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

President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

netnewsledger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 372 posts

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#231

Post by ChildOfChaos »

batmanturkey wrote: post #162
ChildOfChaos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that way to me. I'm not sure what the western forces game plan is and i'm not sure they actually want to help Ukraine too much, I think they are walking the fine line of wanting to hurt Russia enough and see what happens, but they don't want to truly arm Ukraine because if Russia really loses, they might just nuke.

Your statements are not backed up with either public communication or a lack of monetary support. In fact, the US just sent over a billion more $ in military aid. Think again.

I understand, but I feel like they are monitoring the situation and making sure they walk that line clearly. Hence why they keep trickling the spending to them, they are monitoring and adjusting.

They could have done much more and given way more, why those are large numbers, it's still not on the scale truly needed to defeat Russia. They still hold back plenty.

They are obviously not going to say that directly in public, so public statements mean little.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#232

Post by bryanlarsen »

trhway wrote: post #214
bryanlarsen wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having this split happen through occupation would be a disaster. The west does not have anywhere near the manpower necessary to make this happen. The rule of thumb is that the occupying force needs to be 5% of the population, which means 9 million for Russia. However, it could happen naturally. If the Putin regime collapses it is quite likely that a clear successor widely seen as legitimate doesn't materialize. If so…

Of course it can't be done through sheer brute force. One has to use an opportunity of Russia [almost] falling apart on its own like the one 30 years ago or the one that seems to come about right now. This time it comes at a huge cost to Ukrainians, and whether/when another such opportunity would come about and at what cost we don't know, so better to not lose the opportunity this time. >The west does not have anywhe…

It's kind of a moot question. If the US won't put boots on the ground in Ukraine, it will never do so in Moscow.

Unless they're invited there as peacekeepers by a new government. But even a pro-US government is unlikely to invite US peacekeepers. Maybe Canadian ones.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#233

Post by mjfl »

_ph_ wrote: post #209
mjfl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

touche. I guess I'm stupid. But Sevastopol is important.

It was important. As the Ukraine already attacked targets there, recently Russia moved their submarine base from Sevastopol to some mainland harbor. That means, effectively this harbor has been lost to Russia as a consequence of the war. Never mind that the Bosporus is closed for military vessels.

It will be important, after the war, to whoever wins.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#235

Post by sharikous »

honkdaddy wrote: post #180
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia was already always going to lose that "superpower" tag the moment the world shifted from hard industrial goods to consumer goods and technology. The first computer, the growth of the Japanese consumer goods industry, and Silicon Valley likely did as much to collapse the Soviet Union as anything else - they were simply out of the picture the moment we started creating software and portable stereos and personal…

Russia has a long history of producing excellent programmers and software engineers, I'm not sure where you get the idea this is where they were outpaced by the rest of the world. If I had to attribute one thing to Russia's downfall, it would be its geopolitical decision to align itself with China and Iran in global anti-Western sentiment, rather than moving towards joining the rest of the West and the EU as some cou…

Russians are a highly educated population that produces excellent engineers. But Iranians too are in this position.

But they are sanctioned off from the technological advanced world and they can't even import modern chips. Add to that that the corruption and lack of freedom are impediments to building a thriving economy.

I think we will see a huge brain drain towards the West. Germany had top notch excellences too, before the Nazis took power.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#236

Post by [deleted] »

skc wrote: post #58

Is there any scenario from this point onwards, any at all that results in Russia coming out stronger once the smoke clears? Because I can't see any. Seems to me like the Russian govt are now in a situation where they have no choice but to see this thing through just to try and save face.

[deleted]

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#237

Post by rascul »

koonsolo wrote: post #165
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies 'Securing' skies is a term that has been repeated a lot but in practice it means potentially shooting down Russian aircrafts to 'secure' a corridor. This would mean a NATO member doing an act of war against Russia _without_ the purpose of defending a NATO member state. The main argument is where do you draw the line? Why did NATO not provide air support for Georgia i…

Just because we closed our eyes in the past doesn't mean we need to continue doing that. It's the straw that breaks the camels back. Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think? If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO".

> Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think?

It is an act of war. It is not a far stretch.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#238

Post by s8s8discourse »

trhway wrote: post #127
s8s8discourse wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume he is thinking on the basis of Russia deploying another 200,000 troops and the effect that may have on undoing the gains of late (whether it will or not is another matter...). Extending that thought process, if a partial mobilisation realises 200,000 troops to fight, then the next logical step after that fails is a full mobilisation with pundits suggesting up to 1,000,000 "soldiers". There is some merit in…

>Russia deploying another 200,000 troops It is a very hard task even to just deploy, let alone with any gain. In February after months and months of training Russia has deployed to Ukraine about that number of the best forces it had (like Kantemirovskaya tank division). We've seen how it went. The newly mobilized forces, even after 2-3 months of announced training, will be an order of magnitude worse with worse hardw…

While my opinion is nothing more than armchair general - I agree. The overwhelming evidence supports this, even before the incredible counter offensive.

Even prior to the arrival of HIMARS, the decimation of Russian armour was astounding. And that was with weapons NATO infantry teams, the least specialist, most numerous bread and butter soldier force, are all trained on and supplied with.

As it stands; the Ukranians are better fed, equipped, supplied, intelligenced (!), and have the ability to rotate in and out of theatre to keep up momentum. As the offensive continues, their armaments increase in both quantity (captured russian equipment) and efficacy (NATO finally testing their weapons against that which they've theorised about fighting for the past 50 years). With every passing month, cadres of soldiers pass out from NATO training in the UK and throughout the EU.

Prediction - with that in mind - the Russians won't wait 2-3 months to deploy conscripts. They'll start loading trains this week.

It's going to be horrific. The metaphor of Russian gloves coming off will prove to be nothing but allowing them to shove greater quantities of meat into the grinder.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#239

Post by The_Colonel »

lolc wrote: post #223
sofixa wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger Even that is doubtful. They have lost tens of thousands of their best troops, tons of expensive equipment, and destroyed their economy short (sanctions and blackmail) and long term (nobody would trust them again as a reliable supplier, so their exports of raw materials economy will suffer).

International trade keeps going. Just because some economies have curbed trading with Russia does not mean they've run out of trading partners. It is doubtful the sanctions would remain in place for long after a capitulation of Ukraine. Losing troops and military equipment is insignificant in the long term. Both have to be replaced regularly anyway. That is no loss unless one counts the pollution and the humanitarian…

> It is doubtful the sanctions would remain in place for long after a capitulation of Ukraine.

I doubt that. The sanctions from 2014 have remained in place even during the "quiet" years.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#240

Post by [deleted] »

sofixa wrote: post #186
lolc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger. That is very unlikely though, with the Ukrainian army getting effective support. If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost. And in a nuclear war, nobody wins.…

> If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger Even that is doubtful. They have lost tens of thousands of their best troops, tons of expensive equipment, and destroyed their economy short (sanctions and blackmail) and long term (nobody would trust them again as a reliable supplier, so their exports of raw materials economy will suffer).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN