[HN Gopher] Alexei Navalny has died
___________________________________________________________________
Alexei Navalny has died
Author : 0xdeafbeef
Score : 1413 points
Date : 2024-02-16 11:34 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| 0xdeafbeef wrote:
| Jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is dead, the
| prison service of the Yamalo-Nenets region where he had been
| serving his sentence said on Friday.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| This is the Biden's red line, just like Syria was the red line
| for Obama. In 2021 he promised dangerous consequences for
| Russia if Navalny dies.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I'm not sure this situation is comparable because the US is
| already fighting a proxy war including economic sanctions
| against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with US materiel and
| funds directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of
| Russian soldiers.
|
| Pentagon estimates 300,000 Russian casualties so far.
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/world/europe/russia-
| invas...
|
| In concrete terms what would you suggest the US do now in
| order to respond to Navalny's death?
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Situation is comparable politically as an example of
| promise America probably cannot keep. There's nothing left
| to do, no additional pressure to apply. And that is going
| to have consequences for America more than for Russia.
| tim333 wrote:
| I predict crossing that line will cause Biden to do nothing
| different.
| schappim wrote:
| "Died", I suspect the more accurate term is "murdered"...
| sashazykov wrote:
| Murdered by Putin
| kergonath wrote:
| Died peacefully from natural causes, novichok, radium
| poisoning, and a shot in the back after having fallen through
| the window of an underground cell.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| Unbelievable. The world just watches.
| profunctor wrote:
| What do you want to world to do? Russia is already under
| increasingly crippling sanctions and many countries are funding
| + arming its opponent in a war.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| Everything we can.
| schappim wrote:
| What is left on the table?
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| - Europe is still consuming lots of gas that finances
| Russia's "defense" budget.
|
| - There's also a lot of other business with Russia that
| is not sanctioned.
|
| - Ukraine does not have enough ammunition.
|
| - There are so called neutral countries that should not
| be neutral.
| unmole wrote:
| > There are so called neutral countries that should not
| be neutral.
|
| Why?
| schappim wrote:
| I think you'll find that even the neutral countries are
| providing support to Ukraine via the backdoor (eg Swiss
| with their armour going via DE).
|
| I believe the strategy that the powers at be are
| attempting is to keep Russia occupied in Ukraine for as
| long as possible without major escalation. Without
| assigning morality, it seems like a tough balancing act
| to achieve.
| Gasp0de wrote:
| The US could stop Taiwan from selling ammunition
| manufacturing machinery to Russia
| ed_balls wrote:
| And Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Japan. Siemens CNC
| machines are making cruise missles instead of train
| parts.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| And the US
| foofie wrote:
| > What is left on the table?
|
| Arming Ukraine, tighten sanctions.
|
| The world has been treating Russia with kids gloves while
| it should be treating it as the drunken nuisance it is.
| lucasRW wrote:
| Not so sure. I remember that pulling the plug on SWIFT
| was seen and talk about, as "the nuclear option" that no
| one thought would be used.
| thriftwy wrote:
| It wasn't done to the full extent (Raiffeisenbank for
| starters) and does look petty.
|
| "We are not confiscating your money from the bank but
| when you call to withdraw them, we will pretend we can't
| hear you on the phone".
| bbsz wrote:
| There're countless studies conducted during the Ukraine-
| Russia war pointing out what sectors to hit with full
| export ban to grind Russian military capability to a halt
| (e.g Austrian GFM manufacturing equipment for artillery
| barrels production). But this is very politicized
| discussion. Obviously companies will want to protect
| their interests and politicians prefer to make strong and
| visible statements in place of the working ones (like,
| freezing Russian assets outside of Russia does very
| little damage to Russia itself right now, compared to,
| say, decimating their heavy equipment supply chain)
|
| Business is separate from war (see Sweden's metallurgy
| industry during WW2).
| neovialogistics wrote:
| Military intervention or something else?
| comonoid wrote:
| You cannot attack a country with nuclear arsenal. This is
| what really allows Putin to be so aggressive.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| A lot of things of "you cannot do" have already been
| proven to be false.
| comonoid wrote:
| You have only one try in this case.
| squarefoot wrote:
| You _can_ attack a country with nuclear weapons, provided
| you use only conventional ones, then threaten to escalate
| to nuclear if they do that. Nuclear weapons are the
| ultimate threat which would ensure mutual severe damage
| if not destruction if used, therefore nobody uses them
| first unless they 're completely nuts, or they're
| cornered. Putin is a criminal but he's far from being
| crazy, and as for now is surely also far from being
| cornered. Surgical attacks in Russia with conventional
| weapons would undermine his powers and create enough
| public disapproval to facilitate a coup from within, but
| should be done with extreme care and up to a certain
| point in order not to trigger a nuclear response. Sadly,
| even using conventional weapons, the number of deaths
| would be huge; it is entirely possible that Putin would
| sacrifice millions of innocents sending them to the front
| line before giving up, also because when dictators give
| up they usually die shortly after.
| sesm wrote:
| 'Surgical attacks in Russia with conventional weapons'
| using drones/rockets are already happening. They have the
| opposite effect of what you discribe.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Black/Azov Sea aside, they're not touching the area where
| the power resides, which is usually needed to weaken the
| leader image. Last bombing in Belgorod is probably just
| an error, but in any case it accomplishes nothing aside
| giving more fuel for Russian propaganda.
| __loam wrote:
| Congratulations, you just triggered nuclear Armageddon
| and ended modern civilization.
| stavros wrote:
| Maybe that's for the best.
| __loam wrote:
| I should clarify that I'm not defending Russian actions
| or trying to be a useful idiot here, there just are red
| lines that if crossed, a nuclear power will respond with
| nuclear force. The same is true for China, the US, and
| even smaller powers like Pakistan.
|
| I support sending Ukraine more ammo to defend its
| sovereignty. Appeasement is also bad.
| foofie wrote:
| > Military intervention or something else?
|
| Military intervention is not required. Just give Ukraine
| what it needs to repel the Russian invasion and let Putin
| face his Russian czar fate.
| Clubber wrote:
| Manpower is what Ukraine needs.
| terafo wrote:
| Wrong. Shells, artillery, drone components, engineering
| vehicles, tanks, APCs, jets, long-range missiles, anti-
| air defenses. 10x that and Ukraine starts winning again.
| 10x manpower won't do that.
| ed_balls wrote:
| There isn't much more we can do. NATO could end Russia with
| more weapons and making a defence deal with Saudis in
| exchange for price dumping of oil and gas[1].
|
| But no one wants a nuclear state to fail. Moscow must be
| terrified of another coup d'etat, hence Navalny's death.
|
| [1]extracting, insurance and delivery cost for Saudis are
| about $17 and for Russia it maybe as high as $40 now.
| mamonster wrote:
| Why would Saudi go against Russia for doing something
| they do themselves, i.e murdering opposition(Khashogi)?
| Similarly, why would this be the trigger when the Saudi
| experience shows US is fine with it?
| lukasm wrote:
| In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. The
| number one problem for SA is security. The state is
| fragile. Wahabi, Muslim Brotherhood, tribes that hate
| House of Saud. Secondly, Iran possess a direct threat,
| Houthi could destroy critical infrastructure. $$$$ spent
| on military doesn't help - they lost the war in Yemen.
|
| SA is on a lookout for allies: Defence partnership with
| Pakistan which probably end up in a nuclear technology
| transfer or purchase of atomic weapons.
|
| If USA would give better security guarantees to SA
| (similar to Jordan) with some tech transfer, SA would
| increase the output by 2x, which would result in $45 per
| barrel.
| mamonster wrote:
| Wahhabism isn't an internal threat to Saudi, like at all.
| It's their export ideology and it is not at all appealing
| to the citizens of one of the best welfare states in the
| world. Wahhabism in actual Saudi is completely different
| to what gets exported.
|
| As for Iran, seems like recently there has been a
| rapprochement(mediated by China), will need to see where
| it leads. It's pretty clear to me SA is on the lookout
| for allies, but US is low on their list, as they
| realised(correctly) that all the human rights issues in
| Russia exist there as well and might get tackled by the
| West in a decarbonised future.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > It's their export ideology
|
| Not anymore after MBS came to power. Wahabhi missionary
| worm was a King Fahd policy (and why so many foreign
| mosques are named after him).
|
| > it is not at all appealing to the citizens of one of
| the best welfare states in the world
|
| Not to most, but it's definetly appealing to a small
| subset similar to how White Nationalism is appealing to a
| small subset of Americans.
|
| The religious reforms post-2017 have been massive [0],
| and the fact that shows like Masameer or Bait Tahrir are
| being openly produced is a testament to that fact
|
| > As for Iran, seems like recently there has been a
| rapprochement(mediated by China)
|
| Only limited to Yemen. The relationship post-
| rapprochement was still fairly shaky and went down the
| gutter once 10/7 happened [1]
|
| > pretty clear to me SA is on the lookout for allies, but
| US is low on their list
|
| Yea no. Saudi is still continuing with US lead Israel-
| Saudi normalization [2] along with pushing for a US
| Defense Pact similar to what Japan has [3]
|
| [0] - https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/07/saudi-
| arabia-s-reli...
|
| [1] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/12/saudi-iran-
| rapprochemen...
|
| [2] - https://www.mei.edu/publications/saudi-israel-
| normalization-...
|
| [3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-
| arabia-pushe....
| mamonster wrote:
| I think the notion that US Defense Pact is a sign of the
| countries being true allies needs to be examined. It's
| clear what the benefit for Saudi is, but it isn't so
| clear what the benefit for the US is/what the cost for
| Saudi is(beyond spending money on US arms which they
| wanted to do anyway).
|
| The reason why I say this: Around the time of the price
| cap on Russian oil US was already asking Saudi to pump
| supply so that Russian budget would suffer, and of course
| Saudis didn't do anything. I think MBS is going fully
| down the Erdogan/Orban route where he is nominally "West
| aligned" but is going to be playing both sides as much as
| he can. When I said allies I meant someone who they would
| have reciprocal relationships with(which IMO isn't really
| the case with US atm).
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Around the time of the price cap on Russian oil US was
| already asking Saudi to pump supply so that Russian
| budget would suffer, and of course Saudis didn't do
| anything
|
| You're overreading into what is a fairly routine demand
| and response.
|
| Saudi is in the process of implementing MBS's Vision 2030
| [0], which requires a lot of financing, and oil prices
| have been dropping significantly over the last few years.
|
| Most US allies outside of Europe are indifferent to
| Russia because the bigger bad to them is China or local
| rivalries.
|
| Even in the US, Ukraine (and Israel and China) almost
| never comes up in conversations outside of Reddit.
| Adviika and much of the Russia-Ukraine war is barely
| mentioned in any mainstream American news because it
| doesn't hold much relevance to most Americans compared to
| domestic concerns [1]
|
| > allies I meant someone who they would have reciprocal
| relationships with(which IMO isn't really the case with
| US atm)
|
| Nothing you've said is proof to the contrary. Oil price
| decreases are always a no-go for Saudi given that 75% of
| state revenue is financed by oil.
|
| [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Vision_2030
|
| [1] - https://apnews.com/article/2024-top-issues-poll-
| foreign-poli...
| mamonster wrote:
| I mean that's kind of my point. I don't really understand
| what the point of calling US and Saudi allies is when
| this clearly only extends to the Iran issue in which
| Saudi is only too happy to freeload on US commitments to
| the region/Israel as it matches their goals. Its also my
| more general point, US doesn't really have a lot of
| allies in the sense "I help you out you help me out",
| most of these so-called "allies" are interested in
| freeloading on US's back as much as possible whilst
| trying to get as much from Russia/China elsewhere as
| possible.
|
| >Oil price decreases are always a no go for Saudi
|
| Factually false, remember 2015? Saudis tried to kill US
| shale pretty aggressively.
| alangibson wrote:
| To be fair, a nuclear state did fail. The US launched a
| program to help secure nuclear material and it more or
| less worked out.
|
| You could argue that if the Russian state failed then a
| group of nations could literally just buy their nukes
| from whatever gangsters ever up in charge.
| ed_balls wrote:
| I'd argue USSR collapse was a messy dissolution. A
| failure would be: Tatarstan declares independence,
| regular fighting in the streets of Moscow for months.
| foldr wrote:
| The US Congress could pass the Ukraine funding package.
| That's one obvious thing.
| ethanbond wrote:
| You can and should blame the Republicans. Congress isn't
| the problem. Republicans are.
| foldr wrote:
| I didn't say anything about who was or wasn't to blame.
| My point is just that it's weird to say "there's not much
| more we can do" when that funding package is still in
| limbo.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You didn't say it, but it _is_ the Republicans that are
| to blame. They seem to believe that obstruction is a form
| of government. And the weirdest thing is that their
| supporters seem to believe this is true.
| foldr wrote:
| I agree, but the person I was responding to seemed to
| think that I was somehow blaming Congress in general
| rather than the Republicans, which is reading something
| into my comment that simply wasn't there.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I saw it more as a confirmation and expansion on your
| point than a contradiction.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| << They seem to believe that obstruction is a form of
| government.
|
| It may come as something of a shock to some, but US
| constitution effectively guarantees gridlock if the
| various blocks are unable to agree. It is a feature and
| not a bug.
|
| In other words, obstruction, such as it is -- last time I
| checked there were still talks about aid package slowly
| making it through house with pieces being cut out -- is a
| valid form of political expression.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Those people should open a history book or two, it might
| help them to see what their future image will be.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| History is not a set of if/then statements. It is not
| written in stone. My most charitable interpretation of
| the post is that history can be a useful heuristic, but
| to blindly assert 'future will be' x is inaccurate at
| best.
|
| I think I understand where you am coming from, but the
| post I see from you are all unnecessarily 'angry'
| presenting an opinion as an axiom. It may be worthwhile
| to take a step back and consider whether those
| contributions are useful to the community. Frankly, it
| may be detracting people from the message you intend to
| spread.
|
| edit: second paragraph spelling errors
| jacquesm wrote:
| > but the post I see from you are all unnecessarily
| 'angry' presenting an opinion as an axiom.
|
| Ah, ok so until things really derail you shouldn't be
| upset. Sorry but I'm not 'angry', I'm _ANGRY_ and that is
| mostly because I spent a long time working through my
| various family 's stories about WWII, what led up to it
| and how it all ended up and that _nobody_ that could have
| done something about it acted when they still could. This
| isn 't some kind of abstract mental exercise. If you're
| not angry that simply means you haven't thought it
| through yet.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| << I spent a long time working through my various
| family's stories about WWII
|
| I do not want to seem dismissive, but I am from the old
| country and, well, we all have family stories about WW2.
| I am not going to delve deep into into it though.
|
| << If you're not angry that simply means you haven't
| thought it through yet.
|
| I personally think it is a common misconception. Yes,
| anger can be a good catalyst and may force a person to
| act, but I am not entirely certain anger is a good
| advisor. On a personal scale, I rank it just below fear
| in terms of usefulness.
|
| My actual point: If you are angry, you are not thinking
| clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I
| find myself so.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I do not want to seem dismissive, but I am from the old
| country and, well, we all have family stories about WW2.
| I am not going to delve deep into into it though.
|
| Proceeds to be dismissive.
|
| > I personally think it is a common misconception. Yes,
| anger can be a good catalyst and may force a person to
| act, but I am not entirely certain anger is a good
| advisor. On a personal scale, I rank it just below fear
| in terms of usefulness.
|
| I don't want to be dismissive, but you are giving undue
| weight to your own opinion over those of others when you
| probably should at least give them equal weight, on the
| off chance that you are simply wrong.
|
| > My actual point: If you are angry, you are not thinking
| clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I
| find myself so.
|
| What you meant to say: "If I am angry, I am not thinking
| clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I
| find myself so."
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| << you are giving undue weight to your own opinion over
| those of others
|
| Are you sure you not projecting a tad bit here?
|
| << Proceeds to be dismissive.
|
| Would you feel better if I wrote 'too dismissive'?
|
| << What you meant to say
|
| Heh.
|
| << you are simply wrong.
|
| What exactly am I being wrong about?
|
| We established we share some ww2 background with its
| survivors and their descendants and, as a result, your
| opinion is, at best, as unimportant as mine.
|
| I think we established that emotion ( anger ) may not
| such a great way to establish whether one is paying
| attention.
|
| What did I miss?
|
| Friend, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt,
| but so far your responses are not very inspiring. Hell, I
| am not even sure what you are angry about.
|
| I mean, I can talk generalities too you know. People
| suck. See?
| brookst wrote:
| But there isn't much we can do, given the reality that a
| major US party is increasingly pro-Putin. That's a
| constraint on what we can do.
|
| We might eventually get to a place where we can
| dramatically increase support for Ukraine, but there's a
| lot that has to happen first.
| foldr wrote:
| The question that kicked off this discussion was "What do
| you want [the] world to do?" In that context it's pretty
| obvious what it means to say that the US Congress _could_
| approve more aid to Ukraine. Of course some people don 't
| want to do that. That's why it remains something that we
| could do rather than something that we're doing.
| brookst wrote:
| But the US Congress can no more approve significant aid
| to Ukraine than it can make pi == 3.
|
| In a platonic ideal world, sure. But in the world as it
| stands, this is not possible. The constraints on the
| system prohibit it as surely as if the Constitution
| specifically forbade it.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| When Russia invades Poland to create a land connection to
| Kaliningrad, just as they invaded Ukraine to create a
| land connection to Crimea, Europe will wish it had done
| 10x as much as it did.
|
| Western countries could deliver planes, Germany could
| deliver Taurus cruise missles, countries could give
| submarines in the atlantic to target Russian oil rigs
| etc.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Exactly this. They're slow-walking this thing when they
| should be decisive. Kick Orban and Hungary out of the EU
| if they keep playing silly games, make a real stand and
| stay the course. This dumb half-assed stretching the line
| is going to end up in misery.
| ben_w wrote:
| > When Russia invades Poland to create a land connection
| to Kaliningrad, just as they invaded Ukraine to create a
| land connection to Crimea, Europe will wish it had done
| 10x as much as it did.
|
| _If_ it invades Poland. Finland joining NATO makes such
| an invasion less likely, because (I 'm told) that
| membership gives NATO enough logistics to encircle
| Kaliningrad without going through the Suwalki Gap, and
| this in turn changes Kaliningrad itself from an asset
| into a liability. No, I'm not sure why
| Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia were not already sufficient for
| this.
|
| > Western countries could deliver planes, Germany could
| deliver Taurus cruise missles, countries could give
| submarines in the atlantic to target Russian oil rigs
| etc.
|
| Yes, though I've heard convincing arguments that part of
| the current Russian strategy is to keep NATO sufficiently
| worried about escalation that they focus on building up
| their own forces _instead of_ donating those same
| resources to Ukraine.
| sesm wrote:
| Why Poland instead of Lithuania?
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Because the OP _can 't into_ maps.
| schappim wrote:
| > Saudis price dumping
|
| This is a nice idea but thanks to the shale revolution
| the US is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and I
| suspect the will is not there.
|
| > insurance
|
| What percentage of energy is going out insured? It was my
| understanding that the transportation was moving to state
| owned vessels.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Russia has already failed. The mob controls the nukes,
| that's the only reason why they managed to get as far as
| they did in Ukraine. If not for that it would have been
| long over.
| tasuki wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate please?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| The mob is Putins gang. And they have access to nukes,
| which is why they dared start this expedition into the
| Ukraine in the first place.
| tryauuum wrote:
| hm.... Maybe the real solution is proving that nukes
| don't work
| jacquesm wrote:
| Even if 98% of them don't work that's still a big
| problem.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Russia is a nuclear kleptocracy, it is ruled by a mob
| that seized power in a country that was already very
| fragile but that still had a massive arsenal. If you
| think about Russia in terms of a large gang run empire it
| starts to make a lot more sense. I know plenty of
| absolutely great Russian people, the country however is
| giving me the creeps and I don't see any of it ending
| well.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions
| and many countries are funding + arming its opponent in a
| war.
|
| Supply more weapons to Ukraine? No matter what, Ukraine lacks
| resources everywhere. Tanks, long-range missiles, anti-air
| defense, artillery, ammunition.
|
| Alternatively, we can do whatever we can to assist the
| Russian opposition. _A lot_ of them have been forced into
| exile. Give them money and access to even a bit of the juicy
| stuff the CIA is bound to have on the entire Russian elite...
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Leave Ukraine?
| belter wrote:
| You could call it the Munich Agreement 2.0... -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| And Julian Assange is still in prison.
|
| Let's not pretend that Russia is the only country on the
| planet that houses political prisoners in its jails.
|
| I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but seriously,
| the west isn't any better.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Zero large entities (countries, corporations, political
| parties, etc) have clean records.
|
| We still need to fight -- or at the very least, call out --
| injustice when it happens.
|
| Pointing out Russia's misdeeds doesn't mean one thinks the
| West is innocent. It certainly is not. That's why you're
| being downvoted.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| > Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions
|
| The sanctions don't look that crippling from where I'm
| standing. Russia keeps intensifying their war effort in
| Ukraine
| inference-lord wrote:
| That's different from having a working country and well
| functioning economy. Not that you're wrong, just I don't
| think that is in indication of the sanctions being
| effective or not.
| jacquesm wrote:
| They're not nearly crippling enough. But the problem is that
| there are a lot of sanction breakers and that those get away
| with it because we allow them to. _That_ could and probably
| should stop. Obviously that will hurt the West as well but I
| 'm ok with that, there are no principles without a cost.
| SXX wrote:
| > What do you want to world to do?
|
| Support Ukraine more.
|
| Support refugees from Russia.
|
| Enact personal sanctions against 6000 war-enablers that
| Navalny team prepared:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6000_List
|
| And their families and kids who all keep their money in US,
| UK and EU.
| yolo3000 wrote:
| Refugees from Russia? They are free to travel to many
| countries, there are plenty of Russian expats in Europe,
| who also happen to support Putin
| SXX wrote:
| There are a lot of political immigrants from Russia as
| well as people who trying to avoid being drawn into army.
| And for people who left Russia back in 2022 it's just
| basically impossible to get any visas anywhere simply
| because you can't apply for one outside of Russia without
| having some other residency permit that' impossible to
| get in Georgia / Turkey and many other countries.
|
| EU still provide visas to tons of people who continue to
| live in Russia and pay taxes in Russia, but dont give any
| visas to people who left and dont support Putins regime.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| And a tourist visa is hard to get even with a residence
| permit. The consuls (rightly) see you as an immigration
| hazard. After all, you've already moved countries one
| time, who's to say you won't repeat the trick?
|
| Meanwhile in Moscow, you have a good chance to get a
| 5-year visa from France.
|
| Fun fact: the exact same phenomenon was being ridiculed
| by the White Russians, back in the 1920s. European
| countries were suspecting them of being Bolshevik, yet
| the actual Bolsheviks could come just fine.
|
| Now, of course tourist visas are not really relevant for
| emigration, but it's an example of the attitude shown
| towards us.
| rcatcher wrote:
| Russians need a travel visa to go to any Western country
| and most of the world. Some EU countries are banned
| Russians from entering; the US is not issuing travel
| visas in Russia anymore.
| SXX wrote:
| US is actually quite good on offering entry to refugees
| from Russia. At least 30,000 people from Russia entered
| US through Mexico and requested asylum in US and many got
| it. The problem is that it's only option for basically
| rich citizens of Russia because whole process is
| expensive, hard and quite dangerous.
|
| EU is much closer, but it does nothing. Putins regime
| could've lost 30-50% of it's high-skilled workforce if EU
| or UK just made it easier to immigrate. E.g literally
| 100,000s of Russian IT workforce left due to war and
| political situation, but getting actual work visas is
| hard process and outside of country of citizenship it's
| only gets harder if not impossible.
|
| But honestly west can't even help Ukraine efficiently.
| How can one expect EU to actually do anything to cripple
| Russia economy...
| Muehe wrote:
| > And their families and kids who all keep their money in
| US, UK and EU.
|
| Collective punishment is still a war crime.
| SXX wrote:
| It's not like west suppose to kill or inprison them. Just
| go after their finances and throughfully check their
| source of wealth. Lots of lots of people who are close to
| Putins regime continue to live in a west and spend money
| they get out of Russia.
| Muehe wrote:
| The Geneva Convention (part IV) is pretty clear on this
| matter:
|
| > Article 33 - Individual responsibility, collective
| penalties, pillage, reprisals
|
| > No protected person may be punished for an offence he
| or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties
| and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism
| are prohibited.
|
| > Pillage is prohibited.
|
| > Reprisals against protected persons and their property
| are prohibited.
| SXX wrote:
| KYC and AML procedures have nothing to do with Geneva
| convention. There are a lot of Putin cronies whose
| families still live in west and launder money they make
| on this war every single day.
| Muehe wrote:
| Well sure. However you didn't say go after them for money
| laundering in your OP. You said go after the families of
| war-enablers.
| SXX wrote:
| My post clearly says "enact personal sanctions".
|
| Freezing someone stolen wealth has nothing to do with a
| war crimes.
| Muehe wrote:
| Enact personal sanctions against war-enablers, which is
| fine with me by the way. But the family of war-enablers
| are not necessarily involved in their crimes. You didn't
| mention stolen wealth or money laundering at all. You
| said:
|
| > And their families and kids who all keep their money in
| US, UK and EU.
|
| Let's just say, for arguments sake, there is a child who
| is genuinely estranged from his war-enabling parents,
| living in Europe on his own dime. Should they fall under
| these sanctions? I would say no.
| kikimora wrote:
| War enablers have nothing, their families apparently have
| a lot, somehow. A strict KYC/AML would quickly find
| connections of their family wealth to Russia, Putin and
| his regime. However reality is banks forced to go after
| each and every Russian due to universal requirements
| which they have to apply to all equally. This makes any
| sort of comprehensive KYC/AML checks impossible because
| of the scale they have to applied at. These restrictions
| really target ordinary Russians while high-net-worth
| individuals find their ways around. West should dig under
| specific individual rather than doing what it does today.
| Navalny's ACF has a list to start with.
| tagyro wrote:
| To add to this: Germany is more than happy to launder
| russian money - see Deutsche Bank, Vivid money, Solaris
| Bank etc. BaFin (the financial regulatory authority in
| Germany) ignores the situation (like they did with
| Wirecard)
| tiahura wrote:
| Only if you lose.
| Muehe wrote:
| De facto? Maybe. De jure? Still a war crime.
| clarionbell wrote:
| No. Not in this case it isn't. Look up definition of war
| crimes before talking about them.
| Muehe wrote:
| I did. Now you may argue that NATO and Russia are not in
| a state of war and therefore Russian citizens do not fall
| under the definition of a protected person given in
| article 4, but then you would be saying that it is
| alright to commit war crimes during peace times. Which
| seems kind of backwards to me.
| belter wrote:
| > Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions
|
| You are surely joking...
|
| "IMF raises Russia growth outlook as war boosts economy - New
| 2024 forecast of 2.6% rise doubles previous prediction and
| prompts questions over sanctions against Moscow" -
| https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-
| cf9370931...
| The_Colonel wrote:
| It's a war economy. Russia builds a lot of tanks, mans a
| large army, pays a lot to the families of the fallen, it
| all adds a lot to the GDP.
|
| But those tanks are going to burn, they don't add value to
| the economy, won't be exchanged for foreign goods. If you
| dig a hole into the ground, you increase the GDP, war
| destruction is not much different in its value creation.
| GDP is not a perfect measure of an economy.
| mopsi wrote:
| > GDP is not a perfect measure of an economy.
|
| An often-used example of this is the crash of oil tanker
| Exxon Valdez, which in terms of GDP is one of the most
| productive sea voyages of all time.
| empath-nirvana wrote:
| A) Russia is large enough that it doesn't really need
| foreign trade to have an economy B) We -- ie "the west"
| have no control over what India and China does wrt russia.
| If they keep buying Russian oil, we can't stop them.
| SXX wrote:
| West can't even stop it's banks from servicing Russia
| financial transactions or actually ban sales of heavy
| machinery that used to produce weapons...
| rsynnott wrote:
| The sanctions on Russia can be ratcheted up a lot more,
| though there are risks to this.
| pier25 wrote:
| What crippling sanctions?
|
| It's business as usual in Russia.
|
| The Moscow malls are full of people.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| It's hard to think of any military intervention in the last 60
| years by US and their friends that left the region or country
| in a better state, Asia, South-America, Africa, Middle-east it
| all became big mess. Arguable some of that mess was by design,
| but not all.
|
| Russia is not something anyone can solve from the outside; they
| have to figure it out themselves. Same for the Europe & the US,
| there are enough things to figure out here.
| jacquesm wrote:
| There are other ways short of military intervention that can
| be quite effective.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Like what? Boycots are in place, what remains? CIA
| mingling? Taking Putin out? Any of those things are hard to
| predict and allow you to confidently steer the country in a
| right direction. There arguably a lot of places, for
| instance South America & Iran, where those action were
| taken and only made things worse.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Boycotts are definitely not in place and as long as we
| tolerate countries doing an end run around any kind of
| sanction without being sanctioned themselves they will
| remain ineffective.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Sanctions are a patronizing form of punishments that have
| hardly ever been effective and are hard to maintain over
| a long period of time. Take Iran, even when there is a
| huge international block working together against Iran,
| the people suffer yet the government continues but just
| in secret to develop their nuclear program. And if
| anything it spurred Iran's warlike actions in the region.
|
| To do it because of Navalny would just be a out of a wish
| to punish, not out of knowledge it would actually change
| the situation. And is it the role of the West to dish out
| punishment?
|
| Besides it would just be used by Putin to empower the
| internal story of the threat of the West & NATO.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Sanctions have already reduced the amounts of dollars
| Russia can get for its oil. Also, sanctions targetting
| the weapons industry is very important.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Yet have they stopped people from dying? The Russian
| economy suffered, but adjusted.
|
| And it turned Russian people more more away from the West
| and enforced the us against them story of Putin.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's not what I hear from the people that I know on the
| other side of the divide. They know damn well why this is
| happening and who is in the driving seat but: they're
| scared, they don't want to be seen as unsupportive
| because people have already died because of that and they
| don't want to speak out because that's a surefire way of
| seeing your life completely screwed up or ended.
|
| Putin is where he is because he doesn't hesitate to kill
| each and every person that questions his authority, you
| can't expect people in an environment like that to go out
| onto the streets to demand the dictators head because it
| will end in a very predictable way. But the general
| impression I get is that people are broadly visibly
| supportive but in private a lot less so if not outright
| against it. This makes it very hard to measure the
| temperature in Russia. There is a good reason why Putin
| keeps murdering the opposition (or removing them in other
| ways): he knows that if there is a fair election and a
| half decent challenger that he's history.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| It depends on what part of the population, yeah young
| tech/internationally oriented people often yes. And also
| Russians in Europe often are anti-putin.
|
| But Russia is big and I also know a handful of people
| where he is the one who gave stability & although they
| are not stupid the idea that he is fully lying or wrong
| is hard to accept for them.
|
| They generally accept the Ukraine narrative the Russian
| Media portrays, since it's all they know; and they have
| no reason to trust the West more then mother Russia.
| kikimora wrote:
| You describe a significant minority, but minority
| nonetheless. This is 50+ generation and they are quickly
| fading away as their support.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Exact numbers are probably hard to find since not
| everyone will be honest, research by of university of
| Chicago mentions:
|
| "67 percent approve of how Putin is handling foreign
| policy, fewer, 58 percent, approve of his management of
| domestic affairs."
|
| https://www.norc.org/research/library/new-survey-finds-
| most-...
| hackerlight wrote:
| Like accepting Russian refugees, lots of them. Putin
| can't fight a war if he has no people. Ban them from
| defense sensitive industries for 1 generation and spread
| them around Europe, US and elsewhere.
|
| It's also the humane thing to do. Accept any LGBT and any
| Russian who lives outside of Moscow or St Petersburg who
| are being forcibly conscripted for the meat grinder at
| 10x higher rates (effectively murdered).
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Indeed, drain the country of anyone of value while
| enabling better lives for these people. Extend
| comfortable retirement plans to anyone responsible for
| maintaining Russian nuclear hardware to drain the
| institutional knowledge needed for maintenance and
| operations; use this information to prepare to disarm it.
| Russia's nuclear arsenal is currently the only thing
| holding the world back from taking aggressive action.
| Defang the cobra.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| It would be a grand and very effective move if done in a
| major way.
|
| Half-done it could be very dangerous - getting many well-
| connected and affluent people with nothing against in
| principle to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but who
| don't like the practical consequences for themselves.
| hackerlight wrote:
| > Half-done it could be very dangerous - getting many
| well-connected and affluent people with nothing against
| in principle to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but who
| don't like the practical consequences for themselves.
|
| Maybe disallow them from voting in local elections for 8
| years after immigration so they have no political
| influence. And spread them around many countries so
| they're less than 1% of the general population.
|
| Even if they're pro-Putin it might still be a net good
| getting them out of Russia. It's now a war of attrition,
| the #1 thing that matters is manpower (manpower for
| conscription, and manpower for industrial production).
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Another thing to consider - if you brain drain a country
| - who will pick up the pieces when a regime falls?
|
| You want someone able to keep things organized when the
| state cracks.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's important, but it is also not the problem we have
| today. Right now what we have is an out-of-control
| nuclear weapons wielding/threatening kleptocracy that
| murders many thousands of people every month. Picking up
| the pieces is the next problem and the sooner we have
| that problem the better. It is definitely worthwhile to
| point at this problem because to a large extent that's
| how we ended up with this mess in the first place, but it
| is not the immediate one and arguably an easier one to
| solve than the one that we have now, especially given
| lessons learned.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| In the event of regime change, going back will absolutely
| be a non-issue. Hell, some of us are preparing for it
| right now [0].
|
| [0] https://firstflight.today/
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'm totally for it and I will support any Russian that
| leaves their home country to withdraw their support for
| the war in any way I can - and have already done so, so
| this is not just words.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| >Like accepting Russian refugees, lots of them
|
| Russians tried to do that. Got labeled murders and told
| in words and actions to 'get back to their shithole' or
| outright to just die.
|
| Quite surprising, that wasn't viewed favourably by other
| Russians.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| Yeah, absolutely so, yet you're being downvoted for
| reminding this forum of that.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| Meanwhile, some Russian emigres are actually _returning_
| because the sanctions, and general public distrust, are
| making life quite hard for them in the West.
|
| As a Russian emigre myself, I can say that when you are
| calling for sanctions, you're calling for people like me
| to get screwed. Putin and his cronies don't seem too much
| damaged, on the other hand.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This is always a tough thing. I think the best sanctions
| are the ones that hurt the sanctioner more than the
| sanctionee, that way at least there is a clear negation
| of any such argument and that _any_ kind of damage to the
| sitting regime is what it is all about.
|
| What doesn't stop to surprise me is that in every
| occasion that such dictators rise to the top of the
| foodchain there there is a whole cadre of enablers that
| can't wait to be part of the machine. Without them it
| wouldn't get off the ground. But they _always_ exist and
| they always seem to exist in large enough numbers that
| these assholes get to make their play, to the bitter end
| in most cases.
| empath-nirvana wrote:
| Like cutting them off from the world financial system and
| seizing all their assets? Already done.
| kulikalov wrote:
| There's no cutoff. Only some inconveniences for
| population maybe.
| EasyMark wrote:
| western countries maybe india, china, middle east, and
| turkey are still all in on russia
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, it is unbelievable. But better believe it anyway because
| it is a very harsh reality and if we keep pretending it won't
| affect us then it eventually definitely will. Russia should be
| kicked off the net and out of the UN for this stuff,
| unfortunately there are enough other countries run by similar
| characters (possibly with more polish) that will continue to
| enable him.
| lm28469 wrote:
| I mean, for decades the US played the world's police, idk if it
| turned out to be a net positive in the end. What do you want
| "the world" to do ?
| wizerdrobe wrote:
| In fairness and in honesty, I can't help but think of the
| American citizens assassinated by drone during the Obama
| administration.
|
| I guess a politician is worth more than an Arab-American
| teenager?
| cedws wrote:
| Russia just watches.
| ngetchell wrote:
| I can't believe any American would carried Putin's water after
| the treatment of Alexei Navalny.
| pfdietz wrote:
| You just don't understand the depths of depravity to which
| those people will sink.
| kergonath wrote:
| If the various other opposition figures were not enough, there
| is no reason Navalny will be. Litvinenko's assassination was
| not that long ago, and yet there were many since then.
| gorbachev wrote:
| When he has pee tapes about you in his vault or you owe
| hundreds of millions (or billions) to banks he controls, it's
| easy to believe.
| steeve wrote:
| Yeah Navalny is dead but have you looked at their shopping carts?
| misterioss wrote:
| Yep, we need more interviews with Putin. Things ArE
| CoMpLIcATeD.
| steeve wrote:
| My comment is currently sitting at -4 karma. Draw your own
| conclusions (:
| thriftwy wrote:
| But wasn't that the prime argument for the US previously?
|
| "Disregard the wars that the US gets into, have you seen their
| cars and houses?"
|
| And it did work for a long time. People would give you a lot of
| leeway if you had a nice house and a car.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Putin has been informed of the death, says Kremlin
|
| In advance, one assumes.
| captainbland wrote:
| It was probably his idea.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| i think it was in reversed: putin informed the kremlin about
| the death
| benterix wrote:
| Frankly, it's strange Putin allowed him to live for so long,
| normally he just kills his opponent quite fast. Maybe it was just
| a power show to make everybody understand he can control his
| opponents' lives completely.
| belter wrote:
| A little reminder of what Putin has been up to in the last few
| years.
|
| - Annexation of Crimea (2014)
|
| - MH17 Downing (2014)
|
| - Intervention in Syria
|
| - 2016 U.S. Election Interference
|
| - Skripal Poisoning (2018)
|
| - Anti-LGBTQ+ Laws
|
| - Navalny Poisoning (2020)
|
| - Wagner Group Activities
|
| - Invasion of Ukraine (2022)
|
| - Killing of Yevgeny Prigozhin (2023)
|
| - Killing of Alexei Navalny (2024)
|
| What is necessary for US and European Laws, to specify any type
| of contact, endorsement, indulgence even, of such a regime, is an
| intolerable criminal offense?
|
| Edit: Its difficult to keep track...
|
| - Killing of Alexander Litvinenko
|
| - 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings
|
| - September 2022 -- Ravil Maganov's fatal fall from a hospital
| window. He was chairman of Russian oil giant Lukoil. Lukoil was
| the first major Russian company to call for an end to the war in
| Ukraine
|
| - July 2009 -- Natalya Estemirova found dead in a ditch
|
| - October 2006 -- Anna Politkovskaya murdered in an elevator
|
| - April 2003 -- Sergei Yushenkov murder was never solved.
| Yushenkov was one of the harshest critics of the Chechen war and
| the KGB's successor organization, the FSB.
| imglorp wrote:
| Plus many, many deaths of business associates, oligarchs, and
| generals.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| - Invasion & Second Chechen War (1999)
|
| - Invasion in Georgia (2008)
| belter wrote:
| Yeah, it's so many, would need the Spreadsheet of Death...
| KaiserPro wrote:
| transnetria
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| I think that was before Putin?
