31 ms·
U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine
- bigyabai 2y agohttps://archive.ph/o2BXL https://archive.ph/o2BXL
- _ra61 2y ago[flagged]
- hndamien 2y agoThey don’t mean “Democracy” when they say “Democracy”.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Supported by former Democratic intellectuals like Glenn Greenwald. What? Greenwald was never a Democrat. Anti-Bush isn't the same thing as Democrat.
- throw_m239339 2y ago> What? Greenwald was never a Democrat. Anti-Bush isn't the same thing as Democrat. Greenwald is a liberal, he was kicked out of liberal circles after the Hunter Biden's laptop story, the liberal elite wanted to suppress during the elections. Bary Weiss is also a liberal, now hated by the liberal press for blasphemy on a certain subject. Same with Matt Taibbi, he showed up on MSNBC regularly even on Maddow, now the left calls him a right winger... See the pattern?
- rsingel 2y agoGreenwald was libertarian/right leaning. Went from supporting the Iraq War to being a Ron Paul fanboy to a useful Tankie idiot for the Silicon Valley right. Now a grievance grifter and an apologist for Putin and Assad. Bari Weiss is not a liberal. She's a culture war grievance grifter. Matt Taibbi got mad he got called out for his shitty sexist behavior in Russia in the 90s when MeToo happened and made a hard right turn. Now a grievance grifter. See the pattern?
- ceejayoz 2y agoNot all Democrats are liberals; not all liberals are Democrats.
- jordanb 2y ago> Greenwald is a liberal Greenwald was never a liberal and never would have described himself as such. Anyhow you haven't really even scratched the surface of all the lefty people who went right. And it's not even a new phenomenon. Heck even woodie guthrie swerved right during the red scare. One could say that the pastures are greener on the right side of the commentariat.
- sunshowers 2y agoWe are all, in all our information streams, rolling more dice than ever more times a day than ever, and you only need one or two snake eyes to start the process of going down an unfortunate path.
- credit_guy 2y agoMaybe that's the case. But how can one lecture Europe about free speech and turn a blind eye when Putin kills Navalny?
- ndidowneb 2y ago[flagged]
- lysp 2y agoTrumps attempts were not state sponsored. Navalny - multiple attempts - nerve agent and suspicious death in prison. Prigozhin - plane crash. Litvinenko - radiation poisoning. Skripal - attempted via nerve agent. There is a difference between those, as well as dozens of "accidental falls", and a lone wolf against Trump.
- creato 2y agoIt's really tiring seeing the HN enlightened conservatives talking as if there is a coherent policy here. Withdrawing military support for Ukraine alone might be reasonable, I disagree with it but I can see the sense in it. But Trump is absolutely wrecking every relationship we have in the world, trading or otherwise, except with Russia, where he wants to remove sanctions and increase trade. Even if you disregard all "moral" foreign policy objectives, like deterring wars of territorial expansion, it makes zero sense in economic terms. We're abandoning >>50% of world markets in exchange for access to... Russia's market? What do they even have to offer that we want? Oil or gas? We already produce more than we consume! Trading more with Russia will only kill domestic oil and gas producers and accomplish almost nothing else. It makes zero sense, it will never make sense, stop trying to make it make sense.
- ndidowneb 2y agodo you legitimately believe this administration is just doing things at random with no plan or thought whatsoever?
- inverted_flag 2y agoYes
- judahmeek 2y agoYes: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/doge-elon-musk-18f-elimination-efficiency/681894/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/doge-...
- silverquiet 2y agoIs it really that difficult to believe? When you see a crazy person on the street yelling into the air, do you think that there must be someone there that he can see that you cannot?
- butterlettuce 2y agoNon-sequitur A crazy person yelling at nothing on the streets is not the same as a president with a suit and tie inside theWhiteHouse.
- dekhn 2y agoBut we just gave a bunch of money/arms to israel, which counters the idea that the current regime is non-interventionist.
- childintime 2y agoThe 911 trauma is alive and well. They really did bring down the USA.
- Bayaz 2y agoSo we should expect the US to cancel aid to Israel?
- hkpack 2y agoWow. Elon Musk was never a democrat. In the first book which was written a decade ago, he proudly state that he will do on media whatever necessary to push his companies forward. Every company needs a long-term marketing strategy, and using climate change as a growth vehicle in early days was needed. He endorsed Trump and was his advisor in his previous presidency a decade ago. JD Vance did 180 on Trump as well. So we are talking about people, who will say whatever they need to say to get the results they want. They don't have any principles or political values. Comparing the war in Iraq to the war in Ukraine is ridiculous on so many levels that I will not even start.
- UncleOxidant 2y agoInteresting analysis. The shadow of the Iraq & Afghan wars looms large over current events and shouldn't be underestimated. And of course, those wouldn't have happened without 9/11. That one event seems to have led the US to begin to self destruct.
- moi2388 2y agoIt was happening before that. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was the same as previous wars and in fact most policies. If you don’t have clear, measurable goals, your project will fail regardless what domain it is in.
- Izkata 2y agoThe "new party" shift began at least as far back as 2016. People generally don't seem to know when Bernie Sanders dropped out, a lot of his supporters switched to Trump, not another Democrat. Both were viewed as outsiders, an "anything is better than the establishment" candidate. (Wanted to put this as a reply to GP but it's currently [flagged][dead] so this seems to be the most relevant reply...)
