Hacker News Reader

Comment by thriftwy | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure that transition of power is a 'taboo': Yekaterina Shulman have been discussing this topic for a few years for a wide popular audience. It's just that there was never any satisfactory answer to that one.

With regards to dictators of Spain, Portugal and Greece. These countries could get rid of autocrats and fall back to Europe's safety net. But in case of Russia it is not an option, as nobody wants Russia and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia. There's nowhere that Russia could 'return' to.

View on HN

> especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia

The EU was build to avoid another World War were Germany/UK/France start fighting. Once all European countries are tied economically for any of them to benefit of starting a war is very difficult.

And, of course, there is also the idea that a bigger economic area will create more opportunities and make Europe more competitive.

If anything projects like Nordstream prove that countries inside the EU were willing to increase their ties with Russia. If Russia had not initiated another war, Crimea was given a pass, there will be closer ties.

Russia has nobody else to blame from breaking ties with Europe but themselves.

Russia did not see any important integration with Europe countries even before 2014. Yes there were hydrocarbon pipelines but that's that. Amenities such as visa waiver travel, student exchange programmes, cultural exchange and economic integration were practically nonexistent.

It does sound strange if you claim to want to avoid a new war in Europe but systemically exclude the largest country in Europe from that equation. Meanwhile trying to integrate their direct neighbours into your sphere of influence.

Did Russia ever attempt to apply to join the EU?

The real countries in reduce war equation were Germany and France, not Russia.

Actually, during the Medvedev presidency, there were serious efforts to negotiate visa-free travel and reduced tariffs (which is the essence of what everybody wants, not full integration). If these things were granted, the revolution / civil war in Ukraine, primarily motivated by one part of the country mostly trading with Russia and the other with the EU, probably wouldn't have happened.

That doesn't account for how eastern Ukraine has a much larger percent of ethnic Russians than western, nor Russia's invasions andntakeovers of other former Soviet territories.

Putin made some comments in the early 2000's to the effect that Russia sees itself as part of the European culture and might like to be part of the EU, but it wants its own viewpoint on things to be respected. I suspect the latter is a crucial caveat. Presumably he'd never be okay with implementing a liberal democracy to EU standards or signing up to EU defence policy.

On the other side, I suspect that none of the existing EU members would be happy with having a new one that's so much larger in population than any of the others that it'd gain effectively a veto power over everything, to say nothing of the domestic political issues with potential east-to-west migration.

EU voting power for issues that matter is state based in the European Commission, not population based.

I think that's oversimplified. The European Commission is the executive, not a legislative body. The EU has effectively a bicameral legislature formed by the Parliament and the Council. The Parliament has direct elections with seats apportioned to member states roughly corresponding to population. The Council represents member states directly, but they only sometimes have equal weight, because many things use qualified-majority voting (QMV) where a majority of states and represented population is required. Most things either need to pass through both of these legislatures, or if they're exclusive to the Council, are covered by QMV. The number of things covered by QMV has only grown with time and lots of these would be considered important. There are of course still some matters that require unanimity among states though.

Putin's view on Russia in the EU was essentially that he never wanted Russia to be on the same level as the member states. He wanted Russia to be at the same level as the EU as a whole if not greater. It stems from a combination of nostalgia for the Soviet Union and a sense of Elitism endemic in parts of the culture.

This is absurd notion since the question of accepting Russia into the EU was never raised even remotely, therefore we have no idea what specific conditions will be negotiated by the parties in this nonexistent scenario. I don't really think Russia could be included in the EU in any form.

It could, however, by 2013 have massive students exchange, Schengen visa waiver programme for short visits, cultural exchange, etc. None of that happened. EU just wanted oil & gas and unilaterally accept some of the brighter students into their universities, ideally having them pay for that privilege.

EU also wanted to "euroassociate" our neighbour countries, where they will get no guarantees or support of being EU member, but would open their markets to the EU and half-shut their markets, and borders, towards Russia. That was a directly hostile move towards Russia, who was completely shut off these arrangements.

