to join NATO 2) Russia amasses troops at the border, states "don't join NATO, there will be consequences" 3) NATO and Ukraine say "you are bluffing, we'll do whatever we want" 4) Russia invades.

Where is the lie?

The lie is that Ukraine wasn't even considered for NATO membership and would be ineligible due to lack of territorial integrity ( Donbas and Crimea). NATO and Ukraine didn't claim Russia was bluffing, Ukraine refused to surrender their autonomy by promising they'll never join NATO. And of course, the real lie is that Russia was going to war no matter what. Leaked conversations of Kadyrov show that Russia was prepared to go in since last year, and the negotiations asking for impossible things was just a distraction. Like the Austrians did with Serbia in WWI.

Please go whatabout something else, people are literally getting slaughtered over the delusions of an ageing autocrat who has lost touch with reality.

> The lie is that Ukraine wasn't even considered for NATO membership and would be ineligible due to lack of territorial integrity ( Donbas and Crimea). NATO and Ukraine didn't claim Russia was bluffing, Ukraine refused to surrender their autonomy by promising they'll never join NATO.

Isn't it a bit contradictory? If Ukraine can't join NATO, then promising it won't is irrelevant. Rather, it was their stated goal to somehow resolve the territorial intergrity question and then join NATO. So ineligibility was just a problem to resolve, not an insurmountable obstacle. And of course increasing military cooperation can be done without joining.

I agree that "calling bluff" is not the best word. Rather, it was politically infeasible for both Ukraine (runs counter to their stated goals) and the West (looks too similar to what Chamberlain did) to enter into an agreement with Russia. So it didn't happen.

> And of course, the real lie is that Russia was going to war no matter what. Leaked conversations of Kadyrov show that Russia was prepared to go in since last year, and the negotiations asking for impossible things was just a distraction. Like the Austrians did with Serbia in WWI.

Even if the leaks are true, how does it prove that the invasion was inevitable? Yes, Russia was preparing for war to make the threat credible and this preparation included making detailed plans. Doesn't mean that Putin couldn't scrap those plans.

> Please go whatabout something else, people are literally getting slaughtered over the delusions of an ageing autocrat who has lost touch with reality.

Your comment was better without this addition.

You forgot a little thing that happened before this, that Russia had already invaded and taken Crimea in 2014. Its not like after that Russia should have been treated like a rational actor and their past actions ignored. What should Ukraine have done, just sat there and watched as Russia ate them piece by piece naively believing that this annexation will be the last as long as we do exactly what they say?

> The sequence of events: 1) Ukraine government states that it is their priority to join NATO

I would say the more complete sequence of events is more like:

-2) Ukrainians are largely against joining NATO according to public polls pre-2014 (with neutrality being also a clause in the Constitution)

-1) Russia annexes Crimea and invades Eastern Ukraine

0) Ukrainians become largely pro-NATO.

...

Did you forget #0?

0) Russia invades Ukraine in 2014: annexes Crimea and funds an insurgence in its 2 eastern regions.

>"What we learned in this "special operation" is that NATO expansion is just a convenient excuse for Russia and that they constantly lie and lie and lie about lying."

I'll skip subject of Russia lying in general. Somehow poisoning of former spies and lying about it does not make me loose my sleep. What Russia does with its own population is disgusting though.

On this particular NATO issue I was that idiot that did not believe that Putin will really start the war. Now looking back I think the warning and the message from Putin was pretty clear and consistent. He went from wanting to join NATO, to bitching about the expansion, to annexing parts of Georgia and Ukraine when NATO had started to entertain the ideas, to starting accumulating large military presence on the border of Ukraine later on, to issuing the ultimatum and giving last warning, to finally starting the war.

>"Sure, in essence of fairness, US would probably be pissed if China would make Canada allies, but in all fairness, you also need to see that there's no US missiles butchering children in Mexican train stations."

