Hacker News Reader

I legitimately don't understand where all these "Ukraine is obviously winning" takes are coming from.

If Ukraine was doing well, it wouldn't be giving out weapons to civilians [0], forming penal battalions [1], or lie about receiving NATO planes. [2]

If Ukraine was doing well, it wouldn't be inflating death counts to be larger than the US involvement in Afghanistan, a 20 year period of time. [3,4]

If Ukraine was doing well, they wouldn't need to make up a story about the Ghosts of Kyiv. [5,6]

I am utterly utterly perplexed. Where is any semblance of proof that Russia is doing badly? They seem to be encircling the capital and winning city after city. It's only two weeks in. Did we expect better after the early adrenaline rush? Do they benefit from being told this? Are we just being setup to be told this is a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians?

[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/26/ukraine-russ... [1]: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-releases-prisoners-combat-e... [2]: https://www.newsweek.com/eu-ukraine-fighter-jet-promise-fall... [3]: https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news-oon-kst-gertv-boyovyh-do... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80... [5]: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-ukraines-ghost-of-kyiv-figh... [6]: https://twitter.com/KFCBarstool/status/1497366093362520065?s...

I legitimately don't understand how people keep interpreting "this doesn't seem to be going how Russia hoped it would" as "Ukraine is obviously winning". Those aren't the same thing at all.

Where is the proof or source that this isn’t going as Russia would hope?

But is radiosvoboda even Ukrainian? I thought they were American.

Was the Ghost of Kyiv story made up by the Ukrainians even? How do we know that?

Also, Ukraine is doing well, considering their situation.

I think it’s also what Ukraine (broadly speaking) believes

https://web.archive.org/web/20220225201409/https://www.5.ua/...

I'm fairly sure the Ghost of Kyiv came from a DCS (digital combat simulator) player originally and is actually based on this short DCS movie called 'The Ghost' which has very similar core details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM8tXUz2q0c

Also some of the original footage uploaded that was purported to be of the Ghost of Kyiv was from DCS and I believe was even admitted as such by the uploader but like most rumours it has since taken a life of it's own and the exploits become increasingly more exaggerated over time.

>If Ukraine was doing well, they wouldn't need to make up a story about the Ghosts of Kyiv. [5,6]

>[5]: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-ukraines-ghost-of-kyiv-figh... [6]: https://twitter.com/KFCBarstool/status/1497366093362520065?s...

Who's "they" in this case? The ukranian people? The ukranian government? The sources you suggest seem to suggest the former rather than the latter. If that's the case, I'm not really sure how that's indicative of not "obviously winning".

> I legitimately don't understand where all these "Ukraine is obviously winning" takes are coming from.

Because it appears to be doing far better than expected. That doesn't mean they'll win, but it at least allows for a sliver of hope. Personally, I'm guessing they'll eventually lose a lot of territory without direct Western military intervention, but maybe there will still be Ukrainian rump state left in the West after this, which will still be an achievement if not a "win."

> If Ukraine was doing well, it wouldn't be giving out weapons to civilians [0]...

Ukraine might be doing as well as it is, because of things like that. That's not proof that it's doing well or poorly, but rather it's putting all its resources into an existential fight.

> If Ukraine was doing well, they wouldn't need to make up a story about the Ghosts of Kyiv.

You're being waaay too hard on them. They're ten days into the literal fight for their lives, and if some social media rumor gives them a bit more morale amidst the fog of war, who cares?

> Are we just being setup to be told this is a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians?

That's a bit too conspiratorial. That's a likely outcome, because even after "unprecedented" action Ukraine's allies are unwilling to do enough to clearly tip the scales, but I doubt there's some plan to "setup to be told [that]."

If, broadly speaking, the western media says that Russia won a Pyrrhic victory will I be right in saying this was an intentional setup or will it be that I simply got lucky?

Depends on the chances of pyrrhic victories in general. You score no points for predicting the most probable outcome. To reverse this, would you be right if you said that Russia won and Russian media agreed?

Your (2) source does not match what you said. The Ukraine did no lie about the planes, the EU did:

> The three nations were said to be forming the core of the EU effort—announced Monday by EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell—as they are believed to be the only bloc members with flight-ready Russian-made aircraft.

I’m hesitant to read your other sources now

a major front in a modern war is digital propaganda. You have to keep your own peoples moral up and sap the will of the enemy, next you have to convince the rest of the world that your cause is just, winable and that they should suport you and demonize your enemy.

Russia has failed on this front as their propaganda has been so transparently bad.

they accused Ukraine of being run by Nazis, when their president and prime minister are both Jewish. they accused them of running death camps for Russian and all sort of other ridiculous slander so unbelievable the no one believes it.