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Yet it's not Russia you should worry about. But China. They are
| the real threat and are actively playing strategic chess by
| taking over resourceful parts of Africa, building up their
| military & immigrating their people over the world.
| chaostheory wrote:
| China is a paper tiger. They are fated to be weak due to
| demographics. They're now beating Japan in the race to become
| the world's largest retirement home.
| tim333 wrote:
| They still have a pretty large economy and are building up
| militarily. Even so they seem less belligerent than the
| Russians.
| vardump wrote:
| One day it might very well be it's Russia who has to worry
| about China.
| lukasm wrote:
| - Litvinenko
|
| - blowing up ammo storage in Czech Rep.
|
| - Beslan school siege
|
| - Keystone Pipeline and Freeport LNG fire
|
| - electricity and internet cable sabotage
| lukasm wrote:
| Kursk submarine disaster
| phtrivier wrote:
| A technical revolution that would have:
|
| * instantly removes the need for oil and gas * instantly
| protects half of the world from nukes and radiations
|
| (if possible, that would have done this 15 years ago.)
|
| Now, as much as everyone, I loved reading the headlines in HN
| that told me about the new "energy breaktrough that will change
| everythin" - meanwhile, in the real world, we're stuck with oil
| & gas, and the countries owning it are basically free to behave
| as they please. Understandably, they behave... badly (except
| for Norway, I suppose ?)
|
| But it's good that Silicon Valley stopped caring about
| producing energy, and is now mostly worried about to worst
| spend it in VR helmets and training AIs to generate fake porn.
|
| Given the state of "reality", it's only fitting that we deal
| mostly in lies and head-burying.
|
| For the second point, I don't think there is even anything in
| sight, so Putin's opponents are bound to only tread carefully
| with Putin.
|
| With the Republican delaying aid, Trump almost certain to get
| back at the WH, and the fall of Adviivka just a couple of days
| away - this is, in objective terms, a good time to be sitting
| in the Kremlin.
|
| The only certainty, however, is that, through diplomacy,
| artillery, or biology, the tides will turn. Navalny probably
| wished he would be there to see it. Fate decided otherwise.
|
| "To the beggar: This, too, shall pass.
|
| To the emperor: This, too, shall pass.
|
| This, too, shall pass."
| appplemac wrote:
| In addition to Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine
| were also invaded in 2014, and a lot of the area that was
| invaded then is still occupied today.
| Lutger wrote:
| I'm afraid the answer is 'not having nukes'.
| sashazykov wrote:
| - Killing of Boris Nemtsov (2015)
| dindobre wrote:
| It's impossible to pinpoint this with a single event but I
| think russia is also an extremely negative influence on Europe,
| with corruption, spreading division and disinformation, and so
| on. Who knows how much kompromat is going around, when the war
| started there were lots of interesting people pushing for
| "peace" (i.e. Ukrainian surrender), including the pope.
| kranke155 wrote:
| We were always at war with Russia.
|
| And I mean this in sad, sombre way. Russian imperialism has
| never really stopped, it just had an interregnum in the form of
| a drunkard President, who was promptly replaced.
| RajT88 wrote:
| There is still a lot of folks who also attribute the 2010
| Smolensk air disaster to Putin as well.
| telesilla wrote:
| The 2022 documentary 'Navalny' is important and explains how the
| anti-corruption campaigner got to that terrible place, being
| poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent and still deciding to go
| back to Russia.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navalny_(film)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF_HsKCWEHw (trailer)
| aerique wrote:
| I never understood why he went back to Russia.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Certainly nobody wants to be a martyr. I guess he thought he
| had a chance at peaceful politics, and at the time it could
| have been seen as reasonable by a poor planner like him. He
| had a history of weird blunders, like refusing to resort to
| violence when it became the only possible solution, or
| failing the publicly planned protest simply because he didn't
| account for being detained under a bullshit pretext for a few
| hours.
| pimlottc wrote:
| > Certainly nobody wants to be a martyr.
|
| Some people do. If you believe the needs of the many
| outweigh the needs of the few, and you truly believe your
| death will significantly help others, then maybe you do
| make that (incredibly hard) decision knowing full well the
| consequences.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I have held the exact same question. I don't say this
| lightly. His decision was stupid. He would've been much more
| effective as a critic with a Twitter account. You can't
| criticize the government when you're not free to do so.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Have you heard the metaphor of the chicken and the pig at
| breakfast time?
|
| I could probably stand in the Krasnaya Ploshchad and yell
| "Vladimir Zelenskiy Sucks!" without repercussion, but that
| wouldn't make it effective criticism.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Why didn't you say Red Square instead of, in an English
| sentence, dropping in a Russian adjective and Russian
| noun?
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| 1. it's only a copy, paste, and click to get to Red
| Square 2. it fits with the .ru transliteration of
| Volodymyr Zelenskyy 3. it retains any original
| ambiguity between "red" and "beautiful" 4. it
| avoids confusing the Union with the Federation 5.
| it complies with dang's suggestion not to overly spoon-
| feed each other
|
| EDIT: in other news: https://www.theonion.com/putin-
| distraught-over-friends-who-k...
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| I should say I got it of course, but not sure others in
| general would.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| I had double checked that (1) worked before including it,
| and for that matter, even untransliterated << krasnaia
| ploshchad' >> gives me "Red Square, Moscow, Russia,
| 109012" above the fold when using the most popular search
| engine.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Strategy is what gets results, not metaphors. Examples of
| effective criticism with government-toppling results can
| be seen in the Arab Spring movement.
| neonarray wrote:
| It seems stupid, yes. However he would've been hunted the
| remainder of his life and likely assassinated, regardless.
| He may have hoped too that by sacrificing himself, he would
| keep his family safe.
|
| I don't have that strong of a will to give myself over to
| Putin the way he did. Navalny is immensely brave and
| principled and while his sacrifice ultimately will likely
| end in vein, I hope beyond hope that it inspires and
| motivates those in Russia who prefer Putin be eliminated
| from power. Time will tell.
| tryauuum wrote:
| why would russians care about what some twitter boy happily
| living in EU has to say?
| cyrillite wrote:
| Martyrdom.
|
| Navalny calculated that this process would be watched and
| documented through to the very end. He hoped that might be
| significant, perhaps even sufficient.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| in memoriam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpuBgLBrhfo
|
| > _Tol'ko sinie oni i ne krapa zolota._
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| He will be forgotten in a week, at least by the West.
|
| Do you remember the guy who flew over Belarus and his plane
| was redirected to seize him? Any news? I do not even
| remember his name.
|
| Going back to Russia was a stupid move, he could have had
| much more visibility from the EU.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Matthias Rust?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
| jakub_g wrote:
| Raman Pratasevich / Roman Protasevich.
|
| He was pardoned by Lukashenka last year, since then there
| was little news, but this week he showed up in a video
| stream. I found out in Polish media, was very hard to
| find an English article about it, found just one:
|
| https://www.txtreport.com/life/2024-02-14-%22i-ve-built-
| the-...
|
| Lukashenka is not better than Putin, many oppositionists
| are rotting in prisons, but for some reason (young age?)
| he let Roman go, probably after some devil's deal.
| jszymborski wrote:
| I can assure you I will never forget the name.
|
| Not all bravery is stupid. When people point to so-called
| inevitabilities of human character, as Putin and his ilk
| often do, I'll recall Navalny's name.
|
| I'll also recall the victories that were only possible
| thanks to people of similar courage. Things looked as
| helpess for Vaclav Havel, but without him we wouldn't
| have had the Velvet Revolution.
|
| I remember their names.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Imagine what these people could have done if they weren't
| at this point... just names that few, even of many few
| will remember. Ask the same question in a decade.
| Qwertious wrote:
| >Do you remember the guy who flew over Belarus and his
| plane was redirected to seize him? Any news? I do not
| even remember his name.
|
| Prigozhin, technically?
| askvictor wrote:
| | He will be forgotten in a week, at least by the West.
|
| He wasn't doing that for the amusement of the West; he
| was doing it for the Russians.
| maxlamb wrote:
| Sadly it will have as much of an impact on the Russians
| as any political martyr in any past dictatorship. And
| that is, almost certainly nothing.
| gustavus wrote:
| Maybe, but maybe not. Once there was a young man who
| became a martyr under an autocratic and bloodthirsty
| regime, this young man's name was Alexander Lenin.
| Although his death was not circulated in the newspapers,
| or widely known by many, there was one man who was
| changed by his death, his brother Vladamir, and his
| brother Vladmir did quite a bit to change the course of
| Russian history.
| mynameisnoone wrote:
| Yes. Unfortunately, he miscalculated and threw his life
| away by failing to appreciate the conditions. Similar to
| standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square, this was
| and now proved to be a ineffective and futile act in a
| country whose populace refuses to stand up to Putin,
| oppression, or corruption. It's likely Putin will continue
| to be the de facto "elected" dictator of Russia until he
| dies and his oligarch pals replace him with someone equally
| terrible. The Russian people lack the will, organization,
| and moral courage to overthrow their klepto-plutocrat
| dictator.
| e12e wrote:
| Why stand in front of a tank?
| nomilk wrote:
| A brilliant response. Why do anything at one's own expense
| that could possibly help hundreds of millions?
|
| Today was predictable, but that only accentuates Navalny's
| bravery. He knew persecution was highly likely, and he did
| not flinch.
| pimlottc wrote:
| It's the Office Space Michael Bolton argument: "Why should I
| abandon my country? He's the one who sucks."
|
| From a practical point of view it may not be wise, but as a
| principled decision, it sends a very powerful message.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Thanks, now I've got to watch this ever relevant film
| again.
| lijok wrote:
| The reason most people have even heard of Navalny is because
| he went back to Russia. That move is what caused the western
| media to pick up the story and run it on the news for months
| on end. The imagery it produced, videos of him leaving the
| plane, saying goodbye to his wife, getting arrested, standing
| trial, were what catapulted the wests exposure to the
| opposition movement in Russia. It was an incredibly well
| played calculated move that unfortunately did not pay off
| because that coward Putin has his finger on the mobile
| oppression palace 24/7.
| obscurette wrote:
| That's the reason why we have Russia we know today and I'm
| afraid that we'll see more countries taking this path in
| coming years. Almost million russians left country during
| last two years alone. But if everyone against regime leaves,
| who have to fight for better country? Or do you really think
| that it's more effective to shout in Twitter?
| sumedh wrote:
| His death was certain the moment he went back to Russia. He
| should have stayed back in some European country and continued
| the fight.
| diggan wrote:
| I'm fairly certain he knew this, but did it anyways. If
| anything, it'll make him a martyr who died in their home
| country, still fighting, rather than someone who is trying to
| run away and fueling the opponent's arguments.
|
| Still sucks it had to come to this. But I agree, this wasn't
| the unexpected outcome.
| satellite2 wrote:
| Unfortunately, a martyr in Western countries only. I doubt
| his death will be discussed in Russian's media.
| proxysna wrote:
| It is already being discussed. Also Russian media is not
| limited to state media.
| kikimora wrote:
| This is #1 topic in Russia right now. Even some state media
| outlets report on this.
| permo-w wrote:
| https://www.rt.com/russia/592561-alexey-navalny-blogger-
| oppo...
| MrDresden wrote:
| He will be remembered along with other reformers of history who
| stood up to what they believed and in the end paid with their
| lives.
|
| I truly hope his death will not be in vain.
| inference-lord wrote:
| I personally think it makes a clown show of Musk and Carlson
| Putin fan club we have going on, now they're buddies with a
| murder. I mean Putin has murdered many people, but this one
| is pretty fresh and seems to hold a lot more weight because
| of the stature of the victim.
| jacquesm wrote:
| In their eyes it makes Putin _more_ , not less attractive
| because that's how they view their own little power
| fantasies: to do away with their enemies, real and
| perceived.
|
| It's not as if we collectively refused to do business with
| the murderer (correction, butcher) of a journalist in a
| f'ing embassy. That stood pretty much unchallenged besides
| some finger wagging.
| MrDresden wrote:
| I just realized that the Munich Security Conference started
| today. There is no chance this was an coincidence.
| nabakin wrote:
| And less than a week after the interview with Putin. The
| comments section on that video is ridiculous.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| The contrast with an earlier Russian revolutionary, Vladimir
| Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, bears reflection. Lenin
| went into exile in Munich, London, and Geneva from 1900--1905,
| returning to Russia for a 2005 revolution, then living in exile
| again during the First World War.
|
| Navalny all but certainly was aware of his likely martyrdom,
| and appears to have won that. I have my doubts that he will be
| more effective as a martyr than he would have been acting in
| exile. In addition to whatever organisation remains, he does
| leave both a wife and daughter, though whether or not they'll
| carry on his fight I don't know.
|
| The news today is not unexpected, but disappointing all the
| same.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Yes. And now he is dead and will be forgotten in a week.
|
| As I mentioned earlier - does anyone remember the guy who flew
| over Belarus and had his plane redirected to the capital, and
| he was seized there. He also was a protester, now forgotten. I
| do not even remember his name and never heard of him since
| then.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| That guy was forced to co-operate with the regime and to
| abandon his SO, arrested together with him.
| elgenie wrote:
| Navalny will be remembered, just as Boris Nemtsov is
| remembered.
| Clubber wrote:
| People calling for the US to do more against Russia, be careful
| what you wish for. You have no idea how close the US is to a
| draft. The US has been woefully low at filling military
| recruiting quotas. Keep in mind both presidents during WWI and
| WWII campaigned to keep us out of those wars. Any major conflict
| like that will most certainly require a draft. Better keep your
| saber rattling to a minimum.
|
| _Though the percentage of active duty military members has
| fluctuated since 2001, it has declined by 39% since 1987, its
| most recent high._
|
| https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/
| ethanbond wrote:
| Uhhh that's why it's better to fund Ukraine to fight the battle
| for us before it's actually on NATO's doorstep. Not that
| confusing.
| Clubber wrote:
| Sure, I support funding Ukraine 100% for that very reason,
| but consider what happens when Ukraine runs out of troops.
| Russia has a 3:1 advantage.
|
| https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-
| vs-...
| KaiserPro wrote:
| If you use your troops as bait for tanks, then sure having
| a 3:1 people advantage is useful.
|
| If you have a bit more respect for the lives of your
| citizens, its not so much of a disadvantage.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Consider what happens when the Taliban runs out of troops.
| The United States has a 28:1 advantage.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| The people behind this propaganda are pushing for
| privatization, not a draft. The US Army is dramatically
| downsizing its uniformed troop strength at the same time its
| budget is dramatically increasing.
|
| "Under end strength levels outlined in the annual defense
| authorization bill passed by the Senate Wednesday evening and
| expected to be passed by the House on Thursday, the total
| number of active-duty troops in the armed forces will drop to
| 1,284,500 in fiscal 2024. That's down nearly 64,000 personnel
| in the last three years and the smallest total for America's
| military since 1940, before the United States' entry into World
| War II."
|
| https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/12...
| Clubber wrote:
| Second paragraph after the one you pasted:
|
| _Lawmakers say the reason for the lower target isn't a
| decrease in missions or threats in recent years. Instead, the
| number reflects recruiting challenges across the services and
| an expectation of what level of personnel is realistic in
| coming months._
|
| They aren't lowering troop numbers because they want to,
| they're moving the goalposts to meet the reality of
| diminished recruiting.
|
| Also, privatization is for non-combat roles, logistics and
| what not. It allows us to keep more US military personnel in
| combat roles instead of support roles.
|
| When all of these hack aren't enough to fill ranks in a major
| conflict, the next step is a draft. Iraq I, II and
| Afghanistan were not major conflicts in terms of total
| deployment.
|
| https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_w.
| ..
|
| Also, no politician will utter the word "draft," or they will
| lose all support. If a major conflict arises with Russia, it
| will get instituted, make no mistake about it. Everyone
| pushing for war with Russia needs to consider the
| consequences.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| I think the flow of money points to the truth of the mater.
| globalnode wrote:
| downvoted by propagandists and bots?
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| Do you realise how easy it would be for the US to defeat the
| depleted Russian military? The US Air Force alone could
| probably do it in a weekend.
|
| The war in Ukraine only drags on for so long because of the
| refusal of the west (partly tachnical issues, partly political
| hesitation) to equip Ukraine with modern weapons in sufficient
| quantities.
| Clubber wrote:
| >the depleted Russian military
|
| They aren't depleted. They've suffered 300K casualties, they
| have 24,700,000 left of fighting age. Also keep in mind
| Russia has no qualms about putting women in front line combat
| roles.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-
| Ukrain...
|
| Also, Iran seems like they want to get involved. They've been
| selling Russia arms during the conflict. They have about 17
| million people of fighting age.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo.
| ..
|
| >do it in a weekend
|
| They said that about the US Civil War
|
| https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-
| america/april-1861...
|
| And WWI
|
| https://www.theworldwar.org/exhibitions/over-christmas
|
| By WWII, we realized it wouldn't be a short war. We seem to
| have forgotten. Also Russia has a lot of nukes, you know what
| MAD stands for right?
|
| Best case we're probably looking at a Phyrric victory.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
| terafo wrote:
| > _they have 24,700,000 left of fighting age_
|
| Without equipment, logistics and ammo to support it it's a
| dead weight. Also, it's very interesting that you omitted
| Gulf War, which would be the most similar conflict in terms
| of power dynamics. 4th by strength military in the world in
| war against large coalition of countries that is led by
| USA.
| tryauuum wrote:
| I don't know much about the US but I assumed you don't have
| draft since the Vietnam war? And this is why USA army has to
| actually produce cool ads as opposed to Russian army who just
| takes people.
|
| Are you suspecting that the law would be changed to enable
| draft? Or maybe I'm confusing draft and conscription, are those
| different?
| merpkz wrote:
| So in latest news, last opposition figure in Russia dies together
| with any hope for regime change while Russia's war effort is
| starting to get some traction with it's overwhelming man power
| and Ukraine is forced to cede more territory all while west is
| busy either with it's in-fighting or comparing each others
| superior GDP and how Russia will crumble just any day now (TM).
| Man, are we in for a ride next decade in Europe, I would have
| never believed all this just a few years ago, how it will go
| down.
| timeon wrote:
| > west is busy either with it's in-fighting or comparing each
| others superior
|
| Also slowly folding. It is not happening only in little
| countries like Slovakia. US has relevant party that is now
| openly pro-Putin.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You have to wonder about the sanity of people that are in
| love with power for power's sake.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Also slowly folding. It is not happening only in little
| countries like Slovakia.
|
| I assume you don't know much about Slovakia besides the few
| headlines that pop here and there, right ?
| timeon wrote:
| I have mentioned Slovakia because conspiracy theories are
| mainstream there. Ministry of culture is ruled by one of
| those medias.
|
| I have mentioned Slovakia because I constantly hear about
| 'US bad Russia Good' there.
|
| I mentioned Slovakia because that is my home country.
|
| So tell me why would you assume my lack of knowledge?
| reportgunner wrote:
| That sounds like a yes to me
| timeon wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| reportgunner wrote:
| I would prefer not to on here.
| lm28469 wrote:
| My wife's from there and I spend quite a lot of time
| there. Everybody and their uncle became a Slovak politic
| expert during the last election while half of them didn't
| even know Czechoslovakia wasn't a thing anymore the day
| prior.
|
| Unless you evolve in very weird circles you probably know
| that it's infinitely more complex than 'US bad Russia
| Good'
|
| > So tell me why would you assume my lack of knowledge?
|
| Hard to tell if you're part of the "Slovakia should be
| kicked out of EU because they voted bad" crowd that
| popped up out of nowhere (and disappeared as quickly
| apparently). It's much less black and white than people
| make it look like, for example: https://cdn.statcdn.com/I
| nfographic/images/normal/27331.jpeg
| timeon wrote:
| > Hard to tell if you're part of the "Slovakia should be
| kicked out of EU because they voted bad" crowd
|
| Not sure why you went that far with your assumptions. I
| just stated that situation in Slovakia changed. It is not
| black and white - I agree with you. I mentioned Slovakia
| where it happened and US where it is starting to happen.
| It is not going to be black and white there either but
| that should not be excuse to stay passive.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Fair enough, I jumped on the gun because I heard lots
| baseless attacks on Slovakia in the recent past, which I
| assume might be partially orchestrated or at least coming
| from very uninformed individuals trying to fit their
| local political games onto other nations'
| timeon wrote:
| I was bit vague with my original comment. I should have
| expect comments like that but I posted that under
| emotions of this news and what is currently happening at
| home.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| I live in Slovakia. My impression is that the country was
| always divided; half of the population pro-Western, the
| other half pro-Russian.
|
| The pro-Western people are over-represented in Bratislava
| and among the university-educated people. So if you are a
| smart person living in the capital city, it is easy to
| forget how the rest of the country thinks... and then you
| always get surprised when they elect an anti-Western
| alpha male: previously Meciar, now Fico.
|
| For reasons I do not understand, Russian propaganda
| (Slobodny vysielac, etc.) is extremely popular here. I
| have never actually listened to it, but I don't even need
| to, because people quote them on internet all the time;
| it is the source of all popular conspiracy theories.
|
| Luckily for us, Fico lies to everyone, including his own
| voters. He promises them to side with Russia against the
| Ukraine... but most of that are just empty words. The
| actual policy probably will not change a lot, because his
| main concerns are somewhere else: staying out of prison,
| remaining popular, stealing more money. Otherwise he will
| give up under the slightest economical threat from EU.
| His voters only care about rhetoric, and at home he is
| going to give them exactly that.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| > US has relevant party that is now openly pro-Putin
|
| What relevant party in the US is openly pro-Putin?
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Recently Trump said that if Putin invaded Europe, he
| (Trump) "would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell
| they wanted to you".
|
| It's not full pro-Russia yet, but he's certainly moving in
| that direction. Unfortunately, Trump is currently the
| republican party.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| Europe has to wake up. We are so lazy and political
| incompetent that it would easy for anyone to invade us
| and have us work in gulags. The only people left that
| fights back are the slaves, the rest of us is
| uncomfortably unconcerned.
|
| Please help us by selecting Trump.
| logicchains wrote:
| The full context is he said if those European countries
| did not meet their NATO defense spending obligations he'd
| let Putin do what he wants with them.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| I'd say it's more accurate to say the Republican Party is
| firmly beholden to a man who is at times openly pro-Putin
| and the rest of the time merely transparently pro-Putin.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying, I'm not an American, and I was not
| aware Trump is openly pro-Putin. This is quite
| concerning, do you mind clarifying what openly or
| transparently pro-Putin policy positions he takes?
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Well for one, his public and sharp criticism of NATO
| countries that he's decided are not or have not been
| spending enough on defense. Airing that stuff out in the
| open sows division and weakens the unity of the alliance.
| And it often seems like he is angling toward pulling the
| US out entirely at some point--though I'm not sure he'd
| be able to.
| mlrtime wrote:
| There is none, it is 100% rhetoric. When AOC says "Eat the
| rich" , do people think she literally wants the masses to
| go find the nearest billionaire and start cannibalism?
|
| Trump thinks that the US pays too much into NATO and others
| not enough. This his tactic for getting other countries to
| pay more for the security we all enjoy which isn't free.
|
| I'm not a Trump fan but I see through his words to his
| tactics.
| logicchains wrote:
| It's not just Trump thinks; under NATO those countries
| are obligated to spend a certain % of their GDP on
| defense, which they've failed to do.
| downut wrote:
| The MAGAts in the House from the Speaker on down are
| blocking all Ukrainian aid concretely, not rhetorically.
| That's literally pro-Putin, and it comes 100% at the
| direction of the leader of the MAGAts.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| Some journalists have interviewed high ranking members of
| the Trump administration, including Defense Secretary
| Mark Esper, who said that Trump told him "he would seek
| to withdraw from Nato and to blow up the US alliance with
| South Korea, should he win reelection."
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The MAGA subgroup of Republicans:
| https://accountability.gop/ukraine-quotes/
|
| Tucker Carlson is on there too, he's now a full time Russia
| shill.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > I would have never believed all this just a few years ago,
| how it will go down.
|
| The writing is on the wall for a while now, the only problem is
| that people talking about it are promptly labeled as not worthy
| of being listened to
| lifestyleguru wrote:
| This is just silly play of ironic smirks. The interests of
| key players in Europe are secured, some intra-Slavic
| conflicts have no importance for them.
| ben_w wrote:
| Security isn't a thing that can be secured in an absolute
| sense, only a relative one.
|
| For example, while the catastrophic ineptitude of the
| Russian forces at the start of their invasion has caused me
| to believe 80% of their nukes don't work any more, even
| just one nuke detonated as a HAEMP would destroy a
| continental-sized power grid -- and the same visible signs
| of corruption that gave me the previous 80%, that also
| means there's a substantial chance at least one of the
| warheads ended up on the black market.
| sekai wrote:
| > The writing is on the wall for a while now, the only
| problem is that people talking about it are promptly labeled
| as not worthy of being listened
|
| Exactly, did people forget Russia first invaded Ukraine in
| 2014? Let's not be naive here.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Yup, this was the time to arm Ukraine. (or even in 2008
| with Georgia).
| Aerroon wrote:
| The US did actually train Ukrainian troops after that. Eg
| https://www.newsweek.com/us-troops-prepare-ukraine-
| soldiers-...
|
| Could more have been done? Probably, but effort was
| definitely put in.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| If you compare what happened in 2022 to what happened in
| 2014, you could make the argument that basically nothing
| was done in 2014.
|
| I had a friend who kept saying that we needed to do
| something back then, and kinda ignored him, and now
| looking back, it's depressing how right he was.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| Nah, Ukraine improved it's ability to defend itself after
| 2014, leaving Russia the choice of accepting defeat or
| outright invasion. It chose invasion.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| 2 years before Russia invaded Ukraine, you had Obama
| quipping like this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM
| chaostheory wrote:
| Not sure I remember the source, but even Navalny was not
| against Russia's war to get its buffer zones back. Of course,
| if Navalny was able to magically overthrow Putin, it'd be
| harder for a democratic regime to fight an offensive war
| because no one wants to personally participate in a war.
| deely3 wrote:
| Not sure about downvotes, but Navalny was definitely against
| bringing back Crimea to Ukraine. In his own words: "Crimea is
| not a pastry to pass from hands to hands". After it becomes
| clear that "3 day" invasion of Ukraine is unsuccessful he
| changed his mind. But only after it, not before.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| The last one is pure fantasy. He made a statement on the
| first day of the war and was strongly against it from the
| start.
|
| https://zona.media/online/2022/02/24/pokrov4
| deely3 wrote:
| And where this statement in this article? Are you lying?
| He against the war sure, but show me where he mentioned
| returning Crimea to Ukraine.
| hrns wrote:
| Yeah, he openly said that he accepts the Crimea
| annexation - which is a part of Putins strategy of
| reviving the Russian empire.
|
| https://visitukraine.today/blog/3375/navalny-is-dead-
| what-wa...
| lordfrito wrote:
| If you believe the western media, the west no longer believes
| in or upholds its values, and watches while Russia pushes
| westward while China builds up a military and eyes Taiwan, both
| more than happy to destabilize the middle east in pursuit of
| their goals.
|
| The west needs to wake up, we're slowly sliding towards a world
| conflict. This is going to get worse before it gets better.
|
| Edit: Russia is pushing westward not eastward!
| kemotep wrote:
| How do you propose the west avoids conflict with Russia and
| China?
|
| Is there any examples in history of appeasement leading to
| less bloodshed?
| lordfrito wrote:
| I'm not sure we can avoid conflict now, I think we're past
| the point where that was possible (last 10-15 years were
| critical). I think both Russia and China understand that,
| and are planning accordingly.
|
| I'm proposing we wake up and start doing the same, planning
| and drawing "do not cross" lines in the sand to hopefully
| limit the total/final scope of the conflict.
|
| Yes this will force an earlier confrontation -- but WWII
| would have been a lot less bloody if Europe had stood up to
| Hitler earlier -- problem was everyone thought that
| appeasing him would make things better.
|
| It's clear both Russia and China can't be appeased at this
| point. Both need to be checked.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| >planning and drawing "do not cross" lines in the sand to
| hopefully limit the total/final scope of the conflict.
|
| The irony here is unreal. Yes, drawing red lines is a
| good way to avoid runaway escalation, if only world
| powers are willing to honor them.
| eastbound wrote:
| No, Europe's problem was that we were pacifists. France
| still prides itself for inventing the Conges Payes (paid
| leave) in 1936 while the Germans were building their
| military might. The price in lieu of our "acquis sociaux"
| was getting occupied, point blank.
|
| Europe still prides itself for having female ministers of
| defense in every major country (who remembers them? We
| give the job to women when we just need to maintain
| things; Men traditionally seize the head-of-war position
| by force when someone wants to get things done, the
| position of Minister of Defense is figurative and should
| not exist) and feminist warfare (=give priority to women
| in war). Europe also prides itself for its glorious
| occupation by ... ahem... by the thing I'm not allowed to
| talk about because we're under occupation. Our kids get
| smashed at school, that's for sure, under the eye if
| teachers who forbid them from responding with force.
|
| If I were Russia, I'd pay all the leaflets and papers on
| which the "Vivrensemble with enemey people" posters are
| printed. We're vegans, we're trans, we're using non-
| violent communication, we're in discord on our soil, we
| destroy every trait of masculinity during education:
| We're incapable of war, and we're incapable of being a
| threat to Russia.
|
| For as long as I've been hearing Macron's minister say
| we're "doing a total economic war" with Russia (literal
| words), for as long as I hear the West is winning and
| Russia is on its knees, I see that every battle is one
| step closer inside Europe.
|
| We're losing.
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| GP wasn't talking about appeasement. The west has to make
| sure, that it is not a winning option to attack it.
| neom wrote:
| Fan fiction, but: Civil wars might do it, the Russians need
| to overthrow Putin, Xi in China, and we need to elect peace
| hawks in places that have democracy. People would have to
| really really really really not want a word war. On the
| history part, I have no clue, but I do know that today the
| citizenry is more connected and able to strategize for
| ourselfs than at any point in history before.
| wombat-man wrote:
| Putin's old, but he isn't that old. Plus I assume there
| are similar people waiting in the wings to takeover. Idk
| how to fix the situation but it would make me nervous for
| them to have a civil war in a nuclear power.
|
| Xi might go, but that party isn't going anywhere.
| neom wrote:
| It's a damn shame everything going on, really gets me
| down sometimes. My mum said the other day one of the
| reasons my folks had us when they did was the Cold War
| was ending(Gorbachev came in), there would never be war
| in Europe again, and the world was happy and healthy for
| the future.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > there would never be war in Europe again
|
| Lol
| m0llusk wrote:
| > Xi might go, but that party isn't going anywhere.
|
| Geographically probably not, but politically the Chinese
| Communist party already covers a very broad spectrum with
| Xi and others currently at the top being the most
| insular, paranoid, and economically impractical of all
| the various factions. A "fix" to the situation is
| unlikely, but changes that yield improvements are all but
| inevitable at this point.
| neom wrote:
| This is interesting to me, I naively think of the CCP as
| being highly unified as they paint such a great picture
| of that, I always thought there would be some decenters
| but for the most part complete unification. I should
| probably learn more about this and would gladly accept
| any resources on digging into the modern CCP more.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| There is loads written about this. Wikipedia has a
| category page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categ
| ory:Factions_of_the_Chine...
|
| Painting a great picture of party unity - and national
| unity - is a key propaganda goal of the CCP, so if that's
| what you see then they are succeeding. In practice, the
| party has almost 100 million members so naturally it is
| composed of people with many different points of view,
| although those differences are rarely expressed openly
| and they're all still shaped by the overall political and
| educational environment of the PRC.
|
| It's generally accepted that Xi Jinping has used his
| anti-corruption drive to wipe out rival factions, and one
| unlikely conspiracy theory is that he somehow
| orchestrated Bo Xilai's fall from grace in 2012 so he
| could take control of the party. The whole thing could
| provide material for stacks of palace intrigue
| thrillers... and in fact it did, which resulted in the
| Causeway Bay Books disappearances of 2015. Gotta control
| that narrative, after all.
|
| If you're interested in the propaganda side, I recommend
| reading China Media Project:
| https://chinamediaproject.org/ If you just want to know
| about the party maneuvering, all the usual thinktanks
| (CSIS, Brookings, CFR etc) publish a ton of English
| language content.
| ninjin wrote:
| You can start here and work outwards:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_clique
|
| I am not a historian, but I have _always_ found diversity
| of thought inside large political bodies: Communist Party
| of the Soviet Union, Jimintou, etc. Surely if you have a
| large political party where you are from, you have also
| seen that they have factions as well?
| protomolecule wrote:
| "the Russians need to overthrow Putin, Xi in China, and
| we need to elect peace hawks in places that have
| democracy."
|
| We overthrew communists in 1991, USSR crumbled, in 1992
| Pentagon declared that America's "first objective is to
| prevent the re-emergence of a new rival" [0] and 17 years
| later NATO, after multiple rounds of expansion, announced
| that it would expand into Georgia and the Ukraine [1]
| despite all the promises given by Western leaders [2].
|
| The trust between Russia and the collective West will not
| be rebuild for a very long time.
|
| [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-
| from-penta...
|
| [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8
| 443.htm
|
| [2] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-
| programs/2017...
| mopsi wrote:
| > despite all the promises given by Western leaders
|
| This gets repeated a lot, but who on the Russian side has
| ever confirmed it? Many people from that time are still
| around. Both the USSR's last minister of foreign affairs
| (1985-1990) and the first Russian minister of foreign
| affairs (1990-1996) have called that bullshit, with the
| latter adding in a recent interview that people believing
| this are "chumps and useful idiots"[1].
|
| [1] https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russias-ex-foreign-
| ministe...
| protomolecule wrote:
| "This gets repeated a lot"
|
| I gave a link to the documents, not to hersay.
|
| "who on the Russian side has ever confirmed it"
|
| You mean apart from 'nationalists', 'hardliners' and
| 'communists'?
| mopsi wrote:
| > I gave the link to the documents, not to hersay.
|
| It's a speculation that has been categorically refuted by
| the very persons it mentions.
|
| > You mean apart from 'nationalists', 'hardliners' and
| 'communists'?
|
| Apart from people like Putin, who at the time was nowhere
| near the foreign policy circles, but served as an
| enforcer for St Petersburg's mayor, collecting protection
| money and bribes from businesses.
| protomolecule wrote:
| How can a document be refuted?
| mopsi wrote:
| The Soviet minister of foreign affairs has explained that
| references to "NATO expansion" have been
| mischaracterized, and that their discussions were limited
| to placement of US forces in East Germany after
| reunification, and that no wider discussion about the
| future of Eastern Europe in NATO ever took place, let
| alone reached any agreement, because at the time they
| couldn't have imagined that the USSR would cease to exist
| in a few years. Both he and his successor find nothing
| wrong with the fact that most of Central and Eastern
| Europe eventually joined NATO and see no reason to whine
| about betrayal like Putin. If anything, they regret that
| the Europeans and Americans didn't engage more with
| Russia and didn't pressure it enough towards becoming a
| civilized country: While the West failed
| to seize the opportunity and some diplomatic mistakes
| were made on both sides, the United States and NATO were
| on the right side of history by admitting new democracies
| to the Alliance and being willing to find an
| accommodation with Russia. It was Moscow that returned to
| its antagonism toward NATO, which has been intensifying
| ever since. Yeltsin's chosen successor president,
| Vladimir Putin, tried to hinder the West with a charm
| offensive in the early years of the 21 century and even
| hinted that Russia might join NATO. In the meantime,
| domestic anti-American and anti-NATO propaganda has
| continued to gain momentum. Today the Kremlin has left
| little doubt about its attitude toward the Alliance in
| words and in deeds. NATO remains the main
| power to safeguard the liberal world order. It is under
| attack from autocratic, populist and extremist forces who
| claim that the organization is outdated. The Kremlin's
| champs and chumps in the West portray NATO as a bloc
| promoting American hegemony, expanding to the East and
| cornering Russia. It is reassuring however, that the U.S.
| Congress continues to display firm bipartisan support for
| NATO. The prospects of a new opening in
| Russian-NATO relations will depend on the resilience and
| firmness of the Alliance and on deep changes in Moscow's
| domestic and foreign policy. I believe that sooner or
| later the Russian people will follow the suit of other
| European nations in finding their national interest in
| democratic reforms and cooperation with NATO and other
| Western institutions.
|
| https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2019/0...
| protomolecule wrote:
| I suggest you study the link I gave. For example,
| document #30 [0] that gives an answer to the question
| "who on the Russian side has ever confirmed it?"
|
| "On July 1, the delegationhad a meeting with M. Woerner--
| NATO Secretary General. ... Woerner stressed that the
| NATO Council and he are against the expansionof NATO (13
| out of 16 NATO members support this point of view). In
| the near future, at his meeting with L. Walesa and the
| Romanian leader A. Iliescu, he will oppose Poland and
| Romania joining NATO, and earlier this was stated to
| Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We should not allow, stated
| M. Woerner, the isolation of the USSR from the European
| community."
|
| "didn't pressure it enough towards becoming a civilized
| country"
|
| That was rich.
|
| [0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16144-document-30-
| memoran...
| mopsi wrote:
| > I suggest you study the link I gave. For example,
| document #30 [0] that gives an answer to the question
| "who on the Russian side has ever confirmed it?"
|
| There is nothing in the document confirming an eternal
| commitment to not accept new members into NATO.
|
| Until late-1990s, the position of most NATO countries was
| indeed that Eastern Europe was too underdeveloped and
| unstable for membership, and the document accurately
| reflects that. This undermines the narrative of how NATO
| has always wanted to surround Russia.
|
| By the time new members were accepted into NATO almost a
| decade later, Worner was long dead, the USSR was long
| gone, Russia had started its descent into a totalitarian
| dictatorship, and all 13 opposing countries had changed
| their position.
| protomolecule wrote:
| You see, now you are inventing strawmen like "eternal
| commitment" and "the narrative of how NATO has always
| wanted to surround Russia". I don't think I can continue
| this conversation if you are not talking in good faith.
|
| "By the time new members were accepted into NATO ...
| Russia had started its descent into a totalitarian
| dictatorship"
|
| The decision to expand NATO was made in 1997 [0]
|
| And by the way, here is a passage from wikipedia on that
| first round of NATO enlargement [1]:
|
| "That year, Russian leaders like Foreign Minister Andrei
| Kozyrev indicated their country's opposition to NATO
| enlargement. While Russian President Boris Yeltsin did
| sign an agreement with NATO in May 1997 that included
| text referring to new membership, he clearly described
| NATO expansion as "unacceptable" and a threat to Russian
| security in his December 1997 National Security
| Blueprint."
|
| And a bit from "What Eltsin heard" [2]:
|
| "On December 1, Foreign Minister Kozyrev unexpectedly
| refused to sign up for the Partnership of Peace; and on
| December 5, Yeltsin lashed out about NATO at the Budapest
| summit of the CSCE, in front of a surprised Clinton: "Why
| are you sowing the seeds of mistrust? ... Europe is in
| danger of plunging into a cold peace .... History
| demonstrates that it is a dangerous illusion to suppose
| that the destinies of continents and of the world
| community in general can somehow be managed from one
| single capital." "
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Madrid_summit
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vis
| egr%C3%...
|
| [2] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-
| programs/2018...
| mopsi wrote:
| > You see, now you are inventing strawmen like "eternal
| commitment" and "the narrative of how NATO has always
| wanted to surround Russia". I don't think I can continue
| this conversation if you are not talking in good faith.
|
| I am not inventing anything. I have not seen a single
| source that would indicate a commitment not to accept new
| members into NATO until the present day. Nor have you
| cited any high-ranking Soviet or Russian officials from
| those times saying that they had a firm commitment. The
| constant unmet Russian demands that you cite also point
| that way.
|
| > The decision to expand NATO was made in 1997 [0]
|
| By that time, liberals had lost influential posititions
| in Russia and hardliners had been consolidating power for
| several years. Putin had risen from St Petersburg's
| mayor's errand boy to presidential staff in the Kremlin,
| to become the head of Russian security service (FSB) a
| year later.
|
| The first Chechen War started in 1994 and Russian
| atrocities committed there were a key turning point in
| taking Central and Eastern European security concerns
| seriously: The First Battle of Grozny was
| the Russian Army's invasion and subsequent conquest of
| the Chechen capital, Grozny, during the early months of
| the First Chechen War. /---/ The battle caused enormous
| destruction and casualties amongst the civilian
| population and saw the heaviest bombing campaign in
| Europe since the end of World War II.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%8
| 0%9...
|
| > "On December 1, Foreign Minister Kozyrev unexpectedly
| refused to sign up for the Partnership of Peace; and on
| December 5, Yeltsin lashed out about NATO at the Budapest
| summit of the CSCE, in front of a surprised Clinton: "Why
| are you sowing the seeds of mistrust? ... Europe is in
| danger of plunging into a cold peace .... History
| demonstrates that it is a dangerous illusion to suppose
| that the destinies of continents and of the world
| community in general can somehow be managed from one
| single capital." "
|
| Kozyrev is who wrote the three paragraphs I cited
| previously. In the PDF I linked to, he gives a
| description of NATO-Russia relations during his tenure
| (1990-1996). In the end, he concludes that Russians were
| on the wrong side of history and Americans and Europeans
| were on the right side of history. The outcome - peace
| and prosperity in Europe, death and destruction in Russia
| and everywhere they go - certainly supports his view.
| protomolecule wrote:
| "I am not inventing anything. I have not seen a single
| source that would indicate a commitment not to accept new
| members into NATO until the present day."
|
| You are inventing a strawman again. 1997 isn't present
| day. Bye.
| mopsi wrote:
| You have not presented a case for any year.
|
| In fact, western governments can't give such informal
| guarantees further than their election term even if they
| wanted to, because unlike in Russia, governments change
| every 4-5 years and the current president, prime minister
| or cabinet ministers can't promise what their successors
| will or won't do, because the successors are often
| completely different people from different political
| parties with vastly different political platforms. That's
| why we have written treaties. Soviet and Russian
| diplomats are without any doubt educated enough to know
| that.
