5 ms·

the only way ukraine is gonna win is if nato goes in and helps with the fighting. all theyre doing at the moment is testing weapons and watching their supposed

the only way ukraine is gonna win is if nato goes in and helps with the fighting. all theyre doing at the moment is testing weapons and watching their supposed allies die. if europe values its safety thats what is going to have to do, with or without american support. what a great first step towards the end of nations bullying each other and a drastically improved world that would be.

0xAFFFF 2y ago
NATO directly fighting in Ukraine is a massive red line and a huge escalation that pretty much nobody wants.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Also nobody wants to be the next country to be invaded and fight that war on their own territory, or deal with all the issues of having Russia as the direct neighbour, so at some point something's got to give. There are no good options left, just more/less bad. (Russia already published it's keen to keep going. You can discuss whether that's just posturing or not, but that part's public)
  - panarky 2y ago
    >> massive red line and a huge escalation When someone argues it would be a huge escalation for the US, UK and France to directly defend Ukrainian territory against Russia's attacks, they should explain how the same nations directly defending Israeli territory from Iran's attacks is constructively and strategically different.
    - rainworld 2y ago
      One action served to de-escalate, to keep the Israelis from actually starting a war. Which these powers would almost inevitably be dragged into. The other would almost certainly end up being called WW3, and would likely involve at least a limited nuclear exchange.
      - panarky 2y ago
        So shooting down drones and missiles from one regional power is de-escalatory, while shooting down drones and missiles from a different regional power is massively escalatory. Makes perfect sense, thanks.
        rainworld 2y ago
        Yes, very different situations. If for no other reason than that in one situation every involved party had consented. Including Iran, tacitly. The reason it was “de-escalatory”: It helped Iran prove what it sought to prove: no AD in the world will stop their missiles from getting through. For Israel it provided the face-saving “99.9%”. Also, the Ukraine situation has no Jordan, Iraq, accessible ocean (ask the Turks about that) to operate from.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  Russia's only real "red line" is invading their territory, the rest is part of a relentless propaganda campaign including dozens of nuclear threats with no teeth. https://vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-threats/ https://vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-threats/ Don't let the ridiculous, empty threats of Russia warp your perceptions of what's possible.
- csomar 2y ago
  You know if Putin has a decisive win in Ukraine, he'll be at war with NATO next?
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Do we just give Putin what he wants forever then ?
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >massive red line and a huge escalation that pretty much nobody wants. This is what Russia would like you to believe (and to repeat on their behalf). Much of Russian propaganda is aimed at instilling fear in target populations. The goal is to demoralize their adversaries' civilians in order to undermine support, hence political and military will for opposing them. Russia has been dictating the terms and rattling the saber with nuclear threats, etc. from the start. Initially, Putin wanted people to believe he was so irrational that he'd use nukes at any provocation. But, the fact that he threatened instead of simply using them was the clearest sign that he's rational and doesn't want this war to escalate. The worst possible thing for Russia is for the West to fully commit. In short, if using nukes was advantageous to Russia, they'd have already used them. On the conventional front, they need to feel some actual risk. Otherwise, they commit to an ongoing war of attrition where theirs is the