Hacker News Reader

Comment by musikele | Hacker News Reader

speaking about defending ourselves: there's a huge gap between "willing to defend" and "actually be able to defend" ourselves

View on HN

Those are not different things, "willing to defend" is just the prerequisite of "actually be able to defend". Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves. Look at Iran, how resilient they are despite decades of sanctions and their shitty regime.

When things start moving people can move mountains, suddenly the unemployment goes to %0 like it happened with Russia, market forces get dominated by state forces, moats like network effect or IP go to the trash.

> Look at Ukraine, how weak they were and how good they defended themselves.

How can you type such nonsense? Look at 2014 Crimean annexation - thats "how good they defended themselves" without western training and billions in weapon aid. After four years they have million plus dead but "this is fine" for the west.

There was no fight in Crimea, Russians rented a base there and one day decided not to extend the rental agreement and that they own Crimea now. Most of the Ukrainian soldiers switched sides and joined Russia and it was over without a bullet fired.

So US may decide that they now own Germany because they have the Ramstein Air base but I don't think it will go as smoothly.

There are old videos from the time on Youtube, check it out.

[citation needed] - if I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain..., the only source that says that there are more than 1 million killed and wounded (!) Ukrainian soldiers is the Russian Ministry of Defense, which I wouldn't consider very trustworthy...

Fair. I stand corrected. First casualty of war is always the truth so both sides will lie.

Ukraine is essentially acting as a human shield for the EU right now. My friends in the SBU/ National Guard are terrified, even though they haven’t even seen combat yet. They’re stationed in a city that’s essentially 50% Russian. Even a civilian could shoot them in the back.

Ukrainians don't act as a human shield for EU, if they wanted to be part of Russia they could have joined them(like Crimea and Donbas tbf, but since there wouldn't be claims on the Ukrainian territory anymore it wouldn't be a war).

EU doesn't force anyone to fight for them, it enables those countries that are not part of Russia, don't want to be part of Russia and are willing to fight Russian aggression to eventually be independent countries and member of EU.

May I ask from which country you are, you are talking of position that implies that Ukrainians don't have agency. It's a Russian talking point(that is "Ukrainians couldn't have chosen to join NATO and EU by themselves since they don't have agency, EU tricked them or NATO forced them to fight Russia, therefore Russia isn't the agressor but the defender here against the EU/NATO aggression").

What does free will have to do with it? I know a lot of Ukrainians, and many of them are disappointed in the EU’s support. Let me say it again: I have friends who are fighting, and they often blame the EU for the lack of support—there aren’t enough people, you see. It’s a meat grinder; they need more equipment and automated systems! Just imagine how hard it must be for them right now, with Russian FPV-drones flying all over the city.

I don't think your friends are being reasonable, why would they think that EU should send manpower to fight Ukraine's war? I agree that EU should do more but EU also doesn't even have army. EU is currently doing things that it isn't even build to do, if eventually EU becomes a superstate then they can help more substantially but unfortunately EU isn't there yet.

People expect EU to do much more that EU can do by design, EU is bunch of sovereign states that coordinate and only some of those states have considerable military power but even those countries politics wouldn't allow much. AFD is pro-Russian party that is the most popular political power in Germany which means EU doesn't have the power and Germany is divided and this goes for almost all countries. Just recently in Bulgaria(which sent substential military help to Ukraine in early days of the war) the pro-Russian political power won in a landslide and today they announced that they cut all the support for Ukraine(they will keep selling though).

EU isn't the thing many people believe it is.

No one is saying that the EU should send troops, but you need to understand that your security depends directly on all the aid you provide to Ukraine. Specifically, on the people who are dying and holding Russia back with their very lives! If they stop doing so, Ukraine will lose territory, and once it loses enough of it, Estonia, for example, will be next. And by then, you and I might even be fighting against the Russians.

I agree with you, Ukraine is essential for the European security and EU should do whatever they can to make Ukraine win but unfortunately EU isn't as integrated as USA yet, countries are still nationalistic entities and EU still needs huge reforms.

The American betrayal(as it is perceived) may push EU into becoming that but it's not there. At it's current form EU does the most it can.

Which country are you from?

Oh ... well the EU is not actually giving Ukraine much money at all. They are loaning money to them. The reward for Ukrainians' services and lives will be a century of paying back loans to the EU. Still better than being part of Russia, I guess, but.

