8 ms·

Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia? For as long as I can remember there have been things like

Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia? For as long as I can remember there have been things like fighter jets at the borders and we scramble ours to intercept etc, and before Russian media was blocked here they used to report the we were regularly doing the same. It was never really headline news, even after the war in Ukraine really got going But now that the US has become an unreliable partner and the EU is talking about the need for increased cooperation suddenly they exact same stories become big news and ministers use it as examples of our complacency, when two years ago they would have said it's nothing to worry about. And indeed now I see it shared all over social media with more and more "people" calling for harder responses, a single EU military, even outright declarations of war against Russia.

alephnerd 1y ago
> For as long as I can remember there have been things like fighter jets at the borders and we scramble ours to intercept Russian air assets never crossed NATO airspace until this September, and the last time the Zapad exercises were held, Ukraine was invaded within months. As such, most European nations are on extreme edge right now for a possible escalation.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  > Russian air assets never crossed NATO airspace until this September. Yes, they had. ACLED reports[0] that it occurred 50 times since 2022, and 4 of them had already been in Poland. It just never became a huge news piece until September, that's exactly what I mean. 0: https://acleddata.com/expert-comment/acled-data-show-least-50-instances-airspace-violations-countries-ukraines-western https://acleddata.com/expert-comment/acled-data-show-least-5...
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    From the ACLE: "mostly crashes of Russian and Ukrainian stray drones and missiles" The recent incident in Poland and Romania was drones that were not strays or crashes.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      Yes "mostly" crashes, meaning not all of them. > The recent incident in Poland and Romania was drones that were not strays We don't actually know this do we? The report states that the technology to push drones off their intended path has been ramped up significantly.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        Yes, we do actually know this. And anybody that pretends that we do not is either very naive, does not understand any of the technology or has not made even a cursory effort to find out. Proof points: - the drones that made it into Poland did not have warheads - they flew over Belarus before entering Polish airspace - they were under continuous control from the moment of launch - they were prepped with longer range tanks than they would have had if they had been aimed at Ukraine - quite a few of them were equipped with ways of sending back telemetry So no, these were not strays. The best explanation is that they were an intel gathering mission with respect to the kind of response generated and the speed with which they were detected. Other possible uses for russia are to misdirect attention from wherever they might want to attack for real (say, the Baltics) and a way to reduce the flow of defensive measures to Ukraine by instilling fear in the population further West.
      - benjiro 1y ago
        We know this very well, because of the range the drone are able to fly and the wreckage. Its amazing these days with the wealth of information that people do not do a few seconds of research. 1. Imagine: Your are Russia, are you going to launch drones with the fuel to fly not only into Ukraine, but also all across the map of Poland? Or do you dedicate that space to bigger warheads. Or lighter drones to increase their speed. That alone answers your question. 2. The drones found crashed, has modifications like bladdertank in the warhead section to increase their fuel. You do not accidentally get a drone all the way to Gdansk without increasing its fuel load. See point 1 again ... 3. Having a drone gone stray is not uncommon, but there is a difference between 1 going stray and 20 going stay. Your argument about jamming is flawed by the simply fact that we have the path the drones took, and unless Ukraine magically got the exact same drone misdirecting tech, active on multiple paths, again, check the map. See the issue there? 4. If the drones got jammed / flight spoofed, why did they not fly in a erratic course. You expect a drone that has its course altered to to suddenly start flying in different path. 5. The drone paths again, if the drone left the jamming or misdirection area, it will try to get back to to its intended area. They did not do so. 6. If this tech worked so great, why did we not have more mass drones flying in the wrong direction the following days? Drone attacks happen every day in Ukraine, they are not one off events. If the Ukrainians got this tech to work so good, to send 20 drones into Poland, why no repeat? You do not fix a flaw that the enemy found in just one day. Did Russia ground its drones the next day, the next week until they fix the issue? Added more antenna's and more hardware to make it harder to jam/redirect? No, they continue they typical pattern. 7. ... insert conspiracy that it was all planned and they do not use that tech again to not over use it (while giving the Russians time to adjust their hardware???). Sigh ... People posting this nonsense that NATO is looking for a war or to ramp up incidents. Here is a simple answer: Who attack first? Was it NATO? Was not Ukraine? No ... Russia invaded a country for the SECOND TIME, triggering this mess. You claim financial motives to trump up rhetoric ... our arms industries can already not keep up with the orders. We have backlogs that will take 10+ years to fill already, even with the expanding industry. Like always, some people are just too much into conspiracy but what else is new these days. Hate to tell ya, but the internet / social media is a battlefield these days, just as much as troops on the ground. Please use your mind a bit more and understand that those drones are not a new tactic, its just a modern adaptation of old tactics. The new "remember we have nukes, we can get you", or the old USSR "see our planes flying into your identification zones"...
