5 ms·

"What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringi

by astine 5y ago

"What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. " Putin's government legalize spousal abuse.[1] It's hard to get more evil than that. Any government that managed to achieve a degree of stability could have had as much success as Putin's, he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success. Nevermind that many Russians still live in poverty and corruption and crime are still endemic so it's not like he's actually solved the problem. Putin's success has been mostly a propaganda victory where instead of of a strong economy and the rule of law, he's promised Russians a sense of recovered strength and importance on the world stage. That's not to be commended but many Westerners seem to have fallen for Putin's nonsense hook, line, and sinker. "Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no " Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence. It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened. Like leaving a battered spouse in the hands of an abuser so that he doesn't feel like his patrimony is threatened. Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire. "Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. " The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis and the Monroe doctrine opposed European colonialism and did not prohibit Latin American countries from voluntarily entering agreements with European powers. [1] https://cepa.org/russias-domestic-violence-epidemic/ https://cepa.org/russias-domestic-violence-epidemic/

eezurr 5y ago
You must see global leaders as a weighted average of their policies, and then place them on a spectrum. As an example, Hitler is more evil than Putin; enough so that there's a large, visible gap between the two. >he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success. You'll need a source for that one. But here's why I think you're wrong [1]. Note that Putin came to power in 1999/2000 as an authoritarian leader. This means he's making more policy decisions for Russia than the US President does for the US. On an economic level, Putin has done a great job. You can see each dip correlates with each time the US interfered in their backyard. [1] What the US does not want is a strong Russia. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-cap... > Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence I'm not a Putin apologist (I changed Russia to Putin because he's a dictator). All I do is try to look at the situation rationally. Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Ukraine is also an interesting country because the eastern half predominantly speak Russian. > It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened Those countries were introduced much closer to after the fall of the USSR, and they are tiny. So Russia let it go. >Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire. How would you feel if Russia constructed a bunch of missile silos pointed at us (USA) in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada? >The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion We did, even though they were not our soldiers. And we would have put our own troops on their soil if the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated.
- djur 5y ago
  Russia could make peace with NATO at any time. They can withdraw from disputed territories and commit to a reduction in armaments. We don't need to have missiles pointed at each other. Europe and the US would be more than happy to have Russia as a peaceful trade partner.
- realityking 5y ago
  > Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. I think you’re falling for for Russian propaganda here. While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members.[1] Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO.[2] In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019[3]. A change made after 5 years of war in Donbas with Russian support, as well as the annexation of Crimera. What did happen in 2014 was the Maidan revolution[4] as well the signing of the EU-Ukraine association agreement.[5] I’d argue, what Putin if afraid of is not NATO at his borders (though it plays well with some of his audience), but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. And to be clear, Ukraine today (even before the invasion) is far away from all 4. But it’d be a formidable threat to Putin’s autocratic and kleptocratic government. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html 2: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html 3: https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shchodo-kursu-na-vstup-v-yes-i-nato-nabuv-chynnosti https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shc... 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukrai...
  - eezurr 5y ago
    I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I want to know if my sources are provably biased. >While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation) >Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019 Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia. > but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
elhudy 5y ago
Appreciate the counterpoints. It's incredibly disappointing to me that the parent comment - a unique and dissenting viewpoint on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, is flagged and we can no longer see it. Can we get a moderator in here to fix this?
- eezurr 5y ago
  I couldn't find a HN rule against reposting flagged comments, so here it is (with my edit after being flagged). I want to reiterate my point of view is entirely neutral and fact based (from what I've read so far about the conflict). IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone: 1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3] 2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1] 3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation] For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3] What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4]. What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade Ukraine is brilliant because Putin is evil in the West's eyes, but it was 100% necessary for Putin to invade because having that much of his boarder exposed to NATO is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in, and he made that clear to us years ago [1]. Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. [5][6]. So Putin is forced to play the worst hand, invading his sibling country (which makes him appear more evil), spend billions of dollars to do so, and lose many of his economic connections to the world. I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way. Other notes: Russia's economy is strongly linked to natural gas and oil, and earlier this century a huge deposit of both was found in Ukraine and in their economic coastal zone/area. [3] Mearsheimer notably distinguishes the West and East's methods of international politics into "21st century 'walk in and do whatever we please'" and "19th century 'balance of power politics'". The US is such a powerful country that it wont face any negative repercussions for interfering with the world order nor invading smaller countries. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 [2] The US contributes over 10x the funds of the 2nd largest contributor (Germany) to NATO, and represents about 70% of the total pot. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE . Note, this video is a bit too pro-western to be fair/balanced. It does not consider the possibility that the US wants to get into Ukraine for oil/gas. [4] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis </armchair> Edit: Wow, people are flagging my sourced backed, neutral view comment? Can someone at HN please unflag the comment? @dang

