Hacker News Reader

Comment by fabian2k | Hacker News Reader

If you have a neighbour that invades sovereign countries, it makes sense to seek strong allies. This is a direct result of Russia invading Ukraine, it doesn't matter how much Russia complains now.

View on HN

This whole thing has made me reevaluate the way the Cuban Missile Crisis is portrayed in the U.S. It's usually held up as an example of great presidential leadership, with almost no push back.

But if you look at the history it's fascinating. The U.S. launched an invasion to try to overthrow the Cuban government during the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. Then it moved nuclear missiles up to the USSR's border in Turkey (the U.S. was also considering nuclear first strikes against the USSR around this time[1]). Then Cuba asked for the USSR to station nuclear missiles to deter an invasion, the USSR complied, which triggered the crisis. The world was brought to the brink of nuclear war as the U.S. blockaded the country and prepared for an invasion if its demands weren't met.

This isn't to defend the current invasion, just to see how these kinds of actions can be celebrated in a country to the extent that most of the citizens don't even have the slightest idea that they could be anything but a heroic defense of homeland. Sometimes it's only when a mirror is held up to us that we're really able to look at things from another angle.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-fi...

> It's usually held up as an example of great presidential leadership, with almost no push back.

Where did you get this impression? In my US public school we learned all about the Bay of Pigs. If anything, my takeaway was that Kruschev saved us all by publicly backing down to his own political detriment, whereas Kennedy was only willing to make his concessions in secret.

Is that how the Cuban missile crisis is taught in the US? It certainly is different than what I learned in school ( ex-communist country). It was presented with much more nuance, starting with the backstory that the US had missiles in Turkey and Italy, so them blowing off due to missiles in Cuba was highly hypocritical.

It was covered in my school in depth in the US. The backstory was covered.

Same. The resolution of missile crisis itself is lauded as a policy victory only in contrast to and a result of presidential lessons learned in the disastrous bay of pigs invasion.

It's a pretty common view of what happened (personally, my history classes never reached the Cold War, so I can't say how it's taught). This video[1], which aims to debunk the common interpretation, gives a decent overview at the beginning of how people usually view the event (I'm not a big fan of the channel in general, just using it as an example of how the event often gets viewed).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy4THHeRJX8

Yeah what often is missed is that as part of agreement the missiles from Turkey were removed, effectively increasing US security and lowering European one. That's why to me it is being quite concerning the fact that in the current scenario the interests of US establishment are matched by the idea of European interests while it is not like that and can't never be, if anything because you can't really get around geography and if we get to the point where each ones has nuclear warheads pointed at each other, despite the way it could look, it would be very bad, so I hope that Zelensky, Johnson and Biden get isolated by Europeans, and countries like Italy (I hope) chose to get out of NATO

> effectively increasing US security and lowering European one

Not really, there were still missiles in Italy and maybe Germany? It made little real difference to European security.

> Zelensky, Johnson and Biden get isolated by Europeans, and countries like Italy (I hope) chose to get out of NATO

Russia invading Ukraine, showing that European peace and security aren't as guaranteed and certain as most people thought is only bringing NATO and more specifically European NATO members together. Italy isn't on the frontlines, but is also impacted by Putin's idiocy. Why would it abandon one of it's two security guarantees (EU being the other one) now? Before the invasion, EU countries moving to a NATO independent military cooperation and defense pact would have made great sense ( and certain EU leaders were pushing for it), but now? No way.

Those were also removed as part of the deal with soviets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nuclear_weapons_progra...

Sweden doesn't neighbour with Russia. Only Finland and Norway!

They both border the Baltic Sea. Russian fighters frequently violate Swedish air space. They're close enough to matter.

This stuff happens constantly.

https://fortune.com/2022/04/30/sweden-says-russian-plane-vio...

>Only Finland and Norway!

There is bridge/tunnel to Denmark too. I guess you could call it land connection.

I don't share a border with everyone whom I consider a neighbor, being close enough is good enough for me.

The relation between Finland and Sweden is such that if Finland would be invaded Sweden would send troops to help. The idea that Finland, Norway and Denmark could be invaded again like in ww2 and Sweden just standing neutral has both ideologically and practically been abandoned.

Not a direct neighbour, but certainly close enough to be called one anyway.

Check the definition of 'neighbour' in the dictionary.

Nordstream passes Swedish economic zone, for one.

Which is probably the secret sauce for their "neutrality" during WWII. It's easier to "not choose sides" when Finland is slowing down the Soviets in the east, and Norway/Denmark slowing down the Nazis in the west and south.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/WWII_in_...

