Comment by myrmidon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by myrmidon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Say Russia wins decisively tomorrow. Ukrainians are tired of this, they all just give up. Russia annexes all of it. Then what?

From the perspective of "Europe", what actually changed, compared to 2015? Sure, Russia gained some territory, ressources, potential conscripts.

Their army gained valuable combat experience. But have they actually become more threatening to other European nations? I'd argue: Absolutely not.

Russia is not only weakened by their losses of soldiers and materiel, but their non-military options are also greatly degraded-- instead of freely shopping for South Korean battle tanks (=> Poland), they have to make do with North Korean conscripts...

They basically played their whole hand to gain control of another country, but that control comes at a price; Even when the armed conflict is completely stopped, the price for the Ukraine is not yet paid-- switching out from a war-economy will hurt Russia, keeping the Ukraine under control is gonna be another constant drain and their may be significant obligations toward the allies that probably did not help solely out of their belief in the cause (North Korea, Iran).

Meanwhile, European powers got to observe everything as it played out, even got their own weapon systems battle tested "for free". They are forewarned, and arming up accordingly.

I'm honestly fairly confident that if Russia picked an actual battle with Poland alone (no help from any other European nation) in the next decade, that they would walk away with a bloody nose...

So, cynically talking-- "the Wests" plans are affected very little, no matter how this whole disaster plays out...

> Sure, Russia gained some territory, resources, potential conscripts.

You just "hand wave away" gaining territory the size of the 2nd biggest country in Europe after Russia, Trillions in resources and 40 million people (a 30% increase in "Russian" population). I think you may be slightly undervaluing these things lol.

And then I just don't really understand your general point which seems to be that because you believe Russia could not successfully defeat Europe/Poland that they are not more threatening than they were 10 years ago?

- Russia will have gained a huge amount of combat experience.

- Russia will also have learned from fighting against a force using NATO equipment.

- Russia will have gained the immense wealth of Ukraine's natural resources.

- Russia will have increased their population by about 30% (+/- based on refugee point below)

- Russia will have basically doubled the size of their border with Poland (counting Belarus as part of Russia because why not)

- Russia will have added borders with 4 more European countries (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova)

- Russia has likely rooted out some of the corruption that plagued the military before/during this invasion as it would have become more apparent.

- Russia will have built up domestic production of weapons as much as they can (taking sanctions into account)

- Russia will have been emboldened by its "success" in conquering Ukraine.

- Russia will have seen how slow/scared the West was to respond to their invasion and encourage more "asymmetric" warfare in preparation for the next country (aka "the price of eggs are too high, we can't afford to save <insert country with Russian border here>)

- Russia will VERY likely have increased the amount of Ukrainian refugees to the rest of Europe by 100s of 1000s, possibly even millions. Further stretching the resources of those countries and feeding into the previous point in regards to the cost of intervening "next time".

All this, combined with a US President openly making disparaging remarks about NATO, but you think Europe should not be more worried about Russia than in 2015?

Ok...

> And then I just don't really understand your general point which seems to be that because you believe Russia could not successfully defeat Europe/Poland that they are not more threatening than they were 10 years ago?

No. What I believe is that engaging the Ukraine cost them much more than they would gain even by a convincing victory tomorrow, leaving them less of a threat to Europe than 10 years ago. Could they overcome this and become a bigger threat in a decade or so, thanks to Ukrainian ressources? Certainly! But the whole thing could also just crumble on Putins death in that same timeframe, could only guess about outcomes so distant.

But even having conquered the Ukraine would not really give them military strength immediately, the opposite, really, because Russia would need to commit military just to keep order there (consider Chechnya for reference: that might have become a net-gain for Russia like 15 years after the first war, and it was like 20 times smaller i.e. easier to "digest").

Furthermore, a lot of "soft power" that Russia had was basically spent on the Ukraine (i.e. price of sanctions, gas-dependence etc.), and is getting less relevant and valuable with ever year.

> but you think Europe should not be more worried about Russia than in 2015?

This is not what I said. I said Russia is less of a threat, not that Europe should be less worried about it. It has become a bigger and bigger threat since 2000. European concern was basically zero (even after the Crimea affair) and is still arguably too low. European nations were basically treating Russia like an improving, slightly flawed democracy.

But it is an imperialistic kleptocracy instead, but that is now obvious which is also unhelpful for Russia.

Because russia has been invading parts of near europe for the last decade or more.

If ukraine goes, then they start on the edges of poland, latvia, estonia, finland next.

Russia can't just start "gradually" invading NATO and EU countries; that would bring in all of NATO/EU militaries much more quickly.

assuming that article 5 is still valid with trump in charge.

But have they actually become more threatening to other European nations?

Russia's regime has already made statements threatening or questioning the borders of Poland and the Baltic states, in addition to numerous other threatening moves it has made in recent years -- including Medvedev's recent threat to turn Kyiv into a "lump of lead", which would no doubt have direct consequences for Europe.

For more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41588834

So to answer your question: "Yes".

While of course many of the utterings that came from some side are stirrers of concern,

one should also remember they have a piece of doctrine called "escalate to de-escalate" - which also involves a strange framework for the interpretation of statements. This also makes the trolling confusing to the decrypter.

Maybe we are talking past each other.

In my view, talking shit and murdering a few hundred civilians is not "threathening a nation", the same way Ukraine is not threatening Russia (as a nation) right now.

Being able to install a puppet government would be a big threat. Economical control (=> like gas) would be a smaller one. Complete military conquest would be the biggest one.

All of the above look now actually less likely than 10 years ago to me (judging with hindsight).

Maybe we are talking past each other.

We certainly are.

In my view, "talking shit" about invading additional countries, while actually engaged in a large-scale invasion of a neighboring country (on top of a centuries-long history of actually invading and occupying those countries) cannot be interpreted as anything other than directly threatening those nations.

Yes absolutely, but threatening more often does not make them a bigger threat.

I'm not saying that they are harmless (being a nuclear power, obviously!), but I strongly believe that they are less of a threat to EU-nations than they were 10 years ago-- they basically played their whole hand in the Ukraine, collected some experience, lost some equipment, threw away and ruined countless lifes, and now, pretty much regardless of what happens in the next years, they are in a weaker position and less of a threat to any european country than 10 years ago.

Disagree, based on the increased frequency/belligerence of the regime's threats, and its increasingly delusional and irrational tone and behavior generally over this time period.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com