Volodymyr Zelensky and his generals explain why the war hangs in the balance | Hacker News Reader

Volodymyr Zelensky and his generals explain why the war hangs in the balance

economist.com

32 pointssohkamyung50 comments

It's not just Ukraine in the balance, but most people don't even know about the silent war still happening 30 years on between Moldova and Russian backed separatist republic of Transnistria[1] which hosts 1500 Russian troops.

The absurd thing is that Transnistria was never part of Russian territories to begin with.

Hopefully we'll see a swift Russian defeat so that other countries can finally enjoy peace.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7RRJhhAEfk

Transnistria was created by a pro-Soviet rebellion, at a point where the Russian government was on the verge of collapse. It has a significantly higher living standard than Moldova, one of the worst nations in Europe, which its citizens do not want to join.

It wasn't formed by massive arms deals and covert invasion followed by actual invasion like Ukraine's separatists. The Russian 'volunteers' were defectors with ethnic ties to the nation, who became fugitives until the Russian legal system collapsed completely, and illegal paramilitaries.

Out of curiosity, I watch couple youtube videos from travel bloggers. Although its hard to tell if people actually don't want to join Europe there or they force to tell this but from financial perspective it feels like they are on the same level as North Korea.

> It has a significantly higher living standard than Moldova, one of the worst nations in Europe, which its citizens do not want to join.

citation needed?

The Sudetenland also once had a pro German rebellion. It was created and propped by the Third Reich, just like the "rebellions" in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine were propped up by the Putin régime.

Is it bad allowing a majority population to choose in which country to live only because they were ethnic Germans?

I would even go as far as saying that having multi ethnic state that try to force their will upon other ethnic group is the number one reason we still have wars in 21st century.

> Is it bad allowing a majority population to choose in which country to live only because they were ethnic Germans?

The point is that there was no significant movement there until the Nazis made one up, just like there was no significant rebellion in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine until Putin created one.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine eventually attacks the Russian forces there, or at least works with Moldova to permanently blockade them.

There is a big issue with Crimea ownership for Russia, which can in part explain the second aggression: it doesn't have freshwater, so the costs to keep it running as it was pre 2014 are way, way higher than expected for Russia once the freshwater canal was closed by Ukraine. The bridge isn't enough (it would need at least doubling the tracks), and expensive, so Russia need the land bridge.

I'm pretty sure that Ukraine will stall the Crimean front is they manage to separate the two fronts.

Still, it will also be a lot harder for Ukraine to get support from their western allies when it comes to Crimea.

First, it's considered vital by Russian strategists so the likelihood of Russia using a nuclear weapon if Crimea is at stake is higher than for anything else in the conflict.

Secondly, historically, the claim of Ukraine to Crimea is far more tenuous than for the other area at stake. Crimea has been at odd with the Ukrainian federation regarding its independence for as long as it has existed as an entity independent of the USSR. It was rattached to Ukraine in the act acting its existence as a political entity and one of its first move was declaring independence in 1992 which Ukraine rejected. They were de facto independent and very pro-Russia until 1995 when Ukraine sent its army and forced their government into exile. It makes Crimea pretty unique in the conflict as there is a legitimate claim that it actually wants to be a part of Russia rather than Ukraine which is why the western reaction following the 2014 invasion was so muted.

Can you please add some proofs for all your statements?

As a person who been living in Crimea for big part of my live I do find your comment very disconnected from reality.

From strategist perspective Crimea does not have anything to give to Russia except logistics problems and few military bases.

Ukraine has way more claims for Crimea rather than Russia. If we gonna use your logic than Russia should give back to Ukraine Kuban oblast (which for long time were part of the USSR)

Crimea had its own parliament but saying it was independent its an open lie. Crimea belong to crimean tatars. Which been deported from Crimea during Stalin genocide. But if we go with your logic, crimean tatars should be the one who are the real "owners" of the Crimea, and they are pro-Ukrainane. Simply cause russia to this day killing and torturing them.

Nothing with Crimea occupation is unique. Dictatorship government occupy new territory, silencing and do genocide so then it will be easy to fake referendums.

You can read the Wikipedia article "Republic of Crimea (1992–1995)" which is extremely well sourced with link to NYT articles of the period and some good academic papers from before the 2014 invasion. That's if it hasn't been defaced of course. Crimea is a contentious point of the current conflict.

