8 ms·

How about the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict? Trained and armed it for 8 years, boosting its confidence, building up for

by spurgu 4y ago

How about the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict? Trained and armed it for 8 years, boosting its confidence, building up for an all-out decisive attack against Donbass, forcing Russia's hand to intervene? Knowing that pitting Ukraine against Russia in a drawn-out conflict would be hugely beneficial for arms sales as well as a testing ground for equipment, and most importantly seen as weakening Russia in the same way as USSR was in Afghanistan?

maximinus_thrax 4y ago
So let me get this straight: - Russia invades Ukraine in 2014 and takes Crimea - Ukraine gets aid and training and weapons - Russia goes for an all-out invasion in 2022 But the US is the guilty party, as: - the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict - forcing Russia's hand to intervene What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? I guess the ideal world order is one in which Russia is free to annex neighboring countries with no consequences, otherwise 'they'll be forced' to do even worse. As a former resident of a former communist country (which has been invaded by the Russians 13 times across its history), I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. I really hope these are puppets or bots or something.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. As a person of similar origin, I believe I am entitled to respond to this post. Whatever you may think of the invasion ( I am not a fan of war myself ), the reasons for it are not exactly hidden anywhere. Orange Revolution removed Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence by removing its puppet, which meant Russia lost control over its former satellite, which left Putin with few options. Now, use of force is kinda frowned upon these days, but it does not mean it does not happen and Ukraine is likely something that Putin was not willing to let go for one reason or another. I think you will agree that letting go of Crimea is almost as likely as letting go of Kaliningrad -- very unlikely unless basically forced to for strategic reasons. << What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? FWIW, HN seems more clearheaded about it than most forums on the net.
  - maximinus_thrax 4y ago
    Were are you from? I'm not debating the reasons Putin thought this was a good idea. My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade. Because it implies that: - Ukraine has no agency - in the 21st century, it is still acceptable to attempt wars of conquest - Russia cannot survive as a state without an allied Ukraine (as if being a Gas station with nukes can be threatened in any way) - Russia has no imperial ambitions - LOL (did I mention 13 invasions of my homeland? The last of which took 14 years for the Red Army to leave, featured mass deportations and ethnic 'readjustments' and ended with ~50 years of communism) - 'the west' should do nothing to help Ukraine as to not piss off the Russians (as of course, they're already pissed off, I mean look at them, they started a war! Better not piss them off further!) Crimea is a great point. That's where NATO and 'the west' failed and where I agree in hindsight that they're responsible. That was the line that should not have been crossed. When Putin said he doesn't know who the 'the green men' were and he lied they weren't state actors, that's when 'the west' should have sent a peacekeeping mission to figure out who the 'green men' were, right then and there. Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022. The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring. So, there's definitely more to it, right? Proxy wars, conspiracies, western coups, russia is cornered by 'the west' and has no other option, etc.. It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality. The boring tragic and stupid reality of an old school invasion driven by an insane authoritarian with WW1 trenchlines and WW2 soviet tactics of sending meat into the grinder until the enemy submits.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      << Were are you from? Former satellite, but does it really matter? Argue your point and it will be judged on its own merits. This is not the place to appeal to emotion or use talking points ( you can, but you will be called out on it like I am about to do ). << My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade. I am not going to go after characterizing it as narrative ( in a sense, everything is ), because it can be classified as that. I personally would argue that this is version of risk control. He lost control over Ukraine as aftermath of Orange Revolution and he wants it back. NATO may have not actively participated in said revolution, but you can't honestly tell me western powers had no stake in it ( or no reason to participate in some manner ). << Because it implies that >>what follows is an actual Ukrainian propaganda/talking points<< I don't mind propaganda, but the agency line is a bad line AND a bad argument ( and, as a result, even worse propaganda; propaganda should be effective ). TBH, I am not sure where it originated, but I read it before and I assume it made more sense in original, but lost something in translation. If you read it on your own and adopted it as your own, I would ask you that you explain to me what you think it actually means, because, logically, it does not follow what I wrote at all. If you can do that, we can continue this discussion in good faith. Otherwise, this is my last post in this section. << Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022. I am resisting the urge of connecting some event in a distant past to show how it could be traced to today. As in, you are not completely wrong, but that moment has long passed AND it was just one of the causes ( and you choose to just ignore them ). Shoulda woulda coulda is fun, but unlikely to be productive at this stage ( may make for a good history lesson at some point in the future though ). << The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring. I hate to invoke Thiel, but this is one of those few times, where his quote is actually relevant and apt. The most contrarian thing you can do is to think for yourself. It is very true. I have zero problem condemning Russia. Hell, from the beginning I outright stated I want Russians to fail in this campaign. There is a benefit for US ( and frankly EU ) should that come to pass, but repeating talking points is not furthering your cause. Here, it might undermine it. I will take it one step further and offer a piece of advice: know your audience. << It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality. For once, we can agree on something. It is a known tactic and does work surprisingly well and it is the bane of the internet. The good news is that, on the internet these days, shit is everywhere so gold is much, much easier to spot. minor edit: personally, I am an admirer of Ukrainian propaganda. It is usually very competent. The 'no agency' line is just bad though. It is definitely not great for US. It is silly for HN.