Ukraine has done all things considered pretty well outside of the examples you mentioned.

As for arming civilians what do you expect a militarily inferior country to do when facing a stronger enemy and the rest of the world seems to afraid to send meaningful military aid. Its a battle for their survival. If I lived there I would be lining up to get gun too.

the winning narrative is coming form them not being steam rolled like last time and them holding ground. Or from russian soldiers surrendering and going AWOL.

   One thing is sure: if China still wants to invade Taiwan, they certainly have postponed their plans by a few years, maybe a decade, maybe even more.

How can you be so certain? This reminds me of people saying just 14 days ago "I don't think Putin is going to invade."

Taiwan is not Ukraine, indeed -- Taiwan would be easier to capture because it is an island. There aren't land borders across which supplies and weapons can be brought. They would have to come by ship or plane, which are easier to defeat. It would be easier, militarily, to take Taiwan. China certainly has the will, and it has learned that the worst it would face would be some sanctions.

> some sanctions

Some sanctions? The entire Russian economy has disappeared overnight. The only reason it has not been felt yet is due to inertia. There are still just about enough goods in the pipes to support things for weeks or months. But once computers start breaking, planes start breaking, shelves start to empty, and nothing is arriving to replace them, shit is going to hit the fan.

Indeed. They're being unplugged from the 21st century.

Or have they been? "Unplugged" is a good metaphor, for they currently control the vast majority of energy to all of Europe[1]. We're turning Russia into a gigantic version of North Korea, and with the same major ally, China. What happens if Russia diverts its gas sales to China -- it's Europe that'll be unplugged.

1. https://www.loc.gov/resource/g5701h.ct003365/?r=0.025,0.336,...

Your reference is from 2008.

Certainly recent events have concentrated minds regarding energy security in Europe, and likely self sufficiency (or at least better sources) will be achieved, much as food security was after ww2.

If China is the only available customer, how much do you think China will pay? They will have Russia by the balls. They will pay pennies on the Ruble.

Europe will piss and moan for a while as prices go up, but Europe is rich enough to route around this problem.

I agree though, we're turning Russia into a giant North Korea. What that means for the world, I don't know. In fact, I would say they're getting cut off worse than North Korea. Some of these companies canceling Russia probably operate (with permission) in North Korea.

To counter this claim, I'd ask you to consider which of two similarly sized invasions was easier to achieve: D-Day and the invasion of Western Europe, or Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Eastern Europe. You may also consider why the Nazis never made it to Great Britain, and why Great Britain has been insulated from the Great Wars of Europe more often than it has taken part in the conflicts.

> To counter this claim, I'd ask you to consider which of two similarly sized invasions was easier to achieve: D-Day and the invasion of Western Europe, or Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Eastern Europe. You may also consider why the Nazis never made it to Great Britain, and why Great Britain has been insulated from the Great Wars of Europe more often than it has taken part in the conflicts.

It seems that this paragraph is meant to suggest that Barbarossa was easier than D-Day, but this might not be the best example, since Barbarossa failed and D-Day succeeded. (Of course, a lot of things could have gone differently that could have made the outcomes very different, but I still find this example a little unconvincing.)

Perhaps it would have been simply best to note that island nations are generally insulated from invasion in ways that continental nations are not. Great Britain had the long term national security to forge an empire while the continental nations of Europe were engaged in endless back-and-forth wars (often at the instigation of Great Britain). Japan had centuries of peaceful self-imposed isolation while the continental nations of China and Indochina were engaged in endless wars, which was utilized to build up an empire while safely protected by the Sea of Japan. Being an island nation is an immense geostrategic advantage that is apparently not completely obvious to all observers of history.

UK could be resupplied across the Atlantic by world's preeminenant industrial producer while German power projection of era couldn't comprehensively cripple GBR. German Blitz+blockade didn't achieve strategic goals of destroying GBR industries while also being distracted by land war. TW has even less food/resource security and entirely within range of PRC weapon platforms, who has more industrial capacity than US during peak of WW2 production. Also consider UK managed to hold onto Falklands. It's really about industrial capacity to wage attritional war - TW has an initial defensive bonus but massive resupply penalty. If PRC gains air superiority and deter outside intervention, taking over island is only matter of time. Merchant fleet assets alone is enough to ferry 100,000s anywhere on TW if PRC wants to human wave / million man swim in days. Dunkirk moved 350k bodies on 800 ships in a week. PRC has 50-80k fishing boats that can make the journey. It's hard to overstate PRC industrial advantage relative to TW.

It's pretty off-topic, but ...

> Japan had centuries of peaceful self-imposed isolation while the continental nations of China and Indochina were engaged in endless wars, which was utilized to build up an empire while safely protected by the Sea of Japan.

