4 ms·

Why would next Russian leaders start to believe that suddenly countries stop having opposing interest and don't need to use variety of tools to secure them, inc

Why would next Russian leaders start to believe that suddenly countries stop having opposing interest and don't need to use variety of tools to secure them, including war and sowing discontent among the countries they consider their rivals? Much can be said, but not that they are so naive as your typical HN commenter.

jacquesm 1y ago
Because there is no upside for them. Nobody cares or wants to invade russia, that's mostly in their heads. But if they keep going like this at some point it might actually be on the table. There was a point in time where what you just wrote could have been said for Amsterdam and Utrecht, which were regularly at war. But cooperation and collaboration are a much better way to run the world. Russia should move out of 1905 and get to 2025 if they want to continue to be a factor in the long term.
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  Cooperation is better until it stops being better. You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes. And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > Cooperation is better until it stops being better. It was better for Russia than the present. > You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes. The US has nothing to do with this. > And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious. Yes, you can make enemies out of thin air. But the facts are simple: Europe has tried to appease Russia by trading with them, in the end that trade balance was and is used to wage war. That's a dead end strategy. Russia can not survive by itself and needs trading partners more than it needs more territory. Putin and his band of mafiosi are robbing Russia blind and are the root cause of a lot of this, they will at some point be replaced and hopefully the new guard will be smarter than the old guard. And if not we'll deal with that when we get there. You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country. The same goes for the Baltics, Romania and lots of other countries in the East. Between all of them there is a solid agreement that this will not happen again. They're more than happy to let Russia be Russia, but within its own borders. Just like it would be if your country bordered Somalia or Iran.
    - wolvesechoes 1y ago
      > The US has nothing to do with this. On the contrary. Epitome of close transnational cooperation, the EU, would not exist if not for the US. So called "international law" and "free trade" are creations of US hegemony as well. > You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country. I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind: 1. Russia is Poland's adversary, always have been, always will be. Not because of some good vs evil bs, or because Putin is madman, but because success of one is a loss of the other. Yes, some games are zero-sum, and this is why wars will happen. Alliances always are more or less situational. 2. Russia is a country of misery, and always was. 3. Unrest and far-right success we face internally, as other countries do as well, though definitely exploited and fueled by Russia, are fault of people that were in charge so far, and systemic problems they created or failed to address. 4. Russian policy against neighbouring countries is independent from who is currently ruling there.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        > I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind: No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation. The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.
        wolvesechoes 1y ago
        > No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation. And how from this experience follows anything that you postulated before? My great grandfather was in three German camps, Auschwitz among them, and I do not produce from this fact any theory on German foreign policy, or politics in general. That would be quite silly. > The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States. ECSC in 1951 was created due to US encouragement and active involvement. US was preventing France from enacting more severe reparation policies after WW2, US was pushing UK to go against traditional British policy of preventing mainland Europe from any unification, US was making sure Germany will be part of any initiative (France was reluctant, UK even more so) etc. We can add to that the Marshall Plan as well. Of course nothing of that wasn't motivated by charity of the US, and it doesn't mean that there were no forces internal to Europe that also pushed for closer cooperation, but it doesn't change facts that are a bitter pill for some euro enthusiasts. History usually brings bitter pills for those that think it ended. Unless you mean Holy Roman Empire as a predecessor of the EU, then sure, you are right.

jacquesm 1y ago

Because there is no upside for them. Nobody cares or wants to invade russia, that's mostly in their heads. But if they keep going like this at some point it might actually be on the table. There was a point in time where what you just wrote could have been said for Amsterdam and Utrecht, which were regularly at war. But cooperation and collaboration are a much better way to run the world. Russia should move out of 1905 and get to 2025 if they want to continue to be a factor in the long term.

wolvesechoes 1y ago
Cooperation is better until it stops being better. You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes. And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > Cooperation is better until it stops being better. It was better for Russia than the present. > You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes. The US has nothing to do with this. > And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious. Yes, you can make enemies out of thin air. But the facts are simple: Europe has tried to appease Russia by trading with them, in the end that trade balance was and is used to wage war. That's a dead end strategy. Russia can not survive by itself and needs trading partners more than it needs more territory. Putin and his band of mafiosi are robbing Russia blind and are the root cause of a lot of this, they will at some point be replaced and hopefully the new guard will be smarter than the old guard. And if not we'll deal with that when we get there. You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country. The same goes for the Baltics, Romania and lots of other countries in the East. Between all of them there is a solid agreement that this will not happen again. They're more than happy to let Russia be Russia, but within its own borders. Just like it would be if your country bordered Somalia or Iran.
  - wolvesechoes 1y ago
    > The US has nothing to do with this. On the contrary. Epitome of close transnational cooperation, the EU, would not exist if not for the US. So called "international law" and "free trade" are creations of US hegemony as well. > You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country. I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind: 1. Russia is Poland's adversary, always have been, always will be. Not because of some good vs evil bs, or because Putin is madman, but because success of one is a loss of the other. Yes, some games are zero-sum, and this is why wars will happen. Alliances always are more or less situational. 2. Russia is a country of misery, and always was. 3. Unrest and far-right success we face internally, as other countries do as well, though definitely exploited and fueled by Russia, are fault of people that were in charge so far, and systemic problems they created or failed to address. 4. Russian policy against neighbouring countries is independent from who is currently ruling there.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      > I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind: No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation. The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.
      - wolvesechoes 1y ago
        > No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation. And how from this experience follows anything that you postulated before? My great grandfather was in three German camps, Auschwitz among them, and I do not produce from this fact any theory on German foreign policy, or politics in general. That would be quite silly. > The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States. ECSC in 1951 was created due to US encouragement and active involvement. US was preventing France from enacting more severe reparation policies after WW2, US was pushing UK to go against traditional British policy of preventing mainland Europe from any unification, US was making sure Germany will be part of any initiative (France was reluctant, UK even more so) etc. We can add to that the Marshall Plan as well. Of course nothing of that wasn't motivated by charity of the US, and it doesn't mean that there were no forces internal to Europe that also pushed for closer cooperation, but it doesn't change facts that are a bitter pill for some euro enthusiasts. History usually brings bitter pills for those that think it ended. Unless you mean Holy Roman Empire as a predecessor of the EU, then sure, you are right.