- throw__away7391 2y agoAlternate interpretation, Russia has been giving Trump money for a long time, ergo Trump supports Russia and everyone around him who has seen his rise as an opportunity to gain power goes along with it, even if 18 months ago they were on the record repeatedly making seemingly heartfelt statements exactly to the contrary. Whatever other explanations they give are rationalizations after the fact. I remember when I was much younger many evangelical Christians absolutely losing their mind over the Lewinsky scandal, and both in public and private going on and on for years about what a disgrace it was that a man who would break his marriage vows was leading the country and that God was going to punish the nation for it, using the most hyperbolic language you can imagine. Now turns out they are supporting this guy for whom marriage is a joke and I guess infidelity is no longer a big deal, having the highest support of any demographic. Literally every single individual I knew who spoke out about this during the 90s is now a MAGA. There are no principles at play at all, only a lust for power, a desire to enrich themselves, and most of all unquenchable egos that they now, with most of these people nearing the ends of their lives and having little else to lose, are willing to make enormous sacrifices to stoke.
- DasCorCor 2y agoTrump is talking about invading Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Panama. Labeling him as “non-interventionist” is in bad faith.
- georgemcbay 2y ago"He doesn't intend to do the bad things he claims, only the good things" And they say anti-Trumpers are the ones with 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'...
- FireBeyond 2y ago> Neoconservatives were hawkish members of the old Anti-USSR Left who were disillusioned by the Post Vietnam Democratic Party and travelled away from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. This is the same talking point parroted by another prominent right-wing commentator here, that implies that some neocons were... so far right that they were actually left? > Supported by former Democratic intellectuals like Glenn Greenwald. Glenn Greenwald is not and has never been a Democrat or member of the party or anything resembling that. Elon Musk was a "Democrat" in the sense that as long as Democrat administrations handed his businesses grants and funding and tax breaks, he didn't shit-talk them. When he saw there was an opportunity to milk these things from Republican administrations, all of a sudden he became "Republican".
- Rury 2y agoThe current administration aren't really isolationists. Hell, they've threatened buying/invading Greenland and the Panama Canal. They're opportunists, protectionists, and authoritarians. I mean, Trump himself has praised Xi for ruling with an iron fist, and extending tenure 'for life', remarking he'd like to do the same. Musk would pretend to support democratic views if they were the dominant view of the current administration, or somehow thought it would benefit him. But like I said, they're opportunists - people who exploit current circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by consistent principles or plans. They're not really isolationists...
- nuccy 2y agoThus two messages for every other country: 1. Make nukes, never give up on those regardless of what assurances of safety you get 2. If you are bigger and stronger - you are right, do whatever you want, international laws and rules do not matter any more Lets see where all this will bring the world to in the next 10 years or a generation.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago> Lets see where all this will bring the world to in the next 10 years or a generation. We've seen this movie before. It doesn't go well.
- ndidowneb 2y ago[flagged]
- bigyabai 2y agoDoes the Budapest Memorandum ring any bells?
- 0rzech 2y agoIn the Budapest Memorandum USA promised not to attack Ukraine if it gives back Russian nukes to Russia. They kept the promise. In the same memorandum Russia promised the same thing. They broke the promise. Repeatedly. Nonetheless, I agree that more countries should develop their own nukes. Especially the ones like Poland, Baltics and Nordics. Not because it's a good thing to do, but because the world is what it is.
- Trasmatta 2y agoThis was clearly the plan all along. The farce at the White House was just the pretense.
- jordanb 2y agoYeah I think the whole thing was planned in Riyadh between Trump, Putin and MBS. Which makes one wonder what MBS's role is. My theory is that he will organize OPEC production cuts, designed to boost Russia's economy and crush Europe's.
- 4ndrewl 2y agoPutin's stated aims are the expansion of Russia to 100 year old borders and the destruction of the EU. So that figures, yes.
- throwaway48476 2y agoOPEC just announced an increase. MBS wants to hurt US shale so when trump drills more they push the price down.
- jordanb 2y agoWell firstly this was "OPEC+" that includes Russia, the details are that SA isn't moving its quota up at all but Russia is "allowed" to pump more. Secondly, they're explicitly playing it as a gift to Trump, to drive down prices during his early days.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoWouldn't that just accelerate Europe's transition to EVs? They could even import Chinese EVs to make oil mostly irrelevant in a year or so.
- arbitrary_name 2y agoEurope is far more dependent on oil for industry and manufacturing than for simply transport. The high energy prices are killing the German manufacturing sector, while cheap Chinese imports will crush the domestic auto industry. Terrible double blow that is enabling far right politics and populism.
- arunabha 2y agoIt would be one thing if there was a clear policy and adherence to it. In that case, you could discuss and reason in good faith. However there is no such indication that this decision is based on a considered policy. Trump's supporters would say that this is a result of not wanting the US being involved in foreign conflicts. That is a laudable goal, however that is not what is happening here. From the article > On Friday, the administration said it was sending Israel nearly $3 billion in new weapons, including more than 35,000 new 2,000 pound bombs, invoking an emergency rule under U.S. arms control laws. This just makes it look like a petty tantrum at best and a wilful desire to cleave our relationship with Europe at worst. Yes, we can all argue that Europe needs to be less dependent on the US, however what's on the other side of that is not pretty for the United States. Our ability to have the world's de facto reserve currency and hence our ability to sustain debt loads way in excess of usual is largely dependent on the US being the world's cop and sole superpower. A truly multipolar world might be good for the world, but it's certainly not going to be good for the United States.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoGood for Europe in the long run (potentially)
- jltsiren 2y agoIt's one thing to stop all aid to Ukraine. That makes you an asshole in a world full of assholes. But it's another thing to do that while simultaneously working to restore relations with Russia. There is only one word for that: evil. Back in the late 90s to late 2000s, people in Western Europe generally had pretty negative views of the US. It was the country that refused to fight against climate change, launched an invasion of another country based on obvious lies, and so on. People were genuinely debating whether Bush was a bigger villain than Putin. And it wasn't just about the young and the left. Our elites hated Bush so much that they gave the next guy a Nobel Peace Prize for not being him. Since then, Putin has worked hard to raise the bar for being a bigger villain. But Trump seems to be genuinely trying to compete.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
- insane_dreamer 2y agowhile pausing the “aid” may save the US gov money; the money was mostly coming back to the US anyway in the form of weapons purchases. NYT: > The order takes effect immediately and affects more than $1 billion in arms and ammunition in the pipeline and on order. Mr. Trump’s directive also halts hundreds of millions of dollars in aid that Kyiv can use only to buy new military hardware directly from U.S. defense companies.
