Hacker News Reader

Comment by karaterobot | Hacker News Reader

It's not obvious how he could have prevented Russia from invading Ukraine, or stopped Hamas from invading Israel. Not everything comes back to the U.S.

The biggest EV manufacturers in the U.S. are Tesla and Ford, as far as I can tell. No Chinese manufacturer I'm aware of has made significant inroads.

View on HN

Chinese's EV's can't break into the us market. Biden put 100% special tairf on Chinese ev.

And Trump has said that he intends to cancel that tariff [1]. Honestly, the narrative that Biden enabled Chinese EV encroachment is very bizarre. It reflects almost the exact opposite of the actions the candidates have actually taken.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-19/trump-wel...

It's only odd until you say the candidate is Trump

I'm not sure you are referencing the correct article. It just mentions Trump threatening to raise the tariffs to 200% and eliminating the EV mandate. I saw nothing about Trump canceling tariffs.

China has had an auto industry for decades. And yet zero vehicles in the US.

That hasn’t been because of Biden. It’s because they make non-US market vehicles specifically.

We can’t make $5000 new vehicles. They can’t pass our regulations and standards while making the profits they like.

I worked with Beijing Jeep awhile back. They have no interest in the US market.

Could have easily pulled back from offering Ukraine NATO expansion possibilities.

That's what Ukraine wants though.

And the parties who don't want it are now illegal so… 100% of the parties want it.

If you believe the Kremlin narrative around their motivations for the war, and I think there are a LOT of reasons to be skeptical of that narrative, but even if you believe it, the 2022 invasion plans were likely already well underway in 2020. These things are planned years in advance (Bush was already working on an Iraq invasion plan pre 9/11, for example) and once things are in motion the stakeholders are not easily turned around.

Military people do planning at all times. Doesn't mean that the plans will surely be applied.

Very much a false equivalence to the point that it sounds like a bad faith argument. There's a massive difference between contingency planning for a hypothetical versus actively planning for something that's is intended to be agenda item #1.

The first clue to differentiating a contingency from an active plan is resource allocation. Russia moved about 80,000 troops to the Ukrainian border a full 13 months before the invasion. That's over 50% of the force that would eventually enter Ukraine in February 2022 and also about 25% to 35% of Russia's entire non-conscript military force.

Are you skipping the part where NATO was arming and having people in ukraine in the same period?

It’s not just Kremlin narrative, a large wing of the foreign policy establishment also recognized the risk in published articles as far back as the mid 90s.

Ah, appeasement? Yeah, that famously always works.

Worked for resolving the Cuban missile crisis (agreeing to remove missiles from Turkey).

The war is not about NATO.

But why? That would be a concession to a criminal dictator, and, historically, that _never_ works.

Putin would have just thought up another "reason" to invade in a year or two.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com