Rattled U.S. government fears wars could spread | Hacker News Reader

Rattled U.S. government fears wars could spread

axios.com

35 pointsironyman40 comments

I expect this entire thread will get flagged for being too political but there is some tech-relevant news to call to attention.

The post starts by talking about all the conflicts/wars/tensions around the world (and the inability of US political institutions to handle them) and then mentions this new challenge on top all that:

> A new weapon is being deployed in all these conflicts: a massive spread of doctored or wholly fake videos to manipulate what people see and think in real time. The architects of these new technologies, in background conversations with us after demonstrating new capabilities soon to be released, say even the sharpest eyes looking for fake videos will have an impossible time detecting what's real.

Ray Dalio put out a book about a year ago that tries to cast all of this in the light of global market fluctuations.

Why vote down the cease-fire then in the UN?

As best as I can tell, the main reason for that was internal USA politics.

Biden will run for re-election and needs to accrue political capital.

The USA came up with a lame excuse to veto the Brazilian resolution in the Security Council. At the same time, Biden was there "trying to convince" Netanyahu and al-Sisi to allow humanitarian aid through the Rafah crossing into Gaza.

In the end, even though the agreement Biden got was a lot weaker than what the resolution was trying to achieve, it gets spun as a diplomatic victory for Biden.

This is all very simplistically explained, of course. Reality is more nuanced than that and I could be wholly wrong, but this is more or less my understanding of the situation.

---

Edit to add: here [0] is Alonso Gurmendi [1][2] explaining to an opposition Brazilian senator why Brazil was right not to cave to the USA's veto excuse. Along the way he shows how even the previous administration, of which he (the senator) was part, also stood by the same principles.

[0] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1714781170100003061.html

[1] https://www.some.ox.ac.uk/our-people/alonso-gurmendi/

[2] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/alonso-gurmendi-dunkelberg

Because the people in charge seem to know about as much as a headless chicken for what to do about it.

(Edit: For context, for anyone here who has never seen what happens for the minute after you behead a chicken...)

The situation is made worse by warmongers from both parties in congress providing seemingly endless flow of funds, with no concern for loss of life as long as it is not American and hurts them politically.

Iran and Russia are certainly funding these two wars, and these countries are deeply committed to the destruction of western power. Why should western governments not try to undermine their efforts?

Exactly. Feel whatever way you want about the sides of any of the major wars going on right now, but there are always going to be outside actors helping finance a war effort that benefits them.

I have no love for the US, but let's not pretend that there aren't foreign actors egging on Hamas or the various factions in north west Africa as well. People who manufacture guns operate everywhere, and they are all enemies of peace.

You can have bad foreign actors and have bad local actors, both can be true at the same time. My concern is that we (US) aren't doing enough to seek peace as the world leader with clout and acting not too different than the other jerks. Over a hundred thousand people, mostly young with full lives ahead of them, have reportedly died in the Ukraine war so far...for what? So we can stick it to Putin? Listen to Lindsey Graham who now wants to have a war with pretty much the entire world or to the Biden administration that is now seeking $100 billion, $60 billion of which is for Ukraine.

I'm pretty sure Russia started that by invading in 2014 and then 2022. Ending wars by giving invaders other sovereign countries doesn't work so well...it certainly didn't serve peace last time.

I used to think like you but I realized I was wrong. USA and Ukraine are not innocent here at all. What would the USAs response be if China did with Canada what the USA has done in Ukraine? How would the US govt respond to Chinese machinations to make Canada a close ally of China? To invite Canada into a Military Pact with China similar to NATO? To announce that Canada could join a trade block like the EU with China etc? How do you think the USA would respond to Chinese military advisors operating in Canada and Chinese officials going to Canada and making public statements the way Viktoria Nuland did?

Ukraine is not what u think it is. It should've been divided along the Dnieper River into two different countries after the Soviet collapse. And yes Crimea belongs to Russia.

USA deliberately poked Russia to start this war. The goal of the USA is to whittle down the strength of the Russian military. Can't have a regional power in Europe.

