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

411–419 of 419 posts

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

#411

Post by CRConrad »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #329
paxys wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cession of eastern territories and Crimea is probably not going to be too difficult a decision, considering Russia controls them anyways and did so even before the war. Demilitarization of Ukraine, NATO membership and relations with the west in general are all going to be very contentious, and it's hard to see a solution here that both sides will accept.

Demilitarisation is an absolute non-starter, I don't see how any sovereign nation could ever agree to that. I assume Russia are putting it on the table so it can be traded away for something else. If what you say is true about Ukraine being willing to trade away Crimea and the eastern territories, then I don't think an agreement is necessarily that far away. Your initial demands in a negotiation are rarely your red l…

> Demilitarisation is an absolute non-starter, I don't see how any sovereign nation could ever agree to that.

Particularly one next to Russia. (And Ukraine, in particular, after this?!?)

The Chutzpa negotiation approach would of course be, "OK, let's discuss demilitarisation. How and when do you propose to start yours?"

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

#412

Post by CRConrad »

pmoriarty wrote: post #348
PankajGhosh wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

That's because NATO hadn't committed to protecting Ukraine.

If it had, Putler wouldn't have dared attack.

Again: How is that not clear?

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

#413

Post by CRConrad »

euroderf wrote: post #375
k__ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, they should do the exact opposite. Join EU on a quick path and call Putin's nuclear bluff. I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymore, because I fear a nuclear escalation. But I don't want to live in a world where such a situation could happen again and again. There are many slavic countries this fascist hungers for.

In the 90s Finland wanted to lock itself into the Western orbit, and (IMO) membership in either EU or NATO would accomplish this. As things turned out, an EU offer came first and a national referendum approved it and well hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). This still might work for Ukraine.

> hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa).

As long as "full access" is defined as "except for any actual defense guarantees", that is. The EU one isn't actually that.

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

#414

Post by CRConrad »

Trasmatta wrote: post #67
CodeGlitch wrote: post #18

Here's my prediction: Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity. As it stands the West can do nothing. In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here). It seems to be that there's no way out…

> In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here). Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.

> Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.

OTOH, starting a nuclear WW3 would also make zero strategic sense, and still the West is worried about him doing that. So maybe worrying about this is also valid.

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

#415

Post by CRConrad »

deutschew wrote: post #4

how much of this was contributed to banning all reporting from the Russian side of things? right now the atmosphere is like if you even remotely suggest that Russia is actually making slow progress despite losses you are viewed as supporting Russia! Yet what the fixation on Kyiv is doing is it's pulling resources away from the south and Donentsk/Lukansk area where the Ukraine army is in real danger of being completel…

> what we've done in the West is effectively ban impartiality.

WTF is there to be "impartial" about?

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

#416

Post by CRConrad »

deutschew wrote: post #276
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you corner a wild animal like Putin you will get bitten. In this analogy, doesn't the wild animal then typically get killed?

not when it has nukes

Except if another animal in the cage thinks it would be more fit to handle the nukes.

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

#417

Post by euroderf »

CRConrad wrote: post #413
euroderf wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 90s Finland wanted to lock itself into the Western orbit, and (IMO) membership in either EU or NATO would accomplish this. As things turned out, an EU offer came first and a national referendum approved it and well hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). This still might work for Ukraine.

> hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). As long as "full access" is defined as "except for any actual defense guarantees", that is. The EU one isn't actually that.

By access I meant civilian access, People doing people things. Commercial entities doing commercial things. Defense? Well, yah. It's complicated for Finland.

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

#418

Post by euroderf »

CRConrad wrote: post #402
euroderf wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Russia lobs a nuclear warning shot into the North Sea (say), what is the move by US+NATO that avoids escalation and avoids abandoning Ukraine ?

Lobbing one of their own into the Arctic Ocean?

"Works for me." Might work for further escalation too tho :-/

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

#419

Post by pmoriarty »

CRConrad wrote: post #412
pmoriarty wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. That's because NATO hadn't committed to protecting Ukraine. If it had, Putler wouldn't have dared attack. Again: How is that not clear?

Commitments and treaties can and have been broken throughout history.

The motivation to save the world from utter destruction gives greater reason than ever before to not start WW3... at least not over Ukraine.. treaty or no.

Post reply on HN