EU and USA were also openly nagging Ukraine to boot Russian naval base from Crimea. A directly hostile move which backfired quickly and led to the whole war thing in the end.

> sphere of influence

That phrase is a relic of a long ago era. The EU would be more effective if it had more influence on its member states, but it reached a level where it does appear to dramatically reduce the chance of war, but from there, further integration has asymptoted.

I can’t say that colonialism is completely obsolete but influence has become so diffuse and information spread so widespread that even an analysis from that stance is no longer useful.

> Russia has nobody else to blame from breaking ties with Europe but themselves.

There are always two sides to every story, and it’s not that hard to find credible western foreign policy experts who are more than willing to point out that decisions by the west going back to the fall of the Soviet Union played a big role in where we are today[0]. Geopolitics, just like everything else, has nuance.

0: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4

> especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia

I think you have the EU and NATO confused. The two overlap a lot but they are far from coextensional.

The EU is primarily a trade bloc, and it is in natural competition with the Eurasian Economic Union: countries can have tariff-free trade with either one bloc or the other, but not both at the same time. The current scramble over Ukraine is primarily motivated by the EU and the EAEU economically benefiting from the country being in their respective trade zone.

The EU is in origin and execution a political entity in which trade is one of its tools. The value of adding, say, Romania to the EU was hardly economic, but important for the anti-war mission. The integration of Turkey would be economically quite significant and valuable, but (sadly) lacks impetus on the political side. It is a NATO member.

Likewise, Ukraine’s prewar economy was so small (midway between Hungary and Slovakia) that it would have been economically irrelevant to the EU but, as we have seen, important in the anti war basis.

The economic size of the Eurasian Economic Union is quite small and I doubt it plays into the planning of anyone but its members and some of its immediate neighbors.

I am from a small country with an economy roughly the size of Russia’s (Australia) and it’s clear that the EU has little interest, positive or negative with trade with Australia. Conversely I have literally never seen mention of the Eurasian version in an Australian newspaper.

The elephant in the room is that if you invite everybody in your anti-war club, but one country, that remaining country will get really nervous and you might as well get a war (what we are seeing).

If the situation is that you can't invite everybody in, then the plan is defective from the start.

The EU is quite liberal in accepting countries to the anti-war club, but they need to adhere to some standards regarding human rights, trade, and democracy.

If you crash your own party with some people that don't fit in, you will cause the guests you wanted to have to leave.

Any countries not in the EU don't want to be in the EU. And that's fine.

And looking at what the EU does you don't have to be scared if you don't join. It's a defensive union first and foremost.

Switzerland isn't scared about the EU invading despite largely uncontrolled borders.

Latvia and Estonia are allowed to have Nazi parades and repress Russian speaking population i.e. non-citizens, language police and criminal sentences for pro-Russian activists. EU looks some other way all the time. See for example https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/outrage-as-s... or https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2019-03-16/ty-arti...

This is not how human rights and democracy should look like.

The US has Confederacy parades, and also has criminal sentences for being an unregisteres agent of a foreign power.

> The US has Confederacy parades, and also has criminal sentences for being an unregisteres agent of a foreign power.

No wonder the US did everything to save the nazi collaborator responsible for the massacre of ~100k Poles in Eastern Galicia from a post-war tribunal justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Lebed#Post-war_activiti...

Would the EU be on good terms with Germany if a Nazi party member became the current dictator?

That's basically the situation in Russia with Putin after the USSR.

NATO discussed bringing Russia in during the 1990s, and Russia was invited and did join some NATO regular meetings until relatively recently, but wasn't that interested in joining.

I'm not faulting Russia for their position, just pointing out the thing you are claiming should have happened did indeed happen.

But I will point out that Australia is as rich as Russia yet has not started any wars (except against its own aboriginal population, true of Russia as well) so there is no anti-Australia alliance. Two of the three largest war-mongers in Europe (Germany, France, and until recently UK) have been restrained in a web of agreements and alliances, not seeing them as a threat but as a reassurance. If Russia feels encircled, it should start by looking in the mirror.