| lpcvoid wrote:
| Even if you where right, all of this doesn't matter if
| sovereign nations decide they don't want to deal with
| russian threats, oligarchy/corruption and oppression
| anymore by joining NATO. I am happy they did and I think
| Europe's future is brighter if we stand together against
| the darkness that is russia.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > How do you propose the west avoids conflict with Russia
| and China?
|
| There's a lot of things the West can do without throwing
| nukes at the problem:
|
| - arming ourselves and our allies (especially Taiwan) to
| the teeth
|
| - supporting exiled and in-country opposition
|
| - intervening against hostile operations (such as "police
| stations") on our own soil
|
| - strengthen links with "global south" countries to
| minimize Chinese/Russian influence on them, support local
| rebels against regimes that have already fallen towards
| Russia/China.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| But if we change Russia/China and West places here you
| would scream bloody murder and terrorists not even
| finishing your own list.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Of course I would. We're at least a bunch of democracies,
| neither Russia nor China are.
|
| I believe that we should have done much more, and much
| earlier, to foster democracies and to stop dictatorships
| and bullies. Instead, we let them fester (unfortunately,
| even amongst our own like Hungary and Turkey), and now
| the cancer has grown so massive that it will be _very_
| hard to kill it.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| it is only possible to reduce not to avoid bloodshed.
|
| Russia does not honor the rules of law so we should not
| negotiate with them in good faith. They are a terrorist
| state. UN Charter Budapest Memorandum
| INF Treaty Minsk 2 / Minsk 1 ...
|
| The only solution are preemptive strikes against Russian
| interests.
| logicchains wrote:
| By rules of law you mean international law? By that logic
| we should also commit preemptive strikes against Israel
| to prevent it committing what is recognised by the
| internal community as genocide.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| IJC and other international bodies clearly stated there
| is no genocide. Only Hamas/Iran propaganda bots keep
| pushing that narrative.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| People call what Israel is doing genocide in order to
| justify what they want to do to Jews.
| ein0p wrote:
| When are you heading to the front, friend?
| holoduke wrote:
| Is that the American talking? The aggressor responsible
| for so much destruction in the world. I believe
| diplomatic actions are needed in any case. Not violence.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > Is there any examples in history of appeasement leading
| to less bloodshed?
|
| Generally you avoid conflict by being scary, not agreeable.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Generally you avoid conflict by being scary, not
| agreeable.
|
| As a rule of life, that's a pretty bad idea. I don't
| avoid conflict with family, friends, neighbors, coworkers
| by being scary.
|
| In international relations, it's by far more effective to
| be agreeable. Alliances are far more stable than
| competitive balance between 'scary' countries. Look at
| the EU; look at Korea - which relationships are more
| stable, the scary or the agreeable ones? Look at Israel,
| where by far the most stable relationships are the
| agreeable ones with Egypt, Jordan, and the US, even now.
| Look at the US and Canada. The list goes on forever.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Your argument falls apart since you deal with mobsters
| who don't respect any contract if it doesn't suit them.
| Remember pinky promises that they won't invade Ukraine
| just before they did it? If you keep stepping back to
| bullies, soon you are standing with ocean behind your
| back. And if you don't think russians would love ruling
| as much Europe as they can grab, you haven't been
| listening to them a single bit for past 2 decades, their
| ego is gigantic. We've been there for 40 years not so
| long ago, but maybe you weren't born yet to recall these
| times.
|
| Also, this is how russia was defeated - mix of US being
| simply too strong and one sane russian leader who
| realized how bad this is (Gorbachev, he is deeply hated
| by all russian elites who now try to bring good ol' times
| back).
|
| What you propose is a position of weakness, that leaders
| of russia see as a sign of weakness and will act
| accordingly.
|
| I just wish all these naive commenters would spend a
| decade living in russia to understand what we're actually
| dealing with and what kind of conflict is inevitably
| coming to the western Europe.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| You confuse 'agreeable' - admittedly an ambiguous term -
| with 'walkover'. You can negotiate both with strength and
| without being a monster yourself.
| nec4b wrote:
| >> As a rule of life, that's a pretty bad idea. I don't
| avoid conflict with family, friends, neighbors, coworkers
| by being scary.
|
| Are they trying to conquer and kill you? If not, your
| analogy doesn't hold.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I'm talking generally, not about Russia. Even then, being
| 'scary' in particular only escalates things; you want to
| be strong yet perfectly in control.
| falserum wrote:
| > As a rule of life, that's a pretty bad idea. I don't
| avoid conflict with family, friends, neighbors, coworkers
| by being scary.
|
| There is time and place for both.
|
| Some people live in much rougher environment, where you
| must demonstrate strength, if you dont want to be eaten.
| (Not in the family, but once you go outside)
|
| Russia is not a guy that you met at a library, Russia is
| a gangmember that runs a "protection" racket.
| neuronic wrote:
| Listen to internal speeches by Putin or Xi, they are often
| available on YouTube. We are not slowly sliding towards a
| world conflict, it has already begun and we are hopeless to
| stop it. It is arrogant to ignore or dismiss the happenings.
|
| Things were set in motion _years_ ago and they are slowly
| unraveling. When the West rejected Russia 's deeper
| integration into its structures after the Cold War ended and
| expanded NATO towards the East this path was set in stone.
| The late 2000s were the absolute breaking point.
|
| Major Eastern players are asymmetrically breaking US hegemony
| through proxies and internal conflict. They cannot face the
| US conventionally but it doesn't mean they cannot face the
| US. They can, they do and they will continue to do so.
|
| Brexit, MAGA, Mideast conflicts, Ukraine, EU refugee crisis,
| inflation, energy crisis, recent development in North Korea,
| social media disinformation etc. etc. etc.
|
| The BRICS countries (and others) are pursuing a multipolar,
| non-democratic world with heavily reduced US influence over
| Asia and Europe, who are now discussing defense independence
| and their own nuclear umbrella after Trump strategically
| placed some Russian talking points (again).
| actionfromafar wrote:
| What deeper integration would that have been? Geniunely
| curious, I don't see what could have worked once the
| oligarchs were minted. They only care about selling simple
| low-effort stuff, easily corrupted, like oil.
| neom wrote:
| We talk a lot about economic integration but we rarely
| talk about cultural integration. imo part of what will
| keep us safe in the future is cultural integration. We
| have multiple generations of families established across
| many borders now. With enough of that, the appetite for
| world war in theory might be decreased. I don't know the
| answer here, but I do feel we don't think about cultural
| integration as a national security asset often, and it
| probably could be.
| krisoft wrote:
| > We have multiple generations of families established
| across many borders now. With enough of that, the
| appetite for world war in theory might be decreased.
|
| Like the multi-generational families some of their
| members living in Ukraine, some in Russia? Didn't seem to
| stop the war sadly.
| neom wrote:
| You're totally correct, to be clear I don't know if this
| is a good prognosis for regional conflict, I was more
| alluding to something like WW3.
| lr1970 wrote:
| > What deeper integration would that have been?
|
| Boris Yeltsyn was proposing to Bill Clinton to admit
| Russia into NATO. This way Russian ambitions would be
| tamed and channeled into something more constructive.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Of course, we can't know what a Russian NATO membership
| _could_ have lead to.
|
| But a few red flags - Russia just barely held together at
| that time and had its own civil war. Also, there's the
| risk of Russia joining just to walk away with the keys to
| the kingdom at any later point. If the CFE inspections
| (1) were anything to go by, Russia didn't exactly play
| fair.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_A
| rmed_F...
| protomolecule wrote:
| That's comical that you mention CFE.
|
| Your own link says: "The treaty proposed equal limits for
| the two "groups of states-parties", the North Atlantic
| Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact" and later
| "most former non-USSR Warsaw Treaty members subsequently
| joined NATO, followed later by the Baltic states and the
| states of the former Yugoslavia".
|
| "CFE-II took into account the different geopolitical
| situation of the post-Cold War era by setting national
| instead of bloc-based limits on conventional armed
| forces. NATO members refused however to ratify the
| treaty..." [0] What a surprise.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_
| Armed_F...
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I'm not saying there wasn't mistrust from all sides. I'm
| saying Russia may have had ulterior motives to join NATO.
| protomolecule wrote:
| "Ulterior motives" like what?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Having a veto on who gets in the alliance, gathering
| intelligence, who knows? Not me.
|
| I just don't think Russia joining NATO is an apparent
| slam dunk success. Maybe it would have been great, we can
| never know for sure, but I can understand the suspicion.
| protomolecule wrote:
| "Having a veto on who gets in the alliance, gathering
| intelligence"
|
| With what goal?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Attack Ukraine? But on the other hand, joining NATO could
| have changed the course of history for the better, so
| such plans may never have come into motion. This is all
| counterfactual. There was deep mistrust on all sides and
| it didn't happen.
| protomolecule wrote:
| Attack Ukraine why?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Read Putins "scholarly article".
| protomolecule wrote:
| I haven't read it. What do you mean specifically?
| Qwertious wrote:
| Not the parent commenter, but IIRC in that document Putin
| expresses an ideological belief that Ukraine is
| inherently a part of Russia and must be returned.
| protomolecule wrote:
| And how do you imagine it? Being in the same security
| alliance as Ukraine and having free trade agreement and
| having good relations with the West, he would attack the
| Ukraine to get a piece of land?
|
| Nobody in Russia would've supported such an unthinkable
| war.
|
| It took a coup in Kiev in 2014, burning people alive in
| Odessa, all the slogans 'Hang the Russians', dozens of
| streets named after Nazi collaborators, the war of the
| new Ukrainian government on the separatists in the East
| and eight years for people in Russia to start thinking
| that not all Ukrainians are brothers.
| falserum wrote:
| Reminder: to start 2014 events, you need a president who
| rejects europe at the last second and sells ukraine to
| russia.
| danmaz74 wrote:
| Putin has pushing this lie that he tried to get closer to
| NATO and was rebuffed for a long time, but it's simply
| not true. His ideology has always been completely against
| being junior partner in a US led alliance.
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| It might be difficult to believe, but in the 1990s the
| people of Russia truly wanted to be in Europe (kind of
| like Ukrainians do now). That sentiment is now gone, and
| it's not (just) due to propaganda. The common people
| believe that Ukrainians will just be used to achieve some
| goal in the US vs. Russia power struggle and then
| abandoned.
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-
| and-...
| andrepd wrote:
| Doesn't help, the whole history of the US (and USSR)
| using regional proxy conflicts to advance their purposes,
| and then discarding their "allies".
| holoduke wrote:
| Where do you got that info. Most Russians want to be part
| of Europe. Its not that Russian people dont have a way to
| think freely. They all watch youtube and other social
| media. And they all love to ski in Austria or to visit
| Italy for a holiday. I don't know one russian person who
| is not pro Europe. Even Putin himself is pro europe.
| thriftwy wrote:
| For starters, pre-2014 Russians would be glad to have a
| visa waiver with the EU. But they never got that. Then
| 2014 and Crimea affair came and EU didn't have that lever
| to pull.
|
| Things like student exchanges, etc, were also severily
| limited in scope. Russians only ever saw EU as tourists,
| not as neighbours. And tourists can sure swap one
| destination for the another. Russians knew that they live
| in Europe, but did not feel the neighbourly presense of
| the EU.
| rcatcher wrote:
| > Russians knew that they live in Europe
|
| This is not accurate. In the USSR and after its collapse,
| Russians generally don't consider themselves European. I
| also think this aligns more or less with how the rest of
| the world sees Russia if you consider the standards of
| living and the freedoms citizens have in Russia (e.g., no
| freedom of speech; not being able to freely travel to
| most of the world). On top of that, don't forget that
| geographically, most of Russia is in Asia.
| omrigan wrote:
| Russia is a 100% European country.
|
| > standards of living
|
| Comparable and exceeding some countries in EU (e.g.
| Bulgaria)
|
| > freedoms citizens have in Russia (e.g., no freedom of
| speech)
|
| Some freedoms are there, some are not. Before 2022 it was
| similar to some parts of Europe.
|
| Also, freedom is not synonymous to Europe.
|
| > able to freely travel to most of the world
|
| It is not that bad. 127 visa-free countries, more than e.
| g. Montenegro, Moldova, Albaina - all of which are 100%
| European.
|
| > geographically, most of Russia is in Asia
|
| This is a meaningless argument. Britan was 90% not in
| Europe in the year 1912. But no one would say it was not
| European.
| wojciii wrote:
| Russia is not an European country. It requires running
| water and indoor toilets for this. Also not being run by
| mafia.
|
| The current conflict is going to break it up into smaller
| chunks sooner or later. I'm going to enjoy watching it
| burn.
| FpUser wrote:
| You are one pathetic piece of shit.
|
| I'll take it back if you are a direct victim of current
| Russian invasion of Ukraine. Otherwise yes.
| protomolecule wrote:
| Like this (2010):
|
| No more tariffs. No more visas. Vastly more economic
| cooperation between Russia and the European Union. That's
| the vision presented by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir
| Putin in an editorial contribution to the German daily
| Suddeutsche Zeitung on Thursday.
|
| "We propose the creation of a harmonious economic
| community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin
| writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free
| trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic
| integration. The result would be a unified continental
| market with a capacity worth trillions of euros." [0]
|
| [0] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-
| lisbon-to-v...
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Yeah, I believe visas issue is what actually broke the
| camel's back. Putin and the Russians felt humiliated when
| Ukrainians got visa free travel and they didn't.
| Humiliation is a very powerful emotion.
| protomolecule wrote:
| I don't know. I'm Russian and I didn't feel humiliated. I
| don't even remember when it happened.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| > Things were set in motion years ago and they are slowly
| unraveling. When the West rejected Russia's deeper
| integration into its structures after the Cold War ended
| and expanded NATO towards the East this path was set in
| stone. The late 2000s were the absolute breaking point.
|
| Your point would have been better made without weaseling in
| a Mearsheimer apology for authoritarian states. Russia
| snatching Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with NATO's
| expansion. Indeed, had NATO expanded earlier, we wouldn't
| have found ourselves in this mess, with Ukraine left to
| fend for itself.
|
| NATO grew because of the desperation of former USSR
| satellites to shelter themselves from their abuser.
|
| As to the other bit here about rejecting Russian
| integration as a cause for war: I think that point has been
| proven quite wrong with Merkel's absurd fantasy that trade
| with Russia would bring peace.
| empath-nirvana wrote:
| The West didn't reject Russia's deeper integration --
| Russia, and more particularly, Putin did. There was
| always a plan to add Russia to the EU and even at some
| point get them to join NATO. Russia abandoned democracy
| and closed that door.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| A big example of this that comes to mind to me (as a
| space nerd) is the ISS and various American rockets
| developed around that time. The US footed much of the
| bill for the ISS and offered Russia a ridiculously good
| deal in offering to launch their modules and setting up
| the seat exchange with Soyuz. Boeing and Lockheed Martin
| adopted Russian rocket engines for their rockets despite
| the national security concerns of having major launchers
| dependent on a potential adversary. This second decision
| caused a good bit of harm to domestic rocket engine
| design in the US.
|
| Of course part of the goal was to give Russian rocket
| scientists a more peaceful task to work on than spreading
| out to Iran, North Korea etc, but it was also a great
| chance for Russia to integrate further with the West and
| expand their historical prominence in space technology.
|
| Instead, they've done everything to ensure that they
| never get such a deal again, and have allowed their space
| industry to atrophy significantly.
|
| There's talk about how if Russia had been allowed into
| NATO they'd have been able to channel their energy into
| more constructive pursuits, but they were given an
| opportunity to do that for space technology and did not
| do so.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| >Russia snatching Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do
| with NATO's expansion.
|
| Absolutely false. We cannot prevent wars if we refuse to
| engage with reality as it is not as we wish it to be. htt
| ps://twitter.com/battleforeurope/status/17000929447142730
| ...
| holoduke wrote:
| Also nato grows because of economic greed. Thats one
| thing many non western countries dont like about the
| west. This hunger for more and more. And always in the
| name of democratic values which are often just a tiny
| shell arround a rotten agenda.
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| Spoken like a Putincrat.
| midasz wrote:
| nato is a defensive pact
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Sadly I think you're right about NATO expansion. I think a
| hot war with Russia was always on the table with NATO
| expansion. You either have to be willing to fight it to
| defend the expansion or you're going to cede something to
| Russia when they push back.
| dralley wrote:
| Hot war was absolutely on the table without expansion,
| just look at Moldova, or Georgia. Or even Ukraine.
| Ukraine was already ineligible for NATO prior to 2014 as
| a result of the multi-decade lease of Sevastopol to the
| Russian Navy.
| za3faran wrote:
| > both more than happy to destabilize the middle east in
| pursuit of their goals
|
| As if the west hasn't already destabilized the middle east
| for many decades now.
| ovi256 wrote:
| So that's a reason to do more of the bad thing ?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > If you believe the western media, the west no longer
| believes in or upholds its values, and watches while Russia
| pushes westward while China builds up a military and eyes
| Taiwan, both more than happy to destabilize the middle east
| in pursuit of their goals.
|
| > The west needs to wake up, we're slowly sliding towards a
| world conflict. This is going to get worse before it gets
| better.
|
| I think there's an essential connection there: The West's
| values and their power, and peace and freedom. The West's
| power comes from its values, not only because it captures the
| hearts and minds of others but because the power freedom and
| universal human rights gives to its own people.
|
| As many in the West disparage or undermine those values, they
| are doing the work of Putin and Xi (at times, I'm sure, led
| by their disinformation campaigns).
|
| No more time for games. It's time, as you say, to wake up and
| stand up for our values.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| >No more time for games. It's time, as you say, to wake up
| and stand up for our values.
|
| This makes a nice tweet. But what does it actually mean in
| practice?
| tomComb wrote:
| For starters, support the Ukraine.
| enlightenedfool wrote:
| To each his own values. The western values are pretty
| evident with the way Assange is treated.
| holoduke wrote:
| Ah come on. The west is as hypocrite as any other country.
| Look at what they did in too many places in the world.
| Human rights my pents. The phone you are holding is
| probably created by some child hands. If there is one thing
| what the west could improve is this silly Disney like black
| and white thinking. There must be a good and a bad. Its
| nonsense. Bad a good goes hand in hand.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > The west is as hypocrite
|
| Everyone and every institution is a hypocrite. If that's
| going to stop us, we might as well have submitted to the
| Nazis or Bolsheviks or someone long before that - after
| all, we were hypocrites then too!
|
| But who am I to say that - I'm a hypocrite. No hypocrites
| allowed on HN!
| bobsomers wrote:
| Everyone makes mistakes, it's about _learning from them_
| and what you _change_ to try to make things better in the
| future.
|
| Generally speaking, the west has been significantly
| improving the living conditions and human rights
| protections for its citizens over the last several
| hundred years, many times in direct response to some
| horrible mistake that was made and then subsequently
| learned from (slavery, Vietnam, etc.)
|
| The same cannot be said at all about Russia. All the
| intelligent, brave people who could see through the
| propaganda or who had the bravery to do something about
| it have largely either been killed off or emigrated away
| at this point. The country has been in a continuous cycle
| of totalitarian suffering for hundreds of years, with no
| end in sight.
| lordfrito wrote:
| > As many in the West disparage or undermine those values,
| they are doing the work of Putin and Xi (at times, I'm
| sure, led by their disinformation campaigns).
|
| I don't have evidence, but my gut says that's not by
| accident. This slippery slope we've been heading down for
| the last few decades (no more right and wrong, all values
| are equal, anyone who says otherwise is a
| problem/oppressor/colonizer) look to me like a well funded
| / coordinated / long term political warfare campaign in
| order to build a country of "appeasers". People who refuse
| to stand up for anything -- we all know that's how bullies
| win.
|
| I often wonder how much of what we're doing to ourselves is
| actually being funded by bad actors, fake patriots, etc.
|
| I don't trust any free news. Someone is paying for a
| message to be delivered to my eyeballs, and I don't know
| who that is. Maybe 1% of stories are from bad actors, maybe
| it's 25%. Who knows? The answer matters -- a lot.
|
| No one trusts anyone anymore. We've lost faith in our
| government and each other. No better way to conquer a
| nation than from within.
| voidfunc wrote:
| The decline of "The West" (really The US and client states
| err Europe) is inevitable now that Russia and China have
| dismantled any social unity we had. Americans all hate each
| other and that division is not getting reconciled. They will
| continue to use it to disrupt us. You can basically destroy
| momentum in the US by bombarding the population with
| propaganda and forcing political destabilization.
|
| We are screwed in the long run because there is no antidote
| to this that is compatible with our constitution.
| mlindner wrote:
| [delayed]
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Russia really is not to be feared.
|
| The Ukraine war is a tragedy and I hope it ends soon.
|
| But they have no economical & military power to really do any
| harm the Europe & the US. Putin makes a lot of noise but really
| can't even win a few km's in Ukraine.
|
| But the real threat is further east. China is slowly building
| it's empire, and it's a scary one. Taking over parts of Africa.
| Migrating it's people. Integrating it's tech worldwide. Making
| the world dependent while building it's own full independence.
| vaylian wrote:
| > But they have no economical & military power to really do
| any harm the Europe & the US. Putin makes a lot of noise but
| really can't even win a few km's in Ukraine.
|
| Let's see how the situation in Avdiivka develops in the next
| few weeks. Ukraine is reinforcing the area, but it doesn't
| look good.
|
| We've seen plenty of blunders by the russian army. But you
| should not underestimate your enemy.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Avdiivka will fall next week.
|
| Putin (and the Russian (leaderhsip) culture in general, see
| Stalin) is this:
|
| What are a 100M (of our) people dead if we own
| Ukraine/Baltics/East Poland/Georgia/... for the next
| hundreds of years?
|
| Stalin had the same blunders, thats priced in, the Red Army
| had meat wave attacks in WW2 and lost millions, but achived
| all it's war goals (Poland, Baltics, Eastern Europe
| including half of Germany - only the US achieved all it's
| war goals too, everyone else lost, sadly Poland had the
| biggest loss).
| lm28469 wrote:
| > What are a 100M (of our) people dead if we own
| Ukraine/Baltics/East Poland/Georgia/... for the next
| hundreds of years?
|
| The fertility rate more than halved since then, they're
| not playing with the same cards anymore
| Moldoteck wrote:
| you can just make people poorer and they'll have more
| childs, that's the lifehack
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| People have been steadily getting poorer thanks to
| inflation eating their stagnating wages combined with
| skyrocketing consumer and housing prices and the
| birthrate keeps dropping.
|
| Poor people had plenty of kids because they had no
| standards nor accessible birth control or they come from
| a conservative religious culture where having kids is the
| norm.
|
| But once people taste the good life, like westerners had
| it so good a while a ago, they don't want to bring kids
| in economic conditions worse than before, so the poorer
| you make them, the less kids they'll have.
|
| So to compensate, you don't focus on improving the
| conditions for the locals to convince them to procreate,
| but you open the immigration gates to people from poor
| places with no standards, happy to bring kids in
| conditions that are way better than what they have in
| their own country, even though they're worse than the
| locals had a few decades ago.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Putin is doing everything to get fertility rate up again
| [0]
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-urges-
| russians-ha...
| azangru wrote:
| > Putin is doing everything to get fertility rate up
| again
|
| Any success?
| drdaeman wrote:
| He absolutely increased poverty levels, education is in
| extremely sharp decline, propaganda is thriving, and he
| started to fight birth control (so far, emergency
| contraception only).
|
| And I must remind that Russia is having an electoral
| event this March, so the repressions were temporarily put
| on a back burner - but unpopular changes will come
| shortly afterwards. Check back in May or June.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| As soon as the Ukraine war comes to a standstill, Russia will
| start riots in the Baltics to create a land connection to
| Kaliningrad.
| cbg0 wrote:
| How exactly will Russia start "riots" in NATO countries?
| The_Colonel wrote:
| With the large Russian minority living there. Just like
| it started in Donbas.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| The same way as in Transnistra, Georgia and Ukraine.
| Soviet Russia colonized these areas with Russians to
| control access to the baltic sea/coal production/... and
| today these Russians lead a "Back to Mother Russia"
| campaigns.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Via the standard playbook.
|
| https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-
| pag...
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10
| /ru...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/30/blackt
| ivi...
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Making it about US, main concern is Baltics
| ceejayoz wrote:
| A playbook is made up of _repeatable_ tactics.
| sach1 wrote:
| I think the links there are less about 'wow look at how
| this disruption playbook worked in the US' and more
| about'look you can cause instability without inviting
| open warfare with NATO'.
|
| Or are the Baltics and her people immune to propaganda?
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Activating Russian communities is something different
| from promoting polarity in the US.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Sure, but they do the "promoting polarity" thing outside
| the US plenty. It's a useful tactic; pick wedge issues
| like gay people or immigrants, spread false or out-of-
| context news, etc.
|
| For a nice Baltic example, Lithuania:
| https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-baltic-elves-taking-on-
| pro...
|
| > Facebook is where the light skirmishes take place; the
| mortal combat is reserved for the comment sections of
| Lithuanian news articles, where the trolls loose a
| constant drizzle of falsehoods and complaints, each
| comment helping to construct an alternate reality version
| of life in this Baltic country of 3 million. Rather than
| a thriving and patriotic post-Soviet success story, which
| it is, the image the trolls cultivate is that of a
| demoralized and angry society whose people are ready for
| regime change, be it through internal democratic
| mechanisms or through "liberation" by a friendly
| neighboring army.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| There are significant Russian minorities left in the
| baltic states from the SU.
|
| Russia will support and radicalize those.
|
| If the Baltics dont react it will lead to unrest and
| Russia is forced to intervene and "protect" their fellow
| Russians.
|
| If the states react this will be seen as suppressing the
| Russian minorities and Russia will be forced to intervene
| and "protect" their fellow Russians.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| The same way they already did in Estonia in 2007?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3xq2XrCHv8
| Qwertious wrote:
| Not a chance. Kaliningrad is barely even useful to Russia -
| now that Finland is part of NATO, they can't cut off the
| Baltics from resupply, and the Baltics watched Ukraine and
| are less enthusiastic about Russia than ever.
|
| Realistically there's no (strategic) benefit to even
| defending Kaliningrad in case of a war (and the thing is
| surrounded by NATO so it would be taken immediately if not
| heavily defended), so stationing lots of troops there is
| just a pointless drain on resources. If the Kaliningrad
| secession movement picks up steam, then they might just let
| them leave.
| chinathrow wrote:
| You underestimate how Russia is playing the long game while
| everyone else thinks in election cycles.
| wruza wrote:
| The natural election cycle is pending though. I want to
| believe this is his last term.
| cglace wrote:
| Does that involve wrecking their economy and killing
| hundreds of thousands of males in a rapidly declining
| population?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| I guess it is easy to avoid the election cycles when you
| constantly put opponents in jail, or kill them. Why didn't
| we think of that?
|
| And for all the time Putin has to lay out his master
| plan..what did it buy him? A river of Russian blood in
| Ukraine?
| Qwertious wrote:
| If Russia was playing the long game then Finland would
| never have joined NATO.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > can't even win a few km's in Ukraine.
|
| And the US couldn't win against a few thousand goat farmers
| with Ak47s, or maybe there this is a bit more complex...
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| The problem of Afghanistan has never been conquering it,
| but holding it, the Soviets ran into the same issue.
| Anyway, the km's really do matter, if people truly fear for
| a deeper invasion into Europe.
|
| I don't think it's a convincing narrative that that's what
| Putin wants, and also that that's something he could
| reasonably accomplish. But I do hear it often as a powerful
| narrative to help Ukraine more, and I understand why, but
| from my point of view it's not very convincing.
|
| At the same time I agree with the sentiment that heavier
| the losses in Ukraine, the more he will have difficulties
| in starting similar drama in other countries with large
| Russian communities.
| tekla wrote:
| As it turns out, glassing an entire country is politically
| unpopular.
| caekislove wrote:
| Unless you're Israel
| cglace wrote:
| The US occupied the country for 20 years. Staying just
| became unpopular. The US lost about as many troops in 20
| years as Russia loses in 2 days of fighting in Ukraine.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| The situation in Ukraine is not very comparable with the US
| occupation of Afghanistan. The US captured all of the major
| cities in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks, after which the
| Taliban were pushed into a sliver of southern Afghanistan
| and into Pakistan, which borders those Southern regions of
| Afghanistan. The issue, as the other commenter mentioned,
| was in holding the territory. This issue of maintaining
| stability was worsened by how the US both ignored the
| Taliban's attempts to negotiate early in the occupation and
| ignored the fact that the Taliban were being harbored in
| Pakistan (which was considered an ally), allowing the
| Taliban to regain strength. Had the US targeted objectives
| in Pakistan in the early 2000s when the Taliban were weak,
| rather than waiting till 2011, history may have turned out
| differently.
| xnx wrote:
| Any unstable and/or desperate country with nukes is
| absolutely to be feared.
| gorbachev wrote:
| Ukrainians, Lithunians, Latvians, Estonians, Finns and Polish
| would disagree with your first sentence.
| miroljub wrote:
| Why does this surprise you? Russia just can't afford another
| Lenin during the war. Or another Yeltsin.
|
| The last thing they need now is a fight for supremacy, similar
| to what we have in Ukraine, that would cripple their war effort
| and benefit only their enemies. The death or one of the
| opposition leaders may be considered as a small price to pay to
| avoid the 1917 like catastrophe. Today, with the abundance of
| nuclear weapons, the stakes for the whole world are much higher
| than then.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Surely not the last opposition figure and Russia will run out
| of manpower as every attacker has a higher loss than the
| defender. You forget Lukashenko, he wasn't unwilling to let
| Belarus join the Russian Federation for no reason. As soon as
| Putin dies for whatever reason, Lukashenko will be the first to
| race to the Kremlin and take over.
|
| Personally I have great hopes that an outsider like Kasparov
| could become President of Russia once Russia is defeated. He
| did attempt to run for presidency in 2007.
|
| You do read the news? Ukraine is sinking the Russian Black Sea
| fleet ship by ship with cheap sea-drones. Ukraine is destroying
| Russian oil refineries and Russia has to reduce it's crude oil
| production now that India seems to saturated with cheap Russian
| oil.
|
| On Ukraine ceding territory, I assume that's in case of a peace
| deal? Putin will sell that as a victory to the Russian people
| and prepare the next attack a few years later. This simply
| isn't an option for Europe to allow. Russia will crumble.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Lukashenko taking over Russia is the funniest take I've heard
| about him
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Remember at the time his competition was Yeltsin
| TomK32 wrote:
| An here they are in 1997 signing the founding treaty of
| the Russia-Belarusian Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
| /Union_State#/media/File:RIAN_a...
| TomK32 wrote:
| Sure sounds funny but here's a few things:
| * Lukashenko is president since the post was created, his
| position is quite solid and will be useful when Putin's
| time is over. * just two years into his presidency he
| signed a Union treaty with Russia, then still ruled by
| Yeltsin. Russia always understood that treaty as Belarus
| becoming part of Russia, something Putin is very keen on,
| extending Russia by force has happened more than once since
| 2000 but Belarus joining peacefully would push Putin's
| popularity. Lukashenko again and again promised things like
| introducing a common currency by 2004, 2005, 2006 and
| "maybe" 2007. Didn't happen. For Lukashenko it's a carrot
| he dangles in front of Putin. * Belarus didn't join
| the war against Ukraine, and Lukashenko profited a lot when
| he got Wagner to stop their rebellion.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I'm sorry but how are any of those points suppose to
| suggest Lukashenko, the unpopular ruler of a weak country
| slowly getting eaten by Russia, is poised to take control
| of Russia?
| lawn wrote:
| He never represented any real hope for regime change.
|
| He was just a useful figurehead to attract sympathies from the
| west, but he never posed any threat to Putin and even if he
| somehow got into power he would do nothing to change Russia for
| the better.
|
| He died (was killed) because he no longer served a purpose for
| Putin.
| dralley wrote:
| Be that as it may, he wasn't controlled opposition.
| api wrote:
| You forgot a chunk of the US right actively supporting Russia
| and praising Putin as savior of the West.
|
| They aren't the majority but are influential.
|
| Xi Xinpeng should take a lesson here. Apparently all you have
| to do is dunk on gay people and pay lip service to right wing
| culture war stuff and they'll roll over. You don't even have to
| mean it. (Every core statistic the right claims to care about
| is worse in Russia like birth rate, divorce, abortion, etc.)
| joenot443 wrote:
| I hang out with people of a huge range of political views,
| from classical Marxist-Leninists to earnest tear-it-down
| anarchists, from neolib Obama stans to full magapedes.
|
| I've yet to meet a single one who "actively supports Russia
| and praises Putin as savior of the West". Like, literally not
| one. The only time I've _ever_ heard this viewpoint uttered
| in North America is when people online are sketching it out
| online as a bogeyman. Even on the trashier, more marginal
| sides of Twitter it's still America First - I just don't know
| who these people are that you and others in this thread are
| so concerned about.
|
| Have you personally met someone who believes that crap? Who,
| given the option, would prefer a world of Russian hegemony
| over American? I think we're getting mad at a population that
| in North America doesn't really exist in any meaningful way.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Usually, I believe the underlying reasoning is that they
| think someone is not pro-war enough, or anti-the guy
| enough, when they accuse someone of being pro the guy. Like
| secret supporters or something. Because actual pro the guy
| seem extremely rare.
| mywittyname wrote:
| My dad praises Putin as a good leader. He sees Putin as
| someone who is merely capitalizing on the weakness of
| Biden, and that Putin was scared of Trump. In his mind,
| Putin invading Ukraine is the fault of everyone who voted
| for Biden. It's stupid an illogical, but it is his
| legitimate opinion on the matter.
|
| He's not even a fringe case either, just your standard old
| dude who parrots whatever crap Fox News is spewing.
| pompino wrote:
| Your dad doesn't actively support Putin or Russia. Nor
| does he think that Putin is the savior of the West.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Putin has cancer and Father Time is undefeated. There's reason
| for much optimism in the world.
| mistyq wrote:
| We've been hearing news about his cancer periodically since
| ~2012, now it's the time to believe
| gorbachev wrote:
| He has Princes waiting in his wings that will continue the
| same kleptocratic dictatorship in that country for decades to
| come. Nothing will change when he, hopefully soon, dies.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I know it is enough to fill several books but I don't see
| how we went from Gorbachev to this.
|
| I'll hold hope that the Princes will be less homicidal
| maniacs. I think there is something extra psychotic about
| Putin that you don't find in normal people.
| dindobre wrote:
| Let's keep in mind the man was no saint either, perhaps his
| regime would have preferred sending some rockets to the
| Georgian "rats" rather than Ukrainians.
| eveningsteps wrote:
| Context: https://web.archive.org/web/20200414045757/https://n
| avalny.l...
| qwertox wrote:
| > how Russia will crumble just any day now (TM)
|
| Have you ever thought about what Russia's influence in the AI
| sector would be by now if they would have focused on developing
| it instead of starting a war? Developing it while pretending a
| peaceful cooperation with the West?
|
| It might well be that China supports Russia's war effort so
| much because it knows that this way Russians will have zero
| time and resouces to focus on being an AI leader, and through
| it, a threat to China.
|
| The biggest win for the US and China is that Russia will now
| never be at the cutting edge in AI development. The longer this
| war goes on, the better it will be for both the US and for
| China.
|
| Even Europe will be more advanced than Russia during the next
| couple of decades.
| czechdeveloper wrote:
| This sounds so random. Did Russia ever proved they can do AI
| in any significant capacity?
| macleginn wrote:
| Yandex was doing alright:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yandex_self-driving_car
| bzzzt wrote:
| Their "Tesla killer" not so much:
| https://news.yahoo.com/russia-presents-electric-car-
| amber-16...
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Putin's Russia does not have a good track record of
| developing strategic projects with big R&D component. If
| anything, they spectacularly failed in space, in
| nanotechnology and other fields which were designated as
| strategic 15 years ago. All Russian successes were in
| commercial sector so far thanks to many technology
| entrepreneurs and ignorance of Soviet boomers - the
| generation currently in power. Despite the enormous brain
| drain, Russia may be now in a better position to start and
| make significant progress in something. Russia is
| traditionally better in mobilizing the nation in times of war
| than in peaceful times and it shows now, when they were able
| to scale military-industrial complex capacity very quickly.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Russia could have done many things, but it's entire business
| environment is broken.
| picadores wrote:
| It fits very well into the narrative that democracy is
| ineffective and basically a hot-house flower, that some
| culprits propell.
| aerique wrote:
| Yes, as long as said autocrats spent billions to undermine it
| ;-)
| Agraillo wrote:
| What keeps my hope for democracies in the world is an
| observation I made after reading The Year 2000 by Joseph
| Goebbels written on 25 February 1945. He more or less said
| that Stalin wasn't bound by the rules of democracies then he
| would succeed after all. I like to analyze such predictions
| because you know the outcome and you can guess what was wrong
| when someone wrote this. My version is that democracies have
| values kept while transitioning from a state to a state
| (after elections) while dictatorships change in many
| respects. It was visible in the Soviet Union, every new ruler
| brought a new system despite the fact that they all claimed
| to fight for the same goals.
| eric_cc wrote:
| Democracy is an ideal. There absolutely are bad
| implementations, democracies that get hijacked and are
| democracies in-name-only, dumb populaces, etc.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| There are more oppositional figures, they're simply barred from
| entry because it's not a real democracy.
|
| Russia is not gaining noteworthy traction. Avdiivka is a tiny
| pointless place aside from the fact that Russia is willing to
| impale itself at horrible odds to achieve any victory it can
| for optics.
| elihu wrote:
| Avdiivka is a tiny fraction of all of Ukraine, but it's still
| noteworthy that Russia is making significant progress there,
| and pushing in at other points on the whole front. Ukraine's
| lines aren't at imminent risk of collapsing, but they have a
| pretty serious shortage of artillery shells and other
| equipment, and it's taking a toll.
|
| If the U.S. were still supplying Ukraine they'd be in a much
| better place.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| It's not that noteworthy though. Russia cannot sustain the
| war effort at this cost and this pace for the entirety of
| Ukraine. It's a really small place with minor strategic
| value. Incessant meat waves do eventually work buts it's
| not a winning strategy.
|
| "Sustain" is a really funky term that's hard to define.
| Like, they can keep refurbing tanks. They can keep
| funneling out meat. But they can't replace the ships. They
| can't replace the sovereign wealth fund.
|
| Not to say the US shouldn't be sending every last bomb it
| can find
| FredPret wrote:
| Europe will now spend more on it's own defence which is very
| good for the West and just horrible for Russia. Invading the EU
| is a different proposition to invading Ukraine. Invading a
| well-armed Europe is almost impossible.
| reactordev wrote:
| "Invading a well-armed Europe is almost impossible."
|
| Funny, the world had the same thought in 1936.
| ninjin wrote:
| Fair point. But if you want to use that analogy, maybe you
| are also willing to admit that the might of the Wehrmacht
| accomplished substantially more than getting bogged down
| about 100km beyond their initial borders two years into the
| conflict?
| reactordev wrote:
| I will admit no such accomplishments. Where I'm from, we
| punch Nazi's in the face.
| ninjin wrote:
| Not sure how admitting that the current state of the
| Armed Forces of the Russian Federation relative to the
| rest of Europe is not as good that of the pre-WWII
| Wehrmacht has any relationship to punching Nazis.
| reactordev wrote:
| I do not admire Nazi military accomplishments nor compare
| current military strategy to a world invasion. Russia's
| military state is because Russia's military doesn't want
| this fight, but they must.
| ithkuil wrote:
| And they must fight because?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Otherwise they get shot.
| thriftwy wrote:
| So they basically just heroically breached Avdeevka
| because their boss shouted at them?
