9 ms·

"Expansion" makes it sound like something that happened to Eastern Europe against their will--not that those countries actively wanted to join. Those countries

"Expansion" makes it sound like something that happened to Eastern Europe against their will--not that those countries actively wanted to join. Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified.

chii 5y ago
> bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence). I think they must give up this notion. If russia turned into what germany is today after the fall of the USSR, they'd be prosperous. It would mean capitulation (to the "west"). Of course, this would mean that the oligarchs do not get their wealth, so there's no impetus for this course of action from anyone. The US is also not keep to have a "marshall plan" like they had with the post WW2 period to rebuild. So perhaps this war in ukraine is "inevitable".
- pphysch 5y ago
  > the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence). Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not. The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.
  - pm90 5y ago
    > Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not. Moscow is trying to but failing; and the global response to cut off Russia has been lead by Washington.
  - zuminator 5y ago
    But Washington hasn't invaded Ukraine to force it to submit to its domination. In a free world, nations should be free to decide whether they want to be "influenced" by other nations, and to what extent.
    - DeathArrow 5y ago
      No, but US invaded countless other countries. One of the points of the article is that a financial war can produce as much casualties as an old fashioned war. And US can both wage financial wars and threat with such a war. So, no, US does not always need to physically invade another country. It can produce some damage by other means.
    - chii 5y ago
      The issue is that the kremlin does not believe that any country would "freely" make this choice - it must be some sort of coercion from the west.
      - DeathArrow 5y ago
        But it kind of is. They are basically saying that if we don't deem you as "democratic" according to our standards, we won't allow you to conduct trade.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Many Ukrainians and Russians would disagree vis-a-vis the deadly 2014 coup.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not. The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO. Because they lack our equivalent situational awareness around missiles, there is a definite logic to their actions. > The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's. Excellent point. I've been amazed how completely Russian the East of Ukraine is. Just like we protect Mexico & Canada, and we have the Monroe Doctrine around Old European Powers playing in the Western Hemisphere, so also, do other great powers have an obligation to protect their turf. It doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We were willing to blockade Cuba to get our Russian missiles. And yet, our Mainstream Media and Political Class is beating the War Drum to further escalate the situation.
    - melony 5y ago
      Careful, you will get downvoted and flagged if you bring up Realpolitik and international relations on HN. Many idealistic people here get real sensitive about subjects that do not conform to their narrow world view.
    - lalaland1125 5y ago
      > The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO. Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014. Similarly, Finland and Sweden had almost zero interest in NATO until Russia did their full invasion of Ukraine this year. Russia's actions simply make no sense under the theory that Russia is trying to protect their borders from NATO.
      - lazide 5y ago
        It does if you think like an abusive spouse. ‘Stop looking at the neighbor or I’ll beat you silly’ kinda looks like it works and all, until they sneak away anyway.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    The concept of sphere of influence is antiquated and barbaric.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      ...says the nation with 700 overseas military bases and the global reserve currency. "Competition is wasteful and antiquated, said the monopoly-holder"
pasquinelli 5y ago
didn't russia try to join nato?
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  Yeah, and since it was obviously a troll move, they said no.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    what made it a troll move?
    - pm90 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhLkwmSu98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhLkwmSu98
    - cardosof 5y ago
      'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' Words of the first NATO secretary. So, if people start a club to avoid you and you know it, applying to it is a troll move, no?
    - dillondoyle 5y ago
      because they didn't fit the requirements. Mainly have to be a Democracy with more fair law & government.
      - pasquinelli 5y ago
        looking at some of these member states: you sure about that?
        Schiendelman 5y ago
        Yes. My god man, google the issue.
        5y ago
mushbino 5y ago
There is no open door policy with NATO. Russia and the Soviet union have tried to join NATO at least a few times publicly and were rejected every time. What's the point of NATO again?
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  In order to join NATO, one of the current requirements is having a liberal democratic government with civilian control over the military. Russia (and the old Soviet Union) didn't meet that requirement. Perhaps Russia should try transitioning to becoming a liberal democracy first?
  - mushbino 5y ago
