Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

There is a theme here - these predictions don't account for the existence of Asia. Chinese military planners have probably noticed that after it is done with Russia the US will be focusing on China. It is very favourable to them to fight the US in a proxy war rather than with Chinese troops. The resources the US is using to try to coerce Russia are probably the same that it will use against China, so if the US fails in Russia it may be exhausted of the ability to resist China.

If I were China's (one of the world's largest creditors, I might note) leadership then there is a pretty good chance I would backstop Russia's debt in this case just to see how badly it hurts the US. Bonus points that then there is financial leverage over a resources superpower who's resources are needed for China's industry.

View on HN

> if the US fails in Russia it may be exhausted of the ability to resist China

Russia exposed the West’s military unpreparedness. We’re correcting to the tune of trillions of collective dollars of defence investment.

> then there is financial leverage over a resources superpower who's resources are needed for China's industry

China already practically has this. That said, yes—the article’s analysis fails to account for a likely Chinese bail-out of the Russian banking system.

The US started this war ~$30 trillion in debt, with the worlds largest military budget by a big margin. Colour me sceptical that billions more dollars will help. The US tried that, it didn't work out. Last I saw, the interest on the debt was higher than its military spending; from the peanut gallery it looks more like more spending will get them a classic over-extension and collapse.

The US wants to live in a backwards world where massive debtors can sustain wars indefinitely but creditors will get exhausted. It'd be great for them if that works, but I'd tag that sort of thinking as a big contributing factor in Trump returning to the White House. They don't seem to have the juice to pull a war with Russia off.

Not sure how any of this is relevant to what we were just discussing.

> US wants to live in a backwards world where massive debtors can sustain wars indefinitely but creditors will get exhausted

Weird side street to get lost in while discussing Russia getting financially bailed out by China.

>They don't seem to have the juice to pull a war with Russia off.

My brother in Christ, Russia can’t even pull off a war with its much smaller neighbor who is using NATO’s scraps and hand-me-downs.

I have a tough time seeing it. That requires me to believe that NATO is unhappy about Russia invading Ukraine, capable of turning Russia back and actively choosing not to. But willing to make a mortal enemy of the Russian military by getting a lot of Russians killed. And actively spinning up new military capability because, while obviously they aren't in a hard spot, they need to move to a better place ASAP.

I have a much easier time believing that NATO has given Ukraine all the support it can and it wasn't enough to halt the Russian advance. The Russians are clearly paying a terrible price, but NATO doesn't believe it can charge any more than that.

Russia captured barely more than 4000 sq km of territory in all of 2024. Seems like Ukraine is doing quite well halting the Russian advance and making them pay a terrible price.

Why is no one talking about Ukranian debt? Billions of foreign debt that keeps piling on while their Economy is reliant on EU and US donations/debt to even function.

What is the end goal? What happens when Zelenskys friends are no longer in power? How does Zelensky plan to repay his debts during/after war??? Become a satellite state like Japan and S.Korea??

Nobody’s talking about it because they aren’t the aggressor. They didn’t make this choice. They are fighting for their survival.

Russia on the other hand…

That would make sense if you were a Ukranian gov official trying to get more money.

At the end, it's Ukraine who is dependent on and in debt of EU and US.

As long as the conflict goes on, politicians gets their cut, no one talks about it but once everything cools down there would be lot of questions regarding who pays what.

OK buddy. Cope harder

Japan and South Korea are in no sense satellites. They are strong rich liberal democracies that choose to stay in an alliance with the US because it makes sense for them.

Ukraine may be a flawed liberal democracy but it is a liberal democracy. Ukraine will join the EU after the war. The rebuilding EU subsidies and anti corruption measures that will need to take place to join the EU will significantly grow the economy.

The end goal is the defeat of Russia and then giving up conquering their neighbors. And that Ukraine will remain a liberal democratic state.

Zelensky will be out of office someday, he's not a dictator like Putin. Some of the debt will be forgiven the rest will be repaid someday. A state has a long lifespan and can repay large loans over that lifespan especially if the economy significantly improves. It may take a 100 years

This is a video you should watch:

"Escalation management and Biden’s strategy for Ukraine"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZ402BMSs8

See it as Ukraine being drip-fed western weapons in just enough quantities to completely tie up Russia.

That is saying the same thing from the US's perspective. They've worked out what they are capable of doing and they're working to it. The US military leadership doesn't believe they can go beyond that. If they thought they could do anything more they would.

Also the gentleman's dismissal of red line escalation seems unsound. From a game theory perspective the argument is full of holes.

You truly did not watch the video?

The point is that the EU and especially the US could do way more, but they are not doing it due to escalation management.

