Hacker News Reader

Comment by TazeTSchnitzel | Hacker News Reader

> overestimation of Russia's danger on the US and EU

Depends what you mean by “EU”. Western Europe? Sure, Russia maybe isn't a big deal for them. But the Baltic states, which are EU and NATO member states, understandably consider their next-door neighbour a huge threat.

View on HN

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13581128 and marked it off-topic. I realize that other comment planted the seed of offtopicness but this is where it sprouted.

> Depends what you mean by “EU”. Western Europe? Sure

It also depends on what you mean by danger. Are Western European EU countries in jeopardy of being invaded by Russia? Probably not. But considering Russia's position as supplier of most of Europe's natural gas and a big chunk of its oil, danger can have many meanings.

The most plausible explanation I've heard for the situation in Syria involves a proposed pipeline from Qatar that would challenge Russia's position as primary natural gas supplier to Europe. Russia has been propping up Assad, since he's against the pipeline. Western countries, including the US, have wanted him gone so that a more pipeline-friendly regime can be put in place. There's a cold war being fought between Europe/US and Russia in Syria, and ISIS stepping into that power vacuum has been the result. And while that's not an existential danger to Europe, just ask the French how safe they feel. And the refugee crisis hasn't exactly been pleasant for Western Europe either.

Meanwhile, Russia also wants to tap oil reserves in their arctic areas but wants help from Exxon to do it. That requires the US dropping its sanctions. Hence Russia's involvement in getting Putin-friendly Trump elected and Exxon exec Tillerson as Secretary of State.

The reality is that Russia is a petrostate ruled by oligarchs who are intent on exploiting those resources to their fullest. Russia will do everything in its power to thwart transitions to alternative fuels. And it is more than willing to use its military to promote its interests in third-world countries. This isn't unlike what the US does, but to anyone who cares about the environment, it should be a very scary thought, since the Russian agenda means increasing our effect on climate change. Equating Russian danger to military aggression against the West is probably overly simplistic and ignores the primary dangers of Russia. The true dangers are likely more subtle forms of advocating their interests.

What would a big country benefit from invading its weak neighbor in the 21st century? Putin isn't an angle but he is surely not Europe's or US' enemy like the liberal media is trying hard to push that narrative. Many of the Baltic states are inexplicably pushing the west towards a pointless conflict with Russia. It's just like Georgia in 2008 or maybe even like Poland with Nazi Germany in late 1930s.

> What would a big country benefit from invading its weak neighbor in the 21st century?

You're asking this as if it didn't already happen in Ukraine.

Isn't it true that Ukraine has never been an independent state except since the fall of the USSR? In its history? Except for 2 weeks after WWII? It has always been a fertile land, agrarian, impossible to defend due to no natural boundaries, its people of fiercely independent mind, yet, having been rolled over by Poles, Russians, Vikings, Norsman repeatedly and periodically throughout history? That would be the context. I would even go as far as saying that Donbass and Crimea are not to be counted as Ukraine, historically?

Most of your claims are false. And for argument sake if they were true, let's face it: Ukraine not only was independent since 1991, but it's territory integrity was guaranteed by Russia and USA.

I would only request that it should be viewed in context of its history. Especially if we might decide to enshrine the world in more war over it. It is in its current state a construct, without a foundation. To reach peace, a compromise must be reached.

'I would only request that it should be viewed in context of its history.' THE context of its history is that Ukraine was independent longer than the USA exists. And even despite that fact, the post-soviet era requires borders to be intact in order to reach peace. If we'll let this go, that would mean that it is 'ok' to invade countries and we would fall down back into world wars times. *And by invading countries, I mean grabbing someone's else land and declaring it your own.

It's mostly a question. How can you declare a question false?

ok, let me show you an example of a false question: Isn't it true that the USA is a dictatorship?

It's an independent state now. Should the U.S. be rolled over by Russia, given that it's only existed for a couple hundred years?

The U.S. had to emancipate from a perceived oppressor by forging alliances, engage in deception, and by defeating the enemy. In the end, that's what it all boils down to. Raising the specter of a giant guilt-trip wasn't gonna work for U.S.

So, it's not aggression if everyone else does it?

the world is based on aggression, unfortunately. To just pretend this is not so only makes things worse. A prognosis must include a proper diagnosis. Currently all that's being done by either side is using it as a ping-pong ball, that's how it has been for recent history (1.5 millenia?). Declaring Ukraine a state seems not much more than a paper-tiger. Nothing of what I said or say is meant to justify aggression or bloodshed.

Russia has pretty much always desired to control the Baltic states for the same reason: having them as proxy states create important buffer zones to a country that has otherwise weak borders protecting it's population centers. Historically most of Russia's geopolitical actions can be explained by Russian border protectionism. If Russia didn't have the Caucuses mountains to rely on I'd be willing to bet you'd see them laying pressure in that border region to capture them too.

Inexplicably? Let's take a quick look at some history.

Russia has attacked & occupied the baltics multiple times. Imperial Russia occupied Estonia during 18th - 20th century, and Soviet Russia once again occupied for half of the 20th century. During this time they sent the natives to Siberia, while importing Russians here and imposing other forms of russification [1] to obliterate our culture. It's more than just about land, it's about the survival of our culture which has been under systematic attack by Russia for the overwhelming majority of the last 300 years. The current Russian regime isn't much different and holds a strongly anti-Estonian view, so of course self-preservation is the #1 political issue for us.

Russia still celebrates everything Soviet as the biggest heroes that have ever lived, and have an amazing number of Stalin statues/paintings everywhere. Then they fund & organize attacks on Georgia [2], and annex Crimea [3]. Then, as recently as 2014, the FSB came into Estonia and abducted one of our intelligence agents. [4] This agent was denied contact with anyone, and was given premission to only use a Russian appointed lawyer. In a charade of a trial he was quickly sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was later exchanged for a FSB agent who was sitting in our prison. [5]

Then there's the fact that Russia keeps flying their military planes into baltic airspace on a regular basis. [6] They have been doing this ever since the collapse of USSR and they keep doing this even today when we have NATO fighters patrolling the skies. It might be easy to say "liberal media is pushing propaganda" if you live far from the Russian border, but we are actually living here with regular Russian war plane visits and seeing events like Crimea where they go even further.

So you see, it's not only about precedence, but it's also about the continuation of the theme and actual real events that keep happening.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eston_Kohver

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksei_Dressen

[6] https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+plane+estonian+airsp...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com