sleepybrett 1y ago
russia seems to be doing an awfully good job of that on it's own.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  I was careful not to point any fingers as I'm not completely without doubt that the voices I see calling for more strength and unity in Europe aren't being paid for by Russia.
MengerSponge 1y ago
Is anyone in an elected or influential position talking about invading Russia? If not, it's not manufacturing consent. It's just sparkling self-defense. Putin's Russia has shown herself to be incredibly antagonistic against the western world. See {polonium poisoning Litvinenko, defenestration (multiple), Syrian actions, Ukraine invasion, etc} Military resources are expensive and inefficient, so it takes some degree of political capital to develop and maintain them. I'd so much rather see that capital (human and otherwise) go into research and art and human flourishing, but that's not the world we live in. ) Driving refugees into liberal western democracies is a deliberate outcome of this strategy.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  > Is anyone in an elected or influential position talking about invading Russia? > If not, it's not manufacturing consent. Is it not? Maybe we have a different understanding of what manufacturing consent means. For me the consent could be manufactured long before the question is raised. I'm not sure why it needs to be called for immediately, why do you believe so? > Putin's Russia has shown herself to be incredibly antagonistic against the western world. Yes it has, consistently, but I feel a significant seachange in the landscape of various media channels, both mainstream media and social media, as well as in the rhetoric of politicians. And yes, they have been talking about increased cooperation, taking heavier action against stray drones etc. And it all seems to have happened in the past 2 months, like a sudden spike.
- Animats 1y ago
  > Is anyone in an elected or influential position talking about invading Russia? I hope not. That's never worked. Napoleon, Hitler, and the Wagner Group's comic-opera invasion all failed. The Economist seems to view this as the end of a happy era for Europe, an era when the EU could focus on making the EU work well and provide a good life for its people, without worrying too much about external problems. They're not wrong. Putin's stated goal is to re-establish a Russian empire, out to the boundaries of the 19th century Russian Empire.[1] He's been saying things like this for years now: "Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them, he did not take anything from them, he returned [them (to Russia)]. Apparently, it also fell to us to return [what is Russia’s] and strengthen [the country]. And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire
impossiblefork 1y ago
As someone who has been arguing for a war with Russia, I don't think there's been many attempts to manufacture consent for it. In fact, I've noticed a lot of opposition to my view that I think is state organized, but probably by Russia. I've seen zero people like me online. I've seen zero repeated pro-war, zero capability-emphasizing arguments. Complete silence except for me.
- decimalenough 1y ago
  By "war with Russia", do you mean sending troops to fight in Ukraine? Or Napoleon style march to Moscow? Because those are very different things.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    No, I don't believe that it's tactically sensible to send troops where Russian troops are already entrenched or ready for war. I believe that war should be conducted to exploit the enemy, not go at him in some idiot maneuver. Our actions in Ukraine should be limited to stand-off weapons and glide bombs, mirror the Russian manner of aerial attack. We should also attack gas pipelines, ammonia plants, electrical infrastructure, etc. in Russia and generally shut the place down. We should of course also seize all Russian-flagged ships. Exploits its dependence on transport and cheap energy, exploit Russia's size by seizing weak or undefended regions to force troop movements, attacking the troops with stand-off weapons while their being transported to the front etc. Basically, we're playing tennis, and they're playing with both corridors in addition to the singles court. We should of course let them run. I am absolutely opposed to sending ground troops against Russian positions or any region with sufficient defence, or capacity to resist. This risks the lives of soldiers needlessly and is not what war is about.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      Do you also advocate the evacuation of the cities of whichever countries engage in the attacks you describe to reduce deaths in case Moscow responds by nuking those cities?
the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
> Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia? Actors like … Russia?
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Yes, I could very well believe that they're funding online campaigns to stir up feelings of unease and distrust in our governments. It helps them even if we don't get sucked into an outright conflict.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    I remember they’ve been observed (alongside China) flooding US social media with bots that spew inflammatory and divisive comments to help further divide the country around key events like the Charlie Kirk assassination or deportation or Gaza or whatever. I’m not sure how successful they are but I get the feeling it’s working.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - AlecSchueler 1y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407199 You missed one