Only the USA can have a Monroe Doctrine. Nobody else.

You were swayed by a hypothetical and a 19th century doctrine? I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't absolve Russia of responsibility for invading a sovereign country.

The Russian government exists to serve the oligarchs of natural resource extraction. There is nothing you can give them that will make them lose interest in acquiring more natural resources. You can deter them by showing strength, and you can delay them by depleting their resources. The US is doing both of those things.

Rewarding their actions can delay them, but at the cost of strengthening and replenishing them, which creates bigger future problems.

Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation, on their own initiative. What does seeking peace in such a scenario even look like? The United States and NATO have refrained from engaging in direct military conflict with Russia, and instead have opted to provide aid to the Ukraine and apply economic sanctions to Russia. I think that's a reasonable approach as compared to all-out war.

> Over a hundred thousand people, mostly young with full lives ahead of them, have reportedly died in the Ukraine war so far...for what?

Appeasement is a bad strategy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

The US and UK could have cited the Budapest Memorandum and told Russia publically they would defend Ukraine with air support before the invasion happened.

Neither side in this situation want peace. The Ukrainians want their country back and don't want to be ruled from Russia. They were going to fight whatever happened and if Russia had quickly established control we would see civil unrest. Russia isn't interested in peace their whole leadership is invested in this war.

We know that the US tried to settle things before it started and Russia was incoherent. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66509180

> My concern is that we (US) aren't doing enough to seek peace

I don't think Russia is interested in peace, given that they can already achieve it unilaterally. And if one party doesn't want peace, I don't know what the US can do in this situation.

Putin started killing and won't stop until someone stops him. Are you blaming the deaths on fighting back?

> My concern is that we (US) aren't doing enough to seek peace as the world leader with clout and acting not too different than the other jerks.

How do you have peace with a country that doesn't abide by the peace agreements it signs when it's not convenient for them?.

Russia has no interest in "destruction of western power". Putin even wanted to join NATO.

Maybe Iran does. I wonder why though? Maybe the constant meddling, demonization, and crippling sanctions imposed on them by the US have something to do with it?

Oh the Wolf wanted to join the chicken coop? Get out of here!

Putin was actively attempting to repair relations with western democracies during the early 2000s. 9/11 happened and helped spur two American-led, endless wars from which no clear goal could be defined. “The West” focused its geopolitical efforts and energy into these conflicts instead of dancing with the Russian President.

Meanwhile, Putin was intent on making his mark in history and likely became disillusioned to playing nicely with “The West.” He likely did not feel comfortable with the lukewarm attitude towards Russia and the US’s preoccupations with war combined with the EU’s indifference towards Russia allowed Putin to arm unsupervised.

We saw him beginning to seek to close off all ingress points into Russia, but we didn’t understand its significance at the time. The huge swath of land that encompasses modern day Russia has been invaded a multitude of times through history and via these geographic “gateways” that exist on land that were mostly under soviet control during the Cold War, but now cannot be adequately controlled by Russia without conquest.

Putin put Russia into a state of readiness for future invasions, banking on the fact that quick takeovers would receive limited backlash from western powers and the international community. The invasion of Georgia closed off one of these gateways, a successful invasion of Ukraine would have closed three including the one in Crimea that Russia “annexed” (read: stole) in 2014.

I do not blame the Russian people for Putin’s actions - which he needs to be held responsible for - and only wish the Russian people could finally enjoy democratic elections and they can finally put the days of needing a “strong man” in charge behind them. I think at that point will be able to welcome Russia back into the global community.

I think that's all true, but you also have to take into account NATO expansion.

I don't fault NATO or Russia for their fear of each other, as each of them continually maneuvered for better military advantage against each other.

I think it's hard to imagine the West welcoming Russia into the global community as long has it presents a credible military threat, no matter what the leadership is. Similarly, I can't imagine Russia ever agreeing to a unilateral demilitarization under any leadership.

Russia is welcome into the West as long as it gives up imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe. Putin and other Russian elites are not interested in giving those ambitions up. Certain factions of Russia do want to give up imperial ambitions and join the EU. They'd be welcome to, if they can renounce imperialism. Maybe one day.

