Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

This article appears to have been written by a senior reporter for the Guardian in a case of journalists-reporting-on-journalists. Somehow, that seems like it should be an interesting factor although it is a struggle to pick out why that is.

Also if I were in Europe, I would be looking at contingency plans that involved alternative continents. The combined actions of the US and Russia have probably turned Ukraine into the next Afghanistan. I'm not sure what the implications of that will be for the rest of the EU, but that level of destruction, the rearmament of Poland and the concerning energy situation overall (the last decade more than the last year) are inauspicious.

View on HN

> turned Ukraine into the next Afghanistan

You mean a conflict where the imperial power is bogged down by endless partisan warfare until it retreats?

No, this level of war is not something that Russia can sustain for a long time. We're probably going to see it implode, again. The last implosion pushed the boundary of "free Europe" from the Berlin Wall up to the Baltic states and the Balkans, leaving it somewhere ambiguous in the Caucasus. I guess it will end up going further east eventually.

I've thought the same recently - The vast majority of Ukrainians don't want to be part of Russia. Even if Russia took control of the country - it would become unmanageable, even a few resistance fighters can do far more today than was possible in the second world war. There would be a stream of Russian soldiers going back in body bags and likely atrocities that would strengthen and broaden the sanctions.

> There would be a stream of Russian soldiers going back in body bags and likely atrocities that would strengthen and broaden the sanctions.

We're already past both those points - estimates are tricky but it seems likely that over 100,000 have already been killed and the Ukranians are already excavating mass graves in retaken areas. I don't think there's much headroom to increase sanctions? What's left unsanctioned?

(by comparison, I see figures for the US lost about 60,000 KIA in Vietnam and 7,000 in Iraq, across the whole duration of those wars)

Let's just say it the way it is: russia is attacking Ukraine, a free nation. Russia is committing atrocities and war crimes against Ukranian people. When russia stops fighting and leaves Ukraine, the war ends. That is all there is to it.

Well, yeah but they have nuclear weapons so that limits the amount the West can do to help.

For a comparison of what happens when a country does this and doesn't have nuclear weapons - see the First Gulf War.

It seems the energy situation has gone better than expected so far, but if the war drags on it could be hard to sustain that.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the Russians are the bad guys here.

If their nuclear weapons are as good as their tanks and trucks, I don't see any reason to worry.

Let’s hope half of their nuclear arsenal malfunctions. No worries.

Even if one third of Russias nuclear weapons work (2k out of 6k), its far more than enough to destroy the US and Europe. The counterstrike would obliterate Russia. Eighty percent of the rest of the world would starve (all the way to death starvation) in the aftermath.

None of them are going to function.

> Well, yeah but they have nuclear weapons so that limits the amount the West can do to help.

It doesn't limit it, it makes it risky. How big of a risk is questionable and depends on wether you think Russia will risk MAD over Ukraine which personally I think is ridiculous. I don't think the Russian leadership have deluded themselves into thinking that they are in the right - they are doing this because they think they can.

If the west had the balls to send actual support from day one then Russia might have pulled out quite soon. Instead it seems NATO wants to use Ukraine to wear down Russia. Good for NATO perhaps but I'm not entirely convinced this drip feed of weapons is actually helping Ukrainians - their losses aren't publicised but they are definitely not small.

When I read this, I wondered 'how do wars usually end?' and went to look up recent conflicts [0]. That list makes quite depressing reading; the only thing especially interesting about Ukraine is that the world's top two nuclear powers are locked conflict.

The length of the list defeated me. That being said, I think there are other ways that this war could end. At this point it seems unlikely that the Russians will leave.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003%E2%80%93pre...

The main impact to most people living in Europe has been the higher cost of living which is also the case in the just about any alternative continent/country you can think of.

South America is not more expensive and there isn't really anything there for anyone. Except for the US meddling in politics, but that's hard to escape.

The source of all those problems is Russia alone, not some "combined actions of the US and Russia". When Russia stops being a problem, those issues are non-issues again.

> not some "combined actions of the US and Russia".

You are right, it's the US, EU and Russia. I guess sometimes it takes 3 to tango. It's rather disingenuous to say it's all russia.

Comparing Ukraine to Afghanistan isn't fair to either.

Lumping the actions of the US and Russia together (the US up front) is more than a little bit strange, it is the actions of Russia that have caused this war and that continue to prolong it, without the US the Russian army would by now have overrun a substantial part of Ukraine, possibly all of it.

Why would it not be fair to compare Afghanistan to Ukraine? Both are invasions of sovreign countries.

