HN Books @HNBooksMonth

> Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense?

Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalistic motivations surrounding Ukraine, but it is not clear to me that these are the predominant motives for spending Russian lives and risking Russian security by engaging their forces in an armed conflict. The rhetoric and actions you cite is probably believed and condoned by an increasingly nonzero percentage of the population, but I’m personally not convinced these are much more than pretexts useful to the state in providing political cover to what is ultimately a sovereign chess move (prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, demotivate it and others from future attempts). Russia benefited massively by their previous USSR-era relationship with the surrounding baltic states, and Putin, a former USSR man, has said [1] that the breakup of the warsaw pact was one of Russia’s greatest geopolitical tragedies. I believe his greatest defensive focus is on re-establishing a buffer zone between it and western powers, and likely it’s longer term goals include acquisition of warm water ports and influence over the oil trade.

This does, of course, not justify any of Russia’s actions on a moral basis. I expect many Russian officials will be tried and convicted of war crimes. It merely provides a basis by which european leaders/armchair presidents (me) can ground Russia’s actions and plot countermoves.

> Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border.

Not even a year ago Russia implied a military consequence if Finland was to join NATO [2]. A few months after this statement was given Russia invaded Ukraine, though this ironically emboldened Finlanders into being majority in favor of joining NATO.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Ag... (can’t find a source for the exact quote, but cited in chapter 2).

[2]: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-incl...

⬐ ROTMetro

Your response in no way explains why you choose only NATO expansion as a cause (and thus pushing the blame on the west) but ignore Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers (which does not make NATO the ones ultimately responsible for forcing Russia to take action) and denazifying the country. Why is that? Are we not to take Putin at his word but instead your tea reading skills? Why does your simplification take all responsibility for a war waged without a specific NATO triggering action by a non-NATO leader and place it on NATO?

Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time.

Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.

BTW Russia no longer keeps up the pretense that what occured in the eastern occupied territories was spontaneous, but admits in obituaries online that soldiers killed in the current conflict are being 'honored' for their service in the '2014 Ukraine' operation and '2014 Maiden' operation. What prompted that Russian sponsored uprising? Ukraine coming closer to the EU, then at the last minute having their corrupt politicians trying to switch to a Russian economic block, nothing to with NATO. Also, autonomy for Russian speakers.

So 2014 actual Russian military involvement in taking control of 10% of Ukraine? Not in response to NATO but to Russia losing their Ukrainian puppet leader.

Verbally stated current reasons, only partially related to NATO. Just as much stemming from a desire to continue the 2014 actual conflict (in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands) which was not related to NATO.

You also ignore Russian aggression in Transistria (A war, that Russia supported, that Russia sent troops to maintain post conflict) where again NATO was not raised as the issue, but ethnic Russians = Russian interest.

Russia calls Ukraine Little Russia. Russia says Ukraine is not a real country, does not have a real culture. Russia says anywhere Russians live is Russia. But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.

Your argument is nothing but whitewashing an authoritarian rulers decision to go to war.

If you enjoy Putin quotes here's a good one...

"Don't believe those who try to frighten you with Russia and who scream that other regions will follow after Crimea," said Putin on Tuesday, going some way to allaying those fears. "We do not want a partition of Ukraine. We do not need this." The Guardian March 18 2014. Notice this was after the 2008 NATO application from Ukraine. Putin does not say 'Unless Ukraine continues down a path towards NATO alignment'.

⬐ malwrar

> why you choose only NATO expansion as a cause (and thus pushing the blame on the west)

Firstly we disagree here on the blame being on the west. The blame is not on the west for expanding NATO, the blame is on Putin for choosing to attack yet another sovereign nation for its own national policy goals. Since you also accuse me of "whitewashing an authoritarian ruler's decision" I'll also state explicitly I think Putin is a callous, paranoid relic of the cold war and should be removed from power for this and his many other stains on the world. He should not be in Ukraine, Ukraine is morally rigeous in fighting back, and I expect more countries will join NATO as a result of Putin's actions. The only reason I'm focusing on Russia's rational basis for invading is because we'll be doomed to keep repeating this same dance with Russia until we incapacitate it (I don't really want to die via thermonuclar warhead) or find some other solution grounded in the actual concerns that seem to motivate their behavior.

> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time

I want to see Putin fail miserably and face justice. He is not justified, only paranoid and warped. He will continue to act this way until NATO finds a way to make him stop, which won't be by frowning intensely at him and hitting him with sanctions. Russia's power comes from things like its oil & gas exports, and nationally it wants things like a warm water ports (i.e. one that doesn't freeze 1/3 of the year) which it currents gets by leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It furthermore wants these things on its own terms, and does not want a NATO-aligned Ukraine suddenly deciding that it cannot access them. Why do you think Putin was so anxious to specifically annex Crimea?

It's not really a secret btw that NATO wants Ukraine to join [1] (section 69), and Ukraine is of great strategic interest to Russia for the reasons I've outlined in my above comments and many more. Certainly we can at least agree on that, morals of Russia outright imposing its will on Ukraine aside. Obviously it's wrong, but Russia doesn't care if it's wrong.

> But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.

Because geography dictates it. Ukraine provides easy and wide passage to Russia and provides a place for NATO (US) to install military equipment, bases, anti-missile systems (yes I know what you're going to say, but yes Putin has bitched incessantly about these [2] despite being nominally "defensive"). Ukraine hosts one of Russia's only viable warm-water ports. Ukraine joining NATO means that Putin can no longer bully smaller states into serving its needs and instead would need to risk a war against an alliance of nuclear powers if it wants to achieve policy by other means. NATO controlling Ukraine means that NATO has actual leverage over Russia beyond sanctions, which Russia does not want.

