7 ms·

RU was banking on a big GOP midterm win in the USA as their last hope, this pointless bloodbath needs to end

bpodgursky 4y ago
They likely were hoping for that, but I think this decision was tactical based on the frontline degrading over the past couple weeks, not reacting to the election. They've been prepping defenses on the left bank for most of a month.
mushbino 4y ago
I agree. The only sensible option at this point is a peace deal.
- timbit42 4y ago
  ...which won't last unless Ukraine becomes a member of NATO.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  Yes, Putin would very much like to popeacedealet and then attack again with fresh forces.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    > and then attack again with fresh forces Can they afford fresh forces? Can they afford to replace the hardware they've already lost?
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      Yes they can, unfortunately. Much worse and slower that west would expect, but they can. They have a lot of broken soviet stuff in the storage, which can be somehow repaired at least to the drive and shoot condition, even without fancy active armor or heat optics. They have a capability to manufacture dozens of ballistic missiles per month, so each new month is another 2-3 days of new bombardments in the future. Iran and NK are supplying them with contraband chips and other small but hard to get stuff, while these sources are just a trickle in the active war, but during the peace time they can accumulate a lot of stuff such way. And humans - their mobilization capability is approximately idk 100k-150k of soldiers at one time, due to lack of equipment for them, officers to train them and locations to quarter them. That's why half of new mobilised soldiers recently were sent directly to the active army. But a peace time would afford them to a) train a lot of troops in a batches of 100k, and b) expand mobilisation capacity by a lot, maybe x2 times for example. That's why Putin dropped all of his public demands recently and just about begs USA and Ukraine for the peace talks. ANd it's not because he will admit his defeat, it's to gain a tactical peace for his war.
- synu 4y ago
  It has to include Ukraine joining NATO or Putin will be back.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  They already had a peace deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum > The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. There's no reason to believe any new one would be better respected by Russia; it'd be just an opportunity for Russia to rest, rearm, and invest in propaganda efforts.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Nope, Russia can unilaterally walk away from their unprovoked war of aggression and expansion any time.
TechBro8615 4y ago
- regnull 4y ago
  Putin has invaded Ukraine in 2014. The war was ongoing since then.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    In 2014 the Democrats were in charge, and he made no advances or significant additional aggression from 2016-2020.
    - piva00 4y ago
      Are you aware that Trump praised Putin multiple times during his term?
      - TechBro8615 4y ago
        piva00 4y ago
        Ukraine was already being invaded and occupied while Trump was president and he did absolutely nothing about it. He praised Putin, he said Putin is a smart man. Worse, he tried to do a quid pro quo to get political ammo in exchange of support for Ukraine, for fucks sake. He was gonna throw Ukraine under the bus because they didn't give him some dirt on Biden's son. How does that not play in the hands of Putin, exactly? Are you seriously stating that because Putin didn't further invade during Trump's presidency, a president who was keen on taking down NATO and the alliance between EUA-EU wasn't playing in the hands of Putin? What exactly should have Putin done so you could see that? Just further invading Ukraine is the only point you can see for that? It seriously tires me out to have to read this bullshit on Hacker News.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
wffurr 4y ago
The Russians can end it at any moment by withdrawing their troops to the pre-war borders.
- david927 4y ago
  - regnull 4y ago
    Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 when NATO membership was nowhere on the actual agenda.
  - samsk 4y ago
    I've also a good and old one: Russia has lost 15000 troops, 6 generals, 500 tanks, 3 ships, 100 planes and 1000 trucks. NATO hasn't arrived yet
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > 500 tanks That doesn't seems to be right. Oryx lists 1450 lost Russian tanks, of which destroyed: 835, damaged: 62, abandoned: 53, captured: 500. And these are only the visually confirmed losses. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
  - vpribish 4y ago
    holy cats, a real live one
    - piva00 4y ago
      It's not the first one I bumped into here on Hacker News, just a day or two ago I tried calling out a poster that they were repeating literal Russian propaganda lines [1]. It doesn't seem to matter, they'll keep repeating it, ad nauseam... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33522269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33522269
fallingknife 4y ago
Why would they want that? Mitch McConnell has been calling for sending weapons that Biden has denied. And in any event, new congress isn't seated until January.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  The guy who's nicknamed 'Moscow Mitch'? Everything he does has a shadow on it, he's a self-serving political viper. It's not just a smear, there's actual history behind the moniker (https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/rachel-maddow-explains-origins-of-how-mcconnell-earned-his-moscow-mitch-moniker/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/rachel-maddow-explains-orig...)