- skeletal88 2y agoAnd everyone in Europe will want our governments and armies to stop buying stuff made in the US, especially weapons and ammo. Why support your country with our money if you don't want to support us at all? Your defence companies will face huge losses because of this.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jajko 2y agoThose F35s are a security risk at this point. Better migrate to Typhoons, Rafales and Gripens etc and have some unified research re radars and missiles to split costs.
- thehappypm 2y agoI hate this argument. Yeah, billions of dollars flowing to arms manufacturers is a stimulus. But in an inflationary/supply constrained economy, that stimulus is actually not what we need — we need to reduce the demand on the military’s inputs
- masijo 2y ago[flagged]
- datadrivenangel 2y agoHow is this good news for America and the world?
- kennysoona 2y agoIt's only good news for the evil and/or the ignorant.
- gloosx 2y agoOr, perhaps, a bot?
- helf 2y ago[dead]
- insane_dreamer 2y agoHesgeth is sending an extra $4B to Israel (in case anyone thinks this is about saving money).
- lifestyleguru 2y agoAmerica in unable to sustain such active support for two countries simultaneously, so it's picking Israel. Israeli lobbying is much more far-reaching than European so American attention is shifting there. EU has 3-4 years to ram up but its leaders are the same self-absorbed as Trump (only less big mouthed), so in 3-4 years Europeans will have to absorb whatever Putin will come up with.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoExcept that one one country is resisting invasion by its bigger bully neighbor that is killing its civilian population, while the other is the bigger bully neighbor killing a civilian population and reducing it to rubble. A pretty clear indication that America stands on the side of the aggressors and doesn’t give a fuck about you know ordinary people being killed. Shameful.
- lifestyleguru 2y agoThe ethical "who's who" is irrelevant for US, in both cases they have "big beautiful ocean" inbetween.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoWell, you know, some of us don't like watching people be killed for no reason, even if there is an ocean between us. It becomes a question for the US: "Are you who you have said you were for the last 80 years? Or are you just power with no morals?" I think that's actually a relevant question. Who are we going to be?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
- bigfatkitten 2y agoTo be read in conjunction with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43228029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43228029
- inverted_flag 2y agoAnd: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43250070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43250070
- TacticalCoder 2y agoI don't know how much the US sent to Israel to fight in Gaza lately but palestinians in Gaza aren't exactly on the same level as the russian military, so the needs of Israel aren't even close to the military aid that went to Ukraine. But what I know and for a reality check: the amount of military aid the US sent to Israel since Israel exists is less than the amount of money sent by the US to Zelensky. In addition to that, although I don't doubt warcrimes were committed by russia, I haven't seen videos of russian soldiers parading with the naked bodies of women they just raped nor vids of russian soldiers calling their parents saying: "I just strangled an entire ukrainian family with my hand mom!". I also haven't heard of many russian civilians keeping ukrainian hostages, including babies, in their homes [1]. Had russians behaved like that relations between the US and Russia may have been worse than they are now. This is about Ukraine and Russia. Leave your disgusting comparisons outside this thread. [1] which some here consider is justified resistance btw
- dlahoda 2y agodo you refer numbers putin told you? first link in google https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts israel is 3x of ua. and ua is behind several other countries.
- ellis0n 2y agoHello from Ukraine and I need help. The war in Ukraine has made it impossible to run my startup. Due to unlimited attacks it has become impossible to focus on anything other than the war. Of course, the war certainly needs to be stopped, but no one really knows how to do it correctly and I'm not sure anything good will come of it. After 3 years of the war, my memory has started to deteriorate and I’ve encountered issues with work and finances. It’s hard to understand how anyone can work during a war and who thought of it, when the planning horizon is just until the next night and then hell begins. I fear that if U.S. military support stops and the war continues, I will have to urgently move to a safer place. I am urgently looking for financial help. I have extensive experience in web3 and can work in this field, but only with upfront payment and an immediate start, as my current situation doesn’t allow me to go through tiring technical interviews. Here, I have created an open letter for companies and individuals who may be interested in my project. Thanks for any feedback. https://www.acpul.org/blog/Open-Letter https://www.acpul.org/blog/Open-Letter mail: web3future + protonmail % com
- BAHKA 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoThis is not a good response on HN, because the impact of your guessing wrong is much higher than the benefit of your guessing right. That is, the chance that someone really is in a desperate situation, and that a snarky comment might push their head further underwater, is significant enough to not to post like this. It doesn't mean you have to respond by donating money, of course, but we should all be a bit careful about who we decide to knock around on the internet.
- csomar 2y agoYou are focusing on the wrong things. You need to leave immediately (and take your family if you can). If you can't leave the country try going nearby the Polish border.
- 2y ago
- xenospn 2y ago[flagged]
- jesterson 2y ago[flagged]
- lukashoff 2y agoHave you ever been there? Can you emphasize on the destroyed economies?
