Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxharris | Hacker News Reader

I have been following these events for months, and I have come to the exact opposite conclusion. First, the United States cannot win a war against both Russia and China at the same time. Second, Europe is starting to crack: see the protests in the Germany and Czech Republic. Expect to see one major EU country leave NATO and the EU this winter. All Russia has to do to break up Europe is to keep playing hardball with energy for another six months.

EDIT: thanks for the downvotes. I'm sorry that truth-seeking bothers you <shrug>

View on HN

Technically Russia has already lost the war.

Their military capacities are greatly diminished. Their economy suffered and will keep suffering as long as the sanctions are in place. Some of their formerly main commercial partners are looking into using different suppliers. Their standing in the international order was diminished. Even China who has an interest in weakening NATO seems a bit annoyed at them and is not providing much support.

Russia is definitely not going to take Ukraine as long as the west supports its military effort. The question now is what’s the USA end game here and how do we go there without backing Russia to much into a corner so they don’t feel they have to use the nuclear option.

>The question now is what’s the USA end game here and how do we go there without backing Russia to much into a corner so they don’t feel they have to use the nuclear option.

The most convincing argument I've heard in favor of continued US involvement in the war is that the objective is primarily about degrading Russian combat power such that, should a hot war kick off in the Pacific (over the Spratlys, over Taiwan, etc), Russia does not enter as a co-belligerent with CCP against the US + Japan. This implies that there is indeed some limit where we decide that there isn't much left in the tank for Russia to leverage in that theater. However, determining what exactly that limit is is a separate question, and this is some rather cold-hearted calculus because it admits that NATO's involvement doesn't have much to do with Ukrainian "democracy", which to me seems to be true.

Edit: bad grammar

It has always seemed pretty clear to me from the USA involvement in various conflicts since WW2 that they don’t really give a rat ass about democracy.

I do find your argument convincing but I now wonder what the main NATO allies are getting out of it. After all it costs them dearly and they don’t really care about the Pacific.

The main NATO allies get what they've always gotten out of this arrangement: the outsourcing of their continental security to the United States.

True for Eastern Europe and the Baltic states but France has always been somewhat of a reluctant member and Germany is not generally a proponent of extreme measure when it comes to Russia yet they are collaborative right now.

I think part of what you’re seeing is that a) Trump sort of trolled the other major NATO partners into at least thinking about investing in their own defense, but it’s too little and way too late, so they’re still completely dependent[1]; b) the intricacies of the dependence on Russian fossil fuels, which needs no elaboration here since it’s a weekly feature on the HN front page at this point. Germany’s collaboration, such as it is, might be more tied to her own acknowledgment of bad energy policy and represents fleeting efforts to apologize. Major industry is at risk of shutdown or idling over this, so they definitely feel the pain.

[1] during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan it become clear that non-US NATO partners were actually unable to run their own air operations without American military support and management. That’s more or less a tacit admission that you can’t do anything in a real 21st century war, which is also a lesson Russia has been painfully learning the hard way.

If you look at work from Bueno de Mesquita, Smith and others, you might become convinced that Americans force their leaders to support democracy despite the cost to the interests of the people and the leaders.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227458612_The_Logic...

That’s not the same issue. Americans like democracy at home. They don’t care about it abroad.

See Costa Rica in 1948, Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, the Philippines in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Lebanon in 1957, Brazil in 1964, Indonesia in 1965, Chili in 1973, Argentina in 1976, Haiti in 1991, Palestine in 2006 and I’m probably forgetting some. And that’s just the coups toppling democratically elected leaders by the way. If you add support for authoritarian regimes and meddling in elections the list is far longer.

I wasn't clear; the argument of the authors above is that American voters force American leaders to support democracies abroad.

That is, absent voter pressure, American leaders would support dictators and autocrats at a rate as high as and support free elections as little as Putin. Instead, they support and encourage free and fair elections in countries, like some you've listed, where the outcomes are sure to be bad for American interests.

If the outcomes are bad enough to American leaders' eyes, then the leaders may use covert action, but they cannot use overt actions to install a dictator abroad without risking severe electoral damage at home. Just think about the effort put into trying to create democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how much easier and more stable (for American interests or at least Cheney's) installing an friendly military dictator with 97.7% support in a sham election would have been.

