Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnimalMuppet | Hacker News Reader

NATO is a defensive alliance. It's not threatening Russia. It's not planning to invade Russia.

Yes, it's moving eastward. (And yes, apparently we promised not to.) But why is it moving eastward? Because NATO invaded, say, Poland? No, because Poland desperately wanted into NATO. Why? Because they've had a taste (or a belly full) of Russian aggression, invasion, occupation, and even partition. They wanted into NATO because they're afraid of Russia.

So how are we the ones threatening these people again? The only threat we pose to Russia is to not let them push other people around. And if that's a threat to them, well, it says more about Russia than it says about NATO.

View on HN

Again, from the Russian side, it was first Poland that joined, then talk of Ukraine joining. So an ever east-ward expansion of NATO. Meanwhile economic sanctions and exclusion. When that happened, Russia simply reacted. Much like the U.S. reacted to Cuba. Russian aggression is reactive and the predictable outcome of the behavior of NATO and Western economies.

Well, as the joke goes, it's vodka's fault. Vodka made Russians take Crimea, but then again vodka is why Crimea was Ukrainian post-USSR.

> then again vodka is why Crimea was Ukrainian post-USSR.

And for about half of the USSR's existence before it collapsed... Possibly more of it than it was Russian?

Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, given what happened with Crimea?

I'll make no judgment as to whether Crimea and its people are better off as a part of Russia or Ukraine (they very well might be better off a part of Russia), but invading and annexing is just not ok. (Same as if China decided to do the same to Taiwan.)

I just don't see the problem with NATO expansion. As a parent poster pointed out, it's a defensive alliance; if Russia has a problem with other countries promising to defend each other in the case that Russia wants to get aggressive, that's, well... Russia's problem.

> Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, given what happened with Crimea?

You have the chronology exactly backwards.

Nope. "Is it any wonder that X, given Y?" says nothing about chronology. "Is it any wonder that she wanted to divorce him, given that he killed her?" would be an oxymoron under your erroneous reasoning; with your logic she would have to be dead before she could want a divorce. To reasonable people, the murder was obviously just the culmination of a long chain of events.

> Again, from the Russian side, it was first Poland that joined, then talk of Ukraine joining. So an ever east-ward expansion of NATO.

So what? When the western-most provinces of Russia itself start revolutions to liberate themselves from Moscow, and promptly apply for NATO membership, will that also be NATO's fault; will you still refuse to see that it says more about Russia?

Russian aggression is "reactive"... To the reactions to Russian aggression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com