Hacker News Reader

Comment by teekert | Hacker News Reader

Russia doesn't like EU-ification of their bordering nations afaik. EU doesn't like Russia-oriented border nations? Or they want to expand? Not sure actually. I though we didn't want Ukraine in the EU?

Anyway, can't we just talk about this?

And we all know what the US has got to do with this (LNG vs Russian Gas, Dollar vs Euro, divide and concur, the empire first, etc.) but: What does the US have to do with this? I mean officially, what do they tell the rest of us? I don't even know. Can I please have a vote, as an EU citizen? I vote "Talk".

View on HN

A lot of US politicians are involved in the Ukrainian energy and gas industry since Euromaidan (see Burisma for example). Their support for increasing gas transit tariffs caused huge increases in energy prices in Europe recently, and is why Russia has built Nord Stream 2.

The US wants to keep Europe isolated from Russia and have some control via Ukraine. They make millions off the tariffs whilst we struggle to afford electricity.

As a fellow EU citizen, I wish we could have a peaceful disarmament. Have the US withdraw its military bases from Europe, stop funding and arming extremist militias in Ukraine, stop interfering in Nord Stream 2, etc. and abolish NATO. Whilst Russia could also stop funding separatists and allow Ukraine to join the EU, and the EU could permit Nord Stream 2 and form a self-defence force.

You won't have a peaceful anything with Russia. So stop sponsoring their weapons programme with gas purchases. The US wants to keep the EU out of Russian influence and medding. Eastern Europe has been under Soviet influence for 50 years. No more!

Almost nobody wants to live in Putin's sphere of influence (for obvious reasons: economy, freedom). While Russia and Belarus are dictatorships, Ukraine is a democracy with free elections. What is there to "talk" about?

I mean talk with Putin (as EU): "WTF are you doing? Yes we'll get that NordStream2 going our citizens want it too. It's just those Americans that aren't playing nice but we need them. Still, let's talk economic relations that benefit both countries. Yes we understand that after the fall of the wall your country was a mess and you never want to go back to that type of 'democracy', but you know, maybe it's time now... Or when do you think it's time? let's talk about it. Yes you have to keep those oligarchs that just grabbed wealth for years after the fall of the wall happy. We understand, but hey, they'll die soon enough."

Russia is way less worried about EU-expansion, than it is about NATO expansion. From their perspective, Nato got closer and closer encirceling their heartland.

(but their perspective does not usually include, why all those former sowjet satellites want to join Nato)

Draw out Russia’s borders, mark the sections that are part of this “encirclement”, and it becomes a pretty absurd claim at a glance.

Not if you consider, that the main developed parts of russia - their heartland, are on the european side, west of the ural.

So that claim is valid, but I still do not think it is up to russia to decide, which military alliance their sovereign neighbors join.

So the US wouldn't mind if Mexico and Canada joined some China-Russia-Iran military alliance? It's up to them to decide? I don't understand how people can be this naive.

Mind? Sure.

Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope.

> Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope.

Except that's exactly what they would do, because these "rights" aren't real, just figments of people's imagination cut off from how things actually work.

The US surely would mind.

"I don't understand how people can be this naive."

But it is true, that idealism is often labeled as naive.

Because seriously? Why is it naive being against any type of imperialism? I can and do criticize imperialist behavior in russia, china, US, EU strongarming smaller nations ... equally.

People can want whatever they want but to expect any state to behave differently in this situation is certainly naive.

States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want. But yes, it seems that imperialism is still a wanted concept.

> States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want.

The naivety continues. The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq. Both a priori and empirically, almost all inhabitants of almost all states have almost zero say in how they behave in foreign policy. Second of all, this is emergent behavior. States act in their own self-interest using the power that they have to enforce their security, it is their raison d'être. Those that abnegate quickly cease to exist, so by selection bias no alternatives exist for long.

I did not say, all people are equal in terms of power. But the masses do have power.

"The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq"

In germany for example, we had big mass protests - and we did not join the iraq adventure (despite the government was willing to do so).

"As far as military intervention against Iraq goes, I believe we should be restrained. That means that Germany will not participate," Schroeder told ARD television [on August 9, 2002][1].

The larger protests weren't until 2003.[2][3]

1. https://us.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/inde...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

Because they could read polls before - but without the mass protests, they likely would have went with the alliance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com