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

241–250 of 428 posts

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#241

Post by exar0815 »

ginko wrote: post #228
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…

>There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Yugoslavia had that and a lot of good it did them.

Except it actually did. Yugoslavia managed to stay reasonably independent during the cold war from both blocks. That the militarization of society cam home to roost after the breakup along the ethnosocial fractures is another topic tho.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#242

Post by oneplane »

d883kd8 wrote: post #226
oneplane wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That US war-motto doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the rest of the developed world. They haven't actually had any battles at home, except for the ones where they attack themselves. It's a relatively young country anyway, so it's hard to pin any value on any war-motto that's not about a far-from-home war (which is what they do have experience with).

The US motto is "E Pluribus Unum"

I thought they changed it to a religious one because they thought it sounded too much like communism or something like that?

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#243

Post by madaxe_again »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #168
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.

This local newspaper does not qualify as "propaganda" website by all definitions, so I'm not sure why you are using this language and what kind of "real news" you are referring to. The original verdict of the court does not say "the guy declared". The language used there is describing recipients in Donbass as a fact important to the investigation, otherwise it would be a simple speculation irrelevant for the court de…

It seems to be a common view in Russia - I spoke with my wife’s grandmother earlier today, and she said she’d wait to hear the truth about it from Putin. Anything that disagrees with his pronouncements is “fascist propaganda”. She has R1 on in the background 24 hours a day. She isn’t unusual in this.

It also isn’t a uniquely Russian problem, by a long shot, but the control of media by the state there exacerbates it substantially.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#244

Post by ivan_gammel »

lebuffon wrote: post #198
drran wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RF is extremely predictable. Its behavior was well predicted two decades ago. If you are predicting «happy path» only, then anything that deviates from «happy path» will surprise you. Peace time job for military headquarters is to predict «unhappy path» and prepare for it. Russian tactic is well known among former USSR and Eastern Block countries, so it was easy to predict what they will do: Will try to return post-s…

Where does this obsession with the external come from. Russia has the largest national landmass yet still they look outwards despite the many improvements that they could make internally. It's bizarre to me.

They are not looking for expansion outwards. The only real expansion that has happened so far was Crimea, which was part of Russia before, has significant Russian population which at least once voted for independence, but more importantly it is vital for Russian defence on the south.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#245

Post by kofejnik »

drran wrote: post #194
bitcharmer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when does Ukraine have nukes? They gave it up for empty promises from the west, no?

Since when Ukraine forgot how to make nukes?

I don’t think Ukraine can get weapon grade plutonium

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#246

Post by sofixa »

thejackgoode wrote: post #67
oneoff786 wrote: post #51

Question to any geopolitical buffs. The one thing I learned about Russian history is that a great deal of its history was spent trying and never succeeding to get a warm water port in that area. Is that still a big deal?

Not sure what you mean by "never succeeding". I come from on of ports cities and shipyards built by Russian Empire in the south of present day Ukraine in the end of 18th century as a result of winning a war against Ottoman Empire. What they want now exactly is a different question, the answer most likely being in one man's head only. A revenge for loss in the Cold War, reclaiming the civilisational roots of "pan-slav…

Warm water ports in the Black sea are severely restricted ( in military use) by the Montreux convention regulating the use of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#247

Post by wayoutthere »

varjag wrote: post #220
wayoutthere wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of which are pushing 50 years old. Russia has a lot of military assets, and has developed some advanced capabilities, but has not been able to field them in any meaningful quantity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The same story is true with their air superiority / denial capabilities. They have advanced weapons, but not enough of them to go toe-to-toe with NATO and the bulk of their military is obsolete Soviet-era hardware.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#248

Post by bee_rider »

rmind wrote: post #53
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…

Just a few points: - The Budapest Memorandum was, unfortunately, not legally binding. Not justifying the lack of support from the West, but just pointing out an important aspect. - North Atlantic Treaty is legally binding. Also, the Baltic States already host a small multi-national contingent of NATO troops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence - It is also worth noting that the EU has mutual…

People are jumping on your phrase "legally binding" for some reason, but I think they are missing the point.

The Budapest Memorandum has no enforcement mechanism.

It has no obligation on the part of the other signatories to defend Ukraine, other than the requirement to bring it up at the UN security council should Ukraine be threatened by nukes.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#249

Post by surfingdino »

qwytw wrote: post #221
scottLobster wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members. I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia…

What rational reason would Russia have to invade the Baltic States (or even for example Poland)? Even in best case scenario if the west does not directly intervene, they would get an additional few million people almost all of whom absolutely don't want to live in Russia and whom Russia could barely afford to police and a lot of additional economic sanctions. Also we're totally ignoring the internal political fallout…

To rebuild the empire. They are not bothered with what the people they conquer think.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#250

Post by sofixa »

trasz wrote: post #148
baud147258 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the rise of far-right parties and ideologies in the West is something that can be blamed on Putin. He is exploiting it and sometime helping existing groups and factions, but not much more. And for Ukraine, the anti-Russian faction does have some facist/neo-nazis groups in it.

We know for a fact that Russia is donating money to European far-right groups.

Including old and "established" far right parties, like Marine Le Pen's Front National/Rassemblement National.
Post reply on HN