- Gud 2y agoThis is completely false.
- inglor_cz 2y agoBuy a plane ticket and see it for yourself. There is a demographic deficit in the Baltics, but it is only visible in rural areas and third-tier cities. Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda are absolutely lively and prosperous cities full of people, including youngsters (no surprise, because both the jobs and the universities are there).
- lukashoff 2y agoThere's also been a population growth, albeit small, but it's happening. Thanks to migration and to the economies actually being HEALTHY people start to have more babies. The IT and innovation that comes from there as well. It's not much but it's extremely effective.
- inglor_cz 2y agoYep, I agree that the Baltics punch above their weight. They are also more laissez-faire in the good sense, not overburdening their economies with endless paper pushing (a French and German disease so to say), while keeping the environment reasonably protected. The rest of Europe could do worse than emulate their approach.
- yellowcake0 2y ago[flagged]
- xyzal 2y agoYou know how a ceasefire with Russia usually ends, don't you?
- yellowcake0 2y agothe killing will stop, and Russia gets to keep the eastern oblasts.
- amarcheschi 2y agoI know very well it's a drop in the ocean, you can donate to ukraine here https://u24.gov.ua/ https://u24.gov.ua/ You can decide how to allocate your donation, defense, demining, humanitarian aid (...)
- jesterson 2y ago[flagged]
- amarcheschi 2y agoI have googled u24 corruption, and u24 corruption reddit, and there weren't that many results. If you have specific websites, link them in your comment
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago[dead]
- ponector 2y agoAlso you can donate directly for the kamikaze drones here: https://www.sternenkofund.org/donate https://www.sternenkofund.org/donate They are extremely effective in countering russian troops. One drone costs as little as 500$
- DidYaWipe 2y agoThe USA stands in miserable disgrace.
- jesterson 2y ago[flagged]
- AlecSchueler 2y agoCalling it "the endless war" makes this a loaded question. You might get a more productive response without that.
- jesterson 2y agoNot sure why you are trying to veer the convo in another direction, but to address it - it's been 3 years, hundreds of thousands died, and absolutely nothing achieved. Please correct me if I am wrong.
- olivermuty 2y agoSo you want to achieve that the illegal agressor wins…? The Ukrainians certainly does not want the war to end this way.
- fractallyte 2y agoBecause the weapons were drip-fed, preventing Ukraine from achieving any decisive, quick victory. Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.
- 4ndrewl 2y agoZelensky's Ukraine stood and fought against Russia for 3 years. Trump's USA surrendered in 6 weeks.
- chgs 2y agoReagan is spinning in his grave.
- skinnymuch 2y ago[flagged]
- MiscCompFacts 2y agoPresumably innocent Russian men are being kidnapped and forced to fight for a dictator just as much. So let’s stop blaming the victim when Russia is clearly the aggressor and started this whole ordeal.
- lazypenguin 2y agoSurprisingly the Russian army is mostly volunteer since the average pay right now is quite high by Russian standards. There are also standard conscripted soldiers as part of the country’s required service. Allegedly the conscripts are kept away from front lines since the death of conscripted young men in Afghanistan was part of the political death knell that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately Ukraine is having to rely more on involuntary conscription to fill the ranks as volunteer numbers have dwindled. There are many documented cases of TASS “kidnapping” military age men. I don’t see the parent poster blaming anybody. Maybe you can say they provided a one-sided view but what they wrote was factual.
- throwaway48476 2y agoUkraine is just the beginning. The peace deal being negotiated includes NATO withdrawing to 1990 borders.
- sterlind 2y ago"Withdrawing" to 1990 borders? You mean expelling the states that joined after 1990? I'm not sure that would go over well with the Baltics, Romania, Sweden and Finland. Withdrawal from NATO is voluntary and cannot be compelled.
- euroderf 2y agoYes, the Baltic states in particular were fanatical (um, "single-minded") about getting NATO security guarantees. Wild horses couldn't drag them away.
- throwaway48476 2y agoUSA leaving NATO was floated. I don't know how realistic any of it is, just that these are the terms being negotiated.
- microtonal 2y agoAt this point, is NATO still alive [1]? I don't think any other NATO country still trusts the US to help when a country has to invoke Article 5. NATO in its former shape has pretty much been dismantled over the course of last month. [1] NATO minus the US is still alive, of course.
- jopsen 2y agoThere are a lot of regional frameworks within NATO. The US doesn't lead all of them. But some of them are probably just paper (not all). I'd also find it hard to imagine the US not providing enablers like satellite targeting, etc. Or the US being unwilling to sell ammo.
- amai 2y agoWhen will the US start to go all in an deliver military aid to Russia? Like North Korea, Iran and China...
- dgellow 2y agoMy guess is 2-3 weeks, given how fast things are shifting
- bwb 2y agoThey are already drafting an end to sanctions, which is unbelievable.
- ratg13 2y agoTarriff other countries and then establish a free trade agreement with Russia to boost their economy. One wonders if they will make American packaging for their products, or just sell the Russian labeled products straight on US shelves.
- actionfromafar 2y agoWhat products? Caviar and crude?
- quickthrowman 2y agoWhat are they going to sell us? Russia is a gas station.
- Havoc 2y ago[flagged]
- ponector 2y agoNow it is clear that USA takes Putin's side in the war. The only peace plan Trump has is to humiliate Ukraine ans push it to accept surrender to Russia with reparations payments to USA.