I think allowing Ukraine to join NATO and deploying a peacekeeping force would either force Putin to back down or escalate us to a nuclear war if Putin decides Ukraine is strategically worth a first strike. No idea honestly, maybe it stays conventional and then Russia leaves with its tail tucked between its legs. Maybe China, who does not seem to be a fan of Russia's maneuvering, does not get involved. Maybe it does, and Ukraine's civilian casualties pale in comparison to what could follow.

My hope is that NATO can find a peaceful solution. There could be a diplomatic solution involving giving Russia Crimea as a condition to Ukraine joining NATO, which might avoid full-scale conflict and kick the can down the road for when Putin decides it cannot trust NATO to honor its word. Likely there are far better solutions that leverage geopolitical realities I have not thought of, as I am not a politician, historian, military expert, or geographer. Or the world can strongly condemn them in the media and send Ukrainians guns, because that seems to be working so well.

> Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers

This is a pretext to justify entry into conflicts that benefit Russia's national interests. I don't think we disagree there based on the rest of your paragaphs so I won't bother justifying that statement, merely confirm we're on the same page. This is especially true...

> in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands

...for Ukraine. I am incredibly skeptical that Putin gives a shit about any group of Russians unless he has a national interest in doing so.

> Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.

They no doubt do what Putin wants when ordered but have their own thoughts and opinions. Some, like the oligarchs who own Russia's business interests privatized after the collapse of the USSR, likely do have the power to influence Putin by force and every account I've read of this dynamic asserts that Putin's relationship them is akin to a neo-feudalistic court more than god commanding his disciples. Not really sure why you reacted so strongly to my original "some", but I guess more clarification on my personal stance since you think I'm a Putin apologist.

Did I forget to stress that I hate Putin and will celebrate when he is no longer in power?

[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm

[2]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile...

⬐ ROTMetro

Not because of your follow up stance, but in general, I'm sorry for projecting something onto you. I apologize for trying to attribute any motivation to you, and responding to your thoughts in anything but a constructive discussion. Thank you for explaining yourself even after my emotional vomit. Thank you for posting your additional reasoned thoughts. My shame at judgemental posts both today and yesterday just reminds me why I don't go to social media other than HN and need to stay away from non-technical discussions.

⬐ malwrar

No worries, I personally don’t think you should feel any shame for expressing yourself and if it means anything understand why you saw my original post and thought me framing Putin/Russia’s actions as something rational was offensive. I primarily post on this website for challenging discussions, and your comments really made me work to develop my own understanding of the issue and I thank you for that. No hard feelings, and I really respect you personally for choosing to make this comment. I hope any stress I might have caused is forgiven, and hope you continue to post on HN :)

⬐ atmosx

> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time.

Henry A. Kissinger is pushing the same narrative. Would you call HAK poorly informed on the matter?

⬐ mcguire

I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor of "Great Power" theory, which at its basis denies smaller, weaker countries in the "area of influence" of a great power any kind of autonomy. Mearsheimer has spent much of his career developing and extolling great power politics and, well, Henry Kissinger is Henry Kissinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy).

One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.

⬐ atmosx

> I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor [...]

I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours.

Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.

⬐ Sporktacular

ROTMetro was making a moral statement about Russian aggression. Henry Kissinger can be as omniscient as God himself and that still wouldn't be a counter to a moral claim.

Never underestimate Kissinger's inability to consider what Mearsheimer calls 'the moral dimension'. That's more than a bias. That he holds an ammoral, great-power world view to back up his psychopathically immoral actions over the years should surprise no one - millions of needless deaths can arguably be laid at his feet.

Maybe keep those limitations in mind if you intend to defer to him on Ukraine/Russia.

⬐ atmosx

Are you personally involved in this war somehow?

⬐ atmosx

Given the fact that this comment came from yours truly:

"For example, right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, not for safety, fairness or justice for everyone. They just want better for their tribe. And we should respond as such based on their actions."

I would be deeply sceptical about accepting any of your thoughts on the topic without serious consideration. Your world-view seems to be drawing from Transformers or Captain America. I'll keep Kissinger.

⬐ mcguire

I do take Kissinger and Mearsheimer's views seriously, and I did not call Kissinger or Mearsheimer "biased". Instead, I attempted to address my understanding of the reasoning behind their statements (Mearsheimer certainly; I believe the same to be true of Kissinger). That reasoning led to many of the successes and not a few of the failures during the Cold War; it is worth taking seriously.

I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too.

I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.

⬐ Sporktacular

You starmanning an entire invasion force makes my point perfectly.

⬐ malwrar

Your point that Russia's actions are motivated similarly to a person who cares only about their friends and family and gives no shit about the rest of the world? We agree perfectly, Putin/Russia is looking out for Putin/Russia. Ukraine is of great geopolitical importance for the resources it provides Russia and the foothold it denies NATO in governing Russia by nonmilitary force. Pretending like this is otherwise is falling victim to propaganda and doesn't do you any favors in terms of actually thinking about the conflict as anything more than an irl action movie.

⬐ malwrar

About people justifying/supporting his actions to defend their own interests? I don't think it really matters, unless you're realistically expecting Russia's population to revolt.