Hacker News Reader

Comment by tenpies | Hacker News Reader

It's fascinating to me how so many of these pieces have emerged.

Normally this sort of admission comes after the fact. Decades later when everyone who was there is dead, we would learn that the British, Americans, and probably other NATO countries were all-but pressing the button on the war against Russia.

But now we seem to be openly bragging, daring Russia to retaliate against the actual powers fighting behind the thin veneer of Ukraine. Poke, poke, poke, the nuclear bear.

At the same time, I would not be surprised if in time we'll learn that many of those "accidents" in key American industry this year have been successful Russian-aligned cyber attacks. But note that the Russians are not openly bragging and advertising it.

View on HN

The article describes a team helping a country defend itself against cyberattacks.

How is that "pressing the button on a war"?

Assisting the defense of a nation at war with your own military assets is traditionally considered “joining a war”.

If that were the definition, then Russia is at war with nearly the entire developed world. Doesn't seem like they're doing a very good job of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine....

That's probably a necessary, but not sufficient response. Russia wasn't at war in 2014. The Soviets weren't at war in Korea or Vietnam. These are distinctions the West made.

Good thing there's no war in Ukraine then, just "special military operation".

Joking aside - it's not as simple. For one thing in modern times nobody actually declares wars, and Russia isn't abiding to all the conventions anyway. So the rules are very fuzzy.

For another - selling weapons or providing volunteers was never considered "joining a war", even according to the strictest reading of the conventions assuming they applied.

This doesn’t sound like either of those things. Per article:

> Gen Paul Nakasone, who leads both the military's Cyber Command and the National Security Agency confirmed offensive missions have also been undertaken against Russia in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.

Good thing then Russia’s official stance is that there is no war. In fact, that’s such a noxious lie in Russia view that they jail people for repeating it. Shouldn’t we trust Russia judgement on this if we’re trusting their claimed objections of NATO?

The line the Russian trolls tend to expose is "Taunting Russia risks all of our lives", then they proceed to explain how not giving Russia everything it wants is taunting.

This person has likely fallen for the propaganda they push.

I don’t think it’s helpful to categorize every opposing viewpoint as having fallen for propaganda.

There are valid, reasonable concerns on both sides.

Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc…

None of those are propaganda, they were in the New York Times. Which is a fairly respected news source in the west.

Discounting everyone who disagrees with you as propagandists is intellectually lazy and keeps people from understanding the nuance of a very complex situation.

Nobody’s hands are pure here, now we are discussing whose hands are dirtiest.

> Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc…

What?

>> Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc…

If you study big corruption in Europe this is pretty much the effect/leftovers of the Soviet Union/communist system. I really doubt the US increased corruption in Ukraine. There was not much room left for the corruption to increase anyway.

As far as Donbas is concerned you have to ask yourself how did it come that Ukraine had to shell its own territory. It's not about whose hands are pure. For some reasons Russia does not understand that nobody in Europe wants Soviet Union back. The rejection of Russia is not due American interference. It's due Russia's broken backwards policies. Russia it's a beacon of corruption and waste and now it started a new war in Europe. Even Russia's closest neighbours and "allies" are starting to reject Russia(i.e Kyrgyzstan). It's clear that Putin/Russia not only failed become more attractive as an ally/example to follow but lost the plot entirely. Compare that with Germany and the EU.

You are repeating obvious russian lies. Especially funny is the accusation of corruption. Might I remind you that Yanukovych - the former pro-russian president of Ukraine that out of pretty small president salary build himself a mansion in nature reserve near a big lake where he had (among other things) - a yacht, a classic car museum with over 100 classic cars stored in weather-controlled hangars, a route to use these cars on, a small zoo and fake ruins (all of these I've seen on my own eyes when I visited in 2018) - who had protesters shot in 2014 and who faked elections in 2004 and poisoned countercandidate Yushchenko - had escaped to Russia after he tried stopping the protests by shooting at them and it didn't worked.

Might I remind you that Putin is the richest person in the world? And that Russian state has a fund for bribing Ukrainian army officers? Which was defrauded by Russians before 2022 invasion :)

If you think Russia will save anybody from corruption you are really beyond saving.

> Nobody’s hands are pure here, now we are discussing whose hands are dirtiest.

No, we're discussing the idea that there is something wrong with defensive cyber warfare implemented by the US on behalf of Ukraine.

