Hacker News Reader

Study some geography. The US is blessed with wide open coastal access to, not one, but two oceans, with innumerable natural harbors on each coast (Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay Area, Puget Sound, Port of NY&NJ, Port of Los Angeles, etc. etc. etc.). The US has more and better natural harbors than all of Africa. We tend to take this for granted, and forget that other countries are severely limited in comparison. These limitations are exploitable.

Russia needs Crimea because without it they have very limited access to the Black Sea, and by extension the Mediterranean and the Atlantic; their other coasts, on the Baltic and in East Asia, are not adequate substitutes. The Baltic ports in particular tend to freeze in the winter -- not good if you have global superpower aspirations.

In the case of Taiwan, look at a map of China. Although China is comparable in land mass to the US, their sea access is limited to an eastern coast enclosed almost entirely by the South China Sea / East China Sea. Look at all the countries on the other side of the Chinese coast: Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and of course Taiwan. The US has military and naval bases in most of them. In the case of Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, the US has a LOT of naval bases, notably in Okinawa, halfway between Japan and Taiwan. This is no accident. In the event of conflict, the US could easily blockade China. A quick glance at the map shows how critical Taiwan is to this calculation. If the US controls Taiwan, it owns a huge island (a.k.a. unsinkable aircraft carrier) staring down the middle of the Chinese coast. If China owns Taiwan, the east coast of Taiwan has direct access to the rest of the Pacific.

US geography is so OP that we don't realize how bad other countries have it.

(By the way, the other countries mentioned are also geographically strategic assets. Kuwait has 10 times more coastline than Iraq. Without Kuwait, Iraq has only a few ports available to ship out their oil, and no other ocean access anywhere. Israel also controls a huge chunk of the Middle East's Mediterranean coastline.)

Russia also has Novorossiysk on the black sea which is a bigger port than Sevastopol anyway. Putin had planned to move the black sea HQ there but then got a leasing arrangement with Ukraine. Was apparently still too expensive though.

Russia doesn't need to have territorial sovereignty over the Crimea.

The ideologues currently running Russia desire to have the Crimea for its symbolic significance -- as a means of projecting power, and of thumbing its nose at the West. And for their various internal narratives (Наш Крым and all that). Which gets a lot closer to the core issue of what the war is actually about.

It was never about Russia "needing" the Crimea in any meaningful sense. Any more than WW II was about Germany "needing" to annex the Danzig Corridor.

To the contrary, Russia does need Crimea, although military naval ports is not the main reason why. Crimean waters contain huge natural gas and oil deposits. If Ukraine were left to develop Crimea unhindered, it would overturn Russia's gas monopoly in Europe, which is practically their only source of cash. The same motive lies behind Russia's interference in Eastern Ukraine -- therein lies the rest of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.

Russia does not actually need to extract oil and gas from Crimea, although it would be a nice bonus for them if they could. The main imperative is to prevent Ukraine from having it.

Once Russia captured Crimea, the "land corridor" to Crimea became a necessary next domino. Crimea's only source of fresh water is overland via Ukraine. Obviously the first thing Ukraine did when Russia annexed Crimea was turn off the taps. (Would you keep sending freshwater into enemy territory?) In order to maintain power in Crimea in the long run, it is necessary for Russia to invade enough of Ukraine to take over the freshwater canals that supply Crimea.

Not sure what to make of an analysis that amounts to: "To the contrary, Russia does need the Crimea, because natural gas reverses. Although it actually does not need to extract them, it would just be a nice bonus of they could." In any case we're talking about an augmentation of some 180 bcm in the offshore regions of the Crimea it is claiming, on top of Russia's proven reserves of some 40000-50000 depending on whom you ask.

So no, Russia doesn't need the Crimea's resources either. It is however definitely very hurtful to Ukraine to not have access to those resources -- which speaks more to the true intent behind the annexation move.

It is necessary for Russia to invade ...

It isn't necessary for Russia to do anything at this point -- other than pick up its toys and go home.

