Hacker News Reader

Comment by oxff | Hacker News Reader

I'm not recommending to have a nuclear war over who gets to collect vodka taxes in some East European town. I am pointing out that these people let moral foreign policy run their entire trade block and foreign policy choices, and not a cold rational calculus of any kind. All the self-sanctions have come to nothing: they have not and will not materially affect the end result of the war.

They've made me, as a citizen in an EU country, pay out of my nose for their moral betterness though, when we are not even a party to the war.

View on HN

The rational calculus here is "Russia will keep doing this as long as we let them".

The time to start getting off Russian gas was 2014. The EU, and Germany in particular, let a gun be pointed at their head for far too long.

yes, like US and China, we can't stop them and it doesn't help to kill our economy for a strictly symbolic action

Russia is failing, with its military reputation, one of its few assets, in tatters.

its weird how people who have nothing always have to take care of the bill

Those goalposts are moving quickly. "It's impossible" -> "It's too costly" -> "The wrong people are supposedly footing the cost (without considering the gigantic externalities)" -> "I just want Russia to win"

I never said it is impossible, it's 1. immoral (sanctions are only against civilians) 2. idiotic (destroy your economy for a symbolic gesture) 3. paid by the poorest

It is possible to dislike all empires you know.

> sanctions are only against civilians

This is a very silly assertion.

The answer to that moral issue is not to do the immoral thing in the linked scenario. The answer to that is to do the moral thing in both aspects.

The EU should provide payment assistance to low-income folks for their energy bills, or directly subsidize it.

Yeah, so you build nuclear reactors and raise the standard of living in that case, which would be the exact opposite of what EU is doing (recommendations to reduce energy density and carrying capacity, ie. you own nothing and will be happy).

Who is to say Russia will stop at Ukraine? They clearly weren't satisfied with Crimea. Is Poland safe? Is Germany?

I don't mean to be alarmist but we've seen similar scenarios play out in Europe before. This isn't merely about what's morally correct, it's also about self-interest.

Russia can't win a war against NATO, so they will not attack Poland or Germany. Maybe Moldova or something. This fear mongering is ridiciouslus. They can't even win against Ukraine, for crying out loud. Poland, France, UK, Germany(, Turkey?) would together crush them in a couple of months. Add Finland and Sweden and it gets reduced to weeks. Add the US and it'll take a couple of days. (Hyperbole, but still).

They are hopelessly outclassed in all categories but nukes. And UK/France has a couple of them, so Russia can't nuke willy nilly.

No, but as soon as you start asking questions like "is X country really worth it compared to nuclear war?" then the deterrent has failed.

A loss in Ukraine means every non-NATO state in the region either gets nuclear armed up, or gets annexed.

The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" would also be cheap gas is laughable: if someone's willing to trade away their morals and a country for something you sell them, then you already know it's underpriced.

> The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" ...

EU and USA are letting it happen though: there is no military deployment to Ukraine to protect it, and (my guess is) there will not be.

There's a whole spectrum of actions between "do nothing" and "open hot war between nuclear powers". It's quite clear Western military aid, intelligence, and diplomatic support has been critical to Ukraine in the current conflict.

The sanctions do nothing to stop this. They're not acting like they're a marketing firm that gets shocked because of some red in the GDP, they're on a war footing. That will only react to, you guessed it, equal force (war).

I mean, are you suggesting we go to war with Russia directly? That's not going to help with the natural gas shortage.

I hope it doesn't come to that, but it could some day, I don't know, obviously if Russia attacks... well, in the meantime, I don't think we should be giving Russia more money it can use to further develop its military.

> I mean, are you suggesting we go to war with Russia directly? That's not going to help with the natural gas shortage.

I am stating that going to war with Russia is the only way to walk the walk and be provably morally good over the issue. The sanctions are just a particularly expensive form of virtue signaling that does not alter the outcome of the war, but makes EU leaders Feel Good.

> Don't think we should be giving Russia money it can use to pay its soldiers and build more weapons.

And I disagree, my extended family is already in troubles and the proper price increase doesn't even come until winter.

It's not a "don't think" question either. Would I like to be energy independent? Of course. Can I currently? No, not without risking energy security for winter. So I would pay (but EU has decided it is a Moral Bad, and tells me to warm myself with Moral Good).

Suffering ~10%+ inflation and having no guaranteed energy (all depends on Germany) for moral good boy points only helps nobody, and neither of the conditions alter the material facts on the frontline, nor does it make EU resilient either (economical turmoil has generally been a politically radicalizing agent in democracies).

It is just stupid, hysterical politics.

> who gets to collect vodka taxes in some East European town.

Is that what you think Russian expansion in those regions is about? It's not. Just like the current military expansion, those conflicts have been about acquiring and controlling natural gas and oil reserves in those regions.

This entire conflict has been about energy and it's been going on for the past decade or so because of relatively recent discoveries of fossil fuel reserves in these areas coupled with control over pipelines transporting these resources.

At the end of the day these struggles are about resources and fundamentally existential in nature. If Russia fails to acquire more reserves it will be on a sure path to absolute decline. This is why the nuclear threat should be taken seriously, if Russia where to lose this conflict entirely, they would be on the path to complete collapse. If pushed too far it makes absolute sense for Russia to take extreme options since they would be backed into a pretty severe corner.

Those extreme measures would get all the leadership killed or hiding in bunkers forever (and I wouldn't bet on their lifespan in the bunker). There's plenty of graft still to be had in a weakened, declining Russia, on the other hand.

Komintern was very, very active in Europe. You think Putin will stop on Ukraine, is that all he wants? He'll maybe pause on Brest when poor Europeans will be looking at golf-playing superyacht-sailing Russian mobsters robbing the EU. That's the dream. A bunch of power-hungry corrupt and immoral people who now have enough weapons to actually start doing this. They don't give a fuck about your Europe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com