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

Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 287 posts

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#141

Post by oblio »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #101
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend looking into the history of Ukraine over the last 20-30 years in this case. The West/EU/NATO doesn’t court. And they’re extremely careful about generating the impression or sending a message that they’re actively pulling countries into their “sphere of influence”. For the process of inclusion to work there has to be undeniable proof that it is a democratic process that shows that the people of that…

Greece and Turkey demonstrate that the bar needs to be high.

What do you mean?

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#142

Post by rich_sasha »

misja111 wrote: post #114
vkou wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think his behaviour was particularly irrational, as much as he has been acting on a few pieces of intelligence that ultimately proved to have been incorrect. 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at…

> 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest. > 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g.…

> These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever [...]

They sort of ended up sanctioned. You're right, there's nothing official, but no unconstrained buyer wants to touch energy exports from Russia.

Russia is struggling to sell its oil to unconstrained buyers [1]. Sure, Europe, in winter, with no ready alternative, is still buying, but that's about it it seems.

Also, while it's true global oil prices are sky-high, the rise in Russian oil is far more muted. Basically, there are many kinds of oil sold around the world (Brent, WTI, and many more). They usually move largely in lock step, as to a reasonable extent you can substitute one for another. But recently Urals is sold at a massive discount - because no one wants to touch it.

> How do you know this?

There are plenty of soft indications. Troops only given rations for 72-odd hours. Attempts at airborne strikes that are very rapid, but doomed to fail terribly with any but minimal resistance. Reports of Russia looking to "source" new troops - from Russian reserves, and Syrian, hmm, volunteers? All suggests the current length of the war exceeds plan A and plan B.

Of course Russia might still win a long, hard slog of a war, by bombing everything that moves...

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-has-not-sanctione... [2] https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/urals-brent-pric...

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#143

Post by lordnacho »

alephnan wrote: post #138
lordnacho wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the same logic should apply. Whoever puts troops there first stops the other side from doing it, under threat from ww3 and nuclear war.

> Whoever puts troops there first stops the other side from doing it, The problem is that is equivalent to setting up a flag. The East views America as an imperialist, and this would be provocation of imperialist expansion.

That's two ways, isn't it? But it still makes sense of the premise is correct that a nuke state cannot fight with another.

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#144

Post by lmm »

alephnan wrote: post #124
timeon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> red line Only relevant red line is border of sovereign nation. No NATO member was forced to join - they actually asked to join in order to prevent invasion like the one which is in Ukraine now. > expansion of the West Isn't is cynical to call it expansion of the West while no-one except Russia expanded beyond borders of Russia? It is just expansion of Russia.

> Isn't is cynical to call it expansion of the West while no-one except Russia expanded beyond borders of Russia? It is just expansion of Russia. Nope, no one is denying Russia's expansion, nor China or the next superpower. The only hypocrisy would be recognizing Russia's expansion and not the West. The conservative argument is that the world should be kept as is, and whoever makes the first move is to blame for brea…

What "expansion of the west"? Estonia et al joined NATO of their own accord, and if sovereignty means anything then they had the right to. (You could certainly make a case about Iraq or Afghanistan, where the west did install a new government by force, but I don't think Russia has been talking about those)

> The West thinks the Ukrainian invasion is the first move of any party, and its done nothing this whole time

Hardly the first. What has "the west" done that's remotely comparable to Crimea or South Ossetia? This isn't a story of mutual escalation, it's Russia taking as much as it can get away with.

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#145

Post by [deleted] »

alephnan wrote: post #38
s5300 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump very specifically pulled us out of this to my knowledge. Biden putting them back would not have been an amazing look, though in the grand scheme likely better than things are going to turn out.

And do democrats support military funding or less ?

[deleted]

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#147

Post by saiya-jin »

hef19898 wrote: post #40
rado wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SkyNews literally just said, "We are used to wars far away, but now the refugees are at our shores." Let that sink in.

Well, more at our land borders. Europe didn't give a rats ass about the refugees at the actual shores before. Ignoring my inner cynic, it is good that we, the European countries, help Ukraine and the Ukrainian refugees, very good. But yes, I think the West is very much used to start wars in far away countries where we can ignore the consequences in our daily lives. Now someone else started it, close to our homes, and…

Which, long term, may bring benefits to mankind for generation or two, in form of stronger objections to any war. I agree, this war feels much closer and real than any other war in recent decades, and for me it actually is (coming from Slovakia).

Not happy about this myself, we are all equal humans and it shouldn't matter how people dress, speak or religion they have, this reaction should be present in all cases of war.

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#148

Post by alkonaut »

The problem with the "if I can't conquer it, I'll just level it" offense, is that there is very little defense. Everyone is talking about how difficult it is to invade cities. But it's trivial to destroy cities if you have no regard for civilian casualties.

The problem now is that the world can't meaningfully intervene because we didn't say beforehand that we would. We should have set up the no-fly zone with western weapons before there was further invasion. Now it's off limit because it means open conflict with Russia. Russia would not have invaded underneath NATO air supremacy AND it would not have taken the first shot against a french plane over Ukraine.

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#149

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #102
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians. Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles. Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. If they take out their vital infrastructure like hospitals, water, power, schools, t…

Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later. Ukrainians have very good weapons from the West and are getting more. Putin can't hold such a huge country against them. Destroyed infrastructure works against the occupiers, too. Sometimes even more, because the locals have some local knowledge, e.g. which water sources deep in the forest are safe to drink.

>Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later.

The Marshall plan types work when there is guaranteed political and economical stability in the countries where there are implemented, and it worked in destroyed countries like West Germany and Japan because those countries had guaranteed stability and protection from internal and external threats post-WW2 by the US military bases hosted in those countries which made Marshall plan investments very safe bets that they would be paid off.

Not NATO, nor the US military is willing to protect Ukraine and go to war with Russia to guarantee Ukraine's political and economical stability, and as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it, no bank or country will make any significant investments in Ukraine.

Re: Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

#150

Post by saiya-jin »

MrRiddle wrote: post #128
cf141q5325 wrote: post #116

Well yes. Artillery bombardment is THE Russian military doctrine. Any uncertainty on the headline would mean assuming Russia had developed some unusual qualms on the subject. And why would they? It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality. There is some basic facts, take it here from the German public broadcast >According to its president, Russia is seeking the "denazification"…

Exactly, on /r/europe I suggested exactly this would happen and how Ukrainian government should sign the deal while they still have some leverage left. I got banned from it for life because of it.

Its a stupid suggestion to put it mildly, pardon my french. There is no deal to be signed. Unless you mean complete Ukrainian surrender, being dragged into being another Russian slave like Chechnya or Belarus. Putin doesn't accept anything less. Russia is now yet another horrible dictatorship, no reason to believe Ukraine would fare any better, in fact most probably much, much worse due to resistance to this invasion.

By now we all see that Russian words are less than farts in the wind, meaningless blabber with no face value.

This all was the reason why they resisted in the first place, they have good memories of brutal Russian oppression from all of 20th century. Why should they give up everything now? Doesn't make any sense.

Post reply on HN