Hacker News Reader

Comment by emodendroket | Hacker News Reader

Going to a war with the world's major powers is not exactly like running roughshod over South Ossetia or Ukraine. By this metric NATO members have proved their mettle by destroying government's like Libya's at very little cost to themselves (disastrous consequences of that action aside).

View on HN

Do you really think that a war in middle-/eastern- Europe would be comparable to the actions taken in Libya? Because I seriously do not think so. Libya has suffered decades of incursions - the recent events did not just happen overnight, it took a lot of effort to degrade Libyan military prowess to the point it could just be rolled over - this is not going to happen in any of the states in Europe that NATO vs. Russia may involve.

I think there is myopic thinking here, on the part of the West, and I'd really truly like to understand it. Why do you think that NATO has the upper hand in the European theatre at the moment? From the perspective of someone on the ground, it sure seems like Russia is getting what it wants.

Damaging economic sanctions in trade for the right to support Crimea (which has no land route to Russia) during a time of general budgetary problems caused by low oil prices?

It looks to me like an expensive reactionary measure provoked by the US' idiotic interference in Ukrainian politics...

What am I missing? Is there some reason Russia desperately wanted Crimea, or turmoil and devastation in Ukraine?

Yes, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine shares a border with Russia, NATO exercises had been going on in Crimea under the purview of a Western CSO propelled Kiev, Ukraine and under it the republic of Crimea was slotted for entry into the EU (and eventually NATO, like other former Warsaw states) at a time international financial-political sabotage was being orchestrated in the EU to thwart attempt to have Russia's pipelines through Crimea and the Baltics to the Balkins, and because the "Independent" Republic of Crimea serves as a critical water base and military nexus for Russia and because historically, politically and by nationality Russia and Crimea are much closer to one another than even Russia and Kiev; because the EU's energy trade legislation would make Kiev and Crimea distributers of Russian oil like Poland/Czech; because NATO actions in Serbia/Kosovo broke Cold War treaties when Russia could not defend itself; because missile batteries and THAAD systems in the Baltics deployed by the US and EU ruin Russia's deterents and intercept capabilities and similarly break longstanding nuclear treaties; because the treaties being negotiated in Keiv (the non-violent option was not working) and because the West-backed coup was working according to orchestration despite disruption; because the Bush administration refused to extend age old nuclear disarmament treaties; because the EU is building up to a United States of Europe on Russia's border; and because prior actions taken by NATO in the support on non-NATO allied countries in the past decade have shown that the EU intends a regional hegemony.

Russia had many incentives to want Crimea. Certainly the West is making Russia pay for Crimea. But the Putin administrations actions radically stunned the NATO allied powers. Cat in a Tiger game.

I don't think it will continue this way, as contigency and response planning is by now surely narrowed down - maybe we'll get to see it if Mariupol is captured. In the long term under the faltering of the Eurasian Union Russia risks becoming a satellite state to China - so it will be interesting to see how the dynamics play out (for the sake of EU/US, we might hope that the 'balance of powers' is a century dead.)

Russia is getting what it wants because, to be frank, everyone in Western Europe and the United States does not really care about Ukraine enough to make the sacrifices that would be necessary to stop them (not economically and certainly not in terms of loss of life).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com