Afghanistan has been an ethnically and culturally divided country long before the invasions, Ukraine hasn't. It's highly unlikely that Ukraine will have a civil war when Russia is pushed back. Ukraine isn't going to become a theocracy running on ancient ideas.

Not sure what ethnic divisions have anything to do with this though? You could argue the same for the russian minority in Ukraine, but again that argument would be weird. Having internal divisions does not justify an external invasion at all.

> Having internal divisions does not justify an external invasion at all.

Of course not. But comparing the Balkan to Norway doesn't really help you a lot, because they're very different. "Ukraine will become the next Afghanistan" is nonsense. Who are the warring tribes that will wage a civil war in Ukraine? What ethnic groups will vie for control of the country? Who are the Taliban? Which neighbor that isn't involved in the invasion will afterwards stoke the flames and support their ethnic group with training and weapons?

That assertion was simply nonsense. When Russia stops the invasion, Ukraine will not sink into civil war because they're not like Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a majority minority country that never really had a modern-ish republic and only knows oppression of other ethnic groups. The largest ethnic group are the Pashtuns ("Not all Pashtuns are Taliban but all Taliban are Pashtun", I know, I know, they now have fighters from some other Muslim countries, but it's still generally true), but they don't even make up 50% of the population. Compare that with Ukraine where Ukrainians make up almost 80% with a single sizable minority: Russians. And the Russians have mostly not been traditionally living in Ukraine, but have been settled there in the last century to increase Russia's control during the previous Russian imperial project, the Soviet Union.

The two countries are not alike. "But they were both invaded by the Russians" isn't enough to be comparable beyond the immediate invasion: they're both supported by the US in response, they're both paying dearly for Russian imperial aggression.

But that's where the similarities end, we will be seeing neither civil war nor a theocracy in Ukraine. And to suggest otherwise is silly at best and Russian propaganda at worst.

> The combined actions of the US and Russia

Excuse me. The are the actions of Russia, not the USA. The USA, and other Western nations, are providing support to a country that wants to defend itself from an aggressor.

In 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, the UK and France did nothing to help. Let's not make the same mistake again.

No there is some truth in this statement. Since 1990 the US has started between 3 and 6 (depending how you count) illegal foreign interventions while talking a big game about a "rules based international order". Understandable how russians who are deeply cynical anyway would see through those slogans and realize that might still makes right.

Now I'm not defending anything Russia is doing, but if this was a US invasion all energy and communications infrastructure would have been destroyed by air strikes and missiles before the 24th of february.

Russia is a lot worse of course, where war crimes are a matter of course and not singular occurrences but I just wanted to give some perspective to the people with no memories. I'd still rather be in the siege of Fallujah than the second siege of Grozny.

No, there is NO truth to the statement. The fact that the USA also does other bad things had no bearing on who's at fault in this war starting or continuing.

The war started because Russia started it and continues because Russia continues it. Russia could stop it tomorrow if they wanted it. Ukraine doesnt have that option.

>>The combined actions of the US and Russia have probably turned Ukraine into the next Afghanistan

First of all - it's actions of Russia and Russia alone.

Second, I think this comment shows zero understanding of the war in Afganistan, because otherwise this comparison would never be made. Tldr: Agfanistan took so long and had such abysmal results because most Afgans didn't actually care about the Taliban, or western democracy, or even Afganistan as a country at all. The presence of western militaries was tolerated at best, despised at worst. Also there are only a handful of cases in modern history where fighting against militia on their own territory has been successful - so in a way what happened in Afganistan isn't surprising(hindsight, eh?).

Ukraine is listerally nothing like this. Ukraine and Ukrainians are fighting a foreign aggressor who is trying to take its land and kill its people by military force - and they have every right to defend themselves.

With the way the war is going, it's (I hope) likely that Russia will be pushed back and out of Ukraine. If that happens, the West will help them rebuild and they will be admitted to EU and maybe even NATO(I'm not so sure about that last one, but we'll see). There is literally no possibility of Afganistan scenario here.

If things really kick off in Europe then I'm not sure it matters what continent one is on...

> Also if I were in Europe, I would be looking at contingency plans that involved alternative continents.

If the war escalates to that point, then being on a different continent isn't going to help.

> turned Ukraine into the next Afghanistan

Ukraine is Ukraine, and is vastly different from Afghanistan. I can see some slight parallels in the Red army's invasion, but that's about it. There is nothing covert about the fight back, and we are not finding extra government militias to arm.

Yes, the energy situation is a pain in the arse. But it means that finally we are moving away from being held to ransom by Putin try to be a Tzar.