by astine 5y ago

eezurr 5y ago

You must see global leaders as a weighted average of their policies, and then place them on a spectrum. As an example, Hitler is more evil than Putin; enough so that there's a large, visible gap between the two. >he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success. You'll need a source for that one. But here's why I think you're wrong [1]. Note that Putin came to power in 1999/2000 as an authoritarian leader. This means he's making more policy decisions for Russia than the US President does for the US. On an economic level, Putin has done a great job. You can see each dip correlates with each time the US interfered in their backyard. [1] What the US does not want is a strong Russia. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-cap... > Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence I'm not a Putin apologist (I changed Russia to Putin because he's a dictator). All I do is try to look at the situation rationally. Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Ukraine is also an interesting country because the eastern half predominantly speak Russian. > It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened Those countries were introduced much closer to after the fall of the USSR, and they are tiny. So Russia let it go. >Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire. How would you feel if Russia constructed a bunch of missile silos pointed at us (USA) in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada? >The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion We did, even though they were not our soldiers. And we would have put our own troops on their soil if the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated.

djur 5y ago
Russia could make peace with NATO at any time. They can withdraw from disputed territories and commit to a reduction in armaments. We don't need to have missiles pointed at each other. Europe and the US would be more than happy to have Russia as a peaceful trade partner.
realityking 5y ago
> Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. I think you’re falling for for Russian propaganda here. While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members.[1] Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO.[2] In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019[3]. A change made after 5 years of war in Donbas with Russian support, as well as the annexation of Crimera. What did happen in 2014 was the Maidan revolution[4] as well the signing of the EU-Ukraine association agreement.[5] I’d argue, what Putin if afraid of is not NATO at his borders (though it plays well with some of his audience), but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. And to be clear, Ukraine today (even before the invasion) is far away from all 4. But it’d be a formidable threat to Putin’s autocratic and kleptocratic government. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html 2: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html 3: https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shchodo-kursu-na-vstup-v-yes-i-nato-nabuv-chynnosti https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shc... 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukrai...
- eezurr 5y ago
  I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I want to know if my sources are provably biased. >While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation) >Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019 Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia. > but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

elhudy 5y ago

Appreciate the counterpoints. It's incredibly disappointing to me that the parent comment - a unique and dissenting viewpoint on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, is flagged and we can no longer see it. Can we get a moderator in here to fix this?

eezurr 5y ago
I couldn't find a HN rule against reposting flagged comments, so here it is (with my edit after being flagged). I want to reiterate my point of view is entirely neutral and fact based (from what I've read so far about the conflict). IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone: 1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3] 2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1] 3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation] For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3] What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4]. What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade Ukraine is brilliant because Putin is evil in the West's eyes, but it was 100% necessary for Putin to invade because having that much of his boarder exposed to NATO is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in, and he made that clear to us years ago [1]. Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. [5][6]. So Putin is forced to play the worst hand, invading his sibling country (which makes him appear more evil), spend billions of dollars to do so, and lose many of his economic connections to the world. I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way. Other notes: Russia's economy is strongly linked to natural gas and oil, and earlier this century a huge deposit of both was found in Ukraine and in their economic coastal zone/area. [3] Mearsheimer notably distinguishes the West and East's methods of international politics into "21st century 'walk in and do whatever we please'" and "19th century 'balance of power politics'". The US is such a powerful country that it wont face any negative repercussions for interfering with the world order nor invading smaller countries. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 [2] The US contributes over 10x the funds of the 2nd largest contributor (Germany) to NATO, and represents about 70% of the total pot. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE . Note, this video is a bit too pro-western to be fair/balanced. It does not consider the possibility that the US wants to get into Ukraine for oil/gas. [4] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis </armchair> Edit: Wow, people are flagging my sourced backed, neutral view comment? Can someone at HN please unflag the comment? @dang