The downside of encouraging ‘the fight’ on the streets of Ukraine | Hacker News Reader

The downside of encouraging ‘the fight’ on the streets of Ukraine

responsiblestatecraft.org

39 pointsnikolay109 comments

It is precisely because of the tactics they used in places like Chechnya that the people are fighting back. They know that occupation or being a puppet state means corruotion at the highest levels and death for anyone that disagrees.

> It is precisely because of the tactics they used in places like Chechnya that the people are fighting back.

Some people are fighting back, mostly young men of somewhat courageous disposition. Also 1,2 million Ukrainians have already fled the country which far exceeds the number of Ukrainian combatants. I'm sure some of them would see surrender as a better outcome than loosing their homes and home country. I also heard stories about men between 18 and 60 who weren't even allowed to leave the country, so that number would be even higher if this demographic was given a free choice.

They are not allowed to leave because general mobilization has been called. Pretty common in all countries that have mobilization laws.

So if you are a young man in Ukraine and you have no stomach to get sacrificed in a geopolitical game between the West and Russia you should be given no way to opt out?

That’s how those laws work yeah. In practice you won’t see military action unless you have previous training because you are a liability in combat. But you’ll for sure be building tank traps, filling sandbags, digging trenches and moving supplies.

That's how it works in the United States and basically every Western country. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it the law.

I don’t think calling it a geopolitical game is an accurate enough description. Yes there is meta level of geopolitics, but in the core this is an uncalled invasion by Russia. This is a culture that is being wiped out, because you know it’s going to be replaced by parrots from the Kremlin.

> uncalled invasion by Russia

To be clear, in no way the bloodshed that Russia is causing in Ukraine can be justified. But to claim that this invasion has got nothing to do with the policy of the West to expand NATO in the direction of Russia is nonsense.

NATO was giving guarantees to not expand to Ukraine. Yet still they got invaded. Proving once again why a NATO is necessary as a defensive alliance.

Don’t think for a moment that if NATO was still in West Europe only that Russia wouldn’t steamroll the other eastern european countries when they have a chance. Russia already took other satellite states like Chechnya and Georgia earlier. Russia is an aggressor.

Is Ukraine a sovereign nation capable of entering into alliances as it wishes or is it not?

Clearly it is not capable as it is not in the NATO despite willing to do so.

Note: the following is about how these young men get fucked by a system, not a justification of them getting fucked.

Whether people like it or not, people talk about patriarchy also being bad for men, this is why. In the traditional value systems, as a man you have duties and roles you have to fill which aren't open to women which can be quite beneficial and if not might be valorised and mythologised - but there's a reason why it's set up like that. To create social and legal expectations that you "should" be strong and loyal and accept being fed into a warmachine. This becomes much less easy to sell in more equitable value systems because you have to either enforce it equitably (and then who's left in a war like this to escape and do the non combatant roles?).

So if people don't like men being specifically singled out here, welcome to the feminist movement. Whether you think everyone or noone should be caught in this is a different question

He was telling you how it is not how we wish things were.

You expect “the country” to do things for you ( while you pay taxes), now “the country” expects you to do things for it.

That’s how it has been working for many centuries and applies to any society, even the stable and peaceful ones.

Now let me dose it with gasoline: Not many hardcore “feminists” around.. where did they go? :)

Why do you assume they expect “the country” to do anything for them? I certainly don't want “the country” to do anything for me and I don't want to do anything for “the country” that I wouldn't do for anyone.

Also, anyone who want men but not women to be forced to fight is not a feminist.

> Now let me dose it with gasoline: Not many hardcore “feminists” around.. where did they go?

I would guess many are fighting or supporting the war effort and their country in other ways. Also leaving with your kids doesn't mean one is less feminist, just that you want less of your family to die. Compliance doesn't equal agreement.

I was being snarky, but I didn't equate "feminists" to females, let alone with children. It wasn't any statement with content, just a tease.

While compliance doesn't equal agreement, let's not fall in the trap that non-compliance will solve the problem. The enemy ( which is what it is atm ) isn't some old fat C-suites that rollover when "their twitter explodes" and they have to work on the weekend instead of go boating.

That statement considerable changes meaning when you know that the thing that failed was that they found a huge amount of gas in Crimea.

It's a Russians invasion, not from the west. A country should be free to decide what they want.

Ukraine doesn't send conscripts to front line. They will service far front line. Ukraine had genocide (Holodomor) and bloody war less than century age, so they caused long plato in reproduction rate. Also, Ukraine has low fertility rate, so we don't want to lose young man and woman, because it hits hard. Many parents has one or two childs, so death of single son on girl causes lot of pain.

If you have stomach for this game, then go to frontline and replace somebody young here, please, so (s)he will not die.

Nobody should be forced to participate in a war. These men (and trans women who the state considers to be men) are being victimized twice. First by the Russian government who brought war to their home, and then again by the Ukrainian government who is forcing them to participate in that war.