The Russians didn't want to play 2nd fiddle to the US, and had significant domestic arms production -- a non-trivial amount of industry and GDP -- to look after.

STANAG and interoperability standards meant that the Russian gear would have to change, and the Russian weren't willing to give up the control of their national policy, or put their industry at risk.

It was a non-starter for a lot of reasons.

Not really?

I mean, I haven't seen any rumor of war between the EU and Switzerland, or Turkey, or the United Kingdom, or really any other of its neighbors other than Russia.

Have you heard of North Cyprus? Also, North Ireland.

That seems to be deviating quite a lot from the concept of the existence of EU causing wars, as you suggested in the message I answered. By a few decades for North Cyprus (or 100+ years, depending from your definition of that conflict) a few centuries in the case of North Ireland.

Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

EU did not cause the war in Ukraine. Soviets did, by appending Donetsk Krivorozhye Republic to Ukraine SSR.

But, the fact is that expansion of EU and EU influence in Ukraine were conductive of that war instead of being a deterrent.

> EU did not cause the war in Ukraine.

Correct.

> Soviets did, by appending Donetsk Krivorozhye Republic to Ukraine SSR.

No, the Russian Federation did, by launching an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine.

Ukraine did not control Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk for almost a decade. The north cyprus / north ireland situation existed before the war, which does look idiotic to me presently.

The war started with the 2014 invasion, not the 2022 escalation.

Okay, so? Another war was started in 1974 by Turkey. I rest the case.

"and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia"

Is that a US point of view? As a european, it is the first time I heard this.

(Edit: I mean yes, it was founded under the assumption of soviet threat, but it was not constructed especially against russia, which is how I read your comment)

The NATO was constructed against communist russia.

But the reasons for the founding of the EU are more complex, but mostly they were for .. europa. Not to become dependant on russia, nor USA. Stand on its own. Interconnecting economically, to not have a big war again.

And large parts of europe would actually love to get back to also freely trading with russia. Eastern europe (starting in east germany) had tight industrial relationships with russia and were therefore also hit hard by the sanctions.

Now it seems hard, to imagine going back while Putin is in power, but 15 years ago, it all looked very different. With a radical change of leadership in russia, it would look different again.

Russia is huge and has lots of ressources, they would be welcomed back for sure.

If there is to be any post-war justice it will involve serious Russian reparations with their economy already significantly weakened. Add to that the lessons learned by EU member states and I don't see any rapprochement for a very long time.

That's the blueprint for how Europe returned to greatness after The Great War to End all War in the 1920s!

Yes, "justice" can be a dangerous concept in the geopolitical context. There is lots of injustice happening all the time and if you really want justice, you would have to be consequent on all sides, I think. Starting with Iraq, Kashoggi, Assange, Snowden, Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Jemen, ...

And as long as a really great war with china remains possible, a "injust" peace with russia might be preferable, compared to a "just" war, with the NATO against the combined east.

> nobody wants Russia and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia

This is laughably misinformed. What the E.U. was built on has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. There have been ups and downs over the last couple of centuries, but neither France nor Germany are particularly russophobe.

Yeah, I'm not pro-EU but the bloc was originally a Coal and Steel trading pact. It expanded from there as deeper integration became advantageous.

I cannot speak for the whole continent, but as a single European who lives quite close to Russia, I say that a sane Russia would be the best thing that has happened to this planet in a long time. I truly want that.

For a while Putin's Russia actually looked a bit like that. In early 2000s, USA was the warmongering religious asshole idiot of the world and Russia started to look respectable and honest in contrast. But somehow all that crumbled away. In retrospect, perhaps it was just a facade.

West of Europe were not confrontational with Russia, they were dreaming that Russia can be controlled with diplomacy and economy. Sure East Europe knew better what is the discourse in Russia and what Russians will do for their supreme leader.

