Hacker News Reader

> Sending the weapons to Ukraine amounts to little, in the face of overwhelming Russian military advantage.

The difference in number of troops isn't as important as it seems numerically if the Russian morale and training is as low as it seems it might be based on reports on western media (which could be iffy).

The difference in equipment isn't as important if it can't make it into Ukraine. Here's where anti-air and anti-tank weapons make a big difference. So far, it seems like Russia hasn't been able to take control of airfields, and anti-air weapons help contest air superiority. Russia also seems to have trouble with supply lines, anti-tank weapons work against tanks as well as armored transport vehicles.

Urkaine has an easier job here, repelling an occupation is easier than waging one. If they keep high morale and continue to have access to effective weaponry, this is going to be costly for Russia's military. (As it was for Russia and the US in Afghanistan)

Perhaps Russia is playing soft, and will turn up the heat, but perhaps they miscalculated with regard to what they could achieve.

Did sending weapons to Afghanistan amount to little, in the face of the overwhelming Russian military advantage? And Ukraine is a lot closer (physically and culturally), and the support a lot more open, than Afghanistan.

As for the Russian Oliagarchs, if their concern was eventual revolution in Russia it looks like they may have just brought that day closer rather than pushed it out. They clearly weren't expecting a response of this magnitude, the question is when they choose to cut their losses.

I don't think Ukraine will win a normal war against Russia, but will have to shift to more guerrilla warfare soon. But on the other hand, is Putin willing to occupy, likely for years, the second largest country of Europe with a population of 44 million to keep the established pro-Russian government actually in power? So far, it doesn't look like Ukrainians would just accept a puppet president, even if all the mayor cities would have been taken.

I have been thinking along the same lines. Who would actually want to run this pro Russia puppet regime? How many Ukrainians would recognize it as their government? Will the rest of the world ever want to do business with such a regime?

Northern Cyprus has been in a limbo since the 1970s.

For me the only somewhat rational explanation is, that the Kremlin did indeed expect the take over to be faster than the west can agree on their reaction. Like the Taliban taking back Afghanistan with little to now resistance and the president sitting on the first plane out. I can believe that them calling it a military special operation instead of war wasn't just propaganda, but what they thought it was going to be. I'm pretty certain if the war would have been already over, before sanctions were agreed upon, they would have been much tamer. And while yes, everyone would be mad at Putin it wouldn't take too long for things to go back to business as usual. But due to the Ukrainians fighting like hell for their country, I don't really see what "winning" for Putin would look like at this point, even if he takes over all of Ukraine.

I think that's also a key point of difference between the Afghanistan takeover by the Taliban, and the Ukrainian invasion. Afghanistan was an internal struggle, and an Afghan wasn't really enthusiastic about killing a fellow Afghan, even if he was a Taliban member. Hence why that was a relatively bloodless coup. On the other hand, the Russian army is essentially looked upon by Ukrainians as a modern reincarnation of the Soviet army, rather than as Slavic brothers in hands. The fact that Putin may have chosen to overlook this glaringly obvious difference between the two conflicts makes me wonder how flawed his on-the-ground intelligence must be. The irony, considering his KGB background.

That's what happened in Iraq. The US went in there, toppled over the place, and put in a government that would bend to Western whims.

Not sure what your point is. The Iraq invasion was 19 years ago, and the US still haven't withdrawn all their troops. Is Putin willing to have parts of his army occupy Ukraine for a timespan such as this?

Ukraine was a threat to their natural gas sales not their existence. Russia already went after most of their off shore oil reserves, and made several companies pull out of internal development.

RF military advantage is not overwhelming. RF sent 150k Russians against 280k Ukrainians with years of experience of war + volunteers. RF has more planes, but Ukraine has better air defense. RF has more tanks, but Ukraine has more anti-tank weapons.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are already NATO members (since 2004 - smack in the middle of Putin's first stint as president of Russia). Georgia, like Ukraine was (as at the beginning of the invasion) formally recognised as aspiring to membership. Are we then to assume that 'Georgia is next'? With respect to Afghanistan - its worth a reminder that the Americans were not the first to abandon Afghanistan [0].

But I agree that nobody wants to contemplate "real support"/boots-on-the-ground for Ukraine. But that is precisely what the west via NATO will have to do. The outcome of the current war is as much an existential threat to NATO (and to a lesser extent the EU) as it is to Putin's leadership.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan_(1978%E...

Georgia was actually first...

I won' t go that far and say all NATO counyries are democracies nowadays...