While forcing even more people to fight would obviously be even worse, the exclusion of one sex makes it feel worse because of its fundamental unfairness and the sexism it perpetuates. Perhaps it's illogical, but I actually feel better about being from a country with equal conscription where twice as many people are at risk of being forced to kill and die for the state, although I would of course prefer if the state relinquished its claim to its citizen's lives and gave everyone a choice.

Being forced to participate in defense is different than being forced to participate in offense.

Defending is like paying taxes. Everyone has to do their part, and the day of payment coming due for enjoying the citizenship is too late to decide "maybe I want to change citizenships".

It's frankly dishonest to try to reduce and equate everything to "forced to participate in war".

I fundamentally disagree. People don't choose where they are born and don't owe any aligiance to the state that happens to control that territory.

Just because the local mob accepted my protection money and left me alone doesn't mean I have a moral obligation to defend them against a competitor.

People don't even choose to be born at all. That isn't an argument.

There is no place one even could choose to live that doesn't have some sort of communal shared structure and resources, which everyone benefits from, and everyone must contribute to, and so "didn't choose" is yet again, not an argument.

So if you are a young man

Not just young men. If a man is between the ages of 18 and 60 currently then they would be defending their country. They are also accepting men from outside their country and have relaxed the visa requirements.

no way to opt out

Probably not legally. One would have had to find a way to flee the country while that was still possible. This is not unique to Ukraine. Many people fled the US that were opposed to participating in the Vietnam war.

As a side note, I think it is about to get interesting in the United States of America as the Selective Service is slowly moving in the direction of accepting women into the process. [1][2] I would expect this to become a popular headline once ratified.

[1] - https://www.sss.gov/register/women/background/

[2] - https://rollcall.com/2021/10/05/congress-moves-toward-requir...

There are limited choices due to the Russian invasion but they can always opt out

Easy to attach a fancy term for it. However, is it any better than the forced conscription on the other side. Both sides are forcing their young to fight a war instead of having the right to choose.

So what’s your suggestion to stop the war and find a peaceful solution? I’m genuinely curious because I cant think of one that will not require more bloodshed or complete surrender and trust in your invaders goodwill and decency.

Unfortunately, there isn't one. Fall back to the western parts of the country. Don't expend blood over cities that cannot be saved. End of the day, a country cannot be more than its people. Ukraine should save as many of the families (including men as it can). Eventually, the dictator and his banana republic will splinter again into even more smaller pieces than soviet union did. Current result is already written in stone when Ukraine forgo its nukes for independence and money. Sadly in current world a country's boundaries are not permanent unless backed by MAD (either on its own or through alliances). As much as we have progressed technologically, the human greed and emotions haven't changed one iota which is why we will always have wars.

First, announce that former US President Donald Trump and former First Lady Melania will be traveling to the region to deescalate. As Putin’s only real peer, Trump can sell a great peace.

Second, China is between two belligerent nuclear powers and yet doesn’t show the same outward anxieties as some NATO members. Instead, something about the island of Taiwan preoccupies China. Taiwan must be into something. Replace Russia on the UN Security Council with Taiwan.

Third, people murmur about the amount of money extracted and stashed in the Caribbean. Take any balance above, say, 1mm usd and replace it with a peace bond that can only be cashed, in person, under a DEFCON zero.

What the gobble fish bicycle?

If this is just humor, I apologize, because it's hilarious, but I don't dare upvote it because holy quackenbarkers.

> Also 1,2 million Ukrainians have already fled the country

> so that number would be even higher if this demographic was given a free choice.

Sounds like they did have a choice

What if Russian soldiers were given a free choice? How many would choose to invade Ukraine?

Remember folks, the best way to halt a Russian invasion of your homeland is to apparently not fight them.

If pundits weren't so regularly stupid I'd almost think this was paid for propaganda.

Can you tell me about the last time that the city you live in was shelled by artillery? What did it feel like? Were you tempted to consider surrender in return for cessation of hostilities?

For my country the last time was the WW2 and the people fought against Germany.

I wonder if they think that it would have been better not to fight against Hitler as well?

> Can you tell me about the last time that the city you live in was shelled by artillery?

Never because likely NATO has got his back, which the same NATO isn't giving Ukraine when they expressly demand NATO assistance.

> What did it feel like? Were you tempted to consider surrender in return for cessation of hostilities?

That must certainly feels like a betrayal for Ukrainians.

Yup, what a stupid take. Avoid wars, let the agressor win.

It's like one of those stupid DIY 5 minutes tiktoks

We laid down our arms and embraced our invaders and you won't believe what happened next!

When I was relatively young, my mom was against violence and wanted me to talk things out with some kids that were bullying me. Things didn't improve until I beat a few of them up. Putin has implied he's cornered and therefore overly aggressive in a story from his childhood where he's chasing a huge rat. We need to slam the door on his nose.

Same here. Bullying stopped the day I beat the shit out of my bully. I got suspended for a 2 days as a result. My parents didn't punish me at all.

When my kid was being bullied we went through all the usual channels, tell teachers etc. Then when all that was done and it carried on I told him to hit them. Got a call from school about it, told them they should have handled it, should not have been left up to my 9 year old but their inaction caused it. Told them that I had told my son that no matter what school said he did the right thing.