So you are dreaming to 'control' another country and surprised when the country in question refuses to be controlled. What's in for them in that arrangement?

Even funnier is another comment where Russians should risk their lives to overthrow their government and (implicitly) betray millions of their compatriots in order to supply Europe with their cheap 'ressources'. Using Molotov cocktails. Where's the carrot?

Nah, they dream they could bring Russia to the modern age, democracy, human rights, respect for other nations , collaborations . Nobody in EU wants to steal Russians resources, too bad the Russian oligarchs are doing it.

there is a Romanian saying about Romania but it applies to Russia too, "poor rich country" not sure if it translates well... the country is rich but the people are poor and suffering because of the small number of parasites.

My theory is that when you have same persona ndparty in power for decades then they can't hide their incompetence and failures on a party from opposition and they start inventing bad guys somehere outside (like UK invented the EU bad guy and ended up with Brexit( so Putin invented a big conspiracy about the west, LGBTQ , Israel and blame all his failures on them. Now he is gone old and senile and he believed his propaganda.

I don't remember EU doing anything in Russia that was conductive to democracy, human rights, respect for other nations, etc. The only positive influence I can think of, is European Court for Human Rights. But especially, EU didn't do anything when Putin decided to stay in power after 2008, they did not have much cultural integration with Russia, so it seems they expected to sit on the bank and expect democracy in Russia float past.

With regards to "respect for other nations", Russians know how Russian minority is treated in Baltic states and that Russian speakers are treated like 3rd class citizens in Ukraine (even before 2014). Russia treated other nations way better than those other nations treated Russians when on their own turf.

I believe you are confusing Putin with e.g. Orban because Putin is actually BFF with Israel, and even the fact that they are mildly supporting Ukraine didn't dent that.

I am talking about Ruzzians === the Z patriots. They are so brainwashed that they actually believe the LGBTQ and Israel and other evil gangs are up to pervert Russia. The Z-eds are also proud of Putin's crimes and the dictatorship, they even try to explain why democracy is bad. This failled empire needs to fail from inside like URSS did and the other communist countries, and time needs to pass so tne non brainwashed generations can grow.

I am not sure what you want from EU, we are not USA to democratize them with force. The western EU thought that with economy they can prevent idiotic wars, this work for EU, we no longer have wars here and the population is very anti -war.

Not sure what happens in Baltic states but please don't fucking tell me Ruzzian propaganda on how well URSS or Russia is treating minorities, the fucking bastards of Putin and his gang are not respecting nationalities living in their own independent countries.

I know that Ukraine is almost as bad as Russia so pushing propaganda on how bad Ukraine is just pushes Russia even lower.

So for Romanians Russians or FSB trolls should not waste their time, maybe you can fool some westerner with how well you love minorities.

TLDR easter europe knows Russia well, Putin played EU and Germany but he made a bet and his dice did not favored him, but he will push this stupid SMO to the his death.

* Expecting a non-brainwashed, sane generation to take steer

* Also expecting them to lose a war voluntarily, agree to trillion of reparations and divide their country to dozens of strifing principalities.

Russian opposition is very self discredited. Compared to them, any version of patriot is super sane and non brainwashed.

Losing the war and Ukraine is unavoidable, the new generation is a hope we have for the Russians. Before this war I was stupidly thinking that most young Russians are more similar with us Easter Europeans then Americans, I was wrong, we have a shared experience of the terrible communist era but for some reason Russians what the URSS back (but they think this time it will be better)

When push comes to shove, Ukraine runs out of Ukrainians much sooner than that is true for Russia. This is an unfortunate turn of events, but if you say "we're ruin your military wise and invade you by force", molon labe.

This has absolutely nothing in common with wanting the USSR back. Russians do contempt modern Ukraine and Baltic states, but they are not universally fans of USSR. Some are, but they're being overly romantic.

Eastern Europeans are pathetic people who only saw like 10% of hardships of Communism and came out whining like they saw 500% of those. Now you have a different good lord to whom you sing praise like you did to Soviet communists just 35 years back. Don't consider yourself to be like Russians because we are not the same.

