Hacker News Reader

Comment by noduerme | Hacker News Reader

In this case, the western intelligence organizations were spot on from several weeks ago. Biden played it as well as he could, reserving some further sanctions until this happened. I lived through the "Iraq has WMD" build-up and lies, and I thought they were lies then, before we went in and found out there were no WMD. This was good intelligence.

Unfortunately, it does no one any good. All we can do at the moment is sanction Russia. But it does argue that we should be prepared for a nuclear response if they cross any line west, as long as Putin or some other madman is in power there.

View on HN

Nuclear response means escalation to global nuclear war. That's every worst nightmare come true and puts civilization itself at risk.

“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

My understanding at this point is that Russia has destroyed Ukraine's air defenses and has complete air superiority. Western forces could contest that, but won't because that could cause unintended escalation.

The west is - still - perfectly capable of intervening militarily without invoking nuclear weapons. Does it have the courage to do so? I don't know.

Putin escalated to nuclear threats already. There's ww3 potential now.

Of course he did. And he'll threaten the same thing the next time wants another piece of Europe. There's zero reason to believe him; he wants to live too. More importantly, the vast bureaucracy that supports him wants to live.

He's quite literally 'all in', which also means that he has nowhere to run now, Russia is from here on forward until Putin has been replaced, either from without or within a pariah state.

I reckon Biden made one big mistake, and it was to pressure the Germans to block NordStream2. This pre-dates recent events, the pipeline has been effectively ready for a pretty long time - it had long become clear the "technical" delays were anything but. It irritated the Russian kleptocrats, who live off Gazprom, making a military move over Ukraine much more likely.

There's one thing, though: if Putin tried this again, we know that the US is telling the truth about it.

Using nuclear power if Putin crosses into Eastern Europe is complete madness. Eastern Europe is Russia’s back yard, not ours.

I live in an independent country thanks to NATO and EU. This place used to be Russia's back yard for 50 years. I'd like it to remain not-Russia's back yard, thankyouverymuch.

Ukraine is not part of NATO. It’s not our job.

if tanks show up in estonia, latvia and lithuania, will you say 'but they're too small and not worth much?'

you don't have to be the head of intelligence to understand importance of ukraine, even if it isn't technically our job to defend it. Germany, UK and Italy have scored an own goal, as has US policy of russian reset. zero upside, heavy downside, bad trade.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that that will be exactly the response. If that happens NATO is done for, but the fact that today Germany is one of the two countries that stop stronger sanctions against Russia is a strong sign that Putin will get away with this and more if we let him.

Nothing I disagree with, Germany's reaction is pathetic. I'm also very concerned with Italy, didn't expect that. I hope they'll sort this out. Only thing left.

I don't think NATO survives another decade with the way incentives have realigned for the state members over the last couple of decades.

You may well be right.

NATO is obsolete so that’s good. The triple alliance isn’t anywhere to be found either.

Where do you even get this nonsense?

NATO is now more relevant than ever before.

For who?

Germany has to have its cheap Russian gas, I suppose

Interestingly, that had nothing to do with it.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Countries tending to their own border security isn’t a matter of “good” and “evil.” Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea.

"Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea."

Ukraine's attempts to prepare against invasion do not justify said invasion.

Russia has no basis for this at all, hence all the pathetic excuses they've been showering the gullible with.

And yes, it's evil, and no, it has nothing to do with their border security, that's a ridiculous suggestion, in the same vein, you would be ok with Russia annexing Poland, Lithuania, Finland or Estonia because they are armed and bordering Russia.

As for the whataboutism, that wasn't the subject.

A perspective you don't share is ridiculous, so your explanation is "evil"? Maybe, it's more likely that you just don't understand it.

Sure, that must be it. Russia has a perfect right to encroach on whatever territories border their nation because they can't handle having sovereign nations at their borders. And of course after that they get to do it again.

No, it's ridiculous.

Again, something being ridiculous (to you) does not make it evil. And your straw man has nothing to do with my response

MH17 ring a bell? Seriously done with Russia apologists for today.

Call me what you wish, but it's not true. If you're done then log off and stop spamming your replies to every single comment in this thread, and leave some space for any other opinion. You're just ranting

I won't be told to shut up by you or anybody else for that matter, nine years on HN and this is what brings you out to comment with a bunch of disinformation? Pretty clear which side you are on.

That's not the case. But anyway, after a night to clear my head I realize this is an emotional time for everyone, and I'm sorry for stirring you up. I was reacting to my own things. I definitely don't support this war, nor any further bloodshed. I wish for peace, and peace to you as well. Have a good day

I'm happy calling initiating a completely preventable conflict that nobody wanted that has resulted in the deaths of 137, 17 of whom are Ukrainian civilians, and 316 wounded evil. There's no meaningful moral difference between what Putin did and outright murdering 17 people. He knew innocent Ukrainians (and, for that matter, innocent Russians) would die and didn't care.