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Surely, then, you also call the president "Beijing Biden" for all the deals his family has done in China? Or maybe it's not a good idea to just believe whatever someone's political opponents and their propagandists come up with.
  - FredPret 4y ago
    Nicknames are given by the other side. And all top politicians are self-serving, hence the need to swap them every now and then
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > Nicknames are given by the other side. For sure. More revealing is what's said internally about their own. "There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump." - Kevin McCarthy McConnell's no MAGA, but he's not really in full control of the Party any longer.
danans 4y ago
> RU was banking on a big GOP midterm win in the USA How do we know there wasn't a big GOP win? The election outcome of several Senate seats is still unknown at this moment, and at least one is going to a run-off, so I doubt this was central to their decision making. Despite Russia's now openly admitted US election interference, I don't think they have more foresight into actual election outcomes than the US itself does. I'm not discounting your logic, though. Clearly the GOP has expressed intent to reduce US support for Ukraine. It's just too early to apply the logic to the situation on the ground.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  It's very clear there hasn't been a big GOP win; if they take the Senate, it's gonna be with a 1-2 person majority at most (the Dems have 48 confirmed seats as of this morning). They'd need unity on fucking Ukraine over; it seems unlikely all ~51 would be on board here given the popularity of the Ukranians in the war in the US.
  - danans 4y ago
    > It's very clear there hasn't been a big GOP win I guess it depends on how you define "big". A supermajority in the Senate was never in the cards. A majority, however slim, would still be (per my own definition) a big win for the GOP. > They'd need unity on fucking Ukraine over; it seems unlikely all ~51 would be on board here given the popularity of the Ukranians in the war in the US. I think this is partially because Americans haven't felt the brunt of increased energy prices caused by the war to the degree that Europeans and others have. If/when that impact hits, the fact that half the country listens to media personalities that are openly supportive of the Russian side and are happy to suggest that appeasing Russia would bring down energy prices, suggests to me that public opinion could change pretty quickly. And I'll give the GOP credit for one thing: they have listened to what their base voters actually wanted (regardless of the morality of it) and they changed their tune. I'd love to be wrong, but doubt many people are willing to put the Ukrainians rights to peoplehood over the price of gas at the pump.
    - 4y ago
indymike 4y ago
That was a bad bet, maybe as bad as invading Ukraine. The GOP is even more in the pocket of the defense industrial complex and would very quickly realize that they get to replace and update all kinds of weapon systems and create jobs back home. > pointless bloodbath needs to end Yes, it does, right after Ukraine's territory is restored and the 1M or so people that have been relocated to Russia are returned home.
- squarefoot 4y ago
  Then identified war criminals must be surrendered as well, and very harsh sanctions must be imposed to Russian govt and its supporting oligarchs in order to force them to pay for the destruction they brought. To me, just returning land and prisoners then saying sorry isn't enough.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > To me, just returning land and prisoners then saying sorry isn't enough. One of the lessons of WWI was heavy-handed reparations create more even larger problems. It took WWII to clean it up the mess, and while the de facto military dictatorship that emerged under the Kaiser was was bad, the Nazi replacement was far, far, far worse. What is important is that whatever end this comes to puts an end to wars of territorial conquest like this. They make little sense in the modern world, and are an absurd waste of life and wealth. After the war, Ukraine will become a NATO country, and the west will invest heavily in rebuilding and GDP will grow. So long as the people of Russia tolerate totalitarian rule, they will live with stagnant growth and dim future. If the people of Russia can once again open up, maybe that future will be different.
exabrial 4y ago
You should probably educate yourself, this comment is plain stupid. Support for Ukraine is bi-partisan, and if you would spend 5 minutes out of the echo chamber and look at the facts and voting record, you would see how ignorant you are of reality. Any of the debates have been on the _method_ and _extent_ of support, not _whether or not to support_. Both red and blue have had objections to types of aide being sent for legit national security concerns (for instance, classified fire control systems on 155mm artillery).
openasocket 4y ago
I think this is an overly ameri-centric take. There are a lot of factors impacting this war, and sure the composition of the US Congress is one of them, but it is fairly insignificant. A much bigger factor in deciding the war is how successful Russian mobilization is/was/will be, and the political costs to doing a partial mobilization. Another factor would be the sales of arms from Iran to Russia, and whether they can be used to real tactical effect beyond the terror-bombing we've seen thus far.
- mobilefriendly 4y ago
  Russian media had wall-to-wall coverage of the US elections.
  - openasocket 4y ago
    Sure, but the Russian media can have an overly ameri-centric take too. It's not like we trust the Russian media to fairly and accurately represent the factors impacting the war. And even if we did, they can still be wrong.
- wiseowise 4y ago
  > A much bigger factor in deciding the war is how successful Russian mobilization is/was/will be More meat into the grinder.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