How are you so sure you understand how much eastern european suffered? I am sure your Russian history has a giant bias and omits all the shit URSS stole, all the crimes they did in eastern Europe.

We are not the same, I wrongly thought that we might be more similar since we shared some trauma, but as i said I was wrong. I need to re-evaluate all the Russians I know online and try to figure-out if they in fact are imperialists/fascists that think God chose their nation to rule Eastern Europe or if they are the smarter/human Russians.

I'm not sure who stole your shit because I've never seen it around here, so it must have landed somewhere else - maybe you should go look elsewhere. When you talk about "crimes", I don't feel that you've even began to understand what a Communist regime can do to a country. Read about Collectivization one day, or about Solovki camps.

We did not share anything, the USSR breastfeeded the Eastern Europe for a few decades while starving its own Russian population like the proverbial reverse colony which siphons wealth from its core, and you came out really entitled. Of course, they were all so bad at economy that nobody was feeling exactly well off, but I'm not sure why you would blame that on Russians specifically, who are the main victims of the whole marxist hodge podge.

https://balkaninsight.com/2022/02/07/romania-wants-new-talks...

Also For example, the Soviet Union forced Eastern European countries to sell their natural resources, such as coal, timber, and minerals, to the USSR at below-market prices. The Soviet Union also imposed production quotas on these countries, requiring them to produce certain goods and send them to the USSR. The Soviet Union often used military force to maintain control over Eastern Europe and ensure compliance with these economic policies.

Additionally, the Soviet Union controlled the banking systems and foreign trade of Eastern European countries, making it difficult for them to trade with other countries and develop their own economies. The Soviet Union also used Eastern Europe as a market for its own goods, flooding these countries with cheap Soviet-made products that undercut local industries and businesses.

"sent to Moscow for safekeeping during World War I in 1916"

Russian Empire does not exist anymore, orphaned and its own gold being stolen, I would recommend you going to UK and France (allies of Russian Empire at the time) for the compensation.

I pity for your loss, I really do, but given how the Russian Empire has suffered a horrible demise I just do not understand why any money should be taken from my pocked and put into yours in the century XXI.

The rest of your comment does not sound like a description of a horrible crime. Moreover, it does sound like an entitlement.

One of the points, that the Soviet Union also sold oil and gas to Eastern Europe at below market prices. That you chose to withhold that fact highlights the whiny, intellectually disingenous attitude of Eastern Europeans.

We had oil, so maybe you sent it to some brother nation.

What happened is URSS planed and forced the economy of it's satellites, because they did not like Romania they tried to not allow us to have an industry and forced us to sell them resources and they would sell us stuff. Luckily we had some competent leaders with diplomatic skills(btw is diplomacy looked down upon in Russia?... ) and Romania managed to get away from URSS planned control, we even prepared for an URSS invasion and had the USA president visit, but it took decades to kick Russians out from our country and our business.

About the gold, other countries returned the gold, and it is not only gold, Russia is keeping documents, artwork , from Bulgaria too(aren't Bulgaria your brothers? ). I am sure the gold is in Putin palace but did he used the documents to fill his library too? The art might be on the walls of his palace, bunkers and yachts but if you have prove that our art, gold, documents is in UK let me see it.

> Putin is actually BFF with Israel, and even the fact that they are mildly supporting Ukraine didn’t dent that.

Israel has been only mildly helping Ukraine in part to buy Russian acquiescence to Israeli attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, where Russia has a substantial presence (though over time getting less, as material and personnel have been shifted to Ukraine.)

Putin isn’t Israel’s BFF despite Israel’s mild support for Ukraine; the Russian presence in Syria is a constraint on Israeli policy that results in it only mildly supporting Ukraine.

Really? India and China seem to be taking up the slack ...

Ekaterina Schulmann seems to be more correct spelling, according to her webpage at Robert Bosch Academy website.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com