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Not sure if refusing to learn from history is the
| approach I would take to stop nazis or Russia, but to
| each their own I guess
| reactordev wrote:
| I refuse to acknowledge any nazi accomplishments. That
| does not mean I haven't learned from history. I think the
| evidence shows it's the other way around. That people
| forget history and like to admire a fascist regime for
| their murder rate or ability to take down unsuspecting
| neighbors.
|
| Russia got bogged down because Russia doesn't want this
| fight. Russia's Kremlin does.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Nobody "admires" the murder rate of nazis (except perhaps
| other nazis). People are horrified by the efficiency and
| success that Nazis achieved. It's a stark reminder of
| what can happen when the wrong people get too much
| uncheckered power. Denying or minimizing that it happened
| will make it more likely for it to happen again.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Indeed. Understanding something doesn't imply endorsing
| it
| Qwertious wrote:
| Fascists weren't efficient, broadly speaking. They
| presented the _aesthetic_ of efficiency and disappeared
| anyone who called them out on their bullshit. For
| example, Mussolini 's trains _didn 't_ run on time, apart
| from one or two showpony lines.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Ok so maybe the trains didn't run on time, but they
| invaded a lot of neighboring countries really fast.
| Something that Russia doesn't seem capably of doing, as
| was pointed out upthread.
|
| It's not a good idea to broadly think "nazis are stupid,
| they won't get anything done". Sometimes they get things
| done and then we're fucked.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Germany was the 1930's equivalent of the USA in roughly
| comparable industrial output, the difference is that
| instead of creating a nicer society they gambled that
| they could overrun all of Europe by redirecting that
| output towards a war machine. The scary thing: their
| gamble almost worked.
| gettodachoppa wrote:
| This isn't Twitter or your polycule's Wednesday night
| political discussion, my friend. Being proud of rejecting
| historical facts doesn't give you as many virtue
| signalling points as you think.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Someone was always wrong about something similar in the
| past.
|
| That proves nothing about the present.
| ovulator wrote:
| How did that work out for the Germans?
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| War is fundamentally different now than it was at the
| beginning of WW2. A nuclear superpower cannot be invaded.
| You can poke the bear A LOT, but basically everyone
| recognizes that a ground invasion is crossing a red line.
|
| That's the purpose of NATO. In exchange for giving up some
| autonomy to the US (letting the USA build military bases in
| your territory, not acting overtly against our interests),
| and paying us for our fancy weapons, NATO members get the
| immeasurably valuable power of a nuclear red line border,
| and protection by the most powerful military the world has
| ever seen. It's a very, very good deal, and the most
| stabilizing force in history.
|
| Given the NATO membership of most of Europe, the only wars
| possible in Europe are small, regional conflicts between
| non-member states.
| misja111 wrote:
| Well that assumes that NATO will hold its promise and
| defend the member state that is invaded. Lately,
| considering Trump's recent outings, this isn't set in
| stone anymore.
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| U.K. & France both have Nuclear Weapons
| frereubu wrote:
| This feels like the complacency that has meant Europe is
| almost entirely dependent on the US for credibile defence
| against Russia. Europe is not well-armed, as shown by the
| panicked response to Trump's threat to let NATO allies be
| attacked if they don't contribute enough to the budget, and
| it will take a long time to re-arm properly in the current
| economic climate. (For clarity, I think Trump's threat is
| terrible in many ways, but it has exposed NATO's fundamental
| dependence on the US)
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| "Invading a well-armed Europe is almost impossible."
|
| - You don't get it. An alliance of china, russia, iran and
| north korea will be enabled to do whatever they want.
| Including invading or, more likely, hitting with missiles
| critical infrastructure in any Nato country with the
| exception of US and UK
| kunley wrote:
| Sad reality, from the pov of their neighbors, is that russian
| regime change wouldn't really change much on their side.
|
| As much as it is incomprehensible for America, there are
| societies that do not value freedom from the very bottom to the
| very top - and Russia is one of them
| randomname93857 wrote:
| >>... that russian regime change wouldn't really change much
| on their side. there is more to this. The power there is
| usurped by a group of KGB officers, and they control all the
| government and power branches, etc (including even russian
| orthodox church). Any hypothetical elected outsider as a
| president will be coerced into doing what they demand. Anyone
| non-compliant will be eliminated.
| piltdownman wrote:
| There's not so much infighting as there is a fascist fox in the
| hen-house (Orban). They still managed to get the EUR54bn aid
| package through this month - and that's just a Marshal Plan to
| set the country up for future EU membership. Germany alone has
| pledged EUR8bn in bilateral military aid for Ukraine this year,
| and there's a further EUR5bn coming from the coalition.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-eu-aid-funding...
|
| Also are we just ignoring Vladimir Kara-Murza in terms of
| opposition figures fighting for regime change?
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/14/putin-ukr...
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Vladimir Kara-Murza is a minor figure, one of the many others
| in jail, who are decent people but irrelevant politicians.
| 99% of Russians haven't heard of him. At this moment the only
| active and relevant politician is Nadezhdin.
| stcroixx wrote:
| Europe deciding to depend on Russia for their energy and not
| focusing on defense spending is the unbelievable part to me,
| but they've been doing this for quite some time now. They
| walked right into it. Russia is doing what they've always done
| and always will do.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| It was reasonable not to see Russia as enemy. It was well
| integrated into European trade and some political structures
| (PACE, NATO-Russia council etc) and there were even talks
| about visa-free travel between Russia and EU. What went wrong
| was the glacial speed of integration, letting the nationalist
| sentiment and disappointment in West grow. Post-WWII Europe
| was pacified through a political union between Germany and
| France, post-Cold War Europe should have done it too. Putin
| could be another Orban in the worst case.
| manmal wrote:
| Did you mean someone else than Orban?
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Name another enfant terrible in EU who undermines
| democracy but does not go too far to be expelled.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Scholz.
|
| Modern Russia is far better at political subversion than
| it is at outright conquest. Every country in Europe has
| captive politicians and far-right parties being funded
| and enabled by Moscow.
|
| Like Germany's AfD which - as a matter of record - has
| been cultivated, promoted, and steered in a pro-Russian
| direction.
|
| Scholz is clearly playing the same game, obstructing aid
| to Ukraine in every possible way.
|
| Geert Wilders in NL makes anti-Russian noises in public
| while threatening to cut support to Ukraine.
|
| Portugal has Chega, France has National Rally and Le Pen,
| the UK had Brexit and Boris Johnson - who installed the
| son of a top KGB operative to the House of Lords.
|
| The US has Trump and Maga.
|
| And so on.
|
| Every single one of these has proven Russian links.
|
| Ukraine is just a distraction. The real war has been
| happening elsewhere. Many leaders - and most voters -
| still haven't realised what's happening.
|
| And should Le Pen win in France and Trump in the US, that
| would leave the UK's one active nuclear submarine as
| Europe's sole protection against Russian nuclear threats.
| holoduke wrote:
| Absolutely not far right parties you are mentioning. I
| find it a conspiracy theory that russia is funding these
| parties. I believe these parties genuinely want to end
| existing dominance and therefor they are marked as pro
| russia.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Absolutely each and every one of those is far right,
| borderline fascist and getting more so by the day. There
| is plenty of evidence of Russian funds bankrolling these
| (and others), no need to suggest this is a conspiracy.
| What you believe doesn't really matter.
| holoduke wrote:
| Party of Geert Wilders is more a socialist party. Might
| be against immigration, but the agenda is left. Not
| right.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And Hitler was a vegetarian. What Geert Wilders yells to
| get votes has _zero_ binding on what he is able to
| accomplish or really intends to do.
| holoduke wrote:
| You should read the party objectives. State media is
| often a bit biased and even in the west you can fell
| victim to propoganda.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You're hilarious. Geert Wilders is a populist, not a
| politician. The party objectives are Geert Wilders' dog
| whistles and promises to the gullible, it isn't a serious
| political party even though it has attracted the largest
| voting bloc simply because there is no governance
| structure in place, the party _is_ Geert Wilders, the
| rest is just window dressing. The idea that 'even in the
| west[sic] you can fell[sic] victim to propoganda[sic]' is
| true but it has nothing to do with my view of Wilders,
| the PVV or the general Dutch political situation. And as
| for state media, guess what GW wants to get rid of?
| holoduke wrote:
| Big problems with your attitude. Cannot even stay calm. I
| am immediately addressed as a criminal. Its hilarious.
| Its insane. It's illusional. Maybe you should look at
| yourself a bit first. Different opinions exist. Accept it
| and try to have healthy discussions.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Big problems with your attitude. Cannot even stay calm.
| I am immediately addressed as a criminal. Its hilarious.
|
| Wrong comment thread?
| midasz wrote:
| He's a populist, a liar. PVV has ties and is influenced
| by the kremlin. Follow the money did a very good
| investigation. https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/de-banden-
| tussen-pvv-en-rusland...
| wkat4242 wrote:
| He talks left but votes right.
|
| That's what populists do. They say what people want to
| hear and then suit themselves.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| So how is this all relevant to what I said?
| saiya-jin wrote:
| If you want to bash german politicians for current
| situation, 100% guilt falls on Angela Merkel. Making
|
| 1) Germany ultra weak militarily, you really can't let
| intellectuals drive whole nations since they have 0 clue
| about realpolitik, warfare and all those ugly aspects of
| it, and currently bundeswehr is a pathetic underfunded
| joke with rotting helmets that even current russian army
| would roll over without breaking a sweat.
|
| 2) a massive push for critical fuel dependency on russia
|
| 3) never standing up to that murderer in any way, even as
| he was killing and invading Georgia and Ukraine
|
| He played her and similar to her very efficiently. Of
| course its nothing compared to masterclass he pulled/will
| yet pull on Trump.
|
| As somebody coming from cca eastern Europe, being
| enslaved by russian troops after their bloody invasion,
| western Europe is... to keep things ultra polite - ultra
| pussies. You simply don't grok how depraved and hardened
| to cruelty russian mind is, things like fair game are an
| insult. Also their incredible durability to withstand
| absolutely horrible treatment, just buckle up and
| continue. Western sanctions my ass, just make sure any
| good chips don't work for them somehow because they don't
| care for the rest.
|
| This is the case when you are dealing with mobsters who
| kill and know only rule of stronger, and you come with
| your polite smile and handshakes and expect things like
| keeping their word or contracts. I don't even have such a
| problem with EU dumb naivety in the past, but what is
| shocking that they didn't wake up right after invasion
| and starting putting 10% of GDP into army, to see some
| effects in 5 years just in time when real stuff starts
| happening. Every single post-soviet country keeps issuing
| very strong warnings due to previous horrible
| expereiences with russian terror, but these are
| completely ignored on EU level. This is a major long term
| weakness that will not get unpunished.
|
| Yeah, when SHTF its very easy to be ashamed to be from
| Europe, for quite a few generations.
| jacquesm wrote:
| 100% agreement, it's a complete mess. I think the big
| mistake is that this was all built on hope and hope is a
| fantastic way of getting to disappointment. But now what?
| That's the hard question. It looks like a whole bunch of
| politicians in the West are in Putin's pocket or at least
| useful idiots, the populace doesn't give two shits as
| long as they can watch TV and there is bread and
| meanwhile the fuse is burning.
|
| It's pretty sad that the EU now has to look to Lithuania
| for their moral compass because they seem to have lost
| their own.
| SEJeff wrote:
| I mean in France, you've got Marine LePen. In the
| Netherlands you've got Geert Wilders. Robert Fico wanted
| to take Slovakia back to a past when oligarchs dominated
| the state. PiS wanted to turn poland into the arsenal of
| the EU and got a really good start on it, etc.
|
| Nationalism is having a renaissance since Trump won in
| 2020, but it turns out overall to be a terrible way to
| run a country.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| How are they undermining democracy though? You may not
| like their politics but what have they done to say they
| are anti democratic?
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| PiS was close, Slovakia is maybe getting there, but Orban
| is the longest serving prime minister of Hungary. He
| actually did it and he stays in power. LePen, Wilders etc
| did not do a single thing from Orban's list. They didn't
| even form a government which could do it.
| SEJeff wrote:
| On that we totally agree. Orban is the top goon for sure,
| but he's not the only one, and there are several in the
| wings trying really hard.
|
| The fact that LePen has done as well as she has twice now
| is in and of itself horrifying.
| dralley wrote:
| It was not reasonable after 2014. Nordstream 2 was after
| 2014.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Fundamentally what actually went the worst was the
| absolutely awful way that capitalist market systems were,
| on the whole, rolled out in the eastern bloc in the 90s.
| Poverty, corruption, and massive wealth disparity were the
| results.
|
| And into the chaos, strongmen came in, and promised and
| gave some stability.
| ethanbond wrote:
| The strategy of economic integration as a way to reduce
| military tension has worked _very_ well in many other
| instances. It doesn 't seem like an obviously insane thing to
| have tried.
| philwelch wrote:
| The strategy seems to have gone 0-2 with Russia and China;
| can you name an instance in which it succeeded?
| illiac786 wrote:
| EU?
| philwelch wrote:
| That's putting the cart before the horse; countries only
| join the EU after they're already politically aligned
| with the current membership. Turkey, for instance, has
| been kept out of the European Union precisely because of
| these types of concerns; a strategy of economic
| integration would have entailed allowing Turkey to join
| the EU in hopes that the EU would be a positive influence
| on the country.
|
| Edit: I'm being throttled so I'll respond to similar
| comments here. TheOtherHobbes similarly notes:
|
| > The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies.
| No one sane is expecting a war between them any time
| soon.
|
| In particular, France and Germany weren't peacefully
| reconciled through economic integration. There was a war,
| and the victors of that war installed democratic
| governments in both France and West Germany and inducted
| both countries into a broader alliance.
|
| > Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about
| secession, but the economic complications make it an
| insane idea.
|
| It took about two decades after Texas was admitted to the
| union for the states to fight a civil war against each
| other.
|
| genman says:
|
| > Remember WW1? WW2?
|
| Not personally (I'm not that old) but those were not
| instances of economic integration easing military
| tensions; they were instances of extremely bloody world
| wars. And the First World War in particular was already
| deemed impossible because of the degree to which European
| economies were already economically integrated. That
| theory did not pan out.
|
| wolverine876:
|
| > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries
| that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for
| centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended
| to prevent another war.
|
| Again reversing cause and effect. The Allies won the
| Second World War and installed friendly governments
| across western Europe (and also in Greece); following
| this, those friendly governments formed the EU.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > countries only join the EU after they're already
| politically aligned with the current membership.
|
| The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries
| that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for
| centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended
| to prevent another war.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries
| that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for
| centuries before that.
|
| Not quite, the Western Union (predecessor to the EU by
| way of the was formed by the BeNeLux countries, the UK
| and France. Some of those were at war in preceding
| centuries but they were on the same side during WWI and
| WWII. It didn't have a lot of clout because very rapidly
| afterwards other more powerful institutions were formed
| and it was superceded. But it was more of a continuation
| of some of the collaboration that stemmed from being
| allies/liberators in the war than that they were on
| opposing sides. Later institutions included Germany and
| Italy as well.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| In Europe there have undoubtedly been international
| institutions going back a long way. Is what you're
| talking about really a blood _ancestor_ of the EU, or is
| it a predecessor - another group that happened to have
| some of the same members.
|
| As I recall, Churchill was a strong proponent of the EU's
| [edit: I can't believe I used the wrong word:] ancestor
| (the European Communities? Some oil and coal community?),
| as a way to prevent further wars. Churchill blamed
| nationalism specifically.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I would say it was because there is a reasonably direct
| line of succession in terms of both members and
| responsibilities. The steel and coal union is also in
| that line. What happened is that the unification was seen
| as beneficial but that a larger body with a more future
| proof organization was what really was required.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > What happened is that the unification was seen as
| beneficial but that a larger body with a more future
| proof organization was what really was required.
|
| You're saying the EU wasn't required? That seems like a
| bold statement, but probably too much to sort out in HN
| comments.
|
| I'm a bit confused by "but" in that sentence. I'm not
| sure if a 'not' or another word is missing there.
| Certainly many saw unification as beneficial - again, it
| was the key to many. Many still do.
| jacquesm wrote:
| No, that's not what I'm saying.
|
| Unification was underway prior to the EU, the EU is the
| eventual larger body but it took some steps to get to the
| point where it could be properly established, mostly on
| account of the various countries still reeling from WWII
| and being _very_ busy with reconstruction efforts (and
| piss poor to boot, the first years after WWII were almost
| as bad as the last years of the war and in some places
| even worse besides the reduced immediate risk to life).
| Doubly so for those countries that ended up on the far
| side of the Iron Curtain, but then again, they weren 't
| part of the EU for many years to come. But for many of
| them the only thing that changed is that German uniforms
| became Russian uniforms and usually that wasn't
| accompanied by a higher degree of civility by the
| occupiers.
| phobotics wrote:
| Most of Europe?
| genman wrote:
| Remember WW1? WW2?
| Anthony-G wrote:
| And the two millennia of recorded history before those
| wars.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No
| one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon.
|
| Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about
| secession, but the economic complications make it an
| insane idea.
|
| It's not inherently a bad strategy, but it tends to fail
| when you're dealing with huge would-be hegemons - which
| certainly applies to China and Russia.
| vogre wrote:
| >No one sane is expecting a war between them any time
| soon.
|
| Ukraine and Russia were same country like almost forever.
| No one sane was expecting a war between them.
|
| Don't underestimate ability of polititians to screw
| things up.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ukraine was under Russian dominion like almost forever,
| but that didn't make it a part of Russia. If it had been
| then Russians would not distinguish between 'Russians'
| and 'little Russians' and other (far worse) terms.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| not to forget that at one point muscovy was under
| ukraininian (Rus-ian) dominion.
| thriftwy wrote:
| Germans do distinguish between Prussian Germans and
| Bavarian Germans. Nevertheless it's the same country.
|
| Various types of Germans also did have a large number of
| wars agains one another.
|
| Russian position is indeed that Ukrainian claims on the
| statehood in 1991 or even 2014 borders are absolutely
| bogus.
|
| Personally, I also find it hard to respect the
| immutability of international borders that are younger
| than I am.
| jacquesm wrote:
| But they don't see the other half of Germany as
| untermenschen. Which is roughly how the Russians view the
| denizens of all of the conquered land in their empire
| that isn't Russia proper.
| thriftwy wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that Parisiens saw all other kinds of
| frenchmen as untermenschen and actively eradricated their
| languages until, like, late XX century. Since they held
| absolute political powers nobody was even there to
| question it.
|
| Compared to that, Russians have super great attitude
| towards southwestern Russian variety. They do recognize
| the existence of Ukrainian language (dialect continuum)
| and that some people might want to speak it unharmed, for
| starters.
|
| Ukrainian state rewrites history like there was no
| yesterday, but you could definitely study Ukrainian in
| any UkrSSR school from 1960s to 1991. I wonder if you
| could find a school that will teach any Languedoc,
| anywhere _in_ Languedoc.
|
| I'm also pretty sure that Germans from different parts of
| Germany aren't big fans of each other as a group.
| mlindner wrote:
| Ukrainian isn't a dialect continuum with Russian. That's
| a myth commonly pushed by Russia and Russian
| nationalists. It's a separate language with roots
| diverging from a rather early point with different
| history. It actually shares more similarity with Polish
| or Bulgarian than it does with Russian. Here's a good
| video on the languages
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQLM62r5nLI
|
| (Note: It was published before the war so the statistics
| of where what languages are commonly used have changed
| dramatically.)
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure that Parisiens saw all other kinds of
| frenchmen as untermenschen and actively eradricated their
| languages until, like, late XX century.
|
| That has _nothing_ to do with Russia vs Russian conquered
| territories, besides, France has Occitan, there is the
| German based dialects, Catalan, some Basque and a whole
| raft of others.
|
| > Since they held absolute political powers nobody was
| even there to question it.
|
| Except that that didn't quite happen in the way you
| suggest. You could make a similar statement about Fries
| in NL or maybe Limburgs or Diets. And it would be just as
| much wrong.
|
| > Compared to that, Russians have super great attitude
| towards southwestern Russian variety. They do recognize
| the existence of Ukrainian language (dialect continuum)
| and that some people might want to speak it unharmed, for
| starters.
|
| Sorry, are we on different planets or something? You
| mean: those very same Russians that are currently bombing
| the shit out of anything Ukrainian and who wish to
| eradicate the Ukrainian nation and culture?
|
| > I'm also pretty sure that Germans from different parts
| of Germany aren't big fans of each other as a group.
|
| They are as alike as the Dutch and the Belgians, we joke
| about each other but at the end of the day there is no
| hate and zero chance of a war.
| thriftwy wrote:
| > Occitan native speakers: Estimates range from 100,000
| to 800,000 total speakers (2007-2012)
|
| No assimilation and cultural genocide policy in any form.
| It has just dwindled to these numbers on its own. Also
| has no relation to the topic that we discuss. Don't
| forget to call whataboutism.
|
| I gather that reflection is not a strong side of Western
| Europeans.
|
| > those very same Russians that are currently bombing the
| shit out of anything Ukrainian
|
| That's called "a civil war", and that's how it viewed by
| many Russians and some Ukrainians. Indeed that's not a
| great condition to be in.
|
| > who wish to eradicate the Ukrainian nation and culture
|
| Again, this accusation is coming from a proud member of a
| nation who eradicated a couple of cultures very recently.
| "While I had already been born" recently.
|
| People of Donbass were fed up with Ukrainization to the
| extent that these two Republics do not have Ukrainian as
| co-official. But Crimea, and the "new territories" of
| Kherson oblast and Zaparozh'ye (whatever left of them,
| arguably) have Ukrainian as co-official. Crimea also has
| Crimean Tatar as co-official. If anybody wants they can
| study their language and their culture, including in
| schools. That's what was not permitted to Russians in
| many, many ex-USSR countries.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > That's called "a civil war", and that's how it viewed
| by many Russians and some Ukrainians. Indeed that's not a
| great condition to be in.
|
| Oh fuck off.
| sergeykish wrote:
| February 2014 Moscow occupied Crimea, "referendum" a
| month later.
|
| 12.04.2014 Moscow occupied Slovyansk, "referendum" a
| month later.
|
| February 2022 Moscow occupied Kherson, "referndum" half a
| year later.
|
| Do you claim "people of Kherson was fed up, fight civil
| war"?
| sergeykish wrote:
| In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the
| closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the
| Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference).
|
| After Belarusian, Ukrainian is also closer to Slovak,
| Polish, and Czech than to Russian - 38% of Ukrainian
| vocabulary is different from Russian.
| comfortabledoug wrote:
| This is just uninformed horseshit dripping with bias.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Well thank you for that well sourced critique.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Germans distinguish between prussians and bavarians? What
| are you talking about. Yes there are distinctions by
| state and where you're from. But the distingtion (apart
| from the occasional joking Fischkopf or Pazi) is
| nonexistent. Much less than states in the US.
| attentive wrote:
| no, they weren't. It was occupied by russia/soviet
| empire.
| pas wrote:
| China did go through a lot of effort to gain WTO MFN
| status. Then the US (and others too) stopped enforcing
| symmetric market policies.
|
| Stick and carrots. Both are required.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| taiwan, south korea, singapore
|
| not to mention that china was on a reasonably good
| trajectory until a certain yellow bear ascended to the
| throne
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I don't personally think is economic liberalization that
| succeeded.
|
| It's the US won't stand for anymore wars like that. And
| for 50 years after WWII they could enforce that. You can
| note the general absence of large wars in North and South
| America as evidence of that.
| andy-x wrote:
| You probably mean "to prevent military tension"? When
| tension already becomes war, it's sort of pointless to
| continue economic integration in the hope that it can stop
| war.
| ethanbond wrote:
| I don't know what truly _zero_ military tension looks
| like but I think economic integration can both prevent
| and reduce it.
| genman wrote:
| If it was not clear for the reader of this comment:
| European Union is the example that has ended centuries old
| tensions between European powers.
| nec4b wrote:
| Results of the second world war, the American hegemony
| and the soviet threat did that. Not the EU.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Also Japan, Korea, Canada-US-Mexico, also improving
| relations with various Middle Eastern states
| lawlessone wrote:
| >The strategy of economic integration as a way to reduce
| military tension has worked very well in many other
| instances.
|
| It mostly worked within in the EU because you needed
| meaningfully adopt certain standards to join the market.
|
| Russia didn't have to do any of that and by the time more
| people started to understand the problem developing they
| already had leverage.
| treflop wrote:
| Russia is a gigantic country with vast resources that
| isn't bordered by Europe, and more than once it was a
| superpower and it was a superpower against another
| gigantic country. On the other hand, Europe consists of
| small countries trying to fit in with their neighbors.
|
| It's like thinking the scooter kids are gonna be hanging
| with the skater kids. It's not that they are inherently
| that different, but they have such different mindsets
| that it means they see their positions in the world
| differently.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| >Russia is a gigantic country with vast resources that
| isn't bordered by Europe
|
| Maybe you should look at the map before writing such
| nonsense.
|
| 1. Russia does have borders both with EU and NATO.
| Norway, Finland, Baltic states, Poland.
|
| 2. Russia is geographically in Europe too. Most of its
| population and the capital are in Europe.
|
| Among European countries it does have the largest
| territory, population and nuclear arsenal, but it is not
| even the biggest economy. Ex-superpower is not a now-
| superpower. Mindset-wise it has a lot in common with
| other EU members.
| ethanbond wrote:
| The EU is at least as much a _consequence_ of economic
| integration as it is a driver of it. The Marshall Plan
| wasn 't just handshake deals to play nicely from now on.
| wrs wrote:
| Well, it works OK as long as the countries involved don't
| get taken over by a demagogue, dictator, or whatever the
| Brexit movement was. In other words, rationality and
| cooperation go out the window. Which turns out to be a
| pretty common failure mode according to 21st century
| evidence.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Indeed, and it's a serious problem. There are really only
| two ways out of this mess and one is not at all like the
| other and both are roughly equally likely by my
| reckoning.
| christkv wrote:
| I don't think there is proof for that at all. It's more
| likely due to the countries all being democracies
| beefield wrote:
| This. Amartya Sen has claimed that two actual democracies
| have never been at war between each other. At least I
| find hard to find significant counterexamples in history.
| (Not sure about the Falkland war. And I think Finland was
| technically at war with UK in the second world war)
|
| I think the democratic and developed countries need to
| change their game plan pretty soon. The countries that
| are willing to join the club should be offered actual
| help to develop. By actual help I mean trade treaties
| that are designed to benefit those countries, not
| developed countries. Includes IP vaiwers, duties that
| protect local industries etc.
|
| The countries that do not want to join, (including China
| and Orban's Hungary) then again, should be punished in
| all ways possible. Massive duties to commodities and
| other products imported from those countries, as a
| starter.
|
| Open democracies do not need to be nice guys if they are
| threatened. Must not be, to be more precise. See Popper
| and paradox of tolerance.
| klassik wrote:
| >Not sure about the Falkland war
|
| Do you mean the war between Argentina and England?
| Argentina was not only under a military dictatorship
| then, but the war was definitely triggered by the
| military junta.
| freedomben wrote:
| Indeed. There's a common saying that sort of derives from
| Frederic Bastiat that "where goods cross borders, armies
| don't." Trade and economic dependence is the _best_
| deterrent of war that there is. That doesn 't necessarily
| mean that it stops all war, but it definitely raises the
| cost of war and costs matter.
|
| It's also IMHO the most productive and ethical way to
| reduce/prevent war. Maybe they shouldn't have allowed
| something so fundamental as energy to become a dependence,
| but generally speaking the principles are sound.
| tivert wrote:
| > Indeed. There's a common saying that sort of derives
| from Frederic Bastiat that "where goods cross borders,
| armies don't." Trade and economic dependence is the best
| deterrent of war that there is.
|
| It's a saying whose truth has been greatly exaggerated,
| and the people who foolishly believe it have a tendency
| to make themselves vulnerable.
|
| > That doesn't necessarily mean that it stops all war,
| but it definitely raises the cost of war and costs
| matter.
|
| Costs apparently matter less than you think.
| amarant wrote:
| GP has a point. While economic integration didn't work
| this time, it has in the past. Been a while since you
| last saw Germany invading Poland for example. Or France.
|
| Costs obviously do matter, but no-one is saying it's a
| fool-proof means of control.
|
| Also I think part of the problem in this case is that
| Europe failed to make Russia sufficiently financially
| dependent on Europe. Instead Europe made itself dependent
| on Russia for energy, which means that the pacifying
| forces of trade are leveraged more towards Europe than
| towards Russia.
|
| Geopolitics are complicated and messy. The more I think
| about them the more my head hurts.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| > They walked right into it
|
| Why past tense? Still walking...
| navane wrote:
| I get not believing the cry wolf. But not when the wolves are
| literally tearing people up in front of you.
| ako wrote:
| Isnt the US depending on china for production just as much as
| Europe is depending on Russia for gas.
| stcroixx wrote:
| Yes and I'm dead set against it. When that blows up in our
| face we deserve it for allowing it to happen. The best we
| can hope for is China ruins their own economy rendering
| them impotent.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Don't hope too much for that. Authoritarian regimes with
| collapsing economies often find war a useful distraction
| for their populations. China could do an awful lot of
| damage on the way down.
| SEJeff wrote:
| The US imports more goods from Mexico than China, but we do
| import a lot of stuff from China. It is clear from both
| sides that is problematic. They've been exporting less AND
| we have been moving supply chains to import less from them.
|
| It is quite problematic as it appears the US and China are
| slow crawling to a direct confrontation.
| mlindner wrote:
| Almost all of Europe's fossil fuels came from Russia
| whereas China is not even the largest trade partner of the
| US. Also energy dependence is much harder to get off of
| than production dependence.
| plufz wrote:
| Even though that is troublesome I think the absolute biggest
| issue was the West "helping" liberalize the Russian economy.
| I.e. giving away huge amounts of the Russian states resources
| to corrupt oligarchs with great help from London banks. It
| really set the stage for Putin in a big way.
| foxandmouse wrote:
| After the Fukushima disaster in 2011, Germany quickly moved
| away from nuclear power, with the last plant closing down in
| late 2023. Germany leads in renewable energy, but this swift
| change has left them with a big gap in energy security that
| might last until 2038.
| macromagnon wrote:
| Where can I get more information on this? Wasn't fukushima
| total disaster in that it was badly maintained and in a bad
| location? These two pre-conditions don't seem to apply to
| the plants germany had.
| foxandmouse wrote:
| here's a wiki article to get you started:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany ,
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/24324663 this is a better
| source if you're iterested enough
| surfingdino wrote:
| Not deciding, but being told to do so by Germany who is
| infiltrated by Russians at every level of government,
| industry, and media. Allowing Germany to unify and giving the
| keys to the future of Europe to Germany was the biggest
| mistake the USA and Britain made after 1989.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The same move could have had a completely different outcome
| so it is hard to lay the blame with the USA and Britain. A
| unified Germany unlocked Poland and the Baltics as well as
| the Balkans, Romania and even Bulgaria. It did not work out
| quite as planned because Putin went mad but it _could_ have
| worked if Russia focused on creation rather than
| destruction for a while. But with people that power hungry
| ratio goes right out the window.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Nothing will go "as planned" in that part of the world
| for as long as individual states like Germany will be
| signing agreements with Russia without consultation or
| participation of the Eastern European states. The problem
| of Western Europe is that they look at Eastern European
| countries as "lesser", former dependencies and haven't
| accepted them as equal partners.
| michaeltimo wrote:
| This! When Trump had an statement about this in the UNGA five
| years ago, German politicians laughed and they walked right
| into it.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The US for all their huge defense spending has been involved
| in a lot more wars than the EU.
|
| So defense spending as prevention of war isn't really a thing
| either. Nor is winning them (forget Afghanistan?)
| netbioserror wrote:
| Hoping for regime change in Russia? Am I insane, or are the
| supporters of the ongoing holdout of the Ukrainian government
| literally dreaming for WW3? Why the hell does anyone here give
| a shit who rules eastern Ukraine? Why are we sleepwalking into
| a geopolitical firestorm?
| Qwero wrote:
| I always assumed Russia will win beside the small event when
| prigoschin marched to Moscow.
|
| The question to me was more what happens after? Terrorism
| inside Russia for years? Low bip for decades?
|
| Nato setting a clear border
| mipsi wrote:
| I'm not sure how to define a Russian win? Taking Kyiv? Regime
| change?
| thriftwy wrote:
| Russia gets to keep what it got so farY= and everybody
| having to deal with it?
|
| Y= modulo international recognition, which Russia does not
| care that much about.
| ramijames wrote:
| If you think this will be limited to Europe, you are sadly
| mistaken.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| Just wait for the US election, it's gonna be a fun year
| elihu wrote:
| What everyone was afraid would happen if Trump wins in 2024
| -- him blocking aid to Ukraine -- has already happened.
|
| Trump winning would be bad news for Ukraine, but in practical
| terms they've already been thrown under the bus by
| Republicans in Congress.
| mike_hock wrote:
| Considering he was thrown in the can for 30 years and his
| associates had left the country, I fail to see how the
| opposition dies with his death, rather than having died with
| his incarceration.
| SEJeff wrote:
| Navalty had some pretty scary things to say about Ukraine as
| well. To summarize: He thought there are no differences between
| Ukranian people and Russian people, he thinks that Crimea is
| rightfully Russia's (finder's keepers!), and he thinks it would
| be nice for Belarus and Ukraine to just be absorbed by Russia
| and become part of Russia again.
|
| He was only against the war in Ukraine when it became obvious
| it was not going to be a three day one and done operation.
| ncr100 wrote:
| I'm not sure that's an accurate reflection of the man's
| views. Your sequencing is not construable to a new fact.
|
| He did recant any notion of Ukrainians being Russian. He also
| asserted ukrainians Right to independent self-governing.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I remember watching a documentary about his life, and in
| his early years he has expressed some "extreme-
| right"/nationalist views. I assume that he was click-
| baiting anyone who would hear him, gathering fame and
| fortune. Eventually he was recognised as a 'potentially
| worthy' opponent of Putin and was given the support and
| guidance to become what he became.
|
| (Majority of) Russians are 'different'. They don't care to
| change. They don't understand the "modern" way of life.
| They don't understand the new/modern approaches of
| 'diversity'. (Understand = it conflicts with their
| ideology, traditions, mindset - of course they understand
| and simply disagree).
|
| In Russia, historically, the easiest way to solve a problem
| is to eliminate the person behind the problem, and the
| problem will solve itself. I has been done like that for
| centuries, and I don't feel that this will change anytime
| soon.
| tivert wrote:
| > I'm not sure that's an accurate reflection of the man's
| views. Your sequencing is not construable to a new fact.
|
| > He did recant any notion of Ukrainians being Russian. He
| also asserted ukrainians Right to independent self-
| governing.
|
| I never followed Navalny very closely, but my understanding
| was he opposed Putin _but he was also a Russian
| nationalist_ , so (at least pre-2022) there wasn't tons of
| distance between them on the topic of Ukraine.
|
| Since Trump and especially since the more recent invasion
| of Ukraine, I think there's been a tendency for Western
| liberals to concentrate on Putin, oppose him, and therefore
| idealize his opponents as being and thinking just like
| themselves. So the liberals would tend to avoid thinking
| about certain uncomfortable facts, and Navalny may have
| been incentivized to conform to their views (given he was
| in prison and his main protection was the attention and
| sympathy of foreign liberals)
| SEJeff wrote:
| Your understand is spot on. I give a few examples in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39403310
| kjellsbells wrote:
| s/liberals//g
|
| Has happened over and over again that the Western
| political class prioritizes alignment with some entity on
| some short term goal over checking that the entity shares
| any other sentiments. And then being all surprised-
| pikachu when they dont.
|
| US funding mujahideen against the Soviets.
|
| Israel funding Hamas to keep the PA weak.
|
| Europe lauding Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Myanmar
|
| etc.
|
| Any time you see a puff piece in mainstream Western media
| about some leader abroad that "we find we can work with"
| or has similar cheese, beware.
| SEJeff wrote:
| Navalny has always been a supporter of a concept referred
| to as "Russkiy Mir"[1] and has spoke at length about it. It
| is a weird ethno religious philosophy which shows the
| bounds of the russian country extend far past the borders
| of teh russian federation. The closest I can easily
| describe it is as a weird western version of jihad where
| they want to assume all other cultures and erase them in
| favor of expansion of their own via multiple methods.
|
| In 2007, in a Russian "Gun Rights" video, Navalny compared
| the Chechen muslims to "cockroaches and flies" and said he
| wanted to exterminate them. A picture of a Chechen muslim
| appears on the screen and he shoots it with a pistol. In
| another [2] video it featured Navalny dressed as a dentist,
| presenting a slightly confusing parable that likened
| interethnic conflict in Russia to cavities and argued that
| fascism can be prevented only by deporting migrants from
| Russia. Navalny closed his monologue with "We have a right
| to be [ethnic] Russians in Russia. And we will defend this
| right." This is an allegory to killing all non-ethnic
| Russians.
|
| In 2008 when Russia invaded the country of Georgia. He
| said[3]: Of course, there is a big desire
| to fire a cruise missile at the General Staff of the
| [derogative name for Georgians], but they are just waiting
| for this.
|
| Years later, he apologized for the ethnic slur denoting
| Georgian people, but never for his support of the Russian
| war on Georgia.
|
| In an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station in
| October 2014, Navalny admitted that the peninsula had been
| seized through "outrageous violations of all international
| norms", and yet asserted that it would "remain part of
| Russia" and would "never become part of Ukraine in the
| foreseeable future".
|
| His statement was not simply an assessment of the
| developments around Crimea. When pressed on whether he
| would return Crimea to Ukraine were he to become Russia's
| president, Navalny wrapped his "No" in an odd question:
| "What? Is Crimea a sandwich or something that you can take
| and give back?" His position on Crimea was basically,
| "finders keepers."
|
| Also in 2014, here[4] he is using one of the worst ethnic
| slurs for Ukrainians making fun of them.
|
| In 2016, Navalny said that he intended to hold a "normal"
| referendum in Russian-occupied Crimea if he won the Russian
| presidential election. Note that Russia has forcibly killed
| or deported many/most ethnic Tatar peoples and native
| Ukrainians from Crimea. They've allowed Russian people to
| come occupy it and settle the lands, so by definition, any
| referendum would be with invaders on invaded territory. It
| would be a sham.
|
| In 2023, he offered a 15 point "manifesto"[5] where he
| changed tac quite a bit, but this was after some prominent
| navalnyists were pissing off western journalists with their
| staunch anti-ukraine message, all in line with Russkiy Mir.
|
| I can go on and on and on, but his support of violence and
| cleansing the world of non-russians goes back a long time.
| I just spent a few minutes to find these but if you dig in
| you can find the same and more.
|
| [1] https://dgap.org/en/events/russkiy-mir-russian-world
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICoc2VmGdfw
|
| [3] https://navalny.livejournal.com/274456.html
|
| [4] https://twitter.com/navalny/status/505215151961014272
|
| [5] https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1627632098608644099
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| He did all of that, true, but all of that no longer
| matters. Nobody cares about Che Guevara personality or
| political views, when they wear a t-shirt with his
| portrait. He became a symbol of resistance and Alexey
| will become another one, an iconic figure who was
| poisoned, but returned home to continue his fight.
| SEJeff wrote:
| I concur. What he stood for was a more free, open, and
| democratic Russia. In reality, if Russia was more
| friendly with the west, it would be 100x more prosperous.
| It is really a shame the old Chekists are still in
| charge. As large as the Russian Federation is in people
| and land mass, their economy would be an order of
| magnitude larger if it was ran better. Such a shame.
| klassik wrote:
| >western version of jihad
|
| I don't see how Russia is culturally part of "the West"
| in any meaningful way. We can debate whether, say, Poland
| or Hungary is, but Russia is, to me, surely not part of
| any meaningful definition of the West (in a cultural
| sense)
| kilolima wrote:
| Is this a troll?
|
| Ever hear of Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, or Tolstoy? Or
| ballet?
| breather wrote:
| This all may be true, but he still has a track record as an
| expansionist, as nationalist, as islamophobic, and as
| ethno-nationalist. He may not have presented much of a
| change in Russia's behavior the way the western press has
| implied he might have.
| screenoridesaga wrote:
| Huh? No. Somebody find this guy a bridge to get under.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Care to provide some links apart from 'they said it on fox
| news'? Its exactly the type of narrative putin would like to
| push to marginalize another high profile murder, and we have
| seen he can be an expert with playing foreign powers and
| media against each other
| SEJeff wrote:
| See my followup here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39403310
| holoduke wrote:
| In a way he is right. The difference between a Ukranian and a
| Russian is less that someone from Texas and Florida. Apart
| from some language differences everything else is exactly the
| same. I spend quite some time in both countries and there is
| just so much overlap. In people, in infrastructure, in
| cultural values, in nature, in weather and so on.
| attentive wrote:
| "some language differences", my god.
| SEJeff wrote:
| To him this is likely "a mild disagreement" as ukrainian
| civilians are being actively targeted by Russian
| missiles. Quite a tone deaf and horrible point of view.
| holoduke wrote:
| Whatever side you are on. There have been relatively low
| amount of civilian casualties. Yes there are some
| exceptions like Bucha, Belgorod, Charkov, Yalta or
| Maripol events, but its nothing compared to the Gaza war
| or Jemen one. The reason is that every Ukranian person or
| Russian person has family or relatives at the other side.
