5 ms·

I know emotions are running high in this thread but asking to educate myself. Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge. In that scenario how will a sma

I know emotions are running high in this thread but asking to educate myself. Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge. In that scenario how will a small assortment of weapons and software even help them? Do they even need weapons help? Also how can a charity buy that list and supply? Can an organization buy them, feels like that kind of a purchase should be restricted to countries only.

decafninja 5y ago
I am very much rooting for Ukraine, but at the same time feel there is little anyone short of another peer superpower can do to stop the Russian juggernaut from doing what Putin wants.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dgellow 5y ago
Russia can destroy and invade the country. But occupying a place as huge as Ukraine will be hard. Even with a small set of weapons and fighters defending the territory you can make the place way more difficult to control than it would be otherwise.
- User23 5y ago
  I expect they’ll have a pretty easy time in the places dominated by ethnic Russians who welcome Russian rule. I further expect they’ll have a considerably harder time in the non-Russian areas.
- cafard 5y ago
  The USSR brought Ukraine under control after WW II.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge. The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2. Army size and the like does not matter. The Ukranian forces can entrench themselves and maintain a guerilla war for a long time, as long as they have supplies. I strongly feel like wars are unwinnable. It either ends up in a stalemate and attrition - see the US trying to do a thing in the middle east for two decades only for things to go back the second they leave - or MAD. And the last one hasn't and will hopefully never happen.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  >The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2. That depends on the definition of winning. In many cases, US military won everything militarily, but lost politically.
  - badRNG 5y ago
    I mean, is Iraq even a loss politically? The US thoroughly rolled the Iraqi military, killed over 1 million Iraqis, overthrew their government, and installed a new government in Iraq that still exists today. To say this is a "loss" leaves us at a place where the term has no meaning.
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      Yes, because it required 20 years of active occupation, numerous offensives, and trillions of dollars and it's unlikely that the result will last. While we fucked around in the middle east, Russia regained strength and China emerged as a peer world power. Does anyone want to bet that Iraq or Afghanistan will remain our loyal ally in this new multipolar world? We're now $30T in debt with a 125% debt-to-GDP ratio. All of our allies are completely emasculated by 70+ years of U.S. hegemony. And no one has an appetite for war on ideological grounds when we lied about all the past wars and protestors are getting trampled by horses and un-personed from the financial system without due process in a 'liberal' western democracy. Strategically speaking, you can win a battle but lose the war. It was an absolute loss from that perspective.
      - toomanybeersies 5y ago
        > Yes, because it required 20 years of active occupation, numerous offensives, and trillions of dollars and it's unlikely that the result will last. By that logic, the Germans lost the Franco-Prussian War because they subsequently lost the First World War.
    - arpanet86 5y ago
app4soft 5y ago
> I know emotions are running high in this thread but asking to educate myself. I hope You would learn something from today's message by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on situation where few Ukrainian kindergartens shelled by Russian rocket strikes: > Today’s Russian attacks on a kindergarten and an orphanage are war crimes and violations of the Rome Statute. Together with the General Prosecutor’s Office we are collecting this and other facts, which we will immediately send to the Hague. Responsibility is inevitable.[0] N.B. I'm Ukrainian living in Ukraine. Here is my statement for HN:[1] [0] https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497186665156255754 https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497186665156255754 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30395897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30395897
- yalogin 5y ago
  Oh no! I am against any Russian aggression and the atrocities they are committing. This is terrible. Please understand that I am only trying to understand the approach that organization was taking with the charity, never questioning how evil Putin is or that he needs to be held accountable.
  - app4soft 5y ago
    > I am only trying to understand I just hope you would be able to understand feeling of Ukrainian 14-year-old girl, killed by Russian missile yesterday on the street of Uman city, Cherkasy region, Ukraine.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1497242681981882371 https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1497242681981882371
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  As horrific as that is, that sort of stuff happens in wars all the time. It's so common that it even has its own fancy word to make it sound less horrific: collateral damage. That said, unless Russia was intentionally targeting the kindergarten (and/or the Russians didn't reasonably believe the kindergarten to be housing enemy troops at the time) I don't really see how that can be treated as a war crime. For the record I think Russia's invasion is morally wrong and unjustified.
sethd 5y ago
> Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge. The Vietnamese successfully fought off multiple foreign invaders over past centuries against armies more powerful and advanced than theirs.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  With the stipulation that there were some punches the USA wasn’t willing to throw. Russia has seen this and Russia has seen Aleppo. Russia committing to this means that they are okay with doing what they need to for a decisive and quick victory.
  - decafninja 5y ago
    This. The US is certainly no saint in combat. However I will say it is arguably much more sensitive towards at least trying to avoid collateral damage. Russia, and autocracies in general, are probably much more willing to inflict total war because they simply do not have to be as accountable to their publics as a democratic government.

decafninja 5y ago

I am very much rooting for Ukraine, but at the same time feel there is little anyone short of another peer superpower can do to stop the Russian juggernaut from doing what Putin wants.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dgellow 5y ago

Russia can destroy and invade the country. But occupying a place as huge as Ukraine will be hard. Even with a small set of weapons and fighters defending the territory you can make the place way more difficult to control than it would be otherwise.