They are perfectly happy to keep Russia occupied bleeding themselves dry. The last thing the west wants is a cornered Russia lashing out with nuclear weapons or suddenly collapsing.

It is a very calculated slow collapse for Russia.

Well, sure. If the US wants to start uncontrolled escalation against a nuclear power there is a lot they can do. But if we take as a fairly obvious truth that they can't do that, we discover that they're at the limit of what they can do. Their command doesn't think they can handle a war with Russia. And they don't have the ability to stabilise the front lines in Ukraine.

Nah, just like Russia slowly boiled its citizens into the current state, we can slowly boil Russia into a complete breakdown. Recent permission to use western weapons on Russian soil is an example.

I don't know if you remember the 2003 invasion of Iraq? That was maybe the last time the US military made much of an effort and it was a scary thing to be on the wrong side of. A bit of video here https://youtu.be/m8KimNtB9HI

Iraq with approx 1.3 million troops and a lot of Russian equipment collapsed in a month or so. The problems there were not that the US side had much problem destroying Iraq so much as they had a tough job rebuilding after. There are probably similar concerns here.

The comparison is certainly relevant, but I disagree with the lessons you want to draw. What we saw in Iraq was just how willing the Americans are to escalate into a major war with no provocation or, indeed, prospect of gain. It is quite significant that they don't feel they are able to pull the same sort of mindless violence against Russia - we've put bounds on what the US military is capable of. It can handle a small naiton like Iraq, it can't manage Russia and given that they seem to be balking at an Iran invasion they are probably anchored somewhere around there before their ability to directly confront a nation runs out.

Also notice that the US was in a much more dominant international position 20 years ago. They had a level of moral and economic leadership that they ceded through the early part of the 21st century - the moral part mainly because of the thuggery in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had a replay we might discover that they can't even handle Iraq any more, I doubt the Russia & the Asians would take it on the chin quite so willingly.

US soldiers handled the Russians quite easily in Syria, remember Khasham?

There's a difference between not wanting to do a war because it would be very expensive in terms of lives and money and not being capable. The US doesn't want those wars but does have the tech. Russia is of course worry because of nukes and no one really wants NYC and Moscow flattened.

> See it as Ukraine being drip-fed western weapons in just enough quantities to completely tie up Russia.

Been saying this for years now. A quick win, or a quick loss, means Russia has time to recoup losses and rearm for the next engagement, likely Ukraine round 3, etc.

Instead, keep them tied up and burning through the massive Soviet surpluses of hardware, strain the already shaky economy, and accelerate the already-happening demographic collapse. Russian arms trades are already suffering, and several countries have cancelled their orders -- they know they won't get them, or have seen the goods in action and don't want them. And then there is the shot in the arm for NATO funding -- Europe is re-arming -- and has Sweden and Finland in the club as well.

The Russians aren't dumb and are willing to take some hardship, and have thus far been able to get around some of the demographic losses by using prisoners and ethnic minorities. Trade with India and China has thus far kept up, and China, too, is getting a shot in the arm via cheap oil and an imputus to innovate drone tech. Looking like Spanish Civil War 2.0 in a lot of ways...

I don't remember f35 in ukraine, nor the latest anti-air defenses, the only thing there are technology from the 80s

What is your preferred out outcome for the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Why are you testing loyalties? What roenxi does is the same speculation that is done daily by the U.S. state department and the CIA. It is tiresome in 2025.

Well I suppose the ideal state would be that people conclude war is expensive and brutal then we enter a sort of global pacifist state. But if you want me to get myself in to trouble I'm happy to oblige because someone has to keep saying it:

1) Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. It was stupid strategy and eventually got them invaded.

2) They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying.

3) They should still surrender on day 1,050. That'd get them a much worse deal and they've suffered who knows how many 100,000s of casualties for nothing. But it'd at least be over.

4) If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far the worst case is the other side of the coin flip on things like:

> The U.S. intelligence pointed to a 50% chance that Putin would use tactical nukes...

~ https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nu...

and there are a lot of deaths. I mean, hopefully Bob Woodward is a known liar because that is not a can of worms to open over questions like whether Moscow controls Kyiv. Many of us have lived in a world where Moscow controled Kyiv, it isn't that wildly new. While terrible it just isn't that big an issue. We've coped with the US invading multiple random countries in the Middle East, and while it is icky and unpleasant it is not as bad as the tactical nuke taboo breaking or something like the million casualties we're seeing in the Ukraine war from the West's policy of escalation.

" Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. "

Citation please. This sounds exactly like the lies Putin says to justify the invasion.

"They should have surrendered on day 1."

So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"?

"If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far "

What decisions would those be? Zelensky has done a very good job in a very difficult situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-...

Or refer to Trump Impeachment 1, the fuss at the time involved sending military aid to Ukraine.