Why "free will" is critical, is because before Russia attacked, the Ukrainian government had the sense to not in a million years accept such a terrible deal from the EU. As to how free that will really is when constantly under fire with Europe refusing to help it (despite things like the Budapest memorandum) ... is not being discussed.

This has caused a number of EU countries, like Poland and Finland, to decide that a nuclear program to get working ICBMs is a lot cheaper than counting on EU and US goodwill when they're attacked.

Ukraine is also doing a "Chinese-style" nuclear program. The idea is to get every component of ICBMs working. Ukraine, for historical reasons, needs uranium enrichment (it's either that or rebuilding two dozen nuclear reactors). So Ukraine is getting into China's/Japan's position right before they got nukes. Ukraine also has engineers that have actually designed working nuclear bombs. Meaning they're getting to the point that they "don't have nukes, BUT ..."

With the unspoken part being that they're getting to the point where they can have 100 working ICBMs ready to launch by next month.

So we'll have the Ukrainian government, armed with nukes, and a huge involuntary and very unfair war debt to the EU.

Should be interesting negotiations.

But the free will part is critical because without the "free will under pressure" Ukraine would never make itself so incredibly indebted to the EU. And we'll get to see nuclear interest-rate negotations!

> EU is not actually giving Ukraine much money at all

You are confusing the latest 90B loan with all the other help. Also EU found a way to go around the vetoes by individual countries sending Ukraine help under EU coordination. The grants vs loans is more like 65 to 35 as a ratio.

Also lots of other half truths and unfair commentary, whatever...

I think we need you to provide the numbers about what you consider "very unfair war debt" to the EU.

The 90B€ loan is just the latest mechanism for financial aid, there have been a lot of equipment transfers/donations from member-states, direct financial support for purchase of equipment, countries like Germany and Sweden even changed national laws to allow direct financial support (donations) to Ukraine.

The vast majority of the financial support for Ukraine has been donations, I'm not sure why you think otherwise so sharing the hard data you have could be a good start.

But we're now spending and working on this gap like crazy.

And we will end up using those weapons against eachother, again.

As if we haven't seen that film before.

Or even worse, keep selling them to Israel as Germany is doing, because one genocide was not enough and two wrongs make a right.

I don't understand why this is being downvoted. It's not unreasonable to assume that increased militarization, coupled with increased nationalistic sentiment, could lead to inner-european conflicts escalating into wars. Sure, right now Russia is the enemy, but who knows what'll happen in ten years. And the military machinery is not just going to be scaled down immediately.

If he's being downvoted for his "selling weapons to Israel" comment, I just want to highlight that even a majority of Germans is against it, with 80% not wanting to send weapons [1]. Of course there are different polls, and others find that "only" 30% say "stop them", plus another 43% saying "limit them [2]. Either way, only a small minority is pro "send all the weapons".

[1]: https://www.plan.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/80-proz... [2]: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1615302/umfra...

Follow the Yugoslavia model and ship soldiers from each country to live and work with each other in their first years in military service.

Then again… Yugoslavia maybe not the best example here…

> I don't understand why this is being downvoted.

Wars and military matters are literally life and death. I try not to speculate about downvotes, but here I expect there are people who are primed to get quite emotional when someone tells them they shouldn't start arming up.

By defending ourselves you mean defending my own family or being some pawn in politicians game dying for their wishes?

I am willing to defend my family.

I am certainly not even willing to defend ANY country just because local politicians are afraid of incoming new management, no matter whether it's my home country or country where I currently reside, I have no allegiance to any country, only to my family. Sadly majority of people are brainwashed, if there were more people like me there would be zero wars, just local crimes.

The history of not defending against incoming new management is not good for zero wars - google Sudetenland for example. If you want zero wars you're probably better being like Switzerland - defend your own country but don't go fighting abroad.

Incoming new management works only because some willing to fight for greater good, safety... whatever establishment propagate.

Not sure why you mention Sudetland?

It was an area they let Hitler effectively occupy without going to war. The Donetsk People's Republic of its day. Not fighting over that only delayed the main war a little.

Fighting over that might kill my grandparents.

Psychologically, becoming a soldier will be difficult for everyone; if Russia launches an offensive against the EU, the regular army alone will not be enough.

Yeah that Schrodinger Russia again: it is being stuck for years, unable to take some small village in Donetsk region, and simultaneously is a grave threat that looms over Europe, ready to quickly overrun their capital cities.