SilverElfin 1y ago
I think there are some who want war. But for Europe and America it is much better for Russia to be a friend again (like part of the G8). The alternative is that they become a servant of China, and this will end with them making a deal to give China land in the northeast of Russia. All of this is a huge strategic problem for NATO countries, and democracies in general, especially with India out of such a coalition due to nonsensical tariffs over Russian oil (when Europe buys Russian gas) or Nobel peace prizes (Trump falsely claiming he helped resolve conflicts between India and Pakistan) or whatever. Now are European leaders smart enough to play geopolitics properly? That I doubt. To be honest, I doubt if the democratic processes will result in leaders that are competent enough and mature enough to deal with all this. More likely for countries to keep electing unhinged populists from either side.
- outside1234 1y ago
  Putin is like Hitler. The only way we get to this reality is for Russia to lose on the battlefield now. I don't like this reality either, but it is what it is.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Russia won't be 'a friend again' until they stop thinking of empires. We tried the appeasement through trade route already and look at what it lead to.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    The “imperial” narrative is a made-up thing by contemporary Eastern European politicians. There are fringe political groups in Russia that think this way, but they have no significant influence and are mainly tolerated by Putin’s administration (it’s a destabilizing factor for internal politics). Russian empire ceased to exist in 1917 and whatever happened since then were not imperial projects.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      No, that narrative is taken straight from the horses mouth, one V. Putin himself, who is about as mainstream as it gets. The Russian Empire from 1917 is not the one people have in mind when they refer to this.
microtonal 1y ago
I don’t think any European country wants a direct war with Russia. What is there to gain? It’s bad for Europe and it’s bad for Russia. Russia has gotten more offensive and attacking more frequently in the hybrid war, including a murder plots against Rheinmetall CEO [1], putting explosives in packages [2], etc. It’s not some sinister conspiracy. Most likely has two aims (1) testing Trumps commitment to NATO; (2) their invasion of Ukraine is not going well. The front barely moves annd Ukraine is starting to mass produce their own long-range cruise missiles and they are hitting oil refineries in Russia. Most likely he wants to instill fear in Europeans to support the narrative that Europe should keep weapons/money for their own defense, hoping that Ukraine will lose support. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/threat-plot-murder-rheinmetall-ceo-was-part-sabotage-campaign-nato-says-2025-01-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/threat-plot-murder-rhei... [2] https://amp.dw.com/en/russia-linked-group-planned-parcel-bomb-attacks-in-europe/a-74033597 https://amp.dw.com/en/russia-linked-group-planned-parcel-bom...
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  > I don’t think any European country wants a direct war with Russia. What is there to gain? It’s bad for Europe and it’s bad for Russia. No, that's true. But they could be worried about their lack of strength without the US and recognise that there's no domestic appetite to move public funds towards strengthening the militaries, so publicising the "potentially imminent dangers" posed by Russia could be a way to do that. > It’s not some sinister conspiracy. Most likely has two aims What is "it" here?
ivan_gammel 1y ago
There’s certainly some amount of propaganda effort being put in it on EU level into elevating the threat. 1. There are actors who would benefit from arms race. The money, the military careers etc. The whole NATO nearly became irrelevant before Russia started invading. Now all those generals have jobs again and Rheinmetall shares are going up. 2. There are actors for whom threat from the East is existential factor (it’s in the core of the political platform of nationalists in Baltic states - remove it and they are suddenly less competitive compared to neutral or pro-Russian parties). Current chief of EU diplomacy Kallas belongs to this group. However I think Russia wants to make a point too. It’s hardly planning any war with NATO (I hope their intelligence isn’t as bad as in Ukraine), but they do need to convince European voters that war is possible if peace in Ukraine won’t come anytime soon (on their terms). And European voters are certainly not in the mood for big war, so the question really is, who is more convincing: von der Leyen & Co with their idea to support Ukraine until it wins, or Russia with it’s idea that further escalation may harm EU citizens directly.
- ArcHound 1y ago
  I'll take the bait and answer. There are indeed actors for whom the threat from the East is AN existential factor. That's because they remember how the life under Soviet rule looked like and they don't want to repeat it. Whether there's a mood for a big war, I am not sure. But there are states that are ready for it. And yes, it is within EU interests to let the fighting happen in Ukraine rather than EU. Also, it's a nice collection of the subtler Russian points you have here, B+ for effort.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    >That's because they remember how the life under Soviet rule looked like Just as a reminder: Latvian Riflemen helped to create it by supporting Lenin in the crucial phase of revolution and suppressing anti-Bolshevik rebellion in Moscow. Baltic republics were well-represented in party structures and in Soviet elites. So this “oh, it was so terrible in Soviet Union” projection on Russia is a very specific nationalist narrative ignoring shared history of both nations, which included shared suffering from the same regimes and shared participation in oppression.