- 3oil3 2y agoDuring the cuban missile crisis back in 1960ish, R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ Soviets actually had reached the point where they had launch-ready, on-ramp nuclear missiles. We learned some 20 years later that the US had deployed nuclear missiles of their own in Turkey, and the agreement was to remove those missiles in return. Back in those days, we had no "nuclear suitcase" for approving a nuclear launch, and we had US warships surrounding Cuba ("quarantine", brilliant Pres. Kennedy!), themselves encircled by Soviet nuclear-equipped submarines. I'm glad these men knew what is war like, and didn't get humanity dragged into a MAD, like all of these civilians today are trying to do. Let's just do a cease-fire, whatever the reason, let's just stop firing, and let's talk. The enemy is the enemy, this is what it is, but let's not forget, quoting Hemingway, that they are the enemy just because we were born on this side of the mountain, and them on the other side. If we dehumanize the enemy, what are we then?
- beretguy 2y agoThere is absolutely no talking to russia because russia will not respect any talks or agreements. Talking to russia will only buy time for russia to rearm and attack again. Here is the proof: "Zelensky sent Trump list of all 'ceasefires' violated by Russia" https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-gave-trump-list-of-all-ceasefires-violated-by-russia/ https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-gave-trump-list-of-all-... russia respects nothing except getting punched back. They will break every single agreement. No amount of talking will make a situation any better, only worse, because it will give time to russia to rearm. The center cannot hold, it's too late, he comes. Anybody who suggests "talking to russia" have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Anybody who suggests "talking to russia" is either slow or works for russia.
- walleeee 2y agoWell-respected American leaders thought it wise and worthwhile to maintain backchannels with the USSR throughout the cold war. Presumably, then, the Soviets were a lesser threat, materially and ideologically, to the American project than Russia is today? Is that correct?
- 2y ago
- rayiner 2y agoIt seems like Ukraine is insisting on a “security guarantee.” Can someone explain how the U.S. providing a security guarantee wouldn’t increase the risk of american boots on the ground in Ukraine?
- acjacobson 2y agoOf course it increases the risk - it's the whole point of the ask.
- rayiner 2y agoWhy is nobody being open about that? Because I suspect the appetite for that is low. Germany is about closer to Russia than we are—how many Germans are willing to go die in Ukraine?
- Kim_Bruning 2y agoA recent poll suggests Germans are currently marginally in favor of sending peacekeepers. The point of a peacekeeping mission is -of course- to prevent further war by means of deterrence (though there's always still a small risk, of course), so hopefully no one goes to die there. Currently Germany just had elections, so a clear unified statement from the new-government-in-formation is not yet available. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thin-majority-germans-back-role-possible-ukraine-peacekeeping-mission-2025-02-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/thin-majority-germans-b...
- llamaimperative 2y agoNobody being open about how deterrence works? Probably because no one thought it needed to be explained.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoHow this works is pretty common knowledge. The world has been using peacekeepers for quite a while. But you know that and you know you are just concern trolling.
- josephstalinOk 2y ago[flagged]
- rozap 2y agoYes, yes we are.
- iammjm 2y ago"Free world" my ass. As a European, the US has always been my favorite country and I've been basically universally pro-US all my life. The Recent US decisions managed to turn it 180 degrees for me, in a matter of basically a couple of months. As I consider myself to be a more or less statistical normie, I assume theres many, many more people like me. So: fuck US & eat shit, go suck Putins dick while the EU & the rest of the true free world should focus our efforts on getting nukes, investing in military and intelligence, and leveraging new drone & radar technologies. Theres honestly never been a better time, geopolitically and technologically, to wane off of US-dependence.
- JaggerJo 2y agoYeah, kind of agree. I don’t think this thought would have crossed my mind a few years ago, but I think more European countries need Nukes. Sad, but seems like the US can’t be trusted anymore.
- halper 2y agoWith all due respect to your experience and with sincerity, I must ask: did you miss Trump's first presidency? Surely that was the time to become disillusioned with the USA, if not before?
- RealityVoid 2y agoSpeaking from my own experience... I was hoping Trump was an anomaly. That the US would have the good sense of NOT voting the guy that directly tried to subvert the electoral process. That somehow the American public still had a moral compass and that the many Americans I admired were representative for their country. I was obviously a fool. Otherwise, I kept saying to anyone who had ears around me what a grave danger Trump is. I've been doing this for more than 10 years. I saw him as a corrupt asshole since reading his book "The art of the deal" more than 20 years ago. He came highly recommended in the sphere of the then emerging "manosphere"/ PUA culture of the 2000's (I cringe at my own stupidity and shallowness now).
- mythrwy 2y agoCould be the development of this attitude is part of the point.
- JaggerJo 2y agoCrazy how you can ruin a nations reputation in weeks..
- rapind 2y agoEveryone's about to get nukes now. What could go wrong.
- ozmodiar 2y agoYou're not joking, a lot of people I talk to have gone from anti nuke to hard pro nuke. I can see the future having a lot more nukes in it now that there's no reliable world order to believe in.
- jopsen 2y agoI doubt Denmark will get nukes, nor am I sure I'd be in favor of nukes. But I can see the argument that having the ability to nuke 50m Russians might deter them from attacking 5m Danes. And I'd personally hate to sit in a trench. Which is a real risk if Russia attacks the Baltics and only half of NATO shows up. So maybe we should get nukes and preposition them in the Baltics. I'm sure our politicians wouldn't want to :)
- preisschild 2y ago> I doubt Denmark will get nukes, nor am I sure I'd be in favor of nukes. Ideally, we'd have an EU military that takes control of nuclear weapons for example and automatically use them to retaliate when enemy nuclear weapons are launched against EU territory.
