Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Lol I’m not “placing blame”

I’m stating what I see as facts. Russia will not surrender. The longer the Ukraine is in the war, the higher likelihood the people of Ukraine starve.

We can make an argument that they shouldn’t surrender. That’s a moral position.

I’m pointing out if we don’t figure it out within the next few months you’re not going to get the food from the region, as people are fighting over it. I don’t care who’s fault it is. We should recognize the situation so we can try to mitigate the issue.

View on HN

What the OP is saying is you could have phrased your comment like you did in your last paragraph here.

Nobody disagrees that until it ends the situation will create further instability; but it can end with Russia giving up or surrendering as well. There is no global objective truth that Russia will not surrender; so by saying "I'm just stating facts" you're actually making a normative claim instead of a descriptive one; which can be viewed as problematic.

It is common and reasonable to exclude unlikely if conditions from statements.

They are just claiming that Russian concession is much less likely than a Ukrainian one, which I think many would agree with.

How about:

If the war in Ukraine continues, we can expect less food production and potential oil disruption to center Europe.

No need to comment on how to get to this outcome, or thoughts about who will make a concession leading to a big conversation away from the main point of what you were trying to say.

Keep the if statement about exactly matters, not a secondary effect/cause.

Where do you get this "fact" that Russia won't surrender? More powerful armies have been forced to retreat from unsuccessful invasions.

I dont see any way Ukraine can win. There’s a lot of real information out there (military reports). I’m not going to dive into that and debate it. There are also many channels covering this topic mostly neutral:

Here’s one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KILAY2miQdI

Here’s another: https://m.youtube.com/c/AlexanderMercourisReal

In short, for Russia to lose would be the end of Russia. They have to be seen as hitting their objectives (they’ve hit a few so far). Ukraine is massively out gunned, but has more manpower active. That said, I don’t see an outcome where Ukraine can regain any territory and will likely only lose more. That will further embolden Russia and will keep them from surrendering at the very least.

You are right there are lots of real information out there.

You have picked a 1. random unpopular youtube channel (which might be good, I couldn't verify anything from it, as I couldn't find who ran it, if you know I am happy to be proved wrong) and 2. A disbarred barrister https://twitter.com/markgaleotti/status/927087181532991489?l.... There is much better information to pick than this! Any information will have a bias, and if they claim to be neutral I personally get suspicious of what that bias is.

Your assertion that you can't see anyway for Ukraine to win is based on "If Russia loses, it would be the end of Russia". Well, if Ukraine loses it will be the end of Ukraine, so I guess by your logic Russia can't win either? (TBF, everyone losing to some degree is right with war).

I won't get drawn into a discussion about how the war will go. People qualified to make a guess have been wrong and wont make prediction. Neither of us is qualified, so I will not be weighing in on this except to say that unexpected things happen all the time in conflict.

> Your assertion that you can't see anyway for Ukraine to win is based on "If Russia loses, it would be the end of Russia". Well, if Ukraine loses it will be the end of Ukraine, so I guess by your logic Russia can't win either? (TBF, everyone losing to some degree is right with war).

One big difference here is that Russia has nuclear weapons and Ukraine does not.

Nuclear weapons are too taboo to use for anything other than existential crises. Losing the war would be incredibly destabilizing, but as long as Ukraine doesn't suddenly start advancing to Moscow, they won't be used.

If you want a take from the former general in charge of US forces in Europe rather than randos and disbarred barristers, this stuff is more optimistic:

"Ukrainian forces could wipe out all of 'exhausted' Russian troops' territorial gains, retired US general says" https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-exhausted-russian-tr...

There was also an interesting take on the business before the war even started by Mikhail Khodarenok - ex-head ... of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, Colonel https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html In Russian but Google translate works well. It points out a lot of difficulties that seem to have come to pass including:

>It is also worth recalling that the mighty Stalinist NKVD and the multi-million Soviet army fought the nationalist underground in Western Ukraine for more than 10 years. And now there is an option that the whole of Ukraine can easily go into the partisans. In addition, these formations can easily begin to operate already on the territory of Russia.

which seems to be playing out just now with stuff blowing up in Crimea and Belarus.

Ukraine can't win in the sense of achieving an outright battlefield victory and ejecting the Russian invaders. But NATO and the EU can keep Ukraine from losing by continuing to support them, and maintaining sanctions on Russia. This will bog down the bulk of Russia's expeditionary military capacity in a quagmire, just like with Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Unfortunately this will have some bad effects for the rest of the world in terms of food supplies, but it's a price worth paying to eliminate Russia as an effective geopolitical player for years to come. Remember that it's not just about Ukraine. If the rest of the civilized world pressures Ukraine into ceding territory to Russia as part of a peace settlement then next year Russia will try to take a little slice of Poland, a little slice of Estonia, etc.

Yes! Putin didn't start the war because everything is peachy in Russia. It was a controversial measure to buy time, but it worked in 2014 with Crimea. Nothing has changed in Russia since then, so there's no reason to think it will stop with Ukraine. Even Putin himself says he wants more.