Animats 1y ago
> and before Russian media was blocked here Where? Not blocked in the US. Russia Today is accessible.[1] Old-school Pravda is reachable.[2] The video stream from Russia Today is working.[3] [1] https://www.rt.com/ https://www.rt.com/ [2] https://www.pravda.ru/ https://www.pravda.ru/ [3] https://www.rt.com/on-air/ https://www.rt.com/on-air/
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Here in the EU, specifically The Netherlands. There was an EU Council regulation about it [0] and many Dutch ISPs complied [1]. 0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/350/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/350/oj/eng 1: https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/9476 https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/9476
  - Animats 1y ago
    Oh. Ouch.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
Russia is already at (asymmetric) war with the West. I think you mean traditional military engagement, which is a greater possibility with all of these recent NATO country probings. Accelerationists + rando crazy people, war hawks, and defense contractors sure want it. Without finding real perpetrators and verifiable evidence, it still lives in the domain of speculation and politicians can and will use fictional narratives to do whatever they want. Open war should never be started "preemptively", however NATO needs to and is preparing diligently for possible need for defense. Eastern Europe won't be safe until Putin is gone and replaced by a moderate who isn't a nationalist expansionist.
- pepa65 1y ago
  Agreed. And people often forget Putin IS a moderate compared to most other options.
nradov 1y ago
Russia (and the USSR) before routinely flew military aircraft right to the edges of international airspace but seldom entered the national airspace of NATO member space. So these repeated deliberate incursions appear to be something new, and perhaps an attempt to provoke a reaction by the Russian side.
duxup 1y ago
Russia seems to be working very hard to do just that. Their own actions seem to be the best argument for focusing on Russia as a threat. That's not manufacturing, that's their own efforts / choices.
- pepa65 1y ago
  Absolutely guaranteed Russia is not doing that, no interest in an even wider war there.
  - duxup 1y ago
    Not doing what? Threatening neighboring countries?
ajross 1y ago
> Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia? Your prior is that Denmark wants a shooting war with Russia? Or do you have a weirder antecedent in mind for "actors"?[1] Basically this idea needs a ton of elaboration and construction. As written it's a little tin-foily. [1] I mean, let's make the obvious point and take Russia off that list of actors: they literally can't even win a shooting war against Ukraine. Maybe you can make a brinksmanship/extortion argument, but not a "actors want a war" one from their perspective.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  I'm happy to follow up on anything I say but I ask you to consider if framing my response as weird before you've heard it or if using terms like "tin foily" are in keeping with site guidelines about arguing in good faith. > Your prior is that Denmark wants a shooting war with Russia? No, I didn't say this. > let's make the obvious point and take Russia off that list of actors: they literally can't even win a shooting war against Ukraine. You're assuming that the intended result of this apparent campaign is to actually start a war between the EU and Russia. But it could just as much be to create enough fear of one amongst EU voters that there is increased pressure towards bolstering military qualities within the EU, which in turn creates complications and financial burdens that could result in support for Ukraine being--even if unintentionally--weakened. > Maybe you can make a brinksmanship/extortion argument, but not a "actors want a war" one from their perspective. Yes, I could, if you could let me do so without calling me weird before I open my mouth.
  - ajross 1y ago
    > You're assuming that the intended result of this apparent campaign is to actually start a war between the EU and Russia. Your original framing of your question was: "Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia?" So, yes, that's exactly what I assumed you meant. Because it's what you said. (Absent, again, a bunch of exposition that wasn't delivered). And you still haven't clarified what "actors" you're thinking about. I stand by the criticism of this as conspiracy logic.
belorn 1y ago
Its been a well known secret that Russia has been using incursions into Swedish airspace and Swedish land as a part of troop training for decades. The only major change in recent time is the rate of the incidents, and the use of interference that is more noticeable to civilian infrastructure. Boat captains from multiple industries are complaining that they have to go back to use physical maps rather the GPS when plotting courses through the Baltics, as the gps indicator just spins in circle and produce visual noise. It is a new situation, through built on top of past behavior. The general theory is that this represent a change towards a more drone-heavy strategy with different attack and defense technologies being used as part of training and testing. I do not see it as a direct way to manufacture consent for a war, but the impact on civilian infrastructure is starting to be annoying enough that the military of multiple nations around the Baltics are looking to do something, and the effect of that something may create political waves. Same things with the attacks on undersea cables and the suggested counter measures, which also include military aspects to it.

