I’m not one for continuing to believe that we have to coddle rogue states by buffer zones. 80 years since ww ii ended and I would have hoped the states changed. Obviously not. If Ukraine wants to be European, let it. We thought Russia did, finally accomplishing what Peter the great started. Guess not.
England spent centuries working on the balance of power and supporting small states vs. Large. It works.
If Russia is into “Ukraine used to be Russia” then they support “Kaliningrad used to be German”, right? Or is it more “Poland and Finland used to be Russian”? And it’s really bad form to break signed treaties for the hell of it.
"If God had built mountains in eastern Ukraine, then the great expanse of flatland that is the European Plain would not have been such inviting territory for the invaders who have attacked Russia from there repeatedly through history. As things stand, Putin, like Russian leaders before him, likely feels he has no choice but to at least try to control the flatlands to Russia’s west. So it is with landscapes around the world—their physical features imprison political leaders, constraining their choices and room for maneuver. These rules of geography are especially clear in Russia, where power is hard to defend, and where for centuries leaders have compensated by pushing outward." [1]
I don't think the cause is so much pure historical reasons, but current defense worries.
There was another talk explaining the russian perspective in 2015 by John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago [2]
Europe spent a generation trying to help integrate Russia into Europe. Guess it failed totally…. There is a well-practiced alternative to revert to, and I fear for the Central European states.
> Europe spent a generation trying to help integrate Russia into Europe.
That must be why russia is upset with the West. No it didn't. The west spent a generation robbing, stealing, attacking and bullying russia. Also, Russia doesn't need to integrate into europe. Russia IS europe. What the west did to russia in the 90s was objectively worse than what the nazis did to them in the 40s. I know it sounds hyperbolic and I didn't believe it either. But it's true. Go look at the population, economic, etc stats. It was such a disaster that the russian population still hasn't recovered to the early 90s level. And the expansion of NATO/EU which led to the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. The problem for russia is that they have no alternative. They can't really form a alliance with china. They are historical and geographical enemies. The same for turkey, iran, etc. And india is simply too far away to form an alliance not to mention the fact that india is still part of the british empire.
It was russia trying to be nice to the west. It was russia that let NATO/EU expand into their sphere of influence. This is a fact. All the west did was treat russia like crap and take advantage of them.
This is the same thing we have done to Turkey, Iran, India, China, etc. Treat them like shit and stab them in the back. But they do not seem to be able to form a coalition against the west so they'll keep getting shit on. Of course the west doesn't suffer. It places like ukraine, taiwan, myanmar, africa, middle east, etc that will suffer.
The video by Mearsheimer should be viewed by anyone wanting to understand whats happening. It's title is Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? and basically lays down the reasons for why the U.S have driven Nato expansion eastward. The cold war never ended in the U.S
As a European I'm shocked that Euro leaders have allowed this to get so out of hand.
Here's a video of a talk John Mearsheime did for some students at Cambridge just a few days before SHTF https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE including his views on the sudden escalation in recent months.
Yet the US has been luke warm on supporting Europe militarily in recent years and European defence spending has plummeted. I don’t buy this idea that it is the West’s fault at all.
Absolutely, we had so far 3 generations of pacifist politicians in the West who spoon fed dictators, instead strangling them. And the result is on every TV channel now.
No matter what your defence posture is, how many weapons you have, how many megatons is your nuke, all your weapons are useless if you don't use them, and more so, if you don't want to use them.
To the major demographic on HN, you have to change. There is no succinct, suave, hispter startup solution to a Russian paratrooper landing on your lawn. There is none.
You, and HN have to get ALL political, just like the society itself.
Next time somebody tries to shut your mouth for speaking about politics, I would've said the most un-gentle response to that man's face be the most befitting action.
How was Belgium a buffer between England and France? Their long term contention was removed by the growth of imperial Germany and its odd desire to build a fleet to challenge England. Read massie’s dreadnought.
> I’m not one for continuing to believe that we have to coddle rogue states by buffer zones. 80 years since ww ii ended and I would have hoped the states changed. Obviously not. If Ukraine wants to be European, let it.
That's all very nice, and no one likes coddling rogue states, but is it better than the alternative, if that alternative is war? That's the dilemma. This kind of "give me liberty or give me death" kind of rhetoric is easy to espouse if you're not the one doing the dying.
There’s only one way to stop an expansionist large state, and it’s not pleasant. The eu was formed to defuse such conflicts. Small states can be mostly ignored.