Ever heard of the Resistance?

It's not about letting the agressor win, it's about fight back without losing your city.

Right know Putin could just bomb the Kyiv to ashes.

No he probably couldn't. He could nuke it, but sending a bunch of planes against a city which has air defense cover is a good way to lose your airforce. He sure can't get artillery near it - because he'd have done it if that armor convoy could move. Instead it's getting bombed by Ukranian war planes.

Resistance fighters lose against an occupier at something like a 10:1 ratio - against the resistance. They lose on average 10 members for every occupation kill. You can prove this to yourself - what did the US lose in Afgahnistan vs the Taliban? For how many years?

You should always try and win the conventional war if you can do win at a better rate then that - which the Ukraine is.

The civilians throwing Molotov cocktails aren't part of the conventional war. The just become legitimate targets

What do you think a resistance is? And how it wins?

Not conventional war.

I do think it's fair to show the whole picture. Even if the Ukrainians do halt the Russian war machine, it comes at an incredibly steep price.

Fighting for freedom is glamorized as some wholesome star wars rebellion where the good guys always win. In practice the dynamic often gets incredibly ugly and whatever victory there is to have is Pyrrhic at best.

The way to fight a guerilla is to oppress harder, to break the population, to systematically ransack and destroy anything beautiful, monuments, cultural icons, anything that gives identity or a cause to fight back until there is nothing left but rubble.

It's real easy to sit in an armchair halfway across the world and say it's worth sacrificing everything for freedom. But yeah, maybe this is worth it, I don't presume to know. Drawn out guerilla war comes at the sort of cost nobody other than Ukraine gets to decide whether they think it's worth it.

Maybe people are so used to living in such a safe country that they can't even conceive of a real threat to its existence. Countries only exist because they're willed into existence. Sure, Ukraine isn't perfect, but it's the Ukrainians' and they have every right in the world to defend it. That said, the way the conversation is going on here in the last day or two, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these comments were direct propaganda, or people have been soaking it up from somewhere else.

> That said, the way the conversation is going on here in the last day or two, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these comments were direct propaganda

Agree

Whatever you stand is on the war support the civilians with supplies and anything needed. There are tons of organizations that will collect supplies in Europe and ensure it gets to where it’s needed.

While there are risks and many attempts are foolish, everybody should have realized by now that Putin will not stop in Ukraine unless he is crushed. Not to engage military is even bigger mistake and will only lead to prolonged war and more deaths and suffering.

It was not Biden's mistake that the war was started. Putin only used it as a pretext. It is a simple war of aggression that would have happened anyway.

Why the downvotes? Putin said as much in his invasion speech. Lukashenko's invasion map literally had Moldova as the next invasion target. Wake up people.

We have surprising many Putin bots or just naive followers.

Too bad icann didn't see this as a problem...imagine how the misinformation problem and cyberwarfare would diminish if they had been disconnected from the greater internet?

HN doesn't allow downvotes for accounts with less than 500 karma. While I don't doubt there's considerable Russian astroturfing on FB or Twitter, I'm pretty skeptical that the Kremlin employs similar tactics here. Spambots or paid shills would stick out like a sore thumb.

It is not that simple. Even the Guardian noticed that antivax bots are now silent and have switched to pro-Russian narrative. And many naive people are following them. I used to be tolerant of antivax views on the grounds of the freedom of speech even though personally I am strictly pro-vax. Today I was unpleasantly surprised that they are now quoting all this rubbish how the war in Ukraine is the mistake of the west and globalisation etc. It was from people whom I would expect the least to take pro-Putin stance.

I know they are not bots but how could they have changed their narrative overnight? I guess some people are really so gullible and easily absorb all rubbish whether it is antivax or pro-Putin.

This is even more interesting that the vaccination coverage is Ukraine is really low (less than 50%) and there are many reasons for this, historic problems, distrust in authorities, weak medical system, and also antivax bots. Nevertheless, antivax and Ukraine independence are completely different issues. It does not make sense logically to connect one with another. And yet, a lot of so called contrarians do and it is not due to strong analytical skills.

But the pro-vax people are talking about Ukraine too, so not exactly compelling evidence.

I am sure there is a greater correlation between antivax and pro-Putin stance (except in Ukraine). Pro-vax people are majority and will have more divergent views about other issues so that doesn't mean much.

They are sticking out like a sore thumb.

I noticed that when I write something like this, I immediately get downvotes. Then gradually as discussion developed I get upvoted. To me it seems that there really are vigilantes who are doing this for whatever reason.

The same could be said about certain articles. For example, that Facebook allows to praise the Azov battalion. It is a controversial thing that Ukrainians shouldn't be proud of, but it has been explained already how the praise is allowed – not with regards to neo-nazi ideology but only when mentioned as part of regular armed forces where this battalion was incorporated to control them. And yet despite the explanation this article come up again and again which makes me think for concerted effort to spread anti-Ukrainian narrative.