We branched from that discussion long ago, which of course you know.

Is this a GPT response? I'm responding to a comment responding to me. There is no branch.

You literally quoted me

I said A. You tried to divert to B. I quoted part of B to point out that wasn't the topic. You said the topic had changed to B "long ago".

You see how that's wild right?

I didn’t “try to divert to b”

I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person.

That a healthy debate does not arise from essentially claiming somebody is brainwashed.

Not very wild, right?

If you had stopped at your first sentence, and only made the point that:

> I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person.

But instead you went on to talk about other events and lay down some whataboutism, and talk about the dirtiest hands. That's where you diverted.

If you are going to walk that back and stick to just criticizing my presumption on the source of their argument, then fair enough. However, my statement wasn't a blind malicious assumption. Defensive actions shouldn't be compared to 'poking the bear.' If the bear has already attacked, how can you consider fighting back a provocation? How can you consider "cyber defense", specifically, provocative? The only place I've yet to see that comparison is in troll propaganda, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense, and it works in favor of the aggressor.

When I see someone spouting statements that make no logical sense, and those statements mirror those of propaganda trolls, I'm not doing some horrible disservice to discourse by pointing out a potential relationship.

The concerns of this not being an unprompted attack, vs a self defense based move is a valid one worthy of debate, regardless of your views on the subject, or mine frankly. I have only grown in my understanding by people bringing diverse and often controversial opinions to the table.

I walk back nothing.

> then they proceed to explain how not giving Russia everything it wants is taunting.

This is what happens, without exception, is it?

> This person has likely fallen for the propaganda they push.

Of course. Americans never fall for propaganda, only their geopolitical rivals do. All of them, all the time.

Russia got away with annexing Crimea. They invaded again. They demanded that NATO gives up defending about 100 milion people in Eastern Europe (including myself).

No matter how much you give to Russia they will demand more because they want their empire back. And people there don't want to live in this totalitarian shithole ever again.

Russian occupation isn't nice. It's not just a change of government. It means you don't have free speech, you can't vote who you want to, you have no personal liberties, there's no rule of law. You regularly have to pay bribes. Your city and your infrastructure breaks down cause everybody steal. There's conscription and you have to serve in army. And there's a war or 2 every decade so you have pretty high likelihood of actually having to go kill innocent people.

It's not about abstract values only. It's basic survival and rational self-interest. Nobody who has a choice wants that for themselves and their kids.

If you let Russia annex some part of Ukraine - they will reinforce and in a year or 3 they will be back for the rest. And then Baltic States. And then Poland. And so on.

So yes, giving up anything to Russia is a mistake - it will not create peace, it will only help reestablish iron curtain where it was. If you want to sell Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary etc. to Russia again to save some money - be explicit about it. It's a valid choice, even if I (and about 100 000 000 people living there) disagree about it strongly. It's morally outrageous, but you can make it. Allies already did it in 1945. But be honest about it - you want to sell these people to Russia.

Otherwise stop giving up to blackmail cause you are only making things harder for yourself.

I enjoyed your story, but I have one question: to what degree is it actually true?

For example, is it actually possible to see the future? Are you sure (and if so: how) that what you're describing is actually that?

Which part are you skeptical about?

For example this part:

> Russia got away with annexing Crimea. They invaded again. They demanded that NATO gives up defending about 100 milion people in Eastern Europe (including myself).

has already happened - Russia annexed Crimea, got barely a response from the west so they invaded again and demanded NATO leaves EE countries that got accepted in 90s.

The part about what happens when Russia annexes you is based on how life looks like in occupied Ukraine and in Russia proper. There's more people imprisoned for political reasons in Russia right now than there was in USSR in 50s. And USSR had twice the population. If you call the "special operation" a war or if you take a blank page and stand with it in a city square - you get arrested. Corruption in Russia is also pretty well documented. As is the "2 wars per decade", the conscription and the "sending barely trained recruits to kill and/or die".

The part about Russia invading Baltic states and Poland after they conquer Ukraine was based on Russian propagandists and politicians (including for example Kadyrov) saying it outright in public media.

> Which part are you skeptical about?

It's not that I'm skeptical, it is more of an epistemological issue.

For example, I asked you two questions about your facts (I presume?):

>> I enjoyed your story, but I have one question: to what degree is it actually true?

