4 ms·

> Should Russia schedule a delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba for this week or next? Frankly, I couldn’t care less. But if you think a country choosing to all

> Should Russia schedule a delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba for this week or next? Frankly, I couldn’t care less. But if you think a country choosing to ally with a country is the same as positioning nuclear weapons, well, that’s your problem. Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls, which were the result of an insane arms buildup and included activities like putting missiles in Cuba. Even the Soviet Union got it. > Is that because of its close proximity to Maine? So you can only feel threatened by a country that you share a border with? > I guess it's closer than Iraq... This is called whataboutism and it can safely be rejected.

gspetr 5y ago
>Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls From game theory stand point that is the only course of action to maintain MAD. If you're falling behind in drones and high precision weapons, it would be very disadvantageous if everyone went nukeless.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Which only holds true if you want to be an adversary. NATO countries don’t care about Russia as a military adversary except to the degree that they want to be one. The Cold War is over. Russia could just grow into a prosperous economy and ally with the west. They choose not to.
  - gspetr 5y ago
    If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined. US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster. Also, if the Cold war was over - why did NATO even expand? A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined. Many reasons. One can simply be good salespeople. Another could be an effective role as world police. Another could be to constrain violent dictatorships from invading neighboring countries. But sure it’s just so very aggressive toward little ole’ Russia. > US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster. What argument? > Also, if the Cold war was over - I guess you can debate this with someone but everyone alive who anybody cares to listen to recognizes that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. > why did NATO even expand? Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries. Georgia. Moldova. Ukraine. Why wouldn’t you want to be protected from that? > A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not? Don’t care.
      - gspetr 5y ago
        >could be an effective role as world police. There's war in Yemen right now, with one of the sides heavily backed by Saudi Arabia, where's the world police? Or does it only respond to calls when land changes hands? >starting wars against neighboring countries. 1/3 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia. 3/7 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia. 0/4 of those admitted after that. >Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries. There's no denying it being a mafia state, but that may not necessarily be the only or even the dominant explanation. Even Wikipedia (which Russia had repeatedly considered banning on its territory) cites quite different reasons: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence." >Georgia The situation with Georgia reads very similar to the current conflict, except Georgia had taken the Russian role in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Abkhaz_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Abkhaz_confli...
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls The US repudiated the ABM treaty before Russia did any of that (Russian withdrawal from START II was a direct response to that), and also exited the Open Skies Treaty first. There are many, many things to blame Russia for, but collapsing the arms control and verification regime that developed during the Cold War was entirely the US (and specifically an active partisan project of the GOP.)
- ericmay 5y ago
  Yep. > On December 13, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush, who argued that Washington and Moscow no longer needed to base their relationship on their ability to destroy each other, announced that the United States would withdraw from the ABM Treaty, claiming that it prevented U.S. development of defenses against possible terrorist or "rogue-state" ballistic missile attacks. [1] [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty Without getting into the entire history of tit-for-tat let’s not pretend that withdrawing from this treaty was the result of some wonton aggression toward little ole’ Russia.
pydry 5y ago
>But if you think a country choosing to ally with a country is the same as positioning nuclear weapons I think encircling your border with an offensive military alliance is very much like placing nukes 100 miles away and pointing them at you, yes. I wouldnt want the military alliance that destroyed Libya anywhere near me if I thought I could be a target. Having a strict "dont end up like Libya" policy is actually a fairly sensible. >This is called whataboutism It's called sarcasm.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > I think encircling your border with an offensive military alliance is very much like placing nukes 100 miles away and pointing them at you, yes. Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia? > I wouldnt want the military alliance that destroyed Libya anywhere near me if I thought I could be a target. Having a strict "dont end up like Libya" policy is actually a fairly sensible. Odd isn’t it? It’s almost like if you are like Libya, and you murder your citizens, deny them basic rights, and enrich yourself at their expense you end up on the receiving end of some measure of justice. I can’t imagine what could possibly prevent that. No country has ever figured that out. Nope. No way.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia? It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. It destroyed Libya. It is an offensive alliance without question. That doesnt excuse Russia, but Russia invading Ukraine doesnt excuse NATO either.
    - signatoremo 5y ago
      > It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. Wrong. It was set up to oppose the Soviet Union. Not Russia. Putin himself was talking about joining NATO. Regardless of how serious he was, no country consider joining an organization if it’s hostile to them. > It is an offensive alliance without question. Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role. Even putting aside the circumstances of that campaign, an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war, does that make any sense?