> would be the end of Russia

It's not such a far-fetched idea. Russia (the empire) has been falling apart since 1991 (possibly even 1917, but that's a scale that doesn't matter much for the outcome of this war).

Here's a curious moment from your linked video: https://youtu.be/KILAY2miQdI?t=373

> I believe -- and this is a personal belief here at MFAN [the channel name] -- that the United States is actively flying both F-22s and F-35s -- stealth aircraft -- over the combat area. And now, are they dropping ordnance on Russian targets? Difficult to say

Argumentation via hyperbole. The US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, so what.

There's zero indication that nuclear weapons are relevant.

80,000 casualties in 140 days is shocking and unsustainable for Russia.

If western accounts are correct, western military support is increasing the weapons imbalance, leading to greater Russian losses and fewer Ukrainian losses.

Finally, I'll point out that pundits have been calling doom for Ukraine from the start, and have all been wrong. So, the onus is on you at this point to "dive in and debate."

Or don't, and accept your downvotes lol. It's just social media.

I don't understand what kind of bubble people are in if they think Russia is about to surrender soon.

According to the Western media they were running out of ammo in March, April, May and June. Meanwhile, with an incompetent army running out of supplies, they were apparently able to occupy 20% of Ukraine's territory.

To be clear. I agree with you, I doubt Russia will surrender any time soon.

The conclusion as far as food goes is that globally, plans should be made that do not count on any food from Ukraine, or Russia entering global markets.

I just took umbrage that OP was seemingly (and probably unintentionally) putting the blame for the situation on Ukraine and not Russia.

My interpretation is that he phrased it like that because he sees Ukraine surrendering as the most likely scenario. Not to put blame or responsibility on Ukraine.

Innocent victims surrender all the time. I didn't read it as assigning blame or a moral position .

The goal was 100% of the country, not 20%. They've been stalled with little progress over the past month.

I've never heard the goal was 100% of the country. Can you point to a source?

Putin's speech on February 24th, the day of the invasion

> "To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation."

How do you demilitarize a nation by taking only 20% of it? The only way to do this would be to capture the entirety of the country.

I was talking about official statements defining the goal as occupying 100% of Ukraine's. Taking an ambiguous word in a propaganda speech doesn't cut it.

> How do you demilitarize a nation by taking only 20% of it? The only way to do this would be to capture the entirety of the country.

Really? What if Ukraine surrenders and negotiates sovereignty over the remaining 80% of their territory while dismantling (or at least greatly reducing) the capabilities of their armed forces?

That's just one of the possibilities that comes to mind which does not involve occupying the entire territory.

In what way is a president's speech not an official statement?

It's an official statement, it just doesn't say that the goal is occupying 100% of Ukraine.

The idea that Ukraine would reduce the capabilities of their armed forces after 8 years of war with Russia in the separatists and constant training with NATO is nonsensical. They wouldn't have spent 8 years preparing for this war if they would just throw it all away. Clearly those years training weren't wasted because Russia has barely made any gains in the past month. Everyone was speculating the whole government would collapse in 24 to 48 hours. Now, 5 months in, and they've lost up to 80,000 soldiers for 20% of Ukraine.

We're going a bit off-topic now, but I mostly agree with you if the situation remains stalled like it is now.

On the other hand, if Russia is able to make significant advances in the coming months, and Ukraine is at a point where it cannot meaningfully defend anymore, it seems the rational choice would be to negotiate and accept a reduction in their armed forces (while maybe retaining what territories they still have under control) instead of falling for the sunken cost fallacy and trying to defend a lost position just to avoid "wasting" 8 years of NATO training.

A reduction in armed forces will not happen because all it does is weaken you for the next invasion. Russia will not be content with just the eastern parts of Ukraine. They need to take the entirety of it, or else the war would be pointless. A reduction in armed forces will never be on the table because it just guarantees a war you will lose.

"...it is a risky business for a senior politician to put on public record an estimate of future events which, if wide of the mark, would provide ammunition to his adversaries. Similarly, a President who announces specific policy goals affords the public a measure of his failure if he falls short of his hopes. Hence it is common practice for officials to define foreign policy goals in the broad generalities of peace, prosperity, cooperation, and good will—unimpeachable as ideals but of little use in determining the specific objective we are likely to pursue and the time, place, and intensity of our efforts"

Maxwell Taylor quoted here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486290.pdf

the problem you're alluding to isn't new: political leaders aren't likely to make the clear statement of aims you want them to make (see the quote). You should consider the fact that they might not make a clear statement, but 100% could still could be the goal.

My view is that the original ground scheme of maneuver (a strike at kyiv) points to a goal of replacing the ukrainian government with a russian puppet government, essentially a "100%" or unlimited war aim.

I agree that it may be the goal. We just can't know it.

But in the post I was replying to it was stated as a certainty rather than a possibility.

> they were apparently able to occupy 20% of Ukraine's territory.

On the other hand, they only took one big city in/since February and that's only because it wasn't defended by Ukraine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com