alephnerd 1y ago

> For as long as I can remember there have been things like fighter jets at the borders and we scramble ours to intercept Russian air assets never crossed NATO airspace until this September, and the last time the Zapad exercises were held, Ukraine was invaded within months. As such, most European nations are on extreme edge right now for a possible escalation.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
> Russian air assets never crossed NATO airspace until this September. Yes, they had. ACLED reports[0] that it occurred 50 times since 2022, and 4 of them had already been in Poland. It just never became a huge news piece until September, that's exactly what I mean. 0: https://acleddata.com/expert-comment/acled-data-show-least-50-instances-airspace-violations-countries-ukraines-western https://acleddata.com/expert-comment/acled-data-show-least-5...
- alephnerd 1y ago
  From the ACLE: "mostly crashes of Russian and Ukrainian stray drones and missiles" The recent incident in Poland and Romania was drones that were not strays or crashes.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    Yes "mostly" crashes, meaning not all of them. > The recent incident in Poland and Romania was drones that were not strays We don't actually know this do we? The report states that the technology to push drones off their intended path has been ramped up significantly.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      Yes, we do actually know this. And anybody that pretends that we do not is either very naive, does not understand any of the technology or has not made even a cursory effort to find out. Proof points: - the drones that made it into Poland did not have warheads - they flew over Belarus before entering Polish airspace - they were under continuous control from the moment of launch - they were prepped with longer range tanks than they would have had if they had been aimed at Ukraine - quite a few of them were equipped with ways of sending back telemetry So no, these were not strays. The best explanation is that they were an intel gathering mission with respect to the kind of response generated and the speed with which they were detected. Other possible uses for russia are to misdirect attention from wherever they might want to attack for real (say, the Baltics) and a way to reduce the flow of defensive measures to Ukraine by instilling fear in the population further West.
    - benjiro 1y ago
      We know this very well, because of the range the drone are able to fly and the wreckage. Its amazing these days with the wealth of information that people do not do a few seconds of research. 1. Imagine: Your are Russia, are you going to launch drones with the fuel to fly not only into Ukraine, but also all across the map of Poland? Or do you dedicate that space to bigger warheads. Or lighter drones to increase their speed. That alone answers your question. 2. The drones found crashed, has modifications like bladdertank in the warhead section to increase their fuel. You do not accidentally get a drone all the way to Gdansk without increasing its fuel load. See point 1 again ... 3. Having a drone gone stray is not uncommon, but there is a difference between 1 going stray and 20 going stay. Your argument about jamming is flawed by the simply fact that we have the path the drones took, and unless Ukraine magically got the exact same drone misdirecting tech, active on multiple paths, again, check the map. See the issue there? 4. If the drones got jammed / flight spoofed, why did they not fly in a erratic course. You expect a drone that has its course altered to to suddenly start flying in different path. 5. The drone paths again, if the drone left the jamming or misdirection area, it will try to get back to to its intended area. They did not do so. 6. If this tech worked so great, why did we not have more mass drones flying in the wrong direction the following days? Drone attacks happen every day in Ukraine, they are not one off events. If the Ukrainians got this tech to work so good, to send 20 drones into Poland, why no repeat? You do not fix a flaw that the enemy found in just one day. Did Russia ground its drones the next day, the next week until they fix the issue? Added more antenna's and more hardware to make it harder to jam/redirect? No, they continue they typical pattern. 7. ... insert conspiracy that it was all planned and they do not use that tech again to not over use it (while giving the Russians time to adjust their hardware???). Sigh ... People posting this nonsense that NATO is looking for a war or to ramp up incidents. Here is a simple answer: Who attack first? Was it NATO? Was not Ukraine? No ... Russia invaded a country for the SECOND TIME, triggering this mess. You claim financial motives to trump up rhetoric ... our arms industries can already not keep up with the orders. We have backlogs that will take 10+ years to fill already, even with the expanding industry. Like always, some people are just too much into conspiracy but what else is new these days. Hate to tell ya, but the internet / social media is a battlefield these days, just as much as troops on the ground. Please use your mind a bit more and understand that those drones are not a new tactic, its just a modern adaptation of old tactics. The new "remember we have nukes, we can get you", or the old USSR "see our planes flying into your identification zones"...

sleepybrett 1y ago

russia seems to be doing an awfully good job of that on it's own.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
I was careful not to point any fingers as I'm not completely without doubt that the voices I see calling for more strength and unity in Europe aren't being paid for by Russia.