    Considering how poorly neoliberalism has been doing, why should countries be forced to join otherwise risk becoming a target?
- lazide 5y ago
  The point of NATO is exactly why Russia fears it - consolidated strength that makes it impossible to pick off member states one by one by a stronger power (namely Russia). Russia and the USSR weren’t invited because they explicitly were the threat.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    So if Iraq or Vietnam joined NATO would that defended them against US aggression?
    - lazide 5y ago
      They are not geographically contiguous or traditionally aligned with Western Europe and the US, and so would never be allowed to join. It’s basically a Western European ‘neighborhood watch’ that the US is also in as the representative for ‘the police’ (based on spending/contribution).
mercy_dude 5y ago
Even western polls show around 54% population support for Ukraine to join NATO [1]. Not by a huge majority. And I suspect the Eastern parts the number is substantially lower. When Ukraine is discussed, a lot of western media assumes east and west in same terms which is really not the case. [1] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-for-eu-nato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-for-covid-19/ https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support...
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  I think it's a bit misleading to state that 54% figure without also mentioning that 18% didn't answer the question. So 54% supported joining NATO and 28% opposed, almost a 2 to 1 ratio of support to opposition.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  polling is way higher on EU trade and EU membership though and strong support !== necessarily mean strong opposition. Just a couple google sources before the invasion put it at 69%, 57%, 58% join EU versus 21% wanting the opposite of an economic union with ussr countries. IDK xtabs or if there is a poll with strong/lean scale, but a strong plurality above 50% is pretty big regardless see another example last link below showing decent majority strong yes with relatively small no. Main point is that NATO wasn't even on the table for Ukraine. The first invasion happened after the Ukrainian people chose a new government because Yanukovych refused to sign the EU trade agreement. I think a lot of countries in their position (like finland) the citizens were rightly worried about poking the nuclear bear by trying to join NATO. There are more than a few articles and polls out now showing the sentiment has changed now with this recent war. Finland for example is now above 53% join nato for while only 28% against. Another example of lopsided enthusiasm painting a different picture of support. https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-for-eu-nato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-for-covid-19/ https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support... https://www.statista.com/chart/26933/ukrainians-survey-nato-eu/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26933/ukrainians-survey-nato-... https://www.eureporter.co/world/ukraine/2021/03/16/ukrainians-are-ready-to-join-the-european-union-and-nato-says-survey/ https://www.eureporter.co/world/ukraine/2021/03/16/ukrainian... https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/03/business/finnish-swedish-people-want-neutral-nations-nato-poll-says/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/03/business/finnish-swed...
binarray2000 5y ago
2018 Macedonian referendum is one example of the contrarian. It was invalid as the turnout was mere 36.89% (most were probably Albanians). And (I think) in non other country that is a NATO member now, there was a referendum. For a broader perspective: NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” (from the horse's mouth) https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm EDIT: For even broader perspective: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world. — Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hi...
- promal11 5y ago
- ido 5y ago
  Unless there was foul play involved, if among 36.89% majority voted to join NATO and the rest didn't care enough to vote - isn't that an argument in favor of joining?
  - binarray2000 5y ago
    According to the Macedonian constitution, the turnout must be over 50%. Hence the boycot. And, what does that say about the oh-so-democratic West if less than 40% people turn out and it still "accepts" a country as a member?
    - nicbou 5y ago
      Was it a boycott or indifference?
    - ido 5y ago
      That's where more context is needed - was the low turn over a protest vote (or protest lack of vote)? Was it indifference? Was it sabotage by the government (making voting hard)? I think these questions will determine the answer.
DeathArrow 5y ago
>Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified. The same way Cuba bid for the Soviet Nukes to defend them? What would you say if Mexic and Canada would bid for a military alliance with Russia and China and some tens of thousands of soldiers and tanks, rockets, planes, would sit near the US border? PS. Before voting down, I am not trying to justify Russia's invasion but merely trying to explain the reasons behind it.
tpoacher 5y ago
This is true, but only in the same sense as shop owners willingly accepting mafia protection as soon as this is "offered". "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your shop". Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a country expresses interest to join NATO, the general sentiment must be "my my what a lovely club to join, I feel so safe here". You're literally signing a pact of war. Basically it's "choose which mafia family you prefer" and simply not choosing one is probably the worst choice.