- jajko 2y agoYeah not with Orban or Fico involved, those are both hardened criminals involved in murders too. Subverting EU is their morning activity. I'd say no EU country should rely on full defense from the rest, each big one should start on their own in hardcore mode: drones, more heavy drones, optic cable drones, drone swarms and then artillery, ammunition for it and air defense (probably the hardest), then the rest. Himars is cool tech but thats a very expensive tech to develop and certainly in current numbers doesn't affect outcome of war. License/buy tech from ukrainians since they have best hands one warfare experience from whole europe, setup manufacturing with them, helping them and ourselves. What should be shared ie nuclear stuff thats too much for a single country. Silos with main manufacturing, copied elsewhere in smaller numbers. Defense can be good business, just look at US after WWII, not happy that we are heading in that direction but there is no other way if we want to keep freedom. I've grown up behind uron curtain oppressed by soviets cough cough russians, and let me tell you, many people died trying to escape to that freedom. Its invaluable once you don't have it, not to everybody but to many.
- egberts1 2y agoPeople would say Budapest Memorandum give Ukraine the rights to its 2,000 Soviet nuclear weapons. That's not what it said. People would say that the same memorandum says Ukraine security is absolute. Not that either. People would say in 2014, US installed new Ukraine government via propaganda. Looks dubious too. People would say Ukraine shut down 11+ political parties who opposed current Ukraine government; some parties were funded by Russia. That part remains true. Newspaper and TV in Ukraine were nationalized partially with money by USAID, that was uncovered by US DOGE. Elections were "suspended" in Ukraine. Last May 2024 was supposed to have a nationwide election. Definitely true. Seems like Ukraine is following US foreign policy that led to demise of dictators like Mossadegh, Árbenz, Diệm, Noriega, Qadaffi, Saddam. Is Zelensky a dictator now?
- Justsignedup 2y agoJust so you know. The Ukranian constitution states no elections during war. All political opponents have come out and said we will hold elections after victory. Nobody is against postponement. Ukraine has had healthy consistent elections since the Russian backed government was booted out.
- egberts1 2y ago[flagged]
- skeletal88 2y agoWhat, no. I guess he would rather do something else than be a wartime president. trump should call putin a dictator, because.. he obviously is, but for some reason he chose to attack Zelensky instead. How can there be elections when there are millions of people displaced, there are large parts of the country occupied and huge part of the population is on the front defending the country. This "dictator" stuff is just straight russian propaganda, that americans have been swallowing up because someone told trump it was true.
- openasocket 2y agoHow do you intend to conduct an election during an active war when 20% of the country, over 3 million Ukrainians, are under Russian occupation? Do they just not get to vote?
- belter 2y agoRichard Nixon on Soviet Union “We must be ever watchful when dealing with regimes whose actions have often betrayed their promises.” Ronald Reagan “I call the Soviet Union an evil empire.” George H. W. Bush on Russia “The history of deception and coercion reminds us that trust is never given lightly—it must be earned and continuously verified.” George W. Bush “We call on Moscow to immediately cease its aggressive actions and respect the sovereignty of its neighbors. We cannot afford to trust a regime that repeatedly flouts international norms.” Donald Trump “I have great respect for Putin.” I have a very good relationship with him [Putin].”
- lfmunoz4 2y ago[flagged]
- belter 2y ago> This is a good thing. Read until the end...And say that again while looking at a mirror... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_inva... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_the_Russian...
- Salgat 2y agoIt worked so well for Ukraine, who had peaceful relations with Russia, and even a pro-Russian president, up until Russia's invasion of Crimea.
- RealityVoid 2y agoHow in god's green earth do you square that with the threat of invading Canada and Greenland? It's a sham, and you've been fooled.
- rchaud 2y agoNixon would be seen as a woke elite in today's Republican party. He helped introduce environmental legislation in the US, and met with Mao to open trade links and counterbalance the USSR.
- wtcactus 2y agoIt’s appalling to see so many comments here defending what’s going on. I’m trying to take it in good faith and accept these people actually think this instead of being paid to spread Russian disinformation. So, for those that are in good faith, as an European, I’ll explain mine (and my close circle) position: It’s true that the USA doesn’t have any obligation of helping Ukraine and should be up to us, Europeans, to step up. But, Trump didn’t need to be a Russian disinformation asset about it and go through that, despicable , petty, childish display in the White House, where, preying together with his VP, they tried to frame Zelenskyy and Ukraine for starting a war. They could just politely, and diplomatic reduce US aid, while still abiding by the most basic, absolute truth: Putin started this war and all fault for it lies in Russian hands and Ukraine is just a victim in all this. This would be the upright, sensible and intelligent position to hold if they really just didn’t want to continue contributing to Ukraine’s defense with US’ money.
- lfmunoz4 2y agoDo you remember what happened when Russia tried to install missiles in Cuba? The USA put its foot down and was willing to have a nuclear war. Same thing is happening in Russia, making Ukraine part of NATO is just too close. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?
- wtcactus 2y agoDo you remember that started because Russia already invaded part of Ukraine in 2014? Do you remember Russia’s promises when Ukraine voluntarily ceded their nuclear arsenal to Russia?
- lfmunoz4 2y agoNot sure what the point you are making is? Should we just keep going back in history and try to cherry pick events to blame and justify current conflicts? That can go on indefinitely and is why we keep having wars.