The problem is that there is no way to prove a negative.

Even if a hypothetical Russia had no imperial ambitions, it can't prove it.

Not attacking its neighbors would be a goods start.

And then?

> I think that's all true, but you also have to take into account NATO expansion.

The most ironic part of this is that Russias invasion of Ukraine is directly responsible for recent NATO expansion.

agreed, Although I think they were in a dammed if you do, dammed if you dont situation. Especially once NATO declared that it would work towards and eventually accept Ukraine as member, which immediately preceded the invasion of Crimea.

> Especially once NATO declared that it would work towards and eventually accept Ukraine as member, which immediately preceded the invasion of Crimea.

I believe it was the lack of a solid commitment from NATO that caused the invasion, not the vagueness that they Ukraine would eventually join. But all of that is moot anyway, as the Russians where given privates assurances by Germany that Ukraines NATO bid would be vetoed and they still invaded anyway.

Do you have any more information on that, it may change my understanding of the pre-war narrative. I know that nat at large agreed they would, and the US refused to negotiate re Ukraine in the buildup, but had not read about Germany

Reading too much Peter Zeihan? I don't put any creedence to his gateways hypothesis. It smacks of rationalisation. There are simpler explanations that don't have to ignore Russia being a nuclear state that doesn't worry about a mass land invasion from Europe.

For example, Ukraine turning to Europe is just disastrous for Putin's authority. So the war stops Ukraine from prospering and demonstrating a different way forward to Russians, and it also turns Ukrainians into 'other'.

That sounds a lot like once a wolf always, a wolf, which is a circular self-fulfilling prophecy.

> anti-American warnings of Arab nations after they thought — incorrectly — Israel struck a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds.

This is utterly rubbish and unprofessional journalism. There are many proofs this was done by an Israeli raid !!

The simplest one is that the Palestinians never had weapons that powerful. Also there is real-time video of the moment the raid happened.

Incorrectly is not a word a journalist says. It's propaganda !! and sadly propaganda to cover up a genocide.

I can't understand how with the mountain of evidence that it was a misfire, people can still believe this.

People will believe whatever nonsense they want to believe contrary to any evidence. It's just like the 40 beheaded babies story from a week ago, but from the other side. Both sides get to believe false narratives, so it's all quite fair I guess.

The mountain of evidence is a bunch of former US Intel personnel turned corporate media stooges saying that it didn't look like an air strike? Both sides are capable of blowing shit up without an air strike...

I haven't seen anything convincing one way or another and my experience as a former US Intel stooge is that the foreign news press in the United States usually whiffs on the narrative and almost never presents definitive evidence of any but the most tangential details to corroborate their narratives.

If you've seen convincing evidence, I'd be interested in a link.

This is the problem with propaganda. People outsource news verifications to Media outlets.

And it's not hidden that the West and Israel control most of it. So when they say we have proof verified by our journalists ... It's equivalent to have proofs verified by the attorney of one side presented to a judge as TRUTH!!

You need to see the proofs of both sides and judge for yourself. Israel has a track record of lying, and so does Biden.

The most basic lie is one stated at the beginning of the war [1]. And the worst part is that lying to 100M+ people is irreversible. It doesn't matter if you back off later. A 5yo child was killed in the US because of that FALSE claim.

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/white-house-walks-...

That's what NYT, BBC and others reported and a lot of people still believe those outlets. They even sent push alerts blaming Israel for killing hundreds of civilians at the hospital.

I haven't watched anything this morning, but last night when I was watching the news/reading the AP coverage the reporters statements were "Both sides have claimed the opposition is responsible, and we have been unable to independently verify these claims, so we just don't know right now".

Other than "Biden has said his people believe Isreal" what "mountain of evidence" conclusively points one way, and why haven't the independent journalist sources changed their statements yet? All I've seen is that it isn't "consistent with an Israeli airstrike", which proves one thing it is not but not what it is.

*edited for typo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com