U.S. Became 'Arrogant' After USSR Collapsed, Gorbachev Says 30 Years Later | Hacker News Reader

U.S. Became 'Arrogant' After USSR Collapsed, Gorbachev Says 30 Years Later

rferl.org

31 pointsvanusa17 comments

I figured I would put in my two cents; The US Government and its affiliates are terrorists. To be clear, in just the same way we perceive external threats. We have bombed and killed children, raped and pillaged, and destroyed entire cultures. This is humanity. The reality is survival of the fittest, and reality is not morally correct, it is in fact about what is amorally correct. Can't make everyone happy, and what rational mind would sacrifice their own for another to survive. Not a one, because we are selfish (Which is good, it keeps alive to a degree). Are ego's will always say we are good, if you are into that kind of denial of self-service. But for me, I know that I am human, and I live with a planet full of humans. Humans are Mammals, Mammals are Animals, Animals don't have morals; they do what they will to survive.

Francis Fukayama and "the end of history" comes to mind. I do think there's truth in the line of reasoning here. Firstly, pushing over a weakened wall you lit fires against these last 70 years is hardly a thumping victory. Meantime, the benefits of military spending got you there but now the cash needs to be spent other ways the US is struggling to convert over and has hollowed out its economy to consumer dominated, little manufacturing and huge dependence on adversarial external sources of goods and raw materials.

Hollow victory? Many British people believe Germany won the peace. Arguably Japan did too. The upsides for forced reconstruction which appear to have passed the USSR by because of kleptocracy.

Given another spin of the wheel with better computing, maybe central planning in the USSR would have arrived at a different place: consider Vietnam which still runs many national public monopolies, and has a mixed economy with state planning.

The USA is still the dominant economy, but it needs to look to the foundations, infrastructure, the necessary shift to green energy, social dislocation, lack of public health. Russia is not the real enemy, nuclear arms aside, as most politicians recognize. Casting out at China is a very odd move to take, with no significant point of tension Taiwan aside. Really, it's the economy. Nobody really cares about the moral issues.

> Casting out at China is a very odd move to take, with no significant point of tension Taiwan aside

Highly debatable, and I would say not supported by the facts. Look at what their Merchant Marine fleet has done toward weaker powers such as the Philippines. If we don't check their behavior now, it will be more difficult to stop in the future.

This is the "the US are the international police of the world" view. I agree what China does in the Spratleys is insanely bad, but its hardly close to the territorial waters of the USA unless you consider the former Philippines colony part of the USA still.

The right time to deal with this, was 30 years ago.

> This is the "the US are the international police of the world" view

No, it's the "US is the top power and wants to maintain primacy" view, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

"President Vladimir Putin has grown increasingly critical about NATO’s expansion..."

Did he realize that NATO did not invade these countries, like Russia did to Georgia and Ukraine, and NATO membership is the choice of its people?

Remembering terrorist attacks of Russia in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, and using chemical weapons on the territory of the UK, such a decision seems to have a rational reason.

Exactly. Annexing parts of Ukraine, and then complaining that Ukraine joining a defensive alliance is a threat is beyond absurd.

If they didn't want Ukraine to join NATO, maybe Russia shouldn't have gone out and demonstrated to the entire world precisely why Ukraine needs NATO protection.

'Would, should, could' isn't useful in Realpolitik. We're going to 'would, should, could' right into the very situation we claim to want to avoid. Gorbachev is correct, we're arrogant, believing we can make the world conform to our desires simply because they are our desires. It doesn't matter if Russia is right or wrong. It matters what Russia is going to do, both on their own and in reaction to what we do. The Ukraine mess is avoidable but we're arrogant and think we are right therefore reality will bend to our desire. This is extremely dangerous thinking, especially when dealing with nuclear powers.

Both this comment and its parent have the basic chronology backwards, specifically in regard to Ukraine. Whose moves to join NATO began in 2008 -- a full six years before the annexation of Crimea.

Also, especially since the Kosovo intervention it seems moot to refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance". It is an instrument through which its leading partners project power throughout the region, and the Russians know that.

Exactly.

Since 1989, NATO has been an alliance in search of an enemy. That's why it was involved in almost no conflicts before then. But since then it's been all over Eastern Europe, Iraq multiple times, Africa, Afghanistan etc.

I don't like Putin. But his position is a very predictable (even forced) response to (mainly US and UK) NATO activities.

I'm aware of the timeline but it has no bearing on the point I actually made. Invading Ukraine only makes the need to join NATO more pressing for the Ukrainians not less.

Your point is perfectly sound. What matters at this juncture is what Putin does - and why he can tap into a substantial component of support of his people to take military action to address decades of distrustful feelings towards the West, should he choose to do so.

Recall that is the secret to his genius: "To become the leader that my people want me to be."

Did he realize that NATO did not invade these countries, like Russia did to Georgia and Ukraine, and NATO membership is the choice of its people?

Say what you will about events that have happened since then. But the basic fact is, the Russians were explicitly promised there would be no NATO expansion in the former Warsaw Pact countries (let alone in the former Soviet republics) all throughout the German Unification talks. Though it is virtually absent from the current public discussion, information on this is very easy to find, should you feel inspired to do so.

Look how the USA freaked out when the USSR placed atomic weapons in Cuba, a sovereign nation over which the USA has nothing to say.

It is understandable that the USSR freaks out in the same way when the USA-led NATO does the same thing with Ukraine.

Not saying with this that the USSR is the good guy in this story, just that the reaction is understandable.

Tortstenvl's comment below is flagged, so I can't reply. I object to being called lying. But he is partially right and deserves a response.

I wrote 'does the same thing with Ukraine' and this is imprecise/incorrect. Afaik, no NATO nuclear weapons have been placed there.

But NATO is pretty open on the nuclear topic: they declare themselves a nuclear alliance. Nuclear deterrence and forward deployment of USA nuclear weapons in Europe is a core idea of the organization. If Ukraine joins, the question of forward deployment there is clearly on the table. Apart from that, deployment of standing forces in NATO Ukraine, which can't be unarmed, is basically a given.

NATO was created specifically to threaten the USSR. With Ukraine as a member, that threat literally moves a lot closer. Expecting Russia to just sit there and watch seems incredibly naive.

NATO is no threat to Russia. But it is a threat to Putin's power, if he cannot be seen to make it back down. He can only hang onto power so long as he seems powerful.

The US was already arrogant. Since WWII, at least.

But with ever-decreasing justification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com