| They do not have any issues with each other. There is no
| civilian targetting. Otherwise Kiev would be rumbled by
| now. Nobody wants that. Russia has one goal. Remove the
| Authorities in Kiev.
| midasz wrote:
| The ICC has arrest warrants out for Putin for his war
| crimes. I really can't believe you're wilfully this
| ignorant to say there has been no civilian targetting.
| How are cluster bombs on cities not pure indiscriminate
| murder?
| holoduke wrote:
| Where are russian cluster bombs on cities happened? I
| thought the US provided Ukraine with cluster and gave
| them green light to start.
| sergeykish wrote:
| Search video. For example, Kharkiv was targeted by
| cluster ammunition, that's norm. Moscow terrors to drive
| out disloyal population, to hinder economy, to distract
| defenses from the front.
|
| "Poland forced Germany to attack" (1939) by Putin, Moscow
| propaganda supports genocide. Atrocities in Bucha, Izum
| is result. Relatives? They speak nothing or support
| "liberation" by occupants.
| Procrastic wrote:
| The ICC's arrest warrant is for evacuating children, not
| for targeting civilians.
| cheema33 wrote:
| "Otherwise Kiev would be rumbled by now."
|
| It is not for lack of trying on part of Russia. They send
| plenty of missiles in that direction. It's just that Kiev
| is protected by modern air defenses more than any other
| Ukrainian city.
|
| So far Russia has not hesitated completely destroying
| relatively large Ukrainian cities. If you need a link to
| the pictures, let me know.
| attentive wrote:
| That's quite a russian narrative. Mariupol alone is in
| vicinity of 100k civilian casualties. Kyiv holds because
| of air defense and denying ru air superiority by shooting
| them down. Ukrainians have plenty of issues with invading
| forces. Plenty.
|
| Also, Yalta? What?
| gpvos wrote:
| No, Russia's goal is to keep Ukraine in their sphere of
| influence and prevent democracy from taking hold there,
| because if that happens in Ukraine people in Russia might
| start to think it's possible there as well. Also there
| are geographical reasons regarding border defense which
| are somewhat understandable, but overruling the will of
| the people of Ukraine for that is not considered
| acceptable anymore in this century.
|
| Russia's actions in Bucha, Mariupol and just about
| everywhere in this war (Cherson during occupation comes
| to mind) have been horrid, as is its disregard for its
| own soldiers, many of whom are just used as cannon
| fodder. Russia is targetting civilians all over the
| place.
|
| Those other wars are horrible too, but comparing them
| just by number of casualties is disingenious.
| bobsomers wrote:
| > Yes there are some exceptions like Bucha, Belgorod,
| Charkov, Yalta or Maripol events
|
| It's pretty disgusting to reduce what happened to
| civilians in those cities to "some exceptions".
| Dosenpfand wrote:
| > There is no civilian targetting.
|
| That's just plain wrong. Please read https://en.m.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_...
| attentive wrote:
| That too but I was referring to language differences.
| Untrained/unexposed russian won't understand UA language.
| They wouldn't even be able to pronounce it correctly if
| their life depended on it.
| petre wrote:
| Except Ukrainians are prepared to fight Russia to preserve
| their freedom and independence, that's the main difference.
| The majority of Russians just put up with a totalitarian
| regime after another because that's what they were always
| used to do. Also there are language differences, but almost
| everybody over 40 in Ukraine can speak Russian, mainly
| because Moscow tried very hard and pretty much succeeded
| erasing their history and culture.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions_and_occup
| a...
|
| Even Russia is very diverse ethnicaly and culturaly, as
| expected of such a huge country. The differences between
| the Far East, Sankt Petersbug, Daghestan and Buryatia are
| quite significant.
| gpvos wrote:
| The history of both nations is hugely different. I would
| recommend this lecture series by Timothy Snyder to
| enlighten you: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mg
| di4rNewfxO7LhBoz...
|
| Yes, there are lots of family and friendship ties between
| the countries. It's sad that Putin has destroyed any chance
| of good relationships in the future, and basically
| solidified Ukraine as a nation in opposition to his
| aggression.
| mlindner wrote:
| Ukrainian is a completely different language than
| Russian... In fact it shares more similarity with Polish
| and Bulgarian than it does with Russian.
|
| Here's a good video to help clarify things for you.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQLM62r5nLI
| surfingdino wrote:
| Some people in the West really tried to make him the face of
| opposition in Russia, but he was unpalatable to Eastern
| Europe, which no longer is a part of the world that doesn't
| count. The West, Western Europe in particular has to realign
| its diplomatic strategy and stop ignoring countries located
| between Moscow and Berlin.
| lifestyleguru wrote:
| Solid propaganda piece with the recent interview, now a popular
| opponent eliminated after long sadistic power play. Putin's
| Russia is consistently moving ahead, they don't seem to be losing
| at all.
| cbg0 wrote:
| Russia just hit 400K casualties since their invasion of
| Ukraine, I wouldn't call that "not losing at all".
| putna wrote:
| sorry, but that is nothing for rusland. 1 person is worth 3
| drones - so about $800. The amount of gas/oil they sell per
| day can continue the war indefinetely.
| ioblomov wrote:
| Agreed. People forget that both Napoleon and Hitler lost
| largely because of the sacrifice of Russian lives.
| mittermayr wrote:
| I often wonder what Russia will be like once Putin is gone. The
| time he has left can't be very long, so what happens then?
| timeon wrote:
| > can't be very long
|
| He still has ~20 years.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Yes, I expect he'll be getting every possible half-tested
| life extension treatment that money can buy.
|
| At this stage, I also wouldn't be that surprised if he amends
| their constitution to allow his uploaded intelligence to
| continue in the role after his physical death.
| lifestyleguru wrote:
| Some other oligarch nominated alpha racketeer takes over.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Break up and civil war.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I can only imagine an absolutely massive power vacuum followed
| by the inevitable power struggle lasting a decade or two.
| maratc wrote:
| Once Putin is gone, someone else is going to take his place.
| There won't be much difference between Putin and the other guy,
| and that (small) difference may be for the better or it may be
| for the worse.
|
| Putin is not in that place because he's somehow an extremely
| talented (or extremely lucky) person. Putin is there because
| that's what most of the Russian elite wants. Once he's gone,
| the Russian elite will put there somebody else who will fit
| them the most. It would not be reasonable to expect any drastic
| difference given the unchanging circumstances.
| sidibe wrote:
| I think this paints a picture of oligarchy that might have
| been true when he first came to power but the tail is now
| wagging the dog. In fact it's not even the same dog the
| elites and billionaires of Russia now are childhood friends
| of Putin, people who worked with him in KGB or St Petersburg
| mayors office, the chef at a restaurant he frequented (RIP),
| etc.
|
| I'm sure any of the original Russian elites left that weren't
| brought in by Putin regret him being put there would secretly
| love to see him gone. That doesn't mean they wouldn't end up
| in the same situation, countries where nobody trusts each
| other just waiting for the next dictator hard to get out of
| that cycle
| maratc wrote:
| > I'm sure any of the original Russian elites left that
| weren't brought in by Putin regret him being put there
| would secretly love to see him gone
|
| Any elites that are there since before Putin, of whom there
| was notably more in 2012, could simply nominate someone
| else for the elections in 2012, or failing that, just keep
| that Medvedev guy for the second term. For some reason,
| they decided to move Medvedev away and put Putin back.
|
| I am afraid that the set "any of the original Russian
| elites... that weren't brought in by Putin [and] regret him
| being put there" is an empty one.
| chupasaurus wrote:
| > For some reason
|
| The whole reason was to reset the counter of 2 consequent
| terms of presidency without touching the constitution
| since "The Party" didn't have 2/3 of parliament to be
| sure.
| maratc wrote:
| That was the reason for putting Medvedev there in 2008.
| But that wasn't the reason for puttin' Putin (duh) back
| there in 2012.
| chupasaurus wrote:
| The reason for puttin' Putin was ... Putin himself. The
| system he finished building during the time (the shift of
| power and resources to capital from regions was done in
| 2010-11) doesn't actually work without him as a
| consensual figure for all "elites".
| maratc wrote:
| I am certain that Shoigu, or Mishustin, or Rogozhin, or
| the same Medvedev again, could all replace Putin just
| fine should a need arise. As I wrote, that would be a
| small change anyway, and not necessarily for the good.
|
| Navalny, on the other hand, never had a chance, unless
| the vote for Russian president was done among the US
| voting populace. In that case, he would no doubt win a
| landslide victory. In Russia outside of the Moscow
| intellectual spheres, he's simply unknown -- it's not
| that the people in Vorkuta hate him, they don't know who
| he is (was) to begin with.
|
| In the USSR media of 1980s, there was a lot of talk of
| Angela Davis, she was the undoubtful "opposition leader"
| in the USA, as presented by Soviet media. Navalny is in
| the same position.
| chupasaurus wrote:
| LOL. Shoigu is a PR guy, Mishustin isn't a politic by any
| means, Rogozin (if you've meant ex-director of Roskosmos)
| never was even a member of Putin's party. The common
| thing between all 3 is loyalty to Putin: proclaimed
| during 99-2000 transition, the corrupt tax service head
| and KGB soldier, respectively.
|
| You're talking to a guy outside of Moscow who knew
| Navalny from his LiveJournal blog. Republic of Komi - the
| region Vorkuta is in - has 0.5% of Russia's population.
| maratc wrote:
| And Putin was a retired KGB officer working under Sobchak
| and heading the FSB when he suddenly got promoted to
| prime minister and then named as Yeltsin's replacement.
| Not exactly a career politician either. "Putin's party"
| is a misnomer, it was created out of nowhere around the
| guy anyway. If they chose a loyal apparatchik and put him
| in that place while creating a party around him once,
| what makes you think they can't do it again?
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Transition of power is notoriously difficult in authoritarian
| systems and Putin is more of an exception rather than a
| normal occurence. Only Stalin had this level of control in
| Russia in the past 100 years. Do you remember who came after
| Stalin? Georgy Malenkov, but even I had to google his name,
| he didn't stay there for long. Even (the better known)
| Khruschev wasn't a strong ruler and got ousted in a couple of
| years.
| maratc wrote:
| I think a good proxy for russian situation would be China.
| They have changed the guy a couple of times in the last 30
| years but the policy stayed the same. The only things that
| can bring a change are either a coup (not likely in Russia)
| or a black horse like Gorbachev.
|
| I also don't think that reductio ad Stalinum is in place
| here. Putin got a full blessing from the retiring guy, and
| by that proxy from the elites as well. It's not that he
| deposed the king in a coup d'etat or something.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| China used to be like post-Stalin USSR - there's a
| leader, but also some intra-party pluralism.
|
| Putin's Russia is nothing like that and Xi's China is
| leaving that pattern as well. Putin is an absolutist
| leader with no checks in place.
| maratc wrote:
| The picture where Putin is a detested psycho hated by
| everyone including all of his comissars who just wait for
| a stroke (or bullet) to replace him with a popular, young
| and charismatic Western-style democratic leader -- that's
| nothing but a conspiracy. And as far as conspiracies go
| -- and as much as that conspiracy is depressing -- that's
| actually _an optimistic one_. Look, something happens to
| Putin, and we can have a revolution! But the reality is
| an _even more depressing_ thought. And the reality is
| that he has _both_ the elites ' support and popular
| support.
| carlos-menezes wrote:
| I don't understand why he went back to Russia --- on principle,
| maybe? Regardless, it wasn't worth it. He could and should have
| stayed in the West and pumped out anti-regime content: he would
| have achieved much more.
|
| Rest in peace.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| GRU threatened his family. He did that to save them.
| mirpa wrote:
| Hmm, in attempt to poison Skripal in London, they poisoned
| his daughter as well. It is quite silly to talk about this if
| you consider all the war crimes in Ukraine.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Can't be that, his wife went back with him to Russia and
| stayed there afterwards. Hardly the actions of someone
| protecting their family.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| > Can't be that
|
| Umm... why?
|
| He was given a choice. Either he returns or his family gets
| assassinated.
| zarzavat wrote:
| If someone was threatening to kill your family, would you
| deliver your wife to them? Nothing in the world would
| compel you, obviously.
|
| Clearly he believed that his family's lives were
| exceptionally safe, probably way more safe than they
| actually were.
|
| The only explanation for his return that fits with the
| manner of his return is that he wanted to martyr himself.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I don't think you understand how this works. Navalny's
| family physical location made zero difference here. As
| evidenced by numerous murders conducted abroad by FSB and
| GRU. No place is safe when Putin wants you dead.
|
| Highly recommend reading this:
|
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blowing-Up-Russia-Return-
| KGB/dp/190...
| yakireev wrote:
| > I don't understand why he went back to Russia --- on
| principle, maybe?
|
| He was a Russian politician and was intending to stay one. In
| the eyes of Russian public opinion, a politician who fled
| abroad - opposition or not - is not a politician anymore, but
| some foreign guy living in comforts of some Germany or England,
| either on money stolen from Russians or on the payroll of CIA,
| not worth listening to. Interests of polit-emigrants and
| interests of Russians in Russia do not align, and the general
| public knows that.
|
| This is why Navalny returned and Yashin never left.
| bvrmn wrote:
| > In the eyes of Russian public opinion, a politician who
| fled abroad - opposition or not - is not a politician anymore
|
| Public gives no shit where politician sits unless they have
| influence on politics.
| culebron21 wrote:
| I confirm the previous poster: in the eyes of even
| oppositional public those who fled loose credibility -- at
| least that they can't call people to the streets under SWAT
| batons; and also living abroad they lose sense of what
| matters and events are important.
| bvrmn wrote:
| It could be an argument, but no politician inside Russia
| call people to the streets either. Navalny abroad had
| more influence than all other opposition personas in sum.
| maratc wrote:
| He answered that question: "I have my country and I have my
| principles, and I'm not willing to give up either."
| barelyauser wrote:
| Dying like that seems like a computer who can't avoid but to
| crash when it hits a single wrong bit on an ocean of memory.
| Why? Why choose rigid principles that might lead you straight
| to doom? Why people think this is honorable? His enemy lost
| nothing, and the allies left behind have to fight with less
| men.
| maratc wrote:
| I'm not advocating for what Navalny did, just explaining
| his point of view, according to which if you're not ready
| to die for your principles then you have no principles --
| just opinions. Again: his words, not mine.
| barelyauser wrote:
| What if my principle is to survive?
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| That may be yours (and mine), but it wasn't his.
| layer8 wrote:
| Then your principle would be logically unsound, according
| to Navalny.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Because if he left, the propaganda would have easily
| portrayed him as a coward. Staying in Russia gave him the
| best chance he had to win over the populous.
| Andrex wrote:
| We're talking about his story now.
|
| His death and the circumstances will remain in your mind
| (buried, perhaps) for years to come and affect your
| decisions and thinking. And you're not alone.
|
| In the end it's advertising for change, and we have data on
| advertising's usefulness. It can change minds.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| The day he returned, he released a video about a $1B palace
| built by Putin with stolen money. Maybe he (mistakenly)
| believed people will rise to his cause upon seeing the video.
| culebron21 wrote:
| If we think why they chose it purely rationally, I suppose he
| and his team foresaw him be arrested, but expected the people
| to rebel.
|
| Earlier murder attempt by the state, plus an arrest afterwards
| -- were still arguably unprecedented (Nemtsov 2015 murder being
| a bit different), plus his all-in investigation on Putin's
| palace, could theoretically end people's patience, and that
| protests would have been even broader than in Belarus in 2020.
|
| Plus, his team were all die-hards, no skeptics.
|
| That was all-in move, and it turned out wrong.
|
| I also went to those protests, it was -23degC, and there were
| more SWAT police than us. I got a harsh reminder as well of the
| sad truths sociologist Yuri Levada had described in his work
| "Simple Soviet man".
| isolli wrote:
| Sad times for Russia...
|
| Barred anti-war Russian presidential candidate [Boris Nadezhdin]
| fails in two legal challenges [0]
|
| [0] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/barred-anti-war-
| russian...
| mistyq wrote:
| He is not an "anti-war candidate". To think it is possible
| without FSB approval is naivety. His purpose was to collect
| lists of people who signed for him (that is, new opposition
| that hasn't emigrated and formed naturally in 2022-2024 -
| needless to say, it consists of completely different
| demographics and people's backgrounds from the "old"
| opposition). Unfortunately these people are too naive to
| recognize the danger.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| this is FUD. Inventing another candidate while already
| sitting on already existing lists of tons of Navalny
| supporters? supporters to whom nothing happened through all
| that time? doesn't pass the smell check
| herculity275 wrote:
| Navalnyists are soft-banned in Russia. They can't make any
| meaningful public statements without hitting one of the
| censure laws (e.g. it's illegal to say anything about the
| war that differs from the official Kremlin line). The FSB
| just slaps the "foreign agent" designation onto the more
| loud ones and makes their lives difficult enough for them
| to migrate away. It's a slow cleanse but it's pretty
| effective.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| You are talking about public discourse
|
| I replied to comment claiming a candidate was invented by
| our gov to collect PII of people who signed for him.
| Until people who donated/signed for Navalny are in
| trouble I don't see why that can be true
| wruza wrote:
| There are tons of Navalny non-supporters who are latently
| opposed. Personally I'd say that they are actually more
| dangerous to the regime due to the stratum they represent.
| You just don't hear it on the internet because they are
| older and have shit to lose. Alexey was a youth's idol, not
| adults'. Many people never considered him a good
| politician, if mediocre. Maybe that other person wasn't
| "invented", but they definitely could use him as a trap.
| There's no way anything could change here through
| "elections".
| golergka wrote:
| I've known him personally for quite a time and that's a
| ridiculous statement. He never was and isn't a revolutionary,
| but he always was pretty sincere in his beliefs and his
| attempts to fight in rapidly closing legal space.
| bvrmn wrote:
| Sad times began in 2012. Since then opposition has no a single
| chance to win elections.
| iwontberude wrote:
| Navalny was in support of Ukrainian invasion of Crimea and
| knew it would require a further land invasion to keep. He was
| just as psycho and homicidal (suicidal) as Prigozhin but
| refused to be under Putin's thumb. Navalny wanted to be the
| #1 asshole in charge otherwise return to Russia and die in
| prison.
| andygeorge wrote:
| this is incorrect
| iwontberude wrote:
| Okay, I am wrong then. Glad you set the record straight.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I feel it worths noting that the meaning of the word 'legal' is
| different for ears of western than some eastern nations. It may
| be inaccurate to describe for western minds what actualy is
| happening there as legality and law is an instrument of the
| ruling party for the benefit of the ruling party not some
| independent supervising power for the goodwill of all. I feel
| using the English word 'legal' is completely inaccurate
| expressing Russian public matters, some other was better to
| adapt/coin for the situation, unsure what though.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Putin usually had faked opposition, and even some illusion of
| election monitoring. This time around it seems there will be no
| illusion of having elections at all since there will be no
| international monitoring and seemingly not even a pretend
| opposition.
|
| But I guess why would he pretend to have democracy? The
| Russians certainly don't buy it, and the countries that might
| care have already cut all ties. I wonder why he bothers to have
| the election charade?
| ZoomZoomZoom wrote:
| The brave denizens of the Internet love to ridicule Russians for
| their learned helplessness, calling them weak, docile, etc.
|
| Well, here's another example of the thing that most of those who
| grew up in that culture know or feel subliminally: the hero
| always crushes evil and triumphs at the end of the story. But in
| real life, for every success there are thousands that wither
| along the way.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Maybe I am not participating in the 'right' conversations, but
| I don't recall HN being a forum for such a silly name calling (
| and if it is, it tends to be called out ).
|
| << the hero always crushes evil and triumphs at the end of the
| story. But in real life, for every success there are thousands
| that wither along the way.
|
| I think even in US kids learn really fast that there are no
| heroes; especially these days. One could argue this is one of
| the factors so many have withdrawn to easier past times.
| ZoomZoomZoom wrote:
| Just to clarify, I'm not calling HN out on this specifically.
| This place is one of the most civilized corners of the web.
| In other places it's rampant though, and I'm pretty sure some
| of the people holding this view _are_ here.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| > Russians for their learned helplessness, calling them weak,
| docile, etc.
|
| "learned helplessness" yes
|
| "calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of this going
| on in any meaningful scale.
|
| About the "learned helplessness" and general apathy it's true
| and the product of many things, one of them a very targeted
| effort to make the people internalize this during a whole
| century. China is very similar in this regard too.
|
| All those "decadent" western democracies went through periods
| of _very_ violent internal wars, centuries of constant internal
| "cold wars" where the main objective was "democracy" that
| includes many things like separation of State/Justice/Free
| Speech, a minimum standard of living ( not just economic ) that
| society itself does not tolerate existing below that, etc. I'm
| talking about the real practical thing, not the "cerimonies" or
| the theatrical plays of "democracy" authoritarian regimes like
| to show.
|
| Russia never had that, it had a lot of violence, but for other
| reasons. One of the main one is Imperialism.
|
| "Russia" in reality is pretty much just Moscow and nearby
| lands, but Russians have imperialism in their psyche. That's
| why the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, etc are considered
| "brother" nations. Because most people in Russia would see no
| problem if they were somehow "peacefully" integrated in Russia.
|
| But when it comes to pay the price, Russians are "apathetic"
| because even with all those big speeches and grandiose imperial
| ego, they know anyone who shows initiative becomes a target.
|
| I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but the best thing
| to happen to Russia would be to breakup in other states as much
| as this stupid brutality has been to keep it's internal
| integrity. That's also why they are always inventing evil
| external enemies.
| mihaaly wrote:
| > "calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of this
| going on in any meaningful scale.
|
| That is a shame because they actually are. I feel the same
| coward and pity venal attitude with the Hungarian people -
| being a soulmate of Russians in this regard - whom I grown up
| with. They would be very vocal about being proud and brave
| but the actions only show shortsighted submissive conformity
| to ruthless tyrants for pity same day breadcrumbs - from the
| wealth taken away from them. Or just liking if others take
| charge, instead of the freedom to act that comes with taking
| responsibility for own actions. Smart people using their
| talents to screw with others, or just laying low in the hope
| to get by, whatever happens. Whatever! (a good few even
| participating for similar reasons, and of course there are
| scores participating, since Putins and Orbans would just be
| laughing stock without the complicity and active support of
| masses)
| culebron21 wrote:
| At first I wanted to argue with your point (suggesting that
| the elites are to blame much more than ordinary folks) but
| thinking more, I just want to correct.
|
| Submissiveness that you mention implies that people
| understand their interests, what's just (in broad sense),
| and just don't want to act. And we expect that finally
| they'll wake up and rebel. I also went to street protests
| in 2021 when Navalny was enjailed, expecting something to
| change, but was reminded of what I knew from sociology
| earlier.
|
| Studies showed that it's not submissiveness in post-
| totalitarian people that stops them. It's rather immoralism
| and double-think. People see status-quo challengers as
| suspicious, and discredit them. They distrust the
| government -- that's why Russian opposition speakers insist
| that "Putin has no broad support". But they also hope the
| state will take care of them, and constantly seek signs of
| this. They hate state officials, but discedit those who
| challenge them and goes in politics -- especially those
| trying to pursue interests of common folk.
|
| These traits of character developed as defense to
| totalitarianism -- interference with private life and
| demand of loyalty, and daily hardships.
|
| This was describen in a book "Simple Soviet man" (1993) by
| sociologist Yuri Levada, summarizing his studies of post-
| Soviet people's views and their contradictions. There are
| brief descriptions of it in Englihs, try searching for
| them.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Good thoughts, sounds true, thanks telling!
| parthianshotgun wrote:
| The same I think could also be said of Russia, in their view
| they are the hero's, it makes for good and easily digestible
| propaganda.
|
| I think the triumph of good over evil is a bias we all share,
| to recognize the complexity, well, that involves a healthy
| amount of skepticism. I think underlying it is probably a
| decent ethic, once we define good/logos/love/god. Defining
| something doesn't mean we still aren't influenced by it
| User3456335 wrote:
| You can learn a lot of that from reading Dostoyevski. At least,
| from what I have read so far. It's painful to read (injustice,
| pessimism, disappointment) so I haven't gotten very far yet but
| it feels more honest.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I wonder how the Kremlin apologists will spin this one. I find it
| unbelievable that someone like Putin seems to inspire people that
| are nominally far outside of his sphere of influence in spite of
| _decades_ of mass murder leading an empire run by criminals.
| sidibe wrote:
| Being "anti-woke" gives you infinite leeway for many people
| inference-lord wrote:
| "He was a western puppet" I've heard this already.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Something like "it's the West's fault, if it left Eastern
| Europe to Russia, Putin would not get this bad"
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, that one has been used here on HN in fact, multiple
| times.
| publius_0xf3 wrote:
| Tucker Carlson gave a pre-emptive justification following his
| tour, saying that real leaders have to kill people.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| The (small) upside of all this missery, death and pain is Europe
| will lose some territory but gain it's own military security
| after decades of living from the US strategy alignment. Countries
| like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but increase European
| defense spending - they fear just like Ukraine that US congress
| just turns around and will stop delivering parts for F-35s in a
| conflict [0]. The US lost all it's trust that was left in Europe.
|
| We just need to get our act together, not every country building
| or buying it's own incompatible weapons (like tanks, planes,
| frigates). The war in Ukraine shows how bad it is to run a war
| with ten different models of tanks etc.
|
| And we can - at last - close Ramstein, Landstuhl and Weilerbach
| in Germany, no longer supporting US wars in the Middle East and
| beyond.
|
| Living as a kid through the 70s and 80s with the PershingII/NATO
| Double-Track Decision I also would not have thought this threat
| is coming back the way it did.
|
| [0] I'm sure Germany will not proceed on it's $10b F-35 plans
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't think anybody thought that it would, but here we are.
| It is quite amazing how time and again we seem to enable little
| narcissistic men to gain hold of positions of power. And I
| can't even really complain because NL has Geert Wilders to deal
| with right now and his foaming-at-the-mouth band of supporters
| who believe that everything that is wrong with this country can
| be traced back to immigration. On top of that they believe that
| this is the fault of 'the left', when in fact we haven't had a
| left wing government since I was riding a 16" wheeled bicycle.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Same in Germany, and Germans should know better.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Every Western European country, the US, Japan, Australia
| and tons of other territories should know better.
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| But Germany has a left-wing government. And it is pushing
| this week to enact a law to prohibit speech that is not
| extreme enough to be against the constitution or otherwise
| criminal.
| vaylian wrote:
| > to enact a law to prohibit speech that is not extreme
| enough to be against the constitution or otherwise
| criminal.
|
| source?
| hulitu wrote:
| > But Germany has a left-wing government
|
| Then the US has an extreme left wing government compared
| with Germany
| data_maan wrote:
| This is very hard to believe, honestly.
|
| I get it may feel so for an American, since America is
| the strongest exporter if culture in the world - the
| whole world for example consumes American movie and
| songs, with the consequence that most people have some
| kind of approximate idea how it is to live in the US,
| what moves Americans etc .
|
| On the other hand, by this same fact, that Germany isn't
| such a strong cultural exporter, few Americans really
| know what moves Germans, since these topics are rarely
| talked about in movies, songs, radio that Americans
| consume.
|
| From this vantage point, I think it's hard for Americans
| to imagine just how left-wing Germany became compared to
| the US. For example, the US doesn't have a system for
| wide social security benefits, relaxed border controls (I
| never understand what the US is fretting about in terms
| if immigration, you can basically just walk in over the
| to Germany and register as a refugee - as millions have
| since 2015), and all other amenities that are typically
| "left" causes.
|
| Furthermore, while Germany may not have a legal framework
| regulating what you can say, it has a lot of implicit
| rules, how to talk about foreigner, an implicit "speech
| police" so to say.
|
| (The issue is actually not having all of thr above
| -because, after all, they are very nice things to have-
| but it's that they were allowed to be abused and overused
| at the expense of the general population, who keep paying
| more and get less if these services, and these initially
| nice ideas end up hurting now many more people. )
| data_maan wrote:
| Germans don't know better!
|
| They voted time and time again for unpragmatic solutions
| and nanny state approaches, to the extent that the head
| state, Angel Merkel, become informally called "mother
| Merkel" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_An
| gela_Merke...).
|
| Except perhaps for the Dalai Lama who enjoys adoration out
| of religious reasons, I know of no other state (and
| definitely no other big economy) other then Germany where
| public infantilization reached such advanced states.
|
| Imagine calling Biden "Uncle", Macron "Cousin" or Meloni
| "Aunt". Strange world.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The upcoming 2024 election cycle will be one for the history
| books, regardless of outcome. And that outcome can be
| incredibly bad.
|
| I said it before, if Trump gets a second term, he will have a
| third. And then democracy as we know it in the Western world
| will be dead.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The one saving grace is that he's old. You'd hope for some
| divine intervention, unfortunately I'm not religious.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Yeah, Trump wont drop out unless he dies. He desperately
| wants to stay out of prison. And people behind him want
| to stay in power. Fingers crossed we all dodge a bullet
| this year.
|
| Because if we end up with Presidente Marine Le-Pen,
| President Trump and an AfD-let German government, well,
| things look grim. Poland gave me some hope so.
| prmph wrote:
| And about half of the West will be OK with that.
| Interesting times we live in.
| hef19898 wrote:
| If you really drill down the numbers, there are the
| cibstant 25% or so actively supporting it, regardless of
| country, with enough others tagging along passively to
| get the 25% dangerously close to actual power.
|
| Interesting times indeed.
| cglace wrote:
| The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world
| combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is
| that the US is somehow at fault. The one bill that was blocked
| by Congress would be more support than Europe as a whole has
| provided to Ukraine to date.
|
| While I agree that European countries should start to take
| their defense seriously I don't see how you fault US support of
| Ukraine.
| matsemann wrote:
| In terms of % GDP, USA is quite far down the list.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| And in % of military budget, it's near the end of the list.
| cglace wrote:
| Well, of course, do you think the US is going to donate
| its aircraft carriers, F-35s, F-22s, B-2s, and nuke subs
| to Ukraine? The US isn't spending trillions on artillery
| rounds.
| pb7 wrote:
| It's not the US's fault Europe spends so little on
| defense. You reap what you sow. If you get rolled, that's
| on you and your poor planning hoping Daddy USA is going
| to play world police.
|
| We remember the decades of mocking for our choice of
| investing in defense. Enjoy your "free" healthcare while
| it lasts.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "It's not the US's fault Europe spends so little on
| defense."
|
| Exactly!
|
| This crisis will probably bring nukes to Poland and
| hopefully Germany (Macron offered nukes several times, to
| safe costs, the German public sadly is anti-nuke) to make
| the EU independent of US protection. We then can close
| Ramstein, Landstuhl and Weilerbach and close air
| corridors for US military machines to no longer support
| US wars in the Middle East. European countries will stop
| buying US weapons and create jobs in Europe instead of US
| voting districts.
| egisspegis wrote:
| > The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world
| combined by a large margin
|
| This is not true for some time now.
|
| First google result (but there are more charts, numbers and
| sources): https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-
| ukraine/ukraine-s...
|
| Yet whoever provided more aid is irrelevant, since it's not
| enough anyway. We, as a world, are observing (and doing
| nothing, for the most part) fourth reich coming into action.
| cglace wrote:
| It looks like your charts include things like refugee aid
| costs, which make up a large percentage of European aid. If
| you remove these costs and go strictly by military support,
| which is what we are talking about, then my point stands.
| joakleaf wrote:
| No it does not; You said:"The US has provided more
| funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large
| margin"...
|
| Pick "Military" only in the chart, add up the numbers of,
| Germany, UK, Denmark, Norway, and Netherlands, and you'll
| get a higher number than the US.
| cglace wrote:
| Sorry, I'll rephrase: the US has delivered roughly
| equivalent military aid to Ukraine as the rest of the
| world combined.
|
| Does that diminish my point?
|
| I guess that means the US cannot be trusted.
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| Seems kinda unfair. USA has the biggest military complex,
| bigger than the rest of world combined IIRC. Naturally,
| can they deliver military aid faster and better than the
| rest of the world.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Part of the annoyance, as a US citizen, is that we spend
| ~3.5% of GDP on military. And that's off a large GDP, so
| hiding scaling efficiencies that would allow it to run
| lower while maintaining capability. And much more during
| the Cold War era!
|
| That "bigger" is bought, and has been every year. We
| could spend that money on other things: social welfare,
| health care, etc.
|
| So, excusing Europe's inability to deliver mass military
| aid, when they've willingly underinvested in their
| defense industry and equipment for decades, rings a bit
| hollow.
| cglace wrote:
| Yeah, especially when Europeans have mocked the US for
| decades for spending too much on its military while
| relying on security guarantees for their protection.
| piva00 wrote:
| The US does get a lot from that in exchange, it's not
| like the US is being altruistic and providing security
| out of the goodness in your hearts, the US never does
| anything altruistically (as most nation-states do not),
| the dissonance that even well-educated Americans have as
| if they were footing a bill without getting nothing in
| return is frankly baffling.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It's infuriating how many Americans don't seem to realize
| that we would spend the exact same amount on our military
| even if Russia, China, and NATO all evaporated tomorrow.
|
| We police the world because being the world police is
| fabulously profitable. You want to maintain the largest
| economy in the world? Well then you want to keep up the
| status quo of "you can do business between most
| countries, and can ship anything across the world for
| pennies per pound with near zero risk".
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _" you can do business between most countries, and can
| ship anything across the world for pennies per pound with
| near zero risk"_
|
| Arguably, the biggest beneficiary of the US Navy's
| protection of commercial shipping has been China.
|
| Especially considering China doesn't pay for any of that
| protection.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| And yet because of exactly that, they are hesitant to
| take hostile action towards the United States, because of
| the whole "being starved of imported food and oil" thing
| that would trivially happen. That's a big reason they've
| been trying to build so many overland routes for
| shipping, to offset the inability to protect maritime
| shipping without US help.
|
| Yet again it's the US explicitly spending money to keep
| someone dependent, similar to Russia's selling cheap gas
| to put economic pressure on the west.
|
| China and the US really really really don't want to go to
| war, because even an unsteady "peace" between us is so
| goddamn profitable. But the US wants everyone to be able
| to sail by the Chinese coast without harassment, and
| China wants to own the entire sea north of Australia
| so.....
| cglace wrote:
| Fair in what way? My point isn't about who is better. My
| point is that the US has been an extremely crucial
| partner to Ukraine, in terms of countries, _the_ most
| crucial partner. My feeling from the interactions on this
| forum is that Europeans do not see it that way.
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| Can you win a war with weapons alone? Can a nation
| survive with military aid alone?
|
| USA is not the only crucial partner for Ukraine in this
| war, they are the crucial partner in a specific area.
| That's why it's unfair to undersell the crucial partners
| in other important areas. Everyone is doing their thing
| to support in the areas they can give support. But not
| everyone can give the same support, and not everyone
| should support in areas already covered by others.
| tekla wrote:
| Well yes, a big chunk of the world relies on the US to
| provide military power. How dare the US actually be good
| at doing the thing that the world asks the US to do.
| pb7 wrote:
| _That_ seems kinda unfair? You don 't think it's unfair
| that the US invests in defense for its own strategic
| reasons but also happens to greatly benefit the rest of
| the world while the rest of the world can invest in
| social programs that _only_ benefit themselves all to
| turn around and criticize the US as soon as that plan
| seems short sighted? I think that 's pretty fucked up
| personally.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| If this isn't strategics reasons, I don't know what is.
| pb7 wrote:
| That's for the US to decide. Outside of fair share of
| NATO dues, the rest isn't for Europe to stick its nose in
| any more than the US doesn't stick its nose in how Europe
| spends its budget.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| Sure, that is unfair. But what is happening right now is
| the US having dragged its European partners into a very
| aggressive position in the Ukraine war, suddenly decides
| that it no longer cares about it. So Europe has a half
| dead crazy Russia on its door, has to fill in for the
| lack of US aid and might very well have the US retreat
| from NATO when Trump takes office.
| piva00 wrote:
| You are not rephrasing, you are moving the goal posts,
| you said:
|
| > The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the
| world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take
| away is that the US is somehow at fault.
|
| No, it has not provided more funding to Ukraine than the
| world combined, the EU by itself has provided more
| military aid than the US already.
|
| You're just wrong. It's not hard to admit that, trying to
| save face just made it worse...
| cglace wrote:
| The EU's military commitments narrowly edge out US
| military commitments before a new bill is approved. This
| does not take away from the larger point of the US not
| being a bad partner to Ukraine or that the US cannot be
| trusted as a partner.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| "we" are doing nothing because "we" are not under attack;
| Ukraine did not have defense pacts with other countries,
| and the military aid took a while to get started because of
| the risk of Russia seeing it as hostility towards them,
| further escalating the conflict.
|
| If it escalates, it will escalate bigly. If Russia attacks
| a NATO country, article 5 will / should kick in and the
| combined military force of 31 countries (with or without
| the US) will combine their strengths.
|
| But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes.
| Nothing will matter anymore if Russia decides to use them.
| It doesn't matter if they lose hundreds of thousands of
| people, material, and are completely humiliated, as long as
| they have nukes, "we" cannot strike back.
|
| At this point, wishful thinking that the Ukraine conflict
| seizes up again, keeps the Russian army occupied, and
| things cool off slowly. Or that the Russian leadership is
| replaced, but there's no guarantees it would be replaced by
| someone who would stop the war.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "But nobody wants this to escalate further, because
| nukes."
|
| France and the UK will not use nukes when Poland is
| invaded.
|
| Russia will not use nukes when invading Poland.
|
| Russia might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad
| (but I'm not so sure there, if Ukraine gets back Crimea
| we will see).
| thriftwy wrote:
| What are you going to do with Kaliningrad if you occupy
| it? Are you going to hand out EU Schengen passports to
| its residents? You may get a large line for ingress if
| you're going to swap Russian passpors for EU ones.
|
| If you don't, Russia will politely ask to have its
| territory back and would get that eventually.
|
| Bottom line, stop thinking about the land as if it was
| not full of people settled there.
| SXX wrote:
| Honestly if you offer residents of Kaliningrad some free
| EU passports on condition they need to move out of Russia
| I pretty certain like 90% of them will gladly accept.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Because Germany has no interest in Kaliningrad and Poland
| has no (or a very weak) claim, I'd say should it come to
| that, Kaliningrad will be demilitarized and then "given
| back" to Russia.
|
| And the argument was about nukes, in the event NATO
| invades Kaliningrad because of missle sites, not if it
| should or would.
|
| Funnily the staunchest supporters of Putin in Germany
| (Nazis) would also be the only ones who would like to
| have Konigsberg back.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| >might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad
|
| https://bellenews.com/2013/12/16/world/europe-
| news/russia-de...
| fjfaase wrote:
| Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the
| Ukraine. Ukraine gave up its nuclear bomb and destroyed
| its strategic bombers with the promise that it would be
| defended by the USA and Russia. Now that Russia stept out
| of that deal, it does not mean that the USA no longer has
| the moral obligation of its part of the deal.
| aembleton wrote:
| > the promise that it would be defended by the USA and
| Russia
|
| The promise[1] was to not invade it, it was not to
| provide defence.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
| alephxyz wrote:
| > Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the
| Ukraine.
|
| The Budapest memorandum is not a defense pact. The only
| obligation the US has is to e escalate to the UN security
| council if Ukraine gets nuked.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr
| .or...
| fjfaase wrote:
| I stand corrected, the Budapest memorandum is not a
| defense pact. The Ukraine government acted in good faith
| that they would not be invaded. Now that it has indeed be
| invaded by one of the countries signing the memorandum,
| it does give the other parties a moral obligation to step
| in. The USA is now showing to be an unreliable party and
| I think that this weakens the position of the USA in the
| world.
| docmars wrote:
| The easiest solution to this war is sitting Zelenskyy
| down with Putin and striking a compromise and forming a
| peace treaty, if the U.S. war mongers allow it.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| How long will that last?