>> For example, is it actually possible to see the future? Are you sure (and if so: how) that what you're describing is actually that?

... but you didn't answer them. To me, that is a red flag.

In addition to that: there are events happening in Ukraine right now that involve people dying. If ever there was a time to be concerned about what is true (comprehensively, and actually), this seems like a fine candidate. But instead, people seem to insist on dealing in narratives, and dodge (or respond with evasive rhetoric and memes (see sibling comments in this sub-thread)) any questions about truth.

One one hand, you might just dismiss this as "people being people", and there's a lot of truth to it. But when something is presented to them explicitly and directly, repeatedly, and they behave as if they have literally not even seen it....well, at some point I think someone should point out that the emperor has wardrobe problems.

Stop the mental gymnastics and tell me which part you disagree about.

These techniques/behaviors do not work on me. I'm calling your bluff.

Have you anything other than memes in your kit?

> This is what happens, without exception, is it?

No. There are other lines. This is just the relevant one here.

> Of course. Americans never fall for propaganda, only their geopolitical rivals do. All of them, all the time.

No. We fall for propaganda too.

> This is just [the] relevant one here.

According to whom?

Context? Although, I suppose that isn't an entity with agency, so "whom" feels like the wrong word.

I have an alternative way of coming at the problem: what is the (actually) true causality (as opposed to "true" "justification") that preceded this event?

In my experience, this perspective is extremely unpopular (and is usually responded to with rhetoric, memes, not-actually-factual "facts", insults, rate-limiting, etc - for examples, see the thread we are in), but I'm curious what you think?

Causality is only useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales. It's useful to inform future behavior to some degree (if someone replaces Putin, will they have similar motivations?), but most responses are, by necessity, reactionary (which action can we take that is most aligned with our priorities at the moment).

The events in Ukraine will inform future dealings with Russia, and other regimes we think might have similar motivations, but there isn't much use in asking "how we got here" when it comes to our goals for today, or this year. We don't want an expansionist Russia, so we have to make expansionism costly.

It's like having a broken arm. Causality will inform you how to avoid a similar accident in the future, but no matter what happened, you still need to go to the doctor and get a cast today.

> Causality is only useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales.

I disagree. I use causality on a day today basis. For example, with people I know I build a model of how they like to be interacted with, and I try to stay within a range that they will find pleasing.

I suspect I am not the only one who does this.

> but there isn't much use in asking "how we got here" when it comes to our goals for today, or this year.

I am skeptical. Can you explain why you believe this to be necessarily true?

> We don't want an expansionist Russia, so we have to make expansionism costly.

Might it have been less costly if this war didn't begin in the first place? And if so, wouldn't having a better understanding of the causality be at least possibly useful?

> It's like having a broken arm. Causality will inform you how to avoid a similar accident in the future, but no matter what happened, you still need to go to the doctor and get a cast today.

Agreed, but wouldn't it be useful to remember what caused one to get the broken arm in the first place, and then avoid that situation in the future so it doesn't happen again?

I'm also curious if you have any comments on my theory about the difference between a justification perspective and a true (!) causality perspective. Isn't it at least plausibly useful to consider both?

> I disagree. I use causality on a day today basis. For example, with people I know I build a model of how they like to be interacted with, and I try to stay within a range that they will find pleasing.

Is that model based on information you collected that day? Mostly no.

> I am skeptical. Can you explain why you believe this to be necessarily true?

Proactive vs reactive. Causality is good for planning or initiating, but ultimately what happens happens, and you need to respond in a way that produces the best possible outcome with the highest likelyhood. I'm not saying that as an absolute, I just believe it to be the most efficient mode of operating, and seems to reflect most geopolitical interactions.

> Might it have been less costly if this war didn't begin in the first place?

Of course, and we can learn a lot from looking at why. That doesn't really fit into this instance of cyber defense though. There is no lesson to be learned that makes you give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary.

> Agreed, but wouldn't it be useful to remember what caused one to get the broken arm in the first place, and then avoid that situation in the future so it doesn't happen again?

I pointed out exactly that. My point was that no matter what lesson you learned, you still need the cast. I'm not saying causality isn't helpful, I'm just saying it's not helpful here.

> Is that model based on information you collected that day? Mostly no.

Of course not, but how is that relevant to whether causality is only(!) useful in geopolitics on extremely large timescales?

> Proactive vs reactive. Causality is good for planning or initiating, but ultimately what happens happens...

