Hacker News Reader

Comment by didymospl | Hacker News Reader

Let's step back from these geopolitical speculations for a while and ask: why would any European country invade Russia in any foreseeable future? It's the 21st century, Western Europe has its own problems, barely any army and Russia has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out humankind from the earth. It's real life, not some Paradox Interactive game. I mean, even in times when such invasion could have made more sense, Napoleon's France and Nazi Germany tried, and they both failed miserably. I simply don't understand Russian concerns and I think about them as cheap excuses for enslaving and killing innocent people.

View on HN

As a German I do understand cheap excuses for enslaving and killing innocent people quite good. Especially Russians.

There is good reason for Lord Ismay's saying about NATO: 'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'

Actually I'm glad about that Americans thing, because of that Germans thing. Not because of that Russians thing.

But as I said, I'm a geostrategic determinist.

You just can't be sure, your life and hopes die from one day to the other. Just ask the Ukrainians, the Afghans or half of the middle east from 2003 onwards.

Oh, just in case you are US-American. Congratulation, everything you need and could wish for you have on your continent, including nukes and cheap labour from the south. You don't need anybody else, they need you at most. And there weren't many Invasions on the US, were there? Of course they're maniacally obsessed with their paltry Civil War. Ridiculous. Must be something they really fear.There you have your kitchen sink psychology.

Which brings me back to the mess with Russia. This is their last attempt for a long, long time. Their demographics works against them.Their population is shrinking and ageing. So is the German one. But the Germans were pampered by the US after WWII because of the Soviet Union. Supervised and pampererd. The Russians were just left aside as losers and geostrategical bystanders after Soviet collapse. Now it's their endgame.

I have also been reading about the American civil war. Even I initially thought it was a small war that barely killed anyone. But losing 2% of your population seems significant, especially given that it was a local affair.

The American Civil War was in some ways the prelude to WWI in terms of introducing the kind of mass-slaughter battles enabled by increasingly industrialized firepower. There were some very brutal engagements, Gettysburg being the most famous.

This.

Imagine if Gatling had invented his multi-barreled, rotary rifle a few years earlier. Too bad his sales reps couldn't demonstrate its usefullness and superiority sooner. Say, used by the National Guard against striking miners in Pittsburgh or something. Enough of them in Unionist hands and Ghettysburg would have been over in a few hours instead of three days. And so would the ACW.

Dixie's young and upright wheat mowed down in hours.

A grand metapher for the Union victory. And industrialism, of course.

Now perhaps you understand why the Russians are a little bit obsessed about their losses at our last tour to Moscow. I already said, their history breeds and select paranoia.

So to say, they lived Grove's Motto long ago, only the paranoid survive.

And I, as a Polish person, should be especially aware of the importance of geopolitics. Personally, I've been lucky enough to live in a fully sovereign Poland for my whole life but that is something that was a pipe dream for all my ancestors for the last 200 years mostly due to our geographic position between major European powers - so well, geopolitics.

The thing is, I thought these dark times when people are sent to kill each other to redraw some arbitrary lines on the map are long gone, together with its apologists.

Sorry to say that, but welcome back to Hotel California. Ah, and I'm just a messenger, and would prefer not to be shot. I don't defend anything, I'm looking for an exit.

"Last thing I remember, I was

Running for the door

I had to find the passage back

To the place I was before

'Relax, ' said the night man,

'We are programmed to receive.

You can check-out any time you like,

But you can never leave!'"

This, very much this. The centrists here in this situation are really making idiots of themselves. Russia is under no threat from NATO or anyone else on the planet with respect to its integrity or even its foreign interests.

Just in case somebody does not know which type of centrist he is, as a primer:

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

It's meaning seems to vary with the country, which could be an indication of geostrategic determinism and I highly suspect it's a dirty word among extremists.

But this is obviously untrue.

NATO is historically and inherently an anti-Russian alliance. It has been since it's inception. In 90's and 00's Russia has made multiple advancements towards joining NATO, but was dismissed, reassuring the worst fears among Russian military branch of government, that they wouldn't be seen as allies.

You should bear in mind that countries are not persons. And their alliances are not mere "friendships". They are slowly moving clumsy structures and the alliances are constraints.

All that is happening today has been predicted long ago and now we are simply "enjoying" the consequences of a long trail of politicians' failures. Politicians that favored short-term populism over long-term global stability, failing to set a vector for these structures that would result in mutual benefit, rather than an expected confrontation.

I'm no geopolitical expert, but the economic concerns are there. Ukraine is a 'breadbasket', if they were to join the EU's common market (with export tarrifs) then presumably Russians would face rising food costs.

The motivation to keep Ukraine in Russia's military sphere probably has as much to do with economics as anything else.

It's an interesting question but it also show something about international relationships now. Russia seems to get stuck in military control of resources while other countries are more fluid and want threat-free negotiations.

Now I could be wrong and maybe there are a lot of strings being pulled in disguise.

Then you sign a border trade agreement. Not fucking invade a sovereign country!

Yes, because we all know what happens when the most competent nations try to topple regimes the cheap way with the help of The Company and its friends like say '53 in Teheran. In the end you have paranoid rulers that try to secure their position under all circumstances with secret police and else fun stuff. Which then causes riots and revolutions as a reaction. And the trouble you have then for decades, which is again advantageous for others, of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

Operation Ajax, how fitting. He also ended tragically in insanity.

I'm not saying the economic motivations justify the invasion. I'm saying the economic motivations make more sense to me as the root cause of the invasion compared to military reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com