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Like the last several ones, before or after Russia
| invaded Crimea?
|
| Or the one where Russia guaranteed Ukraines sovereignty
| if they would give up nuclear weapons? (Russia playing
| the long con, got what it wanted, Ukraine free of nuclear
| weapons, ready to be invaded).
| JAlexoid wrote:
| The nukes deal wasn't about granting sovereignty. Ukraine
| had sovereignty since the formation of Soviet Union over
| 100 years ago(Ukraine even retained it's seat in UN, upon
| founding).
|
| That deal was just about nuclear proliferation. It was
| well reasoned at the time and had no special conditions.
|
| That being said - the idea that Ukrainians are a "fake
| nation" has been a prominent talking point in Russia my
| entire life.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "to this war"
|
| What about the next war? Have you listened to Putin?
| Ukraine is an artificial nation according to him and
| Russia has the right to reabsorb "Little Russia". How do
| you compromise with that view?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I listened to him speak for two hours. Hundreds of
| thousands of people have been killed in the war, how many
| more lives should be sacrificed to avoid compromise? What
| about prioritizing the value of human lives over drawing
| lines on a map between two very broken, very corrupt
| countries?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I don't really get how you can even _begin to trust_
| anything that Putin promises or signs.
|
| Russia has a long tradition of treating treaties as
| scraps of paper, and they have a recent history in this
| regard with Ukraine.
|
| Their long-term aim is to absorb Ukraine and exploit its
| industrial and agricultural potential for further
| imperial expansion. The next will be the Baltic countries
| and after them Central Europe.
|
| Whatever peace will be signed now will last precisely as
| long as it takes Russia to rebuild their offensive
| capabilities for the next round of war.
|
| All the dead are fault of Putin and his imperial
| ambitions. Our only choice is whether to submit and
| become serfs in a neo-Russian empire, or fight back and
| help Ukrainians fight back.
| docmars wrote:
| I'm not sure how anyone begins to trust our own military
| or elected Establishment leaders who start and fund
| endless frivolous wars for decades, for greed, leaving
| the Middle East absolutely laid to waste.
|
| Bush, Obama / Hillary, and Biden are no different than
| Putin, if not far worse. They deserve no more trust from
| Americans than a serial killer who took out members of
| your family for fun. They are reckless abusers, for greed
| and continued power.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| If I were a Middle Easterner, I would agree. Or South
| American, for that purpose.
|
| (With one huge caveat, both the Middle Easterners and the
| South Americans are perfectly capable of starting various
| shit themselves. Don't deprive them of agency by painting
| them as blind and obedient puppets of Washington.
| Especially the Middle East is a very ancient civilization
| with a tradition of backstabbing and betrayal going deep
| into the Antiquity. They don't have to learn that from
| some Westerners.)
|
| But in the context of European security, the main problem
| of the last decades was either the USSR or Russia, not
| the US. It was Soviet tanks that rolled through
| Czechoslovak cities in 1968 to crush our attempt at
| political independence, not American ones.
|
| Context matters, and for former Soviet Bloc nations,
| Americans are an ally against potential reestablishment
| of Russian rule.
| docmars wrote:
| But today's Russia is explicitly against the Bolsheviks
| and any form of the USSR altogether. Russia has moved
| well beyond that, so it isn't a matter of reestablishing
| former Russian rule under the same horrible terms as
| before. They are prospering now, are they not?
|
| In 2023, a trusted, world-renowned expert -- Bill Gates
| -- stated that Ukraine is one of the single most corrupt
| nations in the world, and that he feels very sorry for
| the people there. [1] That says a lot, doesn't it?
|
| Zelenskyy shuts down churches, imprisons political
| protestors and American journalists, and launders money
| back to the U.S. war machine after we "fund" them every
| month or less -- to the order of $113 million per day
| now. How could anyone not see clearly what's happening
| there? It seems that people are so blinded by their
| hatred for Russia, that what the people are suffering in
| Ukraine on Ukraine's own accord isn't enough of a
| problem, despite how gaping it is.
|
| 1.
| https://x.com/RG_SargeXB/status/1758499201468768291?s=20
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Russia may be explicitly against Bolsheviks (though
| recycling the Soviet anthem!), and Putin's Russia is
| indeed more akin to the former tsarist Empire than to
| USSR, but the tsarist Empire was fairly evil, too. Just
| ask the Poles or the Jews. Russian empire didn't grow to
| its huge size by trade and friendship, it was conquest.
|
| Ukraine is corrupt. So what? Ukrainian corruption is a
| threat to no one. Not a single nation from Finland to
| Bulgaria considers itself vulnerable to Ukrainian
| military aggression, because they aren't an imperial
| nation and don't seek to dominate others. They were
| perfectly fine within their 1991 borders and never
| attempted to annex any extra territory by any means.
|
| It is _Russia 's_ problem, in the words of great Vaclav
| Havel, that it does not know exactly where it ends.
|
| All the hatred for Russia stems from their former heavy-
| handed rule of other nations. If they sincerely tried to
| make amends, it would slowly go away. They are now trying
| to rebuild their former imperial system. OF COURSE that
| nations which escaped their tyranny once are going to
| hate them.
|
| It is freaking simple: _we_ , as in _Estonians, Latvians,
| Poles, Czechs, Rumanians, Ukrainians, Georgians_ etc. DON
| 'T WANT TO BE THREATENED OR ATTACKED BY RUSSIA. That's
| it. We have had enough experience with Russian rule. It
| is primitive and brutal at the same time. Never again.
| docmars wrote:
| Judging by Putin's recent interview, it seems he isn't
| interested in endless imperial conquest though. He stated
| it himself, and of course, many people think he's lying,
| but this isn't exactly something he can pull as a ruse by
| lying about it because we would already be seeing Poland
| and other neighboring territories taken over by Russia
| with great ease by now -- but that simply isn't the case.
|
| Putin also stated that Russia is the largest land mass in
| the world assigned to a nation, and that there's
| absolutely no reason that it should grow. However, when
| its borders are threatened, it will act accordingly, like
| any nation would. Ukraine has a history with manufactured
| agitation and baiting [1][2]. And before you judge the
| sources, there is always more than 1 side to a story.
|
| Putin wants to reclaim only a small fraction of Ukraine
| where the people in those regions have openly stated
| wanting that very thing to happen, due to Ukraine's
| corruption and oppressive policies.
|
| Kiev is practically spotless when you compare it to Gaza,
| so in the grander scheme, Russia isn't doing anything
| nearly as horrible as Israel or Hamas combined. This
| really puts things into perspective by comparing these
| conflicts and measuring not only their outcomes, but the
| timeframes in which these events have occurred. Putin's
| actions have been overblown tremendously, and has
| publicly stated he's open to peace talks, but the U.S.
| (and by extension NATO) will not allow Ukraine to do
| this. They want their war.
|
| 1. https://x.com/randyhillier/status/1755286103945277574?
| s=20
|
| 2. https://tass.com/politics/1629441
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "we would already be seeing Poland and other neighboring
| territories taken over by Russia with great ease"
|
| The same ease as now in Avdiivka? It took five months of
| constant bloodshed for Russians to gain the upper hand.
|
| "Putin wants to reclaim only a small fraction of Ukraine
| where the people in those regions have openly stated
| wanting that very thing to happen, due to Ukraine's
| corruption and oppressive policies."
|
| I don't even know what to reply to this. Hitler also ran
| fake referenda. BTW That small fraction of Ukraine is
| something like a sixth of its total territory, plus
| multiple important cities and most of the coastline.
|
| I never really understood why people believed Hitler when
| he declared in 1938 that Czechoslovak Sudetenland was his
| last territorial demand, but hey, here we go again.
|
| "Kiev is practically spotless when you compare it to
| Gaza"
|
| And? There was never ground fighting in Kiev proper,
| given that the Russians didn't manage to enter the city,
| and both Ukraine and Russia have enough of AA to keep
| each other's air assets at bay.
|
| Look at Bakhmut or Avdiivka, places of actual fighting
| and former homes of tens of thousands of people. They
| actually do look a lot worse than Gaza. How did you miss
| those cities when looking for context and perspective?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| What geopolitical motive does Russia have for a costly,
| and likely unsuccessful invasion of Poland? If your
| argument is "Because Putin is Hitler", you're not really
| making logical or coherent arguments.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| Mariupol siege was completely flattened with hundreds of
| thousands dead from constant shelling.
|
| While IDF in Gaza was fighting building to building with
| most of the population evacuated. The destruction of Gaza
| you see is following controlled demolition because of the
| tunnels below (basically every house).
| za3faran wrote:
| "controlled demolition"? Yes, very controlled, especially
| when we see outright admission by their officials that
| they're after "damage, not accuracy". Indiscriminate
| shelling and bombing is very obvious and has been
| recorded for history to remember.
| degradas wrote:
| > he isn't interested in endless imperial conquest
|
| Putin said in early 2022 that he has no interest in
| invading Ukraine. Invasion happened weeks later.
| docmars wrote:
| After Ukraine baited them on their border, right? Nobody
| can say Ukraine nor the U.S. didn't want this war in
| desperation to poke the hornet's nest that is Putin, used
| as a means to obfuscate abuse around the funding of the
| war.
|
| The U.S. was heavily active in 2014 onward helping
| Ukraine prepare for this. Specifically in 2016, as shown
| in this video [1].
|
| 1. https://x.com/PatriotPraetori/status/17557816432336286
| 22?s=2...
| za3faran wrote:
| > specially the Middle East is a very ancient
| civilization with a tradition of backstabbing and
| betrayal going deep into the Antiquity.
|
| As a "Middle Easterner" (a colonialist term by the way),
| I didn't realize that the "Middle East" was one
| conglomerate culture. Thank you for teaching me about my
| history /s
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Civilization is an umbrella term that usually covers
| multiple cultures.
|
| We also speak of Western civilization, even though it
| doesn't equal to one conglomerate culture either.
|
| As for 'colonialist' term ... sigh, do I care how people
| call Europe on Arabic or Turkish forums? Every cultural
| region has some lingo that reflects its history.
|
| 'Europe' itself is a Phoenician word that means "country
| of sunset". _From their perspective_ , it was. Hereby I
| am forgiving old Phoenician colonialists (and they indeed
| colonized much of the Mediterranean) for naming some
| continent according to their local perspective. That is
| what people tend to do.
| luch wrote:
| Honestly what's the difference whether it's POTUS or Congress
| blocking the bill ? The writing on the wall is here: if
| Russia invades Poland, NATO article 5 or not the US will not
| go into full blown war with Russia.
|
| And honestly it was the European's fault to believe in this
| pipe dream.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "And honestly it was the European's fault to believe in
| this pipe dream."
|
| Having lived through Reforger exercises, with US tanks
| everywhere and sonic booms every few minutes, I believe up
| and including Reagan it was clear the US would not let
| Soviet Russia invade Western Europe b/c of the resulting
| shift in world power.
|
| After the EU got more powerful and expanded, dynamics
| changed.
|
| It's unclear with the Bushes and clear that
| Clinton/Obama/Trump would not aid Europe.
| tokai wrote:
| That is a lie. EU and European countries has given more than
| double that of the US.
| cglace wrote:
| If you go by military support of Ukraine, this is not true.
| It's only valid if you include things like humanitarian
| support. If the US passes its support bill, it would be on
| equal footing with all aid to Ukraine from Europe,
| including humanitarian support.
| tokai wrote:
| Please stop spreading misinformation.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Please stop making baseless accusations.
| genman wrote:
| Let's get the facts straight
|
| https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-
| ukraine/ukraine-s...
|
| Military help from EU countries is higher than US,
| humanitarian help is multiple times higher and so is
| financial help.
|
| If US passes the bill then it will somewhat catch up. IF
| it passes. Perhaps it decides to degrade its
| international standing even more instead, who knows.
| tw04 wrote:
| >That is a lie. EU and European countries has given more
| than double that of the US.
|
| Based on what number? You tell other people not to make
| things up, then throw out outlandish claims without
| citation.
|
| And as for the "by GDP number" - you all seem to be failing
| to take into account overall military spending by GDP. Most
| of Europe spends almost nothing because they rely on the US
| to present a threat to their potential enemies. It's a lot
| easier to spend 5% of your GDP on military spending for a
| year or two when the rest of the last 40 years it's been
| less than 1% because the US has been spending 4-8% YoY for
| the duration on top of the direct aid.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-
| bilateral-...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64656301
|
| https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-
| ukraine...
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| https://app.23degrees.io/view/5V9AdDpw1pmLxo1e-bar-
| stacked-h...
| miroljub wrote:
| That's just something they tell you during your election
| campaign. The truth is a bit different, USA is good at
| promissing and forcing other to do, but it did very little,
| compared to own GDP and military abilities.
|
| Money:
|
| - EU - 85,0 Mrd. EUR
|
| - USA - 67,7 Mrd. EUR
|
| - Deutschland - 22,1 Mrd. EUR
|
| - Vereinigtes Konigreich - 15,7 Mrd. EUR
|
| - Danemark - 8,8 Mrd. EUR
|
| - EU: nur gemeinsame Hilfe
|
| - Quelle: Institut fur Weltwirtschaft / Ukraine Support
| Tracker
|
| Tanks, promissed and delivered:
|
| - Polen 324 Stuck 264 Stuck
|
| - Niederlande 104 Stuck 23 Stuck
|
| - Tschechien 90 Stuck 90 Stuck
|
| - USA 76 Stuck 23 Stuck
|
| - Deutschland 55 Stuck 48 Stuck
| cglace wrote:
| You cherry-pick tanks as your metric? Why don't we look at
| the totality of American deliveries, including long-range
| munitions and artillery, and see who comes ahead? What
| equivalent of game-changing ordnance, such as the GDSLB,
| are European countries providing?
|
| This is why a large portion of Americans could care less
| about the defense of Europe. No matter what we do, it's
| either wrong or not enough. Meanwhile, Europe spent the
| last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy and
| neglecting its defense spending and then turned around and
| told the US that we don't do enough to stop Russia.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Me: "Europe can't trust the US"
|
| You: "How dare you ....!?"
|
| Later You: "This is why a large portion of Americans
| could care less about the defense of Europe."
|
| That was easy.
|
| Q.E.D.
| cglace wrote:
| I don't see how that means you can't trust America. A
| large % does not equal a majority. Look at polling to see
| where the majority of US sentiment lies.
|
| Similarly, if you look at surveys of Germans, you will
| see that a large % do not support Military aid of
| Ukraine, not a majority, but a large percentage. By your
| logic, does that mean that Ukraine cannot trust Germany?
| htek wrote:
| It doesn't take a majority of voters to elect a President
| in the U.S. thanks to the electoral college.
| cglace wrote:
| Only 31% of the US believes we are providing too much
| support to Ukraine.
| miroljub wrote:
| Because you are objectively not providing more than any
| other NATO land.
| ganieldackle wrote:
| Which country is providing more than the US? The only
| thing that matters is the absolute numbers. Ukraine
| doesn't care if Moldova contributes 10% of its GDP
| because it amounts to nothing compared to 1% of US GDP.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Someone should tell the Speaker of the House that
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| Due to the fucked nature of the political system in
| America most people don't matter. Who cares if someone in
| California supports aid to Ukraine when Trumpistic and
| Putinistic swing-voters in Georgia does not.
| MrDresden wrote:
| > _This is why a large portion of Americans could care
| less about the defense of Europe. No matter what we do,
| it 's either wrong or not enough. Meanwhile, Europe spent
| the last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy and
| neglecting its defense spending and then turned around
| and told the US that we don't do enough to stop Russia._
|
| That comment comes off as surpisingly ignorant of the
| benefits that the US gets by having a buffer zone between
| it self on either side (Europe on it's eastern flank and
| the indo pacific on the western flank).
|
| Your whole foreign policy revolves around keeping these
| areas armed and protected in cooperation with local
| governments in an effort of keeping conflict from
| reaching US shores (an evolution of the Monroe doctrine,
| which started back in the 19th century with keeping
| European conquest out of the immediate surroundings).
|
| I would highly recommend picking up 'The Grand
| Chessboard[0]' by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counselor
| to Presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Jimmy Carter. It is an
| excellent light read on the landscape in the mid 90's in
| regards to US foreign policy and national security. It
| even forshadows much that has happened recently.
|
| It will truly fill in some gaps.
|
| > _Meanwhile, Europe spent the last few decades enjoying
| cheap Russian energy_
|
| Let us not forget that for a long time the US was hooked
| on foreign imported oil from the middle east, and even in
| 2021 Russian energy made up a total of 4% of the domestic
| US energy usage (up since Venezualian sources were not
| available as readily).
|
| Please don't paint the US as some white knight that does
| what ever it can to please others on the world stage for
| altruistic reasons.
|
| At worst it is disingenuous, and at best signals a
| massive ignorance of the world stage, history and the
| actors playing on it (again, highly recommend the
| book[0]).
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
|
| _edit_ : spelling.
| cglace wrote:
| My comment is ignorant because a large portion of America
| could care less about defending Europe? I guess I'll try
| and educate 100 million Americans before commenting
| again...
|
| Thanks for explaining that every country has motives
| behind its actions. I'm familiar with realpolitik it has
| nothing to do with what average Americans feel about
| Europe.
|
| I'm just relating the feelings a lot of people I know
| have towards the region. You might not like it or agree
| with it(I don't) but lecturing Americans on how bad they
| are probably isn't the best way to bring them around to
| your side.
| joakleaf wrote:
| Not sure about the US providing more funding (especially not
| by a large margin):
|
| This chart shows EU outspending the US.
|
| https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-
| huma....
| kortilla wrote:
| We're talking about the military portion on that page.
| joakleaf wrote:
| That was certainly not clear, but it is still does not
| fit this chart [1]
|
| Looking at Military add only:
|
| The US has provided: ~$42.2B Germany + United Kingdom +
| Denmark + Norway + Netherlands + Poland + EU inst.: ~$51B
|
| [1] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-
| ukraine/ukraine-s...
| cglace wrote:
| Oh man, the EU plus the rest of the world are eking it
| out before the US passes another spending bill. . .
|
| This also includes long-term commitments that have not
| yet been delivered. EU promising to provide 1 million
| artillery shells two years from now doesn't help Ukraine
| at this time.
| piva00 wrote:
| The US not passing a spending bill and getting constantly
| deadlocked by the GOP to even table it in Congress also
| do not help Ukraine at this time.
|
| Also, it's not even close to a certainty that the
| spending bill will pass, and the chance of that happening
| diminishes every single day while this stupid
| presidential election doesn't happen.
| eino wrote:
| The quote from OP was "The US has provided more funding
| to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin".
| Which is just completely false. Now you're just moving
| goalposts.
| cglace wrote:
| But does it change the more significant point of the US
| being Ukraine's most important partner in terms of
| military support? I was countering the narrative that the
| US is not a good partner. As internet forums do, everyone
| globbed onto the specific number, not the point being
| made.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| And the EU is spending more on military aid then the US.
|
| As World = EU + X and X>0 => The world is spending more
| on military aid then the US.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Total aid, yes.
|
| Military spending no.
|
| In fact this war has highlighted that NO ONE was ready for
| the fight that came about.
|
| Skip the money for a moment. Ukraine right now is
| marginally fucked for one reason: 155mm artillery shells.
|
| There isnt enough global production to have a war. The US
| is far and away the largest producer. EU can not keep up
| and did not bring on anywhere near enough capacity to
| defend itself in a future conflict.
|
| I would also like to point out that without that
| humanitarian aid flowing INTO Ukraine those folks flee TO
| the EU. Sending money there avoids bringing the problems to
| Poland and Germany and having to spend it there. After
| taking in so many refugees in recent history the EU is
| gunshy about another migration.
| joakleaf wrote:
| Looking at Military aid only [1]:
|
| The US has provided: ~$42.2B
|
| Germany + United Kingdom + Denmark + Norway + Netherlands
| + Poland + EU inst.: ~$51B
|
| [1] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-
| ukraine/ukraine-s...
| sekai wrote:
| France is up there with UK, but they are not on the chart
| because they do not disclose all the transfers they do.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Source?
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Em... That's the point, we know that France transferred a
| lot of equipment(Cesar self propelled artillery is
| Franch). We don't know how much they transferred, there
| may be unofficial guestimated numbers - but there can be
| no source for "we don't know".
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| >Sending money there avoids bringing the problems to
| Poland and Germany
|
| I'd argue that refugees, 50% of whom intend to stay, are
| the reason why EU is the only party to win something from
| this war. I actively support Ukrainian refugees by giving
| them some work and talk to people: those who will stay,
| want to integrate and they offer some relief to the job
| markets.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "some relief to the job markets."
|
| I agree and have done the same with Syrian refugees.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Oh, yes, Syrians. Danke, Merkel, I found some good IT
| admins from there.
| piva00 wrote:
| In Sweden two of my favourite doctors are Syrian
| refugees, they gave me more humane and personal care than
| many Swedish doctors I've been to.
|
| My landlord (and by far the best landlord I've had in
| Sweden) is another refugee doctor, a very laid back
| Iraqian pulmonologist, to the point I even invite him
| over to have some beers during summers.
| StockHuman wrote:
| NATO already won; it has expanded and defence commitments
| are up, and that is besides the renewed raison d'etre
| Russia has leased it.
|
| The US defence industry has seen a minor win, too. It
| will reap the long-term win of new NATO accessions.
|
| The EU got a wakeup call (not so much a win, but hey) to
| seek energy independence from belligerent petrostates, so
| that could be seen as a future win.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| I'm not sure about NATO, at least while Trumpism exists
| in America. If U.S. voters will think that Europe has to
| be sacrificed in favor of bilateral Russian-American
| deal, NATO is effectively as dead as it was pre-war.
|
| U.S.defense industry will also depend on that. If Trump
| wins and commits to do everything he promised, they will
| be in a weaker position, loosing foreign markets one by
| one.
| jacquesm wrote:
| There is a lot of money riding on NATOs continued
| existence and I think if Trump decides to pull the USA
| out of NATO he will be in for a rude surprise. Playing
| with the climate accords was dumb enough and didn't have
| any immediate impact, if the USA visibly isolates itself
| from NATO after other countries supporting the USA in
| various efforts over the last couple of decades then the
| world as you know it will grind to a very rapid halt and
| the United States will be the big loser from that
| _unless_ Trump is reigned in. I would expect him to
| receive a couple of very pointed reminders of what the
| consequences of such a move would be. Fortunately even an
| unhinged TV personality can not single-handedly destroy a
| country and what it has stood for for the last 70+ years.
| fooblaster wrote:
| Not to nitpick, but trump could singlehandedly destroy
| the United states in an afternoon. The presidency has
| absolute control over the use of the nuclear arsenal. One
| strike on China, in a conflict over Taiwan and the
| country will be blown to pieces. I don't think that's
| likely - but one cannot deny it is possible.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Any scenario where anyone throws a nuke means the
| __world__ will be blown to pieces. That's a different
| scale of issue.
| lr1970 wrote:
| This is not a serious argument. By the same token, putin
| or comrade xi can do the same if they feel suicidal.
|
| There are controls in place (or at least on the paper)
| that prevent a crazy president from running amok with the
| nukes.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'd hope that if he would give that order that someone
| would remove the source of the problem. Not everybody
| enjoys seeing the world destroyed.
| gettodachoppa wrote:
| >even an unhinged TV personality can not single-handedly
| destroy a country and what it has stood for for the last
| 70+ years.
|
| A war-mongering, propaganda-spewing, dystopian corporate
| empire beheld entirely to the military-industrial complex
| and megacorps?
|
| You're right, I don't think he can turn the ship around.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| He absolutely can and will destroy the country and what
| it has stood for. He's already completely corrupted one
| of the only two viable political parties. They no longer
| believe in democracy. If Trump or one his sycophants
| gains office again, America won't be a shining city on
| the hill, it'll be a toxic waste dump.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Trumpism is an ideology that overgrown its founder: there
| are members of Congress, governors and other politicians
| who share his mindset. It is the Republican Party of
| 2020s, not just an insane businessman, who will throw
| global security under the bus. All those pointed
| reminders will mean nothing until it is too late.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Americans being in favor of making a deal with Russia
| would be proof that psyops works
| randunel wrote:
| How do you do that? I've hosted refugees for free, as
| opposed to locals who've had to pay for hotel stays, but
| I'm not discriminating against locals when hiring.
|
| How do you "actively support refugees by giving them some
| work" in a way that's legal, without hiring bias?
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| E.g. I use cleaning services from a company that employs
| refugees.
|
| Besides, using only specific recruiting channels to
| select candidates from certain demographics is not a
| discrimination. If locals would apply this way, I would
| consider them, but honestly... In Germany, esp. in Berlin
| hiring locals? The market is so tight, that by just
| removing the German language requirement you will find
| some immigrant faster.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> If locals would apply this way, I would consider them_
|
| What way do you mean, how exactly should they apply?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Artillery shells are but one tool though, which for some
| reason has become the main tool (? citation needed) in
| the Ukraine war; I would expect more air force being put
| in play if the conflict escalated into the rest of
| europe.
|
| Even though Russia has got the bigger air force on paper
| (https://rlist.io/l/european-countries-with-the-largest-
| air-f...).
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _[artillery shells] which for some reason has become
| the main tool_
|
| Because Soviet (and ex-Soviet) armies were heavily built
| around massive numbers of lower-trained conscripts.
|
| It's difficult to conduct maneuver warfare without highly
| trained troops.
|
| It's a lot easier to throw a lot of artillery at the
| problem.
| xeonmc wrote:
| > Conscript reporting. _Da!_
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Artillery shells are but one tool though, which for
| some reason has become the main tool (? citation needed)
| in the Ukraine war
|
| The reason is that neither side has air supremacy.
| Ukrainian AA defense is good enough to keep the Russians
| at bay, but Russian AA defense is also good enough to
| prevent Ukrainians from taking out their frontline
| defenses.
|
| So with classic air forces being all but taken out, the
| only way either side can make progress is by using tanks
| and artillery.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Can't we give Ukraine HARMs?
| piva00 wrote:
| The USA seems unable to give any more support due to
| political deadlock.
|
| It definitely could provide much more to Ukraine if both
| parties were aligned to the common cause of sustaining
| America's hegemony by being a reliable ally, right now
| there's one party which the whole ideology centers on
| going against whatever the other party does and/or
| supports. Even if that means allowing Putin's Russia to
| gain more power and influence.
|
| I don't think the vast majority of Americans understand
| the long-term consequences of allowing the USA to become
| unreliable to its closest partners (the West in general).
| You will be feeling this over the next few decades,
| America's soft power is waning.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > It definitely could provide much more to Ukraine if
| both parties were aligned to the common cause of
| sustaining America's hegemony by being a reliable ally,
| right now there's one party which the whole ideology
| centers on going against whatever the other party does
| and/or supports. Even if that means allowing Putin's
| Russia to gain more power and influence.
|
| It's even worse. The 45th is _actively calling for Russia
| to take what they want_.
| protomolecule wrote:
| You have already done that. [0] They don't seem to work
| too well. [1]
|
| [0] https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-
| defense-weapo...
|
| [1] https://www.eurasiantimes.com/hamrless-missiles-us-
| supplied-...
| mrguyorama wrote:
| We gave them nerfed HARMs that can't properly integrate
| with their soviet planes, and they have zero SEAD
| training. HARMs aren't magic, without the strategy and
| training required for good SEAD, they won't do much.
| Things may improve when the F-16s start flying since
| those are properly integrated and capable SEAD platforms.
| protomolecule wrote:
| "Things may improve when the F-16s start flying"
|
| This could only end with tactical nukes starting flying
| and with the strategic ones if the US attacks Russia.
| Things won't 'improve' no matter what happens.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Putin is done for in those scenarios. He doesn't look the
| type to fall on his sword.
| protomolecule wrote:
| In which scenario he isn't done for if the US keeps
| escalating?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I think Putin can find a way to exit the Ukraine and
| define that as a success if he wants to. But he still
| thinks he has a chance to win on the battlefield, so he
| has no motivation to do that.
| protomolecule wrote:
| How can he exit if Zelensky's goal is to retake Crimea,
| Donetsk and Lugansk?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Hopefully we are about to find out.
| protomolecule wrote:
| That's wishful thinking.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| He lied about why the Russian army is in Ukraine and
| Russians bought it.
|
| He can lie about why the Russian army is leaving Ukraine
| and Russians will buy it.
|
| He can stop this war at any moment.
| protomolecule wrote:
| Just like the US can stop this war at any moment by
| dropping support for Ukraine and pressuring them to
| negotiate. Or can't they?
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Oh, moving the goal post uh ? Pretty weak game you show
| here.
|
| > Just like the US can stop this war at any moment by
| dropping support for Ukraine and pressuring them to
| negotiate.
|
| _Just like_ So you admit Putin could stop the war at any
| moment ? Good. Why don 't you petition for that ? (oh
| wait, what happened to that guy that submission talk
| about and who wasn't completely on board with Putin's
| leadership ?)
|
| What prevents him from stopping this war anyway ? Why
| won't he ? What terrible outcome would he or Russia face
| if he just declared "okay, we showed the world we ain't
| no pushovers, we are now confident Ukraine and NATO won't
| try to invade us because we showed them how strong we
| are" ?
|
| Anyway, that Putin guy has made it pretty clear he wants
| to knock off all of Ukraine. Only Russian shills and
| useful idiots believe otherwise. But that's not what you
| are, aren't you ?
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| Return to 2014 borders.
|
| Done.
| protomolecule wrote:
| Putin will be done if he tries to abandon people of
| Crimea.
|
| "According to Tamila Tasheva, Zelensky's representative
| in Crimea, if it were liberated tomorrow, at least
| 200,000 residents of Crimea would face collaboration
| charges, and another 500,000 to 800,000 residents would
| face deportation. Refat Chubarov, the chairman of the
| Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, says that more than 1
| million people--more than half the current population--
| will have to leave "immediately." "
|
| [0] https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/18/ukraine-russia-
| war-civi...
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Kremlin has said multiple times, that use of western
| weapons against targets on Russian soil will be
| escalation and they will target NATO bases.
|
| There have been multiple strikes using western weapons on
| Russian soil... with zero response. One of the most
| recent being shooting down an Il-76 near Belgorod.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The problem, at least according to that article and to
| pictures and videos of shot down HARMs, isn't really the
| integration. The problem is that Russian AA systems can
| defend themselves passively using IR or optical sensors,
| and are highly mobile. Basically, a pure antiradiation
| missile would only work if the crew of the air defence
| system makes a mistake or runs out of missiles.
|
| The other issue is that merely because you did get that
| radar to turn off, doesn't mean that the launching
| aircraft is safe. Russia (and Ukraine as well) has a true
| IADS, so it's very risky to get within position to launch
| the HARM in the first place, let alone stay in position
| long enough to actually use your sensor package and give
| more capability to your missile.
|
| Besides, Ukraine had Soviet antiradiation missiles that
| are extremely similar to the HARMs and that are
| integrated into their airframes. They weren't hugely
| effective.
|
| How is an F-16 going to get close enough to Russian SAMs
| to be able to fly a conventional SEAD mission anyways?
| The traditional US way of using them is to jam enemy
| radars while flying F-16s as a wild weasel. The F-16
| itself is not a capable SEAD platform - it needs and
| entire package with EW aircraft and air superiority
| fighters to defend them.
|
| Besides, the problem in Ukraine is that Ukraine just
| can't fly even close to the frontline, and can't fly
| high. That's not just due to air defences - Ukraine used
| to be able to do this until Russia started using their
| extremely long range air to air missiles.
| terafo wrote:
| Ukrainan Air Force has HARMs, but they are VERY limited
| in their capabilities due to them being employed from
| soviet-era jets. Basically area where target resides have
| to be pre-programmed on the ground, rocket then flies to
| that area and lock on any radar it finds there. But what
| previous commenter missed is that even if Russian air
| defenses are suppressed, their planes outclass Ukrainian
| ones. For example, air to air missiles that UAF has
| available need to be guided by planes radar all the way
| through, also that missiles have shorter range than
| something like R-37, which is fire and forget with VERY
| high range. Western air to air missiles are much better
| than what Ukraine has right now, but they can't be fired
| from Su-27 or MiG-29, they require something like F-16 or
| Gripen, but while a bunch of European countries agreed to
| transfer them, Ukrainian pilots and ground crews don't
| know how to operate them, and need to be trained, which
| happens right now. If there were trained beforehand it
| would've changed current situation on the front lines
| VERY significantly.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| What happened to the F16s, Ukraine was promised?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| F16s will arrive this spring, but Soviet AA was designed
| to contain them. None of the expert observers seems to
| consider F16s a gamechanger on the battlefield right now.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Soviet AA isn't even the biggest threat - As many
| Ukrainian pilots put it, the main threat is the R-37M.
| You can at least fly low and out of the way to defend
| against SAMs, but without a missile like the Meteor there
| is no answer to the combination of long range SAMs and
| R-37M carrying fighters.
|
| Basically the problem is that to avoid AA you have to fly
| low or far from the front lines. If you fly low, you
| can't give enough energy to your missile to threaten even
| just Russian bombers.
|
| If you fly high but far away, there is no way to deal
| with Russian planes carrying R-37s that will be able to
| fire their missiles far before you.
|
| The only way to even the playing field would be to give
| Ukraine modern Gripens with the Meteor missile, as the
| F-16 cannot fire the Meteor.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| > as the F-16 cannot fire the Meteor.
|
| To be fair, the MiG's Ukraine does have were not supposed
| to be capable of firing storm shadows either.
|
| But that problem got resolved, and they are now firing
| them well outside the expected operational envelope and
| scoring solid hits.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| F-16s are not much better than the Su-27s and MiG-29s the
| Ukrainians had in droves. They will not be able to face
| combined Russian GBAD+CAP.
|
| Their role will most likely be to fly far behind the
| frontlines and fire NATO weapons Ukraine's airframes
| can't.
| mynameisnoone wrote:
| Stalin called artillery the god of war. Ranged surface-
| to-surface weapons are the antithesis of close combat,
| and whoever has the systems with the highest range and
| military effectiveness can clear the way ahead of
| physical occupation until political or economic forces
| compel suing for a negotiated cessation of hostilities.
|
| While Ukraine is training F-16 pilots, this will take a
| lot of time and money to achieve and sustain, and is
| vulnerable to parts supply chain issues, maintenance
| program sophistication gaps, and puts expensive-to-train
| pilots at risk of loss by being shot down. Vipers will
| barely move the needle on the course of the current
| conflict, but will enable Ukraine to defend its territory
| and airspace without direct NATO intervention.
|
| The domestic Ukraine drone and missile industry is
| another leg of the table on which Ukraine will advance
| and sustain self-defense by striking strategic Russian
| military logistics, naval, army, and air force targets.
|
| > Even though Russia has got the bigger air force
|
| Russia's military is barely functional due to corruption
| and complacent reliance on being a nuclear superpower.
| The % of operational jets is barely enough to sustain
| territorial defense much less a sustained "special
| military operation". Russia's air assets total 3000
| pieces of equipment but with only 7 regular air bases
| close enough to launch strikes and could only muster
| around 250 operational strike aircraft given the
| limitations on maintenance, storage, and the few pilots.
|
| 185 fighters
|
| 264 attack aircraft
|
| 415 multirole
|
| 119 bombers
|
| 1000+ helicopters
|
| 1000 transport
|
| 177 others (EW, a few tankers, c3)
|
| https://youtu.be/geSvbR9io3c
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Because Ukraine lacks military aircraft, but got
| reasonable AA. We're partially back to WW1 there.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "Military spending no." Country
| Military EU Total 49,67 United
| States 42,22 Germany 17,70 United
| Kingdom 9,12 Denmark 8,40
| Netherlands 4,44 Norway 3,80
| Poland 3,00
|
| And if we take % of GDP the US looks worse on military
| aid.
|
| And if we take % of military budget, the US is last on
| the list.
| bitcurious wrote:
| I'm not sure how the calculations work in other
| countries, but the US was/is heavily depreciating its
| donations, and funding/facilitating a much of European
| donations.
| lumost wrote:
| There's also ring trades where the us donates surplus
| gear to European countries to get them to donate hardware
| to Ukraine - somewhat inflating tallies. Greece got
| several c-130s in expectation that they would donate
| 152mm ammunition.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Yes, and Germany has ring-traded a lot of military
| equipment, e.g. several dozens of Leopard 2 tanks.
|
| Sure about the 152mm? Not 155mm?
| Arrath wrote:
| > Sure about the 152mm? Not 155mm?
|
| I'd have to double check but its quite likely. 152mm
| being the popular Soviet/WP large artillery caliber which
| Ukraine no doubt has (or had, at the beginning) a lot of
| legacy Soviet-era heavy artillery.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-
| artill...
|
| It's more messed up than that. The ROI on US dollars vs
| Euros is stupefying. There has been a fairly significant
| spend IN the us retooling for this war. The ramp up of
| 155 production ISNT aid to Ukraine but is going to
| benefit them.
|
| And I called out 155 for a reason, the ebb and flow of it
| has been at the forefront of Ukraine being successful or
| failing. It is the the most consistently asked for and
| consumed large item as it in combination with drones has
| proven effective beyond anyones expectations.
| sekai wrote:
| And this is chart is missing EU strongest military -
| France, they do not announce all the support they give
| for strategic reasons.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Could the strategic reason be to avoid explaining why
| they give so little?
| dragontamer wrote:
| Unlikely. The Caesar artillery systems are large,
| expensive and well publicized.
|
| They need USAs 155mm production the most. the fact that
| we cut off our specialty is ridiculous.
| phtrivier wrote:
| France published a list of equipment they sent to
| Ukraine, about an hour ago [1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2024/02/16/en-
| dire...
|
| Quoting and translating the best I can (any translation
| error is mine):
|
| Ground - Air SAMP-T : 1 system and
| ASTER 30 missiles CROTALE NG : 2 systems and some
| missiles MISTRAL : 5 systems and hundreds of
| missiles RADAR : 1 GM 200
|
| Air - Ground SCALP : about a hundred
| missiles A2SM : several hundred bombs starting in
| February 2024
|
| Artillery CAESAR : 30 canons and tens
| of thousands of munitions TRF1 : 6 canons and
| tens of thousands of munitions LRU : 4 systems
| and hundreds rockets
|
| Armoured and liaison vehicules AMX 10
| RC: 38 AMX 10 RC and tens of thousands of 105mm shells
| VAB: 250 (including VAB SAN) VLTT P4: 120
| vehicles MILAN: 17 launch positions and hundreds
| of missiles
|
| Engineering and small arms Anti-tank
| rockets: several thousand Anti-tank mines:
| several thousand Assault rifles: several thousand
| 12.7mm machine guns: several hundred Other
| ammunition: several million
|
| Aerial domain Drones: several hundred
| reconnaissance drones and small tactical drones
| Jet fuel: tens of thousands of cubic meters
|
| No idea how important / relevant it is. Just posting
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "SCALP : about a hundred missiles"
|
| Wish Germany would send long range Taurus.
| mrweasel wrote:
| I do wonder what the shelf life of those things are?
| Germany could hand over 200 - 300 of those things and
| just order new one to replace the oldest one in their
| stockpile.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| In general, Germany is not especially keen to enter into
| conflicts with Russia. They are a long time economic and
| energy partner. It is why Germany has a history of
| thwarting EU energy security and solidarity, and why it
| dragged its feet w.r.t. early in this conflict.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| > France published a list of equipment they sent to
| Ukraine, about an hour ago [1]
|
| Which is something new, until yesterday I was in with OP.
|
| > No idea how important / relevant it is. Just posting
|
| Here's some background:
| https://www.politico.eu/article/france-germany-macron-
| scholz...
| smsm42 wrote:
| All the help is great, but these numbers are tiny
| compared to what Russia is fielding. Thousands of shells
| sounds nice until you realize Russia fires tens of
| thousands per day, and is able to manufacture hundreds of
| thousands per month. 30 cannons is nice until you realize
| Russia has thousands. The West can not solve this problem
| by dusting off whatever is left in the forgotten corner
| in the storage and sending it out and forgetting about
| it. In fact, they can't even solve it with fully
| mobilizing their capacity - which is still not happening
| - because while Russia (and USSR for decades before that)
| has been maniacally arming and stockpiling, the West has
| been reducing their capacities and relaxing under the
| impression that the Cold War is over, wars are thing of
| the past, and whoever thinks Russia is a threat is to be
| laughed at and needs their head checked. Now some are
| waking up, but from waking up to gaining back all the
| lost capacity and getting even to parity is a long way,
| and one that will be very expensive - which I am not
| convinced the West is willing to do, especially when it's
| for benefit of some ex-Soviet country that's not even in
| the EU. Maybe Putin will take it and then just stop,
| because this is always how it worked with aggressive
| fascist dictators in the past.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| That's not exactly true, as there's plenty of M198 built,
| they're just in storage. Ammunition is what's the main
| issue.
|
| There's also plenty of M1 tanks in US.
|
| The question arrises, when people start to realize that
| the storage of those wasn't up to the required standards.
|
| The worst part was that multiple countries dragged their
| feet on providing arms and realizing that 2022 was the
| start of a new arms race. And multiple countries are
| still reluctant to commit to refill the arms
| stockpiles.(hence the inability to even start mass
| production 2 years after it's clear what's going on)
|
| > whoever thinks Russia is a threat is to be laughed at
| and needs their head checked
|
| As a Lithuanian - I know this all too well. My mother
| tongue is Russian and Russian political class had been
| dominated by anti-western, revanchist and militaristic
| rhetoric for at least the last 17 years. No one in the
| west bothered to listen.
| kurthr wrote:
| Um, so the UK has rejoined the EU?
|
| I'm mean it's a nitpick, but you're kinda nitpicking.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| You're counting UK but not Canada in the EU?
| fjfaase wrote:
| I wonder if there is such a clear cut between aid and
| military spending. Most of the aid of Europe is send to
| Ukraine government such that the government can spend
| that money. I understand that about 90% of the USA
| military spending stays in the USA and is actually
| stimulating the economy.
|
| This war is also a display of weapons produced by defense
| industries in the USA and increase the spending of
| foreign countries in the USA. So, the netto effect might
| be actually turn out to be possitive, if it were not
| chilled by the current position of the USA in not
| providing weapons. This is definitely not making European
| countries happy and might actually result in the EU on
| putting substantial effort in developing it own weapon
| systems in the coming decades and reduce the spending the
| USA.