Of course, many Americans believe other Americans don't care enough about democracy abroad, but that suggests at least some do.

Russia has been publicly humiliated by the dismal state of their military. Sure, they have nukes and more cannon fodder but I'm guessing that their neighbors feel slightly less threatened.

Well, it's a mix. Russia is far weaker than previously thought, but also perhaps more dangerous and unpredictable. That's why NATO membership will expand.

Clearly still a threat, but only in going full on MAD.

The rumors of Putin's health failing are disquieting -- if he has nothing left to lose he may try to take the rest of us down with him.

Its not USA war and no, Russia isn't losing it yet. Sanctions arent as strong as you wouldve think, because Russians were already poor.

Main goal for now is to develop energy crisis in Europe and destabilize UE. If Russia achieve this goal its already win for them.

> USA end game ...

It's Putin's hoped-for end game that seems to me primary: How does Ukraine get to a stable situation that leaves him in power? That's his minimum requirement. If the West tries to deny him that, who can be say what level of violence and terror he would not descend to?

Consider the recent attacks on the electrical grid. Taking the tactic to the extreme, imagine EMP-bombs over all major facilities. A non-electrified Ukraine, economy pushed back to 19th century methods.

I'm not sure getting Russia put on the list of "Terrorist Nations" will solve the problem Putin wants.

The United States does not need to win a war, they just need to provide enough military support to Ukraine so that the resources Russia devotes to Ukraine reduce their expeditionary military capability. Russia is already pulling forces out of Syria and is not getting involved in the Azerbaijan Armenia conflict even though by treaty they should be supporting Armenia.

There are protests in Germany? Really?

I passed one last week. It was one city block long. I've seen bigger protests organised by this political party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Pogo_Party_of_German...

It is probably because many disagree with you.. most countries want to be in NATO more than ever to group up against the Russian threat… highly doubt one would leave..on balance more will try to join than leave.

Russia is weakened and has lost support from previously neutral countries.

The US doesn’t need to fight Russia and China. Straw man argument… since that scenario is highly unlikely. In any case, it’s US & NATO allies versus who ever… the Chinese want to make money and become economically dominant…which doesn’t align well with war when you want to trade…

Your view is so upside down…I almost believe you are a Russian troll

Probably not a troll, just someone who really roots for Russia and Putin.

I have seen my Russian acquaintances and even friends to believe all kinds of nonsense about this war. Mostly it is due to blind nationalism when one cannot tolerate anything that threatens the view that his nation is the best and should lead the world. Sometimes it is just contrarianism – if the policies started by the West have been largely more successful, then one needs to find a case where they were wrong and overemphasize this point.

Honestly I can say the same thing for anyone including Americans!!

It's funny how you mention that protests in the west are weakness... The west allows protests (for the most part) meanwhile in Russia we see jail sentences for anyone that even mentions that this is a 'war'.

Why would anyone leave NATO when a nutcase with nukes is threatening everyone around? This just makes Russia look even weaker.

> Expect to see one major EU country leave NATO and the EU this winter.

I’d be interested in taking the other side of this wager, quite possibly at even money odds depending on nailing down specifics. Would you care to discuss definitions of “major” and “winter” and the identification of the triggering event that constitutes leaving NATO and the EU?

Why would a country leave NATO and become a target to be conquered by Russia? I don't believe any such country is so suicidal.

I live in Germany, people here are generally pro-Ukraine. Haven't heard of any protests personally. You sure about that?

Unless that one single country leaving NATO is the US, it won't matter vis-a-vis military support for Ukraine.

>EDIT: thanks for the downvotes. I'm sorry that truth-seeking bothers you <shrug>

Conjecture is not truth, friend.

Based on what? Russia's GDP deprecated and the area they need to control is too big for them to handle.

Eg. Just look at the CSTO

I've been following this issue since the Maiden events of 2014 (trying to use neutral terms here) and much more closely since the onset of what the Russians call the special military operation.