Well. Mexico does not exactly let Russia to deploy their missiles. I am not sure what will happen if they would start the process. I think they will be given "offer they will not be able to refuse".

If we skip the Mexico and start count since say WWII you won't have much difficulties finding cohorts of children, women and civilians in general killed, maimed, starved, displaced etc. etc. All for way less reason than deploying missiles near the US. Of course it was all with good intentions and for a common benefit of humanity /s

Somehow poisoning of former spies and lying about it does not make me loose my sleep.

What about shooting civilian airliners out of the sky and lying about it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-17#Russian_media_coverage

If this is what really happened then yes they should be punished. No questions. But it was most likely a mistake anyways. It happens often enough. Ukraine shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812. It then tried to deny etc. etc. The US shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and had also tried to cover it up and after being cornered had never apologized.

The US admitted that they shot down Iran Air Flight 655 within hours and issued an apology.

Russia still denies Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 years later.

This is a bad comparison.

There was settlement. No official apology. The US "expressed regret" you can read about it on Wikipedia. The USS Vincente shot down civilian aircraft that was transmitting whatever signal it was required to be recognized as civilian. Yes it was an accident. They did not have it as their mission to down passenger airliner.

You have the timeline wrong. Russia had decided to invade Ukraine long before they had their impossible ultimatum ( for NATO and Ukraine to promise Ukraine will never join) rejected.

The Russian government lies about everything. They lied about Crimea, Donbas, MH17 and a ton of other things. They have assasinated dissidents, journalists alongside former spies. Anything coming out of Moscow should be treated as flat out wrong, or at most indicative of what they want to do ( they're claiming Ukraine has chemical weapons? They're probably going to use chemical weapons on Ukrainian civilians).

>"The Russian government lies about everything."

You do not need to convince me. I know it.

As for journalists I've already said that Russia stinks when it comes to treatment of its own populace.

> The Russian government lies about everything. They lied about Crimea, Donbas, MH17 and a ton of other things.

They even deny invading Ukraine. We can't really discuss anything with them when they're living in a parallel reality.

> Somehow poisoning of former spies and lying about it does not make me loose my sleep.

Russia used chemical weapons in a NATO country which harmed 3 and killed one (innocent UK civilian). The UK would have had cause for war. It should have at least responded in kind and assassinated Russians.

>"The UK would have had cause for war."

Sure. For some inexplicable reason they've decided to act in a rational matter and not to start WWIII.

>"It should have at least responded in kind and assassinated Russians."

Yep. And they did not. Probably to their credit they do not go down to the same level and do not for example behead people like their other enemy does.

Interestingly the UK does have a strange case of their own spy committing "suicide" and stuffing themselves in a duffel bag.

>John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?"

Most likely by reflecting on what went so horribly wrong in the relationship with Canada that a formerly closest ally of them all has decided to turn to a different power from across the ocean for help. Then, by attempting to fix said relationship without starting a futile and criminal war of aggression that will cement multi-generational hatred of all things American north of the border.

>Then, by attempting to fix said relationship without starting a futile and criminal war of aggression that will cement multi-generational hatred of all things American north of the border.

He has no interest in fixing any relationships. This is a war of genocide. Things are only getting started, and the sooner the world realizes we are already at war, the better.

Yes, I'm aware. Here we are discussing the absurd parallels that some people are attempting to draw with North America, and a hypothetical Canada that has turned to China. As a Ukrainian Canadian, I am fully aware of the absurdity of this scenario and of the fact that Ukrainians are being denied their right to exist.

>"...and of the fact that Ukrainians are being denied their right to exist."

This is what is actually happening. It is a crime and I wish Putin, his close circle and other directly responsible would end their days rotting in jail.

As for Canada turning into China and hosting their nukes. Of course this will never happen and is absurd. But in pure hypothetical world I am pretty sure the situation like this will turn into invasion if all negotiations fail. As a mini example see what happened when Noriega had started switching his allegiances from the US to a Soviet block.

