Hacker News Reader

Comment by icare_1er | Hacker News Reader

The real losers are Europe.

Hello from Europe!

While I agree that there really aren't any winners in a war from a humanitarian perspective, it really doesn't feel here like we are losing.

I'm happy to pay a lot for electricity and gas if that means the Russian government will fall and their army will be reduced to shreds (although the gas prices right now are almost the same as they used to be before the war... )

Also to the US, this is an incredibly cheap (it's what, $50B this year?) way of bringing the Russian army to it's knees.

You may be happy to pay more (sounds a lot like "the bread is expensive ? let them have brioche"), but that's not the case for business owners of small restaurant, bakeries, etc, that have an electricity bill which has doubled, tripled, or even more in some cases, not even talking about the state of mortgages.

And I'm also pying the bakeries and business owners more for their services.

Really, talking to people here - even random ones, like a taxi driver, I've literally never ran into anyone that does not want to keep supporting Ukraine.

Because we know that if Russia wins in Ukraine, we are next. What's money against your life and the feeling of safety?

Oh, i'm sure that people want to support Ukraine indeed, and they also want lower inflation and energy prices, just like they want strong social-protections with lower taxes.

But if you're telling me that people are happy with the 10% inflation, the energy bills and the mortgages, then fine, I feel better now, I thought this would not be bearable for very long.

This means that you would like to see as many as possible Russian people killed.

You started the whole thing in order to plunder Russia, you are indeed monsters though you "think" you are innocent, and I hope you and above all your american lords, will get the Nurenburg tribunal you deserve for creating this war and the hatred for the Russian people to justify it.

Well life in Russia keeps going on as before with cheap food, gas and electricity - basically all basic needs. And the Rubel is the best performing currency this year. That the Russian gov will fall sounds extremely unlikely as someone who spent the last years in Russia. Life still goes on as usual, while in the EU it seems to crumble a bit.

Everyone involved in a war is a loser. It really shows how immature humanity is that we still start new wars.

This is reductionist. The Pax Americana has been maintained by an overwhelming capability for war by the USA. You need to punish in countries that violate international norms. Russia has been truly chucklefucked by this war, and the Norks, Iranians, etc. are going to be significantly more wary of engaging in new wars going forward.

That is how peace is actually maintained.

Capacity for war is not the same as starting wars. Pax Americana is a result of defensive capacity for war. The Middle East situation is a result of starting wars. I have a lot more criticism for the latter than the former.

Yes and no. For most of history, conquest of pre-industrial agrarian societies was generally an excellent idea...politically and economically, that is. See any good history of (say) the economics of the Roman Empire. Or the British Empire.

That's part of why WWI was so hellishly destructive for Europe - national leaders, military planners, educated elites, etc. really didn't get that modern(-ish) industrialized warfare was profoundly different from "the good old days", and they made endless bad decisions based on obsolete "wisdom".

Historically, yes and no. I agree. But recent wars look much more like All Quiet on the Western Front than conquests of the Roman Empire.

The deadliest war before WW1 was the Napoleonic Wars (which essentially set up the then-existing European system), and before that, the Thirty Years' War and similar wars of religion were incredibly destructive.

When were "the good old days" you were referring to?

For the winners (recall that the ruling classes were rather indifferent to the deaths of large numbers of the less-well-born) many of those wars turned out pretty well. In "let's play Prisoner's Dilemma" terms, the payoff matrix for "Go to War?" was, for the ruling classes, far more favorable back then. (Vs. for modern industrialized warfare.)

Add the Mongol Empire and Russian Empire to my "war & conquest worked out pretty well for 'em" list.

Clarification - by "Russian Empire" here, I mean the old Empire - say, from the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) up until the Crimean War (~1855). The latter was against several modern-ish, getting-industrialized major powers.

Yes, plenty of parallels can be drawn between the Crimean War and the current Russian "special military operation" in Ukraine. The former ended with the Treaty of Paris on March 30, 1856 - which was a very clear Russian defeat.

You only need a segment of humanity to be immature for a war to start.

To be specific, don't blame Ukraine for this war, or humanity in general. Blame Russia, and specifically Putin.

> Everyone involved in a war is a loser.

I agree with you on that point.

It was precisely the opposite that started this war - the inhumanity of some leaders and the people that support it.

The apeish immaturity of decision-makers in power that really do too much misleading for being called leaders.

Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor humanity as a whole benefits from Russia's actions. Even Putin's legacy doesn't. It's truly a loser's race to the bottom.

But you know, this is still regretfully humanity's doing.

You mean Ukraine ?

Imagine if during the cold war we'd have had people like you commenting this way out in the public. Not only would it have been a failure of intelligence but the venue would be shut down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com