Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbanffy | Hacker News Reader

I always suggest that the best way to reduce military spending, in particular for the US, would be to focus on soft power. Build schools and hospitals, turn the country into a role-model for others (make it look the country is seriously into being a democracy, improve living standards, reduce inequality, etc), and so many other relatively low-cost measures that would prevent a non-trivial amount of friction that ends up in direct offensive military action.

Making more lethal and cheaper weapons is one way, sure, but one key goal of a standing military in peacetime is to maintain peace, and that can be achieved in many ways cheaper than that.

View on HN

If that worked, wouldn't Sweden be loved by their neighbors? Instead they're joining NATO for protection and the terrorist threat level is currently at 4 out of 5.

The people we often fight against don't share your values. There isn't a single enemy in the world that hates us for not reducing inequality. Russia didnt invade Ukraine to improve their living standards; and ISIS doesn't hate us for our lack of a social safety net. Our failings are just propaganda talking points for dictators and other terrible people to distract their people from their own failings. Even if we were perfect, they would find something to talk about. They do not want to be your friend.

I agree other investment can reduce the likelihood for war though.. domestic green energy production, electric cars, etc reduce the amount of money going to dictatorships and limit their influence, for example.

>turn the country into a role-model for others

you're assuming that they (others) care about this and do not want to hurt you

Not sure what "you" means in this case. I'm not American and I don't live in the US.

If it's about the US wanting to hurt me, I don't live in a country rich with oil, but I grew up in one that currently has a government less than aligned with American interests, part of the BRICS that's pushing for dedollarization of foreign commerce in the block.

As for a lot of people being really upset about the US, it's not that surprising after invading two countries (one on manufactured evidence about WMD and against the recommendation of the international community), bombing them back to stone age, destabilizing their governments (with the excuse of giving them a "democracy"), and then leaving them to their own luck. And that's all part of what happened this century. I'm not even considering the American involvement in coups, extraordinary renditions, and extra-judicial executions, which generate surprisingly little international outrage, or the much bloodier involvement in South American dictatorships in the 60's and 70's.

I really like the people, but I don't trust the American government to always do the moral thing.

>Not sure what "you" means in this case. I'm not American and I don't live in the US.

by "you" I meant US.

so, this assumes that other do not want to hurt US.

OK. Why would people want to hurt the US in ways military power become a deterrence?

Well, I think we can ask ourselves the same question in terms of Ukraine.

People, crazies, dictators, etc, whatever - have their reasons.

Ukraine no longer has nukes.

hmm, so the nukes were/could be deterrence, which kinda proves the point

Soft power doesn't work without hard power, or someone who wields hard power on your behalf. Countries that currently use soft power most prominently are doing so to attract attention from the citizenry of hard powers such as the US, so that if a conflict arises, said citizenry will be so offended at their friends being harmed that they'll feel an increased duty to join the fight. (this ignores non-military uses of soft power)

> Making more lethal and cheaper weapons is one way, sure, but one key goal of a standing military in peacetime is to maintain peace, and that can be achieved in many ways cheaper than that.

Looking at an a propos use case, how would this approach have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

It is not the responsibility of the US to prevent an invasion in another country. A country's military is to protect its own borders and citizens and as a last resort after diplomacy fails.

US influence in Ukraine in 2014 precipitated the Russian invasion. Leaving Ukraine alone in 2014 may have meant no invasion and no war. Sounds pretty great to me.

Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force.

Our leaders are playing a deadly game where some choices have near certain outcomes. They chose the path to war as they have for 70 years. The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin.

> The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin.

Not necessarily leaving it alone, but making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other. If something like that becomes enshrined in their constitution, the legal framework for keeping the country safe and neutral would be in place and everyone would profit, including Ukrainians.

Now that ship has sailed and this became a no-win scenario. Russia will fight to the last Ukrainian for Crimea because it just can't afford losing Sevastopol.

Congratulations to all involved.

> making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other

That is a diplomatic solution that could have been arranged my continuing diplomacy with Russia.

And, instead, the US opted to stir up opposition despite the multiple warnings (and, quite obvious indications) that Russia would be prompted to act.

Anything like that would require giving Russia a perpetual lease on Sevastopol, as well as assured access to the base. When Ukrainian politicians started floating the idea of not renewing the lease past 2015, there was very little Russia could do but to take what they needed by force, and create an unsustainable situation within Ukraine.

This whole thing could have been solved by an e-mail in 2014.

> Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force.

Interesting comment because NATO never accepted Ukraine as a member or even gave them a MAP, hell even Germany promised Putin before he invaded that Ukraine would never be in NATO, that didn’t do anything.

The quickly deleted Russian victory article also doesn’t mention NATO at all either.

I think it’s far more likely that this has more to do with Russias and more bluntly Putins want to recreate the USSR and imperialism.

I mean the Russian victory article does talk about how Ukraines independence was a mistake and how they have corrected that “mistake”.

A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion. Then the US doubled down. From 2014 to 2022, the United States has committed more than $46 billion in security assistance “to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO,”, according to the State Department.[1]

The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official.

After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace.

[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040

> A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion.

Your source appears to indicate this started after Russia invaded in 2014. So unless Russians can see into the future I don’t see how that can be the cause.

> The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official.

I’ve never seen such a treaty can you link it?.

> After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace.

I don’t think this is what happened, what I think happened is that when Ukraine recaptured territories (Bucha being the best example) and saw the absolute horrors that the Russians had left behind, they decided there would be no negotiating.

I can understand that, I wouldn’t want to negotiate with someone who had committed such heinous crimes against my people either.

>> Looking at an a propos use case, how would this approach have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

"What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path. And the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe that the policy that I'm advocating, which is neutralising Ukraine, and then building it up economically, and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side, NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians. What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. We're encouraging, the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West, because we will ultimately defeat Putin, and we will ultimately get our way, time is on our side. And of course, the Ukrainians are playing along with this."

-- John J. Mearsheimer, 2015

The US already has a lot of soft power. It is more about Hollywood and McDonald's though.

Turning the country in a role model, although obviously a good thing for its citizens, is no match for propaganda with regard to foreign relationships.

> It is more about Hollywood and McDonald's though.

Well... It's not working really well, right?

Soft power doesn't work when a single viral propaganda video on TikTok or Instagram can convince a 3rd world country that country X is to blame for all their problems.

Maybe it's time to focus more on TikTok then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com