I don't really understand your point about real "owners". Crimea today is de facto Russia and de jure Ukraine on the basis of the 1994 agreement (I think we can safely ignore the 9 countries which accepted the results of the 2014 referendum). Their unique situation regarding the rest of Ukraine is that they have been at odd with the federation more often than not and have consistently voted for pro-Russian politicians to the point that Ukraine had to military removes their government once. It is very different from what's happening in the other invaded provinces.

> Crimea is a contentious point of the current conflict.

> Crimea today is de facto Russia

no, and no, no, you are trying to justify occupation, murdering, raping and civilian deaths right now.

We are no longer living in the 18th century and those barbaric methods are not longer valid and acceptable in current society. Its hard for me to gasp how even you can justify those actions

Is it possible for Crimea to become independent country?

not possible from economic perspective. Crimea been losing money all the time with all different governments.

Only post soviet governments tried to govern Crimea so far. If Crimea were US State like Hawaii or US territory like Puerto Rico, I bet economy would be great.

https://archive.is/SC66C

“Russia will run out of shells” from the creators of “Russia ran out of rockets in March”.

Also: $1 trillion Defense spending is not enough, vote more so the USA does not run out of ammo!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-depleting-u-s-ammun...

Zelensky: “And that is why it is very important…to go to our borders from 1991.”

"In private, however, Ukrainian and Western officials admit there may be other outcomes"

How private is talking to journalists?

This public vs. private split goes back a ways. When the eastern regions split off in 2014, many Ukrainian political figures took the public stance of recovering those regions at all cost, while privately admitting they were glad to see them go.

From a British political scientist who interviewed them: So...We can imagine that the Ukrainian leadership will continue to voice support for regaining the occupied territories, but not try very hard to actually bring it about. In interviews conducted in Kyiv in the summer of 2018, several elites asserted that while Ukraine cannot declare a policy of surrendering the territory, recent changes in law and in practice indicate a de facto policy of stabilizing the status quo rather than trying to reverse it. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08883254187910...)

They probably mean that the official stance, as voiced by Zelenskyy on TV and state media, is to reconquer the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, but everybody knows that it perhaps won't be possible to achieve this ultimate goal.

It's not private, but it is not a secret either. It just isn't the official position of the government.

I think it's good for the morale that Zelenskyy the strong leader of Ukrainians that will repel the bloody Russians whatever the odds, and Zelenskyy the prime minister with a terrible defensive war on his hands, to be two separate personas. One is more personable, but you need the other to win hearts, minds and the war.

It's amazing how well propaganda works. Maybe people are just stupid.

exactly. It works well for 95 percent, but the other 5% sees the propaganda for what it really is - lies, dishonesty and fake news.

I really hope to see more help in arms deliveries and more advanced weapon systems. More drones and more intelligent systems. I really think the war has just started and these people need all the help they can get.

Also trucks with generators would be nice. Just like the ones that film lighting companies have. They are so handy.

You hope to see more war and death?

Would you have preferred if WW2 ended with it’s 1942 borders?

No, but would I have supported the rest of the war and killing everyone? Absolutely not. I would rather borders be weird than millions of people dying (apparently we are ignoring the rest of the details of the conflict?). Not sure what your point is.

easy to say when you have no skin in the game

I'd let Europe solve it's own problems and not intentionally provoke Japan and then leave myself open to attack at Pearl Harbor despite intercepting messages that it would be attacked like Roosevelt did.

How would you achieve world dominance, let’s call it Pax Americana, without war?

By not spending a generation of lives and treasure on war, and preventing the military industrial complex from growing so large that it runs the show. A anti interventionist America wouldn't have wasted resources on Vietnam or the Middle East either. Instead of war, invest in infrastructure have the world's cheapest energy and later fastest internet as well as the lowest taxes then dominate the nations who spend those funds on bombs and bullets instead.

Noble alternative history, but I’m not aware of a single empire in human history that achieved its global dominance peacefully.

Ability to start wars worldwide and profit from them was always the only path.

Dominance is really only good for the people who run the country. The people are better served by excellence. Contrast the dominant US to the comparatively pathetic Nordic nations in terms of standard of living. Being #1 has been ruinously expensive for the people.