>As a mini example see what happened when Noriega had started switching his allegiances from the US to a Soviet block.

Hm... Not quite. Noriega began switching allegiances to the Soviets well after the relationship with the US became hostile, and well after the US made it clear they want him gone, due to Iran-Contra and other reasons. He was also a dictator who lost an election by a factor of 3 to 1 a few months before the invasion. Bush was still hesitant to invade until a group of unarmed off-duty US soldiers was attacked, one of them killed and others abused in custody. Not defending the idea of propping up dictators or invading countries to remove them, just that this is not a good example of the point you're trying to make.

Wasnt Canada viewed as potential enemy for a long time after Independence War? Both Canada and US had plans for invading each other IIRC, with the Canadian forces hoping they would hold on long enough for UK to arrive and help. Though at that time UK was already seeing US more as a partner.

That was long ago in a different world.

Other than the San Juan islands, there are no territorial disputes between the countries. The Canadian military is utterly dwarfed by the USA's, so any aggression on their part will likely result in a total loss. And if the USA really wanted Canadian territory, they could probably ask for it and be granted some in a popular vote (at least in the south western provinces).

Even if China and Canada become besties, China still can't do anything militarily. Canada is still gigantic; protecting the east of the country is impossible. And it would be straight forward for the USA to deny access to the Atlantic.

Yeah, the US government would not at all like the idea of China stationing troops or missiles in Canada, but Canada would see the stupidity of allowing such a move long before it came to pass. And if they didn't, the USA has diplomatic options (mainly, "hey, BC/Alberta/Sas, u wanna b american? :cowboy:"). Getting one to come to the red white and blue side effectively divides the country in half.

If you're going that far back you might as well bring up the Revolutionary War and the war of 1812 and ask why the US isn't still at odds with the UK.

Russia had no issue deploying such weaponry on NATO's doorstep (Kaliningrad teaming with weaponry, including short-range ballistic missiles that Russia claimed to no longer hold, long-range AA missiles, constantly flying bombers into NATO airspace, etc.).

So for the analogy of Canada-China alliance, you'd need, hmm, East China Sea to be already teaming with US or NATO weaponry. Not just an aircraft carrier here and there, but sizeable army ready to attack. (clearly doesn't work so very well with a maritime border, but that's where China's fragile bits are. US troops in Kyrgyzstan clearly stir far less emotions. Indeed Americans were in Afghanistan which borders China and they didn't seem to mind).

Mearsheimer and the entire school of "neo realists" have absolutely zero credibility. It's really a shame that his youtube videos started to spread so much on youtube following Russian invasion given the amount of bullshit he's spreading.

> 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility

That's not true in any meaningful way. It's a massive process to convert a silo made for anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) into one for ICMBs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) or other type of offensive missiles. It's not an easy or fast thing to do and would definitely be visible from the outside.

I don't know who this Mearsheimer is, but your comment is essentially ad hominem because you haven't addressed the point. If it helps you, the same thing has been said by others e.g. Chomsky.

Could South Africa join NATO? Thailand? Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.

Do Chomsky has much credibility on the topic of Finland, Russia, NATO and Ukraine? Mearsheimer was litigated and relitigated on HN lately a lot.

OP used Mearsheimer as argument from authority. It is ok to respond to it with "nah, that man does not have authority".

> Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.

"In 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian president Boris Yeltsin sent a letter to NATO, suggesting that Russia's long-term aim was to join NATO."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations#....

A lot has happened since then.

> Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.

https://euobserver.com/news/27890

“‘Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power’, the Russian ambassador stressed."

That was their position once NATO had expanded eastward.

Here's an extract from a NATO report[0] in 2000. The whole chapter is genuinely worth a read:

> Nevertheless, in August 1994, Boris Yeltsin again said to the reporters, that Russia could join NATO in due course. Then, during 6-7 years, this question was not raised by the Russian political elite and the mass media. The main reason for that was NATO’s expansion to the East...

