Hacker News Reader

Comment by watwut | Hacker News Reader

The baseline expectation was Ukraine folding within 3-4 days. They were doing much better then expected, Russian original plan folded entirely.

View on HN

> The baseline expectation was Ukraine folding within 3-4 days

I think the West expected better but not lot better, it does seem that was about what Russia expected (possibly on bad political intelligence on how the population would respond to an invasion.)

To me, it seemed that west expected Ukraine to fold too. And the west also have circles that admire Russia quite a lot while Ukraine was not taken seriously until they started to be serious in battle field.

You still have fawning over Russian this and that, culture, shock over their army being disorganized and corrupt or looting etc, despite them being like that always. While Ukraine was mostly non-existent.

> To me, it seemed that west expected Ukraine to fold too

That was pretty explicitly stated by a number of officials, I just get the feeling that they thought the timeline would be longer than what the Russians were thinking, but probably in the 2-3 week window for the government, in any meaningful form, holding out, with the situation, at best being guerilla resistance after that.

>Russian original plan folded entirely.

It's funny, I don't recall seeing any pro-Russian sources stating that the goal was to capture all of Ukraine. In fact, they've publicly stated their goals since the beginning, and annexing all of Ukraine was never listed. Where did this idea in the media come from, since it didn't come from Russia..?

What you replied to said nothing about annexing all of Ukraine. Almost all evidence suggests Russia expected they would capture Kyiv and Ukraine would capitulate quickly.

Except Putin has publicly stated his goals since before the invasion and during, and they've not publicly changed. And at no point was annexing all of Ukraine a stated goal. I only bring it up because I'm curious where it came from.

> Except Putin has publicly stated his goals since before the invasion and during, and they've not publicly changed.

Sometimes what a person says and a person does don’t agree. In situations like that—you don’t need to believe what they say! You can just accept they lied and move on.

Because a state-run news site accidentally published a victory article.

"Ukraine has returned to Russia...It will be reorganized, re-established and returned to its natural state as part of the Russian world...[Russia, Belarus and Ukraine will now act] in geopolitical terms as a single whole,"

https://www.newsweek.com/state-run-russian-news-site-acciden...

Also if you take the time to notice what Putin is saying and doing you will realize that denazification = genocide. The goal was not to arrest Hitler's fans but to destroy Ukrainian nationality.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook

From Wikipedia.

"Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people — usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group — in whole or in part."

>denazification = genocide

Interesting take.

Firstly, the claim that Russia is actually doing actual "denazification" is such obvious rubbish that no sentient informed person should come close to believing it.

What they do is far more informative than what they say. What they say also includes Mr Putin's frankly unhinged speeches calling for more Russian Lebensraum.

Second, the point of such disinformation is not necessarily to make everyone believe this story, but to muddy that waters so much that people are no longer sure where the truth lies, they either fall back to the "well, there must be truth on both sides" or just give up on ever finding out the truth.

Thus, this kind of disinformation does not need to even be self-consistent or even that believable. But it does need to be relentlessly sent out.

The Ukrainian Azov Battalion is very much proudly Nazi in their ideology, and they don't hide it. Where does this defense of them and their Nazi ideology come from? Nobody disputes they are Nazi's and yet we are supposed to defend them because Russia is the aggressor? Or is there another reason?

Try harder. You haven't brought up this particular odious rubbish whataboutery in a while, as it gets [dead].

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30647861

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30739170

It's interesting that you don't deny The Ukrainian Azov Battalion are Nazi's, nor do you justify why we should side with them.

> It's interesting that you don't deny

Not accurate, read the above again, and follow the links.

Yes, I did and they verify the Nazi ideology of the Ukrainian Azov Battalion. Nobody denies the Azov Battalion is full of Nazi's. That's why you're being coy with your responses, rather than providing a source that would dispute it.

Sources and disputes have been provided to you before. It didn't change your talking point then, so it's a waste of time now.

> In fact, they've publicly stated their goals since the beginning, and annexing all of Ukraine was never listed.

Well, their publicly stated goal was "this is a training exercise how dare you accuse us of anything", and we all saw how much truth there was to that.

It makes perfect sense not to trust everything Putin says. That doesn't answer the questions though - where did our media get the idea that Russia ever intended on annexing all of Ukraine? They tell us this was a goal, but what is the source of that claim? Russia never made that claim. Only some in the media have, shouldn't we expect sources for claims like that?

I think the primary source was the presence of the army that invaded Ukraine, and attempted to seize the capital.

..and the central city of Kyiv was the furthest east Russia ever went, which leads us back to the question of where people got the idea that Russia ever intended to annex all of Ukraine.

Well according to the Russian media the west and Lviv particularly was the hotbed of Nazism (back a month ago some distinction was made that that was the particularly bad part of Ukraine, but now it's all teeming with Nazis), so denazification would have to involve the west too. I think it's pretty clear the goal was to replace the government at least, and if they could get another Lukashenko that in itself is almost "annexing"

Well the Azov Battalion was and is in Mariupol (not Lyiv), and they are the vanguard of the Nazi element in Ukraine. As to your point about Putin wanting a more pro-Russian government in Ukraine, of that I have no doubt.