You are completely right here. But the problem is that globalist elite that runs (rules?) USA has only own interests in mind, and they are achieved by using USA as a tool to achieve their own global dominance. They don’t care about USA or its citizens.

That’s why the best thing that can happen to this planet is a victory of a nationalist isolationist option on the next election.

I want to supply Ukraine every material assistance available until the 2014 borders are restored, and the Kremlin along with everyone inside it are as flat as a pancake by way of a long range armament.

I’m sure they are accepting recruits. Why not volunteer and encourage your closest family members and friends to join you?

Or would you rather sit back in the comforts of your home far away from any affects and lob other people’s money their way, letting the Ukrainian and Russian people kill each other?

I've thought about it, and donated my own money to Ukraine. My fiancee has as well. We have close friends who are Ukrainian.

There are many things that are important; equal rights for all Americans, ending slavery in America, increasing healthcare access, reducing rent-seeking in all its forms, equal rights outside of America. The implication is that I'm a hypocrite if I don't volunteer to be a foot soldier in any one of a hundred important things, but doing so is mutually exclusive. And that's only for the selfless items. What about being a parent? Should one not advocate for Ukraine if they're not willing to orphan their child, or take them with them to a war zone?

Russia is an illiberal coalition of mafias engaging in a never-ending power grab. The limit behavior of such a system is that technological innovation will never be allowed to thrive as it will always fall to violent entrepreneurship, and that the most successful violent entrepreneur will always ensure that no other elements gain enough wealth and power to threaten the power of the current leader. What Russia is follows from what Russia's culture does, and its modus operandi results in destitution and war.

I don't like that, and feel that for everyone's good, Russia's modus operandi should not expand.

Now. Russia has a problem. It has 1.8 times the area of the US and less than half the population. They're surrounded by flat, dry areas where it sucks to live, but you can roll a Panzer division right through. The upshot is that they've been invaded 50-something times in their history because they can't defend it. Because Russia is intrinsically handicapped when it comes to technological innovation and population, they don't have a road network, they have a rail network, which means that its attempts at defending its territory will be in the form of fixed defenses, and those fixed defenses have to be placed at bottlenecks on the far side of the flat areas (far side relative to their wheat belt).

There are nine of these bottlenecks: The Polish Gap on the far side of Belarus, The Baltic Sea through Lithuania and Latvia, the Bessarabian Gap on the far side of Ukraine/Romania, the Black Sea through Crimea, the east and west sides of the Caucasus mountains in Georgia, the Central Asian Corridor through Uzbekistan, the Tien Shan-Atlay Shan Gap, and the White Sea.

The Soviet Union controlled all nine, and after they broke up, Russia went to controlling only one. Putin has been systematically attempting to control the remaining eight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

Ukraine is not in one of these gateways, it's on the way to two. Putin won't stop even after he controls all of Ukraine.

To make things even more dangerous, not only has their technology not kept up, but their logistics are also terrible, and we learned quickly from their first convoy into Ukraine that they can no longer effectively fight a war against a modern opponent, which means that when they trigger NATO article 5, they'll be soundly beaten, which for obvious reasons they will regard as an existential threat, and nuclear weapons will not just be their last resort, they will be their only resort.

So to avoid this, I support Ukraine receiving any and all material support that anyone in the world wants to give them. A resounding defeat in Ukraine stands a chance of dealing such a political blow to Putin as to unseat him from power, and hopefully avoid such an eventuality.

So. Russia culture bad. Nukes bad. Help Ukraine.

Addendum. The username of the person to whom I am replying is 'cudgy', and they appear to be a Russian apologist.

Still you only offer money and not your body like the victims of your money will lose. Again, it is easy to espouse aggression when you are not privy to physical harm from the consequences.

Furthermore, this point has nothing to do with being an apologist for any country. Both Ukrainians and Russians (and others around the world) will suffer more based on what you and the foolish leaders of NATO desire. It is based on ignorance, greed, and simplistic thinking, which are all poor reasons to promote more death and destruction for the people you want to help.

I fear for Ukraine if they will eventually lose the war. If that happens they'll most likely come under the Russian sphere of influence and the West will pull back leaving them to fend for themselves whilst their entire country lies in ruins. They'll be ruined both militarily and financially.

