4 ms·

If you study geopolitics and history, you might come to the conclusion that Russia was never going to be a democratic ally of the West regardless of how much ec

If you study geopolitics and history, you might come to the conclusion that Russia was never going to be a democratic ally of the West regardless of how much economic aid they were given. Russia at the end of the cold war had geopolitical imperatives such as a warm water ports, buffer states and desire for Russian hegemony that would have existed regardless of their economic state. They also have a long, long history of authoritarianism.

lapcat 4y ago
> If you study geopolitics and history Please don't make assumptions about what other people have or haven't studied. > They also have a long, long history of authoritarianism. You could say the same about the Axis powers in WW2.
- hetman 4y ago
  The ideologies and power structures of the axis powers ceased to exist as a result of the outcome of WW2. This was not the case when the Russian Federation took on the mantle of the inheritor of the legacy of the USSR. Therefore it does not make sense to equate the history of authoritarianism in these places.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    Ideologies don't simply cease to exist the day the war is over.
    - hetman 4y ago
      Of course not, but they lose their power in the imagination of the people when the people realise they had been lied to.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > when the people realise they had been lied to Eagerly awaiting that occurrence...
- jorblumesea 4y ago
  I think it's pretty clear that many people here lack historical and geo political context. "Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!" Yes, I would. Btw your analogy of "why isn't germany authoritarian" is off the mark, because the Russians and NATO completely dismantled the existing power structures post ww2 through force. We did not do anything close to that post cold war. In fact the communist party still exists today in Russia. Another point is that the US made it clear it would not tolerate an openly authoritarian government in Western Europe but would tolerate far right groups for its own purposes against communism.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I think it's pretty clear that many people here lack historical and geo political context. > "Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!" > Yes, I would. You couldn't have a more blatant straw man argument. I'm not going to reply to you anymore. All you're doing here is chest beating.
    - jorblumesea 4y ago
      I think someone needs to read a little more history ;)
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > Please don't make assumptions about what other people have or haven't studied. They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths. And quit whining about the guidelines when you're violating them at least as much as anyone else.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths. They were. To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 > And quit whining about the guidelines No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines. > you're violating them at least as much as anyone else Nothing nearly as bad as your comment. Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > > They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths. > They were. Nope. "If you study geopolitics and history, you might come to the conclusion that Russia was never going to be a democratic ally of the West regardless of how much economic aid they were given" is only a prediction of one likely result of an action. It's only a commentary on one's person if one is the kind of person who thinks everything is about them. > To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 A later comment in reply to your accusation. And you're surprised you got it reflected back at you? Ah, maybe you didn't realise how well-deserved that was. > > And quit whining about the guidelines > No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines. Oh, not only violating, but blatantly violating, eh? Sez you. > > you're violating them at least as much as anyone else > Nothing nearly as bad as your comment. You would think so. I don't. > Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them. Exactly. Ponder on that for a while.
webmobdev 4y ago
Gorbachev wanted Russia to be a part of the Europe, and many say he was also assured of the same by the west (this is obviously contested now). But obviously this is against US political interests, as a stronger Europe weakens its hold on world power. And the US might have been right that Russia in Europe may have tilted Europe against it in the future, and the cold war would have continued perhaps in a milder form.

lapcat 4y ago

> If you study geopolitics and history Please don't make assumptions about what other people have or haven't studied. > They also have a long, long history of authoritarianism. You could say the same about the Axis powers in WW2.

hetman 4y ago
The ideologies and power structures of the axis powers ceased to exist as a result of the outcome of WW2. This was not the case when the Russian Federation took on the mantle of the inheritor of the legacy of the USSR. Therefore it does not make sense to equate the history of authoritarianism in these places.
- lapcat 4y ago
  Ideologies don't simply cease to exist the day the war is over.
  - hetman 4y ago
    Of course not, but they lose their power in the imagination of the people when the people realise they had been lied to.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > when the people realise they had been lied to Eagerly awaiting that occurrence...
jorblumesea 4y ago
I think it's pretty clear that many people here lack historical and geo political context. "Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!" Yes, I would. Btw your analogy of "why isn't germany authoritarian" is off the mark, because the Russians and NATO completely dismantled the existing power structures post ww2 through force. We did not do anything close to that post cold war. In fact the communist party still exists today in Russia. Another point is that the US made it clear it would not tolerate an openly authoritarian government in Western Europe but would tolerate far right groups for its own purposes against communism.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I think it's pretty clear that many people here lack historical and geo political context. > "Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!" > Yes, I would. You couldn't have a more blatant straw man argument. I'm not going to reply to you anymore. All you're doing here is chest beating.
  - jorblumesea 4y ago
    I think someone needs to read a little more history ;)
CRConrad 4y ago
> Please don't make assumptions about what other people have or haven't studied. They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths. And quit whining about the guidelines when you're violating them at least as much as anyone else.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths. They were. To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 > And quit whining about the guidelines No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines. > you're violating them at least as much as anyone else Nothing nearly as bad as your comment. Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > > They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths. > They were. Nope. "If you study geopolitics and history, you might come to the conclusion that Russia was never going to be a democratic ally of the West regardless of how much economic aid they were given" is only a prediction of one likely result of an action. It's only a commentary on one's person if one is the kind of person who thinks everything is about them. > To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292 A later comment in reply to your accusation. And you're surprised you got it reflected back at you? Ah, maybe you didn't realise how well-deserved that was. > > And quit whining about the guidelines > No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines. Oh, not only violating, but blatantly violating, eh? Sez you. > > you're violating them at least as much as anyone else > Nothing nearly as bad as your comment. You would think so. I don't. > Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them. Exactly. Ponder on that for a while.

webmobdev 4y ago

Gorbachev wanted Russia to be a part of the Europe, and many say he was also assured of the same by the west (this is obviously contested now). But obviously this is against US political interests, as a stronger Europe weakens its hold on world power. And the US might have been right that Russia in Europe may have tilted Europe against it in the future, and the cold war would have continued perhaps in a milder form.