Hacker News Reader

Comment by oxff | Hacker News Reader

The west has this weird idea that destroying its living standards is the way to support Ukraine and combat Russia. My guess: won't happen. Russia won't change its course, but I will be paying 5e per liter of gas in september, all in name of some "democracy, freedom" in Ukraine. Supremely delusional state of affairs.

View on HN

> destroying its living standards is the way to support Ukraine and combat Russia

It’s about degrading a volatile enemy. Shrinking Russia’s economy degrades its war machine. (The claim that impoverished Russians will revolt is crap. Starving, broken people don’t lead rebellions.)

If we had literally any better solution, we should take it. But we don’t. So we hope Russia weakens enough that it can’t invade Latvia while encouraging it to become a vassal of China’s.

Historically, food shortages are one of the surest routes to rebellion. Perhaps the people leading the rebellions aren't starving, but starvation is a real motivation to enlist.

That said, it seems unlikely that the sanctions will lead to starvation; the possibility of a Russian revolt or coup seems insane. (At least until it happens, and then it will be obvious.)

probability of a revolt (of the people) seems so far unlikely, but a coup led by military/government elites with support from oligarchs is a possibility

The last revolution in Russia started because of the war and starvation...

>The claim that impoverished Russians will revolt is crap. Starving, broken people don’t lead rebellions.

Rich people losing money lead them, starving people join them.

A rich Russian has offshore accounts and property in a few countries. One of their dozens of boats is expropriated and you expect them to fly to Russia and start a rebellion?

Middle-class people in the country with families to feed will not rebel and risk death; and when they become impoverished due to their government’s policies and global retaliation it will be too late.

This isn't just about Russia and Ukraine, it's also about China and Taiwan and Russia and what Russian imperialists call the "little russias."

Greater instability has far greater risks to your pocket book than some short term concern of tiny rises in fossil fuel costs.

"Little russia" is not a condescending term, it's more like "asia minor", or "new york city" vs. "greater new york area".

I've only encountered it through two lenses: 1) non-Russian people taking offense to their land being called a "little Russia", and 2) imperialists in Russia using it to encourage invading other countries.

It might be used by some who don't consider it condescending, but many of those on the receiving end do consider it an insult. So, issuing a blanket "not condescending" can not be considered correct

According to whom? I am a Ukrainian in Ukraine. Not Little Russian in Little Russia.

This always happens with Fossil fuels - they're controlled by a cartel, who - especially with the energy transition - have a vested interest in increasing the expense.

The solution is clearly to be building out a massive amount of renewable electricity whilst electrifying transport.

So in 10 years time politics in the US will not be driven by the whims of Saudi Arabia, Russia or some nut-job oil Barons in Southern states.

Or U.S. politicians could actually support the U.S. domestic oil and gas industry and the free world could have all we need. Instead we’re making the Saudis rich.

This is the answer.

Or start investing decarbonization, power2x, green and nuclear energy.

Why not both?

Both, but burning fossil fuels is a holdover, not a long term strategy.

Degrading living standards? That's an overly dramatic way of saying gas prices went up.

The problem here is OPEC, not the war. There is plenty of gas and fuel to go around.

Totally agreed. We're getting roped into a bullshit war that we have no reason to care about, by people who don't care one little bit about how it affects us. The grossest part is watching these quislings on the internet who have bought into the propaganda try to tell us we're the crazy ones for not going along with this whole scheme.

No, the idea is that destroying the living standards of Russians will achieve peace — which is also highly questionable.

No the idea is to impair the Russian war machine and also to make credible the threat of sanctions to deter other future aggressor states

It's not only that, it's also reducing our dependence on an untrustworthy counter party

What’s delusional? You support Russia taking Ukraine by force? Or you don’t care?

Thankfully a commenter on HN has discovered a novel way to wage war that doesn't affect the economy. Please do share, you are about to revolutionize conflicts for the fist time in thousands of years.

>all in name of some "democracy, freedom" in Ukraine.

Sorry, but this is not some internal war between 2 political factions where some other big power intervenes to help their preferred faction. It is an actual freedom war where many people are killed, many others are forced to leave their country and if Putin wins it will not stop there, he will continue.

If you are from US I understand why you might be frustrated with wars already though, but the alternative of doing nothing is worse, is like we pay tribute to Putin and hope is enough and he won't invade half of Europe.

> but I will be paying 5e per liter of gas in september

At least it would do something to help reduce climate change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com