The Russians will do nothing to aid them, probably accusing them of resisting and killing many of their countrymen and in reprisal taking large swaths of land and destroying their culture. I foresee many millions of Ukrainians leaving for Western Europe if that scenario becomes reality, which could destabilize Western European nations.

War isn't about destroying tanks and airplanes but occupying the land of your opponent. Russia certainly has a leg up in that regards since they're sacrificing hundreds of thousands of young men to stop the Ukrainians from advancing and could even take Kiev next year.

If Ukraine loses it will mean yet another huge blow to the West. And all this started because we prodded them to become NATO member. They even put their desire for NATO membership in their Constitution! I believe this was the straw that broke the camel's back and inspired Putin to invade.

Russian aggression started from Ukraine wanting to join EU in 2014, not NATO.

There is one really simple fact explaining why Ukraine wants to join EU.

Polish and Ukrainian economies were exactly the same size in 1991 after collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukrainian economy was actually a bit bigger in 1990. We had almost the same population of around 40 million people, similar location and culture.

Yet, in 2013 Polish economy was almost 3 times bigger than Ukrainian ($521B Polish GDP / $190B Ukrainian GDP = 2.7). By 2021 there were almost 2 million Ukrainian economical immigrants in Poland.

Many Ukrainians conclude that being in western sphere of influence is just economically better.

Noticeably better, by example of Poland, maybe even 3 times better.

Putin on the other hand is afraid that if Ukraine becomes richer than Russia, then Russians will also start revolution. Hence the desire to subjugate or destroy Ukraine by all means.

And having your land invaded and annexed by Russia (2014 annexation of Crimea) kind of makes you really want to join NATO. Nobody, not even Putin, could have foreseen that.

Every dirt-poor nation in Eastern Europe wants to become part of the EU, especially because of the billions in handouts of the so-called "Infrastructure Funds" which are being pilfered and used to finance nepotistic and corrupt anti-democratic political movements in both Hungary and Poland.

Obviously Ukraine wanted a piece of that cake. And so does Belarus and every other former Soviet state al the way to Turkmenistan.

"And all this started because we prodded them to become NATO member."

When you say this in this way you're taking agency out of Ukraine. They wanted nato membership to be protected from Russian influence, they were being harrased since they became free. Of course NATO would probe them, just like a salesman will try to sell you a car if you walk in a dealership. There is existing interest.

I very much hope that Ukraine wins this war, but won't lose any sleep over it if they don't.

I sincerely believe the problem started when the U.S. government Think Tanks in Washington decided Russia should be split up into smaller states without nuclear capability. U.S. policy has been to turn that concept into reality by surrounding Russia with NATO states on its borders and threatening it in the hope its population would rebel and making it ripe for breakup.

First you start talking about how you fear about Ukraine losing the war. One comment after you are stating its not actually a big deal for you

smells fishy

It isn't a big deal for me. I believe if Ukraine loses the war the West doesn't lose anything but its pride, even though Zelensky is implying otherwise.

Ukraine fully deserves our support for defending its sovereignty, but it's merely a pawn in the bigger game of Hegemony. If the pawn falls the game will continue.

West doesn't lose anything? I don't even know where to begin.

Just a few things: 1. Europe have a problem with resources and Ukraine has extremely rich and complementary mineral resources in high concentrations and close proximity to each other. The country has abundant reserves of coal, iron ore, natural gas, manganese, salt, oil, graphite, sulfur, kaolin, titanium, nickel, magnesium, timber, and mercury.

2. Europe geopolitics – when Ukraine lose, will Putin focus just move on to Moldova and then Serbia and Georgia. And as citizen of small European country I'm afraid that he will soon get copycats because we are back to allowing to redefining borders.

>And all this started because we prodded them to become NATO member.

This is victim blaming. I'm in the Czech Republic right now, ask anyone here if they want the Russians back? There's Ukrainian flags everywhere here and no one dreams of giving up support.

Nearly every formerly communist country that's remotely functional has joined or wants to join NATO, because absolutely no one wants "Russky Mir".

Before Russia invaded Ukraine the U.S. was already prodding to deny Russia access to its Crimean naval bases. This was why Russia saw no other option than to invade and take the Crimea from Ukraine. This is what actually started the ball rolling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com