It does indeed, and that is a function of what preceded the event happening....you know: causality.

> ...and you need to respond in a way that produces the best possible outcome with the highest likelyhood. I'm not saying that as an absolute, I just believe it to be the most efficient mode of operating, and seems to reflect most geopolitical interactions.

And I agree (it's my point!)...but that is not contrary to anything I've said, at least as far as I can tell.

> Of course, and we can learn a lot from looking at why.

Do you believe we do a good job of this?

Do you believe that the US Government promotes causal thinking among the public (as opposed to encouraging them to think in other forms, such as justification)?

> That doesn't really fit into this instance of cyber defense though.

It is certainly relevant to a lot of the "facts" being laid down in the discussions here.

> There is no lesson to be learned that makes you give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary.

I don't think anyone is proposing that we "give up and hand over digital systems to an adversary".

Maximally absurd hyperbole is useful when it comes to rhetoric during internet arguments, but for clear thinking I believe it is detrimental.

> I pointed out exactly that. My point was that no matter what lesson you learned, you still need the cast. I'm not saying causality isn't helpful, I'm just saying it's not helpful here.

Can you explain why causality has zero utility here?

For example: how events unfold in Ukraine has some dependency on Vladimir Putin - do you think there is zero utility in at least considering his opinion on such matters? And to be clear: I am in no way proposing that we roll over and give into every demand he has - rather, I am proposing that we engage in clear, unbiased, truthful, "good faith" conversation, to the extent of our abilities. To me, this seems like a good idea.

I’d say having boots on the ground fighting as “contractors” and openly supplying weapons and money is pressing the button.

To many, Ukraine defending itself against an invasion means it’s the aggressors because words have no meaning except what sounds good to the immediate argument. Tomorrow the words may mean the opposite.

I say maybe we should listen to the official Russian description of events to see what’s happening. It’s impossible for nato to be in a proxy war because Russia is not at war. In fact one can go to jail for spreading the noxious lie that Russia is at war. Yes there is a minor special military operation, but no war.

Per Russia, at most they are carrying out a special military operation that nato has interfered with. Absolute no war! Careful, don’t “lie” according to Russia and say it’s a war.

Russia is aggressor, and the aggressor must be kicked in the ass 'cause he won't stop and repeat again and again. Blaming NATO for all is typical stupid RT-style propaganda.

The notion that the US or NATO will “provoke” Russia into retaliating is foolish. Either they will use their nuclear weapons in a first strike or they won’t and you have no levers over that except their fear of you. There is no game theoretic value to appeasement because the decisions your opponent makes are completely dominated by their estimate of the probability that you will obliterate them.

If you assume your counter-party is rational then their expected value calculation is completely dependent on their fear of you- and if you assume they’re irrational then you should strike first.

It's generally bad to brag about committing a crime, and generally ok to brag about stopping a crime.

It makes sense Russia wouldn't be talking much about what they're doing.

Which American accidents are you referring to? (Genuine question)

> Normally this sort of admission comes after the fact. Decades later when everyone who was there is dead, we would learn that the British, Americans, and probably other NATO countries were all-but pressing the button on the war against Russia.

Ah the famous "Russia was forced to invade Ukraine, rape its civilians and commit genocide against its people" line. Why doesn't Russia have a agency to just you know, not do all this terrible things?.

> But now we seem to be openly bragging, daring Russia to retaliate against the actual powers fighting behind the thin veneer of Ukraine. Poke, poke, poke, the nuclear bear.

There is no 'thin veneer' of Ukraine, it's all Ukraine with support from other countries in the form of weapons and training.

I also see the rhetoric of Russia being nuclear is coming up more and more so lately, which each decisive Ukrainian victory theres always certain people who are soooo concerned suddenly about nuclear war.

> At the same time, I would not be surprised if in time we'll learn that many of those "accidents" in key American industry this year have been successful Russian-aligned cyber attacks. But note that the Russians are not openly bragging and advertising it.

The Americans aren't bragging about anything specific either.

Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by Ukraine not adhering to the previous peace accords (Minsk agreements) and instead shelling ethnic Russians for a decade — until those Ukrainians declared independence to protect themselves from the decade long war.

> The Americans aren't bragging about anything specific either.

I think calling it an “opportunity” when they blew up the NS 1+2 pipelines to silence protests in Germany ahead of winter speaks to precisely the ethics involved.