> I've heard reverence from all sides on the brilliance of Henry Kissinger, and am curious, what damage has he inflicted on Western politicians brains?
Have you seen his "brilliance" yourself? No, and these people didn't either.
Many people who credit him don't actually know a thing what his political theories are.
He was an extremely good networker though. He took credit for things he didn't do to raise his stature among US elites, which he then used to solicit other people giving him more credit. He liked to collect recommendations, and introductions.
His "Realpolitik" was mostly about how to strategically backstab allies for "geopolitial considerations" only he can see, or understand, but really they were just bullshit he made up to cover for failings of Nixon administration.
His political theories don't make sense on closer examination, but they were used to grow 3 generations of US state department officials, who were told of them as truth in its last instance.
In other words, this man is the reason why a lot of US state department officials have porridge for brains.
I am not sure where was this comment pointing at, but Henry Kissinger despite his fallacies, negotiated two of the bloodiest conflicts in post-WWII theater: Vietnam War & the Yom Kippur War.
Now, some may still be critical of the first, but his role in Yom Kippur War was absolutely critical in brokering peace.
> negotiated two of the bloodiest conflicts in post-WWII theater: Vietnam War & the Yom Kippur War.
1. The South folded in the first place because he persuaded Nixon to lose the war
2. Egyptians expected Nixon to be weak on Israel (and they likely knew Kissinger would play a role in that,) and force them to give up Sinai. They succeded.
I don't know how much was left but I stopped reading when everything I was seeing was essentially appeasement arguments.
That's fine, especially in a historical strategic argument context, but it's hardly balanced in terms of discussion of European security policy.
This is especially true given strong current evidence that Putin's stated concerns about NATO or the EU are a smokescreen. He has essentially said NATO is not a concern because of Russia's nuclear capability. And it's patently evident they are doing something to increase NATO involvement and strength, not weaken it.
It doesn't seem to me that this is a very solid argument. First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against expanding NATO. Whilst there were people making the argument against expanding Nato and some of them are respectable, it's far from some consensus among everyone who knows the topic. Even the people this thread claims oppose the expansion of Nato aren't wholy clear on it - Clinton's defence secretary was opposed to the timing not the principle for example.
Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO. There's just no merit to the claim that Nato was a proximate cause of the invasion. Notably it is however, a pretext that Russia used in the build up to the invasion, so what you have here is essentially people pushing a Russian propaganda line.
Finally, it's important to consider the counter-factual. If Nato hadn't expanded maybe the US would have more cordial relations with Russia, but it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia. Given a situation where Nato is far from Ukraine and the US is disinterested in the region it seems far more likely that Ukraine would be run over by Russia at the first opportunity. Maybe you can argue that the result of that would've been less likely to lead to Nuclear war, but it's hardly a great principled stance to decide to appease Russia, and at that point you have to ask yourself which countries in Europe are you willing to defend as sovereign nations? Or is the answer none?
"KYIV, Dec 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Kyiv's bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands, Zelenskiy's chief of staff said after the two leaders spoke on Thursday." [1]
Yes, in response to Russia building up an invasion force Biden re-affirmed the stance that Nato has had for over a decade. What changed wasn't Ukraine going into Nato, what changed was Russia deciding to invade Ukraine. It's a pretty basic principle that you can't let Russia dictate Ukraine's foreign policy.
Appeasement of the Kremlin is exactly how we got in this mess. I am truly disgusted by some of the positions taken on this issue in the West, like the one in OP.
>First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against expanding NATO
So what? That's what hindsight is. The title is accurate.
>Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO.
Perhaps Russia saw the right timing of geopolitical forces to do something (invade Ukraine to prevent NATO ascention) now despite it not being imminent. Winter, Nord Stream 2, war-weary Americans, etc.
>it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia
Isn't that the argument of some in the linked thread you criticize? John Mearsheimer says "Make Ukraine neutral, make it strong and independent".
The argument of these people isn't that Ukraine should have become a puppet state of Russia, but that there was a reality where NATO didn't expand and these eastern states would have grown anyway. In other words, to your point, they do seem to think Russia would have been less aggressive about the reunification of Ukraine if they didn't see it as "cheating" on it with the West.
---
Now, that was mostly devil's advocate. I am no expert on NATO or eastern Europe. Invading a peaceful country because you don't like who they talk to isn't ethical. Thousands are already dead, hundreds of billions of dollars in economic costs worldwide, and a new threat of armed conflict seemingly as a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Russian hardliner-in-chief.
