Hacker News Reader

Comment by partiallypro | Hacker News Reader

> that particular war was not of our doing

Well... arguably it is partially our doing. Not for the reason's Tucker Carlson & Russia say, but that Obama and later Biden totally sat on their laurels after the Crimean invasion, totally paralyzed by fear of escalation and political fallout.

View on HN

In 2014, there was no political will in the US political system to do anything--witness Obama drawing the red line in Syria over the use of chemical weapons, and after Assad used them, Congress said "fuck off, we don't want to do anything." Given that Crimea was by far the most Russophile portion of Ukraine (it only veeeery barely voted to support Ukrainian independence in the Ukrainian independence referendum), it was much more difficult to build a case for any sort of intervention there than it would be after Syrian war crimes, and the latter wasn't enough to gain sufficient political will.

On top of that, 2014 is the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, which means that all of the foreign policy people had been brushing up on their histories of World War I and the causes of said war, which is of course the ur-example of "random event escalates to every great power at war with each other." I definitely felt like a lone voice pointing out that I was getting more World War II vibes, with Putin acting like Hitler: "I just want a little bit of X, it's the last thing I'll ask for, I promise!"

Also, probably more important than the US reaction here is the German reaction, and Germany was in full Russian appeasement mode really right up until Russian tanks were literally rolling across the border in 2022.

Crimea isn't just Russophilic, the majority of the population even before 2014 were ethnic Russians, the majority language was Russian, and it was part of Russia until 1954.

People who make a big point about "Crimea is Ukraine!" are either ignorant or ideological, objectively it's at best debatable.

(And really, there should be no slavs there at all and it should be given back to the Tatars, if anyone really wants to get into the morals...)

Countries can have different ethnicities, political parties and religions.

But if Ukraine became prosperous and democratic it would make Putin look bad. Think West Germany against East Germany.

Yes but that's sort of a different argument.

My point is the 1991 borders are somewhat arbitrary: they were originally internal administrative divisions inside a larger centralised state.

They don't necessarily represent a natural long term international border, and attaching huge moral significance to the specific strokes of a Soviet bureaucrat's pen is strange

Many borders are arbitrary. The moral significance results when nations go full 1900 with land grabbing invasion and all that psuedohistorical ethnic bullshit. I urge you to read the soviet propaganda for the winter war or that of the nazis and the Sudetendeutschen. It is not distinguishable from the drivel that Putin spouts.

We were trying to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. But this started well before Biden's or even Obama's term.

Where they attacked because they wanted in on NATO, or the reverse?

"I need to attack Ukraine because you're trying to get it into NATO, at which point attacking it is impossible/much harder." ~Putin, probably

NATO can be criticized for a lot, Afghanistan for example, but despite hearing the argument that Russia attacking Ukraine is NATOs fault, it's never been coherent.

They weren't attacked before trying to join NATO, if that's what you mean. It goes back to 2003 at least. In 2008, Germany blocked both countries' NATO bids because they considered it aggressive against Russia.

It's not just that Putin knew it'd be harder to attack NATO, but it was a clear signal of non-neutrality where they were previously neutral. Even if Germany would've repeatedly blocked their entry to NATO, both countries were aligning with it.

I still don't follow. Is the assertion that the non-"neutrality" of NATO membership/alignment would mean a direct threat to Russia somehow? Because the only coherent read I can make is that the only honest objection would be that Russia would lose their ability to attack Ukraine, as well as Ukraine probably growing better resistance to vassal influence, as seen in Georgia.

It's all circular reasoning trying to claim otherwise. "Neutrality" would be letting Ukraine fend for it self while Russia aggressively attacks their elections and implants stooges, which I frankly find absurd. Do I believe the US does something similar less crudely? Yes. Do I believe the EU or any other NATO member does? Hardly.

Russian security thinking is largely shaped by the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler, which caused terrible destruction. The biggest thing they are afraid of is an invasion from the west. That led to a doctrine, where Russia tries to surround itself with allies and puppets. When the next invasion comes, they can then start fighting against it well outside Russian territory, which should limit the damage to Russia itself.

Under that doctrine, if you are a European country bordering Russia, your duty is to help defending Russia. You can choose whether you do that as an ally or a puppet, but you are not allowed to make any other choices.

That's not reasonable fear, given what Europe became after WW2, but it's what Russian leaders expect. Especially those of Putin's generation, who spent their early lives preparing for a possible NATO invasion that could start WW3.

That's much more coherent than other pitches I've heard, so it's the old post-war Stalin strategy?

As you say, I don't buy it as a reasonable fear, but I can at least buy it as a rationalization.

Finland managed to stay nonaligned until 2023, though

The Finnish situation was complicated.

Finland and the USSR had a defensive treaty that, among other things, obligated Finland to fight against NATO if it tried to use Finnish territory or airspace to attack the USSR. There was also a Soviet military base near Helsinki that was supposed to be there until 1994. But after Khrushchev rose to power, the Soviets decided to return it for a number of reasons.

After the USSR fell, Finland deliberately stayed out of NATO in order to maintain a good relationship with Russia. Because the popular support for NATO membership was very low, Russia apparently believed Finnish intentions. Even in late 2021, only ~25% of Finns supported joining NATO. (Six months later, that number was ~75%.)

Aside from the defense agreement, NATO has implications for weapons, foreign bases, intelligence, and cooperation in wars. And all of them are exclusive, like Turkey got kicked out of the F-35 program for purchasing S-400s. Putting that in two countries bordering Russia would be leverage. USA would likewise not respond nicely to Mexico joining CSTO (well also if CSTO weren't a joke).

Oh forgot to mention, the Ukrainian neutrality before meant being part of neither system. So domestic weapons and old Soviet stockpiles.

Sure, I understand the reasoning if we assume that Russia is only reactive, US is doing it out of expansionism, and Ukraine is entirely persuadable. I disagree with all those assumptions (in context).

The question isn't why the US wants something, or why Russia wants something, it's why Ukraine wanted/wants to join NATO/EU. If you believe that's purely from US/west pressure, then agree to disagree I guess, but I'm trying to be persuaded it's not because of constant Russian aggression going back decades.

I'm assuming both Russia and US had imperialist goals. Ukraine did in fact start trying to join NATO because of vague Russian threats over Crimea all the way back in the 90s. I still think the US escalated things by pursuing such strong Ukraine-NATO cooperation, especially after 2008. I'm not even complaining about US imperialism in general here, it's just that the US overestimated its limits and may have misled Ukraine.

Yes Ukraine had their own agency, but the two empires' diplomacy matters more, which is unfortunately just how the world works. Plenty of countries would want to join NATO if assured protection, but they didn't, and that's why there isn't now a proxy war everywhere Russia (or China) has influence. The empires figured out where to draw the line in a way that angers neither side too much.

Not sure why exactly Georgia left CSTO and started aligning with NATO in 1999. Seems they realized CSTO was a joke because it wasn't actually protecting their territory from separatist movements. Led to Russia invading Georgia while NATO gave up on it. Similar thing happened in Armenia more recently, where we've yet to see how it plays out; seems like Russia is too busy with Ukraine right now.

arguably and partially, perhaps a bit, but they have history to back up that reluctance.

That said, Putin's gonna do what Putin's gonna do and it likely wasn't the Crimean invasion that prompted it. It was the promise of waltzing in and just taking it without resistance.

Supporting Ukraine in Crimea would have been the right thing to do but in 2014 the US was extremely war weary. Despite his dovishness with Russia, conservatives still love to claim Obama was a war monger.

If you want to claim the Biden administration rested on its laurels in 2022, you were either not paying attention or are not participating in good faith.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com