Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

znak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 428 posts

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#211

Post by shusaku »

jmacd wrote: post #9

I think we in the west need something like a 'doctrine of the foregone conclusion'. Often things are very obvious, even notorious, but because we do not want to face the eventuality, we do things like negotiate or perseverate our denials all while the situation escalates. If NATO and the west are ready and willing to defend Ukraine (I suspect we are not), in which case a significant increase in our own presence would…

The west wants to sell military equipment to Ukraine. It’s the same reason Taiwan being in danger is front page news. The cash cow of Afghanistan is gone.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#212

Post by afarrell »

jacquesm wrote: post #189
bingohbangoh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO troops being actively stationed in the Baltics is a little different. Ukraine doesn’t have anything that I’m aware of.

20K troops or thereabouts. No tanks, no planes, just some artillery.

20K troops are people's sons and daughters. Those are real people with personal stories that can credibly threaten to move votes and enlistments.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#213

Post by baud147258 »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #155
mszcz wrote: post #108

The talk about the impending russian invasion of Ukraine has been on for a while. Since I'm based in Poland, I'm trying to get as much information as possible, as this makes me nervous and will probably affect me in some ways. The one thing I'm wondering is, in the horrible event of invasion of Ukraine, is how it's going to affect the markets and how to protect what little wealth I've got saved up. Anyone got any ide…

The invasion already happened according to the article, it's just Russia lost plausible deniability for it with this document. Full scale invasion to defeat Ukrainian government is very unlikely: Russian military prefers information wars to the offline operations now and makes them part of the strategy. The news about troops deployed on the border are intended to create sense of danger and uncertainty that can be use…

> Full scale invasion to defeat Ukrainian government is very unlikely

I don't think that Russia would be even interested to take control of the rest of Ukraine, as the current situation seems to fit their goals: they're keeping control over Crimea, so they're keeping their access to the sea there. And with the Donbass situation, Ukraine won't join NATO anytime soon, so they won't see US bases and missiles being installed next to their borders

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#214

Post by varjag »

mercy_dude wrote: post #204
lnsru wrote: post #27

There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Especially for countries near unfriendly countries like Russia in this submission. Because all the treaties and documents signed by politicians are absolutely worthless. Ukraine got rid of all the Soviet nuclear weapons and got lots of promises: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur... Now they…

Correct me if I am wrong but the more I digged into this story more I find it is much more nuanced than this. So briefly here is what I think had happened: - Russia had a huge strategic deal to sell Germany petroleum and natural gas. This was years of diplomatic work and finally got to the point where this looked like a reality. - The settlement of the above deal would be in EUR bypassing the typical petrodollar sett…

Yes, you are wrong.

USSR (and then Russia) were selling gas via existing lines to Western Europe since 1970s. The new pipeline is a bypass around Ukraine to remove any leverage against an invasion.

Ukraine would love to join NATO (and no, you are not proposed there by other countries that's not how it works). However the US and other allies have cold feet to avoid pissing off Putin.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#215

Post by reducesuffering »

aa-jv wrote: post #126
reducesuffering wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western Europeans are generally ambivalent towards the threat from comfortable complacency. Have you met Ukrainians or Georgians? They're not NATO states. They understand full well the threat and seizures they're under and will tell you so. The closer the proximity to the Russian state, the more the people are concerned. Places like Poland and Slovakia are similar only somewhat less so.

Here in Austria, I know a lot of Ukraine and Georgian expats who don't have the issue with Russia that they do with the USA. These are just not vocal enough to warrant attention in Western media, nor does it serve the purpose of giving the American-led NATO powers a new purpose for existence.

You moved to Austria from Australia less than 3 months ago (if you're not lying about that also). Austria is 1/1,000 Ukrainian and 1/3,000 Georgian, and the younger crowd is even further US aligned. Please tell me more about how you've made 10,000 friends in 2 months to statistically avg. knowing a lot of them.