I agree with you about the timing, but I’m just not convinced it has anything to do with NATO. Russia absolutely has created a point of maximum pressure with gas, with the US standing in the world, with Nordstream 2. But I don’t believe it would have behaved differently if NATO were smaller. It’s simply a matter of them building for war for decades.
I also don’t think you can make the argument that the better response was to make neutral. It’s not up to external people to make Ukraine neutral. It’s up to Ukraine to decide how they want to align themselves. I’m not surprised they decided against aligning with the country that keeps on invading them.
Here is a post made to the site Less Wrong December 22 that begins, "Assume that you know with a high degree of confidence that Russia will invade Ukraine in February 2022," then asks for investment advice:
Alex Jones also predicted when the war would happen on a video posted October 2021 [1] He is supposed to have intelligence contacts, so maybe it was more or less a known outcome in those circles.
Alex Jones predicts a lot of things, most of which are bonkers, but sooner or later one or two of them will turn out to be correct just by chance ("a broken clock is right twice a day").
It was clear by then that the Russian military was building up on the Ukrainian border. Additionally the ground in Ukraine is usually thawed by April, making an armored invasion much trickier. Assuming it would take the Russians one more month to make preparations, a person in December could have predicted that the Russians would invade in February or early March, if at all.
I think a lot of this is not really under anyone's control; every country -esp those not under a strongman/autocrat, wants Western style benefits and democracy; if Russia wasn't going to provide it (since their modernization seems to have stalled), then the natural drift was going to be westward.
From what I know of Armenia from my colleagues, that same drift is happening there.
What was the alternative play out? Don't expand NATO and wait for Russia to come roaring back to life with the same authoritarianism but more money?
If anything these recent aggression towards Ukraine should drive other countries on its border to seek out the alliance, or else be invaded if your government doesn't cow-tow to Russia.
A great alternative I once heard was to let these former eastern block counties form their own alliance to counter Russia, but that may have just had the same outcome plus other unintended consequences.
39 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 96.1 ms ] threadEngland spent centuries working on the balance of power and supporting small states vs. Large. It works.
If Russia is into “Ukraine used to be Russia” then they support “Kaliningrad used to be German”, right? Or is it more “Poland and Finland used to be Russian”? And it’s really bad form to break signed treaties for the hell of it.
I don't think the cause is so much pure historical reasons, but current defense worries.
There was another talk explaining the russian perspective in 2015 by John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago [2]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ru...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
That must be why russia is upset with the West. No it didn't. The west spent a generation robbing, stealing, attacking and bullying russia. Also, Russia doesn't need to integrate into europe. Russia IS europe. What the west did to russia in the 90s was objectively worse than what the nazis did to them in the 40s. I know it sounds hyperbolic and I didn't believe it either. But it's true. Go look at the population, economic, etc stats. It was such a disaster that the russian population still hasn't recovered to the early 90s level. And the expansion of NATO/EU which led to the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. The problem for russia is that they have no alternative. They can't really form a alliance with china. They are historical and geographical enemies. The same for turkey, iran, etc. And india is simply too far away to form an alliance not to mention the fact that india is still part of the british empire.
It was russia trying to be nice to the west. It was russia that let NATO/EU expand into their sphere of influence. This is a fact. All the west did was treat russia like crap and take advantage of them.
This is the same thing we have done to Turkey, Iran, India, China, etc. Treat them like shit and stab them in the back. But they do not seem to be able to form a coalition against the west so they'll keep getting shit on. Of course the west doesn't suffer. It places like ukraine, taiwan, myanmar, africa, middle east, etc that will suffer.
Exactly how did the West spent a generation with Putin in power robbing, stealing and attacking Russia? Describe exactly how.
As a European I'm shocked that Euro leaders have allowed this to get so out of hand.
No matter what your defence posture is, how many weapons you have, how many megatons is your nuke, all your weapons are useless if you don't use them, and more so, if you don't want to use them.
To the major demographic on HN, you have to change. There is no succinct, suave, hispter startup solution to a Russian paratrooper landing on your lawn. There is none.
You, and HN have to get ALL political, just like the society itself.
Next time somebody tries to shut your mouth for speaking about politics, I would've said the most un-gentle response to that man's face be the most befitting action.