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| It is quite hard to think about things knowing that
| countries can hold multiple contradicting ideas
| simultaneously. Nothing is entirely correct or incorrect.
|
| for example, true or false: The US started a war against
| Europe and Russia by blowing up the pipeline. If we look
| at it like that it is a great success?
|
| Why would that perspective be entirely wrong?
| m4rtink wrote:
| I think South Korea does pump out more 155mm shells than
| most other countries, including US ?
| Log_out_ wrote:
| And Europe doesn't order there due to french veto.
|
| If you can not deliver personal, delivery is fine as long
| as no cannon go hungry.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| Congratulations for picking with 155mm shells one of the
| few items that Europe has far outproduced the US with an
| estimated capacity of 650k shells/year pre war and a
| ramped up actual production to 1 mill/year in the next
| few months.
| SergeAx wrote:
| US also right now possesses the largest stash of 155
| munition. Small fraction of that trove would've save
| Avdiivka.
| mynameisnoone wrote:
| Yep. And the so-called "aid to Ukraine", 80% of it would
| be spent within the US on current stockpiles and new
| equipment. It's curious that the US military-industrial
| complex isn't falling all over itself attempting to send
| Ukraine lots of expensive gear and supplies it didn't
| even ask for. I guess there are too many Putin
| sympathizers in US political circles able to buy,
| engineer, and install influence.
| adventured wrote:
| > It's curious that the US military-industrial complex
| isn't falling all over itself attempting to send Ukraine
| lots of expensive gear and supplies it didn't even ask
| for. I guess there are too many Putin sympathizers in US
| political circles able to buy, engineer, and install
| influence
|
| That's an absurd premise. That gets endlessly repeated on
| Reddit and elsewhere with absolutely zero proof. If so
| much of the US Government (the world's richest nation and
| the only superpower) is purchased by a weak and poor
| enemy nation (Russia), where's the proof of that? Not
| supporting a war isn't proof. So a US politician against
| the Israeli war is bought and paid for by Hamas or Iran?
| It's laughable and quite obviously so. Nobody would dare
| float that premise, but somehow for Ukraine it's _the_ go
| to propaganda.
|
| Why isn't the Biden DOJ + FBI + CIA + FBI + NSA running a
| large sting operation against all these bought and paid
| for US politicians that Russia owns? Because it doesn't
| exist. It'd be a huge win for the Biden Admin to bring
| those people down and get them arrested. And yet,
| crickets.
|
| All you really have are US politicians that are opposite
| of Biden looking to jab him any way they can, because
| it's a partisan battle and they're looking to score
| points. It's no more complicated than that. They're
| taking up position opposite of Biden.
|
| And with the military industrial complex, the issue is
| nobody is paying for that gear. Ukraine is a hyper poor
| nation, they are barely surviving. Anything advanced has
| to get Biden Admin and or Congressional approval. Ukraine
| isn't getting the very best US weapons (eg F35s) and
| should not.
| borissk wrote:
| North Korea was ready...
|
| Good thing Bulgaria is able to supply Ukraine with plenty
| of 152mm shells for their old soviet artillery.
| senderista wrote:
| Ukraine is fucked in the long term by demographics and
| economics, not by the lack of any particular weapon or
| munition. Now that the war has settled into an
| attritional phase, it's a question of who will run out of
| fighting men and war materiel first. The answer is
| unfortunately clear.
| brabel wrote:
| People down-voting this, care to explain how this is
| wrong?? I've thought about this a lot and as far as I can
| tell, this is the only reasonable expectation I can come
| up with as well... it seems quite possible to me that the
| reason Europe and the USA are turning up the "Russia will
| soon attack us" rhetoric is to justify higher military
| spending in the short term, and sending boots to Ukraine
| in the medium term, given that if you look at the reality
| of the situation, the Russian military has been stopped
| by a weak (compared to NATO) Ukrainian military, hence
| you would have to conclude that the possibility of Russia
| actually even thinking of attacking NATO in the next few
| decades should be very much zero under any circumstances.
| It's like thinking in the 60's that if we don't stop
| North Vietnam, they will come for the rest of Asia :D it
| just doesn't add up to any reasonable, rather than
| passion/hate-filled analysis (which is what we mostly see
| in the media, unfortunately).
| tw04 wrote:
| Sure: he's flat out wrong. This has been played out again
| and again - "winning a war" is meaningless if you can't
| retain the territory. Unless the world is going to stand
| by and allow Russia to commit genocide of the entirety of
| the Ukranian population, this will move from a
| traditional war to a guerilla war. Ukrainians can fight
| guerilla warfare longer than Putin is going to be alive
| and able to maintain support of the Russian population.
| They couldn't conquer Afghanistan drawing from more than
| double the population.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFG/afghanistan/pop
| ula...
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072400/population-
| us-us...
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/populat
| ion
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/populati
| on
| watwut wrote:
| In the short term, as in right now these days they suffer
| lack of ammunition.
|
| And if they loose the war, they won't exist at all.
| Despite Russia having demographic and economic issues
| too.
| Qwertious wrote:
| Wars aren't decided by pure manpower/materiel, or the US
| would have won the Vietnam war. It's all about win
| conditions.
|
| For instance, if Russia loses e.g. 20% of their
| population then the economy will utterly tank, and if the
| economy tanks then Putin will lose support for the war
| and risk falling out of a window.
|
| Ukraine doesn't actually need to win here, they just need
| to stall the war out for longer than Russia is willing to
| stay. Russia doesn't need to wipe out Ukraine, they just
| need to kill Western support of Ukraine and dry up the
| flow of military aid.
|
| So if Ukraine just needs to stall then why did they go on
| a counterattack? Because it brings in more military aid
| _now_ while Russia still has a materiel shortage. If
| Ukraine has a harsh materiel advantage over Russia then
| they can push Russian casualty rates far harder and force
| Putin into political strife much sooner.
|
| Putin crippled the Russian economy by refusing to sell
| gas to the EU and by extension hurt Russian materiel
| production, but the tactic makes sense when you consider
| his win conditions: break Ukraine's western support, so
| that Russia has a materiel advantage.
|
| >"Russia will soon attack us" rhetoric
|
| I think that's actually Russian propaganda - Russia wants
| the West afraid to give Ukraine aid, so they play up the
| nuclear threat every time new milestones in aid are
| suggested (e.g. when the first F35 is given to Ukraine),
| then fold the moment the milestone is reached. Russia
| does this because slowing western aid to Ukraine is vital
| for their theory of victory.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| But what does "win" mean here? Ukraine clearly is not
| going to displace Russia, but they can presumably make
| Russia's occupation expensive and net-negative for
| several more years at a fraction of their current
| attrition rate, unless they're forced to the table.
|
| And this seems like a functional loss for Russia. The
| Eastern provinces Russia holds aren't that valuable in
| any objective sense. Crimea provides an extremely
| valuable Black Sea port, but only if Russia can safely
| keep warships there -- which Russia currently is not able
| to do. Russia has certainly proven that if they _rebuild
| their entire economy around the goal of holding these
| assets_ they can, indeed defend them indefinitely. But
| they haven 't demonstrated that this is worthwhile or
| sustainable without a very generous peace deal from
| Ukraine.
| jlmorton wrote:
| Ukraine's primary artillery for 155mm shells are the
| French CAESAR and US M777.
|
| There is no need to fire tens of thousands of shells with
| this equipment, and no one would ever do that. These
| shells cost thousands of dollars each.
|
| The upside is that they are incredibly accurate, with an
| error radius of something like 100m at 25km, using the
| standard dumb shells. (Things like Excalibur are markedly
| more accurate, but cost $100k each).
|
| Add in counterbattery radar, and there's just no reason
| Ukraine would ever need to fire 25,000 shells a day like
| Russia does.
|
| Clearly Ukraine needs more 155mm ammunition, but there's
| no reason to directly compare the numbers of shells
| launched by Russia and Ukraine.
| paganel wrote:
| The US and the EU are mostly at parity when it comes to
| total spending (that includes military spending), with the
| difference being of about 5-10% last time I checked (which
| was sometimes in September of 2023). By how things have
| progressed since then it is fair to say that the EU has
| taken the upper hand on that.
|
| And this is all without counting the "externalities" of the
| war in Ukraine which Europe had to absorb all by itself,
| such as higher energy prices, selling assets in Russia at
| very discounted prices (for comparison, the US and the UK
| didn't have that much stuff to sell there anyway) and the
| material help and assistance provided to the millions of
| Ukrainian refugees.
| yakito wrote:
| does anyone know how much Russia has spent so far in the
| war?
| CrazyStat wrote:
| perchance, ledger, tallying, coffers, ponders, arsenal,
| remnants, tally, scales, colossal, amidst, perplexing,
| enigma, benefactor, patron, coffers, benefactor, defies,
| coffers, denouement
|
| Do you always write like this? It reads like something
| from the 19th century.
| Keyframe wrote:
| I've read somewhere today that it's around ~$210b+ so far
| erkt wrote:
| That is Europe vs the US. Europe has almost 800million
| people, US less than 350million. On a per capital basis the
| average American has outspent the average European by a
| significant margin.
| avtolik wrote:
| More like 450 million.
| dagw wrote:
| EU != Europe. EU has a population of just under 450
| million. To get even close to an 800 million number you
| have to include all of both Russian and all the former
| Soviet states, which in this scenario would be rather
| misleading, given the geopolitics of the events under
| discussion.
| lukasm wrote:
| That chart is a bit pointless
|
| USA can claim that one Bradley is 2mln, but what is a real
| value? Polish T-72 can be worth 1mln, but it's much more
| valuable than Bradley. UA army knows how to fix it and
| operate.
| terafo wrote:
| I would say that Bradley is actually more valuable, since
| it can serve wider range of missions, while having higher
| crew survival rate and being more maneuverable.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Without crew trained on that particular vehicle the value
| drops steeply.
| cglace wrote:
| I guess that's why they were trained on that particular
| vehicle...
|
| Just like the Ukranian crews were trained on leopard,
| Abrams, etc
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Huh? A Bradley is more survivable than a modern T-72?
| It's a light IFV, it's only advantage is to be more
| versatile and maneuverable. It is not going to be more
| survivable.
|
| If you're talking about the autoloader - the kind of
| munition that would detonate the munitions on a modern
| T-72 would completely eviscerate any IFV.
|
| If it really was more survivable than a modern tank, why
| would anyone even bother making tanks, when IFVs have
| about as much firepower when using ATGMs?
| stonogo wrote:
| How is a T-72 a "modern tank"? There are dozens of
| stories of both American (during various other wars) and
| Ukranian Bradley crews engaging T-72s and winning.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Polish T-72s are modern tanks with tons of upgrades. They
| are not comparable to base model T-72s in Iraq. They have
| much improved armor, firepower, sensors, and mobility.
| It's a lot like how modern Abrams are barely comparable
| to the original model, which is only 6 years more recent
| than the T-72. In fact, the Russian T-90 and Chinese
| ZTZ99 are also heavily upgraded T-72s.
|
| In the era of ATGMs IFVs can engage tanks and win, no
| matter the tank. In fact, an infantry soldier with an
| ATGM can engage basically any tank and win. That doesn't
| mean a soldier is more survivable or more capable than a
| tank.
|
| A Bradley would be disabled or destroyed by many weapons
| any modern tank would shrug off, and it cannot provide
| sustained heavy fire as it has a very limited number of
| ATGMs.
| mynameisnoone wrote:
| No. Apples vs. oranges. While UA lacks IFVs, they first
| need main battle tanks. IFVs without MBTs doesn't
| comprise a survivable mixed combat element. Main battle
| tanks with troops with AGTMs is a starting point, IFVs
| would enhance their mobility but cannot replace the
| priority of having MBTs before IFVs.
| adventured wrote:
| All US military spending is not properly accounted for in
| these comparisons.
|
| The US provides a huge military shield in Europe and it
| costs _a lot_ and none of it gets counted toward helping
| Ukraine. That shield enables European nations to shift
| resources relatively safely into helping Ukraine. If you
| remove that shield, those nations can no longer safely give
| to such a great extent, they 'd have to think with far
| greater scrutiny of their own defense.
|
| US spending on European defense makes it possible for
| smaller European nations to give military funds and weapons
| to Ukraine.
|
| Our massive air force protection enables European nations
| to provide their F16s to Ukraine, as one example.
|
| Go ahead and staple $100 billion more to that military
| figure for the past two years.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world
| combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is
| that the US is somehow at fault."
|
| I've said the US can't be trusted to keep support up. Don't
| twist my words.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "by a large margin"
|
| Numbers? Source?
| TomK32 wrote:
| Funding to Ukraine is even more complicated than most people
| realize. A massive amount of the money spent for weapons to
| be delivered to Ukraine is produced outside Ukraine in the
| US, EU etc. In cases where existing vehicles and ammunition
| is sent it is also an opportunity for all donors to modernize
| their vehicles and ammunition by replacing the donated ones
| with new ones.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| The money is produced or the weapons?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| With fiat, both :-D
| suoduandao3 wrote:
| Spending a lot is not a badge of honor in an asymmetric
| conflict. If the US was spending more efficiently than Russia
| the way it did in Afghanistan, this would be sending a
| message to the next Putin that invading one's neighbors is a
| losing proposition.
|
| The US's economy suffering more than Russia's sends the
| opposite message.
| docmars wrote:
| Completely agree. I wish I could upvote this harder because
| it's common sense. I would be curious what (if any)
| rebuttals can justify our tanking economy for the sake of
| this frivolous war.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| If US Congress decides to spend 1 billion USD on weapons
| for Ukraine, they will not wire 1 billion USD to a bank
| account in Ukraine.
|
| The US government will give > 900 million USD to US
| companies that build weapons in factories in the US,
| employing US workers who spend their salary in the US
| economy, boosting it.
|
| The US government will also spend a couple million USD to
| transport the weapons produced in the US to Ukraine.
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| > The one bill that was blocked by Congress would be more
| support than Europe as a whole has provided to Ukraine to
| date.
|
| Didn't EU just now agreed on future aid of the same amount
| the USA is still struggling to get through?
| Thaxll wrote:
| The US funds their own economy, most of the money they send
| goes back to the US economy because they produce the weapons
| that Ukraine purchase.
| cglace wrote:
| And the stockpiles of artillery, long-range munitions,
| armor, ammo, guns, etc sent?
|
| The US really can't win. If we didn't support Ukraine we
| would be blasted. If we do it's because we are just trying
| to enrich ourselves.
| schumpeter wrote:
| Because the only winning move it not to play. This is
| Europe's war. Not sure why the US is involved at all.
| It's not like Ukraine has oil or a NATO partner.
| willvarfar wrote:
| As Viscount Cunningham famously said when he risked his
| fleet to evacuate troops in the Battle of Crete in 1941,
| 'It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three
| centuries to build a tradition'. Which feels like how
| America's new insularism is undoing all the "leader of
| the free world" fandom that it has carefully cultivated -
| and profited from - in the last 80 years.
|
| Today the US has two strategic enemies - Russia and China
| - and two strategic partners, Nato in Europe and everyone
| in pacific except China.
|
| The US can spend peanuts - it really isn't a lot of money
| in US defence terms - backing Ukraine and using Ukrainian
| casualties to defeat it's strategic enemy, Russia, whilst
| making it's other strategic enemy, China, fear it.
|
| Or it can waver and show it's no longer the leader of the
| democratic world and make all it's allies in Europe and
| Asia not believe in it.
|
| My big fear is that it is empowering China to dare to
| have it's go at Taiwan in a couple of years.
| pb7 wrote:
| Do Europeans think the US is the leader of the free
| world?
| data_maan wrote:
| I'm not a leader, but behind closed doors, grudgingly, my
| impression is that they do (still) think that.
|
| A few more quotes by Trump might change that though.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Realistically: either the US is, or no one is.
|
| It certainly seems that the US is unsure whether it wants
| this role. The Congress is putting US credibility at huge
| risk right now.
|
| Nevertheless, if the US abdicates its leadership, the
| free world will shrink. Even democracies have domestic
| enemies and all of these will be encouraged to push
| autocracy as an alternative to the messy parliamentary
| system.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| When polled or asked? Absolutely not.
|
| When viewed by how they act? Unquestionably.
|
| Europe is probably uncomfortable/ashamed by how dependent
| they are on the US for maintaining the western-centric
| global power axis. But on the same hand are unwilling to
| make the sacrifices their societies would need to in
| order to pick up the slack. Especially now that European
| economies tend to be in a slump.
| maxglute wrote:
| This presumes there's any amount US can spend to allow
| UKR to strategically defeat RU by proxy, and thereby have
| PRC fear it. UKR as proxy is as much limited by
| quality/quantity of it's human capita as it is by
| external support. What happens to US credibilty / desire
| to be US proxy in IndoPac to fight for US security
| interests when partners see UKR decimated to the last man
| despite full US assistance? The western wunderwaffles
| delivered to UKR have underdelivered, meanwhile US
| failing to guarantee red sea shipping against Houthis
| that US armed Saudis have failed to contain for over a
| decade. Single digit salvos of shit tier RU and Houthi
| missiles successfully penetrating Patriots in UKR and
| Flight2/3 DDGs in Red Sea has basically affirmed PRC the
| vulnerability of US hardware and validated their
| doctorine to deliver 1000x more fires. If anything the
| more US commits/show hand, and the more she reveals her
| (in)capability, the less her adversaries fear it.
| Sometimes better to commit half heartly and be thought
| incompetent (or indifferent) than go all in an remove all
| doubt. Nothing worse for US credibility than trying and
| failing.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "And the stockpiles of artillery, long-range munitions,
| armor, ammo, guns, etc sent?"
|
| Quite a lot of those are older weapons that need to be
| either spent or securely disposed of within a decade or
| so.
|
| Don't take me wrong, I am happy that the US helped
| Ukraine and I certainly wish that the next package passes
| the House, but the economic cost of your help isn't
| easily calculated in dollars. (Or, for that matter, our
| in Czech crowns.)
|
| Stockpiles need to be either spent or renewed/replaced.
| Perhaps you could have used some of that older stuff in
| training, but not all of it. Military equipment has an
| expiration date, you would need to refresh your
| stockpiles anyway.
| trilbyglens wrote:
| It's less about current actions and more about how mercurial
| and dysfunctional the US congress currently is. No one is
| willing to bet their sovereignty on the outcome of a US
| presidential election.
| hiddencost wrote:
| The delay in US aid is going to lose this war. It's
| unconscionable.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > The US _has_ provided...
|
| You write in the past tense, and in that sense you're right.
|
| But the US is no longer providing that help.
| cglace wrote:
| We can barely pass a bill to continue funding OUR
| government. It doesn't mean it won't eventually get done.
| MrDresden wrote:
| > _The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world
| combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is
| that the US is somehow at fault._
|
| There is nothing in the parent post to even hint that they
| are saying that the US is to blame for what happened.
|
| The US cannot be trusted to fulfill it's approved upon role
| in NATO if and when the push comes to shove (that damage to
| the US reputation is done).
|
| I want to make it clear that the US does not sholder this
| responsibility alone. Every signatory to the convention is
| required to come to it's allies need if needed.
|
| Europe has to get it's act together when it comes to securing
| its own borders, with tech and armaments produced inside said
| borders but in a cooperation with the US. As partners.
| david2ndaccount wrote:
| Ukraine is not part of NATO, so how has push come to shove?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The very politicians blocking Ukraine support are openly
| talking about how NATO should be abandoned. I don't know
| how else you can interpret that other than making Europe
| doubt the US would come to her aid.
| cglace wrote:
| I would say the rest of the Republicans have ignored or
| shrugged off his comments more than agree with them.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| That just doesn't matter as long as they caucus in unity
| and vote in unity. Republicans are beholden to Trump's
| rhetoric so they can get the MAGA vote and keep their
| damn jobs. That's why they keep falling in line no matter
| how many times they say "no no we really shouldn't do
| what Trump says". They were perfectly willing to kill a
| bill they all agreed was good for the US because Trump
| said so, because not fixing the problem they've been
| bitching about fixing for decades will help Trump
| campaign on fixing the problem.
|
| Surely they as individuals would be better off saying
| "look, we cowed the Biden admin into fixing the problems,
| look how good we are at our jobs re-elect us" but that
| doesn't work, because they are beholden to the MAGAs. So
| instead they keep giving awkward comments and going back
| on their own stated opinions because the only uniting
| strategy (which was the official Republican party policy
| BEFORE Trump's own progeny ran the Republican party) is
| to bootlick Trump.
|
| When they vote how he says, pretty much exclusively, they
| are not "ignoring or shrugging off" his comments.
| jonwachob91 wrote:
| >>> The US cannot be trusted to fulfill it's approved upon
| role in NATO if and when the push comes to shove (that
| damage to the US reputation is done).
|
| What role as the US failed to fulfill in Ukraine? Ukraine
| isn't a NATO member, the US had no obligation to come to
| their support, yet we did anyways.
|
| Meanwhile Germany divested their entire domestic energy
| security and became subservient to Russia for energy -
| enabling this entire conflict b/c Russia felt Europe became
| addicted and depended to Russian fuels and wouldn't oppose
| their dealers.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Yes, like buying LNG from the US [0]
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-
| export-pause-...
|
| "Europe became addicted and depended to Russian fuels "
|
| Yes like the US was addicted to oil from the middle east.
| The difference, Europe couldn't invade Russia and take
| the gas away.
| docmars wrote:
| Is it truly supporting Ukraine though?
|
| All of that money is being laundered back to the U.S. war
| machine, yet it's somehow losing this "war"? Mitch McConnell
| admitted that himself just recently.
|
| Meanwhile, Kiev is in pristine condition while Gaza is a now
| a wasteland. None of this makes sense.
| docmars wrote:
| Here is my source, for what it's worth:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZnizA0N8wg
|
| The downvotes won't erase the truth, so nice try I guess?
| kragen wrote:
| the usg considers russia one of its key rivals, and so this
| ukraine thing was a godsend for them: ukraine provides the
| cannon fodder to fight and die, usg provides the materiel,
| and russia doesn't have a _casus belli_ to nuke new york. the
| usg gets all the benefits of fighting a land war with russia
| with almost none of the costs: no messy body bag parades on
| cnn, no psychologically disturbed veterans blowing up federal
| buildings in oklahoma, no sheets of radioactive glass that
| were until recently thriving metropolises, and no test of the
| us nuclear response capabilities
|
| all it's cost so far, in direct terms, is a hundred billion
| dollars or so over a couple of years, in an economy with
| thirty trillion dollars a year of gdp. 0.2% of gdp, say.
| contrast with, for example, 2.5% for the apollo program, or
| 1% for the manhattan project
|
| it sucks pretty bad for the ukrainians tho. and the russians.
| they're being ground into hamburger by the machinations of
| putin and the usg, jockeying for power. anyone with a scrap
| of human feeling is horrified by what is happening. but
| that's not what animates the cfr
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Meanwhile even in this "we can't spend fifty bucks on
| Russia that we could be spending on tax breaks for oil
| barons!" political landscape, Russia would run out of hunks
| of metal to recommission into tanks within two years.
|
| Can you imagine erasing your biggest rival's entire
| military threat with $300 billion? That's like four whole
| miles of Californian high speed rail!
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| "America bad" is the opium of the masses.
|
| IMO, if any random country's government whom we are not
| allied with through NATO publicly criticizes the USA's
| response to helping them out in a war that we have no
| obligation to help with, I believe we should immediately
| cease any and all financial aid and let them feel the
| squeeze. When they publicly apologize and recognize that the
| United States is truly the only thing keeping any order in
| the world, then and only then do we consider resuming
| whatever support we deem appropriate. This should apply to
| any NATO-allied nation who hasn't met their 2% defense
| spending as well. If your country doesn't keep up their end
| of the deal, we certainly shouldn't keep ours.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| You should try to work on your maturity instead of throwing
| a hissy fit at the first whiff of criticism.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| "Maturity" is paying your bills on time, and not biting
| the hand that feeds you.
|
| It's not a hissy fit to feel annoyed at blame on the U.S.
| for Ukraine losing a war that has nothing to do with us.
| It's not a hissy fit for wanting European allies to take
| their own defense halfway as serious as we have. We've
| kept stability in Europe, _in spite of_ Europe's actions.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Keep working on it. You're not there yet.
| genman wrote:
| This comment can be attributed to lacking knowledge in
| history. North Atlantic security model was decided 70
| years ago. It was decided that instead of strong European
| military union US will be the grantor of security against
| common adversaries. Instead of very strong European
| armies, US will have overwhelming power. Do you realized
| why this might have felt a good idea after WW2?
|
| It is most notable that all countries who feel threatened
| by Russia contribute well over 2% of their GDP into
| defense. Do you understand in US that this stupidity that
| is going on in the congress and this dangerous rhetoric
| is especially hurting these countries? Do you realize
| that for example Spain is not really feeling threatened
| by Russia and people in Spain (the voters who effectively
| decide the size of the defense budget) do not really care
| about US not helping them as they don't see any credible
| threat? This is only hurting US, what is losing its
| credibility globally as a serious security partner.
| risyachka wrote:
| Is is not any non-nato country. Have you heard of Budapest
| memorandum?
| cglace wrote:
| The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political
| level, but it is not entirely clear whether the
| instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It
| refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not
| impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its
| parties.[2][52] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a
| professor of international relations, "It gives
| signatories justification if they take action, but it
| does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[51] In the US,
| neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the
| Clinton administration was prepared to give a military
| commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US
| Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the
| memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
| Lutger wrote:
| It is not about what America has or hasn't done, good or
| bad, but all about the possibility of Trump. The idea of
| the US getting a president as immature as yourself, who
| rather aligns himself with the gangsters of the world,
| whose idea of diplomacy is beg-for-mercy-who-is-your-daddy-
| now oneliners, _that_ is what scares Europa into self-
| reliance.
|
| Since Trump, the US might not be the US anymore in the
| future. It might break its promises, withdraw from NATO,
| from Paris and any other treaty it has made. War is coming
| closer to us, we cannot rely on a US that is actively
| flirting with authoritarianism.
|
| Hopefully not, but it is a very real possibility. And we
| are not ready for it.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| I didn't like him as president, but he was entirely right
| about that. Any president would be, regardless of their
| politics. As bluntly as possible:
|
| Keep your promises, and we will keep ours. But if you
| fail to keep yours, I do not believe we have any
| obligation to fulfill ours, even if it leads to loss of
| life. That's not immaturity, that is the most basic,
| foundational tenets of a pact.
|
| Europe _constantly_ fails to meet the requirements across
| multiple agreements, wether that's defense spending,
| carbon emissions, or whatever else, but the second that
| the U.S. _slightly_ slows down on handing out free cash
| to anyone who asks, we are a horrible, evil "mafia"
| country. It would be laughable if it weren't so
| depressing.
|
| Ironically, more countries in NATO are meeting their 2%
| defense spending bill than ever before, because of a
| possible Trump presidency on the horizon. They know
| there's a chance US funding gets rug-pulled, so they're
| actually taking their defense spending seriously.
| Precisely because he is a poor, unpredictable leader, a
| Trump presidency is ironically what will save Europe from
| themselves.
| Lutger wrote:
| The problem with Trump is the same as with your post: you
| don't even know what you're talking about. The 2 percent
| was agreed on only in 2014 as a response to Russian
| annexation of Crimea, and the goal was to reach it in 10
| years, which we now have collectively as NATO. 18 members
| spend 2% or more, and the pressure is on for the rest.
|
| Do they have some explaining to do? Of course. But this
| is not a reason to threaten military allies of more than
| 70 years by saying Russia can invade them with impunity.
| Its like I'm a week late on a payment and the landlord
| promises to send a pack of mobsters to kick me out if I
| don't pony up the next day. Let's not talk about the
| emissions that is absolutely insane coming from the worst
| offender by far.
|
| Now the GOP is going to block the 'slight' spend of 60
| billion in aid because it is using Ukraine as a
| bargaining chip for its anti-immigrant policies.
|
| This is about Trump, but beyond him the US might become a
| very unreliable and chaotic partner. I'm worried this
| will backfire. If it does, on the long term, China will
| start to look a lot more interesting to some European
| countries as a force of stability.
| abeppu wrote:
| I understand the impulse to not want to support other
| countries who don't seem grateful for the aid -- but this
| sounds like one of those "cutting of your nose to spite
| your face" situations. Even if you're annoyed that a
| recipient of US aid is insufficiently grateful, and even if
| you think NATO allies should be paying their 2% ... a key
| question is still, "Do we prefer the world where the
| current-aid-recipient is unsupported?"
|
| If the US prefers the world where Ukraine is not annexed
| into Russia, then even if our support is not appreciated to
| your satisfaction, it may still be best _for the US_ to
| provide the support.
| Bayart wrote:
| > When they publicly apologize and recognize that the
| United States is truly the only thing keeping any order in
| the world
|
| That's the exact way to alienate people and piss away the
| power projection network you've spent decades to build.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| This is exactly why "America is bad" is such a common
| opinion.
|
| The preferred response of many of its citizens and
| politicians, is to prove the critics right with no thought
| of how that affects the world. This vindictive idea is
| worthy of a 4 year old child that doesn't know any better.
|
| And I bet you think that the US never benefited from being
| the world police. You think that the only super power in
| the world projecting influence all over the globe was all
| done out of the goodness of their hearts?
|
| Despite much criticism, the US was the country most
| democracies looked up to or followed. It's sad and quite
| worrying for the world that we're now seeing the end of
| that.
| genman wrote:
| US is not the signatory of Budapest Memorandum?
|
| If anything US should take a view of self interest as they
| are losing the credibility as an important international
| power very rapidly and are instead seriously helping their
| most dangerous adversaries to gain momentum.
|
| Russia was in a very bad position a year ago, Putin's power
| was crumbling, but US withholding of critical help let him
| to sustain his power. Where are we now? Russia is
| threatening US space assets. Authoritarian powers all over
| the world are becoming more and more cocky as they see that
| US is becoming week and impotent.
|
| It is sickening for me to watch how US is hurting itself
| out of stupidity.
| za3faran wrote:
| > and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at
| fault
|
| Genuine question as someone who has no connection to either
| government of the Russia-Ukraine war: didn't the US push
| Ukraine into not accepting terms with Russia, under the
| promise that it would support Ukraine in case of war? In
| other words, it pushed Ukraine into the war, using it as a
| proxy to fight Russia.
| khokhol wrote:
| _Didn 't the US push Ukraine into not accepting terms with
| Russia, under the promise that it would support Ukraine in
| case of war?_
|
| The answer is "no" on both counts. The US did not "push"
| them into anything.
|
| And the US made absolutely no such promise. In fact it made
| explicit statements to the contrary on the eve of the
| invasion.
| matsemann wrote:
| > _The US lost all it 's trust that was left in Europe_
|
| Trump winning, with his comments about encouraging Russia to
| attack NATO countries, would not do much to help.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _they fear just like Ukraine that US congress just turns
| around and will stop delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict._
|
| This is an interesting read on the US sending more than half
| ($47.38b / $88.94b) [0] of the total worldwide military aid
| allocated so far to Ukraine.
|
| [0] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ukraine-support-
| tracker...
| dboreham wrote:
| Suspect parent is thinking of another perfect call in the
| future.
| odiroot wrote:
| > Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but
| increase European defense spending - they fear just like
| Ukraine that US congress just turns around and will stop
| delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict
|
| That's absolutely _not_ the sentiments among Poles. If
| anything, there 's a belief we can only rely on US when poo
| hits the fan.
| belter wrote:
| Looking at it historically, you are going to be short changed
| again...
|
| Suddenly the following scenario, is not far fetched anymore:
| Russia will find an excuse around Kaliningrad Oblast, and a
| NATO hostile US president will negotiate a cease fire in the
| name of stopping a Nuclear conflict...
| Wytwwww wrote:
| To be fair modern Russia is not exactly the USSR or Nazi
| Germany (let alone both of them put together). Their army
| was decimated (huge understatement) in Ukraine. Their
| demographic situation was pretty bad before the war. But
| now? If you combine the massive casualties (more than the
| US lost in Vietnam during over 15 years AND the Soviet war
| in Afghanistan (10 years)) with the exodus of working age
| males how can they ever recover?
|
| It's an extremely cynical take but US + EU can pretty much
| afford to "wage" this war indefinitely as long they give
| just enough to Ukraine for it not to collapse and both
| sides continue throwing their men into the grinder. Russia
| is on a timer; it might take an extra few years and even if
| they don't run out of shells they'll run out of soldiers
| sooner or later (of course unfortunately the same applies
| to Ukraine..).
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| As I've said, when the Suwalki Gap falls and the US stands by
| - and the US will under Trump - sentiments will turn 180deg.
|
| Poland hoped the UK would safe them from Germany and Russia
| and was betrayed.
|
| Poland now hopes the US would safe them from Russia, and they
| will be betrayed.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Trump can forget about the upper Midwest Polish vote then
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Once he's President then he probably won't care.
| shagie wrote:
| "Once"? "Probably"?
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-
| nat...
|
| He hasn't cared previously, and more recently...
| https://apnews.com/article/trump-backlash-nato-funding-
| russi...
|
| > Speaking at a campaign rally in South Carolina, he
| retold the story of his alleged conversation with the
| head of a NATO member country that had not met its
| obligations. This time, though, he left out the line that
| drew the most outrage -- encouraging Russia "to do
| whatever the hell they want."
|
| > "Look, if they're not going to pay, we're not going to
| protect. OK?" he said Wednesday.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| With respect to the Polish midwest voters, given that
| it'll be his last term he definitely won't care about
| them anymore.
| hackandthink wrote:
| There is a name for it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > UK would safe them from Germany and Russia and was
| betrayed
|
| The balance of power is not even remotely similar to what
| it was back in 1939. Even if we ignore the economy and
| armament production modern Russia has severe demographic
| issues it barely has enough manpower to wage a full-scale
| war in Ukraine (considering the massive casualty rate, more
| in a single year than US lost during the 15 years in
| Vietnam and Russia has many times smaller conscriptable
| population than the US had back then).
|
| How could they ever open a "second front" in the Baltics?
|
| Back in 1940 the allies were extremely underprepared
| materially (mainly the British, the French had an army that
| could certainly compete with Germany on paper, but they
| were much too conservative (and in hindsight run by
| incompetent morons)). It's not like they consciously
| decided to just abandon Poland outright, the allies
| expected it to hold out much longer and very way too slow
| and indecisive to do anything. Then they somehow managed to
| lose Norway against all odds and the same thing repeated in
| France.
|
| Stuff like that simply can't happen in modern warfare (as
| the Russian attempt to capture Kiev has proven)..
| infecto wrote:
| I get so tired of these sentiments.
|
| Without a doubt the US pushes its might around the world BUT in
| the case of Europe, European countries do not have the
| willpower to create a military like the US's. How did the US
| lose all its trust? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
| Europe was frolicking around for decades, most countries with
| no real economy and making many mistakes a long the way
| regarding energy security.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "European countries do not have the willpower to create a
| military like the US's."
|
| Yes, not yet, except Macron.
|
| "long the way regarding energy security."
|
| Germany is switching to US LNG as fast as it can just for the
| US to signal it will no longer support LNG in Europe. This
| kind of energy security? [0]
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-export-
| pause-...