My guess for the downvotes is the claim this isn’t Biden’s fault. There’s a large camp of people who think the US is forcing Ukraine into this position by egging on Russia. I don’t think that’s the case personally.

One thing I do think Biden did wrong was shut down the keystone pipeline and forcing us to buy oil from Russia as a result, which gave Russia a great way to fund a war campaign.

The US is still oil independent - the keystone pipeline didn't change a thing in that regard (how could it? If you can ship oil from Russia, you can ship it from slightly further north in your own continent.

Oil is a fungible commodity though: the price is effected by global demand - as I noted in a previous thread on this exact subject, the idea of "independence" and "dependence" both mean nothing so long as private enterprise can own the resource and faces no restrictions on its export.

Okay, makes sense. But how does that negate us giving Russia a war chest of money the past year?

They’ve been seizing all of that money. It’s mostly unavailable at this point.

If you mean Russian oil exports, I thought the bulk of those went to Europe and China. It looks like 8 or 9% of US oil imports have been coming from Russia. About half our imports are from Canada. I’m not sure what percentage of US oil usage would be Russian import, but it doesn’t seem like “war chest” level?

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0...

Edit: on further inspection, it does seem like a large dollar amount. And if you look at 2019 numbers, we imported a much larger fraction from Russia than in 2021. I still think much more Russian oil goes to Europe

> One thing I do think Biden did wrong was shut down the keystone pipeline

Biden did not shut down the Keystone pipeline - he revoked the permit for Keystone pipeline phase 4 (KeystoneXL) on January 20, 2021

The rest of the Keystone pipeline is operational and delivering Canadian oil to midwest refineries

I don’t think KeystoneXL would have been completed in time to have any effect on the Ukrainian invasion

> It was not Biden's mistake that the war was started. Putin only used it as a pretext. It is a simple war of aggression that would have happened anyway.

It was President Biden who said it openly "we know Russia will invade Ukraine," the intel I believe Putin leaked purposefully to probe US response, and then said that "there will be no US boots on the ground" before the invasion has even started.

This reassured Russian political establishment of not only US military not doing anything, but also about US political establishment being comfortable with that.

Indicating that you know a credible threat is coming well ahead of time, and then doing nothing all that time is a terrible diplomatic move, which signalled Putin of US already "coming to terms with the inevitable."

You never state your red lines.

> This reassured Russian political establishment of not only US military not doing anything, but also about US political establishment being comfortable with that.

If you want to talk about the American political establishment reassuring Putin, talk about former President Trump calling him a genius and savvy, the former Secretary of State saying he admired Putin as he was amassing equipment on Ukraine’s border, and the right airing fawning praise for Putin over the past 6 years.

Seriously, American political media that is airing on Russian state TV right now is already celebrating that Republicans are taking over in the Fall, and these same Republicans are on TV all but claiming fealty to Putin. They spent the last 6 years spreading Russian propaganda that their hacking of the 2016 election was either a hoax, or if it wasn’t than it was Ukraine’s fault. The former US President attempted to extort a bribe from the Ukrainians and withheld the very weapons they knew they needed for a moment just as this. And talk about signals, Zelensky wanted a signal from Trump to Putin that America supported Ukraine in the form of a White House visit. This visit was denied and never occurred. What kind of signal did that send to Putin about American support for Ukraine?

His party (the same people on TV “asking questions” as to why we should hate Putin so much) defended him for that and claimed it was his right to do so! Trump stood right next to Putin and acted like a beat dog as he claimed he trusted Putin and believed Putin did not hack the DNC in 2016.

My God, this is happening today because Mitt Romney called Russia America’s number one geopolitical foe and the rest of his party scoffed and laughed and took a trip to Moscow on July 4.

The problem today is that a huge contingent of people think that Russian style oligarchy would be a great model to bring here. Mostly very rich people like Peter Thiel, Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump, who mused he’d like to be America’s “President for Life” just like Putin. They have been signaling for years now that they want to be part of a new alliance of autocrats including Russia, Brazil, the UAE, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and India. They would much prefer we abandon NATO, our European allies, and instead side with the rising tide of autocracy happening across the globe.

You don’t get an invasion of Ukraine without that context.

So you think Trump should have been insulting him publicly? Do you get more cooperation out of people by publicly lambasting them?

This is really less about what Trump said right before the invasion and more about a pattern of behavior through words and deeds regarding Putin and Russia over the last 6 years.

So in general. Over the last 6 years. Trump should have insulted him publicly? That's how you bend people to your will?

TLDR; No, please read this. I'm going to speak in full and complete paragraphs so you understand exactly what I mean, and can't misread me. Or if you don't want to read this, you'll thank yourself later by spending some time this Saturday afternoon reading the linked Senate Intel report.

