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

Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

metaculus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 419 posts

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#341

Post by s1artibartfast »

dzikimarian wrote: post #325
s1artibartfast wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I ran into this and was was shocked to see information not just berried, but firewalled. I wanted to understand the situation and searched "Ukrainian troop locations" in google, bing, DDG, and Yahoo. One of the first times I have received no results in google. Absolutely blatant censorship. Ostensibly, google doesn't want to provide intel to Russia, who has ample satellites and combat reports. It seems a little…

Yeah, you also will not be able to find locations of any reputable military - that's basic security measure. I know Russian army does not set the bar very high though, so maybe you're not used to that.

yeah, apparently it is a security concern to utter the words anywhere on the internet, in any context.

no "Ukrainian troop locations"... are well positioned, spread out, in the east, overwhelmed, shouldn't be disclosed, ect

0 hits containing the string.

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#342

Post by stickfigure »

namelessoracle wrote: post #338
stickfigure wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side. I really doubt it. At the bare minimum a nuclear strike on military targets would provoke nuclear strikes on military targets in response. Excepting the middle of oceans, that's going to involve major civilian casualties. And then we're back to doomsday. Not to get all Dr Strangelove on you, but once…

Would it? Would you order a nuclear strike on a target that would guarantee a retaliation that would destroy your country and maybe the world and likely yourself? Especially if a purely military target was hit like a carrier group and it was all soldiers that died? Its not so obvious to me that every leader could do that. Now look at the opposite. You are a leader who is about to be killed/ousted/lose everything if c…

By that same logic, Putin could nuke NYC and there should be no response. And then Washington. And then San Francisco. The calculus is the same.

Not sure what culture you grew up in, but I grew up in the "progressive" side of the US and I'm quite certain that even the folks out here would demand immediate retaliation. The folks that grew up in red states are even more bloodthirsty. At minimum we'll be using nukes against Russian military targets, and I just don't see that de-escalating.

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#343

Post by thiagoharry »

guelo wrote: post #253
thiagoharry wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Mariupol there are accusations against Azov Battalion that they are preventing people to leave the city. For the defensive side it is useful to have human shield preventing attacks. In the Internet there are also videos of people being shot trying to leave the city. https://twitter.com/oulosP/status/1498365157747081218

That's the Russian propaganda. The Ukrainian propaganda says the Russians are the ones preventing people from leaving.

Using civilians as shield makes more sense for defenders, not for attackers. Civilians makes harder to shell and bomb places. The exception is if attackers force civilians to march in front of their troops, which is not the case apparently.

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#344

Post by bewaretheirs »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #218
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate why or how you determined/believe that they are tank shots, for the rest of us?

It’s easier to tell in video form. But basically you could see the shells come from the road in the distance (see the bridge?) all the way past the camera. The still frame probably makes it hard to see the scale. You’re right to press me for details on the “tank” part. I don’t know if the shots are from tanks. But they’re so large that it rules out foot soldiers, so it’s some kind of vehicle-mounted gun. It’s definit…

Could also be shots from weapons mounted on armored vehicles that aren't strictly speaking tanks. Ex-Soviet mechanized forces (both sides in this fight) field a bewildering array of tracked and wheeled vehicles that look more-or-less tank-like but aren't considered tanks because they are much more lightly armored.

They're typically equipped with heavy weapons that are smaller or less powerful than tank main guns but larger than something that could readily be carried by a soldier or two.

Tank misidentification satirized here: https://twitter.com/pascalheyman/status/1088555831187128321

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#345

Post by lazyant »

dekhn wrote: post #121
q1w2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are also getting fresh soldiers. I saw a claim from a Canadian vet in Kyiv that 40,000 foreign fighters were already in Kyiv. The Canadian was part of a 500-man exclusively Canadian urban battalion. There was also a report on BBC that Russia had summoned foreign ambassadors in Moscow to complain about foreign volunteers traveling to Ukraine to fight against Russia [1]. I've also been on Telegram channels helping…

Eventually the question becomes "if these guest fighters are successful, at what point do they consider going north through the contested border and attacking Russian (or, more likely, Belurussian) cities?"

I propose Ukraine take up 5 Km over the border for a DMZ zone, like in Korea.

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#346

Post by prostoalex »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #330
raverbashing wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The increased radiation is from kicking up dust around Chernobyl Regardless of that it is incredibly stupid to do any kind of fighting around a nuclear plant.

> Regardless of that it is incredibly stupid to do any kind of fighting around a nuclear plant. That goes both ways. I saw the video from the start of the fighting and that was UA forces who started to fire upon oncoming forces from the building to the right on the video. If you mount defenses for something vital for the civilians of your country you should always question how exactly to do that to minimize the damag…

> If you mount defenses for something vital for the civilians of your country

In other words, never protect critical civilian infrastructure?

Is that the defense playbook you'd propose?

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#347

Post by nikolay »

nugget wrote: post #76

My partners and I have a couple hundred employees in Dnipro, Ukraine. Most of the employees have relocated to Poland or western Ukraine, some are sheltering in place, some are fighting. We started to source supplies last week, especially for those who are sheltering in place or fighting. During discussions with various parties across the supply chain it became clear that an enormous effort was underway by hundreds/th…

This sounds like they want their capital destroyed like Grozny. Ukraine got played by the US, which misled it that they will fight together against the Russians.

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#348

Post by pmoriarty »

PankajGhosh wrote: post #326
pmoriarty wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily." That's what it means on paper. But we already see that in practice NATO is not willing to start WW3 to protect Ukraine.

Yes, because Ukraine is not a NATO member. If it was, then as per treaty, the alliance would respond. How is that not clear?

There's no guarantee that anyone does anything. The proof is in actions, not words. Treaty or no.

If it comes to preventing the end of the world or protecting Ukraine, NATO has already shown it would rather prevent the end of the world.

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#349

Post by chii »

shuntress wrote: post #257
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you consider funny about it? I suppose it is the difference between officially being at war and not. If some country sends fighters to support your enemy, you may start asking if you are at war with that other country, after all? So would you say it would be funny if Canada was officially at war with Russia now? Unless Russia gives up, WWIII seems to already have started, as most countries have joined in one…

There is a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders into Ukraine. Obviously the real world has more complexity than that. "Complain about it" could mean "We know about your tax incentives driving your citizens to fight us and we want you to end that program" but is more likely to mean "We want you to police your…

> a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders into Ukraine.

and a legal quagmire. I wonder if a canadian citizen who murders someone overseas can be tried for such in canada (when they return). Because if they can be, then going overseas to participate in a war can be legally problematic, esp. unauthorized by the canadian gov't.

But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder!

Re: Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%

#350

Post by chii »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #340
frankharv wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moral mistake to stand up to a bully? That is the only reason NATO still exists. We literally paid hundreds millions of dollars to prop up Russia and their nuke labs during Yeltsin. Look what it got us. We should have snuffed them out like cockroaches. Instead we let them live. To our detriment. We needed to keep the boogeyman alive.

You have to reconsider who is the bully given the number of countries invaded, governments toppled, and civilians killed by the US in the last 30 years. The US takes the cake in all categories, but of course we aren't a bully, all the people we kill were the bullies. We are the strongest so we define who is a bully or not. >We should have snuffed them out like cockroaches. Instead we let them live. To our detriment.…

The whataboutism is heavy. The USA aint no saints, but that doesn't absolve putin's invasion. "They did it first, so we should be allowed" isn't a defensible justification for war.
Post reply on HN