gspetr 5y ago

>Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls From game theory stand point that is the only course of action to maintain MAD. If you're falling behind in drones and high precision weapons, it would be very disadvantageous if everyone went nukeless.

ericmay 5y ago
Which only holds true if you want to be an adversary. NATO countries don’t care about Russia as a military adversary except to the degree that they want to be one. The Cold War is over. Russia could just grow into a prosperous economy and ally with the west. They choose not to.
- gspetr 5y ago
  If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined. US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster. Also, if the Cold war was over - why did NATO even expand? A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > If that's true then if you were a rational actor why would you overspend on military, even if we adjusted by cost of labour, GDP per capita and other relevant economic parameters? US spends more than the next 10 countries by military spending combined. Many reasons. One can simply be good salespeople. Another could be an effective role as world police. Another could be to constrain violent dictatorships from invading neighboring countries. But sure it’s just so very aggressive toward little ole’ Russia. > US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster. What argument? > Also, if the Cold war was over - I guess you can debate this with someone but everyone alive who anybody cares to listen to recognizes that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. > why did NATO even expand? Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries. Georgia. Moldova. Ukraine. Why wouldn’t you want to be protected from that? > A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not? Don’t care.
    - gspetr 5y ago
      >could be an effective role as world police. There's war in Yemen right now, with one of the sides heavily backed by Saudi Arabia, where's the world police? Or does it only respond to calls when land changes hands? >starting wars against neighboring countries. 1/3 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia. 3/7 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia. 0/4 of those admitted after that. >Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries. There's no denying it being a mafia state, but that may not necessarily be the only or even the dominant explanation. Even Wikipedia (which Russia had repeatedly considered banning on its territory) cites quite different reasons: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence." >Georgia The situation with Georgia reads very similar to the current conflict, except Georgia had taken the Russian role in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Abkhaz_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Abkhaz_confli...

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls The US repudiated the ABM treaty before Russia did any of that (Russian withdrawal from START II was a direct response to that), and also exited the Open Skies Treaty first. There are many, many things to blame Russia for, but collapsing the arms control and verification regime that developed during the Cold War was entirely the US (and specifically an active partisan project of the GOP.)

ericmay 5y ago
Yep. > On December 13, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush, who argued that Washington and Moscow no longer needed to base their relationship on their ability to destroy each other, announced that the United States would withdraw from the ABM Treaty, claiming that it prevented U.S. development of defenses against possible terrorist or "rogue-state" ballistic missile attacks. [1] [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty Without getting into the entire history of tit-for-tat let’s not pretend that withdrawing from this treaty was the result of some wonton aggression toward little ole’ Russia.

pydry 5y ago

>But if you think a country choosing to ally with a country is the same as positioning nuclear weapons I think encircling your border with an offensive military alliance is very much like placing nukes 100 miles away and pointing them at you, yes. I wouldnt want the military alliance that destroyed Libya anywhere near me if I thought I could be a target. Having a strict "dont end up like Libya" policy is actually a fairly sensible. >This is called whataboutism It's called sarcasm.

ericmay 5y ago
> I think encircling your border with an offensive military alliance is very much like placing nukes 100 miles away and pointing them at you, yes. Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia? > I wouldnt want the military alliance that destroyed Libya anywhere near me if I thought I could be a target. Having a strict "dont end up like Libya" policy is actually a fairly sensible. Odd isn’t it? It’s almost like if you are like Libya, and you murder your citizens, deny them basic rights, and enrich yourself at their expense you end up on the receiving end of some measure of justice. I can’t imagine what could possibly prevent that. No country has ever figured that out. Nope. No way.
- pydry 5y ago
  >Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia? It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. It destroyed Libya. It is an offensive alliance without question. That doesnt excuse Russia, but Russia invading Ukraine doesnt excuse NATO either.
  - signatoremo 5y ago
    > It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. Wrong. It was set up to oppose the Soviet Union. Not Russia. Putin himself was talking about joining NATO. Regardless of how serious he was, no country consider joining an organization if it’s hostile to them. > It is an offensive alliance without question. Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role. Even putting aside the circumstances of that campaign, an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war, does that make any sense?