Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzs | Hacker News Reader

> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all?

Perhaps because in order to get Ukraine to give up the then third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world the US in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 gave Ukraine security assurances against threats to its territorial integrity and political independence?

I assume I don't need to explain why the US wanted that stockpile to go away.

One might argue that now that Ukraine does not have that huge stockpile the US should just leave them to their fate. But the US still wants to convince various countries to get rid of their nukes or curtail their attempts to develop nukes, and letting Ukraine fall would not instill confidence that the US would hold up its end in any deal to make that happen.

View on HN

Not the person who asked originally, but I'm curious, because I think what happened with Libya is a clear enough warning for countries not to abandon their nuclear programs in exchange for Western assurances. I'm curious if you agree in that respect.

Sure, but Western Europe has the same interests and can do the legwork itself.

Western Europe is also less unified since it’s about 10+ counties instead of just 1.

Sounds like their problem.

The Germans are blocking Estonia from exporting Soviet age howitzers to Ukraine. So until this nonsense stops, I wouldn't say we have the same interests. They can probably remember the GDR. If it were for Western Europe they'd leave us to our own fates, after they invested piles of EU funds into Eastern EU states. Fortunately the US always steps in before it's too late.

Once an European security analyst one said that Russia and China are playing chess with the US and the EU, while the EU is playing backgammon.

Speaking of chess, this whole thing feels like some game that Putin is playing to satisfy the oligarchs and hurt Biden (long game to another Trump presidency), while giving himself a bit more leverage for future negotiations.

Not really. Putin's favourite game/sport is judo, not chess. Judo is a game of opportunity and technique: one takes advantage of their opponent's weakness or distraction to attack. The rest is continous defense and harassement to get your opponent distracted and create opportunities for attack.

He doesn't think in terms of Biden or Trump, but in terms of opportunity. You should really think of Russia as a modern feudal state where Putin shares the country's resources with the oligarchs. The only difference is that it isn't farmland, but oil and gas. He doesn't need to appease them. He can run a show trial, have them shot on a bridge, poison them, just like he did with Khodorkovsky, Litvinenko, Nemtsov, Skripal, Navalny and others.

Vladimir Sorokin once said that the basis of modern Russia was set by Ivan the Terrible.

https://www.publicbooks.org/dress-up-games-with-russian-hist...

One should read post/modern Russian literature in order to understand modern Russia. It's also very good. I love Russian literature.

I can't fault the Germans for not wanting to supply arms to conflict zones :)

As a European I agree... And to be fair there is a large number of Europeans in "Enhanced Forward Presence": https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

In practice, it's unclear if the presence actually does much. But at the very least it ensures that an attack against NATOs eastern Block would be an attack against troops from many countries -- thus, many NATO countries can claim to have been attacked.

5k troops isn't much, but it proves a commitment. All NATO really has to prove is that we stand together -- then Russia won't attack NATO members.

> Sure, but Western Europe has the same interests and can do the legwork itself.

No, it can't, conventionally in the short term; in part, that's low spending, and in part it is specialization within NATO, but neither of those are easily unwound in the short term.

Against Russia specifically, as opposed to a generic hypothetical major conventional regional threat, there is also the problem that UK + France probably have an insufficient nuclear deterrent force, which is a problem the US, even if we’d like them to increase domestic military spending, doesn't want addressed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com