MengerSponge 1y ago

Is anyone in an elected or influential position talking about invading Russia? If not, it's not manufacturing consent. It's just sparkling self-defense. Putin's Russia has shown herself to be incredibly antagonistic against the western world. See {polonium poisoning Litvinenko, defenestration (multiple), Syrian actions, Ukraine invasion, etc} Military resources are expensive and inefficient, so it takes some degree of political capital to develop and maintain them. I'd so much rather see that capital (human and otherwise) go into research and art and human flourishing, but that's not the world we live in. ) Driving refugees into liberal western democracies is a deliberate outcome of this strategy.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
> Is anyone in an elected or influential position talking about invading Russia? > If not, it's not manufacturing consent. Is it not? Maybe we have a different understanding of what manufacturing consent means. For me the consent could be manufactured long before the question is raised. I'm not sure why it needs to be called for immediately, why do you believe so? > Putin's Russia has shown herself to be incredibly antagonistic against the western world. Yes it has, consistently, but I feel a significant seachange in the landscape of various media channels, both mainstream media and social media, as well as in the rhetoric of politicians. And yes, they have been talking about increased cooperation, taking heavier action against stray drones etc. And it all seems to have happened in the past 2 months, like a sudden spike.
Animats 1y ago
> Is anyone in an elected or influential position talking about invading Russia? I hope not. That's never worked. Napoleon, Hitler, and the Wagner Group's comic-opera invasion all failed. The Economist seems to view this as the end of a happy era for Europe, an era when the EU could focus on making the EU work well and provide a good life for its people, without worrying too much about external problems. They're not wrong. Putin's stated goal is to re-establish a Russian empire, out to the boundaries of the 19th century Russian Empire.[1] He's been saying things like this for years now: "Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them, he did not take anything from them, he returned [them (to Russia)]. Apparently, it also fell to us to return [what is Russia’s] and strengthen [the country]. And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire

impossiblefork 1y ago

As someone who has been arguing for a war with Russia, I don't think there's been many attempts to manufacture consent for it. In fact, I've noticed a lot of opposition to my view that I think is state organized, but probably by Russia. I've seen zero people like me online. I've seen zero repeated pro-war, zero capability-emphasizing arguments. Complete silence except for me.

decimalenough 1y ago
By "war with Russia", do you mean sending troops to fight in Ukraine? Or Napoleon style march to Moscow? Because those are very different things.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  No, I don't believe that it's tactically sensible to send troops where Russian troops are already entrenched or ready for war. I believe that war should be conducted to exploit the enemy, not go at him in some idiot maneuver. Our actions in Ukraine should be limited to stand-off weapons and glide bombs, mirror the Russian manner of aerial attack. We should also attack gas pipelines, ammonia plants, electrical infrastructure, etc. in Russia and generally shut the place down. We should of course also seize all Russian-flagged ships. Exploits its dependence on transport and cheap energy, exploit Russia's size by seizing weak or undefended regions to force troop movements, attacking the troops with stand-off weapons while their being transported to the front etc. Basically, we're playing tennis, and they're playing with both corridors in addition to the singles court. We should of course let them run. I am absolutely opposed to sending ground troops against Russian positions or any region with sufficient defence, or capacity to resist. This risks the lives of soldiers needlessly and is not what war is about.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Do you also advocate the evacuation of the cities of whichever countries engage in the attacks you describe to reduce deaths in case Moscow responds by nuking those cities?

the_mitsuhiko 1y ago

> Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia? Actors like … Russia?

AlecSchueler 1y ago
Yes, I could very well believe that they're funding online campaigns to stir up feelings of unease and distrust in our governments. It helps them even if we don't get sucked into an outright conflict.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  I remember they’ve been observed (alongside China) flooding US social media with bots that spew inflammatory and divisive comments to help further divide the country around key events like the Charlie Kirk assassination or deportation or Gaza or whatever. I’m not sure how successful they are but I get the feeling it’s working.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407199 You missed one