Gas isn't easily shippable like oil. Most of Russia's gas is in Siberia, inaccessible for purposes of shipping to Europe. Ukraine holds the only other gas reserves in Europe other than Russia. Gas supply is inelastic, meaning that even minor competition can lead to a big drop in prices. So yes, Russia "needs" to keep Ukraine out of the European gas market.

Yes, there's an incremental point to be made about the location of the gas reserves.

But to get to the real point here - why do you keep defending the actions of a blatant 19th century-style imperialist bully, as if it's some kind of calm, rational actor?

That's just, you know, doing what it needs to do?

Is invading a country to maintain a gas monopoly not bullying? It seems far-fetched that this is their entire reason, though.

You are wrong. I am not defending Russia's actions. I am explaining Russia's actions. Big difference.

Putin is a greedy son of a bitch. This is not a defense. It is an explanation.

Then you could perhaps be more precise in your choice of actors here:

In particular -- Russia most certainly does not "need" to dominate its neighbors. It's just what the current regime feels it needs to do to maintain its chances of survival.

Big difference, as you say.

You're deeply misreading the English language. When I say "I need my phone" I am obviously not claiming that my phone is necessary for basic survival. There are different levels of need, and there exists a level where Russia (believes it) needs Crimea.

Disagree fundamentally with the idea that countries hold "beliefs" about anything.

Political figures and other individuals with their hands at the levers of power, on the other hand, do.

You're nitpicking the words. It's common to refer to the government of a country by the name of the country when talking about government actions.

Yeah, but they're doing it a lot, and in a way that's just -- weird. And seems designed to evoke empathy.

Specifically when they keep saying "Russia needs [to do various awful things]" when referring to the desires of the current regime.

In the case of the United States, it's not appropriate to equate the country with the current regime, since the party in power (Democrat / Republican) changes every few years, and although you may disagree, I do not view the two parties as equivalent or as forming one party.

In the case of Russia, it is completely appropriate to refer to the regime by country name, since Putin has been in power forever.

Anyway, this is a useless tangent. It should by now be clear to you and anyone else reading what I mean, even if it was not initially clear.

>Not sure why Taiwan is that much of a wedge, or Ukraine for that matter. Ukraine used to be under effective Russian control anyways up to fairly recent times and Putin being pissed off about the change that's partly behind the war. Naturally now the stakes are higher given the price of the war on all sides. Re: Taiwan China is determined to get it one way or another and it's going to be hard for the US to keep resisting that.

I could understand Ukraine being more of an issue for Europe rather than the US but Taiwan? Without them the hottest sector in the US collapses. In fact, how much of the US current meteoric rise is due to tech vs the rest of the economy? Probably a decent chunk. Taiwan is holding some of the most important "cards" in the world.

>Support of Israel goes back to JFK.

Well you could make the argument that the US has been wrong since JFK and it is finally catching up to them. Its not the first time they have supported a state that is in direct contrast to its stated ideals.

>The US under Obama has tried to reduce its involvement in the region which indirectly led to the civil war in Syria, to Iraq aligning with Iran, and other movements. Bin Laden was from the region and so is/was ISIS/ISIL. It feels like the US "disconnecting" from the region would be a destabilizing move felt everywhere and other parties like China or Russia would fill in the vacuum.

Like it or not that has been the stated path of the US for two administrations now and will likely continue into the next one regardless of who is elected.

I'm not saying the US should disconnect, but our obedience to Israel isn't doing us favors. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran is the one counterexample I can think of, and it ended.

Syrian Civil War started only 3 years after Obama took office, and I don't see any connection to Obama reducing our involvement, if that's what he did. The US funded Syrian rebel groups both secretly before the war (leaked later) and openly afterwards (the FSA), though this stopped when ISIS formed and they began defecting, then we built that coalition to defeat them.

Btw, Israel has never fought ISIS. We fought a war against the largest terrorist group in history almost adjacent to our supposed weapons-testing, anti-terrorism ally without them being involved.