They likely were hoping for that, but I think this decision was tactical based on the frontline degrading over the past couple weeks, not reacting to the election. They've been prepping defenses on the left bank for most of a month.

mushbino 4y ago

I agree. The only sensible option at this point is a peace deal.

timbit42 4y ago
...which won't last unless Ukraine becomes a member of NATO.
Yizahi 4y ago
Yes, Putin would very much like to popeacedealet and then attack again with fresh forces.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > and then attack again with fresh forces Can they afford fresh forces? Can they afford to replace the hardware they've already lost?
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    Yes they can, unfortunately. Much worse and slower that west would expect, but they can. They have a lot of broken soviet stuff in the storage, which can be somehow repaired at least to the drive and shoot condition, even without fancy active armor or heat optics. They have a capability to manufacture dozens of ballistic missiles per month, so each new month is another 2-3 days of new bombardments in the future. Iran and NK are supplying them with contraband chips and other small but hard to get stuff, while these sources are just a trickle in the active war, but during the peace time they can accumulate a lot of stuff such way. And humans - their mobilization capability is approximately idk 100k-150k of soldiers at one time, due to lack of equipment for them, officers to train them and locations to quarter them. That's why half of new mobilised soldiers recently were sent directly to the active army. But a peace time would afford them to a) train a lot of troops in a batches of 100k, and b) expand mobilisation capacity by a lot, maybe x2 times for example. That's why Putin dropped all of his public demands recently and just about begs USA and Ukraine for the peace talks. ANd it's not because he will admit his defeat, it's to gain a tactical peace for his war.
synu 4y ago
It has to include Ukraine joining NATO or Putin will be back.
ceejayoz 4y ago
They already had a peace deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum > The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. There's no reason to believe any new one would be better respected by Russia; it'd be just an opportunity for Russia to rest, rearm, and invest in propaganda efforts.
mrguyorama 4y ago
Nope, Russia can unilaterally walk away from their unprovoked war of aggression and expansion any time.

TechBro8615 4y ago

regnull 4y ago
Putin has invaded Ukraine in 2014. The war was ongoing since then.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  In 2014 the Democrats were in charge, and he made no advances or significant additional aggression from 2016-2020.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Are you aware that Trump praised Putin multiple times during his term?
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      - piva00 4y ago
        Ukraine was already being invaded and occupied while Trump was president and he did absolutely nothing about it. He praised Putin, he said Putin is a smart man. Worse, he tried to do a quid pro quo to get political ammo in exchange of support for Ukraine, for fucks sake. He was gonna throw Ukraine under the bus because they didn't give him some dirt on Biden's son. How does that not play in the hands of Putin, exactly? Are you seriously stating that because Putin didn't further invade during Trump's presidency, a president who was keen on taking down NATO and the alliance between EUA-EU wasn't playing in the hands of Putin? What exactly should have Putin done so you could see that? Just further invading Ukraine is the only point you can see for that? It seriously tires me out to have to read this bullshit on Hacker News.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago

wffurr 4y ago

The Russians can end it at any moment by withdrawing their troops to the pre-war borders.

david927 4y ago
- regnull 4y ago
  Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 when NATO membership was nowhere on the actual agenda.
- samsk 4y ago
  I've also a good and old one: Russia has lost 15000 troops, 6 generals, 500 tanks, 3 ships, 100 planes and 1000 trucks. NATO hasn't arrived yet
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > 500 tanks That doesn't seems to be right. Oryx lists 1450 lost Russian tanks, of which destroyed: 835, damaged: 62, abandoned: 53, captured: 500. And these are only the visually confirmed losses. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
- vpribish 4y ago
  holy cats, a real live one
  - piva00 4y ago
    It's not the first one I bumped into here on Hacker News, just a day or two ago I tried calling out a poster that they were repeating literal Russian propaganda lines [1]. It doesn't seem to matter, they'll keep repeating it, ad nauseam... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33522269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33522269

fallingknife 4y ago

Why would they want that? Mitch McConnell has been calling for sending weapons that Biden has denied. And in any event, new congress isn't seated until January.

gremlinsinc 4y ago
The guy who's nicknamed 'Moscow Mitch'? Everything he does has a shadow on it, he's a self-serving political viper. It's not just a smear, there's actual history behind the moniker (https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/rachel-maddow-explains-origins-of-how-mcconnell-earned-his-moscow-mitch-moniker/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/rachel-maddow-explains-orig...)
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Surely, then, you also call the president "Beijing Biden" for all the deals his family has done in China? Or maybe it's not a good idea to just believe whatever someone's political opponents and their propagandists come up with.
- FredPret 4y ago
  Nicknames are given by the other side. And all top politicians are self-serving, hence the need to swap them every now and then
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Nicknames are given by the other side. For sure. More revealing is what's said internally about their own. "There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump." - Kevin McCarthy McConnell's no MAGA, but he's not really in full control of the Party any longer.