bigger population/force and it's Ukrainian cities that are being leveled. Time is on Russia's side. So, it's already a war. The West either wins it or loses it, and you don't win on your enemy's terms. Aiming for a stalemate and "negotiated peace" (which Russia won't honor in any case) is extraordinarily costly, especially when the war is being fought exclusively on your (or your ally's) territory. i.e., it's a loss. The West needs to realize it's in a war and go on the offensive, politically and militarily. Redeploy Russia's frozen assets to support Ukraine's reconstruction, defense, and war-fighting capability. Provide more offensive weapons to go after military targets inside of Russia. Re-establish air-superiority and consider establishing NATO no-fly zones around civilian population centers. In addition to changing the military situation, strong moves like these will signal that the West is resolved to a degree that will dramatically raise the risks for Russia, ultimately prompting a recalculation.
  - GJim 2y ago
    It is disappointing to see a well constructed argument (above) downvoted on HN. Downvoting should be limited to text that detracts from the conversation, not used simply because the downvoter disagrees with what is written. (If you disagree, then reply with a rebuttal. Lazily clicking downvote helps nobody).
    - EA-3167 2y ago
- cooloo 2y ago
  So the west want to abandon Ukrainian same as czech eas abandoned on the eve of WW2. No doubt west countries didn't learn anything
nradov 2y ago
Europe should supply Ukraine with a lot more long-range cruise and ballistic missiles as well as tactical aircraft so that they can hit targets deeper into Russia. Knock out Russian aircraft on the ground and damage the airfields. That will stop some of the bombing.
- globalnode 2y ago
  that would be a mistake
  - candiodari 2y ago
    At this point every choice is going to have serious negative consequences. All choices are mistakes, including, perhaps especially, doing nothing. The question is which is the least bad mistake? Everything from attacking Putin directly, to doing nothing, to weapons for Ukraine, to NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      Least bad mistake for who? Boots on the ground is never popular with the American public. Letting Ukraine hang on with life support while running out Putin's life is.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    What wouldn’t be a mistake ?
thehappypm 2y ago
“A drastically improved world” is not what would come from that; nuclear strikes would.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  If "nuclear strikes" were advantageous to Russia, then they'd have already executed them. They don't want the response. More than that, the idea that they can invade a country and the country's allies shouldn't enter the country to help defend because it would result in a "nuclear strike" ends where, exactly? It's a completely irrational posture that Russia would love the world to assume. They could literally take all of Europe without firing a shot.
  - thehappypm 2y ago
    If a NATO country attacked Russia directly, then the response very well could be a nuclear strike. NATO is a threat to Russia. Russia would need to take a direct attack very seriously and would reply in kind. Maybe we need a stronger definition of “ally”. The USA is in a treaty with 32 member states that obligates boots-on-the-ground. Ukraine isn’t one of them. The line of where a country’s obligations to help an “ally” is defined in terms like that.
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      The discussion was not about "attacking Russia directly". It was about NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. In that case, there's a near-zero percent chance that Russia would use nukes. Allyship does not require NATO membership. Clearly, the U.S. and NATO members consider Ukraine an ally.
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
tim333 2y ago
Before that we could try giving Ukraine weapons on par with the Russians and not getting them to fight with one hand behind their backs re hitting Russia. F16s and ATACMs could have been given ages ago.