> the Azov Battalion was and is in Mariupol

"the Azov Battalion" hasn't existed since 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Current_status

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-war-azov-battali...

"Azov's military and political wings formally separated in 2016, when the far-right National Corps party was founded. The Azov battalion had by then been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard. An effective fighting force that's very much involved in the current conflict, the battalion has a history of neo-Nazi leanings, which have not been entirely extinguished by its integration into the Ukrainian military."

You seem to be quoting from here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movem...

Cite your sources please.

I note that they also say "Moscow has given the regiment an outsized role in the conflict" ... "Ukraine "is not a cesspit for Nazi sympathizers" ... "There are far-right actors prominent in Russia, too." ... "For its part, Russia also has a thriving ultra-nationalist scene that is tolerated by the authorities." ... " some experts say Russia's fixation on a minor player like the Azov movement serves a purpose -- allowing the Kremlin to frame the conflict as an ideological and even existential struggle. However remote from reality that may be."

> "Azov's military and political wings..."

And which one - military or political - is of interest to you?

The first, the military wing, is just another regiment (not a Battalion) under regular military command now.

There are _militant nationalists_ in a country's _national military_ ? No shit, that's literally the right place for them. Any country will be the same: people who want to fight for their country are a natural fit for ... fighting for thier country. Tell me that the USA doesn't have any gung-ho conservative patriots in the armed services ranks before you make a big deal out of this.

This is not remarkable about Ukraine outside of Russian propaganda, as the above CBS and CNN links make clear.

You say that the army is "very much involved in the current conflict"? No fooling, what else would the actual army be doing in wartime?

The second, political:

Myth: "Nazism is rampant in Ukrainian politics and society, supported by authorities in Kyiv."

Reality: "The candidate for the far-right nationalist party, Svoboda, won 1.6% of the vote in the 2019 presidential election."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/russia-ukraine...

This is a much lower percentage than in many EU countries. And I that see your "far-right National Corps party" was similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Corps#Election_result...

Reality: President Zelenskyy is secular Jewish, and the Odessa religious Jewish community was thriving in 2018

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium.MAGAZINE-...

That is not an indicator of widespread "neo-Nazi leanings".

So why do you continually bring this misleading scare story up? It's nothing but Russian propaganda talking points that don't have basis in current reality. The CBS link above made that clear, but you did not respond to it. Your own CNN report says the same.

Talk to us about the same in Russian military (e.g. Wagner Group) and society (Mr Putin's recent unhinged speeches calling for more Russian Lebensraum) before you say that this is a Ukrainian problem.

So first you say Azov no longer exists, and then when you get called out for spreading disinformation, you write a text wall explaining why although the Azov Nazi's are very much still prevalent in Ukraine and fighting in this conflict, that it doesn't matter.

Interesting take.

> So first you say Azov no longer exists

no, I said that "the Azov Battalion" hasn't existed since 2015, when it ceased to be either independent of the military or a Battalion. This doesn't stop you using the misleading phrase.

> and then when you get called out

Cherry-picking quotes from a CNN article, without attribution, does not constitute a "call out".

> you write a text wall

I'm sorry if you didn't take the time to read it, but that is not a counter-argument in any way. First you say "you can't back up your claims with sources" then you change to "oh no, too many claims and sources, and thanks for locating my source for me, but let me fail to talk about any of them at all, but let's repeat a slur word and finish up with a 'zinger'!".

Not interesting.

Well his take is a very polite and admirable way of calling Russia's arguments blatant lies without calling them blatant lies, and calling their perpetrators liars without calling them liars.

…you think the most likely explanation is that the Russians attacked Kyiv because that was the furthest west they wanted? They’d just leave the rest alone?

No, the most obvious answer is that they went there to destroy high value targets to weaken Ukraine militarily, making it far easier to do what they want to do in the Donbass/Crimean land bridge area. Now rather than having to deal with the Ukrainian air force, tank units, air defense etc. those obstacles are mostly gone.

That's not really a great read on the situation, at least according to military historians: https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1508947030273671177

In another thread, he describes it as:

> So to put it bluntly, if the 'clever plan' was to lose 10,000 KIA to set conditions to walk away with the Donbas, that's a stupid plan. That's winning the negotiation on a $15k car by cleverly offering an opening bid of $55k and throwing in your old car as a sweetener.

The Donbas isn't really the main target for Russia, since that is already essentially ruled by separatist pro-Russian forces for years. The prize is the area west of there and to the south, connecting Crimea by land and freeing up the water resources that have been blocked.

Admittedly I'm not a historian like the Twitter guy with the bad analogies, but I suspect the furthest west that Russia seeks to control is Kherson (not Odessa), then following the water going back NE of there to Zaporizhzhia & then all the way up towards Kharkiv in some fashion. This gives Russia a ton of natural[1] and industrial resources, plus significantly weakens Ukraine, without having to try and occupy the more populated and less Russian areas west of there towards Kyiv and further. Putin will likely try to sell this as necessary to provide a buffer zone for the heavily Russian Donbas region from Ukrainian shelling.

That being said, I'm just some turd on the internet so I'm probably wrong and nobody knows for sure what Putin's long term plan is.

[1] https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/864/537/png-transparent-ukraine-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com