by spurgu 4y ago

maximinus_thrax 4y ago

So let me get this straight: - Russia invades Ukraine in 2014 and takes Crimea - Ukraine gets aid and training and weapons - Russia goes for an all-out invasion in 2022 But the US is the guilty party, as: - the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict - forcing Russia's hand to intervene What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? I guess the ideal world order is one in which Russia is free to annex neighboring countries with no consequences, otherwise 'they'll be forced' to do even worse. As a former resident of a former communist country (which has been invaded by the Russians 13 times across its history), I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. I really hope these are puppets or bots or something.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. As a person of similar origin, I believe I am entitled to respond to this post. Whatever you may think of the invasion ( I am not a fan of war myself ), the reasons for it are not exactly hidden anywhere. Orange Revolution removed Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence by removing its puppet, which meant Russia lost control over its former satellite, which left Putin with few options. Now, use of force is kinda frowned upon these days, but it does not mean it does not happen and Ukraine is likely something that Putin was not willing to let go for one reason or another. I think you will agree that letting go of Crimea is almost as likely as letting go of Kaliningrad -- very unlikely unless basically forced to for strategic reasons. << What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? FWIW, HN seems more clearheaded about it than most forums on the net.
- maximinus_thrax 4y ago
  Were are you from? I'm not debating the reasons Putin thought this was a good idea. My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade. Because it implies that: - Ukraine has no agency - in the 21st century, it is still acceptable to attempt wars of conquest - Russia cannot survive as a state without an allied Ukraine (as if being a Gas station with nukes can be threatened in any way) - Russia has no imperial ambitions - LOL (did I mention 13 invasions of my homeland? The last of which took 14 years for the Red Army to leave, featured mass deportations and ethnic 'readjustments' and ended with ~50 years of communism) - 'the west' should do nothing to help Ukraine as to not piss off the Russians (as of course, they're already pissed off, I mean look at them, they started a war! Better not piss them off further!) Crimea is a great point. That's where NATO and 'the west' failed and where I agree in hindsight that they're responsible. That was the line that should not have been crossed. When Putin said he doesn't know who the 'the green men' were and he lied they weren't state actors, that's when 'the west' should have sent a peacekeeping mission to figure out who the 'green men' were, right then and there. Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022. The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring. So, there's definitely more to it, right? Proxy wars, conspiracies, western coups, russia is cornered by 'the west' and has no other option, etc.. It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality. The boring tragic and stupid reality of an old school invasion driven by an insane authoritarian with WW1 trenchlines and WW2 soviet tactics of sending meat into the grinder until the enemy submits.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << Were are you from? Former satellite, but does it really matter? Argue your point and it will be judged on its own merits. This is not the place to appeal to emotion or use talking points ( you can, but you will be called out on it like I am about to do ). << My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade. I am not going to go after characterizing it as narrative ( in a sense, everything is ), because it can be classified as that. I personally would argue that this is version of risk control. He lost control over Ukraine as aftermath of Orange Revolution and he wants it back. NATO may have not actively participated in said revolution, but you can't honestly tell me western powers had no stake in it ( or no reason to participate in some manner ). << Because it implies that >>what follows is an actual Ukrainian propaganda/talking points<< I don't mind propaganda, but the agency line is a bad line AND a bad argument ( and, as a result, even worse propaganda; propaganda should be effective ). TBH, I am not sure where it originated, but I read it before and I assume it made more sense in original, but lost something in translation. If you read it on your own and adopted it as your own, I would ask you that you explain to me what you think it actually means, because, logically, it does not follow what I wrote at all. If you can do that, we can continue this discussion in good faith. Otherwise, this is my last post in this section. << Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022. I am resisting the urge of connecting some event in a distant past to show how it could be traced to today. As in, you are not completely wrong, but that moment has long passed AND it was just one of the causes ( and you choose to just ignore them ). Shoulda woulda coulda is fun, but unlikely to be productive at this stage ( may make for a good history lesson at some point in the future though ). << The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring. I hate to invoke Thiel, but this is one of those few times, where his quote is actually relevant and apt. The most contrarian thing you can do is to think for yourself. It is very true. I have zero problem condemning Russia. Hell, from the beginning I outright stated I want Russians to fail in this campaign. There is a benefit for US ( and frankly EU ) should that come to pass, but repeating talking points is not furthering your cause. Here, it might undermine it. I will take it one step further and offer a piece of advice: know your audience. << It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality. For once, we can agree on something. It is a known tactic and does work surprisingly well and it is the bane of the internet. The good news is that, on the internet these days, shit is everywhere so gold is much, much easier to spot. minor edit: personally, I am an admirer of Ukrainian propaganda. It is usually very competent. The 'no agency' line is just bad though. It is definitely not great for US. It is silly for HN.