- 2y ago
- fhat151ag 2y agoThat is another pressure tactic so the EU can sell increased arms spending to its citizens. The EU leaders, who are naive to the extreme, comply. They make peace plans that Russia is known not to accept. Once that is done, they'll keep the conflict on a low flame until the US feels getting involved again. Which can happen at any moment, including under Trump within the next two months. Trump has been deliberately provoking the EU's nationalistic feelings, starting with Greenland and ending with the Zelensky fallout theater. If the EU had any pride, it would negotiate with Russia directly, skipping the US. Reopen Nordstream and see if the purportedly Russia-friendly Trump agrees. Regarding Trump being a Russian asset: It has happened before, with Hillary Clinton and Sergey Lavrov initiating a "reset" in US/Russia relations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset Why is Hilary Clinton not called a Russian asset?
- anonfordays 2y agoTime to pick up the slack Europe. You spent decades shit talking the US, laughing at how much the US spends on defense, calling the US the "world police", demanding they close military bases, etc. Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for.
- Anamon 2y agoYou don't know if it's the same people. I highly doubt many of them are. It's true that "Anti-Americanism", or at least Anti-Jingoism, was en vogue for a while in Europe, but I never felt like it was more than a fringe opinion, and a lot of people spouted it to seem edgy. Also, it's been a few decades. Things change and people are allowed to learn and adapt. I used to be a pacifist and proponent of demilitarisation until a few years ago. The world has changed since.
- unethical_ban 2y agoEvery time I ask rhetorically what a known, paid Russian asset would do differently as President of the US than Trump is doing, I get crickets from Trump supporters.
- hnburnsy 2y ago>what a known, paid Russian asset would do differently as President of the US than Trump Well the obvious one is dropping Russian sanctions. Has Trump done this?
- Encounter 2y agoIt seems to be in the works: https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possible-russia-sanctions-relief-sources-say-2025-03-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possibl...
- DangitBobby 2y agoTimely! > March 3 (Reuters) - The United States is drawing up a plan to potentially give Russia sanctions relief as President Donald Trump seeks to restore ties with Moscow and stop the war in Ukraine, a U.S. official and another person familiar with the matter told Reuters. > The White House has asked the State and Treasury departments to draft a list of sanctions that could be eased for U.S. officials to discuss with Russian representatives in the coming days as part of the administration's broad talks with Moscow on improving diplomatic and economic relations, the sources said. https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possible-russia-sanctions-relief-sources-say-2025-03-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possibl...
- hnburnsy 2y agoNice find! Would have to evaluate what the quid pro quo is, to determine if Trump is acting as a paid asset.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
- rcdwealth 2y ago[dead]
- hnpolicestate 2y ago[flagged]
- tim333 2y agohuh?
- j_timberlake 2y agoWhat would it take for the Republican congress to consider impeaching him and Vance? Trump sending military aid to Russia? Crashing the economy? Defying the courts? We might actually find out at this rate.
- nanotuber 2y agoComments are disappointing for hacker news standard. This pause was predictable (I predicted it in Nov 2024). It's negotiation leverage to steer toward an immediate resolution of the war. An immediate resolution of the war cuts losses: Ukraine loses territory, but keeps its sovereignty. The challenge is that there aren't many other viable paths. An indefinite forever war, with high risk of a Ukraine state collapse, is a most likely alternative. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is another, much less likely alternative. The idea that Russia's economy will collapse is highly unlikely. The Trump Administration will resume military aid after Ukraine is forced to ceasefire talks. Ukraine will not likely (nor with EU) recognize loss territory. However Russia is likely to hold it de facto. Although I doubt any peace negotiated will last decades. The reasons for the war are deep.
- edmundsauto 2y agoWhat are the deeper reasons for the war? All I hear from talking heads is this is aggression from Russia to grab resources and potentially continue to expand their territories through conquest.
- helge9210 2y agoStatehood of Russia (only since 1721; originally Principality of Moscow established in 1263) is coming from Mongols. With Kyiv under control, they can claim history and culture of Rus (also known as Kyivan Rus'). This is the fundamental ideological reason for the war going on since 1657.
- nanotuber 2y agoThe deeper reason is that the Baltics are in a security conundrum. Russia is inherently insecure, and Europe doesn't know where Europe ends. For security - let's compare the Russian Federation and the US. Russia is the largest country on earth (twice size of US) yet it has half the US population. The US has two neighboring states and two oceans that border it (with strongest navy in the world). Russia has 14 neighboring states and several neighbor areas in frozen conflict. Russia has no oceans separating its adversaries. In terms of history, Ukraine (and Belarus) have been the routes of choice for military invasions into Moscow. As a result of this security situation, Russia (and the Soviet Union before it, and the Tsarists before them, ...) relies on having a neutral periphery as a buffer zone. Ukraine declared itself neutral in its constitution at the formation of the country as it split from the Soviet Union. In 2019 Ukraine stripped neutrality from its constitution and wrote in pursuit of NATO membership. For Europe not knowing where it ends, just look at EU membership, potential membership, and statements evolving over the past several decades from officials about where Europe ends. The proximal cause of the war, literally the day-by-day timeline leading up to the conflict, was the Biden Administration threatening to pull Ukraine in NATO, Russia stated this was a red line and that it would invade and destroy Ukraine rather than let that happen, and then Russia and NATO diplomacy failed to resolve the issue. This is clearly what the war is about: it is what led day by day up to the conflict, Ukraine's president offered to withdraw NATO ambitions as the invasion began to passify it, the Istanbul Peace Agreements early in the war centered on resolving the topic, and the peace discussions now have centered on it.