> So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"?

Yes. If a bloody loss is inevitable that is explicitly what I'm saying. If we were invaded by the likes of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea then I'd probably be OK with fighting. But we were going to be the site of a proxy war the smart thing to do is fold immediately and ask the majors to go elsewhere. Australia wouldn't survive a China-US proxy war if it has reached the point of an actual invasion, we'd be better off surrendering and making do. Although I'd be pointing that out after having attempted to flee the country for obvious reasons.

The link you provide was AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine. You can't use the actions of a country to defend against and invasion to JUSTIFY the invasion. Well, Russia does, but it doesn't actually make sense to do so.

Ukrainians understand better than anyone just how much you DO NOT want to be under the thumb of Putin. I don't blame them for fighting back.

And this isn't, or at least did not start out as a "Russia-US proxy war". Ukraine is a sovereign country that sensibly wanted to forge strong ties to Europe and the West. For selfish and egotistical reasons Putin hated that idea and his puppet was going to ignore this desire so Ukrainians kicked him out.

You can't justify the war with actions taken before the war either, the technical term for that is "unjustifiable".

But what the Ukrainian politicians then did wasn't sensible. They've been broken. They have some of the poorest political leadership we've seen out of any country so far in the 21st century. They've managed to transition their country from comfortable and improving to a smouldering wreck. At every turn they've managed to find an option that leaves them unambiguously worse off than they were before. It is a case study in diplomatic failure and what not to do when threatened by a larger, more militarily competent neighbour.

" They've managed to transition their country from comfortable and improving to a smouldering wreck."

No that was Russia. What you are doing is blaming a women for being punched in the face because she fought back against a rapist.

Ukraine is a country with army, navy and airforce, therefore not a woman. They are not as big as US or Russia.

Ukranian politicians were extremely corrupted[1][2] and they would rather align with money than maintain a stable relation with both countries.

Now they are fighting a proxy war on life support while their Economy runs to ground.

[1] https://kyivindependent.com/top-10-political-scandals-of-202...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2024/01/28/1227447442/ukraine-says-corru...

An invasion of your own country is not be definition a "proxy war". It is a matter of life and death.

You sound exactly like Putin. How strange.

Putin's moronic invasion of Ukraine has done a huge amount of damage to Russia's economy. Russia's per capita GDP could be double what it is if Putin wasn't such a complete moron.

At this point, it is a proxy war. Ukraine is running on US/EU loans and weapons. Even their targets decided by Washington.

Corruption cases among top ranks of Ukr government isn't helping either.

Hezbollah attacking Israel is acting as a proxy for Iran because they have no other reason to attack Israel (just ask Hassan Nasrallah). Ukraine fighting Russia is not because they don't want Russia in their country.

You make some reasonable points but they are mixed in with extremely typical Russia talking points like "Corruption cases among top ranks of Ukr government isn't helping either." You want corruption? Putin's wealth is impossible to estimate because he can take money directly from the Russian treasure and also force many oligarchs to let him user their yachts and homes.

Israel is taking over Palestine and nearby countries with support from US and EU. They are using hostages as an excuse[1]. So let's not go there.

Ukraine proposed to join NATO and EU about a year before war. Both of which could bring significant money to Ukr.

> extremely typical Russia talking points like... You want corruption? Putin's wealth...

Once again, Ukraine is in debt of EU/US, NOT Russia or Putin. Corruption in Ukraine matters cause it's international debt.

Top level Ukr officials are making billions, purchasing properties in EU and going on vacation while thier soldiers are running out of supplies. And who/how do you think this debt would be paid back? Who is profiting from this war?

[1]https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/ben-gvir-outrage-blocked-h...

Russia should have surrendered on day 1 of the kursk invasion. Dont you agree?

Maybe. I want to agree with the proposition but you've put a negative in the question, so I don't know if that means I say yes or no here.

> They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying.

No, many more would have died. It's not even a speculation at this point, but a reasonable conclusion that is solidly grounded in facts. Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea put up little resistance in 2014 and that didn't save them. Their male population was forcibly conscripted to fight against Ukraine and has been decimated by the deliberately wasteful way they were used. Russia hit three bird with one stone: a) physically got rid of Ukrainians, Tatars and other people loyal to Ukraine, b) reduced the number of Russian citizens dying in the war to keep internal dissent down, c) stole the property of deceased conscripts and gave their homes to resettlers from Russia to further russify the occupied territories.

Everyone in Ukraine knows these simple truths and that's why the idea of surrendering to Russia remains out of the question. Horror stories from the occupied territories shatter any illusions about peace under Russian control.

> 2) They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying.

Well, guess what, they DID surrender on day one. This was back in early 2014. The result? Two more invasions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com