User23 5y ago
I expect they’ll have a pretty easy time in the places dominated by ethnic Russians who welcome Russian rule. I further expect they’ll have a considerably harder time in the non-Russian areas.
cafard 5y ago
The USSR brought Ukraine under control after WW II.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

> Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge. The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2. Army size and the like does not matter. The Ukranian forces can entrench themselves and maintain a guerilla war for a long time, as long as they have supplies. I strongly feel like wars are unwinnable. It either ends up in a stalemate and attrition - see the US trying to do a thing in the middle east for two decades only for things to go back the second they leave - or MAD. And the last one hasn't and will hopefully never happen.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
>The US, the most well-funded army in the world for the past generation, hasn't won a war since the end of WW2. That depends on the definition of winning. In many cases, US military won everything militarily, but lost politically.
- badRNG 5y ago
  I mean, is Iraq even a loss politically? The US thoroughly rolled the Iraqi military, killed over 1 million Iraqis, overthrew their government, and installed a new government in Iraq that still exists today. To say this is a "loss" leaves us at a place where the term has no meaning.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    Yes, because it required 20 years of active occupation, numerous offensives, and trillions of dollars and it's unlikely that the result will last. While we fucked around in the middle east, Russia regained strength and China emerged as a peer world power. Does anyone want to bet that Iraq or Afghanistan will remain our loyal ally in this new multipolar world? We're now $30T in debt with a 125% debt-to-GDP ratio. All of our allies are completely emasculated by 70+ years of U.S. hegemony. And no one has an appetite for war on ideological grounds when we lied about all the past wars and protestors are getting trampled by horses and un-personed from the financial system without due process in a 'liberal' western democracy. Strategically speaking, you can win a battle but lose the war. It was an absolute loss from that perspective.
    - toomanybeersies 5y ago
      > Yes, because it required 20 years of active occupation, numerous offensives, and trillions of dollars and it's unlikely that the result will last. By that logic, the Germans lost the Franco-Prussian War because they subsequently lost the First World War.
  - arpanet86 5y ago

app4soft 5y ago

> I know emotions are running high in this thread but asking to educate myself. I hope You would learn something from today's message by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on situation where few Ukrainian kindergartens shelled by Russian rocket strikes: > Today’s Russian attacks on a kindergarten and an orphanage are war crimes and violations of the Rome Statute. Together with the General Prosecutor’s Office we are collecting this and other facts, which we will immediately send to the Hague. Responsibility is inevitable.[0] N.B. I'm Ukrainian living in Ukraine. Here is my statement for HN:[1] [0] https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497186665156255754 https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1497186665156255754 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30395897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30395897

yalogin 5y ago
Oh no! I am against any Russian aggression and the atrocities they are committing. This is terrible. Please understand that I am only trying to understand the approach that organization was taking with the charity, never questioning how evil Putin is or that he needs to be held accountable.
- app4soft 5y ago
  > I am only trying to understand I just hope you would be able to understand feeling of Ukrainian 14-year-old girl, killed by Russian missile yesterday on the street of Uman city, Cherkasy region, Ukraine.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1497242681981882371 https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1497242681981882371
HideousKojima 5y ago
As horrific as that is, that sort of stuff happens in wars all the time. It's so common that it even has its own fancy word to make it sound less horrific: collateral damage. That said, unless Russia was intentionally targeting the kindergarten (and/or the Russians didn't reasonably believe the kindergarten to be housing enemy troops at the time) I don't really see how that can be treated as a war crime. For the record I think Russia's invasion is morally wrong and unjustified.

sethd 5y ago

> Ukraine is not a tiny nation, and Russia is huge. The Vietnamese successfully fought off multiple foreign invaders over past centuries against armies more powerful and advanced than theirs.

nostrebored 5y ago
With the stipulation that there were some punches the USA wasn’t willing to throw. Russia has seen this and Russia has seen Aleppo. Russia committing to this means that they are okay with doing what they need to for a decisive and quick victory.
- decafninja 5y ago
  This. The US is certainly no saint in combat. However I will say it is arguably much more sensitive towards at least trying to avoid collateral damage. Russia, and autocracies in general, are probably much more willing to inflict total war because they simply do not have to be as accountable to their publics as a democratic government.