chii 5y ago

> bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence). I think they must give up this notion. If russia turned into what germany is today after the fall of the USSR, they'd be prosperous. It would mean capitulation (to the "west"). Of course, this would mean that the oligarchs do not get their wealth, so there's no impetus for this course of action from anyone. The US is also not keep to have a "marshall plan" like they had with the post WW2 period to rebuild. So perhaps this war in ukraine is "inevitable".

pphysch 5y ago
> the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence). Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not. The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.
- pm90 5y ago
  > Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not. Moscow is trying to but failing; and the global response to cut off Russia has been lead by Washington.
- zuminator 5y ago
  But Washington hasn't invaded Ukraine to force it to submit to its domination. In a free world, nations should be free to decide whether they want to be "influenced" by other nations, and to what extent.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    No, but US invaded countless other countries. One of the points of the article is that a financial war can produce as much casualties as an old fashioned war. And US can both wage financial wars and threat with such a war. So, no, US does not always need to physically invade another country. It can produce some damage by other means.
  - chii 5y ago
    The issue is that the kremlin does not believe that any country would "freely" make this choice - it must be some sort of coercion from the west.
    - DeathArrow 5y ago
      But it kind of is. They are basically saying that if we don't deem you as "democratic" according to our standards, we won't allow you to conduct trade.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    Many Ukrainians and Russians would disagree vis-a-vis the deadly 2014 coup.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not. The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO. Because they lack our equivalent situational awareness around missiles, there is a definite logic to their actions. > The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's. Excellent point. I've been amazed how completely Russian the East of Ukraine is. Just like we protect Mexico & Canada, and we have the Monroe Doctrine around Old European Powers playing in the Western Hemisphere, so also, do other great powers have an obligation to protect their turf. It doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We were willing to blockade Cuba to get our Russian missiles. And yet, our Mainstream Media and Political Class is beating the War Drum to further escalate the situation.
  - melony 5y ago
    Careful, you will get downvoted and flagged if you bring up Realpolitik and international relations on HN. Many idealistic people here get real sensitive about subjects that do not conform to their narrow world view.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    > The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO. Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014. Similarly, Finland and Sweden had almost zero interest in NATO until Russia did their full invasion of Ukraine this year. Russia's actions simply make no sense under the theory that Russia is trying to protect their borders from NATO.
    - lazide 5y ago
      It does if you think like an abusive spouse. ‘Stop looking at the neighbor or I’ll beat you silly’ kinda looks like it works and all, until they sneak away anyway.
- friedman23 5y ago
  The concept of sphere of influence is antiquated and barbaric.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    ...says the nation with 700 overseas military bases and the global reserve currency. "Competition is wasteful and antiquated, said the monopoly-holder"

pasquinelli 5y ago

didn't russia try to join nato?

Schiendelman 5y ago
Yeah, and since it was obviously a troll move, they said no.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  what made it a troll move?
  - pm90 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhLkwmSu98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxhLkwmSu98
  - cardosof 5y ago
    'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' Words of the first NATO secretary. So, if people start a club to avoid you and you know it, applying to it is a troll move, no?
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    because they didn't fit the requirements. Mainly have to be a Democracy with more fair law & government.
    - pasquinelli 5y ago
      looking at some of these member states: you sure about that?
      - Schiendelman 5y ago
        Yes. My god man, google the issue.
      - 5y ago

mushbino 5y ago

There is no open door policy with NATO. Russia and the Soviet union have tried to join NATO at least a few times publicly and were rejected every time. What's the point of NATO again?

lalaland1125 5y ago
In order to join NATO, one of the current requirements is having a liberal democratic government with civilian control over the military. Russia (and the old Soviet Union) didn't meet that requirement. Perhaps Russia should try transitioning to becoming a liberal democracy first?
- mushbino 5y ago
  Considering how poorly neoliberalism has been doing, why should countries be forced to join otherwise risk becoming a target?
lazide 5y ago
The point of NATO is exactly why Russia fears it - consolidated strength that makes it impossible to pick off member states one by one by a stronger power (namely Russia). Russia and the USSR weren’t invited because they explicitly were the threat.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  So if Iraq or Vietnam joined NATO would that defended them against US aggression?
  - lazide 5y ago
    They are not geographically contiguous or traditionally aligned with Western Europe and the US, and so would never be allowed to join. It’s basically a Western European ‘neighborhood watch’ that the US is also in as the representative for ‘the police’ (based on spending/contribution).