I think Trump shouldn't have been parroting Russian propaganda for years and working with Russia to help himself get elected. I think he should have taken the White House meeting with Zelensky and given him the allocated weapons as required by law instead of illegally withholding them and using them to extort a bribe which would help himself politically, again with his election. I think his party should have held him accountable for this and shouldn't have defended him on his "right" to do this, when the House managers proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that at Helsinki, Trump should have shown strength and called out Putin to his face about the fact that Putin hacked the the DNC and interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win, instead of taking Putin's side. We know why he said that because he was glad for Putin's help. He told us as much and said he would accept more if it were to come his way.

I think if at any time in the last 6 years Trump and the Republican establishment had shown any kind of backbone when it comes to Putin, maybe on the order of how they posture against the Chinese, we wouldn't have an invasion today because there would be no question about America's position regarding Russia. Instead, with top Republican leaders making pilgrimages to Moscow on Jan 4, and top Republican media being broadcast on Russian state TV unedited because it's just that on-message... well, there's still no question on where one of America's top political parties stands on Putin/Russia when they call him a "savvy genius" for invading countries like Hitler.

By the way, Putin reads and watches as American media is crowing that this same pro-Putin political party will be taking over the US Congress in 10 months. This same party signaled it would be putting members in charge of very powerful committees, members who have been very vocally pro-Putin, and who have themselves personally pushed Russian propaganda straight from the Kremlin on the floors of the House and Senate. There are Republicans who still say Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for hacking the 2016 US Presidential Election.

This is what the Republican majority Senate Intel Committee found regarding 2016:

  "The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's high level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat."

  "The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process." [0]

Read: The Trump campaign willingly worked with Russian intelligence (aka Vladimir Putin) and gave them confidential information, on purpose with the intent that Russia would aid Trump's presidential election, and it threatened national security. Collusion. Think about that and then remember that Trump pardoned Paul Manafort, who went to jail after he reneged on his cooperation agreement with Mueller to turn on Trump. Manafort is a free man today.

What did they do about this thing they said represented a "grave counterintelligence threat"? Nothing. They went on TV and said "No collusion, it's a hoax, the Ukrainians did it!" and held a party for Trump. Vladimir Putin read that report, I guarantee you. He sees the weakness. It is palpable. He knows Republicans know what he's up to, and he knows they will not only sit on their hands, but they will publicly deny everything they wrote in that report. Try to get a Republican to admit that Russia hacked the 2016 election today. It's like pulling teeth. Republicans tried harder to get the American public to believe that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election! They will never admit that to you even though they wrote the above words in black and white in an official government product of the US Senate. Because they know people don't read the 1000 page 5 volume reports. They watch Fox News and Fox News didn't run the above quotes (and if I missed it, I must have blinked).

And if you think I'm only against Trump/Republicans for this I think Obama should have been 1000% harder on Putin after the 2016 election and the 2014 invasion of Crimea. That was a got dang travesty the way he was let off the hook for that and is another reason why we are here today. I have plenty to say about them but not today.

Because that's not where the history books will start the story of how this war began. The story starts with the Trump Russia scandal. Why? Because whether or not that pushed Trump over the edge, Trump still owed Putin. The deal was laid out at the Trump Tower meeting between Manafort, Kusnher, and Don Jr. The terms were: hacked material in exchange for relaxed relations. The hacked material came, and the relaxed relations followed. Slow walked and nominal sanctions, but a Putin-approved secretary of state who happens to be a Oil executive who was personally awarded the Order of Friendship by Putin, the highest civilian honor in Russia. White House meetings with Russians inside of the Oval Office, a place Zelensky never got to meet with Trump. That has meaning and value.

Trump spent 4 entire years of his presidency pumping up Russia, gaslighting the US public by claiming his collusion was a hoax, and of course Russia was pleased when Ukraine started taking the blame instead of them.

But most of all, to Russia's great delight, Trump spent 4 years weakening the NATO alliance by questioning its Article 5 obligations. The NATO alliance was at its weakest in history the day Trump left office. But then Joe Biden was elected, and I am no Joe Biden fan, but NATO started getting stronger from that day forward if just for the fact that Trump no longer had the power to use the US Government to make it weaker intentionally. So Putin had a choice: invade now when NATO is at its weakest and covid is still a problem, or wait 4 years to see if Trump is reelected, and if he's not then it's 8 years and NATO would be stronger than ever at that time. And who knows if Putin would still be in power at that point or even alive!

This is really the best chance he's ever going to get, and it's all thanks to Trump doing what he did the 4 years he was in office. Because as much as you may hate Hillary Clinton and Lord knows I do, this would not be happening right now if she were elected President instead of Trump in 2016. It simply would not because there would have been no oval office visits, and no gaslighting of the public to be pro Russia, and Ukraine would have gotten the weapons as scheduled delivered to the western front where they were desperately needed to be deployed against Russians. I do not like Clinton but she had the good sense of foresight to have Putin pegged for Hitler in 2014, and I respect that. She may have played fast and loose with government policy and should be held to account for that, but at least she can recognize a psychopath when she sees one. She was right about Putin and she was right about Trump and her legacy at long last is going to be "I told you so", which good for her.