Well that’s not how anything works. E.g. how many babies might be saved by Russian economic development from having access to the sea through Ukraine? At this scale the moral calculus isn’t easy.

Of all the disgusting comments this really takes the cake.

Russian economic development through war doesn't save Russian babies, it will kill them.

War has led to plenty of development through history, and development saves babies. Do you think Italy or Germany would have been better off as bickering principalities, without Giribaldi or Bismarck? Do you think China would have been better off as a bunch of warring states?

So we got it wrong with the sanctions then. We should actually be providing economic stimulus to Russia right now

We shouldn’t be economically sanctioning countries that aren’t threatening us directly. It causes tremendous suffering and death, e.g. in Iran: https://mcgillbusinessreview.com/articles/the-human-cost-of-...

I agree on Iran but this is different. We could have sold steel and fuel to the Germans and Japanese in WW2, but we didn’t because they were engaged in something evil.

The Germans were engaged in the holocaust, which was evil. The Russians are invading a sovereign country to replace the government, which the US has done twice in as many decades.

A country on Russia’s border massing weapons isn’t a border security issue?

Massing weapons in what sense? Not in any way that poses a threat to Russia, and the reason they were increasing their arms is because of the obvious threat Russia poses to them.

What is so weird about these things: every time you read a history book you go like 'Oh, I recognize that', and then it plays out exactly the same. This whole wave of isolationism and so called neutrality was an important factor in why WWII went as far as it did, if the world had stood united against Hitler/Germany from day #1 he would have had not nearly gone as far.

Not everything is an analogy to WWII.

> Eastern Europe is Russia’s back yard, not ours.

Wow, this must be a new low in these threads.

No, Eastern Europe is Europe's 'backyard', and in fact it isn't a backyard. Romania, Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Czechia, and so on are all solidly part of Europe.

What are you taking offense to, his idea that Russia and Eastern Europe are neighbors (which seems objectively true)? Or idea that the US should not involve itself in Eastern Europe-Russian disputes?

The term backyard implies a proprietary relationship, Ukraine isn't part of Russia's backyard and hasn't been for a long time now, and in the minds of the Ukrainians has never been part of Russia's backyard. The fact that the OP believes this to be so belies even the most basic insight into the reality for millions of people in former USSR countries who have in living memory what it means to be part of Russia's backyard and what the price to them would be if those days were to return.

Calling Siberia or Kamchatka Russia's backyard might be accurate. But just like Canada isn't America's backyard neither is Ukraine - or any other former USSR vassal state - Russia's backyard.

Neighbors is an entirely different term.

As for Europe-Russian disputes, there is such a thing as NATO, which was good enough to be relied on after 9/11, I take it that it is still in force? If not can you point me to the news that I apparently missed?

Words mean different things to different people. Personally I have never heard "backyard" as in "in my backyard" used that way. A slang dictionary yields this:

>An area nearby to a country or other jurisidiction's legal boundaries, particularly an area in which the country feels it has an interest. https://www.yourdictionary.com/backyard

Which seems spot on, I swear I didn't just write that myself. The WSJ even went so far as to call Equatorial Guinea (in West Africa) part of America's backyard: https://archive.fo/8UjYC

"In my own backyard" would connote what you are saying, but there's an extra word "own" there.

That's fine, but the implied sentiment was that if there is trouble in Europe's 'backyard' that we're on our own, loud and clear. Isolationism worked so well against mad dictators the last time we tried it, I'm sure this time around it will all be peachy.

> his idea that Russia and Eastern Europe are neighbors (which seems objectively true)

That's like saying that United States and North America are "neighbors". Is that "true"? Or is it a category error?

That’s not how geopolitics works. I’m from Bangladesh—we’re sure as heck India’s back yard.

Where you are from is no excuse for what you wrote.

I’m explaining my context for why I think your point is wrong. As I recall, you’re from a little European country that thinks it has inviolable “sovereignty.” In reality you exist because Germany or France haven’t wanted to take you over recently. Countries exist amongst each other in a state of anarchy. Bangladeshis are just closer to that reality. We haven’t had as much time to cloud the reality with fantasies about “international law.”

This is certainly a ... reductionist view on geopolitics.

Not only does this assume everyone in the thread is American, but also completely disregards the sovereignty and historic significance of many Eastern European countries.

You mean realist. A country’s sovereignty matters only as much as it’s ability to defend it (or the willingness of someone else to do so out of their own interests).

My own country only exists because India wanted to get back at Pakistan and helped us in our independence war. If they hadn’t, we’d still be part of Pakistan—which would be what it would be.