The EU finally has a common enemy at the gates. It can no longer ignore the war monger next door, gradually creeping into its back garden. Russia has basically played it's card, and is a bit stuck now.

Don't get me wrong, its horrific whats going on, putin doing the traditional thing of throwing an entire generation of men at the problem is frankly abhorrent. But there in lies the problem, Russia was already fucked, and it can't sustain that level of population loss.

Please, it is Russia and only Russia committing war crimes and atrocities. It is solely Putin paranoia combined with megalomania responsible for the huge mistake that was invading Ukraine.

The Russian army seems laughably weak and I highly doubt it will (conventionally) ever be remotely dangerous to the rest of Europe. That's why they're putting so many efforts into hybrid warfare and disinformation for so many years.

> The Russian army seems laughably weak and I highly doubt it will (conventionally) ever be remotely dangerous to the rest of Europe.

When I was in high school I used to be worried about the Russians invading the UK, until my neighbour got a Lada. The damn thing was never off my driveway, with various combinations of burnt contact breaker points, cracked distributor cap, burst hoses, sticky choke or throttle, broken valve springs (they were fun, you can do them without taking the head off with a big screwdriver and a bit of rope), and all sorts of other bollocks.

Skip forwards 30-odd years, and the Russians are invading their neighbour in trucks and tanks that can barely go 100km without rotten tyres splitting, track guides failing and throwing the track, gearboxes failing, engines failing, or just plain running out of (poor quality, dirty and watery) diesel.

Folk in the UK opposed to nuclear disarmament are saying "Oh you're doing Putin's job for him, hope you're going to like speaking Russian".

Yeah, now how exactly do you see that happening? Putin's going to ship over a load of emaciated barefooted teenagers with 120-year-old rifles to beg for a drum of diesel and a loan of my tractor? I doubt it...

If it's such a darn weak army, why does my country have to spend $50+ billion of our taxpayer dollars to fund Ukraine's weapon supply? I mean, all of this money is mostly going to Raytheon and the other PMCs.

Dunno what your country is but if you're a European you should be interested in stemming bullying wannabe-dictators. History told us that if we're not firmly fighting this Hitler-Stalin "politics" style (going on now for 10+ years), the problem will be getting bigger and bigger over time. The rule based law of nations exists for a good reason and we have to defend it by all means.

PS: That said, I hate how the "western world" sometimes turns out to be quite dissembling too.

Well someone has to keep the US weapons producers in business, so got to have a war somewhere!

Most european countries are rearming no? And Ukraine is just the start. EU/NATO expansionism & Russia pushing back is going to lead to wars in Belarus/Armenia/Georgia as well.

>> EU/NATO expansionism & Russia pushing back

I'm sorry, what? How can anyone write such absolute nonsense?

Russia attacked Ukraine. Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO, it was explicitly stated and agreed upon years ago. Finland and Norway weren't going to join NATO, because they had zero interest in doing so. But Russia attacked Ukraine, so they applied into NATO, it's a direct consequence of Russia's actions. That's not Russia "pushing back".

Nonsense? Ukraine applied for NATO membership in 2008. NATO didn't turn them down. It was pretty evident back then that this was going to lead to a conflict. Do I understand why Ukraine wants to join the EU and NATO? Yes, of course! Money&security! This war was obviously a huge mistake. He's turned Ukrainians who were sympathetic towards Russia against him because they too don't want war on their doorstep.

Ukraine is a sovereign state and can apply and join whichever club it wants to join. More ex-Soviet states joining NATO was based on political decisions of sovereign states and not "the puppetmaster USA pushing to the east", which is Kreml propaganda.

IIRC in the 90s/00s they were talking about Russia joining NATO, too. After 9/11 Putin offered their well-meant help. NATO and Russia were meeting regularly in the past three decades and guess what, Russia left this meeting. Plus, NATO was always very careful arming NATO states near Russia in order to not provoke them. You cannot put this on NATO's card.

Edit: Even after annexation of Crimea, the EU (esp. Germany) tried to calm down Putin by negotiating a piece treaty between Ukraine and Russia and buying even more (cheap) Russian gas.

> Norway weren't going to join NATO, because they had zero interest in doing so.

I'm sorry, what? How can anyone write such absolute nonsense?

Norway has been in NATO literally from day one in 1949. NATO membership is the main plank of its defence policy.

>>How can anyone write such absolute nonsense?

Well because clearly I'm an idiot and was meant to write Sweden and Finland not Sweden and Norway.

NATO expansion means countries wanting to be in NATO. Seems to be mostly countries bordering Russia who really want to get in - I wonder why?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com