It’s not that Russia is strong because of its economy or its military. The point is that it is strong like a criminal, a mugger with a knife on the streets of Frankfurt. Or, if you will, a pigeon playing chess with you—it will scatter all the pieces and defecate on the board, then strut around like a winner with its chest puffed out. That’s Russia for you; it will simply use the dirtiest tactics that Europeans aren’t used to. Also look at the EU’s military exercises—the soldiers aren’t really ready for drone attacks yet.

Thank you for proving my point. Great example of double-think!

> it will simply use the dirtiest tactics that Europeans aren’t used to.

In 21st century warfare, what exactly is considered a 'dirty', and what is considered an 'honorable' tactic? Is there an objective definition?

Yup, they still haven't run out of those washing machine chips they use, Russia must be washing machine superpower.

...at least if you believe EU/UA propaganda.

It's funny how they yesterday or day before yesterday annouced 21st round of Russian sanctions.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Imagine you are so dumb, you do it 21 times and expect voters will take yous eriously and keep supporting if they paid it 21 times from their own wallets.

> if Russia launches an offensive against the EU

With what?

Russia has been wringing itself out to find enough soldiers to continue the war in Ukraine, and while they haven't been driven out just yet, I think it would be somewhere between "a massive stretch" and "flat-out untrue" to say they're winning.

And by and large, the rest of Europe is farther away, has a much worse/less clear casus belli from Russia's point of view, and, crucially, is part of NATO, and thus will not be fighting alone (and yes, I know Ukraine is getting a lot of support from Europe, but support isn't the same as boots on the ground).

If Russia launches an offensive against the EU, there's a damn good chance that offensive boomerangs right back around into its face.

Using Geran drones, missiles, and aerial bombs, for example. I think you need to understand that the EU’s air defense system isn’t designed to engage so many low-value targets with such expensive air defense systems. We need fundamentally new, mobile systems, and we need to recruit more people and train them. It’s not that simple.

Don't underestimate the potential for a Russian dictator to cause suffering for his own people.

The war in Ukraine is currently in stalemate and for Russia the most deadly war since WW2, but Russia until now didn't execute full mobilization and full scale war. The cost of full scale war would be terrible, deaths in WW2 were counted in millions (for both soldiers and civilians). Russia didn't launch an offensive against the Europe (especially Baltic states and Poland), because they are still under US nuclear umbrella.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

> Don't underestimate the potential for a Russian dictator to cause suffering for his own people.

Oh, I don't, believe me! But the thing is, Putin is already doing this.

AIUI, he has been conscripting soldiers to fight in Ukraine for quite some time—to the point that he's had a hard time finding more conscripts already. I don't think there's much more he can do to force Russians onto the battlefield for him, wherever that battlefield is.

But he's been careful not to conscript from the big cities, for political reasons. He could raise a lot more conscripts... but there would be political consequences that he probably wouldn't like.

So there are real constraints on what Putin is able (or at least willing) to do.

Also, AIUI (and I could well be wrong), he at least says that he's not sending the conscripts to actually fight in Ukraine. Whether that's actually true... I have no data.

I guess the operative warning here would be "Don't underestimate the potential for the Russian people to cause problems for Putin."

He's got barely tapped reserves in NK and PRC.

I guess nobody disagrees that Europe needs to have a better footing with regards to both production and employment. But is there a real political will? It would require a nuclear arsenal and I don't really see many countries in the EU wanting to go that way. The only one who seem to want to go that route are Poland, and they know WHY they want nukes - see the history they have with Russia.

France has an independent nuclear deterrent.

I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3 and (b) discourage nuclear proliferation by anyone, and now because the Americans have thrown security out the window in exchange for freedom to bully, we have to reverse course on both of those?

> I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3

That policy lasted less than a single decade. Germany was encouraged to re-arm as soon as 1950 inofficially and 1955 officially.

And I think even before 1950 there was a feeling, particularly in the US, that it was good to have the Germans on-side in a military conflict due to their recent experience fighting the Soviets.

France and UK have a nuclear arsenal. France specifically has said they are willing to extend their policy to cover other EU countries.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o

The long term viability of the UK nukes does rather depend on support from the US though - they use our own fissile material, but the warhead designs are believed to largely be based on the US W76 and the actual Trident missiles come from a pool controlled by the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com