mercy_dude 5y ago

Even western polls show around 54% population support for Ukraine to join NATO [1]. Not by a huge majority. And I suspect the Eastern parts the number is substantially lower. When Ukraine is discussed, a lot of western media assumes east and west in same terms which is really not the case. [1] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-for-eu-nato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-for-covid-19/ https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support...

lalaland1125 5y ago
I think it's a bit misleading to state that 54% figure without also mentioning that 18% didn't answer the question. So 54% supported joining NATO and 28% opposed, almost a 2 to 1 ratio of support to opposition.
dillondoyle 5y ago
polling is way higher on EU trade and EU membership though and strong support !== necessarily mean strong opposition. Just a couple google sources before the invasion put it at 69%, 57%, 58% join EU versus 21% wanting the opposite of an economic union with ussr countries. IDK xtabs or if there is a poll with strong/lean scale, but a strong plurality above 50% is pretty big regardless see another example last link below showing decent majority strong yes with relatively small no. Main point is that NATO wasn't even on the table for Ukraine. The first invasion happened after the Ukrainian people chose a new government because Yanukovych refused to sign the EU trade agreement. I think a lot of countries in their position (like finland) the citizens were rightly worried about poking the nuclear bear by trying to join NATO. There are more than a few articles and polls out now showing the sentiment has changed now with this recent war. Finland for example is now above 53% join nato for while only 28% against. Another example of lopsided enthusiasm painting a different picture of support. https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-for-eu-nato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-for-covid-19/ https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support... https://www.statista.com/chart/26933/ukrainians-survey-nato-eu/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26933/ukrainians-survey-nato-... https://www.eureporter.co/world/ukraine/2021/03/16/ukrainians-are-ready-to-join-the-european-union-and-nato-says-survey/ https://www.eureporter.co/world/ukraine/2021/03/16/ukrainian... https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/03/business/finnish-swedish-people-want-neutral-nations-nato-poll-says/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/03/business/finnish-swed...

binarray2000 5y ago

2018 Macedonian referendum is one example of the contrarian. It was invalid as the turnout was mere 36.89% (most were probably Albanians). And (I think) in non other country that is a NATO member now, there was a referendum. For a broader perspective: NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” (from the horse's mouth) https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm EDIT: For even broader perspective: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world. — Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hi...

promal11 5y ago
ido 5y ago
Unless there was foul play involved, if among 36.89% majority voted to join NATO and the rest didn't care enough to vote - isn't that an argument in favor of joining?
- binarray2000 5y ago
  According to the Macedonian constitution, the turnout must be over 50%. Hence the boycot. And, what does that say about the oh-so-democratic West if less than 40% people turn out and it still "accepts" a country as a member?
  - nicbou 5y ago
    Was it a boycott or indifference?
  - ido 5y ago
    That's where more context is needed - was the low turn over a protest vote (or protest lack of vote)? Was it indifference? Was it sabotage by the government (making voting hard)? I think these questions will determine the answer.

DeathArrow 5y ago

>Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified. The same way Cuba bid for the Soviet Nukes to defend them? What would you say if Mexic and Canada would bid for a military alliance with Russia and China and some tens of thousands of soldiers and tanks, rockets, planes, would sit near the US border? PS. Before voting down, I am not trying to justify Russia's invasion but merely trying to explain the reasons behind it.

tpoacher 5y ago

This is true, but only in the same sense as shop owners willingly accepting mafia protection as soon as this is "offered". "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your shop". Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a country expresses interest to join NATO, the general sentiment must be "my my what a lovely club to join, I feel so safe here". You're literally signing a pact of war. Basically it's "choose which mafia family you prefer" and simply not choosing one is probably the worst choice.