Russia actually has a long history of wanting to join [1]

[0] https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/98-00/davydov.pdf

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantray...

Here's your introduction to Mearsheimer in his own words then: https://youtu.be/hH3s7MRJkAI?t=3653

"You talked about Putin targeting civilians, or the Russians targeting civilians. It’s obviously very hard to tell what’s exactly happened here."

This was just four days ago, in a closing rebuttal to another speaker, during a panel hosted by Katrina vanden Heuvel - yeah I'm thinking the civilians shot in the head with hands tied behind their backs show he is no real authority: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/11/world/europe/...

>‘They shot my son. I was next to him. It would be better if it had been me.’

>Russian soldiers set up in this school. A sniper in a high-rise fired at anybody who moved. Other soldiers tortured, raped and executed civilians in basements or backyards.

>A mother killed by a sniper while walking with her family to fetch a thermos of tea. A woman held as a sex slave, naked except for a fur coat and locked in a potato cellar before being executed. Two sisters dead in their home, their bodies left slumped on the floor for weeks.

> Could South Africa join NATO? Thailand?

South Africa or Thailand are not in the area covered by the treaty so no. Hell even an attack in Hawaii would be outside the treaty according the the US department of defense.

This is also why Australia and New Zealand are not part of NATO.

> Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.

Except they were not. They were told to apply like any other nation and they did and were in the program but their constant threatening (and actual use) of force against their various neighbor countries slowed and eventually stopped the process with a final severing of official relationships due to the invasion of Crimea in 2014. Again the treaty is quite clear in this as a requirement to join nato.

> Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility.

Before Russia invaded Ukraine, there was no NATO military presence in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Norway, the only defensive missile base was in Romania, with another under construction in Poland and both Finnland and Sweden already extensively train and cooperate with NATO troops. Troop deployments were token-sized in the order of low five digits in total. (1) All troop presence in the Baltic states is at the explicit request of those states - it ensures that if any of those states is invaded, other NATO members are immediately directly involved: Attacking any of those states means attacking US, British, French, German soldiers. Unsurprisingly, countries on the eastern border have requested and received more troop deployments, for example German air defense batteries have moved to Slovakia as part of a new NATO battle group.

(1)Pre-Invasion Situation, early February https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europe/nato-troops-easter...

Why reach for what-if scenario. Finland and Sweden already have an example of a country that did not join NATO and see the consequences of it.

They also have an example of...themselves - that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor

Ukraine was bellicose by objecting to Russia’s multiple invasions of its territories?

I think you forgot to add 'so far...' that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor so far.

and either way, there is nothing at all that Ukraine did that justifies the murder and rape of thousands of civilians including children. Russia has forfeit their place on the stage to be treated as a rational actor. At this point its like saying all you need to do is not purchase a firearm to provoke your serial killer neighbor.

Like how invaded Finland, stole a bunch of land, and then interfered with Finland's internal politics so much they came up with the term "Finlandization" for it?

Not a great example dude. Everyone eventually hits the "Poland" moment, where you can't keep appeasing a dictator.

From Russia's perspective, almost everything is a provocation and a threat. Not rationally, but because Russia's official viewpoint is about as irrational as it gets. There isn't anything to appease them with, because they've chosen to ignore the facts.

And from an outside perspective it's not hard to see why two states, one with a border to Russia, would join a military alliance after Russia invaded a sovereign neighbor.

> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?"

I think we have an clear example of how this _could_ play out. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962

It's completely stupid to compare the Cuban Missile Crisis with NATO expansion. You need to completely ignore history to do that. And the only motivation would be to justify the motives of a dictator, mass murder and war criminal....

My reply is based on the sentence which I quoted in my original comment. It was about the U.S and how it would respond to missiles near its borders. Please don't take my comment out of context

The USSR's alliance with Cuba is a good analogy. The US viewed deploying nuclear weapons to Cuba as provocation, but did nothing to prevent the alliance itself, which continued for decades after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Merely joining a defensive alliance is not provocation.