Could you point to the articles of Minsk agreements that allow for military invasion as a penalty for any party failing to meet its obligations?

You discuss the identities of the Nordstream pipeline saboteurs with some certainty. Are you privy to some exclusive information unavailable to the rest of us, or is this another belch of semi-digested RT-pap?

The Minsk agreements were a settlement to the previous war — which said that Ukraine would respect Russian heritage and allow those regions to be semi-autonomous.

Instead, they banned the Russian language and shelled those regions for a decade. Russia then invaded after those shelled-for-a-decade regions formally asked for help.

> You discuss the identities of the Nordstream pipeline saboteurs with some certainty.

I think the evidence points to a clear culprit:

- NATO conducted an exercise in that area months before (where they can map the exact location of the pipes)

- Germans were protesting the lack of gas at the time

- Russia didn’t blow up their own pipeline

- various European countries refuse to say who it was after investigating

- the US repeatedly threatened to end the pipeline

> The Minsk agreements were a settlement to the previous war — which said that Ukraine would respect Russian heritage and allow those regions to be semi-autonomous.

Where’s Ukraines settlement for Russia breaking the Budapest accords for the past 8 years?. According to you they should get their nukes back now right?.

> Instead, they banned the Russian language and shelled those regions for a decade. Russia then invaded after those shelled-for-a-decade regions formally asked for help.

Russia installed Russian backed agents to start a civil war, its strange that this has happened, to what 3? Post soviet states it’s as if Russia keeps doing it intentionally.

> I think the evidence points to a clear culprit:

You are correct on this there is a clear culprit but it’s russia not america.

Russia had ships in the area at the time, and Russia benefits from trying to force Germany to certify the Nord stream 2 pipeline that was left undamaged. Additionally Russia gets out of any damages for not supplying gas to countries via claiming force majeure.

You should also know that Gazprom had robots that could have quite easily transported these explosives internally in the gas pipes without needing to be in the area.

About those Minsk agreements: https://twitter.com/neil_abrams/status/1583459564950724608

I legitimately can’t follow what’s the point there — it starts off insulting implying everyone who mentions them is just gaslighting, and then diverges into one-sided history for a dozen posts without mentioning them again.

It doesn't parrot Putin's lies, so from this perspective I guess you could call it "one-sided".

It does mention the agreements again 16 posts later, the background is really important here.

Downvoters and negative comments here completely misunderstand this comment. It does not defend Russia at all. It is just raising the interesting question of why the US is openly showing operations that are usually kept secret until long after a war.

And there's a certain irony in the mouth-frothing cries of "propaganda" at the barest hint of something that could be (wildly mis)interpreted as opposed to their position.

Russia invaded Ukraine 2 times and committed hundreds of war crimes. They already murdered thousands of people and are murdering more as we speak. There's no reason not to "brag" about stopping them, just like nobody was hiding their participation in stopping Hitler or Mussolini.

I know you're either a paid russian troll or idiot brainwashed by their propaganda, so I don't expect to change your mind, but on the off chance you can be reasoned with - don't you see how self-contradictory russian propaganda is about this whole war?

At first it was about saving Ukrainians (who are "really Russians") from the nazi junta supposedly preventing them from joining the big brother. And Ukrainians were supposed to welcome russian army with flowers. After these supposedly ruled-against-their-will Ukrainians defend for 8 months against Russia - somehow it's still true they are ruled by nazi junta AND Russia needs to destroy their civilian infrastructure to force them to surrender AND it's really NATO army fighting Russia and Ukrainians have nothing to say in that matter.

How can all 3 of these things be true at once? If it's nazi junta then Ukrainians wouldn't be defending for so long, and destroying civilian infrastructure would just be a pointless war crime (dictator won't surrender cause some poor guy has no energy). Same if it's a NATO army fighting there against Ukraine's will. So why are Russians supporting the destruction of civilian infrastructure? The answer is obvious - nobody really believes that bullshit in Russia. Russians just want their empire back and Ukraine is in the way.

The funniest thing is - some idiots in the west actually buy this all this bullshit.

Retaliate against what? Helping Russia's neighbor not being destroyed?

Let's not rewrite history. The West was willing to give Putin Crimea. It was he and he alone who decided to poke the bear and overplay his hand.

Russia spent the last 10 years pissing off NATO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com