0xAFFFF 2y ago

NATO directly fighting in Ukraine is a massive red line and a huge escalation that pretty much nobody wants.

viraptor 2y ago
Also nobody wants to be the next country to be invaded and fight that war on their own territory, or deal with all the issues of having Russia as the direct neighbour, so at some point something's got to give. There are no good options left, just more/less bad. (Russia already published it's keen to keep going. You can discuss whether that's just posturing or not, but that part's public)
- panarky 2y ago
  >> massive red line and a huge escalation When someone argues it would be a huge escalation for the US, UK and France to directly defend Ukrainian territory against Russia's attacks, they should explain how the same nations directly defending Israeli territory from Iran's attacks is constructively and strategically different.
  - rainworld 2y ago
    One action served to de-escalate, to keep the Israelis from actually starting a war. Which these powers would almost inevitably be dragged into. The other would almost certainly end up being called WW3, and would likely involve at least a limited nuclear exchange.
    - panarky 2y ago
      So shooting down drones and missiles from one regional power is de-escalatory, while shooting down drones and missiles from a different regional power is massively escalatory. Makes perfect sense, thanks.
      - rainworld 2y ago
        Yes, very different situations. If for no other reason than that in one situation every involved party had consented. Including Iran, tacitly. The reason it was “de-escalatory”: It helped Iran prove what it sought to prove: no AD in the world will stop their missiles from getting through. For Israel it provided the face-saving “99.9%”. Also, the Ukraine situation has no Jordan, Iraq, accessible ocean (ask the Turks about that) to operate from.
EA-3167 2y ago
Russia's only real "red line" is invading their territory, the rest is part of a relentless propaganda campaign including dozens of nuclear threats with no teeth. https://vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-threats/ https://vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-threats/ Don't let the ridiculous, empty threats of Russia warp your perceptions of what's possible.
csomar 2y ago
You know if Putin has a decisive win in Ukraine, he'll be at war with NATO next?
bamboozled 2y ago
Do we just give Putin what he wants forever then ?
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>massive red line and a huge escalation that pretty much nobody wants. This is what Russia would like you to believe (and to repeat on their behalf). Much of Russian propaganda is aimed at instilling fear in target populations. The goal is to demoralize their adversaries' civilians in order to undermine support, hence political and military will for opposing them. Russia has been dictating the terms and rattling the saber with nuclear threats, etc. from the start. Initially, Putin wanted people to believe he was so irrational that he'd use nukes at any provocation. But, the fact that he threatened instead of simply using them was the clearest sign that he's rational and doesn't want this war to escalate. The worst possible thing for Russia is for the West to fully commit. In short, if using nukes was advantageous to Russia, they'd have already used them. On the conventional front, they need to feel some actual risk. Otherwise, they commit to an ongoing war of attrition where theirs is the bigger population/force and it's Ukrainian cities that are being leveled. Time is on Russia's side. So, it's already a war. The West either wins it or loses it, and you don't win on your enemy's terms. Aiming for a stalemate and "negotiated peace" (which Russia won't honor in any case) is extraordinarily costly, especially when the war is being fought exclusively on your (or your ally's) territory. i.e., it's a loss. The West needs to realize it's in a war and go on the offensive, politically and militarily. Redeploy Russia's frozen assets to support Ukraine's reconstruction, defense, and war-fighting capability. Provide more offensive weapons to go after military targets inside of Russia. Re-establish air-superiority and consider establishing NATO no-fly zones around civilian population centers. In addition to changing the military situation, strong moves like these will signal that the West is resolved to a degree that will dramatically raise the risks for Russia, ultimately prompting a recalculation.
- GJim 2y ago
  It is disappointing to see a well constructed argument (above) downvoted on HN. Downvoting should be limited to text that detracts from the conversation, not used simply because the downvoter disagrees with what is written. (If you disagree, then reply with a rebuttal. Lazily clicking downvote helps nobody).
  - EA-3167 2y ago
cooloo 2y ago
So the west want to abandon Ukrainian same as czech eas abandoned on the eve of WW2. No doubt west countries didn't learn anything

nradov 2y ago

Europe should supply Ukraine with a lot more long-range cruise and ballistic missiles as well as tactical aircraft so that they can hit targets deeper into Russia. Knock out Russian aircraft on the ground and damage the airfields. That will stop some of the bombing.

globalnode 2y ago
that would be a mistake
- candiodari 2y ago
  At this point every choice is going to have serious negative consequences. All choices are mistakes, including, perhaps especially, doing nothing. The question is which is the least bad mistake? Everything from attacking Putin directly, to doing nothing, to weapons for Ukraine, to NATO soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Least bad mistake for who? Boots on the ground is never popular with the American public. Letting Ukraine hang on with life support while running out Putin's life is.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  What wouldn’t be a mistake ?

thehappypm 2y ago

“A drastically improved world” is not what would come from that; nuclear strikes would.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
If "nuclear strikes" were advantageous to Russia, then they'd have already executed them. They don't want the response. More than that, the idea that they can invade a country and the country's allies shouldn't enter the country to help defend because it would result in a "nuclear strike" ends where, exactly? It's a completely irrational posture that Russia would love the world to assume. They could literally take all of Europe without firing a shot.
- thehappypm 2y ago
  If a NATO country attacked Russia directly, then the response very well could be a nuclear strike. NATO is a threat to Russia. Russia would need to take a direct attack very seriously and would reply in kind. Maybe we need a stronger definition of “ally”. The USA is in a treaty with 32 member states that obligates boots-on-the-ground. Ukraine isn’t one of them. The line of where a country’s obligations to help an “ally” is defined in terms like that.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    The discussion was not about "attacking Russia directly". It was about NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. In that case, there's a near-zero percent chance that Russia would use nukes. Allyship does not require NATO membership. Clearly, the U.S. and NATO members consider Ukraine an ally.

baybal2 2y ago

[dead]

tim333 2y ago

Before that we could try giving Ukraine weapons on par with the Russians and not getting them to fight with one hand behind their backs re hitting Russia. F16s and ATACMs could have been given ages ago.