You know what seems like a terrifying step towards nuclear warfare? Removing one countries nuclear weapons by promising not to invade, then invading. What a boon for nuclear proliferation.

Well, we had this happen in the 1960s with the Cuban missile crisis. No need for a thought experiment.

But more broadly: We have excellent relations with Canada. If we step back, what would we be doing to Canada that would make them think "Holy crap, we need to join a defensive alliance with China to prevent a possible US attack!"?

Is the US entitled to treat its neighbors so poorly they seek defensive alliances elsewhere?

> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?"

Definitely not by invading Canada.

I've asked experts repeatedly and have yet to hear back one example of where the Mearsheimer realism school predicted any international relations occurrence correctly in the past 30 years. It seems to have no predictive power as a theory. I think it only gets the traction it does for it's catchy misleading name.

There is nothing difficult about it. It is not provocation, full stop. For that matter, Russia claimed Ukrainians talking about Russia atrocities are provocation too and that was nonsense too.

-------------------

> Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility.

Sure. And Russia has army, millitary bases, does troop exercises and have both defensive and offensive missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility.

> From that perspective, avoiding the issue of morality and legality, it seems like a terrifying step towards war between nuclear-armed powers.

No, it is actual step towards safer world. Finland does not have to wait till Russia tries to invade them.

> The interesting and difficult thing to process here is whether this is a provocation without turning it into 'whatabboutism'

I don't know what you mean with whataboutism in this context, but traditionally non-allied European countries considering their defensive options when Russia has invaded a sovereign nation is certainly not a provocation.

> Joining NATO means millitary bases

Not automatically. Not all NATO member countries have e.g. American military bases [1]. The Baltic countries have a small NATO military presence, but not a large enough one that it could pose any offensive threat towards Russia.

It's entirely possible for a NATO member country to say "no thanks" to foreign military bases. That might even be likely at least in case of Finland which has maintained its own credible defensive capability.

If Sweden or Finland consider joining NATO, it's because they'd like to have someone's back in case of a crisis, not because they'd want to host someone else's offensive capability.

> troop exercises

All military forces conduct exercises.

> and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility

Again, that's up to the individual member countries. Also, I'm not an expert on missile tech, but I don't think e.g. anti-air missiles can be easily turned into cruise missiles or other kinds of offensive weapons.

Russia would likely consider Sweden or Finland joining NATO as a provocation. But it's not really possible in good faith to believe it would actually be one.

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

> John Mearsheimer

is a well known supporter of Russia and China and of their whole imperial way of thinking.

Unless you want wherever you live to look more like China or Russia do, I would recommend not listening to him, and definitely not spreading his disgusting ideas.

I do not get this. Why you need to create unreal analogies just to state some point?

Especially now, when non-NATO neighbour of Russia was attacked by Russia?

What if USA invaded Mexico and Canada became close allies with China? I do not know this is hardly going to happen like ever.

Between my country and Russia is one country: Ukraine. If Ukraine was in NATO there would be peace today. I'm so glad that my country is in NATO. And what you are trying to say seems to me like you do not consider us as sovereign nation.

Side note: it is not "whatabboutism" more appropriate term is "Putinversteher"

Following the Kremlin's logic, the advent of hypersonic missiles and the neoconservative bent of US/EU politics, it is seemingly inevitable that war is here.

> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?"

Stupid analogy from a stupid man. For this analogy to have any merit, the US would have to be a dictatoriship that has committed genocide against Canadians, is currently committing in occupied territories, and has declared destruction of Canada and Canadian nation as its goal. But the US is not an existential threat to Canada, hence no need for an alliance with China.

The alternative is the doormat strategy that failed before. Putin will not stop until he is stopped. There is no way to do that without incurring the risks so the logical choice is to not let him take strategic positions before incurring the risks.

The amount of ad-hominems in replies to your comment is simply staggering.

Good points! It makes me wonder if we never learned anything from the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com