Hacker News Reader

Comment by EGreg | Hacker News Reader

2022 is also when the wars in Ukraine and Gaza started in earnest

When wars are going on, most people in affected countries are thinking about heavier things than going to an art exhibit and boosting their collections.

2020 and 2021 was when the pandemic happened. Businesses started feeling the crunch all over the world from the lockdowns. Supply chains got bullwhipped. People weren’t exactly interested in going to buy artworks after their one-time UBI checks and PPP funds ran out. And other countries didn’t send those out at all.

Oh yeah, and AI has now sent a supply shock to the whole art industry. But we can’t say that on HN, there will always be someone popping out of the woodwork claiming AI is a non-factor and saying things were always like that.

View on HN

> 2022 is also when the wars in Ukraine and Gaza started in earnest

This is just wrong for Gaza; either you take the "conflict has been running continuously since 1948" approach, or you date the present intense fighting to October 2023.

> AI has now sent a supply shock to the whole art industry

Not to the "fine art" part of it, no. It's taken out the lower and middle tiers; people doing commissions for a few hundred dollars are squeezed out, and there's much more slop to sell to tourists, but any business which cares about uniqueness and provenance (sometimes more than the content of the art!) is not going to notice.

The conflict started long before 1948. Hint: creation of the State of Israel is an effect of the conflict, not its cause.

The public is not conscious of how big of a deal the war in Ukraine is.

> The public is not conscious of how big of a deal the war in Ukraine is.

My sincerest desire is that there’s a peaceful resolution to this conflict before they’re forced to realize it.

It's not a "conflict" and there will not be a peaceful resolution of it.

Of course it's a conflict. Every war is a conflict.

Roman Empire, or Genghis Khan, or Nazi Germany did not have a "conflict" with neighbors, some kind of quarrel that can end in a compromise. They had a desire to conquer, subdue, and consume the neighbors. There could be no resolution beside a complete capitulation and becoming annexed.

Russia is currently acting in this mode. There can be no "resolution", only a devastating military defeat of one of the sides.

This, so much this. Even many smart folks don't realize this, or refuse to acknowledge since its pretty bleak viewpoint with no bright future. This war won't end just because its getting annoying, or sad, or shocking whats happening.

Russia switched fully to war economy, on purpose, there is no easy way back even if they wanted. Their goal is to conquer as much Europe as possible, losing few millions of its sub-citizens from rural remote regions is not such a concern that we in the west think about. Nobody there cares. Their enemy is whole western world, doesn't matter how much trump licks putin's a*, not a zilch.

In fact, I strongly believe that almost nobody in the west fully understands how depraved and primitive russian thinking is, think about white heroin addicted trash or common slums folks, and spread it on the level of largest nation in the world and give them huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. On top is good old mafia (and I don't mean Coppola's idealized version, I mean real murder-whole-family-in-acid-vat type), nothing more.

Now what good do you expect from that, now or in 10 years? Whatever you do, you are naive.

> how depraved and primitive russian thinking is, think about white heroin addicted trash or common slums folks, [...] and give them huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

:s/russian/american/

can we not label whole nationalities as depraved, primitive heroin addicted trash!?!

Empires have often grown without any desire to grow. Quite often empires have grown by moving against a threat close to its borders or trade routes and ends up in control of new areas, which then become part of its territories, which are then threatened....

Expansion is not uncontroversial either. The Roman Empire had periods of a non-expansionist policy, and the British Empire in the 19th century had a fairly popular Little Englander movement that opposed expansion of the empire.

The desire to grow is simply hidden behind the supposedly defensive posture of wanting to have a peaceful "buffer zone".

Why are you trying to redefine a word? My most low-effort refutal is simply to consult Webster’s Dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict

> Definition #1: : Fight, battle, war

So, having proved my point, I’ll note that (1) this war could certainly end in compromise, and (2) even a devastating military defeat would be a resolution.

And I’ll appreciate not being called an invasion-sympathizer when I’m only pointing out that using the word “conflict” is not a political statement.

I guess a robbery can be called a conflict too.

My intention was not to redefine the word, but to merely offer my opinion that this war is very unlikely to end with any kind of resolution, other than a complete defeat of one of the sides. This conflict is not like e.g. Soviet-Finnish war of 1940, when USSR annexed 10% of Finland and hostilities stopped. It's more like the Napoleonic wars on early 19th century, when Napoleon would not stop attacking, no matter how much land he had already conquered, until a comprehensive and total military defeat.

Of course things could become different if the current Russian leader dies, or is deposed.

The only peaceful resolution is Russia accepting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors.

Otherwise there will be no peace, just oppression and torture of the occupied population. And more war down the line, when Russia feels it can take another bite.

By saying this, you must understand that many more people may die for this purpose, and even yourself.

It's Russia's purpose to attack its peaceful, friendly and neutral neighbors.

No one forces Russia to attack its neighbors.

As long as Russia insists on waging war against its sovereign neighbors, Russia is a threat to Europe.

Did you read what he said? You are guaranteeing the war will continue if you reward an invasion with land.

It's just lie. If, for example, NATO gives clear guarantees to join in for Ukraine in the case of next attack(if any agreement on ending the war is reached), then there will definitely not be a next attack.

It's not a lie. It's exactly the same reason you don't let a burglar keep the stolen goods.

NATO does not even consider applicants in the middle of conflicts or even with disputed borders.

According to your theoretical, Russia could attack and immediately invalidate Ukraine's ability to join NATO by re-triggering a conflict.

Come on is this stuff really that hard?

you put your life on the line now, or you put everyone's on the line, later.

WW2 didn't have to happen, and the UK and France could have interviened sooner, before the Nazi war machine took over the Czechs, the Poles, etc.

ounce of prevention vs. a pound of cure

Reply on news.ycombinator.com