"If you're not bothered about how the world is changing around you, it should not surprise you one day if it came with devastating effects"
You know, the standard of humanity shouldn’t be “Unlike Russia or China, at least America doesn’t oppress their own”.
Alas, geography has a power which cannot be negated by the UN, NATO or pacifism.
That's all very nice, and no one likes coddling rogue states, but is it better than the alternative, if that alternative is war? That's the dilemma. This kind of "give me liberty or give me death" kind of rhetoric is easy to espouse if you're not the one doing the dying.
He is not a sagacious "strategic thinker," but a real world Grima Wormtongue, and should be treated as such.
Have you seen his "brilliance" yourself? No, and these people didn't either.
Many people who credit him don't actually know a thing what his political theories are.
He was an extremely good networker though. He took credit for things he didn't do to raise his stature among US elites, which he then used to solicit other people giving him more credit. He liked to collect recommendations, and introductions.
His "Realpolitik" was mostly about how to strategically backstab allies for "geopolitial considerations" only he can see, or understand, but really they were just bullshit he made up to cover for failings of Nixon administration.
His political theories don't make sense on closer examination, but they were used to grow 3 generations of US state department officials, who were told of them as truth in its last instance.
In other words, this man is the reason why a lot of US state department officials have porridge for brains.
Now, some may still be critical of the first, but his role in Yom Kippur War was absolutely critical in brokering peace.
1. The South folded in the first place because he persuaded Nixon to lose the war
2. Egyptians expected Nixon to be weak on Israel (and they likely knew Kissinger would play a role in that,) and force them to give up Sinai. They succeded.
That's fine, especially in a historical strategic argument context, but it's hardly balanced in terms of discussion of European security policy.
This is especially true given strong current evidence that Putin's stated concerns about NATO or the EU are a smokescreen. He has essentially said NATO is not a concern because of Russia's nuclear capability. And it's patently evident they are doing something to increase NATO involvement and strength, not weaken it.
Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO. There's just no merit to the claim that Nato was a proximate cause of the invasion. Notably it is however, a pretext that Russia used in the build up to the invasion, so what you have here is essentially people pushing a Russian propaganda line.
Finally, it's important to consider the counter-factual. If Nato hadn't expanded maybe the US would have more cordial relations with Russia, but it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia. Given a situation where Nato is far from Ukraine and the US is disinterested in the region it seems far more likely that Ukraine would be run over by Russia at the first opportunity. Maybe you can argue that the result of that would've been less likely to lead to Nuclear war, but it's hardly a great principled stance to decide to appease Russia, and at that point you have to ask yourself which countries in Europe are you willing to defend as sovereign nations? Or is the answer none?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zel...
The world will remember.
So what? That's what hindsight is. The title is accurate.
>Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO.
Perhaps Russia saw the right timing of geopolitical forces to do something (invade Ukraine to prevent NATO ascention) now despite it not being imminent. Winter, Nord Stream 2, war-weary Americans, etc.
>it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia
Isn't that the argument of some in the linked thread you criticize? John Mearsheimer says "Make Ukraine neutral, make it strong and independent".
The argument of these people isn't that Ukraine should have become a puppet state of Russia, but that there was a reality where NATO didn't expand and these eastern states would have grown anyway. In other words, to your point, they do seem to think Russia would have been less aggressive about the reunification of Ukraine if they didn't see it as "cheating" on it with the West.
---
Now, that was mostly devil's advocate. I am no expert on NATO or eastern Europe. Invading a peaceful country because you don't like who they talk to isn't ethical. Thousands are already dead, hundreds of billions of dollars in economic costs worldwide, and a new threat of armed conflict seemingly as a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Russian hardliner-in-chief.
I also don’t think you can make the argument that the better response was to make neutral. It’s not up to external people to make Ukraine neutral. It’s up to Ukraine to decide how they want to align themselves. I’m not surprised they decided against aligning with the country that keeps on invading them.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QEsqKFabffwKXAPso/
Same content with different web-site design decisions:
https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/QEsqKFabffwKXAPso/
[1] https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1496681530005110785
From what I know of Armenia from my colleagues, that same drift is happening there.
If anything these recent aggression towards Ukraine should drive other countries on its border to seek out the alliance, or else be invaded if your government doesn't cow-tow to Russia.
A great alternative I once heard was to let these former eastern block counties form their own alliance to counter Russia, but that may have just had the same outcome plus other unintended consequences.