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The French military will likely continue to be bogged down
| in Africa, given that the situation there is pretty dire
| and French vital interests are threatened.
|
| The French betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1938, then got
| steamrolled by the Wehrmacht themselves, and their
| credibility in Central and Eastern Europe has been shot
| ever since.
| infecto wrote:
| I don't think the US stance on limiting LNG export for its
| own security is a valid defense. Europe/France/Germany made
| many mistakes before that by shutting off generation plants
| before having secured long term resources.
| data_maan wrote:
| We weren't frolicking, we were peacefully consuming Apple's
| wonderful technology, cursing at Microsoft's abysmal OS, and
| other great product from Silicon Valley ;)
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| I absolutely agree with your criticism on European defense
| spending but I know how the US managed to do that.
|
| By first dragging the rest of Europe in a very aggressive
| position in the Ukraine war. Dont get me wrong I fully
| support that stance. But it was only possible because the US
| stood front and center, president and congress hand in hand
| "as long as it takes".
|
| Now less than two years the US lost interest and left Europe
| with a half dead crazed Russia running on a war economy on
| its doorstep. So Europe has to try and fill in for the lack
| of US support while a possible upcoming Trump presidency
| makes it rather likely that the US wouldnt honor article 5.
| Lutger wrote:
| Just a side-note regarding energy mistakes: Germany single-
| handedly funded R&D for solar energy to the place where it is
| now the cheapest form of energy available. And then more or
| less gave the industry away to China. That was one happy
| mistake which is hard to overestimate the longterm impact it
| has on the world.
| banku_brougham wrote:
| this is very hopeful to me. as an american who is aware of
| whats going on its been discouraging to see my govt
| consistently spreading evil through the decades
| chewz wrote:
| > Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but
| increase European defense spending - they fear just like
| Ukraine that US congress just turns around
|
| This isn't how it works. You buy expensive and unnecessary
| weapon system from US not because thye are any good but because
| this is your designated protection fee. After you spend several
| bilion dollars US feels more obliged to help... Just a racket..
| strictnein wrote:
| Germany will buy its F-35s. Poland will start taking delivery
| of its HIMARS from the US starting next year and will continue
| to order US hardware. As part of the deals that Poland and
| Germany signed, they will be ramping up local production to
| support the systems they are buying.
|
| One thing you're missing in lots of your predictions is that
| Ukraine had no US military presence. Poland does. There's 10k
| US troops in Poland right now. There's zero chance other
| European countries will be closing US military bases with the
| looming threat from Russia.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "Germany will buy its F-35s"
|
| No. Germany needs those F-35 only for delivering nukes
| ("Nukleare Teilhabe") [0] replacing aging Tornados in that
| role. With Trump as the next president I don't think you find
| a German politician (except the far left and far right) who
| thinks sharing nukes with the US is working any longer.
|
| I'd think Germany will rather take French nukes instead of
| using US nukes in the future.
|
| "There's zero chance other European countries will be closing
| US military bases with the looming threat from Russia."
|
| With a US president shouting "Russia, go, invade Germany,
| rape, plunder and torture with my blessing" - US bases will
| all be shut in the coming decades.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
| data_maan wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Trump didn't say "rape" (source?).
| Lutger wrote:
| He said Russia can do what it wants. Given Russia's track
| record, rape will not be the worst of offenses.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > With a US president shouting
|
| Depending on what happens with the congress. There are
| still some semi-sane (concerning foreign policy)
| Republicans in the Senate of course they'll probably
| struggle a lot more with manipulating him/keeping him
| inline like in his first term.
|
| But I guess it's not unlikely that the democrats will lose
| both the senate and the house if Biden manages to lose. So
| yeah...
| justin66 wrote:
| > Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but
| increase European defense spending
|
| One assumes Poland would actually like someone to fulfill those
| orders in a timely manner, so perhaps not. Germany can afford
| to "spend" money on weapons and then not produce anything, but
| it's not going to work for Poland.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Poland will not get spare parts for its F-35 in a conflict
| under Trump, or more likely be blackmailed for higher prices
| or other concessions. Or the software will stop working and
| they need to pay to make it work again. Trump would love
| that.
|
| The only way for Poland to be safe is having military
| production in its own country. Because it's easier if
| everyone has the same weapons, I it should join Airbus and
| KMW+NEXTER and get production facilities on it's own land.
|
| As seen with AstraZeneca you need physical control to be
| safe.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| why rant and rave against US? This isn't 2012 post-Snowden era
| of "friends don't spy on friends". The US are not the enemy
| here but our long-term ally. Right now Russia, China, the Assad
| regime, and IRGC are.
|
| > We just need to get our act together, not every country
| building or buying it's own incompatible weapons (like tanks,
| planes, frigates).
|
| If "we" means Europe I agree, that "we" need to reintroduce
| mandatory military service, prepare to fight Russia and its
| allies on their own turf, defend against Russian terrorists on
| our own turf. Ans most importantly we must wage war against
| pro-Russian mouthpieces in our own countries, e.g. Geert
| Wilders, Marine Lepen, Meloni, Bjorn Hoecke and AfD, the entire
| Orban government, current Slovakian regime, and anyone who
| takes money from Putin and spouting their propaganda.
|
| War is already here in Europe. It's just unequally distributed.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| Agree with your list of pro-Russian populists, except Meloni
| doesn't appear to be pro-Russian, in Italy it's rather
| Salvini (Lega Nord) and Berlusconi (Forza Italia).
| roguas wrote:
| I don't think Poland is very doubtful towards US(some is always
| welcome). We have strong ties and generally are on extremely
| good terms with US compared to other western countries.
|
| As for weapons, well its a market situation, sometimes perhaps
| having non-us weapon systems is actually better.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| > no longer supporting US wars in the Middle East and beyond.
|
| A lot of these wars are connected - Russia is working with Iran
| and North Korea (and China to some extent)
|
| Thinking Europe should only care about what happens in their
| backyard while criticizing the US for not caring enough about
| Europe's backyard seems hypocritical.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| There was never any chance that the US would fund Ukraine
| indefinitely. NATO countries arent going to do a 180 based on
| this. Perhaps they will start contributing the amount towards
| NATO that they themselves pledged though.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| > Europe will lose some territory
|
| To be fair it never had that territory in the first place.
| Prior to 2014 Ukraine was clearly under Russian influence and
| Western Europeans countries never had any serious thoughts
| about somehow "taking it over" (despite what putin & al. are
| saying )
|
| > gain it's own military security
|
| I'm really not sure most Europeans countries (besides those
| that are very close to Russia like Poland, the Baltics, Finland
| etc.) are that keen about massively increasing their military
| spending. Certainly not even close to what US is currently
| providing.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| > Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but
| increase European defense spending - they fear just like
| Ukraine that US congress just turns around and will stop
| delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict
|
| Other pluses: American equipment is expensive. The recent
| purchase from S. Korea is significantly cheaper and IIRC
| entails a partnership agreement that requires that at least
| some of the manufacturing happens domestically in Poland. This
| allows the S. Korean defense industry to establish a base of
| operation in Europe. Also, the Polish armed forces have been
| investing in a diversity of equipment (American, EU, S. Korean,
| and domestic) for some time, which, of course, means they're
| not too dependent on a single country.
| EasyMark wrote:
| I think you are on to something. While I consider NATO will
| hold together, it would certainly avail the EU countries to
| build a military of similar capability to the US to thwart
| Russia's ambitions of conquering all of east Europe. It is best
| to hedge against that, particularly with the rise of MAGA
| fascism (and its alliance with Russia) in the USA. I feel it
| will peak when Donald Trump loses in the Fall but there is no
| guarantee of any of that.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39395935 - not a criticism
| of the comment; I just need to prune the top-heavy thread.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Europe will lose some territory but gain it's own military
| security after decades of living from the US strategy
| alignment.
|
| Why would that be the outcome? Why wouldn't it result in
| European countries wanting more US involvement? Who wouldn't
| want the most powerful country in the world on their side, as
| their ally?
|
| Also, I strongly disagree with the idea that separately, the US
| and Europe are somehow stronger. Separately, countries end up
| in conflict - Europe's own history shows it especially, and
| that's one of the primary, intentional reasons for NATO and the
| EU. Together they are far more powerful - NATO is far more
| powerful than any country alone, including the US.
|
| The EU - which for all its flaws is, if you step back and look
| from an historical perspective, arguably the greatest
| international organization in history - still lacks effective,
| unified international relations. Decisions require unanimity,
| which is hard for a small organization, and now they have
| dozens of members. Kissinger famously said (iirc), 'if I have
| to call Europe, who do I call?' They don't yet have the
| political structure and institutions to conduct international
| relations as whole.
|
| Finally, power in international relations ultimately flows from
| wealth and population. If China continues to grow, it could
| have an economy twice the size of the EU's (or US's) within
| decades, and India has potential for similar growth. Together,
| the US and EU offer a much stronger balance.
| cedws wrote:
| Incredibly sad. Navalny had balls of steel to stand up to a
| murderous dictator like he did. It feels like it was all for
| nought. Putin kills another opposition figure and nobody bats an
| eye.
| falcor84 wrote:
| > nobody bats an eye
|
| That's not the problem. Here we are all batting our eyes, but
| that doesn't help. Thousands of Russians went out to the
| streets to protest the war and got arrested without making a
| difference.
|
| I'm very unclear on what kind of sacrifice would be required at
| this stage to change the situation in Russia.
| kranke155 wrote:
| A full general strike of some kind. But Putin is popular and
| so is the war. Russia is a top 10 world economy, rivalling
| Germany in GDP PPP.
|
| This article "The Majority Never Had It So Good", was
| enlightening for me about the situation in interior Russia:
| https://russiapost.info/regions/majority
|
| Effectively a lot of stuff we talk about (no more travel,
| hard to get money outside of Russia) is meaningless to many
| Russians, many of which are getting good money to go fight in
| the war.
| arp242 wrote:
| Do you remember what happened with the large general
| strikes in Syria a decade ago?
|
| You don't "just" protest these kind of authoritarian
| regimes; there's tons of examples for this.
|
| In Nazi-occupied Netherlands there was a large general
| strike to oppose the Jewish deportations ("February
| strike"). This worked out about as well as one would
| imagine. It was stopped in about a day by force, with
| several casualties. Most of the organizers were summarily
| executed days later without much of a trail, dozens others
| were sent to prison for a decade, and the Germans warned
| "we let you off easy this time, but next time the
| consequences will be serious". So that was the end of that
| kind of protest for the rest of the war.
|
| There's an old Iraqi joke from the 90s (controversy
| surrounding Bush's Iraq war notwithstanding, it genuinely
| was an authoritarian regime and atrocious by any standard):
| "Congratulations mister President, 99.98% of the people
| voted for you in the election! Only 0.02% of the people
| voted against you; a fantastic result! What more could you
| want? The President growls: "their names". It's pretty
| funny, and also describes the kind of fears people have.
| Often these fears are very realistic.
|
| Lots of things you and I can "just" do in free democracies
| just don't apply to authoritarian regimes. I never lived in
| those kind of circumstances, and I think it takes some
| amount of effort to really understand what it's like.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| It just seems hopeless. An enormous country (with a
| tremendous cultural history) that has never known a healthy
| democracy. It's just not in their DNA. I think the US will
| give up capitalism before Russia adopts anything resembling a
| healthy democracy. (Not the the US' democracy is in perfect
| health)
|
| Even if Putin dies, whatever replaces him will certainly be
| just as bad. There will be a power vacuum, then a power
| struggle among oligarchs etc, and then the next Putin will
| emerge.
| cedws wrote:
| When Putin dies things will get ugly. He's spent the last
| 20 years building a power structure where he holds all the
| keys. I doubt he has any kind of successor in mind, he
| seems himself as the only one capable of leading Russia.
|
| The one to replace him will probably not have the same
| backing from the citizens nor the Kremlin itself. And
| although I hate to say it, Putin is quite intelligent,
| which is one of the factors that has enabled him to stay in
| power. His replacement may not be.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| He would have been severely tortured in various manners. You
| don't survive the Russian gulag.
| huqedato wrote:
| Great job, Vladimir Vladimirovich! Your late mentor, Stalin is so
| proud of your achievements.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Amazing this happens just as a concerted pro Russia media
| campaign is being run by the American political right.
|
| It will be interesting to see what they do now. This is
| definitely a loyalty test for them. Those who speak out against
| Putin at this point will be excised from the party.
| squarefoot wrote:
| I wonder how the pro-Putin crowd will react to this:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68309496
|
| and this:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
|
| My country is spending around 1.4% of GDP for defense,
| therefore it made into the list of countries he would encourage
| Putin to invade. The guy apparently doesn't know about the over
| 100 (publicly known) USA military bases and the American people
| working there (around 13000).
| ModernMech wrote:
| Yeah the last few weeks or so have been interesting.
|
| A raft of politicians block Ukraine aid.
|
| Then they go on the air to say how strong Putin is, and how
| his victory is inevitable.
|
| Then Tucker Carlson airs footage of himself in Moscow saying
| what he sees there will "radicalize you against your
| government, seeing how much better Russians have it, I know
| radicalized me at least"
|
| Trump argues in court that presidents have the right to
| assassinate political rivals.
|
| Trump says on national TV multiple times that he would
| encourage Putin to invade NATO countries.
|
| Now Putin assassinates his already imprisoned political
| rival.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I couldn't believe how brave he was going back to Russia after
| being poisoned the first time, I didn't understand it and assumed
| this would happen at some point. I don't understand how Putin
| thinks this can be good for him to do this now but it certainly
| will make anyone running against him aware it's a very bad idea.
| It reminds me starkly that Europe is going to be dealing with the
| Russian problem for a long time after Ukraine is settled one way
| or another.
| kortilla wrote:
| Fell down the stairs and accidentally shot himself in the back 8
| times?
|
| How are these events viewed internally in Russia? Is it just
| widely known that the government arranged it and it was "good,
| because he was a traitor"?
| beretguy wrote:
| You sound like Reddit.
| inference-lord wrote:
| RIP.
|
| I hope we don't have similar news about Julian Assange someday
| soon.
| banku_brougham wrote:
| Does anyone know why NATO/US never gave Ukraine what they were
| asking for! jets, Anti-air systems, ATACMs, etc?
| buster wrote:
| Maybe because, on the other side of the table sits a lunatic
| with a massive amount of atomic bombs. Also, because Ukraine is
| not NATO.
| beretguy wrote:
| And now they want to put those atomic bombs into space, cause
| we let them know that we won't do anything about it.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The republicans mostly
| r0ckarong wrote:
| Because this whole shit is just another cold war meant to drive
| the interest of power on both sides. The west got justification
| to jack up prices on everything in the name of "energy crisis
| because we need to do the right thing" and the East can expand
| their power and nationalize western businesses in the name of
| "sanctions" that happen to be relabeled and still run
| profitably through shell companies. It's all just another big
| squeeze to wring some more out of the normal folk.
| seanw444 wrote:
| And just like every other time, you're the stupid one if you
| don't vote in lockstep with the current trendy war.
|
| And then two decades later after the war, when people aren't
| so vehemently biased one way or the other, then everyone
| agrees again "war is stupid - why did everyone fall for it?"
| arp242 wrote:
| It's not "trendy" nor is there anything to "fall for"
| because no one choose this war except Russia's leadership.
| It was forced upon everyone else.
| seanw444 wrote:
| I'm talking about foreign involvement.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Were we also wrong to defend Kuwait from Saddam?
|
| This isn't the bullshit Bush pulled in the desert, this is
| defending a mostly free nation from hostile action of it's
| neighbor.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Trying to postpone a direct conflict with Russia perhaps?
| Attempting some Chamberlainian achievement in preserving peace
| against a ruthless and untrustworty agressor? Hopeless efforts
| of course but the stakes and anticipated damages are quite high
| actually for being not too eager escalating.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Just domestic politics under effective Russian influencing
| campaigns ("America first"). If the Democrats were against
| Ukraine and pro-Russia, Republicans would be violently pro-
| Ukraine. There is no other reason.
| delecti wrote:
| The theory I've heard is it's to limit US tech being used to
| strike into Russia.
| adrr wrote:
| Like Novichok being used by Russia in England to assassinate
| UK citizens. I don't get why the west is afraid of escalation
| when Russia just does whatever they want. Russia shows no
| restraint. They crashed an expensive NATO drone recently.
| Correct response is to shoot down their planes if they crash
| ours.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_.
| ..
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| They have anti-air and ATACMs. Jets are coming. Their pilots
| are training.
|
| https://www.voanews.com/a/ukrainians-start-f-16-training-in-...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67135163
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/06/world/europe/ukraine-patr...
| terafo wrote:
| "Escalation management" through "slowly boiling the frog"
| combined with lack of coherent strategy for the war, partially
| because some western politicians are afraid of Russia's tantrum
| in case of Ukrainian victory(using nukes if Crimea is lost, for
| example), and that are balancing aid so it's enough for Ukraine
| not loosing, but not enough for Ukraine winning. Equipment that
| would've been sufficient to win the war in 2022(before Russia
| constructed massive defensive lines) was delivered in 2023,
| largely in the second half of 2023. And there's not that many
| signs that it might change.
| ianburrell wrote:
| More important question is how is it that you don't know that
| NATO has given Ukraine all of those?
|
| Patriot and NASAMs batteries have been defending Ukraine for a
| while. ATACMS have been used against Russian air fields. F-16s
| aren't being used there is a lot of training first, but they
| have been delivered.
| cdeutsch wrote:
| It's Trump's fault for telling his sheep not to pass the
| bipartisan immigration bill which included aid for Ukraine.
| elihu wrote:
| The US did give them a lot (HIMARS, Bradleys, ATACMS, a few
| Abrams, cluster munitions) and Europe did too (Storm Shadow,
| Scalp, Leopards).
|
| I don't remember whether the Patriot batteries came from the
| U.S. or were traded out of some European countries.
|
| The U.S. could have supplied a lot of the advanced weapons much
| sooner, but Biden dithered. Supposedly Ukraine will get F-16s
| any day now.
|
| For now, U.S. aid is being blocked by Republicans in Congress
| who insisted that Ukraine and Israel aid be lumped into a
| border bill, but then they abandoned the border bill and
| speaker Johnson is blocking a vote in the House. There's no
| policy reason for this, it's just that they want to make Biden
| look bad in an election year and a lot of representatives are
| afraid of angering Trump and his supporters.
| rubytubido wrote:
| Really sad news. But if you really think that he was killed - why
| now? He was "under control" in a prison for multiple years, so
| why kill him now? It worsens Russia's public image even more
|
| My assumptions: 1) He was killed, but why now? 2) He died because
| Russians' prison has a really bad conditions of detention - so
| his health was declining over time
| arp242 wrote:
| It's not my impression that Putin overly cares about Russia's
| public image abroad.
|
| And plausibility seems a good reason for "why now". You need to
| be _very_ naive to not strongly suspect foul play here, or in
| other cases of people falling out windows and whatnot, but you
| can also never be quite sure. Not really. So there is at least
| _some_ plausibility that it was "just" an accident, or "just"
| illness, at least when trying to sell this to the Russian
| people.
| cedws wrote:
| I think Putin was keeping him around until the 2024 elections
| to use as a tool. "Do not cross me or this is what happens" is
| the message.
| replwoacause wrote:
| Perhaps because he was more of a focal point before, with that
| Netflix documentary, and they were waiting for him to exit the
| public consciousness, or at least have his prominence fade,
| before killing him. If they would have killed him at the peak
| of his popularity that would have invited more action from the
| rest of the world. Just speculating...
| sampa wrote:
| well, that's a lesson for every western-backed opposition
| wannabe: don't trust your German handlers (probably told him,
| they will support him like a murderer Khodorkovsky, and get him
| out later)
|
| prisons are bad for your health
| tekkk wrote:
| People are throwing hyperboles while the incident is merely
| symbolic. Nothing changes whatsoever.
|
| And while it's easy to armchair guestimate Russia and its future,
| we western folk simply cant truly understand the nation and its
| people. They've endured WWII, USSR and some say take pride in how
| much they've suffered.
|
| But Europe certainly should get its act together, especially
| regarding its ammo production. There was plenty of time to ramp
| up after Crimea,now the improvements are predicted to finish in
| couple of years. And US is again proving its indecideness in
| maintaining foreign policy.
|
| The war in Ukraine is existential to Putins Russia and I am
| wishing the democratic nations win. However, I'm not holding my
| breath. It's the same as having a street fight. Without outside
| inference, the one who is more willing for absolute violence most
| likely wins.
| apienx wrote:
| "Life makes no sense if you have to tolerate endless lies. I will
| never accept this system, which is built on lies[..]" -- Alexei
| Navalny
|
| Alexei believed in doing what's right, not what's easy. In his
| honour, let's all do our part to help the truth prevail.
| dupertrooper wrote:
| I Russian (government employees) are fuckheads. Ok i framed it as
| anti-government are we allowed to say negative things about
| Russian bots here? When they murdered someone?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Political points are discouraged here.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| https://archive.vn/3N4Af
| kulikalov wrote:
| There are smart people who work for Russia, or worse - for
| russian gov. Without them it would not be possible.
|
| How can an individual have both the critical thinking and still
| have the gut to contribute to this?
|
| I grew up in rural russia. It's much much worse than what you see
| on the facade. My neighbour was a police man. His 15 years boy
| raped a kid from local orphanage and captured it on a video. No
| justice followed, because his dad is a policeman. No one spoke
| up. Everyone just accepted it, as they always do. When he grew up
| he became a policeman. It's not even the most screwed up story
| that I witnessed. This is beyond fucked up.
|
| It's a case of mass inheritable PTSD. All males I knew in my
| family tree were violent drunks, all females were bitten up
| housewives. This place is surreal and should not exist. And my
| family was somewhat functional compared to some neighbours.
|
| I abandoned everything there and got out as soon as I could make
| any money. I wish every person capable of critical thinking just
| leave this dreadful place and let it descend to the middle ages.
| MrDresden wrote:
| > _How can an individual have both the critical thinking and
| still have the gut to contribute to this?_
|
| Personal experience has taught me that critical thinking does
| not nessecarily go hand in hand with the ability and/or the
| guts to push for change.
|
| Many who move through corporate worlds do so for personal
| gains, and will not speak out against or put them selves in the
| spotlight to fix issues that might reflect badly on their
| upward progress in the hierarchy.
|
| And from my interaction of these kinds of people, they have
| often been very intelligent.
|
| I believe the same behaviour and motives sadly exist for many
| in modern day societies.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| Agreed. The abundance of powerful organizations that commit
| great harms for personal gain, both now and throughout
| history, makes it very clear that capable people do this.
|
| It is very hard to put myself in their shoes, and contort my
| brain to make their actions _feel_ like a thing I could do.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > I abandoned everything there and got out as soon as I could
| make any money. I wish every person capable of critical
| thinking just leave this dreadful place and let it descend to
| the middle ages.
|
| I don't begrudge you for doing that, as I would have done (and
| basically did) the same. But that also highlights how a lot of
| these places get more fucked up over time.
|
| The same thing is happening/has happened in the US. Basically,
| nearly all of the opportunity has moved from rural areas to
| urban and suburban ones. So basically anyone with the slightest
| modicum of ambition gets up and leaves. So all the people that
| are left are the people (a) without ambition or (b) are stuck
| there for other reasons (e.g. lots of early pregnancy). But the
| end result is those rural areas fall further behind, and many
| of the people that stay there become even more embittered about
| their lot. In the US the effect is even more pronounced because
| rural areas have outsized voting rights due to the way the
| electoral college and Senate work.
| kulikalov wrote:
| Parts of population always did and always will be falling
| behind other parts.
|
| Humanity must ensure that an individual has the way to
| realize their potential. Freedom to raise and freedom to
| fall.
|
| The internet changed everything. The information flowing
| freely and allowing critical thinkers to get out of a swamp
| they found themselves in. At least this gives everyone a
| chance to see.
|
| The other thing is immigration. Your case about the US is
| thankfully different because one can get on a car and leave
| to another state or urban area. It's not as easy to get out
| of russia. Get a visa first. Maybe. If you have education and
| fit into a category. Do not fit? Too bad, there are great
| places like Kazakhstan that are available though.
| RajT88 wrote:
| > there are great places like Kazakhstan that are available
| though.
|
| It's a very niice.
| apexalpha wrote:
| >I wish every person capable of critical thinking just leave
| this dreadful place and let it descend to the middle ages.
|
| I think it might've already...
| danielovichdk wrote:
| Russia's murder rate is one of the highest in the world, up
| there with Jamaica's. Eighty-three percent of murderers and
| more than 60 percent of murder victims were slobbering drunk
| during the deed. A typical drunken murder story goes something
| like this: Two middle-aged male friends meet, go back to A's
| apartment, and pound four or five bottles of cheap vodka over a
| two-day binge. A passes out drunk; B stumbles away, rapes and
| strangles A's prepubescent daughter, steals A's microwave oven,
| and sets A's apartment on fire to cover his tracks but passes
| out while setting the fire, then dies of smoke inhalation.
| (This, by the way, happened to my ex-girlfriend's next-door
| neighbors.)
| avodonosov wrote:
| Sources?
|
| In the following wikipedia article Russia's murder rate is
| near the world's avearage, close to the US, and 8 times lower
| than Jamaika. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countri
| es_by_intenti...
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| There is some reason to disbelieve the official numbers.
| They started dropping rapidly under Putin, while the number
| of unidentified bodies processed by the health system
| climbed more or less identically:
| https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/russia-is-not-actually-a-
| very-...
| avodonosov wrote:
| What are the sources of the alternative numbers? (Up to
| Jamaika, 83%, more than 60 percent, etc).
|
| As for the rates raising in 90-ies and then falling back
| down, that's understandable, if you know what were the
| 90-ies there. The same happened in all other post Soviet
| states.
| ed_balls wrote:
| > It's a case of mass inheritable PTSD
|
| About 8% of the world suffers from PTSD symptoms. There was a
| recent study done in Poland that said over 15% of population
| has symptoms. It is generational PTSD from WW2.
| avodonosov wrote:
| You must do something about the horrific crime your neighbour
| did. Simple things. Collect the info: his name, surname,
| adress, etc - everything you can. The date this happened. List
| the other witnesses, potential witnesses, and other people and
| facts that can help investigation. Other possible crimes he
| committed? Who was aware and not acted?
|
| Then submit it to authorities: investigative commitee, child
| ombudsmen, prosecutor's office, etc. Not local, but higher,
| maybe even central.
|
| If the video is available, submit it too.
|
| If not adressed by all authorities (unlikely), go public with
| the specific and detailed information.
|
| Make sure to protect the victim's info from public.
| kulikalov wrote:
| It happened 15 years ago. Half of the town knew that, all the
| police knew that. In fact the police tortures people
| themselves, it's not news for them.
|
| This thread is in the midst of discussion of a public person
| tortured for 3 years and murdered and the whole country knows
| that.
|
| What authorities are you talking about? It's criminals upon
| criminals.
| amai wrote:
| A 47 year old man killed by the 72 year old president. Nothing
| shows the conflict of generations in Russia better than this. The
| old farts of Russia/Soviet Union are killing the younger
| generation and by that are killing Russias future. For what,
| grandpa? For what?
| acuozzo wrote:
| What future? Between the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s and
| the collapse of the USSR, Russia has only a few generations
| left before experiencing demographic collapse.
|
| There simply aren't enough young men there to keep the Russian
| population growing and the population there doesn't value
| diversity enough to consider producing more Russian children
| with immigrants.
|
| This is what many believe (e.g., Peter Zeihan) to be the real
| reason behind the invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine is "Russian
| enough" in their eyes, so combining the two populations would
| help stave off demographic collapse.
| machinekob wrote:
| There is not enough Young women as MEN cant give a birth,
| still russian demographic looks terrible and this is very
| good news for all russian neighbors and EU as last imperial
| country in Europe will die
| EasyMark wrote:
| Seems like Putin may be trying to get rid of young men
| currently...
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Is this any different from any other country? I don't think
| their birth rates are that different from South Korea or
| Italy or Canada
| spookybones wrote:
| Odd plan. The invasion is at, what, ~500k casualties? This
| also assumes massive assimilation.
| scruple wrote:
| Did Putin expect a protracted war?
| _diyar wrote:
| > This is what many believe (e.g., Peter Zeihan) to be the
| real reason behind the invasion of Ukraine.
|
| This does not make any sense. Banning birth-control would be
| the most cost-effective way to increase the birth-rate,
| stronger social programs being a strong second.
|
| Much of what I've heard from Zeihan sound _memey_ - like
| camp-fire stories or what your older brothers friends would
| tell you - without anything meaningful to back it up.
| axegon_ wrote:
| I love how naive and gullible most people can be... Just google
| past the first result and you'll see that he is a carbon copy of
| putin - they are literally the two sides of the same coin. His
| personal views were perfectly in line with the russian leadership
| for the past 300 years: believed in imperialism and ethnic
| superiority. He played opposition for one reason and one reason
| alone: personal gains. He softened down his tone internationally
| in the past decade just to buy himself some sympathy from the
| west(and sadly way too many people ate it like a fresh doughnut).
| But he was no different. Assuming there is such a thing as
| opposition in russia(which, I'm sorry, I don't believe for a
| nanosecond), I'd argue his contribution was to further divide it.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| I haven't looked hard into this issue but that's the more
| likely explanation in these kinds of situations. So you have a
| terrible kind-of dictator and you have a seemingly charismatic
| opposition. In a country stereo-typically ruled or co-ruled by
| oligarchs. What's the most likely explanation? That the
| opposition is a selfless saint who only wants to liberate
| Russia (or tone it down to: wants reform, democracy, is kind of
| an egotist but is using his ego for good ends)? Or that he's
| another shade of dark who is aligned with other factions close
| to or inside the power elite of Russia? And that Russia
| wouldn't fundamentally change with one or the other at the helm
| --it's still the same corrupt country.
|
| Of course we The West jump to the fantastical conclusion that
| he, an opposition leader _in Russia_ , wants everything that
| _we_ want and would be the seedling of prosperity of Russia but
| also (most importantly) wants to be friends and buddies with
| The West.
|
| Not surprised to see your comment at the very bottom of this
| thread by the way.
| axegon_ wrote:
| That's what I mean by naive. I doubt you'd find anyone from a
| country that was a member of the Warsaw pact with a
| functioning brain that would disagree with me. I'm saying
| that being a representative myself. And you really don't have
| to look all that far to see that what I said about him is
| true: being the other side of the same coin. Literally a few
| scrolls down the results page on google and you find this [1]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT0tCSaWZ9Q
| actionfromafar wrote:
| He should not have been murdered in a Russian prison. But if he
| would have somehow become the ruler of Russia, he would have
| had to been ruthless or be toppled by someone else. The system
| in Russia can't be changed by one man on the top. That's like
| imagining a mafia could suddenly be transformed into a an open
| and democratic organization.
| axegon_ wrote:
| Assuming anyone wants to change it to begin with. You know
| the 5 monkeys experiment? In reality, russia is simply a
| large scale version of it - "this is how it is and the way
| it's always been".
| elgenie wrote:
| Yeah, he did it all for the immense personal gains of ...
| getting poisoned, imprisoned, and dying in an Arctic prison
| colony before reaching 50.
|
| Navalny being a Russian chauvinist should be utterly
| unsurprising: it would be significantly stranger for Russian
| opposition to be a stereotypical '60s hippie as opposed to, you
| know, Russian.
| tryauuum wrote:
| > Assuming there is such a thing as opposition in Russia
|
| Oh, that reminds me about people in russian internet who said
| that Navalny was managed from Kremlin. They kept saying this
| even when he went to prison.
|
| Do you as well believe in the shadow government which controls
| every public figure?
| iwontberude wrote:
| At least there is now a chance that Russia's next opposition
| leader doesn't support Crimean annexation.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Rest in peace.
|
| It's wild to me how everyone has a (very energetic) opinion about
| a conflict nowhere near their home, helmed by people they don't
| know, fought by people they don't understand, over problems they
| don't understand.
|
| I wish we could return to when not every conflict between nations
| was a considered a global emergency.
| avaika wrote:
| The war affects everyone. Some people die, some suffer because
| they are under shelling or occupation, some suffer cause their
| loved one die. But those outside war zone suffer as well. Due
| to broken food chains, crazy economic inflation and general
| political instability. For sure it's as bad as when you're dead
| because of the random shell hitting your home, but still.
|
| When a man with a nuclear button savagely kills his opponent
| just because he can, this creates instability inside the
| country. And increases chances, that once he dies (which
| eventually will happen), some radical guy might overtake the
| power and who knows what happens next.
|
| I understand that a lot of events in the world might have
| potential global effect, but only few of them might hit as bad.
| seanw444 wrote:
| I don't understand why people are so scared specifically
| about Putin's nukes. He's not the only murderous dictator
| with a big red button, but he's the only one I hear people
| worrying about. Xi + the CCP is just as much, if not more, of
| a threat.
|
| And due to the way things are going, they're testing the
| waters in cooperation and friendship.
| awb wrote:
| There have been decades of tension, proxy wars and explicit
| threats of mutual nuclear destruction between Russia and
| the West.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| For all of China's faults, the country seems less reliant
| on hard power for survival. Russia is a country with three
| tricks only: fossil fuels, nuclear weapons and
| destabilizing democracies.
|
| China is a manufacturing and technology powerhouse.
| avaika wrote:
| Unlike Xi, Putin and his propaganda machine has literally
| threatened to use the nuclear power if they have to.
| Multiple times.
|
| Yes, it is considered as a bluff. And most likely it is.
| However so was all the military "exercises" before the
| invasion to Ukraine in 2022. Only a few really believed it,
| unfortunately it actually happened.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| You don't think the safety of Europe is important to the US?
| awb wrote:
| I'm guessing that many people have a preferred ideology or a
| moral compass that encompasses all humans.
|
| Violence and questions of justice tend to ignite conversation.
| balex wrote:
| Lenin, Stalin, Putin...
|
| "There's this new guy, Flapin. Good strong name, let's make him
| our leader! What could possibly go wrong?"
| freetanga wrote:
| I hope never to see this conflict materialize, but if it does, I
| expect Russian aviation to be wiped out fairly quickly even
| without US assistance (they have not gained Air Superirity
| against Ukraine in 2 years).
|
| And then a lot of angry Poles doing a blitz across Bielorussia.
|
| At that point shit either goes Nuclear or Russia retreats.
|
| I just don't see Russian tanks across Berlin.
|
| PS: hopefully now of this ever happens
| westmeal wrote:
| RIP buddy
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| RIP, Russian Guaido. I laugh at those who consider him a symbol
| of democracy or of "regime change". He was a corrupt (he stole
| his campaign funds) racist nationalist.
|
| He defined muslims as cockroaches, and depicted himself as "an
| unapologetic nationalist who will deport non-White immigrants
| from Central Asia and the Caucasus by ruthlessly deporting
| them"[0]. Even Amnesty stripped him of the "prisoner of
| conscience" status.
|
| Had he been given the chance of governing, he would have made
| Russia a worse place than it is now. You can say what you want of
| Putin, but he's definitely not a racist.
|
| Bonus: a nice selfie he took with his friends[1]. Almost looks
| like it's taken in Ukraine, given the symbology in the
| background.
|
| - [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/01/we-
| need-h...
|
| - [1]: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-
| qimg-5fd556a9086172637c8ca...
| poundofshrimp wrote:
| Neither of the links works
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| The article link was cut somehow, here it is:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/01/we-
| need-h...
|
| The picture link expired, here's a new one:
| https://ibb.co/mTNsF7n
| verteu wrote:
| Obviously the "embezzlement" was a sham charge by the Kremlin:
|
| > The court did not explain why the trial would be held in
| prison and failed to explain how witnesses, journalists or
| Navalny's defence team could attend the heavily restricted
| facility.
|
| > Navalny is currently serving a two-and-a-half-year sentence
| on trumped-up, politically-motivated charges, which the
| European Court of Human Rights has described as "arbitrary and
| manifestly unreasonable"
|
| https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/russia-navalny-fac...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60832310
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| So they finally killed him - regime is confident not to worry
| about him being turned into a martyr since the Russian people has
| been sufficiently cowed and intimidated since the
| Tsarist/Glasnost days to accept their place that is modern
| Russia.
| orangesite wrote:
| Tucker Carlson killed Alexei Navalny.
|
| Edit: Practice systemic awareness. This was not a throwaway
| comment.
| replwoacause wrote:
| I hate Tucker Carlson and don't watch his bloviations, so can
| someone tell me what this means?
| bitcharmer wrote:
| As someone born and raised in Poland I can tell you that the
| Russians are universally hated by other Slavs. We get along with
| Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Chechs, Slovaks, basically
| everyone except the Russians. The sentiment is widespread across
| central Europe. You can call it racism or xenophobia, I don't
| care. Putin is not one person, there's a whole nation behind him.
| Most people online seem to forget this.
| untech wrote:
| 1. That's not a very nice thing to say. Raised in Russia, I
| know that there are some people who hate Poles, however, all
| these haters are backwards and anti-progressive in general.
|
| 2. Lithuanians are not Slavs.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| > 1. That's not a very nice thing to say
|
| This is not an undeserved sentiment. Russia's every neighbour
| will tell you that.
| mynameisnoone wrote:
| In Texas, I ran into a recent Russian emigrant/asylum seeker who
| said he had to leave Russia because the corruption and personal
| security issues were too much and presently unfixable. Since
| arriving here, he has already hustled semi-seasonal work to reach
| over $100k/year in independent commercial transportation
| services. We spoke mostly by using the Google Translate
| conversation app as he's still struggling to learn English, which
| is a very difficult language.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| was murdered by putin and his thugs, not "has died"
| senderista wrote:
| If you think Navalny was anything but a Russian nationalist, or
| that he would have acted differently than Putin on e.g. returning
| Crimea to Ukraine[0], try learning more about him.
|
| Also, Reuters is really showing its bias here by incessantly
| referring to Putin as "the former KGB spy". Imagine if an article
| about Reagan while he was president referred to him constantly as
| "the former Hollywood actor".
|
| [0] https://crimea.suspilne.media/en/news/942
| tryauuum wrote:
| I don't understand why people keep talking about nationalism
| and Crimea. Does it justify him being dead (which is the title
| post)?
| Lockal wrote:
| First time I see "_ has died" on the first page on HN without
| black bar (since it was introduced).
| wruza wrote:
| It's not uncommon, ime. They only put it up for people related
| to our "domain".
| mipsi wrote:
| RIP. After all the attacks and humiliation going back and
| opposing the evil lord is testimony for having skin in the game
| (BTW, Snowden still in Moscow?).
| avmich wrote:
| I'm trying to compare Alexei with some other known political
| figures. For Americans, I think Alexei is roughly comparable to
| MLK.
|
| USA was able to gradually turn from some positions to different
| others. For Russia it seems the current situation is still the
| fall to the deeper chasms of self-destruction.
| alumnisfu wrote:
| > I'm trying to compare Alexei with some other known political
| figures. For Americans, I think Alexei is roughly comparable to
| MLK.
|
| If you are comparing him to MLK, you've not seen Navalny's
| videos on Central Asians I guess (in case you need a summary:
| compares them to insects that need to be exterminated then
| kills one with a handgun).
| avmich wrote:
| I think I'm quite familiar with Alexei's actions.
| obscurette wrote:
| Navalny was a russian chovinist, but it's nothing special for
| russians unfortunately. I don't know what video you mean, but
| I guess it's from times when Navalny ran campaign for major
| of Moscow - it was quite popular position back then. But his
| positions softened a lot since then.
| eveningsteps wrote:
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
| tryauuum wrote:
| I wish we had more guns in Russia. Then the war wouldn't
| have happened -- how could you conscript a person if you
| know he can shoot you the moment you come for him?
| cvalka wrote:
| It's easy to defame a dead guy. You don't know what you are
| talking about.
| tryauuum wrote:
| I was hesitant to click on the video link but I clicked
| anyway
|
| Actually very carefully designed, he never calls anyone
| inferior or talks about extermination.
|
| To me, even if he was proudly racist (which I'm not sure he
| was) he still is a hero. Anyone tortured and murdered by
| Putin is a hero
| keepswag wrote:
| Is this even a real comment, please dont comment on what you
| dont know. Dont use a figure who was the fore front of many
| american civil conflicts and was a leader to champion many
| civil rights we have today. Navalny's only good thing about him
| was asking for a better democratic practices, other than that
| he was a neo nazi apologist and called all Chechnya's
| cockroaches. Do you also support Azov Brigade?
| cvalka wrote:
| Thank you for your first comment ever on HN and please
| collect 100 rubles.
| meitham wrote:
| Are you serious? He's more comparable to Trump or KKK
| leadership!
| endigma wrote:
| Its funny to me that with the current state of Russia this guy
| could have died with absolutely zero interference from the state
| and the rest of the world will assume he was killed no matter
| what comes out of Russian media, purely due to their track record
| with this sort of thing.
| jakub_g wrote:
| There is even a dedicated wiki page for 2022+ deaths of Russian
| businesspeople
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_Russian...
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Funny how the Russian gov poisoned him and sent him to Siberia
| to a labor camp. They had nothing to do with it!
| endigma wrote:
| Not sure why I'm being downvoted, I'm not trying to suggest
| that this death isn't suspicious, just commenting that even if
| it wasn't people wouldn't believe the Russians due to how often
| this happens.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| How many has Putin had killed now? Anyone keeping a tally?
| layer8 wrote:
| The biggest portion is all those who died in the Ukraine war so
| far. Some 6-digit number.
| SergeAx wrote:
| In 2021 Joe Biden warned putin of 'devastating' consequences for
| Russia if Navalny dies in prison:
| https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/16/politics/alexey-navalny-b...
| zeruch wrote:
| Death by murder.
|
| Navalny was far from a saint, but his death is still a Kremlin
| job by any measure, and I suspect will only accelerate Putin's
| decline, as the state of Russian affairs continues to degrade.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Absolutely terrible. Now we pray time/entropy delivers us a world
| without Putin. Smh.
| TheBlight wrote:
| Seems like a safe bet that he doesn't live forever.
| patrickmay wrote:
| Navalny didn't just "die." He was murdered by Putin.
| marttt wrote:
| A historian and renowned Russia expert in my country (Estonia)
| commented that this was probably bad timing for Putin. Now, as a
| martyr, Navalnyi is much more of a disturbance to Putin's regimen
| than he would have been as an isolated opposition leader serving
| a 19-year prison sentence, which rendered him not a direct threat
| to Putin. Like the expert put it: as a political prisoner,
| Navalnyi was already simply forgotten by many. [1]
|
| Somehow this got me flipping through a book by Anna
| Politkovskaya, Russian journalist extraordinaire who covered the
| Second Chechen War and was shot dead in Moscow in 2006, on the
| birthday of Putin. [2]
|
| I want to think that the age of massive online information does
| make at least a slight difference as to how much of the reasons
| behind events like these see the light of day eventually. Rest in
| peace, Alexei Navalnyi.
|
| 1: https://news.err.ee/1609255851/historian-navalny-s-death-
| wil... (Interestingly, the paragraph on Navalnyi being more of a
| disturbance now, after being declared dead, was not included in
| the English version of this news story. This is quite surprising,
| since ERR is actually a very well balanced source of news. All in
| all, that story includes interesting takes on Navalny as a
| politician, too, by another highly respeced Russia expert from
| Estonia.)
|
| 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
| dralley wrote:
| Judging by Putin's mood this morning, he doesn't think or
| particularly care that it's bad timing.
| shmerl wrote:
| Sort of weird that by killing Navalny, Putin made life harder for
| his shills in the House of Representatives who do his bidding to
| oppose aid for Ukraine. But I guess he thinks his "Axis Sallys"
| like Carlson are enough to whitewash anything he does.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I will never understand why Wagner just stood down and Prigozhin
| just essentially agreed to suicide. He was obviously not a good
| man but he could have done the world a favor.
| meitham wrote:
| Wasn't he considered a nazi before the Ukraine war?
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56181084 Suddenly all the
| enemies of Putin are the good guys, even Yevgeny Prigozhin
| somehow turned into a hero in his last few days when he turned
| against Putin. And then we have US citizens dying in Ukraine
| prisons for publishing videos on YouTube that tells different
| story to the war in Ukraine, such as Gonzalo Lira without any
| notice in the western media!
| billybobmcjohn wrote:
| who? how is he relevant to hn
| rmuratov wrote:
| I feel like nothing good will ever happen again.
| commiepatrol wrote:
| How's Assange?
| kevrmoore wrote:
| He as a deepstate asset plotting a color revolution. The timing
| of this news is highly suspicious. The NWO is a globalist
| imperialist regime.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-16 23:01 UTC)