Ukraine Thoughts and Links | Hacker News Reader

Ukraine Thoughts and Links

astralcodexten.substack.com

15 pointsfeross21 comments

>One story you could tell - one story I think Putin was telling himself - goes something like: the West is pathetic and divided. The Western-backed Afghan government fell to the Taliban in a few weeks. That’s because the Westernized Afghans were the kind of people who cared about trigger warnings and misgendering, and the Taliban was Traditional Masculine Warrior Types. The Taliban could say “kill the infidels!” and the Westerners would argue over whether considering the Taliban an “enemy” was racist.

What a cowardly way to sell your biases.

Yeah, the peace offer sounds worth considering. But can you trust Russia to withdraw?

Side note: is it still WWIII, if we're just talking about Russia vs. NATO + friends?

Who will side with Russia?

Only Belarus and Syria.

You cannot trust Russia right now. But the worry is that Russia can use nuclear weapons.

> You cannot trust Russia right now

Would you explain why? And can US be "trusted"?

> Only Belarus and Syria

That's very far from reality. China most certainly would, knowing the situation and reasons for invasion.

China siding with Russia? No way. China taking the opportunity of a Russia vs. West war to take Taiwan: Yes!

And they are certainly reassessing their chances of success and consequences right now, probably going back to the drawing board for some time.

Just based on the UN vote. Neutral doesn't mean support in military action.

Russia cannot be trusted because it lied that they will not start a war and then it did.

> Russia cannot be trusted because it lied that they will not start a war and then it did.

Yeah, it's kind of hard for Ukraine to negotiate to avoid an invasion when Russia kept saying they wouldn't invade.

I know an ultimatum is a last ditch effort of diplomacy, and often symbolic. But it demonstrates some commitment to diplomacy.

One example: the number of times Russia publicly stated they would not invade Ukraine, leading up to the invasion.

Another: Russians stating this is a "special military operation" against military targets, when their actions explicitly target civilians and civilian infrastructure.

etc etc etc

I'm not commenting about the US, only to state that the number of times Russia has proven it cannot be trusted is now truly countless.

Hello from Ukraine.

> Russians stating this is a "special military operation" against military targets, when their actions explicitly target civilians and civilian infrastructure

That's a manipulation at least. Russian forces indeed targeted only military objects, but once numerous fights erupted, it's very hard to determine who was destroying civilian infrastructure. Ukraine has accumulated tremendous experience in blaming everyone else except their own forces in atrocities happened in eastern part of it, so at this stage I personally have very little trust in what they say.

> truly countless

So you mentioned 2, one is easily refuted. Can you bring more of those "truly countless"?

You have refuted neither.

Your aggressiveness shows nothing but weakness of your arguments.

If you'd bother to read what I am saying instead of pushing your opinion as the only correct one - I am not blaming one or another side. World is much more complex that that, particularly in a conflict zones.

Ukrainian official sources have lied many times about shelling in easter ukraine. Why would anyone believe them now?

When battle ensues, it's hard to know which missile hit civilian building, particularly when it's very beneficial to blame it the other side. To give you an example, recent demolition on world largest plane AN-225 Mriya, which was quickly blamed on russian forces. Very convenient, isn't it? Until video surfaced where AN-225 is in smoke altogether with many russian vehicles around it. It seems to be very clear that ukrainian artillery just shelled mindlessly everything around and later media just blamed it on russia.

So there will be no further examples of "truly countless" cases? Thought so.

No.

That was predictable as well :)

It was nice having a civilised discussion refuting your unsubstantiated claims :) Now you can find more gullible people to spread the narratives.

For posterity:

Lavrov himself today confirmed that the Russians bombed a maternity hospital. Complete, 100% confirmation. He did not deny in any way - he only offered reasons as to "why" this civilian maternity hospital was targeted and destroyed by the Russian invaders.

If the Russians and the Ukrainians both agree that the Russians bombed this hospital, video evidence exists, eye witnesses exist ...and you still call it "unsubstantiated", then clearly you're trying to spread disinformation. Perhaps you're not aware, Russia is seriously losing the disinformation/propaganda war, but you can try I guess.

Please, refute that single example.

To make it simpler: did the Russians bomb a maternity hospital (civilian infrastructure) in Ukraine?

There are two answers: "yes"

Or, "yes, but.... <insert Russian excuse here>"

Guessing you will take the second answer.

Would love to chat more, but the air raid siren just sounded.

Wow, it's pathetic to edit your own posts afterwards. You do it to look nice and conceal you lies or there are other reasons?

What you are doing is again, a typical manipulation. If you are doing it because of lack of logic, please have a read about logic.

Now back to your question. I'm not acquainted with topic, but if Lavrov said russian forces bombed some hospital, then russian forces bombed some hospital.

Does it mean that russian forces destroy civilian infrastructure? No it doesnt. Does it mean they destroy the particular hospital? Yes it is.

And to go back to your lies - I call you out on unsubstantiated claims on different matters, which you have no proof whatsoever.

"If Lavrov said russian forces bombed some hospital, then russian forces bombed some hospital."

Finally, you admit it.

"Does it mean that russian forces destroy civilian infrastructure? No it doesnt."

Oh hang on, you're doing the Russian dance again...

Let's see where we are at: Russians - by your admission, by Lavrov's admission, my admission, and Ukraine's admission, are bombing civilian infrastructure. Including, a maternity hospital.

Is there really anything more you wish to discuss?

I only ever mentioned two matters:

1) the number of times Russia publicly stated they would not invade Ukraine, leading up to the invasion - proven lie. This is a lie.

2) Russians stating this is a "special military operation" against military targets, when their actions explicitly target civilians and civilian infrastructure. Proven lie. This is also a lie.

There are no other claims I am making in this thread.

Russian govt cannot be trusted = case closed.

"I'm not aquainted with that topic" - quelle surprise.

On that topic, I have to agree with one of commenters that no real negotiators are happening until NATO is a party. Beyond sanction relief and agreeing to leave Ukraine neutral, NATO can dangle money to be invested in Donetsk/Luhansk for development.

> Who will side with Russia?

Probably an insignificant country called China.

China isn't going to side with Russia in case of direct conflict with the west. A weak Russia absolutely serves China, because Russia has plenty of natural resources China needs, and vital space... China would love Russia being partitioned. Right now Russia is about to become China's client state and China will exploit that hard.

China cares only... about China.

I would not discuss keeping Ukraine permanently out of Nato. Set a duration. A ten-year guarantee, say. Long enough to push it off to Putin's successor. Short enough for Ukraine to be resigned to the tradeoff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com