- prewett 2y agoWhile I find the Russian invasion of Ukraine appalling, as a counterpoint to all the "Trump is destroying the US' reputation" mono-point that I've read so far (although I agree with that, too): John Maersheimer [1] gave a great explanation and prediction (~10 years prior) of why the whole thing happened. The US saw Russian weakness, decided to expand NATO to Ukraine, and the Russians said "no way will we let NATO be on our border, we'll destroy Ukraine first". We ignored them because they were weak, and they did what they said they would do. So I'm a little torn, because the situation is unwinnable without a major commitment, which nobody wants to do, and is not even in our interests, since we have a peer-competitor conflict shaping up with China. But our hubris caused the whole situation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
- genter 2y agoUkraine is an independent country, it was their choice to join NATO.
- tim333 2y agoJust one problem with that amongst many: Russia has bordered NATO for years. Estonia and Latvia both do and if you count Kaliningrad as Russia then Poland and Lithuania do too. In common with much stuff Russia comes up with it's just lies to justify their bad behaviour.
- relistan 2y agoNo. Countries with their own free choice asked to be part of NATO. The US did not push this on them. NATO expansion happened exactly because none of those countries trusted their neighbor Russia, who had previously invaded them and kept them under its thumb for 50 years. Russia is both to blame for the expansion of NATO and Russia's subsequent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago>No. Countries with their own free choice asked to be part of NATO. The US did not push this on them. I've seen this stated frequently on HN. Here's a quote from President Clinton in February 1999[1]:That is why I have pushed hard for NATO's enlargement and why we must keep NATO's doors open to new democratic members... NATO would add 12 nations in the decade after those remarks, with the first 3 formally joining 2 weeks later. Also look at Clinton's remarks from October 1999[2]:NATO must also take in new members, including those from among its former adversaries. It must reach out to all the new democracies in Central Europe, the Baltics and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. At the first NATO summit I attended in January of 1994, I proposed that NATO should enlarge steadily, deliberately, openly. >Russia is both to blame for the expansion of NATO and Russia's subsequent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. I used to have a link to a really good interview with a former US ambassador or special advisor to Sakashvilli. In it, he basically says that Sakashvilli is a risk-taker and gambler much like Putin, and in 2008 he gambled and lost. He basically laid the blame for what happened at the Georgian President's feet. Which is also the conclusion of the EU-backed investigation.[3] [1] https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-05.html https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-... [2] https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s961022a.htm https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s961022a.htm [3] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-with-russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi...
- tim333 2y agoTrump no doubt will say this is a negotiating ploy to get Zelensky to make concessions but you have to wonder why all the concessions have to be made by the victim and not the aggressor. Why not ask Putin to pause killing Ukranians or return some of the kidnapped children or some token of goodwill?
- n4r9 2y agoYou also have to wonder why Vance was less bothered by Putin not continually saying "please" as he was by Zelenskyy not continually saying "thank you".
- codedokode 2y agoBecause West has no means to put more pressure on Russia (they cannot even stop buying natural gas), so it has to talk nicely. US cannot demand, for example, that Russia gives them a share of their minerals and generally cannot demand anything. Actually in hindsight the best time for negotiations was somewhere in end of 2022, but that chance is long gone. But while West cannot demand, it still can offer (i.e. removing nuclear weapon and US forces from EU etc).
- onlypassingthru 2y agoThe West absolutely has more means at its disposal, by arming Ukraine to the teeth. The slow drip of arms has been really effective at degrading Russia (just look at the golf cart brigades and North Korean wave attacks), but an increase in long range capability is what's needed to finish the job.
- codedokode 2y ago"arming Ukraine to the teeth" does not guarantee the victory but guarantees more casualties and suffering. To win you also need to have 3x more soldiers which is not the case. West cannot even pay a salary comparable to what Russia pays to its volunteer soldiers.
- 2y ago
- swat535 2y agoHistory has a way of repeating itself. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one who feels like world peace has been unraveling for decades, slowly reaching a breaking point? I don't know what happens when the U.S. eventually pulls out of NATO, a scenario that seems more possible than ever based on the actions of the current Administration. Will Europe be able to stand its ground against Russia and China? We now have world leaders armed with nuclear weapons, the most terrifying creations in human history, openly threatening each other and growing hostile. I honestly, worry about the world we are creating for our children.. or perhaps my thoughts have been overtly influenced by Social Media..
- giardini 2y agoNATO was created to counter the Soviet Union but after the USSR fell apart, NATO did not disband. Instead Europeans hired the USA for their defense. The USA enjoyed the status and power of being the dominant military force in Europe. Unfortunately "entangling alliances" such as NATO tend to draw us into remote conflicts where we have nothing to gain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstable_Alliances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstabl...
- bluSCALE4 2y agoIt blows my mind at how so many people think this is unprovoked and think we somehow have a responsibility to resolve this conflict.
- giardini 2y agoSome seem to have forgotten how the neocons/CIA have stirred the pot in Ukraine for at least a decade under Democratic administrations. Some say it was a mistake to do what they (neocons) did but I think it was a good outcome. Russian is now like North Korea, able to "win" (and even that is questionable) only a nuclear conflict. Furthermore Russia's population of fighting men is down, which will require that they return home to seed a new generation of cannon fodder (not an entirely bad assignment BTW in either Russia or Ukraine) for their czar-like leaders. I feel sorry for the handicapped wounded however.
- Jean-Papoulos 2y agoEmpires usually fall very slowly, and then all of a sudden. I wonder where we're at ?
- greenhearth 2y ago[flagged]
- azheltoukhov 2y agoNobel prize argument looks bizarre. why bother with such puny goal when you have agi race to win. i think it's just about not wasting more money for nothing. Israel on the other hand was and still is the "51st state" bearing strategic significance. Ukraine however is not the rear earths deal has been designed to screw Zelensky over and make him a got let Putin has more of a win. save some money for agi race Russia will reciprocate regarding Iran, I think EU not gonna do anything cuz it's EU profit