[0] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

I'm not going to refute anything you've said but I am curious to hear what you have to say about Trump's statement which was something like "this wouldn't have happened with us in the White House". It seems more like Trump would have offered Ukraine to Putin as a gift and if you donate to one of my sham charities, I'll also sell you a few NATO countries.

> "this wouldn't have happened with us in the White House"

Trump is 100% right, it would not have happened with him in the White House because he was doing everything he could to break the NATO alliance. He was doing more on that front than Putin could ever have done himself. 4 more years of Trump and NATO would have been even worse off than it was in 2021. Imagine if the alliance broke or that the US left NATO. Then who knows what Putin could do?

Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama in 2014 and again in 2022 under Biden. Russia did not invade Ukraine while Trump was President. So Trump is an asshole, but maybe his approach was more effective than that of Obama and Biden, considering the reality of when Russia chose to invade Ukraine.

I address your point in my other two replies. His approach vis-à-vis Putin was to fulfill his wildest fantasies by weakening the NATO alliance and continually threatening to pull out. Every day Trump was in office, NATO got weaker and Putin's profile was elevated by Trump. The timing of the attack is because NATO is only getting stronger from here on out so it's now or never really.

If Putin invaded Ukraine while Trump was in office he would have forced the American political establishment to unite against him. It's far better for him now that there were 4 years of Republicans wearing "Better Russian than Democrat" shirts.

Think about how far Republicans have come on this issue. They used to be the party of the red scare, now they're the party of "Putin is a savvy genius". Amazing what a propaganda victory that is for Putin.

>Every day Trump was in office, NATO got weaker

Your entire argument ignores the fact that Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. You're saying that NATO was stronger before Trump, and yet they (and the US in general) let Russia waltz in, and annex Ukraine and that was that?

How do you account for that fact in your worldview?

No my entire argument doesn't ignore that, I said explicitly that NATO and Obama's light touch on Putin after 2014 absolutely is a reason why we are here right now. I think that was a big test for NATO and they failed, and Putin saw that. Obama's handling of 2014 is exactly why Putin was so brazen in interfering with the 2016 election; he knew if he got caught Obama wouldn't do anything about it and he was 100% right. That was Obama's weakness.

2014 should have been a wakeup call. 2014 was Putin dipping his toe into the water to see how the world would respond to an invasion, and IMO it wasn't harsh enough. But I don't think this had given Putin enough confidence to conduct the full-on invasion that he is right now. Then 2016 happened. Before 2016 Republicans were still staunchly very anti-Russia, as had been their traditional Cold-War position. Communism and authoritarianism: bad; Capitalism and democracy: good. That was the Republican party position in 2016. Not after Trump's nomination. At that point they turned from an anti-Russia party to the "Russia isn't all that bad, let's be friends with them" party. They removed military support for Ukraine from their party agenda at Trump's behest, at a time when his campaign manager and family was secretly meeting with Russians in his home. 2016-2020 was 4 years of the American right explicitly signaling to Putin that they would rather be aligned with him than European democracies, especially and in particular Ukraine.

To summarize my entire argument, it's that because of his own personal ambitions, Trump attempted to realign America with an axis of global dictators rather than our traditional democratic allies in Europe, and in doing so severely weakened NATO's standing because America as the largest economic and military power in the world is the key to that alliance.

So do you think Russia annexing Crimea in 2014 happened in a vacuum, or do you think it was a response to the Ukrainian coup which Russia claims was partially financed and fomented by the CIA in order to install a pro-NATO puppet regime on Russia's border?

Why don't you just make your point?

I thought we were having a discussion, I asked the above question to better understand how you arrived at your view.

Following your own logic, that coup did not happen in a vacuum either. The coup was against a pro-Russian puppet regime that did not hesitate to shoot and kill their own civilians. Any western influence agens involved probably did not have to work very hard.

Ok, it was a Biden's mistake that he didn't help more. It seems that the US had intel that is now fully corroborated that Putin planned to attack.

Nevertheless, Europe helped even less. One month ago Germany prohibited other countries to sell weapons to Ukraine, now they have changed the tune but where were they a month ago?

Even Zelensky objected to those warnings although I suspect that he knew that the war is inevitable and was preparing for it. He only didn't know the precise date and wanted to avoid the panic.

More appeasement BS

> Washington and Brussels should create an incentive for Russia to stop before wrecking Ukraine’s major cities.

Are there examples of similar lines of thought in other conflicts ?

Was Europe looking for Bush/Obama off-ramps in Iraq or Afghanistan that would allow the US to save face?

Putin clearly stated that an eastward expansion of NATO is considered a security thread to Russia and is unacceptable. This was ignored and NATO decided that Ukraine will eventually become a NATO member. This is an obvious conflict between Ukraine's rights as a sovereign state and Russia's security interests. For the west this is no big deal, NATO is a defensive alliance and poses no threat to Russia, Russia on the other hand does not buy this.

This is, at least to a certain extend, a similar situation as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. How would the USA react today - or maybe better fifteen years ago to ignore the effects of the Ukraine conflict - to an Russian attempt to have missiles in Cuba? Would we believe that it is purely for defensive reasons?