Nothing is Russia's back yard. Russia is the back yard. Russia is the graveyard of civilization, which has no claim to anything outside its miserable, ruthless territory.

I would rather die than live in a shithole under Putin.

The only madness would be not using nuclear weapons against Putin if he crosses NATO lines. If he wants to die rich, he can live a long life. Otherwise let him die with his missiles, and his daughter who dances.

Russia isn't going to cross NATO lines. Even if they do, NATO can defeat the Russians without nuclear weapons. I can't believe I have to say it but escalating to a nuclear war is a horrible idea.

The problem is Russia can't defeat NATO without nuclear weapons.

What's stopping Russia from introducing nuclear weapons in that case?

Probably MAD, as in the Cold War times.

There's still the hope that nobody, not even an imperialist Putin, would be willing to risk the total destruction of his own country if not of human civilization over some territorial ambitions.

What if he is actually mad? Maybe terminally ill and not minding the scorched earth he'd leave behind?

Luckily, this is Russia. There is always someone willing to stab the tzsar in the back when the time comes.

"What if he is actually mad? Maybe terminally ill and not minding the scorched earth he'd leave behind?"

So the solution of the OP is to be madder than him and start nuclear war first?

I wish there were someone to replace the mad tzar, its long overdue

I would say, so far Putin is proceeding rationally. He prepared his economy for this over many years, made strategic agreements with opponents of the West, and slowly built up a force which will now take a neighboring country using classic military techniques and massive imbalance of power.

Maybe the word that better describes it is 'systemically' or 'meticulously'. When I am in a mood to get drunk, I will prepare by buying the alcohol, invite friends, prepare the food, and then get myself piss drunk. Not sure if the world 'rational' fits ill conceived plans that are just well executed.

Even Putin wants to live. And he probably doesn't want to go down in history as another Hitler - even to his own people (the remaining ones, that is).

Word! The backyard of a sad Mafia of outdated old Russian men still stuck in the 20th century. As things stand my guess is this lasts about five years and ends with some nuclear exchange over Europe, assassinations across the West and East, and prude dove China slowwwwly crawling east, then south, north, west.

> Biden played it as well as he could

Biden played it like shit. If they had never warned of war maybe Putin could have saved face.

Instead Biden antogonized Russia, pledged support to Ukraine but didn't actually do anything. They sold out Ukraine. They wanted Ukrainians to do what, fight and die? What good was US intelligence? The US isn't doing shit...

> Instead Biden antogonized Russia

How exactly did he antagonize Russia?

> The US isn't doing shit...

What do you want the US to be doing? Are these actions feasible?

> What do you want the US to be doing? Are these actions feasible?

Nothing because it's too late. But had the west given some concrete promises to Ukraine, I don't know at any time in the last few years, do you really think Russia would have invaded?

> How exactly did he antagonize Russia?

Really? He kept threatening sanctions, kept saying the invasion was happening... Even Zelenskiy told Biden to stop...

Edit - now Biden is gloating about being right, talking about sanctions but not helping Ukraine

Edit2 - Biden's press conference is so bad SMH... Hahaha Biden just said the sanctions will be just as bad as Russian missiles are to Ukraine. Clown world...

> Nothing because it's too late. But had the west given some concrete promises to Ukraine, I don't know at any time in the last few years, do you really think Russia would have invaded?

What specifically do you mean by "concrete promises"?

The US has been sending military aid to Ukraine for years. Trump tried to withhold it but was eventually forced to send it anyway, it was a pretty big story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#...

> What specifically do you mean by "concrete promises"?

Actually admitting it to the EU or NATO. Actually pledging to defend it.

Why would the US be in charge of admitting Ukraine to the European Union...

> Really? He kept threatening sanctions, kept saying the invasion was happening...

I'm confused by how this is antagonizing Russia. By saying what Russia was actually doing is the reason they kept doing it?

Threats = antagonizing. If he knew the invasion was coming, he should have DONE something.

So he made a bunch of threats then publicly said he won't do anything... Do you think this helped the situation? Even Zelenskiy told him to STFU.

They could have stationed troops in Ukraine. Or they could have taken NATO membership off the table. Or done any number of things but they literally did nothing except threaten sanctions.

Then Biden went on TV to gloat about being 'right' after giving up Ukraine... SMH

saving face would've been withdrawing and saying "What's this dude talking about, dude's nuts, that was just routine training exercises, there's no war in Ba Sing Se." Instead he did exactly the thing Biden said he was going to do.

Putin is trying to conquer a country because someone gave the heads up on his alleged plans and his feelings are hurt? People do not give Putin the credit he deserves and thus Putin plays them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com