SilverElfin 1y ago

I think there are some who want war. But for Europe and America it is much better for Russia to be a friend again (like part of the G8). The alternative is that they become a servant of China, and this will end with them making a deal to give China land in the northeast of Russia. All of this is a huge strategic problem for NATO countries, and democracies in general, especially with India out of such a coalition due to nonsensical tariffs over Russian oil (when Europe buys Russian gas) or Nobel peace prizes (Trump falsely claiming he helped resolve conflicts between India and Pakistan) or whatever. Now are European leaders smart enough to play geopolitics properly? That I doubt. To be honest, I doubt if the democratic processes will result in leaders that are competent enough and mature enough to deal with all this. More likely for countries to keep electing unhinged populists from either side.

outside1234 1y ago
Putin is like Hitler. The only way we get to this reality is for Russia to lose on the battlefield now. I don't like this reality either, but it is what it is.
jacquesm 1y ago
Russia won't be 'a friend again' until they stop thinking of empires. We tried the appeasement through trade route already and look at what it lead to.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  The “imperial” narrative is a made-up thing by contemporary Eastern European politicians. There are fringe political groups in Russia that think this way, but they have no significant influence and are mainly tolerated by Putin’s administration (it’s a destabilizing factor for internal politics). Russian empire ceased to exist in 1917 and whatever happened since then were not imperial projects.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    No, that narrative is taken straight from the horses mouth, one V. Putin himself, who is about as mainstream as it gets. The Russian Empire from 1917 is not the one people have in mind when they refer to this.

microtonal 1y ago

I don’t think any European country wants a direct war with Russia. What is there to gain? It’s bad for Europe and it’s bad for Russia. Russia has gotten more offensive and attacking more frequently in the hybrid war, including a murder plots against Rheinmetall CEO [1], putting explosives in packages [2], etc. It’s not some sinister conspiracy. Most likely has two aims (1) testing Trumps commitment to NATO; (2) their invasion of Ukraine is not going well. The front barely moves annd Ukraine is starting to mass produce their own long-range cruise missiles and they are hitting oil refineries in Russia. Most likely he wants to instill fear in Europeans to support the narrative that Europe should keep weapons/money for their own defense, hoping that Ukraine will lose support. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/threat-plot-murder-rheinmetall-ceo-was-part-sabotage-campaign-nato-says-2025-01-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/threat-plot-murder-rhei... [2] https://amp.dw.com/en/russia-linked-group-planned-parcel-bomb-attacks-in-europe/a-74033597 https://amp.dw.com/en/russia-linked-group-planned-parcel-bom...

AlecSchueler 1y ago
> I don’t think any European country wants a direct war with Russia. What is there to gain? It’s bad for Europe and it’s bad for Russia. No, that's true. But they could be worried about their lack of strength without the US and recognise that there's no domestic appetite to move public funds towards strengthening the militaries, so publicising the "potentially imminent dangers" posed by Russia could be a way to do that. > It’s not some sinister conspiracy. Most likely has two aims What is "it" here?

ivan_gammel 1y ago

There’s certainly some amount of propaganda effort being put in it on EU level into elevating the threat. 1. There are actors who would benefit from arms race. The money, the military careers etc. The whole NATO nearly became irrelevant before Russia started invading. Now all those generals have jobs again and Rheinmetall shares are going up. 2. There are actors for whom threat from the East is existential factor (it’s in the core of the political platform of nationalists in Baltic states - remove it and they are suddenly less competitive compared to neutral or pro-Russian parties). Current chief of EU diplomacy Kallas belongs to this group. However I think Russia wants to make a point too. It’s hardly planning any war with NATO (I hope their intelligence isn’t as bad as in Ukraine), but they do need to convince European voters that war is possible if peace in Ukraine won’t come anytime soon (on their terms). And European voters are certainly not in the mood for big war, so the question really is, who is more convincing: von der Leyen & Co with their idea to support Ukraine until it wins, or Russia with it’s idea that further escalation may harm EU citizens directly.

ArcHound 1y ago
I'll take the bait and answer. There are indeed actors for whom the threat from the East is AN existential factor. That's because they remember how the life under Soviet rule looked like and they don't want to repeat it. Whether there's a mood for a big war, I am not sure. But there are states that are ready for it. And yes, it is within EU interests to let the fighting happen in Ukraine rather than EU. Also, it's a nice collection of the subtler Russian points you have here, B+ for effort.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  >That's because they remember how the life under Soviet rule looked like Just as a reminder: Latvian Riflemen helped to create it by supporting Lenin in the crucial phase of revolution and suppressing anti-Bolshevik rebellion in Moscow. Baltic republics were well-represented in party structures and in Soviet elites. So this “oh, it was so terrible in Soviet Union” projection on Russia is a very specific nationalist narrative ignoring shared history of both nations, which included shared suffering from the same regimes and shared participation in oppression.