This might have been avoidable, while it is impossible that both parties get what they desire, there might have been a compromise. Now with the war this probably becomes much harder, Ukraine has more reasons for a NATO membership, Russia has more reasons not to want Ukraine in the NATO.

Now the question is whether Ukraine has a chance to win the war. If they do not, it would probably really be the best option to just surrender. But judging the chances of that seems really hard at the moment because it depends on the amount of support from the west, the effects of the sanctions and the reaction of the Russian population, on China's position, on the kind of war that Russia is willing to fight, ...

Nobody can win this war. Ukraine’s military is not strong enough. Russia can’t win this war short of ethnic cleansing which would result in even stronger sanctions from the west. It’s a lose lose situation.

Most wars are probably lose lose situations, at least in a certain sense. When I wrote win I meant Ukraine not being controlled by Russia. Even though those scenarios are probably not likely, there are certainly some imaginable scenarios. There could be a diplomatic solution or Putin could give up due to internal opposition or for economic reasons. If there was a no-fly zone, maybe the Ukraine could have a fighting chance. NATO is obviously very reluctant to enforce one, but maybe non-NATO countries could be encouraged to do this. The outlook is certainly bleak but there will be an outcome.

> but maybe non-NATO countries could be encouraged to do this.

No non-NATO country is going to enforce a no fly zone on Russia

I don't consider this a real possibility either, but in an alternative world where China was more aligned with the west, I could imagine them to do it.

It's hopeless until it is not. I've been wrong at every turn in the lead-up to the invasion and after.

I did not believe Putin would invade. Then I did not believe he would invade the whole country. And then I believed he would succeed rapidly. And then I did not believe that Putin would start firing heavy artillery on cities. And when he did, I thought that would work for him. Wrong every time. He invaded. It got very brutal. And he got bogged down fighting a fight that he should have won a long time ago by now but clearly did not.

So, right now, I still see some light at the end of the proverbial tunnel for the Ukrainians.

My reasoning is that at this point anything that buys the Ukrainians time is a good thing. They have a few things going for them: the Russian army is obviously compensating for their poor coordination, preparation, and incompetence with massive brutality. Consequently, morale is probably very low and probably dropping rapidly in the Russian army at least among most soldiers. Their generals and officers are muppets. Their orders are clearly bullshit. And they are taking heavy casualties for a leader that seems to have completely lost it lately for a cause that is seemingly about attacking people living in a country where many of them may have friends and relatives. Not good.

Ranking officers probably don't believe in this war at this point, if they ever did. And their generals at this point are probably getting very concerned about who of them the finger is going to be pointed at by whom and what will happen to those people. Additionally, Putin will be dealing with some very serious domestic economic issues very soon. Body bags with dead Russians and weeping widows and mothers are not going to be helpful either. He'll be under a lot of pressure to fix things quickly and it is doubtful he can fix a lot.

Russians were happy to have him while he took care of them, took care of their pensions, kept up appearances, etc. But plunging a country into chaos is never a recipe for surviving if you are an autocratic leader.

In short, that's a recipe for a revolution. Add hordes of pissed off oligarchs recently divorced from their jets, foreign property, and bank accounts to the mix and you have a potent mix for that and a perfect storm for exactly that to happen. And of course the Russian mafia needs some access to international markets as well to function. This war is bad for business for everyone; including all the people that keep Putin in power. Who is this at this point exactly? A revolution would not unprecedented in Russia. Just ask Gorbachev, he's still around.

I might be wrong about the Russian's ability to get themselves out of this mess of course. So, a good strategy for the Ukrainians would be buying as much time as they can get themselves. Since they have nothing left to loose, a lot of them are probably not going to bother with alternate strategies regardless of what happens. Capitulation seems unlikely. Unlike the Russians, they are highly motivated and determined. And they seem to be digging in for a long fight. I'm not sure they'll even have to fight that long. Putin might not last more than a few weeks the way things are currently going. Right now the number one concern that probably keeps him up at night is wondering which of his friends will be the one to stick the proverbial knife in his back. Actually, this whole move to invade the Ukraine might be rooted in paranoia about exactly that. This is not a strong leader anymore but a weak leader that fears for his life that is acting erratically.

The west is not powerless. We have some powerful sticks and carrots. Those economic sanctions are clearly very worrying to Russians in all layers of society. And the carrot is that those could sanctions could be lifted. Also, Ukrainians are getting some supplies from the west and they are clearly helping to buy more time. Putin doesn't have an endless amount of time. His credibility and popularity are at an all time low at this point and dropping by the hour. The problem for Putin is that he has plenty of stick but no carrot. And those wielding the sticks might turn against him. He has very few good moves left.

The ultimate carrot for Putin could simply be a safe retirement in some country. Not a bad plan. Several dictators have done that before him. I think Russia even harbors a few. So, he'd be well familiar with that plan and probably has planned such a thing years ago.

Again, I might be wrong and I don't have a great track record predicting things lately.