Also it was really easy for Sweden to defund their military, when they have Finland protecting the east :)

unless said neighbor is the current hegemonic nation, in which case you better make sure you buy/sell oil in dollars and that your national bank is independent from your government (you know, just to be safe).

i.e. if the USA invades sovereign nations then it makes sense to be in good terms with them.

Russia demanded a neutral (not NATO-affiliated) Ukraine as one of their peace conditions.

Such a demand is pretty clearly impossible to accept as a peace condition as it would just expose Ukraine to more Russian coercion in the future. Russia also demanded a categorical end to NATO expansion including in Sweden and Finland.

Says who? Reports on the peace deal were that Ukraine had agreed to this point. Also “We might get invaded/bombed in the future” is a strictly better outcome than “we are being bombed right now”

Depends on what perspectives you have. Before Germany took Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia had chance to defend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortificat...

So instead of affirming your sovereignity and your ties to the West, you would cut your ties? I think it has proven useful to have those ties when the invasion is on. If it doesn't come to an invasion, Russia kills you slowly with a strong embrace.

Being neutral means having ties with everyone, not just the West. Austria is a good example for this, we decided to be neutral and were between East Bloc and West during the cold war and all related tensions, yet never worried due to strict neutrality and good relations with both sides.

Finland and Sweden did the same, until now. Easy for Austria to keep it that way now that they are a member of EU and completely surrounded by NATO countries.

And in Ukraine we see that this strategy does not work when your neighbor is murderous.

Yeah, it's a bit strange to claim this. NATO has never taken membership from a country actively involved in conflict and Ukraine had been left out of NATO specifically to not inflame Russia.

Putin is obsessed with reunification and anything that doesn't give him that, he isn't interested in. He'd roll tanks right up to the Berlin wall if he thought he could.

Who the fuck cares what Russia demands. Do you ask your neighbor to approve your friend list ?

Russia thought it could force the issue, and has had its ass handed back to them .

> Do you ask your neighbor to approve your friend list?

Well, if my neighbor had nukes pointed at my house, I might at least care what they thought.

Reasoning with someone threatening your complete destruction seems like a shaky foundation for productive negotiation.

Sure, but not negotiating with someone threatening your complete destruction seems like an even worse option. You can't really ignore them.

And your friends have nukes pointed at the neighbors house - perhaps the neighbour wants to mind his words lest his house be turned in a glassed skate park.

So your friend is willing to risk planetary destruction over a friends list dispute with your neighbor? I'd think thrice before relying on them when such stakes are on the table.

Well, the neighbour that doesn't like my friends broke into my house repeatedly, stole my last food a couple of times, kidnapped several household members, raped my wife and my kid; and now threatens to burn the whole city down if I don't give up my new friends that protect my house.

So yes, lets' burn the city down, why should I live in hell and fear - it's better that no one lives, including the asshole neighbour.

So what? All that is nothing compared to the literal destruction of this planet. Better to let them walk all over you than risk destroying the world everybody lives in. I seriously doubt there is a single person in america willing to accept even the possibility of being utterly annihilated by nuclear fire over some foreign european nation. War against Vietnam or Iraq is one thing, war against Russia is on a completely different category.

> Better to let them walk all over you than risk destroying the world everybody lives in

It's very easy to ask others to be meek, why don't you offer yourself to Russians to walk them over you? I mean, Russia would be very happy to have Alaska, perhaps you should offer it to them so they don't destroy the world.

> ... doubt there is a single person in america willing to accept ...

Thankfully there are several european nations with independent nuclear capability willing to stand up for Ukraine.

> why don't you offer yourself to Russians to walk them over you? I mean, Russia would be very happy to have Alaska

I'm brazilian. We don't have nuclear weapons. We barely even have a space program. If USA wanted to take the Amazon, I doubt there's anything we could do about it and I seriously doubt anyone else would intervene in our favor.

> Thankfully there are several european nations with independent nuclear capability willing to stand up for Ukraine.

Yeah. So are they really going to risk getting nuked out of existence over Ukraine? I suppose we'll find out.

Having lived under Russian oppression during Soviet times, I can tell you that certainly I would prefer nuclear annihilation to being under the russian boot again. And I have small kids. Perhaps especially because I have small kids.

The question becomes what sort of world do we want for our children: one where nuclear-armed nation-states simply take what they want (and remember, it’s not just Russia and the U.S. who have nuclear weapons) because it’s better to appease them?

The mere existence of nuclear weapons means that our future is in jeopardy. That bell can’t be unrung. But it doesn’t mean we have to allow the fear of that hypothetical future to prevent us from standing up to genocide.

By invading Ukraine. LOL.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com