While Japan had a stable border, it also had many periods of feudal lords fighting each other. Also, the reason Japan became an Empire was that it received and internalized Western knowledges much earlier than many other countries (starting with Rangaku "Dutch learnings" in the 17th century), and later was forced to open its ports by Western powers, which resulted in disagreement over the nation's course, a series of bloody civil wars, and the Meiji Restoration, which made the emperor an iron-fisted ruler of a modern nation.

It's not exactly a story of an island enjoying isolated peace and suddenly emerging as a superpower. Korea was a country that enjoyed almost total isolation during the same period (16-19th centuries) and look where it got them.

The worst thing, that you don't mention: China has a much stronger economy than Russia. Currently we're cutting Russia from almost everything, but still (as silently as we can) buy its gas - because it would be very hard for us to stop buying it.

Cutting off China? That would hurt both sides to the point I doubt it's even possible... But then again I wouldn't expect cutting Russia the way we did was possible. Still, even individuals boycotting China would probably hurt more than Taiwan is worth?

Chinese people are more likely to rage at the government if the economy goes bad. I don't know why that is considering the media is much more locked up than Russia's has been until now, but you can see local fury every once in a while where the government is forced to concede because of angry mobs

> Taiwan would be easier to capture because it is an island.

That makes no sense. Being an island is good for you if you are the defender. For it to be a plus to China, China will first have to capture it.

only if you are self sufficient and not facing a opponent that has more that enough fire power to carpet bomb the entire island from a distance or more soldiers than you have bullets.

I don't think an island invasion would be easier than a land invasion, but I agree that "China definitely won't invade Taiwan right now" is overly optimistic. It's probably not in their best interests, but Russia invading Ukraine wasn't in Russia's best interests either and they did it anyways.

Taiwan is more difficult to capture exactly because it is difficult to sustain a well supplied continuous attack on an island 250 miles away.

> the worst it would face would be some sanctions CCP lends its legitimacy on economy. That is one thing most vulnerable.

Not really. PRC war/political plans for TW has always assumed worst case scenario of US intervention. Any TW plan is a US deterrence plan foremost, which if successful opens up various options for TW from blockade to full out invasion. TW can be dismantled at leisure as long as PRC can deter US.

The real question is whether PRC will take "half measure" options off the table and skip straight to leveling the island. UKR military improvements since 2014 thanks to western support is basically the porcupine model US has been pushing on TW. As was expanding US/NATO security architecture to trigger current "fighting to the last Ukrainian" strategy. Which has has pushed RU from "special operations" that would have spared most of the population to scorched earth. We'll have to see if UKR/TW thinks that's worth it once frank appraisal occurs when/if this war ends. This could very be a decade long war that turns most of Ukraine into Yemen. Except much harder for TW as an island not self sufficient in anything to support a prolonged insurgency.

In the meantime, PRC has learned that US/NATO will not interdict directly when you have 6000 nukes instead of just 300. That most of major non-west resource exporters have remained neutral. There's also opportunity a prolonged war will divide US attention across Atlantic again. Better to push sooner when US military has not pivoted and TW is still at UKR 2014 levels of ill preparedness - many of potentially lessons and developments that could push TW scenario sooner instead of delay it.

MANPADS, ATGM, and drones like the Bayraktar have now been shown to be much more effective than the same cost investment into aircraft, tanks and artillery. In addition the united international condemnation and sanctions have been greater than I think everyone imagined. China may conclude that Russian strategic goals would have been better served by maintaining their credible threat of invasion rather than actually invading, and adjust their strategy accordingly. But Russia is not China ...

> One thing is sure: if China still wants to invade Taiwan, they certainly have postponed their plans by a few years, maybe a decade, maybe even more.

Not necessarily. CPC is still waiting to see what the US and NATO do in response to the Russian invasion, and especially Putin's threats of nuclear escalation.

If China perceives that all the West will do is sanctions on Russia, but no direct military intervention to prevent a democratic country from being taken over by force, then China will deduce that nuclear saber rattling is enough to ensure the US won't intervene in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

That may lead them to accelerate their plans to do just that, to accomplish it during a time that 1) Western leadership is easily deterred by nuclear threats, 2) the Chinese Navy has more ships than the US Navy, and 3) US and NATO are divided into fighting a 2-front war.

CPC is also waiting to see the full extent of sanctions on and potential decoupling with Russia, how far the West will go in that regard. If CPC believes they could survive the same, again they'll be encouraged to accelerate their Taiwain plans.

The jury's still out, but it's not a given that events have already decelerated CPC's intent to invade Taiwan. That's still up in the air.