danans 4y ago

> RU was banking on a big GOP midterm win in the USA How do we know there wasn't a big GOP win? The election outcome of several Senate seats is still unknown at this moment, and at least one is going to a run-off, so I doubt this was central to their decision making. Despite Russia's now openly admitted US election interference, I don't think they have more foresight into actual election outcomes than the US itself does. I'm not discounting your logic, though. Clearly the GOP has expressed intent to reduce US support for Ukraine. It's just too early to apply the logic to the situation on the ground.

ceejayoz 4y ago
It's very clear there hasn't been a big GOP win; if they take the Senate, it's gonna be with a 1-2 person majority at most (the Dems have 48 confirmed seats as of this morning). They'd need unity on fucking Ukraine over; it seems unlikely all ~51 would be on board here given the popularity of the Ukranians in the war in the US.
- danans 4y ago
  > It's very clear there hasn't been a big GOP win I guess it depends on how you define "big". A supermajority in the Senate was never in the cards. A majority, however slim, would still be (per my own definition) a big win for the GOP. > They'd need unity on fucking Ukraine over; it seems unlikely all ~51 would be on board here given the popularity of the Ukranians in the war in the US. I think this is partially because Americans haven't felt the brunt of increased energy prices caused by the war to the degree that Europeans and others have. If/when that impact hits, the fact that half the country listens to media personalities that are openly supportive of the Russian side and are happy to suggest that appeasing Russia would bring down energy prices, suggests to me that public opinion could change pretty quickly. And I'll give the GOP credit for one thing: they have listened to what their base voters actually wanted (regardless of the morality of it) and they changed their tune. I'd love to be wrong, but doubt many people are willing to put the Ukrainians rights to peoplehood over the price of gas at the pump.
  - 4y ago

indymike 4y ago

That was a bad bet, maybe as bad as invading Ukraine. The GOP is even more in the pocket of the defense industrial complex and would very quickly realize that they get to replace and update all kinds of weapon systems and create jobs back home. > pointless bloodbath needs to end Yes, it does, right after Ukraine's territory is restored and the 1M or so people that have been relocated to Russia are returned home.

squarefoot 4y ago
Then identified war criminals must be surrendered as well, and very harsh sanctions must be imposed to Russian govt and its supporting oligarchs in order to force them to pay for the destruction they brought. To me, just returning land and prisoners then saying sorry isn't enough.
- indymike 4y ago
  > To me, just returning land and prisoners then saying sorry isn't enough. One of the lessons of WWI was heavy-handed reparations create more even larger problems. It took WWII to clean it up the mess, and while the de facto military dictatorship that emerged under the Kaiser was was bad, the Nazi replacement was far, far, far worse. What is important is that whatever end this comes to puts an end to wars of territorial conquest like this. They make little sense in the modern world, and are an absurd waste of life and wealth. After the war, Ukraine will become a NATO country, and the west will invest heavily in rebuilding and GDP will grow. So long as the people of Russia tolerate totalitarian rule, they will live with stagnant growth and dim future. If the people of Russia can once again open up, maybe that future will be different.

exabrial 4y ago

You should probably educate yourself, this comment is plain stupid. Support for Ukraine is bi-partisan, and if you would spend 5 minutes out of the echo chamber and look at the facts and voting record, you would see how ignorant you are of reality. Any of the debates have been on the _method_ and _extent_ of support, not _whether or not to support_. Both red and blue have had objections to types of aide being sent for legit national security concerns (for instance, classified fire control systems on 155mm artillery).

openasocket 4y ago

I think this is an overly ameri-centric take. There are a lot of factors impacting this war, and sure the composition of the US Congress is one of them, but it is fairly insignificant. A much bigger factor in deciding the war is how successful Russian mobilization is/was/will be, and the political costs to doing a partial mobilization. Another factor would be the sales of arms from Iran to Russia, and whether they can be used to real tactical effect beyond the terror-bombing we've seen thus far.

mobilefriendly 4y ago
Russian media had wall-to-wall coverage of the US elections.
- openasocket 4y ago
  Sure, but the Russian media can have an overly ameri-centric take too. It's not like we trust the Russian media to fairly and accurately represent the factors impacting the war. And even if we did, they can still be wrong.
wiseowise 4y ago
> A much bigger factor in deciding the war is how successful Russian mobilization is/was/will be More meat into the grinder.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]