Unpopular opinion here:

Two guys (or gals) are fighting. One has a pistol. The other is bare hands. You are watching. What should you do? Give him a pistol?

While one has a pistol but the other hasn't, the odds of somebody dying/get injured are minimal. If both have a pistol, odds are somebody will die or get really injured. Probably both. Does it worth? They will sleep on this and tomorrow nobody may care anymore.

Putin is guilty of starting this war (should be bashed to hell) but Zelenski is being a courageous irresponsable by allowing his country to be destroyed and his people to die. He didn't do his homework and is betting everything now. EU and US are giving him guns..

So Ukraine should just welcome their new Russian overlords? Or is there an alternative to fighting that you’re proposing?

Another unpopular opinion here:

Tomorrow would be another day of life. Probably the elites would feel the difference, but, for the common people, tomorrow would be exactly the same.

> Or is there an alternative to fighting that you’re proposing?

Diplomacy.

> tomorrow would be exactly the same.

Right now Ukraine is a democracy with free press etc.

Under Russian occupation you'd have dictatorship, death squads, the whole country looted.

Exactly the same, sure.

Post-soviet Russians are demanding a different political system. I believe Putin will the be the last of his kind there.

They can demand all they want? How will they achieve it? Putin suppresses any opposition political parties who might win over him or whoever will be his chosen successor.

> Diplomacy

That is more defensible than just standing by while Ukraine asks for military aid, IMO.

I’m not sure if you have specific diplomatic strategies in mind. I sort of assume that the west is going straight to ratcheting up sanctions because there’s not much else to go on. But then I’m no expert in international relations

I shared my life with one for several years but I'm no expert in international relations either.. What would I do? I would assign this diplomatic task to.. Trump. He did it before (North Korea), he could make it again. The problem is that his success would frighten some much more than the war does.

That is not the only alternative. Putin’s terms for peace are nowhere near as extreme as “overlording” over Ukraine

> That is not the only alternative.

Fair, I am asking what the alternatives are to total capitulation. “Overlord” is maybe a bit flip, but the Russians aren’t exactly coming to share their birthday cake or something

>Or is there an alternative to fighting that you’re proposing?

The alternative was not to have a CIA-financed coup in 2014 that put a regime in power hostile to Russia. This is why they took Crimea, and this is why they're invading now. Even if Putin is in the wrong, it's the height of hypocrisy for us to look all shocked that Russia has responded how they have. We knew they would respond this way.

I think you are discounting a lot of things here. First, the deterrence effect of fighting could stop future attacks. Second, what should he do? Surrender his sovereign country?

Is it irresponsible to not immediately surrender your country when a more powerful nation asks for it?

IMO yes. How you rule your personal life is your decision. Ruling a country is a different game and you should be conservative. Risking the life and property of thousands/millions mostly because of your own ego is irresponsible. What makes a great pal (I believe Zelenski is a genuinely good person with whom I would share some beers) doesn't necessarily makes a good ruler. He would be bashed for life (by a few vocal ones) but he wouldn't carry deaths on his back. Many mothers would thank him.

> Risking the life and property of thousands/millions mostly because of your own ego is irresponsible.

It’s irresponsible for Putin to have invaded Ukraine and directly causing thousands of deaths

I would say that is way beyond irresponsibility, is psychopathy.

You are mistaking Putin’s motives. This isn’t just two guys fighting. This is one astronomically narcissistic psychopath looking to destroy his enemy. Your mistake is assuming Putin had a conscience. He will happily kill an unarmed man.

Your other mistake is thinking Ukraine would be a country if Zelensky fled. That would have been the death of Ukraine as a nation and truly would have spelled death to his people and his culture. That’s something worth fighting for, if anything is.

Venice used to be a Republic before they surrendered to Napoleon. Saved some lives but killed Venice even to this day.

>That would have been the death of Ukraine as a nation

Didn't this just happen in 2014 when they had and chased out the last regime? Ukraine remained, just under a new anti-Russian regime.

They chased out the regime not the people. It's clear now that regime change won't work now that there's a resistance. 2014 was like a vaccine; the invasion didn't go far enough and built up an immune response which solidified their identity as a nation.

Ideally you'd arrest the guy with the pistol, or shoot him.

Unfortunately he's also strapped with a suicide vest with enough explosive to take everyone in the room out, which he has threatened to trigger if anyone steps in.

So you throw the underdog the pistol and grab the madman's wallet

> So you throw the underdog the pistol and grab the madman's wallet

That’s the American way!

What you propose is feudalism.

That is, people live their lives as serf's for fear of pissing off the guy with the gun who will kill them. Things won't go back to "normal", "normal" will be the guy with the gun takes what he wants from you everyday thereafter.

You can say "normal" won't be like that, but Putin just invaded and there's nothing "normal" about that either, "normal" is whatever the guy with the gun says it is, because what are you going to do about it?

>people live their lives as serf's for fear of pissing off the guy with the gun who will kill them

Are you referring to the people 'ruling' Ukraine?

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/04/how-zelensky-made-peac...

Blah Blah, Putin troll.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com