Hacker News Reader

Comment by ailef | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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