Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success | Hacker News Reader

Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success

understandingwar.org

29 pointsbenfreu19 comments

I still don't understand the stance of the US and many other Western countries to try to continue to appease, and not upset Russia.

Like, right now in Europe, Russia is actively jamming GPS systems of commercial airliners in Kaliningrad... how isn't this considered aggression?

Why are Western countries just sitting idle, stating "oh well... its just Russia doing its thing."

What kind of world is this where a handful of people, Putin and a close group of the regime, get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens?

> What kind of world is this where a handful of people, Putin and a close group of the regime, get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens?

World full of peaceful people who don't want any kind of violence, so they try to fight as little as currently possible.

So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.

Nukes. People are afraid of provoking him too much to where he uses nukes. It's that simple.

So everyone will be bound to a psychopath because he has the world hostage under the threat of nuclear destruction.

That ain't much of a world worth living in, now is it?

The suffering of the few keeps the many safe. This is not a solution, but a reality as old as the existence of mayor destructive power.

Mass weapons of destruction have just changed the scale of the game. We have never been closer to the great filter.

I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Finland and Austria for example definitely appeased the dictator Stalin and his successor dictators for decades. They were careful not to join NATO or the EU. They consulted the dictator (or an authorized underling) on all defense decisions. Finland encouraged trade ties with the dictator's country. These decades of appeasement did not result in an attack or a loss of territory or any other persistent negative outcome as far as I know.

If I had been a citizen of Finland or Austria during the relevant decades, I think I would've been angry if my government had decided against appeasing the Soviet Union.

The strategic situation has changed, and now it is no longer necessary for Finland to appease the dictator to the east.

> I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is.

Well, I think it is - because the verdict was documents signed by Russia that stated clearly that each country is entitled to its own sovereignty, territorial integrity, foreign policy, alliances, and strategic decisions.

The documents are:

- UN Charter

- Helsinki Accords

- Charter of Paris for a New Europe

- Russia–NATO Founding Act

If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin, including not joining NATO, I don't know. And it would be great if you could share some sources on this information because it made me curious. I'm finding it hard to believe Finland was on a tight leash from Russia (especially because they rebuilt and maintained their military without restrictions).

>If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin . . .

That is not what I said: I said Finland and Austria appeased the Soviets in the ways I described from 1945 to at least 1990.

I see what you're saying. But as I stated, the world changed, and Russia (and even the USSR) changed during that period and signed the documents to marked such change.

Going back in time just because "Russia has nukes" doesn't seem like a very viable option - not to mention that others also have nukes.

currently

"get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens"

You are singling out "democratic citizens" as if it is some better kind of people.

Your "democratic citizens" cheered for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and reelected Bush even though it had become clear by that time that the "justification" for the invasion was fake.

Not impeaching Bush in 2003 was stupid, reelecting him was callous.

> You are singling out "democratic citizens" as if it is some better kind of people.

They're not better, they're free to think, express their opinions, have agency over their lives. They're fortunate because they were born in a given place, or because they, or their ancestors fought for that change.

My democratic citizens are free to change their minds and change their leaders whenever they see fit. That's the beauty of democracies, it renews itself.

I can see you're resentful and stuck in the past, but you're on a Western platform speaking openly about it - you won't be arrested. Maybe you should look at the present and what oppressed citizens are allowing Putin to do in Ukraine.

So your democratic citizens can elect and reelect leaders who illegally invade other countries and wreck people's lives there but it's outrageous when democratic citizens are a bit inconvenienced by jammed GPS?

"I can see you're resentful and stuck in the past"

Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the world just forgot what the "democratic citizens" did a couple of decades ago?

"The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." [0]

[0] https://www.abhafoundation.org/assets/books/html/1984/183.ht...

> So your democratic citizens can elect and reelect leaders who illegally invade other countries and wreck people's lives there

I'm not sure what you're referring to precisely... I'm assuming Iraq? The guys that tried to pull what Russia is doing in Ukraine, but in Kuwait? Or do you think you can try to annex a sovereign country, violate the UN Charter, and get a slap on the wrist?

And yes, democratic citizens can elect, and reelect leaders who make illegalities.

> but it's outrageous when democratic citizens are a bit inconvenienced by jammed GPS?

Oh my friend, when Russia murdered 300 people on the flight MH17 was a bit more than an inconvenience.

> Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the world just forgot what the "democratic citizens" did a couple of decades ago?

Not at all, everyone speaks openly about it. Now try to speak about the Tiananmen Square protests in China, or oppose the genocide in Ukraine in Russia, for example.

No one hides the past in Western democracies.

Why do you think there's a popular Russian say about Russia: "The Future Is Certain; It's the Past Which Is Unpredictable" - now Putin is trying to rehabilitate Stalin and Hitler.

I'm talking about the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the so called 'Coalition of willing': the US, the UK, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Netherlands[0]. All are full of 'democratic citizens'.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

It was indeed an illegal invasion, but the problem was not having taken over in the Golf War - it should have been settled then.

It was settled then - Saddam's chemical weapons were destroyed in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

That's not settling anything. A leader of a country that tries to commit genocide and/or annex another country isn't fit to rule.

That's what we learned from WW2, remember?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com