We're still buying millions of dollars worth of oil from Russia daily because our government is afraid of blowback from further energy price inflation.

Economic sanctions on China would absolutely cripple us. I don't doubt that, if they were committed to the idea, the CPC would likely be willing to ride out whatever we actually cobble together in response. They've been pushing heavily for self reliance in every industry for quite awhile now.

It would cripple them too. Being rich is only relative.

They haven't had too much of an issue with what Americans would consider insane lockdown measures during COVID.

Given the trade surplus they have been running for years- well over $3 trillion worth total held in their foreign exchange reserves- I suspect they know (or believe) they would weather the sanctions better than we would.

See: Disney, Apple, Nike and dozens of other large corporations all cut off Russia over Ukraine, yet maintain healthy relationships with China despite all of the horrors reportedly committed against the Uyghur Muslims.

The most extreme scenario is decoupling Asia, Europe, and North America from China. As in, they all shift their manufacturing elsewhere and block all imports from China. That would of course drastically harm the West, at least temporarily, but it would be far more devastating to China and the mass uprisings could end CPC.

Right the other way. It would be the perfect timing for China. Do you think the west can afford sanctioning the shit out of China now? They can't even sanction Russia properly. Do you think China prefer to wait that the west figured their shit out to depend less on other countries? Plus now Russia, Belarus, depends so much from China... and I bet many other countries are thinking of getting the fuck away from the west financial system, considering how weak that make them, especially now that there's real alternative market / system emerging independently from the west.

Most of all, Taiwan is a very strategic country, because of microchips production. Considering the sanctions (Apple, Intel, AMD, Samsung, Microsoft, Lenovo, Dell, probably more, are not selling in Russia anymore) Imagine the leverage that Taiwan would give to China, and the solution it would be for Russia.

I would be very surprised that Taiwan is not next. Everything is pushing in that direction.

Edit: As other mentioned, the outcome in Ukraine is certainly a big factor, but even if Russia fails somehow, I'm not sure that it wouldn't even make it more important for China to get Taiwan...

> I would be very surprised that Taiwan is not next.

Just wanna establish some clear understanding on what you mean by "next".

Would you be very surprised if Taiwan is not invaded within 3 months? 6 months? or 12 months?

Or what you mean is that you would be surprised that there can even be another invasion elsewhere after the invasion of Ukraine and before the invasion of Taiwan?

depends on how this plays out. If the west gets it act together and helps Ukraine it may be postponed indefinitely. If they start making side deals with Russia and ignoring Ukraine while they start taking major losses 6 months to 2 years. If full scale war breaks out between Russia and NATO 3 months (we will be to busy to do anything about it or they will think that). If nuclear war starts it to chaotic to tell, but if say its a limited exchange and both make it out unbombed and they aren't all dying of radition poisoning from the fallout whenever they want.

>In 2014, Russia achieved a military miracle: they took over Crimea so quickly and without loss of blood, that they delivered a "fait accompli". Oh, how much would China like to replicate that in Taiwan. And that's what they were preparing for.

That only seems like a miracle because you need to do more research into what Crimea actually is.

Crimea was never actually part of Ukraine, only a paper "gift" to Ukranian SSR way back when, negligible amounts of ethnic Ukrainians live there. Nearly the entire jurisdiction is employed supporting the mostly russian tourist industry, or actual russian military, their Black Sea fleet.

There were simply no other outcomes possible. It was a defacto Russian territory, with a token Ukranian security force against an entire Russian Black Sea fleet, and tens of thousands sailors and marines. It seems that even Ukraine itself didn't wholeheartedly consider Crimea it's own territory, essentially no resistance whatsoever.

> Crimea was never actually part of Ukraine

You mean never before 1954. After the collapse of USSR, in 1994 Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's independence with its current (back then) borders, signed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

> Crimea was never actually part of Ukraine

Such utter nonsense. Who did Russia take it from?

Crimean Tartars?

> > Crimea was never actually part of Ukraine

> Such utter nonsense. Who did Russia take it from?

The more full Russian nationalist argument is something like “Crimea was never part of Ukraine until Crimea was arbitrarily joined to the Ukraine SSR by the Soviet government, disregarding both the historical Russianness of Crimea and the historical invalidity of Ukraine as a nation.”

No one actually denies that Ukraine controlled Crimea since Stalin gave it to them until 2014, they just deny the appropriateness of Stalin’s action and therefore all subsequent control of Crimes by Ukraine.

> The attempted invasion of Ukraine by Russia just reminded people that the best war plans don't survive the first contact with the enemy

Or how Mike Tyson puts it: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

That's very similar to what the parent poster already mentioned.

>or in the more folksy words of Mike Tyson, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.