Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 395 posts

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#211

Post by eli_gottlieb »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #138
rrggrr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia has good reason to be worried about their defense. The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately. Show me a recent Western intervention that threatens Russia's legitimate security interests. Syria? Perhaps. Aside from that your assertion is unsupported.

Disclaimer: Russia is an authoritarian country and not a shining example of freedom. That being said.... If you were Russian and you'd spent the last century watching the West undercut you and try and control you at every step (for valid reasons in a lot of cases), you'd be threatened, too. They went from being a superpower to having 100 million more people than California with the same GDP, while watching their own…

>Russia isn't justified in what they've done, but put yourself in their shoes. Of course it doesn't help that history has been exceedingly cruel to the Russian people, but it's given them a lot of pride and being dictated to by the US has upset that pride.

This sounds a lot like apologizing for Germany's feelings in 1930. Except, of course, the Russians had their 1933 in 2010 or so.

They did get shafted! They've also responded to that shafting by becoming a heavily authoritarian military aggressor.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#212

Post by juki »

lispm wrote: post #43
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a clear sharp line where e.g. Estonia is a "real" US interest and Crimea isn't? I mean NATO membership is a line, but it's not feeling as solid as it used to.

A next field of conflict is Belarus, which tries to distance itself from Russia. It's not NATO, it's not a country with a security guarantee like the Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... ) , it's not trying to connect itself to the EU (like the Ukraine), but still it could be a next conflict. Then there are European countries not in NATO, but cooperating with NATO, like Sweden and…

Sweden doesn't have a border with Russia. Also, as a Finn, I highly doubt Russia would attack Finland. We have a relatively good relationship with them, and such a war would be very costly with nothing to be gained. If there was a larger conflict in Europe, Russia might try to invade Åland or Gotland, but that also sounds unlikely to happen.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#213

Post by cabalamat »

bluetomcat wrote: post #202
geoka9 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.

And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?

> And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan

The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries.

> the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands

Most countries would fight a war if their territory was invaded.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#214

Post by dagenleg »

atsaloli wrote: post #192
yokisan wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh . Must we? "EU investigation says Tbilisi launched indiscriminate assault on South Ossetia..with a massive artillery attack" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...

South Ossetia used to be part of Georgia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia

And Kosovo used to be part of Serbia. Just because a region is/was a part of your country does not mean you can do whatever you want in there.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#215

Post by fictioncircle »

bluetomcat wrote: post #202
geoka9 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.

And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?

> And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Argentine_invasi...

Argentina literally invaded the Falkland Islands.

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

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

They've also repeatedly voted to remain within the UK by an overwhelming margin. One has to wonder what your agenda is that you'd claim the Falklands is in the same category as Iraq or Afghanistan.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#216

Post by yokisan »

atsaloli wrote: post #192
yokisan wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh . Must we? "EU investigation says Tbilisi launched indiscriminate assault on South Ossetia..with a massive artillery attack" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...

South Ossetia used to be part of Georgia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia

Crimea used to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

A poor argument, we can agree.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#217

Post by catawbasam »

VLM wrote: post #207
Melk wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately. That's what you're replying to. Several former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. The West didn't invade them.

More or less analogous to when the Germans went into Austria in '38.

No

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#218

Post by madgar »

FreakyT wrote: post #166
dagenleg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you rabid?

I suspect the parent comment was meant as sarcasm, but in line with Poe's law, it's unclear without some kind of notation.

Comments like that on social media are going to make it awfully tough for you to re-enter the US, we don't need any more traitors.

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#219

Post by fictioncircle »

bluetomcat wrote: post #177
monkmartinez wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.

Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.

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

Signed in 1992. C'mon now, Russia is even complaining about NATO members refusing flights under it as recently as 2016. The USSR agreed to it before its dissolution and Russia re-signed in 2002.

> The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.

> The 34 State Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.

Hell Russia is complaining about Turkey not following it as recently as last year:

> Russian Defence Ministry spokesman stated on 4 February 2016 that Turkey had refused a Russian Open Skies mission, planned to take place in 1–5 February 2016, to fly over areas adjacent to Syria, as well as over NATO airbases. According to Russia, Turkey gave no explanation regarding the limitations, and claimed them to indicate illegal military activity in Syrian territory.[8] The OSCC haven't commented on the alleged violation of the Treaty by Turkey.[9]

Re: Why Europe Is Warning of Pax Americana's End

#220

Post by _b8r0 »

bluetomcat wrote: post #202
geoka9 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.

And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?

1. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so.

2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.

Post reply on HN