It's been surreal to see the consensus opinion on this issues here in the west. As the old saying goes, the first casualty in war is the truth. I don't pretend to know what's going on from my vantage point, but I'm struck by the simplistic, moralistic, and confident view that I constantly hear from western sources.

Personally, I think this war has been very costly for Russia. Wars usually are, but that this has been extremely costly for Ukraine, orders of magnitude worse. Further, as bad as the economic sanctions are for Russia, the boomeranging economic harm of the sanctions on Europe will probably have severe consequences with unpredictable political repercussions. Further, I think western sources misunderstand Russian motives and goals and have an incomplete understanding of who is doing the actual fighting in Ukraine. Both sides of the war in Ukraine are largely fought by Ukrainian citizens (i.e., the "Russians" in the east are mostly Ukrainian separatists, to some extent Russia is fighting the war by proxy too).

Unmistakably, this is a massive tragedy for Ukrainians and I think it was avoidable. I wish we were more introspective about what role the west has played in this conflict and continues to play to minimize future catastrophes and hopefully bring this to a resolution more quickly. I don't and can't know who is "winning," but I'm pretty sure we're all losers in this conflict. In the end, Russia will probably control the regions of the DPR and LPR and its primary trading partners (particularly for energy) will be the east. China and India long term are probably the only winners--they will get subsidized energy and be economically more competitive compared to European industry. The American goal of weakening and isolating Russia may ultimately be a success; I don't think it will have been worth it. I sure wish the Minsk accords had just been followed and this all could have been avoided.

I think people in the Russosphere (or indeed generally) tend to overstate the 'role' of the West. The West tends to be very muddled, and at no point has it been more muddled than in the Trump era, and Russia began their invasion at a nadir of NATO coherency and vitality. My impression is that the role of the west was basically one of blithe ignorance, and mild disinterest, until the tanks started rolling over the border.

If you look at a chart of Russia's GDP since 2014, you can see what these adventures have already done to the Russian people. There's a lot of talk about pivoting to the east, but I'll believe it when I see it. Chinese businesses don't like operating in Russia for the same reason Russians don't like operating in Russia: you get ripped off all the time. Moreover, you can't just redirect gas wherever you like: you have to build giant pipelines. That typically takes about a decade.

Thanks for the insightful comments.

I think Ukraine is certainly in a civil war based on regional lines and Russia is in a proxy civil war based on the idea of what the future Russia should look like. It's a mess and no side can claim the moral high ground. Land wars in Asia are best avoided!

I think you misunderstand both Russia and the West.

Russia wants to conquer Ukraine and the EU wants to prevent it. While the ways to do it diplomatically may have been wrong and therefore failed, it primary is the responsibility of the aggressor (Russia) for high count of casualties both Russian and Ukrainian.

>> Unmistakably, this is a massive tragedy for Ukrainians and I think it was avoidable.

What exactly you think should have been done to avoid this?

Both sides could have respected the Minsk agreement.

NATO could have resisted expansion to the East.

A federalized option agreeable to the Ukrainian secessionist provinces promising some autonomy might have been successful.

The West could have declared an eastern European buffer zone between NATO and Russia. ("Little Entente" v2.0)

Some sort of internationally-monitored plebiscite in the Ukrainian secessionist states and Crimea.

There's thirty plus years of historical context that's boiled over into a shooting war, but that context is important for understanding where we are now without relying on simplistic abstractions like nationalism or "democracy".

1) of course, but it is not something that the west and Ukraine could do on their own when Russia was starting a war in 2014.

2) That's incorrect. It wouldn't have stopped Putin but only given him more than Ukraine.

3) Probably had little impact on Russia's decision to start a war.

4) The same as (2). It wouldn't have stopped Putin but only encouraged him even more to subjugate Ukraine, if it didn't want to play by Russia's rules.

In other words, I don't think you have any suggestions that would have helped to avoid this war.

It's sad to see on hackernews that a serious controversial opinion is downvoted to this degree, even if it's viewed as factually dubious.

> thanks for the downvotes. I'm sorry that truth-seeking bothers you

Being petulant isn't going to make your case any stronger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com