Hacker News Reader

Comment by awalton | Hacker News Reader

Literally from the first moment the story broke, I had completely discounted the magical sonic weapon theory and was wondering what was in their environment and whether they had instead been poisoned. It fits vastly better, and there are much better questions to be asked probing the nature of the poisoning. The entire "sonic weapon" angle seemed to be some kind of fabrication to immediately drum up Cold War feelings against Cuba and the ongoing efforts to end the embargo and return to normalcy.

In fact, it was this very story that makes me wonder to this day if Obama's move to normalize relations with Cuba in 2014-15 was the inciting incident behind Russia's decision to start the Digital Cold War in the first place.

View on HN

> In fact, it was this very story that makes me wonder to this day if Obama's move to normalize relations with Cuba in 2014-15 was the inciting incident behind Russia's decision to start the Digital Cold War in the first place.

I think NATO's assassination of Gaddafi was a disaster re: relationship with Russia

2011: "Putin blamed himself for letting Gaddafi go, for not playing a strong role behind the scenes" [0]

2012: US threatens military action in Syria: "red line"

2013: Russia gives refuge to Edward Snowden

2013: John Kerry gives Syria a week to destroy their chemical weapons. "(Syria) isn't about to do it and it can't be done". Lavrov immediately negotiates a non-military solution. [1]

2014: Direct Russian intervention following the overthrow of the Ukrainian government (cf Yugoslavia)

2015: Full-scale Russian military props up the Syrian government side in the Syrian civil war (cf Libya)

2016: Russia is accused of manipulating the US election

[0] http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/04/obamas_red_li... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

It amazed me at the time of the 'red line' incident how little credence most people gave to the threat intimated by Russia should the US take action in Syria. Those on the right took it as a turn to jab at Obama over perceived weakness and the Left was in a frenzy to initiate some kind of 'humanitarian police action' with neither side seeming to give a damn that their leaders were standing toe to toe with their Russian counterparts in the first credible example of brinkmanship in the new millennia.

Not a perceived weakness, proof of just how terrible a negotiator he is. You should never declare a "red line" if you won't adhere to it.

Think of it through an example of a micro-negotiation. Look at parents who constantly tell their children "if you do x I'll do y" but never follow through on it. All their children do is push their boundaries to see just how much they can get away with. It totally destroys any ability to have a normal relationship built on mutual respect.

Perhaps more of a failure of intelligence than negotiation -- it seems the Americans at the time perceived the Russian support for Assad as lukewarm and gambled on a weaker Russian response. It seems that Obama may really have meant the red line, until it became clear too late what the cost would be.

I highly doubt that, since his administration was actively financing anti-Assad groups, including violent religious extremists. We've been fighting a proxy war with Russia in the Middle East for roughly seventy years and Syria has been Russia's #1 ally in the region for decades. He'd have to have his head in the sand to think that Russia would allow him to directly take out Assad's forces.

He made a horrible decision that reeks of hubris, thinking that nobody would call his bluff.

> Not a perceived weakness, proof of just how terrible a negotiator he is. You should never declare a "red line" if you won't adhere to it.

if seymour hersh is to be believed, the ghouta attack was carried out by islamists with turkish support[1]. if this is the case, obama's (lack of) reaction makes much more sense. turkey is a nato member but stands to gain much were assad pushed out, and clear incentive to trip something over the red line. however, the actions that may be forced by revealing turkish involvement would be a political and diplomatic atom bomb.

[1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-a...

I think killing Gaddafi was a disaster, period. In addition, it sent the message to other would-be cooperators in authoritarian regimes that we are a very fickle ally, and we'll do what we want when we want. Unless you have nukes, of course.

Any hope for the non-proliferation / disarmament movement died with him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya

yes, Cuba in 2014-15 wasn't that important/noticeable in Russia given the other things going, ie. Ukraine.

Just an addition to your timeline - the opening bell was as far as i see the Georgian war of 2008. That clearly put Russia on notice about NATO expansion not stopping with Poland/Bulgaria/Romania/etc. and that the warm&cozy period has ended - at least it was perceived that way from the Russia POV.

It was a probably a combo of things, but the images of Ukrainians tearing down statues of Lenin right after the winter Olympics (in Russia!) has to be near the top.

From my understanding, Lenin and the 1917 Bolsheviks are not sacrosanct or particularly welcome in Putin's nationalist, capitalist, Russia.

The 100th anniversary of the Russian October revolution just passed, with minimal and lukewarm remembrance from the official state. BBC ran a whole series of segments on this, interviewing school children and ordinary Russians and state officials -- knowledge of the 1917 Revolution was thin.

Stalin, different story, because he fits into the 'Great Russian' nationalist narrative -- and was the leader during the Great Patriotic War.

> Stalin, different story, because he fits into the 'Great Russian' nationalist narrative -- and was the leader during the Great Patriotic War.

Dead wrong.

Stalin is remembered first and foremost for the great purge of 1937, inducing famine in Ukraine and displacing people en masse. His most notable "contribution" to WW2 was his complete silence during the first few days that followed June 22nd. He abandoned his duties as the supreme commander at the moment when he was needed the most. In my age group it is generally accepted that WW2 was won by generals and marshals despite Stalin being at the helm rather than because of it. Stalin is remembered for his cruelty and cowardice, not his leadership.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

That may be how history in the west remembers him (and probably a large number of people in Russia as well), but that is not my impression of how he is framed by the Russian regime today or press today.

Take a look at https://www.rt.com/politics/394158-russians-name-stalin-most...

>Stalin is remembered first and foremost for the great purge of 1937, inducing famine in Ukraine and displacing people en masse.

That's in other countries. In Russia he is remembered for WW2. Official narrative is something like "yep, he killed some people and was wrong sometimes, but they were reabilitated some 30-50 years after, so what's up", BUT he won WW2.

No, what I said applies specifically to how he is viewed by Russians. Not the official media, but the actual people.

I'm not sure you can draw a line between Qaddafi and general Russian expansion because you're missing 2008: Direct Russian military intervention in Georgia

I'm no fan of Putin but you also have to go back to NATO going into Russia in 1999, violating agreements by expanding NATO right up to Russias border around the Baltics etc and pushing Ballistic Missile Defence in Europe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com