Animats 1y ago

> and before Russian media was blocked here Where? Not blocked in the US. Russia Today is accessible.[1] Old-school Pravda is reachable.[2] The video stream from Russia Today is working.[3] [1] https://www.rt.com/ https://www.rt.com/ [2] https://www.pravda.ru/ https://www.pravda.ru/ [3] https://www.rt.com/on-air/ https://www.rt.com/on-air/

AlecSchueler 1y ago
Here in the EU, specifically The Netherlands. There was an EU Council regulation about it [0] and many Dutch ISPs complied [1]. 0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/350/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/350/oj/eng 1: https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/9476 https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/9476
- Animats 1y ago
  Oh. Ouch.

burnt-resistor 1y ago

Russia is already at (asymmetric) war with the West. I think you mean traditional military engagement, which is a greater possibility with all of these recent NATO country probings. Accelerationists + rando crazy people, war hawks, and defense contractors sure want it. Without finding real perpetrators and verifiable evidence, it still lives in the domain of speculation and politicians can and will use fictional narratives to do whatever they want. Open war should never be started "preemptively", however NATO needs to and is preparing diligently for possible need for defense. Eastern Europe won't be safe until Putin is gone and replaced by a moderate who isn't a nationalist expansionist.

pepa65 1y ago
Agreed. And people often forget Putin IS a moderate compared to most other options.

nradov 1y ago

Russia (and the USSR) before routinely flew military aircraft right to the edges of international airspace but seldom entered the national airspace of NATO member space. So these repeated deliberate incursions appear to be something new, and perhaps an attempt to provoke a reaction by the Russian side.

duxup 1y ago

Russia seems to be working very hard to do just that. Their own actions seem to be the best argument for focusing on Russia as a threat. That's not manufacturing, that's their own efforts / choices.

pepa65 1y ago
Absolutely guaranteed Russia is not doing that, no interest in an even wider war there.
- duxup 1y ago
  Not doing what? Threatening neighboring countries?

ajross 1y ago

> Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia? Your prior is that Denmark wants a shooting war with Russia? Or do you have a weirder antecedent in mind for "actors"?[1] Basically this idea needs a ton of elaboration and construction. As written it's a little tin-foily. [1] I mean, let's make the obvious point and take Russia off that list of actors: they literally can't even win a shooting war against Ukraine. Maybe you can make a brinksmanship/extortion argument, but not a "actors want a war" one from their perspective.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
I'm happy to follow up on anything I say but I ask you to consider if framing my response as weird before you've heard it or if using terms like "tin foily" are in keeping with site guidelines about arguing in good faith. > Your prior is that Denmark wants a shooting war with Russia? No, I didn't say this. > let's make the obvious point and take Russia off that list of actors: they literally can't even win a shooting war against Ukraine. You're assuming that the intended result of this apparent campaign is to actually start a war between the EU and Russia. But it could just as much be to create enough fear of one amongst EU voters that there is increased pressure towards bolstering military qualities within the EU, which in turn creates complications and financial burdens that could result in support for Ukraine being--even if unintentionally--weakened. > Maybe you can make a brinksmanship/extortion argument, but not a "actors want a war" one from their perspective. Yes, I could, if you could let me do so without calling me weird before I open my mouth.
- ajross 1y ago
  > You're assuming that the intended result of this apparent campaign is to actually start a war between the EU and Russia. Your original framing of your question was: "Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia?" So, yes, that's exactly what I assumed you meant. Because it's what you said. (Absent, again, a bunch of exposition that wasn't delivered). And you still haven't clarified what "actors" you're thinking about. I stand by the criticism of this as conspiracy logic.

belorn 1y ago

Its been a well known secret that Russia has been using incursions into Swedish airspace and Swedish land as a part of troop training for decades. The only major change in recent time is the rate of the incidents, and the use of interference that is more noticeable to civilian infrastructure. Boat captains from multiple industries are complaining that they have to go back to use physical maps rather the GPS when plotting courses through the Baltics, as the gps indicator just spins in circle and produce visual noise. It is a new situation, through built on top of past behavior. The general theory is that this represent a change towards a more drone-heavy strategy with different attack and defense technologies being used as part of training and testing. I do not see it as a direct way to manufacture consent for a war, but the impact on civilian infrastructure is starting to be annoying enough that the military of multiple nations around the Baltics are looking to do something, and the effect of that something may create political waves. Same things with the attacks on undersea cables and the suggested counter measures, which also include military aspects to it.