891–900 of 1001 posts
Some economic perspective. The Russian economy is 10x the size of the Ukrainian. The US economy is 14x larger than Russia's. The Canadian economy is larger than Russia's. The combined economy of all of NATO is 25x the size of Russia's. This does not even include Pacific allies like Japan and ANZUS. For historical perspective, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the US economy was 7x larger than theirs. At the end of WW2…
None of that matters though, Putin is at war with us. We should wake up and go to war with him back, something we've avoided. Wars are costly, but this one doesn't have to cost lives. NATO isn't going to send troops into Ukraine, but we should economically shut down Russia. Kick them off Swift, close the gas and oil pipelines. Eat the cost.
Germany's gas infrastructure is much better integrated to the rest of Europe now than it was a few years ago, and the EU has extensive emergency reserves. We're also coming out of winter soon. We'll just have to buy more cereal from the US. Prices will go up, jobs will be impacted, but solders won't be dying. Not yet. If we don't bite the bullet and accept the pain now, this is only going to get worse. What's next, Georgia? Kazakhstan? Finland isn't in NATO. If China sees we're soft on Russia, what does that mean for Taiwan?
We need to wage all out economic war. The cost of doing nothing has gone up, and up, and up. How high are we prepared to see it go?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really not about Russia, it's about Putin desire to be a famous dictator like Stalin and Hitler. He already got high-score as a billionaire dictator of Russia with gigantic palaces and whatnot. He already did some 'small' wars and expanded Russia's territory. Now he wants to play big and defeat a major country and be considered a major player like USSR was. There's no profit in it.
Your opinion is very biased and without a strong foundation. Here on hackernews we expect to have in depth detailed discussions where we try to unravel certain actions. In this why Russia invaded Ukraine.
1. Putin is a dictator. He is able to change Russian constitution to stay in power, etc. 2. He murders people in a very cynical way. Polonium tea, novichok, etc. 3. He is filthy rich, owns billions of dollars worth of assets, possibly hundreds of billions.
Do you have doubts that a dictator can have an ambition to get more fame after he got all the money he wanted? Or that dictator can send troops?
Look, I know about game theory, microeconomics and such. I was a co-author of a paper submitted to NetEcon conference, for example.
But in this case, you need to understand that money, or prosperity, or safety, is not the only metric people optimize for. Many people optimize for fame. This is what a lot of people on hackernews are missing.
Another Russian here. I don't agree and don't support this action. We anticipate long years if not decades of isolation, even more stagnating economy, even more authoritarian government. By all means it's a terrible thing. For both Russians and Ucrainians alike. But... The drama around it as portrayed in Western media is ridiculous. There won't be major loss of life nor any "war" in conventional sense. It would be no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it doesn't make sense that a nation as sophisticated as Russia would accept such a high risk of loss. Which means that they might actually believe the risk of NATO intervention is low. Or they see it like Poker as an "all in" move. Either lose now on their own terms in Ukraine or eventually they lose anyway as Ukraine joins NATO and Russia's nuclear advantages are "neutralized". Meanwhile there's the chance NAT…
> Or they see it like Poker as an "all in" move. The “all in” move was when they suggested they NATO not meeting their demands to permanently commit to excluding Ukraine and withdraw allied forces from Eastern European members of NATO was an aggressive act pushing them to war in Ukraine. When NATO didn't fold, they either had to invade or show the Putin regime as a paper tiger, which is a mortal blow for an authorita…
I don't understand how the west didn't see that they should at least accept to exclude Ukraine from NATO. Why, giving in to Russia's demand (even partially) would be a loss for NATO?
Another Russian here. I don't agree and don't support this action. We anticipate long years if not decades of isolation, even more stagnating economy, even more authoritarian government. By all means it's a terrible thing. For both Russians and Ucrainians alike. But... The drama around it as portrayed in Western media is ridiculous. There won't be major loss of life nor any "war" in conventional sense. It would be no…
That's a bit naive. There are already hundreds of civilian casualties. The Russian shelling is not precise. They don't have the technology for that. They were using MLRS rockets which kill indiscriminately. There's a video circulating online of a little girl who got hit by a shell and killed. This is not like Crimea.
Nitpick: they absolutely have the tech for it. They were using laser-guided heavy mortar rounds in Afghanistan.
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00...
> "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me."
The speech of a bully, of an aggressor. The only correct reply is a direct retaliatory attack on his offensive positions.
What is the endgame here? Russia is outclassed by NATO both economically and militarily. If NATO intervenes economically, Russia will lose much. If NATO intervenes militarily, Russia will lose much (but at great cost to NATO). The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? Russia understood this before invading, right? So it seems Russia is accepting a high risk of loss. But it doesn't make sense that a nation as soph…
> What is the endgame here? I think that it's a mistake to assume there must be an endgame.
Putin is Slobodan Milošević with less hair and a nuclear arsenal. Milošević was clearly a clever man but what was Milošević's end game? Did Milošević expect to die in a cell in the Hague?
Another Russian here. I don't agree and don't support this action. We anticipate long years if not decades of isolation, even more stagnating economy, even more authoritarian government. By all means it's a terrible thing. For both Russians and Ucrainians alike. But... The drama around it as portrayed in Western media is ridiculous. There won't be major loss of life nor any "war" in conventional sense. It would be no…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it doesn't make sense that a nation as sophisticated as Russia would accept such a high risk of loss. Which means that they might actually believe the risk of NATO intervention is low. Or they see it like Poker as an "all in" move. Either lose now on their own terms in Ukraine or eventually they lose anyway as Ukraine joins NATO and Russia's nuclear advantages are "neutralized". Meanwhile there's the chance NAT…
And you still have the new Silk Road to bank on -- I can't help but feel that Taiwan is next. Which is probably why the US doesn't want to split efforts across two theaters again.
So far China didn't threaten nuclear war for anybody helping out Taiwan, the way Putin did just today.