You don't know "a lot of Ukraine and Georgian expats." I have family from both and have been all over Georgia. 2012 Gallup Poll had Georgian approval of US policies at 51% and disapproval at 15%. There's a damn good reason Georgia and Ukraine mutually consider each other their #1 ally.

I thought after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, surely international supporters of this crap would be nowhere to be seen anymore. Now I found myself thinking the same thing when Ukraine or the Baltics boil over, but I'm sure somehow you'll make up some other "But US and NATO (a defense pact that has never entered into unrequested territory) also yada yada, Russia not so bad."

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#216

Post by jacquesm »

qwytw wrote: post #200
jacquesm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20K troops or thereabouts. No tanks, no planes, just some artillery.

That's irrelevant, their purpose is to act as a deterrent. By invading Russia would also directly attack American, British, German, Canadian etc. soldiers which not something their governments can just ignore. Anyway it's not the 1930's, considering the current political and economical environment there is absolutely no rational reason for Russia to invade the Baltic states (unlike eastern Ukraine or Crimea). What wo…

Last I heard the Americans had left. Is there something I have missed?

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#217

Post by sam_lowry_ »

underscore_ku wrote: post #166
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Within the EU they are on home turf, with existing rail and road infrastructure Baltic countries are better connected to Russia and Belarus via rail, road, electricity grid, etc than to the rest of the EU. EU was reluctant to fund infrastructure projects to change that, e.g. the railway from Poland through all the three Baltic capitals

that's not true https://www.reuters.com/article/eu-baltic-energy-idUKL8N2GT2... EU grants Baltic grids 720 mln euros to unplug from Russia

That's why I used the past tense. EU investment beefed up over the last few years. Rail Baltica is still underfinanced though [1].

And the main point stands. Baltic countries were part of USSR for 46 years from 1945 until 1991. EU had 30 years to fix the problem but it did not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Baltica

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#218

Post by torstenvl »

sudosysgen wrote: post #150
nradov wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the debacle in Afghanistan, the US military remains extremely powerful with an unmatched capacity to project that power around the world. Russian leaders are under no illusions about that. However, military power is meaningless if you're not willing to use it. President Biden has already clearly stated that the US will not intervene militarily to defend Ukraine, and will only apply economic sanctions.

The debacle in Afghanistan showed that the US military is incompetent when it comes to actually achieving their goals. Let's say the US does intervene in Ukraine. The US still won't be able to take Crimea for obvious reasons. Ukraine itself will be even more of a shithole. In the end, when the US leaves Ukraine, Will things be better or worse? Who knows, and that's why an intervention there is not on the table. If it…

> The debacle in Afghanistan showed that the US military is incompetent when it comes to actually achieving their goals

How so? That's a pretty novel interpretation. Why do you view Afghanistan as a military failure rather than a political one?

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#219

Post by me_me_me »

selivanovp wrote: post #18

In real news, not propaganda, Russian court didn't confirmed anything. The guy accused of bribery just declared that he was sending food to Russian army units in DPR/LPR. The same way he could've declared that he was feeding martians.

Shrug and deny, shrug and deny.

Its beyond shadow of doubt Russia is funding rebels, if not directly leading them.

Russian military equipment did just appear in local grocery store as black friday deal.

Specnaz soldiers dying while on 'holidays'. Selfies of Russian troop with geotags in Ukraine.

Nobody needs concrete evidence of what's know going on and who is behind it.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#220

Post by varjag »

wayoutthere wrote: post #202
jacquesm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20K troops or thereabouts. No tanks, no planes, just some artillery.

Armored ground vehicles in a frontline role are largely worthless against a modern military; it’s too easy to take them out with drone-fired missiles or kamikaze drones. NATO doesn’t need to position planes in the Baltics when they’re within range of its air bases in Germany (airbases should be well behind the front lines anyway).

People often have no appreciation of scale. Russia has more armor than NATO has Javelins and loitering munitions.
Post reply on HN